Bangalore District Court
The State By vs N.Raju @ N.Rajarao on 9 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 9 th day of October, 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.NO. 79/2016
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Upparpet Police Station,
BENGALURU.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: 1. N.Raju @ N.Rajarao,
S/o Narayana, 46 years,
R/o No.157, 4th Cross, 11th Main,
Hanumanthanagar,
Bengaluru-560 019.
C/o Shivalli Restaurant,
Hotel Kanishka, 2nd Main Road,
Gandhinagar, Bengaluru.
2. Chandrashekar @ Chandru @
C.R.Hegde,
S/o Ramakrishna, 52 years,
R/o Shivalli Restaurant,
Hotel Kanishka, 2nd Main Road,
Gandhinagar, Bengaluru-09.
(By Sri H.S.Chandramouli, Adv.)
2 Spl.C.No.79/2016
1. Date of commission of offence: 06-10-2015
2. Date of report of occurrence : 06-10-2015
3. Date of commencement of : 26-06-2018
recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 15-03-2019
5. Name of the Complainant : Victim
6. Offences Complained of : Sec. 506 and r/w 34 of IPC
I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of S.C.
& S.T. (P.A.) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is Acquitted.
JU DG M E NT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Upparpet Sub-
Division, Bengaluru City has filed the charge Sheet against the
accused No.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under
Sections u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Cate & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
2. Based upon the first information lodged by
CW.1/Manu H.A., the Upparpet Police have registered a First
Information Report bearing Crime No.401/2015. After
completion of investigation charge sheet is submitted directly
before the designated special court against the accused for the
3 Spl.C.No.79/2016
aforesaid offences. This case which was pending before II Addl.
City Civil and Sessions Court and Special Court transferred to
this exclusive special court as per notification ADM I(A)
599/17 dated 29.07.2017.
3. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows:
The accused No.1 is belongs to Ganiga caste and
accused No.2 is belongs to Brahmin caste. Accused No.1 is the
Manager and accused No.2 is the Supervisor of Shivalli Hotel
which is situated in the premises of Kanishka Hotel, 2 nd Main,
Gandhinagar, Bengaluru. CW.1/Manu.H.A., is the first
informant before the police. CW.1 is the member of Karnataka
Dalith Sangarsha Samithi. It is alleged that on 06.10.2015
CW.1 first informant along with CW.4 Dr.N.Murthy and other
Dalith Sangarsha Samithi members came to the Hotel in the
evening and were seated in the A/C hall and enquired with
Accused No.1 about the food then accused No.1 said that the
owner of the hotel told him not to give any food to them. Hence
they ordered for Tea and paid the bill amount. Meanwhile 2
more members of their sangha joined them. At about 7-40
p.m. when they sought for serving Tea for the second time,
4 Spl.C.No.79/2016
then the accused No.2 refused on the ground that they had
consumed non-veg food. The accused persons abused them in
the name of caste and intentionally humiliated them and also
criminally intimidated them by giving life threat. Based on the
first information statement lodged by CW.1 on 06.10.2015 at
10-10 p.m. the Upparpet Police have registered the case in
Crime No.401/2015 and sent the FIR to the court. The
Investigation Officer visited to the place of incident and
conducted the mahazar. The Investigation Officer recorded the
statements of the witnesses. I.O. after collecting all the
materials on completion of the investigation has filed the
charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. The accused are on bail. Charge sheet copies
furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s 207 of
Cr.P.c. in duly complied with.
5. On 21.11.2017 charge came to be framed against the
accused for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of The
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
5 Spl.C.No.79/2016
Atrocities) and 506 of I.P.C. for which accused pleaded not
guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During trial, the prosecution has examined 7 out of 14
witnesses cited in the charge sheet as PW.1 to PW.7 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 documents. The documents Ex.P.3 to
Ex.P.8 are all marked by consent as counsel for the accused
consented to mark these documents.
7. On 24.04.2019 the statement of the accused as
required under section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded by putting all
incriminating circumstances available in the prosecution
evidence to them. The accused have denied all such
circumstances and did not lead any defence evidence on their
behalf.
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, who has spoken in detail about the incident.
6 Spl.C.No.79/2016
PW.3 is the victim and eye witness supported the case of the
prosecution. PW.2 also accompanied with PW.1 to the Hotel and
also mahazar witness deposed about the incident and mahazar. She
submitted that the accused persons who knows about the caste of
PW.1 to PW.3 abused them by naming their caste and also insulted
them by declining to serve food on the ground that they belongs to
Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes. PW.4 is the Tahasildar, who
issued Ex.P.6, PW.5/Head Constable, who carried FIR to the court,
PW.6 who was working as PSI registered the case, PW.7/ACP, who
conducted the further investigation and filed the charge sheet. All
these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Certain
minor inconsistences in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 which is
natural in every case are required to be ignored. From the evidence
of PW.1 to PW.7 since the prosecution has established the charges
framed against accused No.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt
they are liable to be convicted for the said charges.
10. The Learned counsel for the accused submitted that the
ingredients of the alleged offences are not attracted when the
evidence on record is considered. There is no corroboration in oral
evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 with Ex.P.1 complaint. Ex.P.1 is in the
letter head of PW.3. PW.1 has deposed that Ex.P.1 is written by his
7 Spl.C.No.79/2016
boss. None of the public made as witness in this case. PW.1 has
deposed that accused does not know about his caste. PW.1 has
deposed that the word "Holeya madiga" in Ex.P.1 added by some
one. PW.3 has deposed that totally 8 persons went to the hotel.
PW.1 to PW.3 have deposed in totally different manner. Their oral
evidence is not corroborating with each other. He submitted that
the uncorroborated version of PW.1 to PW.3 creates doubt about
their version. The accused do not know about the caste of PW.1 to
PW.3. The accused No.2 and 2 are innocent they are working in the
hotel. Since the prosecution has failed to establish the charges
framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt the
accused are liable to be acquitted from the said charges. In support
of his arguments learned counsel for the accused relied upon the
decision reported in 2008 AIR SCW 6901 in Gorige Pentaiah Vs.
State of A.P. and others.
11. Upon hearing, the following points arise for my
consideration:-
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that the accused not
being the members of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes insulted PW.1,
8 Spl.C.No.79/2016
PW.3, CW.2 and others on 06.10.2015 at
about 8-00 p.m. at Gandhinagar, 2 nd
main road in Shivalli Restaurant in the
name of caste within public view and
thereby the accused No.1 and 2 have
committed the offence punishable u/s
3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the above said
date, time and place accused persons
with common intention criminally
intimidated by giving life threat to CW.1,
CW.2, CW.4 and thereby the accused
have the offences punishable u/s 506
and r/w 34 of IPC?
3) What order?
12. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1:- In the negative
Point No.2:- In the negative
Point No.3:- As per final order
for the following
9 Spl.C.No.79/2016
REASONS
13. POINT No.1 and 2:- Since these points are
interlinked with each other, in order to avoid repetition and for
sake convenience, they are taken up together for common
discussion.
PW.1.H.A.Manu has deposed that he belongs to Adi-
Karnataka caste and accused are not belongs to Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes. He states that on 06.10.2015 at 4-
00 p.m. there was function at Freedom Park. On that day he
along with the leaders of his Sangha in all 10 persons went to
Kanishka Hotel to drink tea. They drank tea and while sitting
in hotel after 10 minutes another 2 members joined them.
Hence they ordered for Idli Vada. At that time accused No.1
who refused to serve food asked them to vacate that place.
Accused No.1 spilled the water on the table and asked the
cleaners to sweep. When he objected the same. Then accused
No.1 abused them saying you people coming for tea by
consuming the non veg food in Annapoorneswari hotel you are
all Dalith people coming to the hotel for enjoyment. PW.1 has
deposed that accused No.1 drove them out from A/C hall.
10 Spl.C.No.79/2016
Hence they came and sat in the general hall table. Then
accused No.1 came there and asked them to vacate. Accused
No.1 also said that his boss ordered him not to serve the food.
Accused No.1 went near cash counter and brought accused
No.2. Then both the accused came near them and given threat
to them stating that failing to vacate that place they will call
their owner and will beat them. Hence he along with his
companion went to the Upparpet police station and he has
lodged the compliant in letter head of Karnataka Dalit
Sangarsha Samithi as per Ex.P.1. On the next day the police
visited to the place of incident and conducted mahazar as per
Ex.P.2.
14. During his cross-examination PW.1 has deposed that
he known the name of accused No.1 Raju but do not know the
name of accused No.2. He do not know the caste of the
accused. The document Ex.P.1 complaint in the handwriting of
his boss. He has deposed that while writing Ex.P.1 complaint
he dictated as accused abused them as "Dalitha" but the
person who wrote Ex.P.1 added word "Holeya madiga". He
11 Spl.C.No.79/2016
admits the suggestion that the political leaders and Association
leaders used to assemble in the Kanishka Hotel and by
drinking tea, coffee and consuming food used to discuss in the
hotel. He states that prior to 06.10.2015 he had been to
Kanishka hotel for 5 to 10 times. He has deposed that accused
No.1 was working as manager and accused No.2 was working
as cashier of the Kanishka Hotel. At no point of time prior to
06.10.2015 the accused quarrelled with them. He has denied
the suggestion that neither in Ex.P.1 complaint nor in his
further statement he has stated as deposed in his examination-
in-chief. He has deposed that he along with N.Murthy, Gangu,
Anjinappa, Ranjith went to the police station in order to lodge
the complaint. He has deposed that except them there were no
other customer in the A/C room at the time of incident. But
when they sat in general room thee were 20 customers sitting
nearby table. He has admitted the suggestion that as the
number of customers coming to the Kanishka hotel, the hotel
authorities shall quickly serve the food and send.He has denied
all other suggestions made to him. When question asked him
whether accused known about his caste he deposed that
12 Spl.C.No.79/2016
accused do not know about his caste but known that he
belongs to Dalith.
15. PW.2/Anjinappa has deposed that he is the member
of Karnataka Dalith Sangarsha Samithi. On 06.10.2015 he
along with CW.1 and others in all 16 members had been to
Kanishka Hotel. When they ordered for food then the manager
of Hotel refused to serve them food on the ground that they
came by consuming the non-veg food. He has deposed that
PW.1 talking with the manager of the Hotel. At that time they
came out from the hotel. On the next day the police came to
the Kanishka hotel and drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P.2 in his
presence. During the course of his cross-examination by the
learned counsel for the accused PW.2 has denied all the
suggestions made to him.
16. PW.3/Dr.N.Murthy has deposed that CW.1, CW.5 to
CW.8 are all members of Dalith Sangarsha Samithi. On
06.10.2015 at about 7-40 p.m. he along with CW.1, CW.6,
CW.7, CW.2 and other in all 8 persons went and ordered for
food. At that time accused No.1 refused to serve food by stating
13 Spl.C.No.79/2016
that Hotel owner ordered not to serve food to them. PW.3 has
deposed that they ordered for tea. Then accused No.1 served
tea to them for which they paid bill. At that time accused No.2
who came there asked them to vacate that place. He states that
as two of their member came belatedly they again ordered for
tea. Then the accused persons refused to serve them tea.
Accused persons shouted at them saying you by consuming
the non-veg Biriyani in Annapoorneswari Hotel came here, you
"Hole madigara", whether it is you house to serve tea often and
often. At that time 5-6 sweepers came with broom and one of
them spilled the water on the table and one of them switched
off light and started to sweep the floor. Accused persons
repeatedly shouted at them stating you belongs to Hole
madigara. He has deposed that when they warned the accused
that they will lodge complaint then the accused threatened
them that if they complained to their owner the owner will not
allow them to live in the earth. He has deposed that he told
CW.1 to lodge complaint against the accused. Hence CW.1
lodged the complaint to the police.
14 Spl.C.No.79/2016
17. During the course of his cross-examination by the
learned counsel for the accused, he has deposed that all the
members are not allowed to use the letter head of the Samithi.
He states that there were 5-6 other customers sitting in the
A/C hall. He states that they in all 8 persons went to the
Kanishka hotel. He has denied all the suggestions made to
him.
18. PW.4/K.Gopalaswamy was the Tahasildar has issued
Ex.P.4 report regarding the caste of Accused No.1. There is no
dispute regarding the caste of accused No.1. The oral evidence
of PW.4 remained un-challenged as learned counsel for
accused not cross-examined PW.4.
19. PW.5/Venkatesh J. Head Constable has deposed that
on 07.10.2015 he carried Ex.P.9 FIR and Ex.P.1 complaint to
the court and submitted to the Magistrate at 11-00 a.m.
During the course of cross-examination of PW.5 nothing is
elicited from his mouth to discard his version.
15 Spl.C.No.79/2016
20. PW.6/Sharanappa Erappa Hadli has deposed that on
06.10.2015 at 10-10 p.m. on the basis of the Ex.P.1 complaint
lodged by PW.1 he registered the case in Crime No.401/2015
and sent Ex.P.9 FIR to the court. On 07.10.2015 he visited to
the Kanishka Hotel A/C hall and conducted mahazar at Ex.P.2
in the presence of CW.2, CW.3. Thereafter on the same day he
handed over case file to CW.14 (PW.7) for further investigation.
During the course of cross-examination by the defence
PW.6 admitted the suggestion that number of customers are
coming to the Kanishka hotel. He has denied all the
suggestions made to him.
21. PW.7/Bhaskar V.B., ACP has deposed that on
07.10.2015 he took up the case file from PW.6 for further
investigation. On 13.10.2015 he has recorded the statement of
CW.5 and on 22.10.2015 he has recorded the statement of
CW.2, CW.6, CW.7, CW.8. He has received Ex.P.4, Ex.P.5,
Ex.P.7 reports of the Tahasildar regarding the caste of accused
No.1, PW.1 and accused No.2 respectively. He has recorded the
statement of CW.4, CW.12. On completion of investigation he
has filed the charge sheet against the accused. In his cross-
16 Spl.C.No.79/2016
examination by the defence PW.7 has deposed that he has not
enquired any workers and public in Kanishka hotel. He has
denied the suggestion that PW.1 and PW.3 have not given any
statement as deposed by them in their examination-in-chief.
He has denied all the suggestions made to him.
22. 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.
23. Ex.P.4 is the report of Tahasildar regarding caste of
accused No.1 where in it is mentioned that accused No.1
belongs to Ganiga Caste. Ex.P.5 is the report of Tahasildar
regarding the caste of PW.1/Complainant wherein it is
mentioned that PW.1 is belongs to Adi-karnataka Scheduled
Caste. Ex.P.6 is the report of Revenue Inspector regarding caste
of accused No.1. Ex.P.7 is the report of the Tahasildar
regarding caste of accused No.2 wherein it is mentioned that
accused No.2 is belongs to Brahmin caste. The oral evidence of
PW.1 to PW.3 is that they belongs to Scheduled caste is not
seriously disputed by the accused in their cross-examination.
17 Spl.C.No.79/2016
The documents Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.7 are all marked by consent as
learned counsel for accused consented to mark these
documents. PW.4/Gopalaswamy who issued Ex.P.4 supported
the case of the prosecution. The documents Ex.P.4 and Ex.P.7
shows that the accused No.1 and 2 are not belongs to
Scheduled castes or Scheduled Tribes. Accused No.1 is belongs
to Ganiga caste and Accused No.2 is belongs to Brahim caste.
The oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and document Ex.P.5 shows
that PW.1 is belongs to Adi-karnataka Scheduled Caste. Thus
it is established that PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and
accused No.1 and 2 do not belongs to any Scheduled Castes or
Scheduled Tribes.
24. Mere proof of caste of PW.1 is not sufficient to hold
that the accused persons are committed the offence. The
burden of proof to prove that accused persons committed the
offence u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act is strictly on the prosecution to
establish that there was commission of such an offence and
the allegation that the accused had used derogatory
18 Spl.C.No.79/2016
expressions with reference to the caste of PW.1 in public view
with an intention to insult or humiliate him.
25. PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that the
accused persons do not know about his caste but knows that
he belongs to Dalit. It is not the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 that
the have prohibited from entering into the hotel or totally
denied the food and drinks. It is the evidence of PW.1 and PW.3
is that when they ordered for tea for second time then the
accused refused to serve them and asked them to vacate. PW.1
has deposed that they ordered for tea and drank the tea and
paid the bill in A/C hall. After 10 minutes 2 more members
joined them, hence they ordered idli vada. At that time accused
No.1 who refused to serve them food and asked them to vacate
the room and accused No.1 spilled the water over table and
asked the sweeper to sweep. When he objected for the same
then the accused No.1 abused them by saying you people by
eating non-veg in Annapoorneswari hotel, you belongs to Dalith
coming here for enjoyment. PW.1 has deposed that accused
No.1 drove them out from A/C Hall hence they came and sat in
19 Spl.C.No.79/2016
the General hall. Then accused No.2 joined with accused No.1
and given life threat to them.
26. The oral evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with
the oral evidence of PW.3 and document Ex.P.1. In Ex.P.1
Complaint it is not mentioned that they firstly sitting in A/C
hall then came and sat in General hall. In Ex.P.1 it is
mentioned that soon after they sat in A/C hall they asked
accused No.1 about the menu of food at that time accused No.1
said that owner ordered not to give any food to them. Hence
they ordered for tea and served with tea and paid the bill after
drinking tea. At that time accused No.2 came there and asked
them to vacate and refused to give the tea for second time.
When he question about the same then accused No.1 abused
them as "Neevu Hole madigara Horata Madoke Idenu Holeyara
mane yenu?". When they told that they will lodge complaint to
the police then the accused persons criminally intimidated
them by giving life threat. The oral evidence of PW.1 is not
corroborating with the document Ex.P.1 complaint. PW.1 has
deposed that after 10 minutes after drinking the tea 2 more
members joined them then they ordered idli vada at that time
20 Spl.C.No.79/2016
the accused No.1 refused to serve them food asked them to
vacate the hall and also splashed the water on the table and
asked the sweeper to sweep. PW.1 has deposed that when they
objected to the act of the accused No.1 then the accused
abused them by saying you people by consuming non-veg food
in Annapoorneswari hotel you people Dalith coming to the
hotel for enjoyment. PW.1 has deposed that accused No.1 drove
them out from A/C hall hence they came and sat in general
hall table. Then also accused No.1 came there and asked them
to vacate the place. There after both the accused persons given
life threat to them. According to PW.1 accused No.2 joined
with the accused No.1 at the end when they were sitting in
general hall.
27. The oral evidence of PW.3 is not corroborating with
oral evidence of PW.1 because PW.3 has deposed that soon
after they visited to the Hotel they ordered for food then
accused No.1 refused to serve food by stating that the Hotel
owner ordered not to serve food to them. Then they ordered for
tea. Then accused No.1 served tea to them for which they paid
bill amount. Then accused No.2 came there and asked them to
21 Spl.C.No.79/2016
vacate the place. Meanwhile 2 more members joined them
hence they ordered for tea. At that time accused persons
refused to serve tea and shouted at them saying you by
consuming the non-veg Biriyani in Annapoorneswari Hotel
came here, you Hole madiga whether it is your house to serve
tea again and again. PW.3 has deposed that 5-6 sweeper came
with broom and one of them splashed water on table and one
of them switched off light and started to sweep the floor.
According to PW.3 the entire incident occurred in A/C Hall of
the hotel. But PW.1 has deposed that the incident occurred in
A/C hall as well as in general hall of the Hotel. PW.1 has
deposed that only accused No.1 came to the A/C hall.
According to PW.1 accused No.2 joined the accused No.1 when
they are sitting in general hall of the hotel. PW.1 has not
deposed anything about accused persons abused them as
Holeya madiga. In this cross-examination PW.1 has deposed
that while writing the complaint he has stated to write the
word the abusive language used by the accused as Dalith but
the person who wrote Ex.P.1 complaint added the words Holeya
madiga. That itself indicates that in order to attract provisions
22 Spl.C.No.79/2016
of SC/ST (POA) Act some words such as "Holeya madiga" are
added while writing Ex.P.1 complaint.
28. Now coming to the evidence of PW.2, PW.2 has given
entirely different version to that of PW.1 and PW.3. PW.2 has
deposed that he along with CW.1 and others in all 16 members
went to Kanishka hotel and ordered for food. Then the manager
of the hotel refused to serve the food on the ground that they
came by consuming the non-veg food. Except this PW.2 has not
deposed anything about alleged incident of naming their caste
or splashing the water on table accused asked them to vacate
the A/C hall etc. PW.2 is also mahazar witness and deposed
that the police have drawn the mahazar on the next day of
incident. In this case the investigation officer has not made any
efforts to conduct mahazar in the presence of adjacent owners
or residents of Hotel.
29. No doubt the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 that they
had been to Kanishka hotel cannot be doubted. But their
uncorroborated oral version creates doubt about the incident.
From the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 it is clear that the
23 Spl.C.No.79/2016
ingredients of the offence under section u/s 3(1)(x) of The
Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act are not attracted. There is no cogent and consistent
evidence that the accused No.1 and 2 had any knowledge or
knew about PW.1 belongs to Adi-karnataka Scheduled Caste.
The alleged derogatory words allegedly used by the accused
No.1 and 2 are not consistent from the ocular evidence of PW.1
to PW.3. PW.1 to PW.3 have each stated about the alleged
incident in different manner and the same is also in variance
with the case put-forth by the prosecution and document
Ex.P.1 complaint. PW.1 has deposed that he along with in all
10 persons went to Kanishka Hotel, PW.2 has deposed that
they totally 16 members went to Kanishka Hotel, PW.3 has
deposed that they in all 8 persons went the Kanishka Hotel.
PW.1 has deposed that the incident occurred in A/C hall as
well as in General Hall. PW.3 has deposed as if the incident
occurred in single place.
30. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that
the prosecution has not proved that the alleged incident has
24 Spl.C.No.79/2016
taken place in 'public view' as no other persons other than
PW.1, PW.3 and unconcerned with the event was present and
has deposed about it. The learned counsel for the accused
relied upon the decision reported in 2008 AIR SCW 6901 in
Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and ors. In this case PW.1
has deposed that when the incident occurred in A/C hall of the
hotel no other customers were present in that A/C hall. PW.2
has not deposed anything about exact place of incident. PW.3
has deposed that there were 5-6 other customers sitting in the
A/C hall. In the instant case PW.7/I.O. has deposed that he
has not enquired any workers and public in the Kanishka
hotel. It is not in dispute that number of customers coming to
the Kanishka hotel. It is also not in dispute that as number of
customers coming to hotel the hotel management must serve
the food to the customer without any delay. PW.3 at one strech
has deposed that there were other customers in A/C hall in
other breadth deposed that some body switched off the light
when the sweeper started to sweep the floor. These inconsistent
version of PW.3 is not believable. The investigation officer has
not recorded the statements of any independent witnesses
25 Spl.C.No.79/2016
such as customers to show that such incident was occurred in
the hotel. 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 to PW.3 and unconcerned with the
event was present and has deposed about it.
31. There is no cogent material to indicate that the
accused No.1 and 2 had abused PW.1, CW.2 by naming their
caste with an intention to humiliate them in public view when
the evidence on record is appreciated as a whole. PW.5 to PW.7
are the official witnesses deposed about the steps taken by
them during the course of investigation. On a consideration of
the derogatory words said to have been used by the accused as
stated by these witnesses PW.1 to PW.3 there is no
corroborative and consistent evidence in this regard.
32. Ex.P.1 complaint lodged by using letter head of
Karnataka Dalit Sangarsha Samithi. PW.1 has not stated how
he has secured the letter head of Samithi. PW.3 who is the
state president of Karnataka Dalit Sangarsha Samithi has
deposed that the members of the Samithi are not allowed to
26 Spl.C.No.79/2016
use the letter head of Samithi. This admission made by PW.3
cannot rule out the possibility of lodging complaint by using
letter head of Samithi as there was some mis-understanding
between the accused and PW.3 and his members while they
visited to the Kanhishka Hotel. In so far as the alleged offence
under section 506 r/w 34 of IPC is concerned when the entire
evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 is considered there is no cogent
evidence to satisfy the ingredients of the offence under section
506 of IPC. PW.2 has not deposed any thing about criminal
intimidation. The oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 are not
corroborating regarding the alleged criminal intimidation by life
threat. The prosecution has failed to establish the charges
framed against the accused persons for the alleged offences
under section 506 of r/w 34 of IPC. On an appreciation of the
evidence on record this court of the view that the prosecution
has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the
accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences punishable
u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) and under section 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the
27 Spl.C.No.79/2016
accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answered point
No.1 and 2 in the negative.
33. Point No.3:- In view of my findings on point No.1
and point No.2, I proceed to pass the following
OR D E R
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the
Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences
punishable under Sections 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.
and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes &
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2
and their sureties shall stand cancelled. However
the bond executed in compliance of Section 437A
of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, transcript
corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on
this the 09th day of October, 2019.)
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
28 Spl.C.No.79/2016
A NN E X U R E
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : H.A.Manu
P.W.2 : Anjinappa
P.W.3 : Dr.N.Murthy
P.W.4 : K.Gopalaswamy
P.W.5 : G.Venkatesh
P.W.6 : Sharanappa Erappa Hadli
P.W.7 : V.B.Bhaskar
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P. 2 : Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.2(c) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P 3 : DCP Order
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.4 : Tahasildar report regarding
caste of PW.1
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.4(b) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.5 : Tahasildar report regarding
caste of PW.1
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P 6 : Revenue Inspector report
Ex.P.7 : Tahasildar report regarding
caste of accused No.2
Ex.P7(a) : Signatures of PW.7
Ex.P.8 : Report of Revenue Inspector
and Village Accountant
Ex.P.9 : FIR
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature of PW.6
29 Spl.C.No.79/2016
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.
30 Spl.C.No.79/2016
Judgment pronounced in
the open court vide separate
judgment.
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted of the offences 31 Spl.C.No.79/2016 punishable under Sections 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bail bonds of the accused No.1 and 2 and their sureties shall stand cancelled. However the bond executed in compliance of Section 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period.
(MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.