State By Deputy Superintendent vs Sakrappa Ramalingappa Hugar on 22 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
State By Deputy Superintendent vs Sakrappa Ramalingappa Hugar on 22 July, 2008
Author: N.Ananda


DATED mis THE 22% DAYWQF JLEI;1"2:i):tf}8""':: 4- _ _: "  

BEF0R_r.«'}.__ % Q
THE HON'BLE MR;JL3.STI(§E,_f§'.ANA3fi}'£;   %
BETWEEN:   _     

State By D{2p11tyA.SupcI*i1:a.t¢:1.;1d;*:1;'L:'£V   
Basavana Bage.wjg1d,i Stzgb-E)i$ésiqn;..VL'*,__ '  ' ...Appel]ant

(By  Des.éi,'---Add1;'S§'E5)

1.   Hugar


 '    Hagar

.    Ramaha' gappa Hagar

'V 5. z  Basappa Hagar

 ., 6:» Vlvéaju Biddappa Hagar

  Parasappa Sakreppa Hagar

8. Chandrappa Ramaiingappa Hugar

All are major

R] 0. Kudarisalavadagi,

Basavana Bagcwadi Taluk    ' é '
Bijapur District.    ...Respbn§;e1its_'  

(By 813'. Ashok Haranahalli Associatés, Aidv-fica1tes)~     '

This appeal is filed undéf"---gectifinv. é7s(1;v', 8g?..1g3;._,.cx:£1=>.c.,ff

praying to grant leave to file an ap§;cétI,against. the _i1;_E(i§7{}6nt dated
09.19.2006 in Sp}. Case No.21/2'G(_)':3, on thsy file of II Add}.
Sessions 8s Specials. Judge" ~. Eat  Bijapur, /acquitting
respondents / accused for .913?-.nce.és puriiehable under sections 143,

147, 324, 323 r/W 149 [PC &ndL_sc%<:ivion'3(3»)(x}_of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tzibes {_Pre:veriticnV of–.}§t__r_r§cities) Act, 1989
and etc. * " . I .

Tixis; c€:i1ningVV»én__farfadmission, this day, the Court
deiiverefl ‘the-_ i’oi1owi3fig;~ ‘


pasfiiflfigntsl accused were tried and acquitted. of

A §fi”cnces,’pu;a;§s2aab1e under sections 143, 147, 323, 324 r/W

H for an ofiencc punishable under section

3(:}(x) “*§r'{he Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(?rej9*efifion of Atmcities) Act, 1989 in Special Case

2342005, on the file of :1 Add}. Sessions Judge at Bijapur.

‘ Thcrcfom, State has prcfcmed this appeal. :

2. i have heard Add}. State Public Prosecutor fp’fiT_Staa1te.
I have been taken thmugh evidence %


3. In brief, case of prosccufixigg V-V ” V

The prosecution witnesseg L.

to Scheduled Caste. They axe”£e§§§¢e;;ts
village, Within the Bafigéwédi Police
Stafion. During some time

prior “”” 3 had supported the
and he was the

succcssfui accused were in the opposite

‘_ :t§1jicr§:fo:;¢,”*th¢r¢vWas enmity bctwccazz PW:-3 1 to 4 and

H 2 at about 5 p.1n., PW} was in from of

–V thekizqiifig bf; Halappa Waddar. Accused 1 to 8 formed into an

assembly with the common object of asaaulting and

“‘i;3;1i:£:fi’1:ion,aJ1y insulting PW1. In furtherance of such common

‘”bTbje-ct, accnsecl 1 to 8 abused PW1 in filthy language,

accused. 1, 4 and 6 draggad PW1 up t0 Birappa temple, while

other accused fistcd ¥”W1. On seeing the
Ningappa Chandramappa Waddam, the father _{:§’i”P”.-if _
and rescued PW}. The accused abuseci ‘*b.1;1’f:-.
name of his caste to insult him
was lodged against accused.V,Affier i41«1vt_:§ 3tiga.1:icV>.*.3.V–, ..

was filed against accused I V’

4. On behalf 7 were
examined. The ifirosecution were

marked’ znatexial objects were
marked _ as “B/§;’-53; V’ ” ‘

5. is judgment of acquittal. This

the judgment of acquittal, if there

Compeiiing reasons.

fnom evidence of PWS I to 4, occurrence

tin fmnt of the house of Hulagappa Waédar.

V» contents of spot mahazar and mugh sketch would

.. 1;:x»)::.a1 occurrence took place on a public road near Birappa

temple. Them is no satisfactoxy explanation ~

discxtpancy reiating to place of occurrence.

7. PW9. 1 to 4 have consisteutky V’

dragged by accused to Birappa

assaulted PW1 with stones a;:gid_a1s<A$" fistecfi hfiii§V"'E{V0'~iéevcr,"V

prosecution has not who treated
PW1. The Wound reveal PW1

had not sufi'erec_l'a;1y V

to 4, oecmmnce took place
at about.39.m.,..'51;%.'A23'.'a§3;2695 in Kudaxisaxavaczagj v1}'iage,

whirgh» is atk 15 lms from Basavana Bagcwadi

. E' '3?3fi01l- a complaint at 3.30 pm. on

v"T~%I:'1;e1\2 is no satisfactory explanation for

Bélfiiedly. complaint. On the other hand, PW}. has

depozéctfhe had lodged the complaint afier deliberations with

ethér villagers.

PW 1 has deposed all the accused had assaulted him

with stories. However, PWS 3 6:. 4 have deposed about


presence of accused 4 and 6. PWS 2 8:. 3 have admiti§:§iT.§hat

there was a petty quarrel between relative of _

accused No.6.

9. Due to non–e.xamination ‘of

injuries in the Wound éasgf: ef that V L’

PW 1 was assauited by Lbe

10. There is no ztgaxtiing abuses

uttered by acgzusigcé ‘<')'1:§t taste of PW1 with

an m=;~cnfio§"5ng;a1t hi;n.i11 public view. PWS 1 8:. 3 have
deposeci abused PW1 in from of the

hougsc qf Wédciar by taking out the name of his

. " §;é~$! §§. Efimafcycr, PW4' has deposed accused No.1 abused PW}

ib.)_7- of his caste. Even there is discrepancy

uttered by accused.

” PW} has deposed accused abused him by uttering

sale maganc ninn% suttu bidutteve’. Contrary

V’ this, PW-4 has deposed accused No.1 alone abused PW1 by

taking the name of his caste. Even otherwise, PWS 1 to 4

have not deposed that accused abused PW1 an

intentzion to insult him Within public vision.

12. The prosecution has nofg cx}a1n_ineci.:w. b

witnesses. The entire investigatidn was§done. by S13hA~

inspector of Poiice. However; the Depfiiy of ;

Poiice has subscribed his sffiustaxes ifiyesfigafion
papers. The manner ‘vis not” The
learned sessions Judge -‘agspiiéeififion of evidence

has }ight”*–eoficiusicns. 011 reappiveciation of
evideszlmt, has fa1le’ d to prove charges

framed aeedsed; .

do not find any grounds to inteifere

judgment of acquittal. For these reasons,


3″” Iudge

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *