IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALQRE
DATED THIS THE 15*" DAY OF BECEMBER, 2011a
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE L %
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1éA1%éE'2od~;f° ._ E,
BETWEEN :
STATE BY MULBAGAL POLICE
STATION.
' _ .'__APPELLANT
(BY S1éu.A.v.RAMAKmSHNA, H.c(3p.) * ._
AND: H é
1. THIPPAIAH ' E_
SON OF LaTE.AVENK}iTAPPA'~._
AGED:4o .
2. SMTMAMATHA .
WIFE OF T1-1IE.PAIAH,_
AGE: 30 YEARS V.
3. 'F.--A§\¥ANDx%X": .. """ "
'aSONo_*a THIPPAEAH
;& 2G H " '_.
ALL RJ%:Si:j:ENTS OF'
V .KURUBAPAHALLi VILLAGE,
AVANI HQBILE,
H " A 'MUIAEAGAL TALUK.
{E'y__ S':§I;'Ivz';'R.NANJUNDA GOWDA, ADV.)
.. RESPONDENTS
-~~CRL.A. FILED U/S.3"/8(1) & (3) CR.P.C. BY THE STATE P.P.
._F(3R THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED To GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
" JUDGEMENT DT.12.9.20()6 PASSED BY THE 11 ADDL. KOLAR, IN
K
SPL.C.C.N0.68/O2«-ACQUI'1'I'ING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/Ss.323,324 504 R/W. sec. 34 O-Ripe
tANDELS,3UJDQ(M?SC/ST[POAJACT,1989. g,y,v
rms APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND _
JUDGMENT Am) CONENG ON FOR PRONOUNCEME-NT.B1:'i?Om§
THE COURT TODAY, COURT DELIVERED frne FOeeOW.:1§%c:
JUDGMENT
The State has flied this anpea} against
and order passed in Special dated
12£12006 by the II.Addfinfiuu eeeseeé Judge, at Koku
acquitting the accused punishable
u/s 323, 324 Section 3(1)(x) of
so/sr(ptxAiA¢ti93a. 5g{it
2. The apnellant. that the judgment and order
of acquittal” passec’1’by’ thediearned Sessions Judge is contrary
toelaiav; ‘eyidence on record. The reasons assigned by
the erroneous, improper which lead to
niiscarriage justice. Though PW–1 to PW–3 and 11 who are
.:’t:e§,*eVs.Wit:1.e.sses to the incident have cleariy stated that PW~1
house of the accused on the date of incident to
.’u”‘v..V_gc{uestion as to Why they abused PW«2 and PW–3 in filthy
Tdjlanguage touching the caste. Immediateiy, accused No.1 & 3
“<
assaulted PW–2 with pestle and accused No.2 has again
abused PW–1 with filthy language by touching his caste. The
complainant and victim belong to SC for the purpos.ieI.V_of
invoking Section 3(i} (X) of the Act. Hence .
submitted that the judgment of the trial y_C_:0ur_t'i"s" be "'
set aside and accused are to be convicted1'i'or'thie_said dffenéa;
On the contrary, the learned Co_u~.*.1se1
supported the judgment of the At.r.ial.._court.and_so;i1ght for
dismissal of the appeal. 0 it 2
3. The facts gvieading aredthat complaint
was lodgediiby PW; that he had been to his
native place during On 20.5.2002 PW~2 and PW»3
went tov_»»the’2tpub1ic” clean the vessel. Accused No.2
Sri1t.1Vtamatha.. abus_ed PW–2 and pw–3 by touching their
with the Panchayat Members, but they
interest. PW–l went to PW–2 and PW~3 on
and informed the same. The accused No.1 aiso
2′ the complainant using a filthy language and also
V’V”‘*.u_:n’par1iamentary language and further he was abused by
itattributing his caste since hi belongs to Scheduled Caste.
The accused No.1 assaulted the complainant PW-1 on his
head by bottle and accused No.3 assaulted by pestleV.uon_:0his
head. He sustained bleeding injury and became un.cons.ci*ou’s.. .
4. The police visited the place and
also accused in their jeep and the injured and.v1*71is:’Wife*3a”r1d
children were dropped at Malur and
the accused were taken to The came to
the hospital and recordedv_the_ hours on
24.05.2002 and station at 0-45
am. and accused. The
Mahazar 255.2002 and statement of
Lakshmaiah, Puttappa Bin Muniyappa
beeni’recorded””an_d___po1ice have recovered MOW4 glass
pieceslandp pestle.
‘pride-eicution has examined PW–1 to PW~11 and
‘marked E2:.IV°1 to P14 to prove its case.
w0.”PWw1 is the injured and complainant. He has stated
went to the house of accused No.1 on 23.5.2002 at
p.rr1. and enquired him as to Why A~»2 abused PW-2 and
3. Immediately A-1 abused him with all filthy language
touching his caste and when he went to the house
was standing in front of his house. A-1 assaulted .
empty bottle on his head and he su_stained V’
and clothes become bloodstained and
brought pestle from the houseVan’d_assaulted_1on’:.his~~liead.Vt’
PW–i identified Mo–4 <3: glass,l-piehciesflandhlpestleaused for
assault. He has stated that been written
by one of his police he stood
to his statement .'
7. PWT;2 -_ stated that when they were
washing the tap, one Smt.Ma3:akka
mother “i.\To.__l__pp.scolded them. They have spoken
aboutywg 1., days going to the house of the accused
No.1 and’venduitj’ed.1=about the incident. He was also abused by
_’lv…_the’accused: assaulted with bottle and pestle thereby he
5_’_’*s4ustained_bleeding injuries. He was taken to hospital. PW–2
luidentilied Mo–4 & 5. §<
6
8. PW–1 1 is the mother of PW–1. She also supported the
case of the prosecution to some extent. But there are
contradictions as to the time of incident and place of
PW.5 81 6 are the alleged eyewitnesses have not
prosecution case. PW 7 & 8 are theMlnvrestigatirig’lflfiieiersg;
PW.9 is the Medical Officer, PW. 10 is alsdanotherf
he has also not supported the proseiciutionvh. V
9. Ex.P10 is the Health
Centre, which discloses that to the
hospital ElCCOl”I1p8.I’?:1″l’€a:I;~lb.y of the injuries
suffered due at 8.45 pm. and the
injures were found injuries.
to interested witnesses and all the
turned hostile and not supported the
‘ 0’ prosecutlion case-_. ..5′”l’here are material contradictions as to the
of incidlehtv and also place of the incident, there by Ex.Dl
‘: “a.ncif_’ D2 were marked.
‘fl. l.HIr1 the incident of 20.05.2002 PW} was not there at
spot of the incident. On 23.5.2002 PW.2 and PW.3 were
‘R
,2
not at the spot. But the evidence of PW2 and 3 discloses that
they have deposed as if they were at the spot of the incident.
There is no evidence to show that accused No.2 abused_iPW2
and PW3 near the public tap. The evidence is _
show the alleged assault by A1.
12. In the absence of proper materi;Lls.. :on’i”eeof{i_,:
it cannot be said that the trial has
in passing the impugned judgment.._and_ oijderhoi’ aocqtiiftted. As
an appellate court dealingllwiith7.Q1ffi¢,_1-ulltfiff acquittal, scope is
limited for interfere_n’c.e unllessil; judgment is
found to he trial court has assigned
proper reasonsfor impugned judgment.
, A Invt<li1ellVresult ap'peaifails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/'4
Judge