State By Chitradurga Police vs K S Manjunath @ Manjappa
2023 Latest Caselaw 427 Kant

                           1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1565 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

STATE BY CHITRADURGA POLICE,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.                         ...   APPELLANT

[BY SRI. V.S. VINAYAKA, HCGP]

AND:

1.     K.S. MANJUNATH @ MANJAPPA,
       S/O. CHENNAPPA,
       AGRICULTURIST,
       AGE 46 YEARS,
       R/O. MADANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE,
       CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577501.

2.     ALIVUR REHAMAN,
       S/O. ANWAR BASHA,
       AGE 30 YEARS,
       TAXI DRIVER,
       OPP. TO DURGAMMA TEMPLE,
       J.J. HATTI , 1ST CROSS,
       NEAR DADA BUSS HOUSE,
       CHITRADURGA TOWN-577501.      ...   RESPONDENTS

[BY SRI. B.G.VIJAYA KUMARASWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
    SRI. B.PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR R2]

                         ***
                              2




     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) OF
CR.P.C BY THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 31.05.2017 IN SPL.C.(SC/ST) NO.7/2016
PASSED BY THE SPECIAL II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, CHITRADURGA, THEREBY ACQUITTING
THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENTS HEREIN FOR THE OFFENCE
P/U/S 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(x) OF
THE SC/ST (POA) ACT, SET ASIDE THE SAID JUDGMENT, AND
CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR
THE SAID OFFENCES.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                        JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the State against the

Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Sessions

Court, in Spl.C. [SC/ST] No.7/2016, dated 31.05.2017,

acquitting the accused/respondents of the offence

punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and

Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter

referred to as 'SC and ST [POA] Act' for short].

2. There is a delay of 16 days in preferring the

appeal and seeking condonation of the same, the State has

filed I.A. No.1/2017.

3. Heard the learned High Court Government

Pleader for appellant/State and the learned counsel

appearing for respondents/accused and perused the

material on record.

4. It is the case of prosecution that on 07.01.2016

at about 2.00 p.m., in front of the staircase of one

Samruddi Jeevan Multi State Purpose Co-operative Society

[hereinafter referred to as 'Society' for short], situated on

Tippu Road in Chitradurga, the accused persons picked up

quarrel with the first informant/P.W.1 and abused him in

filthy language referring to his caste as 'K£ÉÆà M¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀ

¸ÀƼÉêÀÄUÀ£'É and assaulted him with hands and kicked him etc

and also threatened him with dire consequence and

thereby committed the above mentioned offenses.

5. It is alleged that on 07.01.2016 at 11.30 a.m.,

accused No.1 visited the Society and insisted C.W.6

[P.W.5] to handover the money in respect of an unmatured

bond and when P.W.2 i.e., agent in the Society told him

that the amount cannot be given since the bond is not

matured, accused No.1 went away saying that he will come

back and teach him a lesson and then at about 2.00 p.m.

returned to the Society along with accused No.2 and

abused P.W.1 in filthy language insulting his caste and

assaulted him etc.

6. The first informant is examined as P.W.1.

P.Ws.3 to 5 are other material witnesses examined by the

prosecution. The trial Court has found material

discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses and found

their evidence insufficient to convict the

accused/respondents for the charged offences. The trial

Court has observed that accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are

interested witnesses and there are contradictions in their

evidence and therefore doubted the prosecution case as

put-forth by it and acquitted the accused/respondents

holding that the prosecution has failed to establish their

guilt.

7. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 would

disclose that initially at about 11.30 a.m., accused No.1

came to the Society and demanded C.W.6 [P.W.5] working

as a Manager of the Society to give the bond amount and

when P.W.2 intervened, accused No.1 went away saying

that he will come after one hour and thereafter at about

2.30 p.m., during lunch hour, when P.W.1 was getting

down from the staircase, accused No.1 came and abused

him as 'K£ÉÆà M¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀ ¸ÀƼÉêÀÄUÀ£'É and held his collar and

assaulted on his head with a wooden stick which was lying

by the side. He has deposed that 5 more persons, who

were accompanying accused No.1 also assaulted him and

then dragged him inside an omni vehicle and again

assaulted in the said vehicle, on account of which he

suffered injuries to his lip and right side of the head. He

has further stated that they took him to the Police Station

in the said vehicle and thereafter went away dropping him

in front of the Police Station. He has stated that accused

No.2 was driving the omni vehicle.

8. P.W.1 has not stated that even accused No.2

has assaulted or abused him etc. According to him, there

were 5 more persons who had accompanied accused No.1

when he returned at about 2.30 p.m. and assaulted him.

However, none of them were sent for trial. The allegations

made against accused No.2 is that he was driving the omni

vehicle and there are no specific allegation against accused

No.2 that he has assaulted P.W.1 etc. In the cross-

examination, P.W.1 has stated that there were about 200-

250 persons who had gathered when the incident took

place, but none of them are examined by the prosecution.

9. P.W.3 is one of the eyewitness. According to

him, after hearing the commotion, when he came down

from the office situated at first floor, he saw 4-5 persons

dragging P.W.1. He has stated that they assaulted P.W.1

and took him in the omni vehicle. He has not stated that

accused No.1 has either abused P.W.1 referring to his caste

or he assaulted him with a stick etc. It is not forthcoming

as to who were those 4-5 persons who also assaulted

P.W.1. Though P.W.4 has stated that accused No.1 abused

and dragged P.W.1 and assaulted him, he has not

specifically stated that P.W.1 was assaulted with a stick by

accused No.1. He has also not mentioned about the

presence of other accused persons.

10. P.W.5 is the Manager of the Society. He is

examined as an eyewitness to the incident. He has only

stated that accused No.1 abused P.W.1, but he has not

stated that he abused him referring to his caste. According

to him, he heard some 'galata' and when he came near the

spot P.W.1 was already injured. He has not specifically

stated as to who abused P.W.1 insulting his caste etc. In

the cross-examination, he has stated that there were about

200-250 persons gathered near their office to demand

money and when the incident took place, there was a

crowd and he cannot specifically say as to who assaulted

him.

11. As per P.W.1, he was taken to the Police Station

on 06.01.2016 in the afternoon itself. He took treatment

for the injuries sustained on 07.01.2016 at the District

Hospital, Chitradurga. As per wound certificate-Ex.P19 he

sustained certain simple injuries.

12. As per P.W.10-Head Constable, on 07.01.2016

at about 4.00 p.m., he went to the hospital on receiving a

memo and since the doctor informed that P.W.1 is not in a

position to give statement, he received the endorsement as

per Ex.P20 and then on 09.01.2016 at about 2.00 p.m.

visited the hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1.

13. On appreciation of the evidence on record, this

Court finds that, there are contradictions in the evidence of

the prosecution witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 3 to 5. Though it is

specifically stated that there were about 200-250 persons

gathered in front of the office, the independent witnesses

are not examined. Further as per P.W.1 i.e., the injured

himself, he was assaulted by 4-5 persons, but the said

persons were not arraigned as accused. There is no

specific overt-act attributed against accused No.2. The

only allegation against him is that he was driving the omni

vehicle. Hence, the trial Court has proceeded to acquit the

respondents/accused of the charged offences. Having re-

appreciated the evidence and material on record, this Court

is of the view that the impugned Judgment does not suffer

from any illegality. Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

Appeal is dismissed.

Consequently, I.A. No.1/2017 is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Ksm*