Basappa S/O Bheemappa Dandin vs Raju S/O Devappa Teradal
2022 Latest Caselaw 4190 Kant

                            1




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                         BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

                   Crl.A.No.100253/2015


BETWEEN

BASAPPA S/O BHEEMAPPA DANDIN
AGE:70 YEARS, OCC:EX-SERVICEMAN,
R/O:682, KALMESHWAR NAGAR,
KANGRALI B.K, TQ/DIST:BELAGAVI
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R
SHRI JANARDHAN BASAPPA DANDIN,
AGE:MAJOR, OCC:PRIVATE WORK,
R/O:682, KALMESHWAR NAGAR,
KANGRALI B.K., TQ/DIST:BELAGAVI.
                                           ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI H. M. DHARIGOND, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    RAJU S/O DEVAPPA TERADAL
      AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE WORK,
      R/O: KALMESHWAR NAGAR, KANGRALI
      TQ:DIST:BELAGAVI.

2.    SMT. SAVITHA W/O RAJU TERADAL
      AGE:MAJOR, OCC:PRIVATE WORK,
      R/O:KALMESHWAR NAGAR, KANGRALI,
      TQ:DIST:BELAGAVI.
                                   2




3.     SANJU S/O DEVAPPA TERADAL
       AGE:33 YEARS, OCC:PRIVATE WORK,
       R/O:KALMESHWAR NAGAR, KANGRALI,
       TQ:DIST:BELAGAVI.

4.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       APMC POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI,
       REPT. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M. C. HUKKERI, AMICUS CURIE FOR R1 TO R3,
    SRI RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR R4)

       THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.378 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING     THAT     THE    JUDGMENT     OF    ACQUITTAL   PASSED
AGAINST THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 IN SPL.C.NO.20/2013
ON 19.9.2015 BY THE III ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
SPECIAL COURT FOR THE PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM
SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, COURT FOR PREVENTION ATROCITIES
ON SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES, BELGAVI
ACQUITTING THEM OF THE O/U/S.323,427,504,506 R/W 34 IPC
&    SEC.3(I)(X)   OF    THE   PREVENTION     OF    ATROCITIES   ON
SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES ACT 1989 BE SET
ASIDE     AND      THE     RESPONDENTS    BE       CONVICTED     AND
SENTENCED OF THE SAID OFFENCES.


       THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                3




                          JUDGMENT

The charge sheet was filed against the respondent alleging

that on 09.11.2012 at about 7.30 a.m. the accused with

common intention removed the compound wall, thus causing

loss to the extent of Rs.5,000/- to the informant CW3 and

thereafter when the informant CW3 questioned the accused as to

why he removed the compound wall in front of the house, the

respondent assaulted CW3 and abused him with filthy language

by referring to his name and gave life threat fully knowing that

the informant belongs to the Scheduled Caste. The prosecution

to prove its case, examined 10 witnesses as PW1 to PW10 and

marked document as Ex. P1 to P7. The accused did not choose

to lead any defence evidence but however marked document as

Ex.D1 and D3. The trial Court after recording the statement of

the accused and examining evidence on record, acquitted the

respondent herein for the offences punishable under Section

323, 427, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989. Taking exception to the same, the son of the

deceased informant-CW3 has filed this appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that

though the prosecution has proved that the accused has

committed offences charged against him however did not

consider the evidence of PW 5 and 6 who are the eye-witnesses

on the ground that they belong to the same caste as that of the

informant. Hence the reason assigned by the trial Court in

acquitting the accused for the offences alleged against them not

sustainable in law. He submits that if the evidence on record is

read in its entirety would establish that the accused the

committed offences alleged against them. Hence, he submits

that impugned judgement passed by the trial Court require to

the set aside and accused be convicted for committing the

offences alleged against them.

3. Sri M. C. Hukkeri learned amicus curie appearing for

the accused would submit that the prosecution having failed to

establish that the accused has committed offences alleged

against him by examining the independent witnesses, the trial

Court has rightly passed the impugned judgement acquitting the

accused for the offences alleged against him.

4. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for the state would submit that though the state has not

challenged impugned judgement however the prosecution has

proved that the accused has committed offences alleged against

the accused.

5. I have considered the submission made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

6. PW3 is the informant and the PW 4 and 8 are the son

in law and daughter of the PW3 informant. PW1 and 2 are panch

witnesses, PW5 and 6 are the independent witnesses, however,

they belong to the same caste as that of the informant PW3.

PW.7, 9 and 10 are the investigation Officer and other police

personnel.

7. PW4 and 8 who are the son-in-law and daughter of

the PW6 have supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 and 2

who are the punch witnesses have supported the case of the

prosecution. PW 5 and 6 who are independent witnesses have

supported case of the prosecution and PW 7, 9 and 10 who are

police personnel's have supported the case of the prosecution by

stating that they arrested accused and thereafter completed the

investigation.

8. Though PW1 and 2 who are the witnesses to the

panchnama drawn on the spot have supported the case of the

prosecution, however, in the cross examination they have

admitted that they do not know the contents of the panchnama

and they have further admitted that they have not seen the

accused removing the compound wall and also not seen the

accused and the PW3 quarrelling. They have further admitted

that the police stopped them and have taken signatures on the

panchnama. The trial Court taking into account the evidence of

panchnama witnesses i.e., PW 1 and 2 has held that the

prosecution has failed to prove the alleged incident.

9. PW3 the informant has supported the case of the

prosecution, but however, has not offered any plausible

explanation for the delay in lodging the complaint. Though PW5

and 6 are independent eye-witnesses, however their evidence

does not inspire confidence since they belong to same caste as

that of the PW3.

10. PW5 further admitted that he is not the resident of

the same locality. Hence, his evidence do not inspire confidence

and appear to be trustworthy. PW 5 and 6 have further admitted

that the compound wall has not been demolished. The

prosecution having failed to prove the alleged incident i.e.,

demolishing of the compound wall of the PW3 by adducing the

evidence more particularly evince of independent eye-witnesses,

the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record in a

proper perspective has passed the impugned judgement.

11. After re-appreciating the evidence on record, I am of

the considered view that the impugned judgement passed by the

trial Court does not suffer from any illegality and infirmity.

Accordingly I pass the following.

ORDER

i) The appeal stands dismissed.

ii) The assistance rendered by the Amicus

Curiae in disposal of the present appeal is appreciated. The fees of the Amicus Curiae is fixed at Rs.5,000/- and it shall be paid by the State.

iii) In view of disposal of the appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE SSP