Karnataka High Court
Devappa @ Devindrappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4708
CRL.A No. 200158 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200158 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
1. DEVAPPA @ DEVINDRAPPA
S/O CHANDRAMAPPA NAGARAL,
AGE: 40 YEARS,
OCC: SUPERVISOR IN ZINDAL COMPANY, BELLARY,
R/O KEMBHAVI VILLAGE, TQ.SURPUR, DIST.YADGIR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH H. DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
THROUGH KEMBAVI P.S.,
LUCYGRACE
Location: HIGH
REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL HCGP)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) OF CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANT, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE PASSED BY THE SESSION JUDGE, SPECIAL
COURT AT YADAGIR IN SPECIAL CASE NO.84/2012 DATED
10.11.2016 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL, CONSEQUENTLY
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4708
CRL.A No. 200158 of 2016
ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE CHARGE LEVELED
AGAINST HIM.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court at Yadgiri in Special Case No.84/2012, by which, the appellant herein is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 355 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (PA) Act' for short and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC. Further, to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three moths for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: -3-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4708 CRL.A No. 200158 of 2016 CW.6 had obtained the contract for formation of road in between Kembhavi to Mallalli village and he had entrusted the sub-contract work to CW.7 and on 16.09.2012 at 10.30 a.m. when CW.1 and CW.4 on instructions of CW.7 were doing plastering work by the side of the land of Ramu Shadaz, the accused person enquired them with regard to their village, their caste and for what purpose they are in the said place and after knowing that CWs.1 and 4 belong to Madiga and Holeya community which falls under Scheduled Caste community, intentionally abused them in filthy language by taking their caste and assaulted CW.1 with chappal on his back and dishonored him, and CWs.4 and 5 separated the scuffle, and the accused threatened the lives of CWs.1 and 4 with dire consequences. The police after conducting investigation laid the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.
3. The prosecution to prove its case, examined PW.1 to PW.11 and exhibited the documents at Exs.P1 to P9 and marked material object at MO.1.
4. The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record held that, the prosecution has established -4- NC: 2023:KHC-K:4708 CRL.A No. 200158 of 2016 the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.
6. The case of the prosecution is that, the appellant- accused came to the spot where PWs.3 and 4 were working and he enquired about their residence and their caste and thereafter he abused them by referring to their caste. The prosecution has not placed any material on record as to the reason for the appellant to abuse PWs.3 and 4 by referring to their caste. PWs.7 and 9, who are eyewitnesses to the alleged incident have turned hostile and nothing was elicited in the cross-examination to disbelieve their statements denying the incident. There was no occasion or any reason for the appellant to intentionally insult PWs.3 and 4, who are total strangers and not known to the accused. At no stretch it can be imagined that the accused would approach PWs.3 and 4 and enquire about their names and caste and thereafter abuse them intentionally without any reason.
-5-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4708 CRL.A No. 200158 of 2016
7. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Petition No.2797/2022 (D.D. 17.01.2023), after referring to the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court has held as follows:
"If the law laid down by the Apex Court, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court and even that of the High Court of Orissa is juxtaposed what would unmistakably emerge is, mere taking the name of the caste of the victim would not make it an offence, unless it is with an intention to insult the person belonging to the aid caste. That being conspicuously absent in the case at hand, permitting further proceedings to continue qua the offences under the Act would become an abuse of the process of law."
8. The prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant herein has abused PWs.3 and 4 by referring to their caste intentionally to insult the said persons, who belong to Scheduled Caste community. In the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, the impugned judgment of conviction is not sustainable in law. -6-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4708 CRL.A No. 200158 of 2016
9. To constitute an offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC, a person must have assaulted or used criminal force to any person, intending thereby to dishonour that person, otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by the person and he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or with both.
10. The allegation against the appellant-accused is that, he had assaulted PW.3 on his back with a footwear. However, the prosecution has not placed any material on record to prove that the appellant assaulted PW.3 due to any provocation or any reason. At no stretch of imagination it can be inferred that the accused could have either abused or assaulted PWs.3 and 4 for any reason. Except the self-serving statements of PWs.3 and 4, there is no material to substantiate that the accused had assaulted PW.3 on his back with footwear. In the absence of any material, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC-K:4708 CRL.A No. 200158 of 2016 ORDER i. Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court at Yadgiri in Special Case No.84/2012, is hereby set-aside.
iii. The appellant-accused is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 355 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act.
iv. The learned Sessions Judge is hereby directed to release the fine amount which is deposited by the appellant-accused in his favour.
v. The bail bond executed, if any, stands cancelled.
Sd/-
JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69