"RTEB ?EIS an THE zzfiizfix GE ?EBEU&§Yf2G09 " '
2% ?HE HIGH CGUR? 93 KARNA?AKA, BAms§L§§§»7""
BEFGRE
?;£ EON'3LE MR. JysT:CE{E,NAfia3A§a}s%AMY'
cRL.A No 3§§ SE ZQOB "
BETWEEN:
1"...)
..*.¥l;>
REvA§As:aD§Pfi§s~'
AGES ABOUT{3§"YEARSg » ;Rv
S/O 3HARM§pPA5f-fyj
AGRICflLTURISTa
R/O ASAGQD VEL:AGEiw ~
JAGRLUR'§RLUK_'A
M%HfiSH°
"AQED R306? zsvffiégs
H SfC»BHER§%EPA
.'(..k} A ' -
'RGRICUETQREST
R£Q"AsAG@3?v1LLAGE
JAG&L&R'?RLUK
@§aa3A:AE
*%GE§:AB©UT 2: 33333
~t.sz@"BHammAPaA
. wA§RIC8LTURIS?
R50 AS%GG3 VILLfiGE
JAGfiLUR TRLUK
€8y[Sri: H K%ETfiR RAJR}
'>1
A§PELLRNTS
hurt ts one Mr.Ninga Hanumanthapga _k§bwing;
...
fully wail that
Le belong$”ta’ fimltfiarnataxa
community ané also a public sérvantfiwbrkifig ag
the yeterinary inspector; ebugéd him touching
tie cagte by Saying R” ENQ’TfifiE§A SULE M GENE”
1
{you are a Scheduled .CaSte “g fiaatardj ‘within
pubiics viewfafid_aisQ”d:agqédwfixUa by holding
him. and abstru@téfi¢ him “fr®m. discharging his
duty as a_§ublig sér%aQtfand further Committed
criminal intimiifitiafi; by’ threatening’ CW¥§ to
_finifl$< him énévthereby alleged to have been
CQmmitted'¢;n&er' section. 3{Z){X§ if the §C
:°xV_<P.A;?7Att5r/%t3§ of 190.
t'x3. *$he compiainant further stated ifi his
camgiaint that the gaid altercatian happened lfi
-viefié of the fact that on 385955199? on thg
r@q&@$t {Hf tha ftcugafi Ems difi éfiua artificial
flee seems was failed. im. EOXGE/§? Vat»f9Wegm.
when he was en his way te atiend hi?=werk2en,
his meter bike fihe eeeueed Ee¢i’ fie 33 ‘have’
obstructed him frem.e@Vie§ ee§mS@eieee”eim by
using his caste. The eeeye eeeefeee {he plea of
the accused Ge i§f0ij2Qfié éfi§»%fi¢ plea of the
accused is §: a§§:edegn§:§p£ea for trial. On
behalf a:% t§e_x§rg¢e¢et:§fi as many as ?
witnesses ha§e be§§[gg§minee and documents have
been meekeé as eehibfite P1 to P8.
ң1 . Ҥ%&i vie the eyewitness she tureed
W[heStiie; ?W+2 ie also an independent witness,
,hee:mreed hostile, PW@3 is 23 mahazer wiieess
‘gene is the peach for exhibit 9M3, ?%~§ is Ehe
*.eempleieaet, Pfikfi is e wifieees who was present
%”Qen the spat was cam wiih ?w>£ and also
K
‘ms
{1}
uppsrted presecution, PW~6 is a po;i,é”éffiic$£
who r@gisuered the case and aubmitfié&ft5e FIR[‘
?W~7 is the investigating @ffiééf.1
s.J
R. The learn$fi c0unSé; far the appallant
submitted that the judgm@ni5paéfie& by the trial
court convictéfiq ¥_th%”wé§peilants is net
sustainablé ih;”tha4 é§é=_@f}’iawn He further
submitted €hé@_ mevgcqused No.3 ta 3 have not
cammitteééany.o*f3nQeymgch iess the same shaii
.’ ,v,–,
net attrad:VseCt1@n_$%i}aA; of the Afixaaities
aubmitted that thaugh in tha
fict. Afie fuiiher
¢c3mpi§ififi; ;he’é0mglainant has alieged of using
abuSive_iafigfiage by teaching his caste was made
aqaimstmaacaagd M©.i is 3 he has camfined in
A;
“¥V_his”@vié%nfi§.$niy accused N0.2. ?his fact hag
nfi+ béanfiapfireciatefi by the tr$al ceurt. En
‘J 3..
~fQr§$§§;t”q€ evidenca qf ?Ww1 an eyewitness. he
ceunsei is while recording the statement under
gm;
LA}
section 3
cf Cr.P.C. complex questiang shQaid
not have been gut ta aacusefi amd hggdgihgfi ;¢w_’
accused has not stated anythimq defiyifig Qf Egg
incommunity C rcumstancesrput tQ*them{#
T . _ .
i
6. xhe learned” ‘counselx_ férMW theV
responéent, Governmént s?roée§a:or “Submitted
tfiat thé; prasécutiQn *has proved their case
beyond :easonable dou§:. The complainant has
Ki)
Q)
.m.
3tat@d.¥in”‘ FIRf that on ;O!03X1997 at
aéamsfid 3 to 3 have committed an offence and on
‘ ,fihe Safie da§;ét 12.45 haurs he has given the
_f:mfQrmatiQn to the police. ¥iriualiy there is
1pfiGx iQS§j of time a3 it is alleged by the
Vappeiiant caunsel. Pw~é, the complainant has
LF,ét3ted in his evidence that after the inciéent
takan gfiace Ema disch
I
rgad his fiuty 311$ 12 9
3
no
eieck in the efterneen and thereaftee fie went;
te the police station and leéged the eempiaint.
Yhe complainant, whe is ea fiuhiie Servant zhee
seated in hie evidence that he bee diseherged
his duty till 12’e.éieek”end efi 12.é5 he filed
his complaint. Hence jfii is eebmitted K3? the
Gevernment Preeeeufidr thefi”there is no delay ie
filing compieinfi afifl {he time taken to file the
comeleifii ;hae°teee+fe§Uep;v egelained iv! the
eompiaint. ‘§n’zee§ect ef evidence of PW42, the
eVewitness”?heu”h_he,turned heetiie but in his
_1 t _ .:_ x “H …..
chief examinetiee he has deposed that at about
‘ g? yeare age ihe accused have quarrelee with the
_fgempieinent.en& the reason fer which they with
‘Afefeiegee te the quarreling else deposed in his
‘evifieece. The said evidence cerreberetee with
TVjevidenee of ewsé, the complainant and in ifis
erees~exeminatien he fife further denied the
12
ehiefmexeminatiee he has éepesed that aeefieed
Ne.1 to 3 were committed an effeeeeyieffl
eeeaulting the complainant. FW+6 ie the @eiice”‘
officer who has received the “complaint *efid
‘xW/”
receréed the ?IR as fifif, exhibit» ere» enfi*
forwarded the same te the ceufi, He hae else
drawn the paechanama as per exhibit P~3. PW–?
is the investigatingfi effieeifawhga has fiepeeed
that he fia$,wefki@giifi*Chaqaiuru Division and
on 10f5/97’fiet_ i2’e”_§lock a ease has been
zegietered and he has inveetigeteé the Hatter
en ihe”basiefef the eempieint. He visited the
L’ii..igz.iiiageviand ‘;EeC’erded the statement ef W-1, ea?»
_§3 and ‘S.A.Khafier vex: ie 38?. On
ifi§f§5f§? he has Collected. caste certificate
iQfrem Teheiidar, Chigaiure as per exhibit ?~?.
‘fin 21f?f§7 he bee ceilecied the eerviee
K
particulars of the complainant as per exhibit
P-8. He has submittss the charge sheéfiisffiefg
the Qempletion <3f tie invesfigqatidncff fiance,"
the learned Government prG$ecntCtz sfibmit:éd
+~ : 1
that the prasecution has'§fQvefisiss_Casefby"1t
U3
,ri
-1
witnesses. The trial nGafirt¢_haS*-,”fightl
convicted the accusefifi ‘fhére is he infirmity
in this order and the same has been liable to
CL’)
M
E.
(E:
.,§Zn~view cf fine submissian made by
resps$tive’c©nhsel3 it is far me ts answsr the
7*,foil0wing goints:
1} “Whether the prosecution has proved
‘+ the case on beyond reasonable doubt
as to whether they accused 1 to 3
have semmitted an offense?”
2) “Whether the order passed by the
session aourt raquires interference
in the light of the submission maée
by the learned counsel for the
appellantsai
I?
fiene his duty properly, as e resuit the buffeie
got abortion. In his erese–examinatiefi he hes .
denied the suggeetien qelata was met heepeeefi ”
on the said date. The evifieheev of’ Qkffie
eerreberatee evidence of PW?4, .ThexeV;&efiee of’
PW–2 that there was 3 galeteeeeppeeed»en the
particular day and the efiefiegfi ef the galata
else he has deeeeed in hie efiiéfihée.
:1. ::’h’e_ ‘ew–5_°§t,t-ptisgitim rider with 99-4 he
has depeeed the feet that an that day he was
fieVihgt”aie@gt~with_ PW>4 in. his ]flGtOI” bike he
came :5 fieegede §iilege weile emtering iete the
gviLlege; the eeeused obstructed ?w–é and they
,.$ fie
P31
vim’ 7
_z_L,:1.a..i.
“.ee§esed that he hee net heerfi anything further.
6%
Rfinchamma a3 shown by the witness hé;®ré§gfie@ ,
gamchanama on the Spot as per exhibifivfmfi ané ‘
handed. over’ further’ investiqatibh. fig _Bi.
PW~7.
14. By ioakingf at Xtfié }éqidenCe of
prGSecutiGnT wgtnegseé geépediailgf PWF2, PW#£,
PW+§ §ra$eéutiQfi *.hé$ “_prQVé the case.
CircumstaQCes~Vwhich. a§lp3~ the prosecution is
that pr©sec§iiog witne§3 have éeposed in their
respecti§e”*evid@mQ§ _that there Lwas a «quarrel
went fin 1QfG$€399?. PW41 who has deposed that
‘ ,§ha kméws ‘fi§e7 accuaed and complainant. ?w»2
_ fi§p03ed. ihat tha galata. went. between” accuaed
«F
§Q,:”:o”3 and csmpiaifiant in respect 0; buffalo
‘ané hé alsc 3upport@fi the prcgecution ;;a: on
“ffihé’ Said fiate tha incidence happened and
V§ffence was committed. Naiuraiiy ?W4& and PWFS
,.
*’\
H
L} -34. ,1 ~
whe are complainant and piiliom ridar hafiaiafigfiu
supportafi the prosecution. in §5é;’dr¢gS–5
examination <Jf Pw~a and EW@4fi nQfihihg"£mfi3;bé§n?
Di'
extracted from the ,appe§iaflts.,V: .LN?§_7
4-
Specifically with clarity’Zfl; has fiefibséfi that
accuaed have used abusivelwarfifiywfififich attracts
section 3(1) (X) of t1;;’e3″‘»S:Cf’:31*’._(¥i?’L§ “.~£5Xct. Undar
thase circumstauéé3_it is veiy much clear that
the incident-hagpéfigdgfifiiié ?W44 wag gaing to
discharge his d§ty_and fie was prevented an read
ad ha fias”abuséfi_and assaulted and further he
.. 03
was ,abu3edC fiouchinq his caste and alga
‘ ;§hreaiehed him far life. it is unéisputéd fact
_ remains is that cemplainant a3 a public servant
7@Grmimg’Kas VeterinaryT Enspeator, $ec@ndly’ on
‘ffifG5fi§9? galata wag takan place, he was
V f3$§ault@é. Ell these witnesses have Sapparted
‘the prcsecution. fihat tav hagpened. on that
ifila
obstructed him and assaulted him and wfihéy
committed an offence by’ touchingT his’ casfiefi”
But in his @Vid@fiC@ PWF4 hag “&epQsedf*in =hiég
chi@f~examination. that accused, N0.2 ;has= used*
the abugive wardg, tauéhéfi hi3_ Craig and
scoldefi him. At thaé*€imé, a:cused Nd}i and 3
were also present. W .Hfi_:h3s fn®t fieposed
‘aii%* abofifi aCcuSedf.NC;1w*and_ 3 as ts
¥'”i}
$4.
{3
speciT
whethar fihay’ have fisé@,’abusiv@ language by
touching his $3$fi$f. Hence it is aubmitted on
his on? his bénaif_ that the punishment to
Q3′
3′ f
(.93
.2.’
céufi§d.NQ}al and 3 is not warran*ed. ?wm4 i
‘ ;3iientAih h1$j@vid@nc@, ha has Confined only in
. fa?Qur Gf~accused NG.2.
iéfi” The saifi, submisaien. of the appellant
* has been examined by going through again the
1″”!
v conténts Qf th@ $3′ in tha ETR Eha
x
cemplainanfi hag ailaqed against ‘ccuseq”N§;l °o*
3 but in his chief–@xamiaatiom and alfib ii hL3 ~
cross~examination Ex; has aconfined\»”aqai§st
accused i@3.2. While anaweringa the’ qQga§i®ns*
put by the appellant counsel hezfias angwéfed ia
his Crass-ezaminatiam that 5ccuSéd Nfl.2 scoided
him as to which ifij@cfii§nfwhi¢h_hé has given to
:m I0uffafia:>,; and by that
time accu$@d- §®;1 &fid 3 were there. fiance 1
alga fee} that’ in: his *@videnc@ Pwwg has not
spécificaily amfi»_;§. particular deposed the
anyfihifigvagaia$fi,accuse& No. 1 and 3. In the
“p;ight’W©f thé]5submi3siQns made by both the
«r
_E$3§@ctivevC0umsa15 .; feel ifiwe points fiat my
g’Qcm$1&era€;©n 13 afiswered ifi favaur of ihe
fifégecfitian apparentiy.
E7. Lance E pasa the fcilowimgz