IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27'?" DAY OF OCTOBER 2010 BEFORE 1.
THE) HONBLE MRJUSTICE N.ANA1$:II)A.¢’ ”
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1369/20’e{; A
_E_3__E_’§__W_E_E_1\£
Maheshwarappa @ Maheshi A
8/0 Hosurappa
Aged 33 Years
Agriculturist
R/at Bulasagara v’i2’iiw1’age’;AA'””V_ ‘IO;
Channagiri Taiuk. ‘ —
H.Lakshmgf1a,_ @ 1:;gi1§sh:;;a§p«;§a.%_ O’
3/0 .
Aged 37 =Y’evars”;._Agr11..A ‘
R/at Bu1.aSag’a_ra.OV’iEiéige’, ‘
Channagiri ‘ –~ ., O” ” 2
}3..H.Rarnappa7’@ RafneSh
.~§3~/0OAH0sura’ppVa _
V” “Agéd 239. ‘Years ,mAgri.
* OR/vat’~Bu1tasagara Village,
C’i1?Hm’agiri~~~Ta1uk.
.”~«._H0sL1rai;)pa
8/ 0 Thimmappa
L Aged’ 68 Years
‘Agricuiturist
-R/at Bulasagara Vii.,
Channagiri Taiuk.
Smt.Lakkamma
W/0 Hosurappa
Aged 63 Years
R/at Buiasagara Viilage,
Charmagiri Tluk
6. Kum.B.H.Shaila
S/o Hosurappa
Aged 23 Years
R/at Balasagara Village,
Channagiri Taluk. p
{By Sri.Y.S.Shivaprasad, Adv.)
AND:
State of Karnataka By Channagiri RS. * g
[By Sri Vij ayakumar Maj age,” — . _
This Crl..A is fil-cc£.j’11nde~r ‘Se-_cti’e;ri 374(2) Cr.P.C
against the Jiu’-dgment dated *06.lQ9,,2Q0A4i passed by The
District andl’..,Se{ssio11s«Judge, Eavanagere in Spl.SC/ST
Case No.46/{.02}, “‘c’o.nvic’ti.ngV..appelIar1ts–accused for
the offences “pu:n_isliabl.Ve”undvervsections 147, 323, 324
and 5fO6llr’/W5. section lPC”and under section 3[l][x]
and 3v(1)(_x’i} Vof/S’i”={_P;A]’ Act and sentencing them to
undergo 53.1. and to pay fine of Rs.250/»*,
in default to undergo for 10 days for an offence
punishable” under section 147 IPC sentencing them to
undergo S.I. fo-r6 months and to pay fine of Rs.200/–,
in”‘e–defaultyto undergo SI. for 10 days for an offence
» punishablepgunder section 323 IPC, sentencing them to
u.r_1dergo.._yS.I;e-.fo~r 1 year and to pay fine of RS.3O0/W, in
‘default ‘ to. undergo SI. for 1 month for an offence
pu.nish..ab_le»’ under section 324 IPC sentencing them to
undergo RI. for 1 year and to pay fine of RS600/~, in
default…”to undergo SI. for 2 months for an offence
ff punishable under section 506 part–II r/w section 149
lP»C..*and sentencing them to undergo S.I. for 6 months
and to pay fine of Rs.5O0/W, in default to undergo S.I.
….-for 1 month for an offence punishable under section
3[1}[X) of SC/ST[PA) Act and further sentencing them to
undergo RI. for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/–, in
default to undergo S.I. for 2 months for an offence
punishable under section 3[l](xi) of SC / ST (PA) Act. All
the sentences shall run concurrently with one another,
This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT’
The appellants No.1 to 6 were arrayed;”aS” _
No.1 to 6 in Sp1.C.C.No.46/2001 on
Judge, Davangere. They “7€lT§ tried, and
sentenced for offences pur1Vis«hable*-under=Set§tions_}14’f,,:*
323, 324, 506 1.p.c., and atg’ol i1c:porfé:l«¢¢s ptinishable
under Sections 3 of the SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities} Plot; short ‘the Act’)
There:tore.’_’thley this appeal.
2;’ have«Vheafti«..:’:pv”Sfi.Y.S.Shivaprasad «~»~ learned
counsel. appellants«accL1sed and Sri.Vijaykurnar
leatjned Clovernment Pleader for the State.
:I”_nv_ the case of prosecution is as fo11oWs:–
Tfieleaecused No.1 to 3 and 6 are the Children of
3 aCC.nsed.No.4 and 5. They are residents of Bhulasagara
lkfilllage, Channagiri Taluk. They belong to Uppara caste.
–~ A.K.Rangappa is the husband of PW.2 w~
Shanthamma. PW.4~« Neelappa is the br0ther__,:of PW.l.
4 \ “K :3”.
,5–\; CL»
iPW.6 M Ningappa is also the brother of PW.l. PW.7 W
Nagendrappa is related to PW. 1. The father of PW:-1 had
two wives. Through his first wife. he had a
name Lakkavva. He had purchased the land
4 acre 30 guntas in the name
she was not married. _She l’was_.gettj1;g”~vtl1e
cultivated through accusedll’-anzd. she W.as’-alsol”‘staying in’
the house of this family
members had taken. there were
quarrels betwieeii parties ‘regarding possession and
cultixjfation’ 0
th aidland.
4.
4:
7-.” »l9’9_’7«at—abo.ut 8.80 a.m., accused No.1
to 6 formed unlayVfull:aslsembl.y in front of the house of
-2 A.K.lRa._ngapf)a and in furtherance of common
.A objjectj unlawful assembly. they used criminal
~fo’rce an offence of rioting. Accused No.1.
toll.””8. ‘ltno\kl1ng fully well that PWs.I & 2 belong to
“schedule caste, abused them by taking the name of
caste in public with a View to insult them. In
V lvlllfurtherancre of the common object of unlawful assembly,
accused No.4 to 6 pulled the saree of PVVI2 »:
§’\’; \$n.
Shantharnma with an intention to dishonour or outrage
her madesty and also bet. and kicked her. Thegfefore,
the accused committed an offence punishable
Section 3 (1) [X] [xi] SC/ST (Prevention offktjlriocvitiesl
In the course of same transaction”and t’uftheranC,e bf ‘
commission of object of unla\2{iful–.’aSsernh.ly=c ac:;us’ect_
No.1 to 3 assaulted and
and Voluntarily caused h.u”1″t=. and they also
assaulted PW.l with cart committed an
offence punishable ijun€dé..:- ~séetiQ1j§:’Vj’323 1.13.0. The
aecusedlllalsbfheld’JOutvthreatswts the lives of PWs.l and
2 and’cQn1.mittetiA:_i;an”‘silence punishable under Section
505 ape. ‘
Durin§’ti’ie”c0urse of trial, PWs.l to 14 were
documents as per E3x.P1 to P8 were
marked .. l ” ‘T
~. g_The defence of accused was one of total denial.
A l’he~«_.accused have denied that PWs.l and 2 belong to
Schedule Caste. 5″\:= .:.’é<"'~ x if-*2 »«7ii~~.=«
7. The learned Trial Judge on appreciation of
evidence and on hearing learned counsels for both
parties, convicted accused for the aforesaid offencfesl;
In View of the conviction of accused, foilhowiiig
points would arise for determination ‘:- l
1) Whether the prosecution?’
771997 at about 8v’i3G_a.rn;,.. ;ac¢us’§3d’..,1i\1Q.m1jtgi 5,}
had formed unlawful criminal
force thereby .co,rr1mi’t’tedroffence” punishable
under Section
2] has proved that accused
1* to’.§”l’i1i.:ifurtherance of common object of
_unlawlfu1,asseI_nbly, knowing full well that PWs.l
va_indv2 belor1_gHt,o Schedule Caste, abused them by
name of their caste Within public vision
atn:.:*intention to humiliate them and in the
of same transaction, accused No. 4 to 6
l ..pulled the saree of PW.2 with an intention to
dishonour or outrage her modesty thereby,
accused No.1 to 6 have committed an offence
punishable under Section 3 (1) (X) and 3 (1) [xi] of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities} Act r/W Section
149 i.P.C. :2 W M
3] Whether the prosecution has proved in the course
of same transaction, accused No.1 to 3 assaulted
PW.1 and accused No.2 to 6 assaulted PWi,’2″–.with
a cartpeg thereby, accused con1n1itted”:lo’f-fences
punishable under Sections 823 and
section 149 IPC ?
4) Whether the prosecution:’»has’~proved-.tl1at”liI1A
course of same transaction”.._ accused5Athreat’en’ed_”‘,
PW.1 and 2 with direleonsequencesu to their lives
thereby accusedpcomrniittjed an offence. punishable
under Section See’ yr/wp 1:49 -2
5] Whetherfihe has properly
record ‘.9
6} W1iQlh,€F’ judgment calls for
– interfer¢hcev”?
“order ‘.9
‘Bvelfore adverting to the oral evidence of PW’s.1
toyp is necessary to consider the documentary
‘evidence adduced by the prosecution in proof of the
-»-elaste of PW1 and PW2. The prosecution has produced
the document as per E1x.P7′, which is not a caste
certificate, but it is a reply sent by the Tahsiidar’ {CW.16
it ~§1v~5é-
3..\; 4
— B.S.’I’alwar) of Channagiri Taiuk. CW. 16 — B.S.’};’alwar
was not examined before the Trial Court. The doctiment
as per EXP’? does not fall under Section
Therefore. the document cannot be read’
evidence. The examination of C.WA.1_6′ fcaéste
PW’s.1 and 2 and production orcaéteii ce1″t_ificate
manner known to law was atjsoluteiy.neceVssar\fto prove”
the caste of PW} and..PW2A.-more ‘partict11ar13r.-arhen the
accused have denied’ -2 belong to a
schedule caste.’ adduced by
prose:-;ci’1htViVo11..irlivs safficient to prove offences
punishabie 3 (1) (X) and 3 [1] (Xi) of the
Act._. _v .
FromAthe….eVidence of PWs.1 to 6, I find that
iirjroof of offences under sections 323, 324,
‘i_isr:incredib1e and inconsistent. Accused No.5
is thevimother of accused No.6 — Kurnshyiaja. At the
time, Kun1.Shylaja was aged about 16 years
and her mother Lakshmamrna [accused no.5} was aged
X:
A ;’
3.\i \~ k {Li “‘L[£1’\-..’
about 50 years.
l0. PWs.l. 2 and 4 have deposed that accused
No.1 to 6 pulled the Saree of PW.2. This evidence looks
improbable for two reasons. Accused No.1 to Eitogeither
could have pulled the saree of
improbable as accused No.5 and,”6_who_–‘are=§vorf1’er1.Vha_d””
attempted or used criminal lforcfe ..
outrage the modesty of V l _ V ‘ V is V l
PW.5 has not Vnniorolsecution.
PW.7 has deposed 6 pulled the
saree of This improbable.
Accused._NoV;5l’».an:di women. Therefore, it looks
ridiculous that’ accu»s.e”c} ‘No.5 and 6 had intention to
dislionoiir ornloultrage the modesty of PW.2.
Before adverting to the evidence of prosecution
witnesses”;infproof of offences under sections 323, 324,
506 1.’/llV’«[ section l49 IPC, it is necessary to state that
and 2 and their family members had grievance
against accused No.1 who was cultivating the land
“downed by Lakkavva {elder sister of PW.l). She was
staying in the house of accused No.1. These facts are
3\s ».. .«:”3″‘x ‘M’s-C%;x*
deposed by PW. I. It is also in the evidence of PW1 that
accused No.4 had lodged a complaint against that
PW.1 and his family members had been warned
police not to enter the land held by Lakkawja
in the’possession of accused. ,~I:o._4the.” cii9c’ufmsta_neei’sV, it
evidence of PW’s 2 and 4 that
the house of PW.1 and piciied-.up ci;.i1a__1″1*elVglVw:ith;Vhin’i”jw”ith”‘ V
regard to possession.’ of Vt-he.”gaforestatleciv-..lahd looks
improbable. PW’s.;i that accused
No.1 and hisgvfailnily 1if1enib’ers.x5ve’;feV in “possession of land
belonging ” , _v the Circumstances, the
evider1.ce’– of that family members of
accused ..No.1 lcaIne”riea_1_f”the house of PW.1 and picked
up gguarre4l”‘with,..PW’v1 looks improbable. On the other
ha.’rI§:i, l.ooks’.””p1′.Qbably PW.1 and 2 who had grudge
. against ‘Aacciused No.1 and his family members for being
and cultivation of land belonging to
concocted a story to lodge a false case
against}..accu.sed No.1 and his family members, with a
it View dispossess them from the land owned by
l”I.,akl?:a\Wa. 3/\i t 5″‘ ‘””‘€*”
PW.1 has deposed that the first accused assauited
him with a ciub and the accused abused his} as
“Madiga Sulemagane”.
PW.2 has deposed that accused assa_ufl’£:ed with.
a cart peg.
PW.4 has gone a step further toggdepose
accused dragged PW’s.1 and”‘2:from hiSV_house’§’.:which is
not the case of proseedution
PW.6 has deposed_”thsat” ‘abused PW’s.1
and ‘of their caste. They had
assaulted sI?VVTVs.x1 PW6 was not a witness for the
occu;rrei’xce.
deposed that accused No.1 to 6
tre’spas_seddA.71hto the house of PW’s 1 and 2 and pulled
of their house. Accused No.1 abused PW.2 as
‘-7f_I*iada1’agithi”. Accused No.5 and 6 pulled the saree of
PW.’7 has given altogether a different version,
even otherwise, he was deCIareci as a hostiie witness.
;”\f%, 1-5 Lu:?{ …
PW. 11 is related to PW. 1. PW.l1 has deposed that
accused picked up quarrel with PW.1 regarding
possession of land held by Lakkavva.
demanding PW.l to give up the land a1′}.f;’l:—
telling that he will not give up the .landj.lh allll
the accused surrounded PW’s.;l; ‘:2
them. Accused No.6 pu11ed.,l:tia.¢ sate? ofu~PW.11=7
was also declared as ,a hostile ljfiwitriess. l’l1€. Evidence of
PW1l that accused hlad.cgoi1.ef’:’r2:lealr ‘house of PW} to
demand to part’ with:jdossessjioifgpf of Lakkavva is
contrarv”ltoc* of » .l5W1. _ V
PW. 10 is all-§g.ed’»»h ave witnessed the occurrence.
He has not “stated’– aljout the assault. He appears to be a
l -. pos«tl’oe”currence Witness.
1 1′”2.,_AlFrosrn_j..the evidence of above witnesses, We find
that no consistency in their evidence. The
entire vinlcident is distorted. The evidence of F~’W’s.4» and
accused No.6 pulled the same of PW.2 with an
…_inteni:ion to dishonour or ouiirage her modesty is
ridiculous. Even with regard to words uttered by
5″\) “X *~- 57*
accused to insult PW’s.1 and 2 by taking the name of
their caste is ridiculous. Added to this, the Inedical
evidence of PW.9 does not support the egrea/fit.ness
account of incident. PW.9 we
Medicai Officer of Channagiri_.ha.s cienovsletiy’ on
7.7.1997 at about 4.15 p.m., Pxivfs
hospital. PW9 examined and ‘fot1nd”~.ll’oi’1oiwingl”V
injuries:
1) Abrasion beneatl’1’th’e
2) Complaint of pgfii’ ia:;m. :sfir£er1ln§. behind the head
. _’
» Q examined PW.1 —
Ranggiappa anti. the following injuries:
(_vfoni:tisivon on the left fore arm
3 C,on.tVus;ion on the neck
‘ of pain on the back
4) ..Cc-intlusion on the left thigh
lll”~,However, PW.9 has not given the dimension of
injuries. PW’s.1 and 2 and other eyewitnesses have
deposed that accused No.1 to 6 had assaulted PW1 and
PW2 with a club and cart peg however, we do not find
«F 5!
axi 1;” ,é’5”\. \.
corresponding injuries on PW} and PW2. Added to this.
there vvas inordinate delay in lodging the con’1pla,int.
The occurrence took place on _
8.30 am. The jurisdictional police «at
distance of 10 Kms from the place of .inciedent”;-
information was lodged atab-out
for which there is noV’_satisfa_cto1fy less
the explanation. 1 d
13. Thuei __On re’ V.oi»”‘evidence, I find
that PW’s. «i accused for being
in by Lakkavva (elder sister of
PWI]. ‘In was living in the house of
th.e.{:acc~used.d “Accus,ed No.1 to 6 were in possession of
‘ land Lakkavva. There was no need for accused
. near the house of PW’s.1 and 2 to pick
up with them regarding possession of land. The
VA prosecution ha.s failed to prove that PW’s 1 and 2 belong
‘to schedule caste. The document as per EX.P7 cannot
be read as per evidence in absence of examination of
Tahsildar (CW16) as a witness. The evidence of PW.4
that a,».::(;:useci Nof: .21r1.d 8 had outraged the rriodesty of
PW2 looks ridiculous, as accused No.5 and 6 araalso
women. The evidence of PW’s TI to 5, PWI7
not supported by medical evidence and K ,
their evidence is highly discrepant;”«PW’s-;5.,A.:_’7–_Vari’d’v
were declared as hostile gwitnesses. T.f’_;e:”1″;1eCl.icala
certificate and evidence show
grievous injuries, thevmpersons of
PW’s.l and 2, that ,”.iIfjv’:itlf1ey had been
assaulted There was
inordinate first information for
which there pifoper’ explanation.
It appears’ 1 and 2 had grudge against
accused No.1 a1’1d___Ij1_i5 family members for being in
belonged to Lakkavva who is the
elder.’«sisvter7.’of It appears that PW.l had lodged
“first information against accused No.1 and his family
“meiriibers vvith a view to dispossess them from the land
_ -fiieiii by Leikkawa.
The learned Trial Judge without noticing these
discrepancies has held accused guilty of aforesiated £3
/3,’ 5:-j”‘*’ V”
3. ,_ ._
offences. On re appreciation of evidence, I find that
none of the offences for which the accused wereuciharged
is proved. Therefore, the impugned _
Sustained.
14. In the result, I pass the 4′ ‘
b
The appeal is accepted,4_i:’f’he jtidgment is
set aside. Accused 2001, on
the file of Special irate acquitted of
offene’es’i’pL”1,f1iSh:2§i??J1euiidersections 147. 323, 324. 506
r/W “offences punishable under
Sectionsb3~»(1’) [xV]’V-.afn.d3″iiV[1) (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention
oi-“,,.f§trocities) bail bonds executed by accused
“shall ciapcelled. The fine amount, if any, deposited
byééjibthe. shall be refunded to them. Office is
Adirecte_d to send back records along with a copy of this
ju_dgme11t.
gel; *’
EEEGE