Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Kishore on 18 December, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 18 th day of December, 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No. 278/2017
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Kamakshipalya Police Station,
BENGALURU.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: Kishore,
S/o. K.M.Machaiah,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at: No.575, 2nd Main,
Meenakshinagar,
Kamakshipalya,
Bengaluru.
Permanent address: Birnani village,
Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District.
(By Sri.B.S.S., Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence: 24-10-2016
2. Date of report of occurrence : 27-10-2016
3. Date of commencement of : 02-03-2018
recording of evidence
2 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
4. Date of closing of evidence : 19-08-2019
5. Name of the Complainant : B. Ningaiah
6. Offences Complained of : Sec. 504, 506 of IPC and
u/s. 3(1)(c)(r)(s) of
S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is Acquitted.
J UD GM E N T
A Charge Sheet is submitted the Assistant Commissioner
of Police Vijayanagara Sub-Division against the accused for
the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC and
u/s. 3(1)(c)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Based upon the first information lodged by C.W.1 B.
Ningaiah, Kamakshipalya, Police registered the first
information report bearing Crime No.469/2016. After
completion of investigation, charge sheet is directly submitted
before the designated Special Court II Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Court and Special Court, Bengaluru. After
establishing this Exclusive Special Court, this case transferred
to this court as per Notification ADM I (A) 599/17 dated
29.7.2017.
3 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
3. The case of the prosecution is as under:
C.W.1 is the complainant. CW.2 is the wife of CW.1.
CW.1 and CW.2 are belongs to Adi Karnataka comes under
Scheduled Caste. Accused is the neighbour of CW.1 and 2.
The house of CW.1 and CW.2 and accused are situated at
Meenakshi Nagar 2nd Main, Bengaluru. That on 24.10.2016
between 10.30 to 12 mid night the accused abused the CW.1
and CW.2 in the name of caste and by showing the iron
Machu criminally intimidated CW.1 and CW.2 giving life threat
to them. The accused also abused CW.1 and 2 in filthy
language. In the month of September 2016 accused by
breaking eggs in front of the house of the CW.1 and CW.2
created nuisance. Based upon the first information lodged by
CW.1 on 27.10.2016 at 6.30 PM Kamakshipalya police
registered the case in Crime No.469/2016 and dispatched FIR
to the court. The I.O., took up the investigation and visited to
the place of incident and conducted panchanama. The I.O.,
recorded the statement of the witnesses. The I.O., arrested
the accused and seized Machu. The I.O., after collecting all
the material on completion of investigation has filed the charge
sheet against the accused.
4 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
4. The accused produced before the court on 20.1.2017
and remanded to J.C. The accused released on bail on
21.1.2017. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and
thereby the provisions u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. is duly complied
with.
5. After hearing on both sides on 21.01.2017 charge
came to be framed for the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(c) 3(1)
(r) 3(1)(s) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act and under Sections 504, 506 of
IPC for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has
examined four out of 11 witnesses cited in the charge sheet as
P.W.1 to PW.4 and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are marked.
7. On 6.11.2019 statement of the accused as required
u/s 313 of Cr.P.C is recorded by putting all the incriminating
circumstances available in the prosecution evidence to him.
The accused has denied all such circumstances and did not
lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
5 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
8. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Special
Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the accused. I
have also perused the entire case papers.
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that
PW.1 is the informant and victim and PW.2 is the eye witness
and victim have spoken in detail about this incident. PW.3 is
the PSI who registered the case. PW.4 is the ASI who
apprehended the accused. She submitted that the oral
evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 cannot be brushed aside as
interested witness. From the evidence of PW.1 to PW.4 since
the prosecution has established charges framed against the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is liable to
be convicted for the said charges.
10. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that
PW.1 and PW.2 who are the neighbours of the accused had
enimity with the accused as the accused refused to sell the
house to PW.1 and 2. He argued that the area in which
accused and PW.1 and 2 were residing in the residential area
and none other witnesses examined in this case and not cited
6 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
as a witness in the charge sheet. He argued that according to
the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident was occurred
on 24.10.2016 but the complaint lodged on 26.10.2016.
There is no explanation given for the reason for delay in
lodging the complaint. He argued that PW.1 and mother of the
accused who were in good terms at that time PW.1 demanded
to sell the house. But accused and his mother refused to sell
the house. He argued that enraged by this, PW.1 has filed
false complaint against the accused. He submitted that there
is no corroboration in the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2.
Since the prosecution has failed to establish the charges
framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The
accused is liable to be acquitted from the said charges.
11. Upon hearing, the following points arise for my
consideration:-
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused on
24.10.2016 between 10.30 PM and 12 AM
in front of house No.25 situated at
Meenakshi Nagara 2nd Main, the accused
7 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
picked up quarrel with CW.1 and CW.2
and abused them in the name of caste and
insulted and humiliated within public view
and thereby the accused has committed
the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(r) of S.C. &
S.T. (P.A.) Act?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place the accused
committed the offence punishable u/s 3(1)
(s) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the above
said date, time and place the accused
with intent to assault CW.2 by breaking
egg in front of the house of CW.1 the
accused committed the offence
punishable u/s 3(1)(c) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.)
Act?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused abused
CW.1 and CW.2 in filthy language and
insulted them and thereby the accused
persons have committed the offence
punishable u/s 504 of IPC?
8 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, the accused by
holding Machu in his hand criminally
intimidated C.W.1 and C.W.2 by giving
life threat to them and thereby the
accused has committed the offence
punishable u/s 506 of IPC?
6) What order?
12. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:- In the Negative
Point No.2:- In the Negative
Point No.3:- In the Negative
Point No.4:- In the Negative
Point No.5:- In the Negative
Point No.6:- As per final order
for the following
REASONS
13. POINT No.1 to 5:- Since these points are interlinked
with each other and in order to avoid repetition and for the
sake of convenience, they are taken up together for common
discussion.
9 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
14. P.W.1 Ningaiah is the complainant. P.W.2 Smt. Indira
is the wife of PW.1 is the eye witness. P.W.3 Mahadevaiah, PSI
registered the case based on Ex.P1 lodged by PW.1. P.W.4
apprehended the accused and produced before I.O. The chief-
examination version of PW.4 remained unchallenged as the
learned counsel for the accused not cross-examined him.
15. P.W.1 B. Ningaiah has deposed that the accused is
his neighbour. PW.1 has deposed that he belongs to Adi
Karnataka caste comes under Schedule Caste. The accused do
not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. He has
deposed that in 2015 his wife PW.2 had contacted with mother
of the accused. PW.1 has deposed that on 20.4.2016 between
11.30 PM and 12 AM the accused was shouting loudly. Hence,
he got disturbed and wake from the sleep, accused was
shouting in their name. He has deposed that in the year 2015
and February 2016 the accused had broken the glass of their
car. Accused sleeps in the day and at night drinks and shout.
Due to this nuisance he and his wife PW.2 has become sick.
He lodged the complaint to the police and also informed the
police through phone. He has deposed that the accused
10 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
brought Machu and showed and asked him to come down from
first floor. The accused abused him as "ಹಹಲ ಮದಗ ಕಳಗ ಬ."
Accused threatened that he will kill him. The accused went on
the terrace of his house and was shouting. The accused
telephoned to their land line two times. Thereafter they did not
lift the phone. He has deposed that he felt insulted. He lodged
the complaint to the police as per Ex.P.1. The police came to
the spot and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P.2. He has
identified M.O.1 Machu and deposed that the same was used
by the accused to give threat to him. During the course of his
cross examination by the learned counsel for the accused
P.W.1 has deposed that this incident was occurred after 12 AM
night on 25.10.2016. He states that he went to Kamakshipalya
police station on 25.10.2016 at 6 AM and lodged the
complaint. But the police not received his complaint. He has
deposed that his house is situated in the first floor. He has
given ground floor and upper portion of his house for rent. He
states that Kamakshipalya Police Station is situated at the
distance of half kilo meter from his house. He has admitted
the suggestion that there are number of residential houses
near his house and there is a Krishna Choultry at the distance
11 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
of 200 meters from his house. On 15.9.2015 he has lodged the
complaint against the accused but same was closed as NCR.
PW.1 has deposed that between 10.30 PM and 11.30 PM
accused was shouting from inside his house. Thereafter he
came out from the house. He has denied all other suggestions
made to him.
16. P.W.2 Smt. Indira has deposed that P.W.1 is her
husband. She and PW.1 belongs to Adi Karnataka caste comes
under Schedule Caste. The accused belongs to Kodava Caste.
Accused knows about their caste. The accused is her
neighbour. That on 24.10.2016 at about 12 AM (night) the
accused was shouting in front of her house on the road. The
accused who was holding Machu in his hand shouting at them
and abusing them and give life threat to them. The accused
abused her and her husband PW.1 " ಹಹಲಯ ನನನ ಮಕಕಳಳ ಈಚಗ ಬನನ."
PW.2 has deposed that when the accused shouting at them one
Suresh who is residing at rented house pacified the accused.
PW.2 has deposed that the accused has given life threat to her
and her husband PW.1. The accused telephoned to the land
line phone and abused them. She has deposed that
12 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
untolerable torture given by the accused at about 3 months
back they left the house by giving the house on lease and
started to reside in Nagarabhavi rented house. PW.2 has
identified M.O.1 Machu. During the course of her cross
examination PW.2 has deposed that she do not know the
month and year of the incident. She do not remember the date
on which accused was quarrelled with them at 12 mid night.
She has admitted the suggestion that there are number of
houses near her house. She has deposed that the accused
abused her and her husband between 10.30 PM to 3 AM by
standing on the terrace of his house. She has deposed that
when the accused was abusing them nobody came to the spot.
She has deposed that one Mahesh advised the accused not to
shout. She has deposed that the accused telephoned to their
land line phone between 11 PM and 11.30 PM. She has
deposed that she do not know who was given M.O.1 Machu to
the police. She has admitted the suggestion that she seen
M.O.1 Machu first time before the court. She has denied all
other suggestions made to her.
13 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
17. P.W.3 Mahadevaiah has deposed that on 27.10.2016
he registered the case in Crime No. 469/2016 based on Ex.P1
complaint lodged by PW.1 and sent Ex.P3 FIR to the court.
During the course of cross examination of PW.3 he has
admitted the suggestion that they will deputed the beat police
to each area. He has admitted the suggestion that if at all
there was any untoward incident in area the beat police will
inform the same to the police station. PW.3 has admitted the
suggestion that he has not mentioned in Ex.P3 FIR in the
relevant column the reason for delay in lodging the complaint
by the complainant. PW.3 has denied all other suggestions
made to him.
18. P.W.4 Kalinga Muthaiah, ASI has deposed that on
20.01.2017 ACP deputed him to trace out the accused. Hence,
he by contacting the informant apprehend the accused at 12
noon near the Krishna Kalyana Mantapa, Meenakshi Nagara
and produced the accused before the ACP at 12.30 p.m. and
submitted his report as per Ex.P4. The oral evidence of PW.4 is
remained unchallenged as the learned counsel for the accused
not cross-examined him.
14 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
19. Based upon the above evidence, it is to be considered
if the prosecution has established the charges framed against
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
20. Regarding the caste of PW.1 and PW.2 even though
the prosecution has not got marked any documents such as
report of the Tahasildar and caste certificate of PW.1 and PW.2
the unchallenged version of PW.1 and PW.2 who deposed about
their caste stating that they belongs to Adi Karnataka caste
comes under Scheduled Caste is sufficient to hold that PW.1
and PW.2 are belongs to Adi Karnataka caste comes under
Scheduled Caste. PW.1 and PW.2 have deposed that accused
do not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is
not the defence of the accused is that he belongs to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2
is sufficient to hold that PW.1 and PW.2 are belongs to Adi
Karnataka Scheduled Caste and accused do not belongs to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
21. PW.1 and PW.2 have deposed that their house is
situated adjacent to the house of the accused. It is not in
dispute that accused is the neighbour of PW.1 and 2. In this
case, PW.1 and PW.2 have not deposed anything about the
15 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
accused created nuisance by putting the eggs in front of their
house even though in Ex.P1 complaint, it is mentioned that the
accused by putting the eggs in front of their house committed
nuisance but PW.1 and PW.2 have not deposed anything about
that incident. PW.1 has deposed that in the year 2014, 2015
and 2016 the accused has broken the glass of their car. In
Ex.P1 complaint there is no mention regarding the incident of
the year 2014 and 2015. No doubt in Ex.P1 it is mentioned
that in the month of August 2016, the accused broken the
front glass of the car but PW.1 has deposed that in the month
of February the accused broken the glass of their car. PW.2
has not deposed anything about the accused broken the glass
of the car.
22. PW.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that
the accused may not be knowing about his caste. PW.1 has
deposed that the accused brought Machu and showed him and
asked him to come down from the 1st floor. PW.1 has deposed
that the accused abused him between 10.30 PM and 1 AM.
But PW.2 has deposed that the accused started abusing them
mid night at 12 AM on 24.10.2016. During the course of
cross-examination of PW.2 she has deposed that the accused
16 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
was abused them between 10.30 PM to 3 AM by standing on
the terrace of his house. The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2
are not corroborating with each other. From the evidence of
PW.1 and PW.2 it is clear that the ingredients of the offence
u/s 3(1)(r)(s) 3(1)(c) of The SC/ST (POA) Act are not attracted.
There is no cogent and consistent evidence that accused had
any knowledge or knew about PW.1 and PW.2 are belongs to
Scheduled Caste. PW.1 in his examination-in-chief itself has
deposed that the accused may not have knowing about his
caste. The alleged derogatory words used by the accused are
not consistent from the ocular evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. The
time of the alleged incident is also not corroborating in the oral
evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. PW.1 and PW.2 have deposed that
the accused also telephoned them to the land line phone. The
prosecution has not produced any documents to show that in
the intervening night between 20.4.2016 and 20.5.2016 the
accused made phone call to the land line to the house of PW.1
and PW.2. Except PW.1 and PW.2 no other independent
witnesses have been examined in this case. Under such
circumstances it cannot be said that the alleged incident has
taken place in public view as no other person other than PW.1
17 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
and PW.2 unconcerned with the event was present and has
deposed about it. There is no cogent material to indicate that
the accused had abused PW.1 and PW.2 by knowing their caste
with an intention to humiliate them in public view when the
evidence on record is appreciated as whole.
23. PW.3 PSI who registered the case has admitted the
suggestion that he has not mentioned in Ex.P3 FIR, the reason
for delay in lodging the complaint. PW.1 has deposed that he
went to the police station on 25.10.2016 and lodged the
complaint. In this case, the prosecution has not produced any
document to show that the PW.1 has lodged the complaint to
the police on 25.10.2016. PW.3 who received the complaint
Ex.P1 has clearly deposed that the complainant has given this
complaint on 27.10.2016. The alleged incident was occurred
in the intervening night between 24.10.2016 and 25.10.2016.
PW.1 has deposed that the Kamakshipalya Police Station is
situated at the distance of half kilo meter from his house.
There is absolutely no explanation by the prosecution about
such inordinate delay of 3 days in lodging the first information.
The stand of PW.1 stating that he was approached the police
on 25.10.2016 and lodged the complaint is not believable. As
18 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
there is no document to support his version. By considering
the material on record I am of the opinion that there is
inordinate delay of 3 days in lodging the first information
which is not explained and the same is fatal to the case of the
prosecution in the facts and circumstances of this case.
24. The prosecution has not examined any independent
witnesses including the witness signed on Ex.P2 mahazar.
PW.2 has not deposed about the date and time of conducting
Ex.P2 panchanama by the police. The prosecution has also
failed to prove the document Ex.P2 mahazar. In so far as the
alleged offences u/s 504 and 506 is concerned when the entire
evidence is considered there is nothing on record to satisfy the
ingredients of the offences u/s 504, 506 of IPC. The
prosecution has not proved the recovery of M.O.1 Machu.
Despite of giving sufficient opportunity to the prosecution, the
prosecution has not examined CW.3, CW.4, CW.6, CW.7,
CW.11 the Investigating Officer is not examined in this case.
The accused has taken defence that PW.1 and PW.2 had
enimity with him as he refused to sell the house to PW.1 and
PW.2. In this case, except PW.1 and PW.2 no other
independent witnesses have been examined on the side of the
19 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
prosecution. The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 are not
corroborating with each other. The uncorroborated oral
version of PW.1 and PW.2 which is not supported by any
independent witness creates doubt about their version. The
delay in lodging the complaint is also fatal to the case of the
prosecution. On an appreciation of the evidence on record I
am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the
case against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 504, 506 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(c)(r)(s) of The Scheduled
Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond
all reasonable doubt. The prosecution has failed to bring home
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I
answer point No.1 to 5 in the negative.
25. Point No.6:- In view of my findings on point no.1 to
point no.3, I proceed to pass the following
O R DE R
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.,
the Accused Kishore is hereby acquitted of
the offences punishable under Sections 504,
506 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(c)(r)(s) of The
20 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bail bond of the accused and his
surety shall stand cancelled. However the
surety bond executed in compliance of
Section 437A of Cr.P.C. shall be in force till
statutory period.
The unclaimed property M.O.1 shall be
confiscated to the State after completion of
appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, transcript
corrected and inserted some paragraphs directly on the computer,
signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 18 th
day of December, 2019.)
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
A N NE X U R E
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1: B.Ningaiah
P.W.2: Smt.Indira
P.W.3: Mahadevaiah
P.W.4: Kalinga Muttaiah
21 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.3
Ex.P.2 : Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature P.W.1
Ex.P.3 : FIR
Ex.P.3(a) : Computerized Signature of P.W.3
Ex.P.4 : Report
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.4
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
M.O.1: Macchu
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
22 Spl.C.No. 278/2017
Judgment pronounced in the
open court vide separate detailed
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused Kishore is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(c)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety shall stand cancelled. However the surety bond executed in compliance of Section 437A of Cr.P.C. shall be in force till statutory period.
The unclaimed property M.O.1 shall be confiscated to the State after completion of appeal period.
(MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.