Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Veerabhadregowda on 2 March, 2020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 2 nd day of March, 2020
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C. NO. 8/2016
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Yalahanka Police Station,
BENGALURU
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: Veerabhadregowda
S/o Venkateshappa,
Aged about 43 years,
R/at No.103, Masijid Road,
Near Shoba Aqait Apartment,
Jakkuru, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. K. Srinivasa Gowda., Advocate)
1.Date of commission of offence: 02-08-2015
2. Date of report of occurrence : 03-08-2015
3. Date of commencement of : 05-04-2018 recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 18-11-2019
5. Name of the Complainant : Sri.Venkatesh 2 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
6. Offences Complained of :Secs. 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is acquitted.
J UD GM E N T The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Yelahanka Sub- Division, Bengaluru City has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Based upon the first information lodged by CW.1/ PW.1, Yelahanka Police have registered the case in Crime No. 256/2015 on 3.8.2015 at 3.30 PM and sent FIR to the court. The Investigation Officer visited to place of incident conducted the mahazar. I.O., recorded the statements of witnesses. I.O., after collecting the report of Tahsildar, regarding the caste of complainant and accused after completion of the investigation has submitted the charge sheet before the 3 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 designated Special Court against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under:
C.W.1/Complainant in his first information statement lodged before the police on 3.8.2015 at 3.30 PM has mentioned that in Kondappa Layout at Maramma Temple (Bande) in Government land bearing Sy. No.14/2 for the last 35 years the informant along with 61 families are residing by constructing the huts. They have been provided with ration card and voter ID cards and though they belongs to Scheduled Caste, the title deeds i.e., Hakku Pathra is not yet to be issued in their favour. It is alleged that on 2.8.2015 at about 4 PM Sunday accused Veerabhadre Gowda along with rowdy elements came to the Kondappa Layout and picked up quarrel with CW.1/complainant and abused him in filthy language and in the name of caste as "ಬಬಬಳ ಮಕಕಳ, ನಮಮ ಮಮ ನ ಕಬರಮನಬ ಕಬಯ ... ." The accused and his followers armed with deadly weapons criminally intimidated by giving life threat to CW.1 and other residents. Based on such complaint as per Ex.P1 the PSI of Yelahanka Police Station registered the case in 4 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 Crime No. 256/2015 and sent FIR to the court. Thereafter Investigation Officer/ACP who conducted further investigation after completion of the investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. The accused is on bail. The charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby the provisions u/s 207 of Cr.P.C., is duly complied with.
5. On 19.12.2017 charges are framed against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During trial, the prosecution has examined 11 out of 13 witnesses cited in the charge sheet as P.W.1 to PW.11 and got marked documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 including sub markings.
7. On 26.12.2019 the 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 5 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 incriminating evidence. Accused did not lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
8. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the accused. The learned counsel for the accused also filed written arguments. I have also perused the entire case papers.
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted PW.1 is the informant who has spoken in detail about the incident. PW.2 is the spot mahazar witness. PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 are eye witnesses are supported the case of the prosecution. PW.7 is the Tahasildar who issued the report regarding the caste of accused and complainant. PW.9 is the I.O., PW.11 is the PSI who registered the case. Though PW.10 eye witness turned hostile the evidence of remaining witnesses is cogent and reliable. Certain minor inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6, PW.8, PW.9, PW.11, which is natural in every case are required to be ignored. She argued that PW.1 to PW.6, PW.8 have clearly deposed about the accused abused PW.1 in the name of caste and in filthy language. From the evidence of PW.1 to PW.9, PW.11 since the prosecution has 6 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 established the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, he is liable to be convicted for the said charges.
10. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the ingredients of alleged offences are not attracted when the evidence on record is considered. PW.1 in his chief- examination itself stated that accused do not know about his caste. He submitted that according to PW.1 the incident was occurred between 12 noon to 12.30 PM which is quite contrary to the case of the prosecution. Remaining witnesses PW.3 to PW.6, PW.8 have not deposed about the date of alleged incident. PW.1 has deposed that the police have conducted mahazar on the date of complaint. PW.2 has deposed that police drawn the mahzar on 2.8.2015 on the date of incident. According to the case of the prosecution alleged incident occurred on 2.8.2015. Complaint was lodged on 3.8.2015 at 3.30 PM, mahazar was conducted on 4.8.2015. He argued that PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6, PW.8 are all improved the version by stating that while accused cleaning the area by using JCB, on questioning the same this incident was occurred. But I.O., 7 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 PW.9 has deposed that there was no signs found in the place about cleaning by using JCB. He argued that the alleged place of incident is also not proved by the prosecution. The delay in lodging the complaint which is not explained by the prosecution is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. He has submitted that accused and one Marappa who were working in same Dalitha Sangarsha Samithi, due to some some differences have separated and accused identified in separate group. For that reason the complainant and other witnesses who are in Marappa's group have filed false complaint against the accused. He submitted that 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. In support of his arguments he has relied upon the following decisions: -
1) 2013 Crl.L.J. 510 in Madanlal Jaiswal vvs. State of Chattisgarh (Chattisgarh High Court).
2) LAWS (CHH) 2011 10 5 in CHHCDILL LAL v/s. State of M.P. (High Court of Chhattisgarh). 8 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
3) 2014 Crl.L.J. 977 Patna High Court in Dodi Mahto v/s The State of Bihar and another.
4) LAWS (MPH) 2012 1 33 High Court of Madya Pradesh in Sunder Lal Chourasi v/s State of M.P.
11. Upon hearing, the following points arise for my determination:-
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused not being the member of Scheduled Caste of Scheduled Tribe insulted PW.1/CW.1 who belongs to Scheduled Caste on 2.8.2015 at
4.00 p.m. at Kondappa Layout near the house of Naganna by naming his caste with an intention to humiliate him within public view and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 2.8.2015 at 4.00 PM at Kondappa Layout accused abused CW.1/PW.1 in filthy language and insulted 9 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 and humiliated him and thereby the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 504 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused criminally intimidated CW.1/PW.1 by giving life threat to him and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 506 of IPC?
4) 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:- As per final order for the following REASONS
13. POINT No.1 to 3:- Since all these points are inter linked with each other, to avoid repetition and for the sake of convenience they are taken together for common discussion. 10 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
14. PW.1/Venkatesh has deposed that he belongs to Korama caste and accused belongs to Gowda community. He is residing at Kondappa Layout. At about 1 year back on Sunday at about 12.00 PM to 12.30 PM., accused came near his house and did galata by bringing JCB. He told the accused not to do galata and then accused said that he will vacate them all from government land and abused him and everybody. Accused abused him in the name of caste as " ನನನಮಮ ನ ಕಬರಮ". He has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 to Yelahanka Police. On the same day the police came to the spot and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P2 and taken the photographs Ex.P3 to Ex.P7. During the course of his cross-examination by the defence, PW.1 has deposed that the distance between his house and police station is 1 ½ K.M. He do not know the JCB Number and name of the driver. He admitted the suggestion that accused and Marappa, Guruswamy, Krishnappa, Anjinappa, Chandrappa were all working in Dalith Sangarsha Samith. He admits the suggestion that now the accused and Marappa are working in two different Association. He states that Ex.p1 was written by Naganna. He has admitted the 11 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 suggestion that when the accused was working in their Association at no point of time accused abused him in the name of caste or in filthy language. He has also admitted the suggestion that accused used to do social work when the accused was working along with them in Dalith Sangarsha Samith. He has admitted the suggestion that he is now recognised with Marappa and accused is recognized with Yelahanka MLA Vishwanath. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
15. PW.2 Naganna has deposed that on 2.8.2015 at 4.00 PM Police visited to Kondappa Layout and conducted the panchanama in his presence as per Ex.P2. In his cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused PW.2 has admitted the suggestion that accused was working as Additional Chief Executive of Dalitha Sangarsha Samithi where H. Marappa was Chief Executive of State. He admitted the suggestion that now accused has formed different Association. He has admitted the suggestion that he and Chandranna, Devaraj, Nagendra, Naganna, Vijay are all workers in the Samithi run by H. Marappa. He has deposed that he do not 12 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 know the boundaries of the place of the incident. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
16. PW.3 Devaraja has deposed that at about 3 years back at about 4 PM to 4.30 PM when he was in his house he herd the quarrel sound and came out from the house and then he found quarrel taking in the place where accused cleaning with JCB. When PW.1 questioned the accused about cleaning with JCB, then accused abused PW.1 by saying whether the land belongs to his father and abused him in filthy language as "Boli magane, Korama nanna magane". During the course of his cross-examination PW.3 he has admitted the suggestion that accused is Social Worker who was fighting for road, water, light and Hakku Patra to the residence along with Marappa and other office bearers of Sangha. He has admitted the suggestion that if he went to fair, local car festival and other places for selling the balloon he will returns after 2 to 3 days later. He do not know the JCB Number and JCB driver's name. He has admitted the suggestion that now accused and Marappa recognized in different groups. He has admitted all other suggestions made to him.
13 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
17. PW.4 Seenappa, has deposed that his house is situated adjacent to the house of PW.1. At about 3 years back at about 4.00 PM accused brought a Buldozer near his house and cleaning the layout. At that time PW.1 told the accused not to clean. Then the accused abused PW.1 in the name of caste as Korama nanna Magane. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused PW.4 he has deposed that the police came to the place of incident Kondappa Layout on the same day of incident. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
18. PW.5 Laxman has deposed that he is residing in Kondappa Layout. At about 3 years back at about 4.00 PM accused brought the Bulldozer and cleaning the Kondappa Layout. At that time PW.1 questioned accused asking him why he is cleaning the layout. Then accused abused PW.1 in the name of caste as "Korama nanna magane, Boli magane, Neenu Kelalu yaru". During the course of cross-examination of PW.5 he has deposed that usually he was doing work of selling Mop, broom from 5 AM to 5 PM. He admitted the suggestion that he, CW.1, CW.2, CW.3, CW.5, CW.6 and accused were all 14 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 working with Marappa in Sangha. He was not seen the Bulldozer at the time of incident. He has not stated before the police that accused was cleaning with Bulldozer. He has admitted the suggestion that CW.1 brought him to court to give evidence. He was not seen how many persons gathered at the place of incident. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
19. PW.6 Nagendra has deposed that he do not know the caste of accused. PW.1 belongs to Korama caste. At about 3 years back at about 4.00 PM accused came to Kondappa layout with Buldozer in order to clean and to put huts for 10 people. At that time PW.1 told the accused not to put up hut. At that time, accused abused PW.1 as "Komma nanna magane". Accused also abused PW.1 and threatened him dire consequences. During the course of his cross-examination by the defence PW.5 has deposed that he do not know the name of JCB driver and do not know the JCB Registration number. He has admitted the suggestion that accused was working along with Marappa in his Sangha. He has deposed that he used to 15 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 return to his house from his regular work at 5 PM to 6 PM. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
20. PW.7 K.N. Narasimha Murthy, Tahsildar has deposed that on 6.8.2015 he received a requisition from ACP. Thereafter he after receiving the report of Revenue Inspector has issued Ex.P9 report stating that complainant is belongs to Korama caste and issued Ex.P11 report stating that accused is belongs to Vokkaliga caste. During the course of his cross- examination by the defence nothing is elicited from his mouth to discard his examination-in-chief version.
21. PW.8 Naganna has deposed that at about 3-4 years back on August 2nd when he returned to Kondappa Layout after completion of his regular work of selling mop and broom at about 3.30 PM to 4.00 PM he found gathering of people. Accused was brought JCB. The altercation takes place between accused and PW.1. Accused abused PW.1 as "Ninnamman Jathinakyaya, Nimman Kyaya, Korama Jathiyavane". Thereafter all of them went to Police Station and lodged the complaint. During the course of his cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused he has 16 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 deposed that as the accused was working in Dalitha Sangarsha Samithi he came to know about the accused. He do not know the JCB number and name of JCB driver and owner. The complaint was written by the police. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
22. PW.9 B.M. Narayanaswamy, ACP has deposed that on 4.8.2015 he took up the case file from CW.12 for further investigation. He has received Ex.P12 DCP Order. On the same day he visited to the place of incident and conducted Ex.P2 mahazar and prepared Ex.P13 sketch and taken Ex.P3 to Ex.P7 photos of the place of incident. He has recorded the statement of CW.2 to CW.9 and further statement of CW.1. He has received Ex.P8 and Ex.P11 report regarding caste of complainant and accused. He was arrested the accused and released him on bail as per orders passed in Anticipatory bail order. He on completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused. During the course of his cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused he has deposed that he did not find any signs in the place of incident regarding cleaning by using JCB. He has admitted the 17 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 suggestion that the witnesses in their statements not stated about use of JCB by accused. He has not seized any JCB or other equipments used to construct hut. He has admitted the suggestion that accused and Marappa were working in same Sangha. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
23. PW.10 Vijay eye witness has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by deposing that he do not know anything about the incident. In his presence accused has not quarrelled with PW.1. He has not given any statement before police. Even though learned Spl.P.P., cross- examined PW.10 in detail nothing is elicited from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
24. Based upon the above evidence, it has to be considered if the prosecution has established the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. There is no much dispute about the caste of PW.1/ complainant and caste of accused. PW.1 has deposed that he belongs to Korama community comes under Scheduled Caste and accused belongs to Gowda community. This version of 18 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 PW.1 is not tested in his cross-examination. PW.3 to PW.6 have deposed that PW.1 is belongs to Scheduled Caste. Their examination-in-chief regarding the caste of PW.1 is not seriously disputed by the accused. PW.8 has deposed that PW.1 is belongs to Korama caste and accused is belongs to Vokkaliga caste. PW.7 is the Tahasildar who is the best witness to say about the caste of PW.1 and accused has issued Ex.P8 report regarding the caste of PW.1 stating that he belongs to Korama caste. PW.7 has issued Ex.P11 report regarding the caste of the accused by stating that accused belongs to Vokkaliga caste. During the course of the cross-examination of PW.7 nothing has been elicited from his mouth to discard his version and the documents Ex.P8 and P11. The oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 and PW.8 which is supported by the oral evidence of PW.7 Tahasildar and the documents Ex.P8 and Ex.P11 is sufficient to hold that PW.1 belongs to Korama caste comes under Scheduled Caste and accused is belongs to Vokkaliga caste which does not comes under Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Thus, it is established that PW.1 is belongs to Scheduled Caste and the accused do not belongs to 19 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere proof of caste of PW.1 and accused is not sufficient to hold that the accused has committed the offences.
26. PW.1 is the complainant and victim in his examination-in-chief has deposed this incident was occurred at about one year back near his house at about 12 PM to 12.30 PM. It is the specific evidence of PW.1, PW.4, PW.6 and PW.8 is that accused brought the JCB and when the accused cleaning by using the JCB at Kondappa Layout at that time PW.1 questioned about the same then the accused abused PW.1 in the name of caste and in filthy language. It is pertinent to note that PW.1 in his examination-in-chief itself has deposed that this incident was occurred at about one year back near his house between 12 PM and 12.30 PM. It is the specific case of the prosecution is that this incident was occurred on 2.8.2015 at 4 PM. But quite contrary to the case of the prosecution, PW.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that this incident was occurred near his house at about one year back between 12 PM and 12.30 PM.
20 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
27. In Ex.P1 complaint, there is no such mention that accused brought JCB in order to cleaning the layout at that time CW.1/PW.1 questioned the accused and then the accused abused PW.1 in filthy language and in the name of caste. In Ex.P1 it is mentioned that on 2.8.2015 at about 4 PM accused along with rowdy elements came to Kondappa Layout and picked up quarrel with CW.1 and abused him in filthy language and in the name of caste as "Boli Makkala, nimmamman, korama kyaya". It is also mentioned in Ex.P1 is that the accused and his followers armed with deadly weapons criminally intimidated CW.1 by giving life threat to him. But during the course of his evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 they have improved the version and contended that the accused brought the JCB and while cleaning by using the JCB when PW.1 questioned about the same at that time accused picked up quarrel with him and abused him in the name of caste. PW.1 to PW.3, PW.6 and PW.8 have not deposed anything about the criminal intimidation by giving life threat by the accused to PW.1. PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6, PW.8 have not deposed anything about the presence or non-presence of 21 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 any other persons or rowdy elements along with accused at the time of alleged incident.
28. PW.9 ACP who has conducted the investigation has conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2 and prepared the sketch as per Ex.P13 by mentioning that this incident was occurred in front of house of one Naganna. Neither in Ex.P2 mahazar nor in Ex.P13 sketch, the house of PW.1 Venkatesh is shown. PW.9 in his cross-examination admitted the suggestion that he did not find any signs of cleaning in the place of incident regarding cleaning of that place by using JCB. The prosecution has produced the document Ex.P3 to P7 photographs taken in front of one hut wherein there is no any signs to show that the said place was cleaned with JCB. PW.9 the Investigation Officer himself admitted the suggestion that there was no signs in the place of drawing mahazar regarding cleaning by using JCB. PW.1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the accused came near his house with JCB and picked up quarrel with him. But in Ex.P2 mahazar and in Ex.P13 sketch there is no such mention regarding existence of house of PW.1 near the place where the mahazar was drawn. 22 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
29. PW.2 is the mahazar witness has deposed that on 2.8.2015 at about 4 PM the police summoned him to the Kondappa Layout and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P2 in his presence in the place of incident as shown by the complainant. It is pertinent to note that according to the case of the prosecution, the incident was occurred on 2.8.2015 and Ex.P2 mahazar was prepared on 4.8.2015 after 2 days of the incident. But quite contrary to the case of the prosecution, PW.2 in his examination-in-chief itself has deposed that the police visited to the place of incident on 2.8.2015 and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P2 at 4PM. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused PW.2 has deposed that he do not know the boundary of the place of incident. If at all the incident was occurred PW.2 would have stated the boundary of the place of incident. PW.3 is the resident of the Kondappa Layout has deposed that when he was in his house he heard the quarrel sound hence came out from the house at that time he saw the accused cleaning the layout by using JCB, at that time PW.1 questioned the accused then the accused abused PW.1 in filthy language 23 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 and in the name of caste. PW.3 in his cross-examination has stated that near the place of the incident there is his house and house of one Vijaya and Nagendra. But in Ex.P2 and P13 there is no mention regarding the house of Vijaya and Nagendra in the alleged place of incident. PW.4 has deposed that the incident was occurred near his house. But in Ex.P2 mahazar there is no mention regarding the house of PW.4. PW.5 even though in his examination-in-chief has deposed that the accused brought the Bulldozer to the place of incident and cleaning the place with Bulldozer but during the course of his cross-examination he has deposed that the was not seen the Bulldozer in the place of incident. PW.6 in his examination-in- chief has deposed that at about 3 years back at about 4 PM the accused brought Bulldozer to Kondappa Layout in order to clean the land and to put up the hut. PW.6 has also not deposed the exact place of the incident. PW.8 Naganna has deposed that when he was returning from his regular work of selling broom and mop at that time people were gathered at Kondappa Layout then the exchange of words taken place between the accused and PW.1 then the accused abused PW.1 24 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 in filthy language and in the name of caste. According to the case of the prosecution this incident was occurred in front of the house of Naganna but PW.8 has not deposed anything about which place alleged incident was occurred. It is important to note that PW.1 has not deposed anything about the presence of PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 in the alleged place of incident. Likewise the PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 have also not deposed about the presence or non-presence of these witnesses in the place of incident PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 have deposed that the accused brought the JCB and while cleaning with the JCB, this incident was occurred. PW.1 to PW.6 and PW.8 in their cross-examination have failed to depose about the JCB number, driver's name and owners name. PW.9 Investigation Officer has clearly deposed that none of the witnesses have stated about the use of JCB and accused cleaning the place with the JCB. At the first instance PW.1 has deposed that accused brought the JCB and started to clear with JCB. Thereafter all other witnesses started to depose that accused brought the JCB to the place of incident and while cleaning the Kondappa Layout this incident was occurred. But 25 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 PW.9 the Investigation Officer who has conducted panchanama as per Ex.P2 and prepared the sketch as per Ex.P13 has clearly deposed that there was no signs in the place of incident regarding cleaning by using JCB. The very alleged place of incident is itself doubful.
30. From the evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 and PW.8, it is noticed that accused was also Social Worker and he was the office bearers of Dalitha Sangarsha Samithi which was headed by one Marappa. All these witnesses have admitted the suggestion that the accused recognised himself in another Sangha and separated from Marappa's group. PW.1 to PW.6, PW.8 have admitted the suggestion that they are all in the Marappa's group. The main defence taken by the accused is that since the accused departed from the Marappa's Sangha and started to work in different Sangha for that reason, people of Kondappa Layout had enmity with the accused. This contention of the accused is probablise the admissions given by the PW.1 to PW.6 and PW.8. During the course of their cross-examination they are all admitted that the accused who 26 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 was working in Dalitha Sangarsha Samithi lead by Marappa was separated and started to work in different Sangha.
31. Now coming to the deposition of PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 regarding the abusive language, PW.1 has deposed that the accused abuse him as "Nimmamman Korama". PW.3 has deposed that the accused abused PW.1 as "Boli Magana Korama nanna magane". PW.5 has deposed that accused abused PW.1 has "Korama nanna magane, boli magane, neenu kelalu yaru". PW.6 has deposed that accused abused PW.1 as "Komma nanna Magane". PW.8 has deposed that the accused abused PW.1 as "Ninnamman Jathina kyaya, ninnamman kyaya korama jathiyavane". The oral evidence of PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 are not corroborated with each other regarding the abusive language allegedly used by the accused. There is no cogent and consistent evidence that the accused had any knowledge or knew about PW.1 belongs to a Scheduled Caste. PW.1 in his examination-in-chief itself has deposed that the accused does not know about his caste or tribe. Under such circumstances it is very difficult to believe the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 that the 27 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 accused having knowledge about the caste of PW.1 abused him in the name of caste. From the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8, it is pertinent to note that the ingredients of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. The burden of proof is strictly on the prosecution to establish that there was commission of such an offence and the allegation that the accused had used derogatory expressions with reference to the caste of PW.1 in public view with an intention to insult or humiliate him and thus it constitute an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is required to established on the basis of the evidence which is unimpeachable. In this case PW.1 in his examination-in-chief itself has deposed that the accused do not know about his caste or tribe. More than that all the witnesses PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 have clearly admitted the suggestion that the accused was separated from Marappa's Sangha and recognised in different group. The oral evidence of PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 is also not clear in which place the alleged incident was occurred. As per Ex.P2 28 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 mahazar and as per the oral evidence of PW.9 there was no signs of cleaning the place with the JCB. The derogatory words which has deposed by PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 is not consistent and not corroborating with each other.
32. The alleged incident was occurred on 2.8.2015 but the complaint as per Ex.P1 was lodged on 4.8.2015 at 3.30 PM. There is one days delay in lodging the complaint. It has come in the cross-examination of PW.1 is that the police station is situated at about 1 ½ kilometer from his house. It has also come in the evidence of PW.11 is that the police station is situated at the distance of 4 kilometer from Kondappa Layout. The alleged incident was occurred on 2.8.2015 at 4 PM and Ex.P1 complaint was lodged on 3.8.2015 at 3.30 PM and there is delay of 24 hours in lodging the complaint which is not properly explained by PW.1 and other remaining witnesses. PW.11 in his cross-examination has clearly stated that while lodging the complaint as per Ex.P1 the complainant PW.1 has not stated anything about the reason for delay in lodging the complaint. None of the witnesses have deposed regarding the reason for delay in lodging the complaint. By considering the 29 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 material on record, I am of the opinion that there is inordinate delay of one day 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. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW.2 and spot mahazar witnesses PW.9 I.O., and the document Ex.P2 mahazar, Ex.P3 to P7 Photos and Ex.P13 hand sketch map would to go to show that the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 is that the accused brought the JCB and cleaning the space is not probable and not seen by these documents. The improved version of PW.3 to PW.6 and PW.8 that the accused brought the JCB and while cleaning the Kondappa Layout on questioning the same by PW.1 the accused abused PW.1 is not believable. I have goine through the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the accused which is reported in
1) 2013 Crl.L.J. 510 in Madanlal Jaiswal vvs. State of Chattisgarh (Chattisgarh High Court).
2) LAWS (CHH) 2011 10 5 in CHHCDILL LAL v/s. State of M.P. (High Court of Chhattisgarh).
30 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
3) 2014 Crl.L.J. 977 Patna High Court in Dodi Mahto v/s The State of Bihar and another.
4) LAWS (MPH) 2012 1 33 High Court of Madya Pradesh in Sunder Lal Chourasi v/s State of M.P. In my humble view, the principles of these cited decisions are applicable to the present case. In the present case, even though PW.1, PW.3 to PW.6 have supported the case of the prosecution but their oral evidence is not corroborating with each other about the derogatory words said to have been used by the accused and their evidence is not consistent in this regard. In so far as the alleged offences u/s 504 of IPC is concerned, it is required to be established that accused had intentionally insulted PW.1 which provoked him to break the public peace or to commit any other offences. When the entire evidence is considered there is nothing on record to satisfy the ingredients of offence u/s 504 of IPC. PW.1 has not deposed anything about the abusive language used by the accused with an intention to insult him. With regarding to the offence u/s 506 of IPC is concerned there is absolutely no evidence on the 31 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 side of the prosecution to show that accused criminally intimated by giving life threat to PW.1. In Ex.P1 complaint, there is mention that the accused along with rowdy elements armed with deadly weapons criminally intimidated the complainant and others by giving life threat. PW.1 has not deposed anything about the criminal intimidation. None of the witnesses have deposed about the presence or non-presence of any other persons along with the accused. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and U/S 504, 506 R/W 34 of IPC. On an appreciation of evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered the above point No.1 to 3 in the negative. 32 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
33. Point No.4:- 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., accused Veerabhadre Gowda is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety stand cancelled. However the bond executed in compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period. (Dictated to the Judgement Writer directly on the computer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 2nd day of March, 2020.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.33 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
A N NE X U R E
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Venkatesh
P.W.2 : Naganna
P.W.3 : Devaraju
P.W.4 : Seenappa
P.W.5 : Lakshmana
P.W.6 : Nagendra
P.W.7 : K.N.Narasimhamurthy
P.W.8 : Naganna
P.W.9 : B.M.Narayanaswamy
P.W.10 : Vijay
P.W.11 : M.V.Ramakrishna Reddy
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : LTI of PW.1
Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2 : Spot Panchanama
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P2(c) : Signature of PW.9
Exs.P3 to P.7: Photographs snapped at the time of mahazar Ex.P8 : Letter of ACP Ex.P.8(a) : Signature of PW.9 34 Spl.C.No. 8/2016 Ex.P.9 : Caste Report of Complainant.
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of PW.9 Ex.P.10 : Letter of ACP Ex.P.11 : Caste Report of Accused Ex.P11(a) : Signature of PW.2 Ex.P11(b) : Signature of PW.9 Ex.P.12 : DCP Order Ex.P.12(a) : Signature of PW.9 Ex.P.13 : Graph Ex.P.13(a) : Signature of PW.9 Ex.P.14 : Request letter to PWD Engineer Ex.P.14(a) : Signature of PW.9 Ex.P.15 : Statement of PW.10 Ex.P.16 : FIR Ex.P16(a) : Signature of PW.11
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.35 Spl.C.No. 8/2016
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment.
O R DE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Veerabhadre Gowda is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety stand cancelled. However the bond executed in compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period.
(MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.