__.P:-;:,Eie:;§;:_:;:1_:5_#a '1¥'~'€.)_ii_-.v::e. ...R€sp0I}de11t.
'g.,Cr;F';_..€1. against 1:116 Judgfilent: and Award dated 27.8.2063
-- T " passééi by the II Add1.S.J., K0131' in Spl.C.C.N'o. 162/206 1,
V ctjmvicting the appaliant/accnaed for the offence p / 11/ S .323 of
_ IPC anti Se{:.3(1){x) of SC/ST (PGA) Act and sentencing him to
'V ¥€s.:3fiO/~» and in dafault of payment of fine to suffer furthex'
IR' THE mm»: COURT or-* KARNATAKA AT Bmaazpm
mrrmn THIS THE rrm mm or BEARCI-I 4'
BEFORE
THE Ho1~I*3LE m2.JUs'rIc1'~:; V'
CRIMINAL APFEAL N§;.14%52%/26-a:3_(%%, 1 "
BETWEEN:
Rmnachandra, '
$f'o. Rajanna, _,
Aged about
R/8» Sangat3;3:%fB'%*V§i1ags;%-LA? 'L .
Koiar §Z}iSi:'1'i:::li}; "fl: .,.Appe1l.am.
{B}; ;'£§{'i:S.V. far S1"*i.S.N. Aswathanarayana
Adv.) - _
Si:a£e of Katffiataka by
'A Raja Subrahmazaya Bhat, HCGP)
*"r1+;é1s CI*imiI1a1 Appeal is filed under Section 354(2)
uncicrgo 8.1. for 3. period of six menths anci to pay a fine of
8}. far a period of twe months for tha offancte 9/ 11/ $. 3(}.)(::;) of
80/8'? {POA} act and sentenced {:0 pay firm of R3250/~ and
1.
0. of payment of fme ta suffer further S.I. for {me menth for
the offansze p/u/3;’ 323 GHPC.
!,…..f””””‘
as
Narayana Swamy. ‘Therefore, the complainant
iedgeé his said campiaint befcme the Po:ie;e,or
Pakapaiya as against both at’ them.” ”
4. On the basis of the said C(}II1§)}aiI}3_Z_, }1.V .c:i111é camg 12:;
be registered and FIR wazé ‘i$§ué€i-..”$gain$;;1g §}p;37e:1§§:1t–
accused Ralnachandrsg and Swamy
S/0 Pedda Ra1nachaf1€fi;é?§;§; gésidents cf the same
Village, for t§1e’giT§:nc{=}$” and 355 of IPCE
and under S;;’.fé’V$ ‘Vo’ ‘f’:-%rVVV’£1flé’A’.o’if§{§if1(§es under Section 323 of EPC and
_Se(;ti€;1f1 __.j’3{iV}(x)V.’é3f ST Act. Cm appreciatien 0f the oral
e1§idx’:I1cvr:4’0ffV’}?%Vv’s,1 to 6 and the documents at .Exs.}~”‘1 to P3,
the.T%i’ia4ifi§Q}i}:*ti cc3I1vi<:t¢.':d the appeilant-accused for ilhfi said
._t:~f£'e11(:<2$" and impesed sentance an him as aforesaid.
y v Sri. Jagannath, the learneci counsel for the appe}.la;3t~–
_»a§§cused strongly contencied that despite there being evidence
' of PW2 complainant that ha does 119: k1:10w when wrcte tha
cempiaint. EXP? and What was written in it, the Trial Court
committed error in holding that prosecutien proved beyond
r~r\"""'"MM
3
prosecutiozl in thifi C336 fI'()1′}1 which it can be i1e:1c_1_ tha’E the
accused irltentisnaily insuited the Camplainant his
caste. Therefore, simply because the
9;
1:0 have uttered the words ” mafia ~§;;:2-35
0f §)€I’${)I1 belonging to Naiké. i£ that; he
uttered the said wards tea) the
reputation of thf: G16 member of
Scheduled AA A
9. has cleariy stated
131 1333 know what came to be
Written who Wrote the same. Further,
tho1}.g}.1~ ‘V hés stated in his evidence that on
receiéd FIR and compiajm: from H.C:. 135
a:§iC1’:”that he visited the scene of effence on the
V VV _ samé—da§,f,’hr§”has not stated further as 1:0 which Police. Oflicer
.§;R;3ared”‘fh€ saié campiaint. The said H0 115 KI’iShL’€1&p§)€i
_ ~__1’*1’;’3.::§”I;’ét: been examined ti: tzstabiish that Ex.P2 the complaint
T ‘ fiaincf: to be Written by him (:13? by any other pcrsen as naxratsd
U by PW2, the mmplainaflt himself. Further, on careful reaciing
cf the averments in the said complaint and 31136 evidence in
,_._.r——-~—–