Karnataka High Court
Lokappagowda G.N vs State By Belur Ps on 5 April, 2024
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
CRL.A No. 328 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 328 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. LOKAPPAGOWDA G.N,
S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2. YUVARAJU G.N,
S/O NANJUNDEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
BOTH R/O GOVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN - 573 115.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHANKARAPPA S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally 1. STATE BY BELUR PS,
signed by REPRESENTED BY SPP,
LAKSHMI T HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA COMPLEX,
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
High Court BANGALORE - 560 001.
of Karnataka
2. SHRIDHARA,
S/O RUDRAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
GOVINAHALLI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK,
HASSAN - 573 115.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K, HCGP;
R2 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
CRL.A No. 328 of 2024
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT,
2015 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ADDL. DIST.
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN IN CRL.MISC.NO.101/2024
DATED 01.02.2024 AND ENLARGE THE APPELLANTS ON BAIL
IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN CR.NO.0015/2024 OF BELUR
P.S., FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 323, 324, 506, 34 OF IPC AND
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT ON THE FILE OF
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned High Court Government Pleader and perused the
material on record.
2. Respondent No.2/defacto complainant is served
but unrepresented.
3. The order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the
Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan
in Crl.Misc No.101/2024, dismissing the petition filed
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, is assailed in this appeal.
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
4. The appellants are arrayed as accused Nos.1
and 2 in Crime No.15/2024 of Belur Police Station, Hassan
District registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by
one Sridhar S/o Rudraiah, for the offences punishable
under Section 323, 324, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC
and Section 3(1) (r) (s) read with 3(2) (va) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
5. The gist of the complaint averments are that, on
19.01.2024 at about 2.00 pm, in land bearing survey
No.124/1 belonging to the complainant, accused No.1
picked up a quarrel with him and intentionally insulted him
by abusing him referring to his caste and assaulted with a
club on his left leg, left hand and kicked him on his chest.
Accused No.2, who was present also intentionally insulted
him by abusing him taking his caste name and caused life
threat to him.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants has
contended that the entire allegations are false and the
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
complaint has been lodged in view of the land dispute
between the parties. He has contended that appellant No.1
filed a writ petition before this Court, questioning the
survey being conducted in respect of the disputed land by
the Tahashildar without issuance of notice to him and this
Court has disposed of the said writ petition directing the
Tahashildar, Belur Taluk to issue notice to him before
conducting the survey etc. Further contended that to
harass the appellants in view of the civil dispute with
respect to the land bearing survey No.124/1, the
complainant has come up with a false complaint. He would
further contend that the bar under Section 18 or 18-A of
the SC/ST (POA) Act is not applicable to the case on hand
because the incident has not taken place on the ground
that the complainant belong to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe.
7. The learned High Court Government Pleader
has opposed the prayer seeking grant bail to the
appellants, contending that there is a prima-facie case
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
against the appellants and there are eye-witnesses who
speak about the incident. He contended that the
complainant has sustained certain injuries as per the
wound certificates and therefore, contended that the
learned Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the petition
filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C, in view of the bar under
Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
8. The incident is alleged to have taken place on
19.01.2024 at about 2.00 pm in the land bearing survey
No.124/1 situated in Govinahalli village, Kasaba Hobali,
Belur Taluk, Hassan District. It is alleged that when the
complainant was proceeding to the land, accused No.1 all
of a sudden picked a quarrel with him, abused him in filthy
language intentionally insulting him referring to his caste
and assaulted him with a club on his left hand and also
kicked on his chest. Further accused No.2 who was also
present, abused and threatened him with dire
consequences etc. It is stated that one Charan pacified the
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
quarrel and the complainant was shifted to Belur
Government Hospital by his brother for treatment.
9. A perusal of the complaint averments goes to
show that there is a dispute with regard to the land
bearing survey No.124/1. In the complaint itself, it is
stated that the accused picked a quarrel taking objection
for conducting a survey of the land.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants has
made available a copy of the order passed in WP
No.6728/2024 disposed of on 21.03.2024. A reference has
been made in the said order to the notice issued by the
Tahashildar on 09.01.2024 fixing 11.01.2024 as the date
for joint survey. The grievance in the said writ petition was
that at the instance of adjacent land owners, the
Tahashildar was proceeding to conduct the survey in the
absence and without notice to the appellant No.1. The said
writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the
Tahashildar, Belur Taluk not to pass any orders for
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
conducting survey without affording an opportunity to the
writ petitioner i.e., appellant No.1 herein.
11. The learned High Court Government Pleader
has contended that there are two eye-witnesses to the
alleged incident and therefore, there is a prima-facie case.
I have perused the statements of the said witnesses
namely Charan and Ammayamma. Firstly, the name of
Ammayamma was not mentioned in the complaint. In so
far as the statement of Charan is concerned, according to
the complaint, on hearing his shouting, the said witness
came to the spot and pacified the quarrel. It is contended
by the learned counsel for the appellants that he was not
at all present when the incident took place and he cannot
be an eye witness to the alleged incident.
12. The eye-witnesses have not at all stated about
the presence of accused No.2 at the spot or any abusive
words used by him against the complainant as alleged in
the complaint. It appears that a quarrel took place on
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
account of a civil dispute with regard to survey No.124/1
of Govinahalli village, between the parties. The incident
has not taken place on the ground that, the complainant is
a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. As per
the wound certificate, the complainant has sustained
certain abrasions. The said injuries are simple in nature.
13. In the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of HITESH VERMA VS STATE OF
UTTARKAND AND ANOTHER reported in 2020(10) SCC
710, it is held that "all insults or intimidations to a person
will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or
intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe".
14. The present case, it is clear at this stage that
the incident of quarrel and alleged abusive words used,
are not on the ground that the complainant belong to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, by imposing conditions, the relief sought by the
appellant can be granted. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i) Appeal is Allowed.
ii) The order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the
Court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hassan
in Crl.Misc No.101/2024 is set aside.
iii) The appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 is directed
to be released in the event of their arrest in Crime
No.15/2024 of Belur Police Station, subject to the following
conditions:
i. They shall appear before the Investigating
officer within a period of one week from the
date of receipt of a copy of this order and
shall execute a personal bond in sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sureties for the
likesum.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14202
ii. They shall cooperate with the investigation
and shall not tamper with the prosecution
witnesses in any manner.
iii. They shall be available for investigation of
the case, whenever required.
iv. They shall furnish proof of their residential
address and shall inform the I.O/Court
regarding change in the address, if any.
v. They shall appear before the Trial Court on
every date of hearing, without fail.
Sd/-
JUDGE
KBM
CT: BHK
