IN THE HIGH COURT 01:' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGfi»_.*' ' K v
DATED mis THE 22% DAYWQF JLEI;1"2:i):tf}8""':: 4- _ _: "
BEF0R_r.«'}.__ % Q
THE HON'BLE MR;JL3.STI(§E,_f§'.ANA3fi}'£; %
CRIMINAL APPEA1?Né}S53 6%'
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
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;~ ‘
” ‘s§J’DGMENT
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. :
om.
2. i have heard Add}. State Public Prosecutor fp’fiT_Staa1te.
I have been taken thmugh evidence %
judgcxcnt.
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
(U;
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
IV»
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
N.
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,
Sd/–
3″” Iudge