Karnataka High Court
Madegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 5 January, 2024
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:678
CRL.A No. 1350 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 705 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1350 OF 2012
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 705 OF 2012
IN CRL.A.No.1350/2012:
BETWEEN:
STATE BY HOLENARSIPURA
RURAL POLICE.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYANA
AND:
MURTHY RAJASHRI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF MADEGOWDA
KARNATAKA S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
DODDAHALLI, HALLIMYSORE HOBLI
H.N.PURA TALUK.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI ROHITH S V, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.377 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
MODIFY THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 01.06.2012 PASSED
BY THE ADDITIONAL S.J., HASSAN IN S.C.No.12/2009 AND
IMPOSE APPROPRIATE AND ADEQUATE SENTENCE AGAINST
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(x)
OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO S.I. FOR
1 YEAR AND PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:678
CRL.A No. 1350 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 705 of 2012
FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(x) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989.
IN CRL.A.No.705/2012:
BETWEEN:
MADEGOWDA
S/O JAVAREGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
DODDAHALLI
HALLIMYSORE HOBLI
H.N.PURA TALUK.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI ROHITH S V, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI M SHARASS CHANDRA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HOLENARSIPURA RURAL P.S.
(REP. BY S.P.P.)
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. N ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDR SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
CONVICTION DATED 01.06.2012 AND SENTENCE DATED
01.06.2012 AND SENTENCE DATED 1.06.2012 IN
S.C.No.12/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE, HASSAN CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427 OF IPC AND 3(1)(x) OF SCHEDULED
CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS
SENTENCED TO PAY A FINE OF Rs.1,000/- IN DEFAULT TO
UNDERGO S.I. FOR ONE MONTH, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427
OF IPC AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:678
CRL.A No. 1350 of 2012
C/W CRL.A No. 705 of 2012
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. Criminal Appeal No.705/2012 is filed by the accused
praying to set-aside the judgment and sentence dated
01.06.2012 passed in special Case No.12/2009 by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Hassan.
2. The appellant - accused has been convicted for the
offences punishable under Section 427 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and
Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for
short hereinafter referred to as "the SC/ST Act"). The
appellant - accused has been sentenced to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
one month for the offence under Section 427 of IPC and
simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of
Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
three months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act.
NC: 2024:KHC:678
3. The State has also filed Criminal Appeal
No.1350/2012 challenging the award of sentence for the
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, stating
that it is inadequate and prayed for enhancement of
sentence.
4. Case of the prosecution is that; on 15.01.2009 at
about 12.00 Noon, when PW1 was cutting the neem tree,
the appellant - accused obstructed him stating that the
said tree belongs to him and picked up quarrel and abused
him touching his caste, caused damage to the Board
containing Dr.B.R.Ambedkar picture, with stone and also
threatened him with dire consequence of life. Charge sheet
came to be filed against the appellant - accused for the
offences under Sections 427, 506 of IPC and Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Charge has been framed for the
said offences.
5. In order to prove the said charges, the prosecution
has examined eight witnesses as PWs.1 to 8 and got
marked Exs.P1 to P8. The statement of the appellant -
NC: 2024:KHC:678
accused came to be recorded as required under Section
313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing the arguments on both sides
and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court
acquitted the appellant - accused for the offence under
Section 506 of IPC and convicted him for the offences
under Section 427 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
Act. The said judgment of conviction and order of sentence
has been challenged by the appellant - accused. The
State has also challenged awarding of inadequate
sentence for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act.
6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant - accused
and learned High Court Government Pleader for the
respondent - State.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant - accused would
contend that PW1 is the complainant and PWs.2 to 4 are
the relatives of the complainant. He further contends that
there are material contradictions in the evidence of PW1
and PWs.2 to 4 and 7. PW1 himself admitted that at the
NC: 2024:KHC:678
time of the incident, he, the accused and mother of the
accused were present, which itself falsifies the evidence of
PWs.2 to 4 and 7 being present at the time of the incident
at the spot. There was a dispute with regard to the said
neem tree situated on the boundary in between the
property of the accused and PW1 which led to filing of
false complaint against the appellant - accused. He
contends that the evidence on record reveal that even the
name board is also installed in the property of the
accused. He contends that the stone alleged to have been
used to damage the said name board has not been seized.
He contends that as the witnesses namely PWs.2 to 4 and
7 are the relatives and friends of the complainant - PW1,
the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not
attracted. On that point, he placed reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh
Verma Vs. State of Uttarkhand and Another reported
in AIR 2020 SC 5584 and in the case of Ramesh
Chandra Vaishya Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 532. With this
NC: 2024:KHC:678
he prayed to allow the appeal and acquit the appellant -
accused.
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader
for the State would contend that PW1, the complainant
and PWs.2 to 4 and 7 are the eye witnesses to the incident
and their evidence is trust-worthy and it establishes the
offences alleged against the appellant - accused. The
appellant - accused abused PW1 touching his caste in the
presence of PWs.2 to 4 and 7 and committed the offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant -
accused has damaged the name board containing the
picture of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and caused loss and the same
has been established by the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 7
and the spot mahazar - Ex.P2 and evidence of PW5 -
pancha to spot mahazar Ex.P2. She contends that looking
into the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence
awarded for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST Act is inadequate and prayed for enhancement of
sentence.
NC: 2024:KHC:678
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the
Court has perused the impugned judgment and the Trial
Court records.
10. Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel
for the parties and on perusal of record, the following
points would arise for my consideration;
(i) Whether the Trial Court has erred in
convicting the appellant - accused for the
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
Act?
(ii) Whether the Trial court erred in convicting the
appellant - accused for the offence under
Section 427 of IPC?
(iii) Whether the sentence passed by the Trial
Court for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of
the Act is inadequate?
11. Point No.(i):- Ex.P1 is the complaint filed by PW1.
In Ex.P1, it is stated that the neem tree belongs to PW1 -
complainant and he was cutting the same at the time of
NC: 2024:KHC:678
the incident. PW1 in his evidence has stated that the said
neem tree is situated in between the property of the
accused and himself and there is a dispute regarding the
same.
12. In the complaint - Ex.P1, it is stated as "£À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£É
¤£ÀߪÀ£ï ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ£Àß PÁåAiÀÄ PÀwÛj¹ ©qÀÄvÉÛÃ£É PÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁrAiÉÄà wÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ." In
the evidence, PW1 has deposed as "ºÉƯÉAiÀÄgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄUÀÆ £ÀªÀÄUÀÆ
¸ÀA§AzsÀ«®è EvÁå¢AiÀiÁV §AiÀÄÝ£ÀÄ." PW2 who is one of the eye
witness has deposed as "F ¨Éë£À ªÀÄgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ KvÀPÉÌ PÀrzÉ
ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ £À£ÀߪÀÄUÀ£Éà CAzÀ£ÀÄ." PW3 another eye witness has
deposed as "DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ ¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß GzÉÝò¹ ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ £À£ÀߪÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ
ªÀÄgÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÉÃgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ £Á£Éà PÀrzÀÄPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É CAvÀ §AiÀÄÄåwÛzÀÝ£ÀÄ."
PW4 another eye witness has deposed as "DgÉÆæAiÀÄÄ
¦üAiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß GzÉÝò¹ ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ EvÁå¢ §¬ÄÝgÀÄvÁÛ£É."
PW7 another eye witness has deposed as "DgÉÆæ ªÀÄgÀ £À£Àß
d«Ää£À°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ KPÉ PÀrAiÀÄÄwÛ¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ ZÁ¸Á-1 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É UÀ¯ÁmÉ
ªÀiÁr PÉlÖ ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ §¬ÄÝgÀÄvÁÛgÉ."
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:678
13. PW1 has not stated as to what are the abusive words
alleged to have been used by the accused to abuse him.
The evidence of PW1 is not inconsonance with the
averments of the complaint - Ex.P1. Even the evidence of
PWs.2 to 4 does not corroborate with the evidence of PW1.
PW7 in his evidence has not stated as to with what
abusive words the appellant - accused has abused the
complainant. PW7 has not deposed that the accused
abused PW1 touching his caste. But, only he has stated
that he has abused by using filthy words, but has not
stated what are those filthy words.
14. Considering the above aspects, the contradictions in
the complaint - Ex.P1 and the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and
7, the evidence of PW1 does not establish that the
appellant - accused abused him touching his caste and
insulted him. Without considering all these aspects, the
learned Special Judge has erred in holding that the
appellant - accused has committed the offence under
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:678
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Accordingly point No.(i)
is answered.
15. Point No.(ii):- In the complaint - Ex.P1, it is
mentioned that the accused by stating that the board
containing the picture of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar is situated in
his land, damaged the same with the stone. PW1 in his
evidence has stated that the accused damaged the board
containing the picture of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. PWs.2 to 4
have also deposed that the accused damaged the board
containing the picture of Dr.B.R.Ambedar with stone. Even
PW7 has deposed that the appellant - accused damaged
the board containing the picture of Dr.B.R.Ambedar with
stone. Ex.P2 is the spot mahazar and PW5 is one of the
pancha to the said spot mahazar. In Ex.P2, there is a
mention that, at the time of preparing the spot mahazar, it
was found that there are damages to the board containing
the picture of Dr.B.R.Ambedar and a sum of Rs.100/- to
Rs.200/- is required to repair the board. PW5 has
deposed regarding drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P2 and
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:678
finding of board containing the picture of Dr.B.R.Ambedar
in a damaged condition.
16. Considering the above aspects, the Trial Court has
rightly held that the appellant - accused has damaged the
board containing the picture of Dr.B.R.Ambedar and
committed the offence under Section 427 of IPC. Point
No.(ii) is answered accordingly.
17. Point No.(iii):- It is already held in point No.(i) that
the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant -
accused has committed the offence under Section 3(1)(x)
of the SC/ST Act. In view of the same, there is no
question of any enhancement of sentence for the offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, as sought by the
State. Hence point No.(iii) is answered accordingly.
18. In view of the above, the following;
ORDER
Crl.A.No.705/2012 is allowed in part.
Crl.A.No.1350/2012 is dismissed. The conviction of the
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:678
appellant - accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x)
of the SC/ST Act is set-aside. The conviction of the
appellant - accused for the offence under Section 427 of
IPC and the sentence thereon is affirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
GH
