Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Vipin S/O M.Nanu on 5 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 05th day of August, 2021
:PRESENT:
Kum. SINDHU POTADAR
L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions & Special Judge,
Bengaluru.
Spl.C. NO. 37/2018
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Yeshwanthpura Police Station,
BENGALURU
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused: Vipin S/o M.Nanu
35 years,
R/at No.1242, 1st Main
2nd Cross, L.N.Colony,
Yeshwanthpura,
Bengaluru. 560 022
(By B.L.Kumar. Advocate)
1.Date of commission of offence: 04-10-2017
2. Date of report of occurrence : 04-10-2017
3. Date of commencement of : 10-07-2018 recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 24-02-2020
5. Name of the Complainant : Shanthakumari 2 Spl.C.No. 37/2018
6. Offences Complained of : Sec. 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C.
and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of The SC
and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is Acquitted.
JU DG M E NT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Yashwanthpura Sub-Division, Bengaluru has submitted the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
On 4.10.2017, at about 7:30 a.m, when the complainant had been to clear the lane in front of the complainant's house situated at No.1242 in L.N Colony, at that time she told that dry and wet-waste it could have been separated. He replied that there is no system of separating the same, it is her duty to do it since she belongs to the lower caste and he has thrown garbage on the complainant, abused and insulted her in the name of caste and bet her with hands and abused her in foul and filthy language and threatened with life, knowing very well 3 Spl.C.No. 37/2018 that she belongs to scheduled caste and thereby he has committed alleged offences.
3. Upon receipt of complaint, FIR has been registered and after investigation, the IO has submitted charge sheet against the accused for the alleged offences punishable u/s 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and u/s 3(1)(r)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act., and the Court has taken cognizance of the above said offences. Accused appeared before the Court through his counsel and was released on bail. The charge sheet copy was furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. As there was sufficient materials available, charge was framed and read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language on 11.04.2018 and the accused pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses out of 9 witnesses as P.W.1 to 5 and got marked 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. CW7 is reported to be dead. Inspite of issuance of s/s to the CW4 to 6, they were not secured. Hence, rejecting the prayer of Spl.PP, closed 4 Spl.C.No. 37/2018 prosecution side of evidence. The statement of the accused u/sec 313 was recorded, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language on 06.03.2020 and the accused has denied all the incriminating evidence and did not choose lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
5. Heard arguments. Perused the documents and other materials available on record. Now the point arises for the determination of this Court are as follows:-
POINTS Point No.1:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 4.10.2017, at 7:30 a.m, near house No. 1242, L.N.Colony, Yeshavanthpura, on the subject matter of garbage, accused has thrown garbage on the complainant, abused her in the name of caste, insulted and intimidated her to humiliate in place within public view and thereby has committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(r)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
Point No.2:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the afore 5 Spl.C.No. 37/2018 said date, time and place accused assaulted C.W.1 with hands and voluntarily caused her simple hurt and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 323 of I.P.C?
Point No.3:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the afore said date, time and place accused abused C.W.1 in foul and filthy language and thereby accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 504 of I.P.C.?
Point No.4:- Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the afore said date, time and place accused criminally intimidated C.W.1 by giving life threat to her and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC?
Point No.5:- What order?
6. 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:- As per final order for the 6 Spl.C.No. 37/2018 following REASONS
7. POINT No.1 to 4:- These points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence.
The prosecution in order to establish its case has been examined complainant as P.W.1. In her chief examination, she has deposed that she asked accused to seperate dry and wet- waste, he did not do the same and said that you belong to lower caste and abused in filthy language and assaulted. The accused tried to beat her with a footwear when she suddenly escaped the same. The public and people from T.V came to the spot. Accused left locking his home. She has identified the complaint and Mahazer.
8. In the cross examination, she has accepted that Munirathna is MLA of their area, Ramaswamy is her superior officer and she obeys their order. They belong to Congress Party. She accepted fact that except on 04.10.2017 she never worked before or after in the area of accused. She knows that accused is an advocate by profession before the incident. She 7 Spl.C.No. 37/2018 has identified accused home and gate in the Photograph marked as Ex.D1 and also accepts the fact of waste being thrown infront of his gate. She further accepts that MLA- Munirathna and Corporator-Venkatesh have told Ramaswamy to appoint her to accused area. She accepts that there was no waste to bifurcate as dry and wet infront of accused on 4.10.2017 and says that accused has not given her life threat but came to beat her. She has given complaint as per instruction of Public. Complaint is written by one Contractor of Corporation. She accepts that infront of house of accused somebody had thrown waste and she identified broken glasses of accused house and his motorcycle in Ex.D2. Further she discussed with her area Corporator and stated him regarding not to file a complaint and that she has discussed case with Ramaswamy.
9. P.W.2 and P.W.3 have also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by deposing that they do not know the caste of the accused and P.W.1. They do not know any thing about this case. In their presence the accused has not quarrelled with P.W.1 and not abused in the name of caste and 8 Spl.C.No. 37/2018 in filthy language and not assaulted her with hands. They have not given any statements before the police. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution learned Spl.P.P. cross examined them in detail. During the course of cross- examination of them, they have denied giving any statement before the police as per Ex.P.3 & Ex.P.4. Nothing infavour of prosecution is elicited from their mouth to support the case of the prosecution.
10. P.W.4. PSI, deposed that on 04.10.2017 at about 11.30a.m based on Ex.P1-complaint lodged by PW.1, registered the case in Crime No.381/2017 for the offences punishable u/s 354, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of The SC/ST (PoA) Act and sent Ex.P5-FIR to the court and her higher officer. She further deposed that she has handed over the case file to CW.9/PW.5 for further investigation.
11. In the cross-examination she has stated that she cannot depose without looking into file as to addition of Sec.34 of IPC eventhough accused is single person. Further she states there were 150 to 200 people on the spot and does not know that accused is an advocate and has not enquired as to who 9 Spl.C.No. 37/2018 has thrown garbage infront of accused house. She further deposes that in order to register suo-motu case Senior officer's order is required and there was no such order in this case. She has not enquired about CCTV Footage. She cannot say of having seen accused with Mamatha Vasudev in the matter of bail in the police station. She denied accused having filed complaint on 04.10.2017 which was not considered and was filed before Commissioner's office.
12. PW.5, ACP has deposed that on 04.10.2017 he took up the case file from PW.4 PSI for further investigation. He has received DCP order as per Ex.P6. On the same day, he visited the place of incident and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of CW4 & 5 and has recorded the statements of PW.2 & 3 as per Ex.P.3 & 4 and he has sent requisition to Tahsildhar seeking for caste certificates of complaint and accused and received the same as per Ex.P8 & 9. After the completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet against the accused on 04.01.2018.
13. In his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused has deposed that he has not collected any 10 Spl.C.No. 37/2018 documents in respect of the disputed property. He has not summoned any local people while conducting panchanama. On enquiry about Grabage infront of accused's house, he found that in order to protest BBMP employees had thrown the same and he had ordered an enquiry. Further, he recognised accused having visited police station in the matter of bail to Mamatha Vasudev. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
14. From the above evidence of P.W.1 and other witnesses and perusal of the documents it goes to show that complainant herself has stated that accused has not threatened her with life and has not stated about accused causing hurt. She only states that accused had come to beat her, thus making no offence punishable under Sec.323 and 506 of IPC. She deposes that accused has abused her in filthy language to substantiate this no other witnesses have stated about it nor any documents produced. Hence, offence under Sec.504 of IPC is also not made out.
15. PW.4 & 5 are the official witnesses who have done their duty in the course of investigation, the panchanama is 11 Spl.C.No. 37/2018 not proved. In so far as accusation under SC/ST Act is concerned, she has not stated as to before whom, accused had scolded her and who were present and heard the abuses has not been stated. Hence, the ingredient of public view is not established as held by Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Appoji Reddy V/s. State of Karnataka that "place within public view presupposes the presence of person other than the accused persons, who are alleged to have committed offences" and Hon'ble High court of Karnataka in Crl.A No.422/2021 dated 01.06.2021 in N Srinivas Vs. State of Karnataka has held that "In order to make out a prima facie case statement must be made in place within public view and secondly statement is to be made only because complainant belongs to that caste" .The entire materials nowhere discloses that accused has abused or insulted in public view. Any act alleged has to be done only with an intention to humiliate, insult or abuse person as belonging to SC/ST. In the present case, it is bifurcation of waste the incident is alleged. Complainant has not been abused or insulted only because she belongs to Scheduled Caste. Hence, case under SC/ST(POA) Act is not made out. 12
Spl.C.No. 37/2018 From the above discussion and reasons, this court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, Points No.1 to 4 are answered in the negative.
16. Point No.5:- In view of my findings on point no.1 to point no.4, I proceed to pass the following:
OR D E R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offences u/s 323, 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The accused is set at liberty and bail bonds stands cancelled.
(Typed my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 5 th day of August 2021.) (SINDHU POTADAR) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.13
Spl.C.No. 37/2018 A NN E X U R E
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Smt. Shanthakumari
P.W.2 : Smt. Rani
P.W.3 : Smt. Shamakka
P.W.4 : Smt. Devikadevi
P.W.5 : Sri. Raviprasad
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P2 : Spot Mahazar Ex.P3 : Statement of PW.2 Ex.P4 : Signature of PW.3 Ex.P5 : FIR Ex.P6 : DCP Order for appointment of IO Ex.P7 : Rough sketch Ex.P8 : Caste report of the complainant Ex.P9 : Caste report of the accused
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 : Photo
Ex.D2 : Photo
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil
(SINDHU POTADAR)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.