Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Suryakanth And Anr on 27 July, 2021
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200097/2017
Between:
The State of Karnataka,
through Nimbarga Police Station,
Represented by
Additional State Public Prosecutor,
Kalaburagi.
... Appellant
(By Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar, HCGP)
And:
1. Suryakanth S/o Basanna Hawane,
Age : 50 years, Occ : Agriculture,
R/o Bhusnoor, Tq. Aland,
Dist : kalaburagi.
2. Kumar @ Anil Kumar
S/o Suryakanth Hawane,
Age : 26 years, Occ : Agriculture,
R/o Bhusnoor, Tq. Aland,
Dist : Kalaburagi.
... Respondents
(By Sri Sangoli Naganna Advocate for
2
Sriyuths Suresh Tengli and Prashant Myakeri,
Advocates)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and
(3) of Criminal Procedure Code praying to grant leave to
appeal against the judgment dated 25.04.2017 passed by
the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi in Spl.Case
(SC.ST) No.84./2015 thereby acquitting the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506 read
with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA)
Act, 1989, to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated
25.04.2017 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge,
Kalaburagi in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.84/2015, thereby
acquitting accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Sections 34 of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (AP) Act, 1989 and to convict
the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.
This appeal coming on for Admission, this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred by the State, aggrieved
by the judgment dated 25.04.2017, passed in Special
Case (SC/ST) No.84/2015, by the Court of II
Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, acquitting the
accused/respondents of the charged offences
punishable under Sections 504, 324 and 506 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and
Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,
'SC/ST (PA) Act').
2. Heard the learned High Court Government
Pleader for appellant/State and learned counsel
Sri Sangoli Naganna, appearing for respondents.
3. It is the case of prosecution that on
20.10.2015, at about 3.00 p.m. when the first
informant- PW.1 - Nijalingappa was grazing his goat in
nala at Bhusanoor, accused No.1-Suryakanth of
Bhusanoor village belonging to Lingayat Caste came
along with his son Kumar - accused No.2 and asked
him to give milk. When the complainant told him that
the goats are carrying and they are not milking, he
abused him by taking the name of his caste as 'ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ
¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄUÀ£É' and asked his son to get a club so as to
teach him a lesson. Thereafter, his son - accused No.2
brought a club and handed over to accused No.1 and
he assaulted PW.1 with the said club and accused
No.2 caught hold of him and abetted accused No.1 not
to leave him. On hearing the hue and cry of his
brother - PW.2 rushed to the spot and pacified the
quarrel.
4. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution got
examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7
and MO.1. The learned Sessions Judge after
appreciating the evidence and materials on record
acquitted the accused/respondents of the charged
offences.
5. PW.1 is the first informant and he is the
victim. PW.2 is the brother of PW.1 who came to the
spot after hearing the hue and cry of PW.1. PW.3 is an
eyewitness to the incident in question as per
prosecution. PWs.4 to 6 are hearsay witnesses. PW.7
is the Doctor who has treated PW.1 and issued
certificate as per Ex.P2. PWs.8 and 9 are the panch
witnesses to the spot mahazar - Ex.P3. PW.10 is the
ASI, who recorded the statement of PW.1 at District
Hospital, Kalaburagi as per Ex.P1. PW.11 is the
Investigating officer who filed charge-sheet. PW.12 is
the PSI who has registered the case and transmitted
the first information report to the jurisdictional Court
and thereafter handed over the investigation to
PW.11.
6. The material witnesses are PWs.1 to 3.
According to prosecution, the incident has taken place
on 20.10.2015 at about 3.00 p.m. Complaint has been
lodged on 30.10.2015 at 6.00 p.m. PW.12 has
deposed that he received the MLC intimation from the
District Hospital, Kalaburagi regarding admission of
PW.1 in the hospital. He sent PW.10 to the hospital to
record the statement of the injured. Thereafter, PW.10
visited the hospital and recorded the statement of
PW.1 as per Ex.P1, on the basis of which PW.12
registered a case in Crime No.126/2015 and issued
the first information report- Ex.P6 to the jurisdictional
Court.
7. In the complaint-Ex.P1, PW.1 has stated
that after the incident he returned to his house and
informed his parents and took treatment at home.
Since the pain did not subside, on 29.10.2015 he got
admitted to Government Hospital, Kalaburagi for
treatment.
8. MO.1 is the club alleged to have been used
by accused No.1 to assault PW.1. According to
prosecution, after registration of the case i.e., on
31.10.2015 the said club -MO.1 was seized from the
spot at the time of conducting spot mahazar, which is
after 10 days from the date of offence.
9. According to the prosecution, accused No.1
abused PW.1 in filthy language taking the name of his
caste and PW.2 immediately rushed to the spot
hearing the hue and cry of PW.1 and saw accused
No.1 assaulting PW.1 with a wooden club. PW.2 has
not stated about accused No.1 abusing PW.1 in filthy
words taking the name of his caste. According to PW.3
when he reached the spot PW.2 was already present
at the spot. However, he has stated that both the
accused were abusing PW.1 in filthy words taking the
name of his caste. When PW.2 was already present at
the spot when PW.3 came to the spot, certainly if any
abusive words have been used by the accused persons
then PW.2 would have heard the same. But, he has
not deposed before the Court that he has seen the
accused abusing PW.1 insulting or taking the caste
name.
10. It is the contention of learned High Court
Government Pleader that the Trial Court has come to
an erroneous conclusion and acquitted the accused
persons on the ground that PWs.1 to 3 belonged to
same caste. He contends that the said reasoning is
not justified and therefore the judgment of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court is unsustainable.
11. There are inconsistencies in the evidence of
PW1 to PW.3. Hence, a reasonable doubt arises as to
the offence alleged to have committed by the accused
persons.
12. As per prosecution, PW.1 was assaulted by
accused No.1 with wooden club - MO.1 on his back.
PW.1 has stated that after the incident he was taken
to his house by his brother and he took treatment at
home. Even after ten days, since the pain did not
subside, he went to the hospital.
13. PW.7 who has treated PW.1, has stated
that on examination, no injuries were seen. PW.1
went to the hospital on 29.10.2015 with a history of
blunt trauma over back but on examination no injuries
were seen over the back region, as per PW.7 and the
wound certificate at Ex.P.2.
14. PW.7 has deposed that the injured did not
inform as to when he was assaulted. He has stated
that, since PW.1 requested him to admit as an
inpatient, he was admitted in the hospital. PWs.4 to 6
are hearsay witnesses and therefore their evidence is
not helpful to the case of prosecution. Evidence of
PWs.1 to 3 are not reliable in view of the
inconsistencies and the inordinate delay in lodging the
complaint. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire
evidence and material on record has acquitted the
accused/ respondents after giving reasons. The
reasons assigned by the Trial Court cannot be said to
be either perverse or illegal. Hence, the following
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
The judgment dated 25.04.2017 passed in
Special Case (SC/ST) No.84/2015 by the Court of II
Additional Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi is hereby
confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
sn
