Bangalore District Court
State By vs Rajanna on 26 July, 2022
KABC010000742016
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)
Dated this the 26th day of July, 2022.
Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.06/2016
COMPLAINANT : STATE BY
Chikkajala Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1. Rajanna
S/o Late Muniyappa,
Aged about 49 years,
R/at Maranayakanahalli
village, Jala Hobli,
Bengaluru North Taluk.
2. Madaiah
S/o Late Pullaiah,
Aged about 58 years,
R/at Behind Rama Temple,
Kammagondanahalli,
Abbigere Main Road,
Jalahalli West, Bengaluru.
3. Shivakumar @ Kotikumar
S/o Late Munivenkatarayappa
Aged about 45 years,
2
Spl.C.No.06/2016
R/at Sonnappanahalli Village,
Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk.
(A1 to 3 Rep.by Sri.YMJ., Advocate).
1. Date of commission of offence : 29.06.2014
2. Date of report of Offence : 02.07.2014
3. Name of the Complainant : Sri.Lakshmaiah
4. Date of commencement of : 16.11.2017
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 24.06.2019
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.447, 323, 504, 506
of IPC and Sec.3(1)(v)(x)
of SC and ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty
JUDGMENT
ACP, Devanahalli Sub-Division, Bengaluru has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Section 447, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(v)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the complainant had entered into an Sale Agreement with CW6 in respect of 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.19/3 situated at Maranayakanahalli village 3 Spl.C.No.06/2016 and CW6 had paid entire amount, but the accused No.1 and 2 had paid Rs.43 lakhs only and refused to pay the remaining Sale consideration. On 29.06.2014 at about 3.00pm the accused persons with common intention have trespassed into the land belongs to CW1 and started to excavate the land by means of JCB, when CW1 questioned the act of accused persons, the accused No.2 insulted and humiliated the CW1 by taking the name of caste and assaulted on his chest by means of hands. The CW2 intervened to pacify the quarrel, the accused No.3 abused him in filthy language and gave fist- blow on his face and kicked on his waist and accused No.1 threatened to take away the life of CW1 and 2. Accordingly, the complainant by name Sri.Lakshmaiah has lodged the complaint before the police. On the basis of said complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.58/2014. The Investigating officer has visited the place of incident, prepared the spot panchanama, recorded 4 Spl.C.No.06/2016 the statement of witnesses and filed charge sheet after completing investigation.
3. During the course of investigation, the accused No.1 to 3 were approached the learned II Additional City Civil and Session Court at Bengaluru(CCH-17) and got enlarged on bail. After filing of charge sheet, this court took the cognizance of the offence. The charge sheet copies were furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was sufficient materials available, charge was framed for the above said offences, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused got examined 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13, got exhibited 16 documents and one object as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16 and during the course of cross examination of prosecution witnesses Ex.D1 to 4 are marked. The statement of the accused 5 Spl.C.No.06/2016 u/sec 313 was recorded, read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language and the accused have denied all the incriminating evidence and they did not choose to lead defence evidence on their behalf.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the documents and other materials available on record.
6. The following points would arise for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 29.06.2014 at about 3.00pm the accused persons with common intention criminally trespassed by entering into the land bearing Sy.No.19/3 measuring at 29 guntas situated at Maranayakanahalli village, then in the possession of CW1 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 447 read with 34 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 6 Spl.C.No.06/2016 the afore said date, time and place, the accused persons with common intention have voluntarily caused hurt to the CW1 and 2 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the afore said date, time and place, the accused persons with common intention intentionally insulted and thereby gave provocation to CW1 and 2 intending that such provocation will cause the said CW1 and 2 to break the public peace and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 504 read with 34 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place the accused with common intention committed criminal intimidation by threatening the CW1 and 2 with injury to their person with intent to cause alarm to them and thereby committed the offence Punishable under Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
7
Spl.C.No.06/2016
5) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that
aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons are not being the members of SC/ST, wrongfully dispossessed the CW1, who is the member of SC/ST from his land and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
6) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that
aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons are not being the members of SC/ST, intentionally insulted/intimidated with intent to humiliate the CW1 and 2, who are the members of SC(Adidravida) in a place within the public view and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
7) What order?
7. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative 8 Spl.C.No.06/2016 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 : In the Negative Point No.7 : As per final order, for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1 to 6: These points are inter-linked with one another, hence, I took up these points together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts and evidence. It is the definite case of prosecution that, the complainant had entered into Sale Agreement with CW6 inspite of 29 guntas of land in Sy.No.19/3 situated at Maranayakanahalli village and CW6 had paid the entire amount, but the accused No.1 and 2 had paid Rs.43 lakhs and refused to pay the remaining Sale consideration. On 29.06.2014 at about 3.00pm the accused persons with common intention have trespassed into the land belongs to CW1 and started to excavate the land by means of JCB, when CW1 questioned the act of accused persons, the 9 Spl.C.No.06/2016 accused No.2 insulted and humiliated the CW1 by taking the name of caste and assaulted on his chest by the means of hands. CW2 intervened to pacify the quarrel and the accused No.3 abused him in filthy language and gave fist-blow on his face and kicked on his waist and accused No.1 threatened to take away of life of CW1 and 2.
9. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. PW2-Sri.Lakshmiaha is said to be the victim and complainant of this case, PW1-H.H.Mahesh is said to be victim and eye witness to the incident, PW3- Srinivas is said the eye witness to the incident, PW4-Nagaraju is said to be the attesting witness to the spot panchanama, PW5-K.Gopalaswamy, PW13- Mahendra and PW6-Narasihmamurthy, are the Tahasildars, Bengaluru North Taluk are said to be issued the report regarding the caste of accused No.2, 3 and complainant respectively, PW7- B.N.Dwarakinath, Assistant Executive Engineer is said to prepare the sketch of place of incident. PW8- 10 Spl.C.No.06/2016 Dr.Ramachandra, Medical officer is said to given treatment to the complainant, PW10-P.Muralidhar, the then Police Inspector of Chikkajala police station is said to be registered FIR, PW9-Jayaprakash, PW11-H.A.Theertharaju, PW12-Y.Nagaraju are said to be investigating officers of this case. The evidence of CW5 and 6 are given by learned Special Public Prosecutor.
10. On careful perusal of the materials available on record it appears to me that, the total denial is the defence of accused and in addition to that they have also taken contention the complainant in colluding with his relatives got filed false complaint by suppressing the Agreement of Sale entered into with accused No.1 and 2. On the background of above defence taken up by the accused persons, the burden is heavily lies on the prosecution to connect the accused for the alleged offence. Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused or not is to be discussed. 11
Spl.C.No.06/2016 Hence, it is just and necessary to go through the oral and documentary evidence placed on record.
11. P.W2-Lakshmaiah is the complainant, who deposed that the accused No.1 to 3 were working as brokers and they introduced CW6 and he desired to sell the property and the value of the land is fixed at Rs.67 lakhs. On 20.03.2014, CW6 called him to Sub- Registrar office in Chikkajala and showed 4 DD's and asked him to put his signature and gave 2 DD's for Rs.21,70,000/- and 20,70,000/- in his name and in the name of PW1 respectively. Accordingly, he signed document and CW6 told him that he will give 2 DD's on the next day. The accused No.1 to 3 asked him to put signature and on their say he signed the sale deed. Next day he had been to the office of CW6 to collect DD's, but DD's were not given to him. Thereafter, he obtained the documents from the Sub-Registrar office and came to know that 2 DD's were issued in the name of accused No.1 and 2. Thereafter he had sent legal notice to CW6 through Advocate. The accused No.1 12 Spl.C.No.06/2016 to 3 brought JCB to his land and started to put up compound wall and also damaged his crops in the said land. He questioned them but they abused him in the name of caste, accused No.2 assaulted on his chest and kicked him. At that time PW1 intervened to pacify the quarrel but accused No.3 assaulted on his head and back and also abused in the name of caste. All the accused persons have threatened to take away his life. Thereafter, he lodged complaint before the Police and police have visited the spot and prepared the spot panchanama. The agreement of sale is marked before this Court as Ex.P.3.
12. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel, he denied the suggestion that the accused No.2 approach him to purchase the property for Rs.46,40,000/- and payment of Rs.3,00,000/- under the Sale agreement dated 17.10.2012. He admits the suggestion that he along with accused No.1 and 2 had been to the office of one Shashidhara. He admits that he has not produced the caste certificate before the police. Further it was elicited 13 Spl.C.No.06/2016 from his mouth that the villagers were present at the place of incident and they have not intervened to pacify the quarrel. Further it was elicited that there exists hospital in Chikkajala and Bettahalsuru. Further, he accepted that the autos are available in the Bettahalsuru on 24X7 basis. Further he admits that transportation facilities are available from his village to Bettahalasuru. He further admits that he know the medical officer of Yelahanka Hospital and he got written the Medical Certificate from Doctor, who is known to him. Further it was elicited that the distance between his village to Bettahalasuru is 4km. He denied the suggestion that he along with others have picked up quarrel with accused persons when the accused persons are levelling the land by using JCB. He denied the suggestion that he had picked up quarrel with accused persons on 26.06.2014. Further it was elicited that the accused persons have came to his land when he was ploughing the land from Tractor. Further it was elicited that he had been to the hospital on the 14 Spl.C.No.06/2016 night of 29.06.2014. He admits that one Mahesh obtained his signature to the complaint and submitted before the police. He admits that one Narasihmaraju, leader of the Association had prepared the complaint. He accepted that his lawyer accompanied him to the police station.
13. During the further course of cross examination of PW2 admits that he is deposing before the Court as per say of his counsel, who is looking after the civil case. He pleads ignorance about the agreement entered into with accused No.1 and 2 and payment of sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by the accused No.2. PW2 voluntarily deposed that there was an agreement between him and accused No.2 and period was fixed for one month and thereafter he refused to sell his property as the accused No.1 and 2 failed to pay the money. He identified his signature on the Ex.D4/Sale Agreement. He accepted that he along with accused No.1 and 2 have sold the property in favour of Shashidhar. He denied the suggestion that, the accused No.1 and 2 have collected money 15 Spl.C.No.06/2016 from Shashidhar towards their share. He accepted that the police have obtained his signature on Ex.P.2/Spot panchanama in the police station. He admitted that civil case is pending before the Court of Devanahalli between him and accused persons in O.S.No.472/2014. Further he denied the suggestion that criminal case in C.C.No.222/2015 is pending against him. He denied the suggestion that the accused persons have lodged the complaint against him and others, which is prior to filing of this complaint. He denied the suggestion that on 29.06.2014 at 8.00 pm., he has not visited Yelahanka Hospital. He admits that on 29.06.2014 accused persons have not picked up quarrel with him and not insulted, humiliated by taking the name of caste and also not assaulted on him.
14. PW1-H.H.Mahesh in his chief-examination deposed that PW1 is the elder brother of his father and he and PW1 belongs to Scheduled Tribe. The accused No.1 to 3 are not belong to SC/ST. Land bearing Sy.No.19/3, measuring at 29 guntas situated at 16 Spl.C.No.06/2016 Maranayakanahalli village belongs to CW1. The accused No.1 to 3 have agreed to purchase their property. The accused No.1 to 3 had deposited a sum of Rs.20,70,000 to his father's account and Rs.21,70,000/- to the account of CW1. The balance amount was not paid by the accused despite several requests. On 29.06.2014, at 3.00 pm., he and CW1 went to their property and at that time the accused No.1 to 3 were digging the ground with JCB and on questioning the accused No.1 to 3 have abused them in the name of the caste, accused No.2 assaulted on the chest of CW1 with his legs after pushing him. The accused no.1 to 3 have caught hold of his collar and slapped him and his cousin came to the spot. The accused No.1 to 3 also put threats to their life and thereafter his uncle had lodged the complaint.
15. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel it was elicited that, he had given document before the police regarding his caste. He denied the portion of statement recorded under Section 161 of 17 Spl.C.No.06/2016 Cr.P.C., by the IO. The said portion is marked as Ex.D1. He denied the suggestion that, they entered into sale agreement with accused No.1 to sell the property for a sum of Rs.46,40,000/-. Further he denied that they have received sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. He admits that he and his family members had been to the office of Chikkajala Sub Registrar on 20.03.2014. He identified the signature on the Ex.P.3/Sale Agreement. He denied the suggestion that he and his uncle have executed registered GPA in favour of one Shashidhar on 20.03.2014. In the further cross-examination he admits about institution of suit in O.S.No.472/2014, which is still pending. He further admits that the criminal case registered by the accused in Crime No.57/2014 is still pending. He denied the suggestion that he along with CW1 and 3 have picked up quarrel with accused persons by trespassing into their property and threatened to take away of their life. He denied the suggestion that they have threatened the accused persons to 18 Spl.C.No.06/2016 file false attrocity case. He denied the suggestion that he deposed before this Court for the first time stating that the accused No.1 to 3 are agreed to purchase the property for a sum of Rs.90,00,000/-. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing before this Court for the first time stating that on 29.06.2014 at 3.00 pm., he along with CW1 came near their property. He denied the suggestion that, on 17.10.2012 sale agreement was entered into between him and accused No.2. He pleads ignorance that on 19.03.2014 one Lakshmamma and Lakshmaiah had executed confirmation deed in favour of PW2. He denied the suggestion that one Shashidhar had paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000 to Lakshmamma and Lakshmaiah. He pleads ignorance that the accused persons belong to backward community. He admits that he had no impediment to take treatment in the Government Hospital, Bettahalsuru. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.8/Wound Certificate is created for the purpose of incident. He pleads ignorance that 19 Spl.C.No.06/2016 Munikrishna, Advocate is the president of political party. He admits that he engaged Munikrishna, Advocate in the suit in O.S.472/2014. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P.14/GPA was executed voluntarily. He denied the suggestion that, Shashidhara got executed Sale deed in his favour on 23.06.2014 on the basis of GPA. He denied the suggestion that he along with his family members have picked up quarrel with accused persons on 26.06.2014 and filed false complaint. He admits about pendency of criminal case against him and his family members.
16. PW3-Srinivas, in his chief-examination has deposed that, he belongs to Adidravida community and accused No.1 and 3 belongs to Banajiga and vokkaliga community respectively. He do not know the caste of accused No.2. They have sold the land bearing Sy.No.19/3 to one Shashidhara through accused No.1. The agreement was entered into for Rs.90 lakhs. He was paid with 21,70,000/- and PW1 is paid with 20,70,000/- by way of DD and said 20 Spl.C.No.06/2016 Shashidhar not paid the remaining balance amount and went on postponing the same. On 29.06.2014 at 3.00 pm., accused No.1 to 3 were digging the land by using JCB, PW1 and 2 have came to the place and asked the accused persons. The accused No.1 to 3 came to beat PW1 and 2, abused by taking the name of caste, accused No.2 beat his father on his chest, accused No.3 slapped to PW1. At that time he reached there, accused No.1 to 3 have also abused him in the name of caste, accused No.1 to 3 have threatened to kill them. He shifted PW1 and 2 to Yelahanka Government Hospital and he had given statement before the police.
17. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel, he denied for having given statement before the police one mentioned in the para 2 of the 161 of Cr.P.C., and portion of said statement has been marked as Ex.D3. He identified his signature on Ex.D4 when the counsel for accused shown the signature by covering the contents of documents. He pleads the ignorance about the encashment of 21 Spl.C.No.06/2016 cheque issued by the accused No.2 in favour of his father and his brother by name Mahesh for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It was further elicited that he has not seen the incident personally. It was further elicited that Chikkajala Police Station situated at 3km away from his house. Further it was elicited that delay is caused to lodge the complaint as his father was taking treatment in the hospital as inpatient from 29.06.2014 to 02.07.2014. He admits that there exist Government Hospital in Chikkajala and Bettahalsuru. He pleads ignorance that medical officers are available in Bettahalasuru hospital on 24X7 hours. It was further elicited that he shifted his father and younger brother to the hospital through Motorbyke and he has not stated the said fact before the police. He pleads ignorance of about execution of GPA in favour of Shashidhar on 20.03.2014. He admits that the one Shashidhar lodge the complaint against his father, mother and brother prior to filing of this complaint. He admits 22 Spl.C.No.06/2016 about the the pendency of civil dispute before Devanahalli Court in O.S.472/2014.
18. PW4-Nagaraju, in his chief-examination deposed that PW2 is his uncle and he know the accused No.1 to 3. He belongs to Scheduled Caste, the accused belongs to Gowda Community. The accused persons are having knowledge about his caste. On 29.06.2014 at about 3.00pm., quarrel was took place in the land of PW2. He identified the accused No.1 to 3 before this Court and stated that the accused have picked up quarrel. The accused persons tried to put up compound wall with JCB. PW2 asked them to pay the money and to continue with the work. At that time two accused persons have assaulted PW2 by means of hands on his cheek and chest. Thereafter the police have visited the place of incident and prepared spot panchanama. He identified his signature on the Ex.P.2/Spot Mahazar. The learned counsel for accused has not cross examined this witness at the first instance and subsequently, filed an application 23 Spl.C.No.06/2016 before this Court under Section 311 of Cr.P.C., and same was came to be allowed. Thereafter this Court had issued summons to this witness and same was returned with an endorsement stating that he is no more.
19. PW5-K.Gopalaswamy, PW6- K.Narasihmamurthy and PW13-Mahendra, the then Tahasildars, who in their chief-examination deposed that they had issued report regarding the caste of accused No.2 and 3 as well as PW1 to the police.
20. PW7-Dwarakinath, in his chief-examination deposed about preparing of sketch map of the spot.
21. PW8- Dr. Ramachandra is the Medical officer, in his chief-examination deposed about treating the CW1 and CW2 and issuance of wound certificates as per Ex.P.7 and 8 and also opined that the injuries mentioned in the Ex.P.7 and 8 are simple in nature. During the course of cross-examination of defence counsel, he admits the suggestion that the injuries 24 Spl.C.No.06/2016 mentioned in the Ex.P.7 and 8 could be caused if any person stumbled on the ground.
22. PW10-P.Muralidhar, the then Police Inspector of Chikkajala Police Station in his chief-examination deposed about registration of the case.
23. PW9-Jayaprakash, the then ACP of Devanahalli Sub Division, who in his chief-examination deposed that he had visited the place of incident and prepared spot mahazar, recorded the statement of witnesses, collected the report regarding the caste of the complainant and Notarized copy of Sale agreement of the disputed property.
24. PW11-H.A.Theertharaju, the then Incharge ACP of Devanahalli Sub Division, who in his chief- examination deposed that he had collected the sketch of the spot and also report regarding the caste of the accused No.1.
25. PW12-Y Nagaraju, the then ACP of Devanahalli Sub Division, who in his chief-examination deposed about recording of statement of CW2 to 4, 6, further 25 Spl.C.No.06/2016 statement of CW1, collecting of wound certificates and report regarding caste of the accused No.2 & 3, Copies of GPA and Sale deed and filing of charge sheet after completing the investigation.
26. Upon careful perusal of materials available on records clearly discloses that the evidence of PW1 to 3 are available to consider the allegation of prosecution regarding criminal trespass, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult or humiliation by taking the name of the caste of PW1 and 2.
27. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would argued that, the evidence of PW1 to 3, which is corroborated through the wound certificates are sufficient to prove the commission of offence by the accused persons and the records discloses that the accused No.1 and 2 being the brokers have created the documents by using the innocence of PW1 to 3 who are belongs to 26 Spl.C.No.06/2016 scheduled Caste community and accordingly prayed for convict the accused persons.
28. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused would submit that, the evidence of PW1 to 3 is not corroborated with each other and there is a materials contradictions in their evidence. The PW1 to 3 have suppressed the fact of agreement of sale executed in favour of accused No.1 and 2 and sale deed executed in favour of one Shashidhar. Further there is a inordinate delay in filing the complaint. The PW1 to 3 have foisted false case against the accused persons due to civil dispute pending before the Civil Court and accordingly prayed for acquit the accused persons.
29. Upon careful perusal of the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clearly discloses that the prosecution has examined two victims and one eye witness before this Court. Out of which alleged eye witness is also one of the attesting witness to Ex.P.2/spot panchanama. Before going into the discussion on the other aspect of the matter, it is 27 Spl.C.No.06/2016 just and proper to go through the contents of the Ex.P.1/complaint for better appreciation of the facts of this case. On careful reading of the contents of Ex.P.1/complaint it appears to me that, the PW1 in his complaint has narrated the incident stating that he is the owner of property bearing Sy.No.19/3 measuring 29guntas situated at Maranayakanahalli. The accused No.1 and 2 being the brokers invited him to the house of one Shashidhar situated at Bhoopasandra. Thereafter, sale talks were held between him and Shashidhar and value of the land is fixed at Rs.90,00,000/- and agreed to pay sum of Rs.67,00,000/-. Accordingly, on 20.03.2014 sale agreement was registered and a sum of Rs.25,75,000/- and 20,70,000/- paid to him and his brother son respectively and agreed to pay the remaining balance sale consideration of Rs.23,88,000/-. It is further stated that the complainant requested to repay the remaining sale consideration, but the accused No.1 and 2 and one Shashidhar went on postponing the same. 28
Spl.C.No.06/2016 Thereafter he verified the documents from Sub Registrar office, wherein he found that the accused No.1 and 2 had received remaining balance sale consideration. So far as the alleged incident is concerned, the complainant has narrated the same in Para No.2 of the complaint stating that, on 29.06.2014 all the accused persons trespassed to his land and destroyed the crops by using JCB and also started to form drainage in the land. When the complainant questioned the act of the accused persons, the accused No.2 abused and insulted by taking the name of his caste and assaulted on his chest by means of hands. When the son of his brother tried to intervene, the accused No.3 abused with reference to caste name and assaulted on the face with hands and kicked on his waist and the accused No.1 threatened to take away of their lives.
30. Admittedly, the alleged incident said to have been took place on 29.06.2014. The Ex.P.1/complaint is also bears the very same date of incident, but the said complaint has reached the police on 29 Spl.C.No.06/2016 02.07.2014, which is after lapse of two days. The delay in filing the complaint is not mentioned in the complaint as well as in the FIR. The Ex.P1/Complaint has been lodged before the police stating that the accused No.1 and 2 were acted as a brokers while selling the land in favour of Shashidhar which is belongs to PW2/complainant and family members. It is important to note that during the course of cross- examination of PW1 to 3, specific questions were asked with regard to alleged Sale Agreement executed between complainant and his family members and accused No.1 and 2. The PW1 has specifically denied about the execution of Sale agreement in favour of accused No.2, but PW2 and PW3 have identified their signatures on the Ex.D4/Sale Agreement stating that the said signatures were obtained by playing fraud on them. The contents of Ex.D4/Sale Agreement and answers elicited from the mouth of PW1 to 3 clearly discloses that there exist civil dispute between the complainant and accused No.1 and 2 in respect of 30 Spl.C.No.06/2016 alleged Sale Agreement. Whether the Ex.D4/Sale Agreement was executed by the complainant and his family voluntarily or it was got executed by the accused No.1 and 2 by playing fraud will be considered only by the competent Civil Court in the pending suit between them. Hence, much importance cannot be given to the contents of Ex.D.4/Sale Agreement and it can be considered only to an extent of proving dispute regarding Sale of land.
31. As I have already stated above, one of the eye witness i.e. PW3-Srinivas, who is own son of PW2 in his cross-examination deposed that, he had not witnesses the incident. On the basis of evidence of PW3 it can be held that, there is no eye witnesses for the alleged incident. PW2 in his chief- examination has deposed that all the accused No.1 to 3 have abused him in the name of his caste and accused No.2 assaulted on his chest and kicked him which is not stated in the Ex.P1/complaint. Further he deposed that the accused No.3 assaulted on the 31 Spl.C.No.06/2016 head and back of PW1, which is also not stated in the Ex.P.1/complaint. Even PW1 in his chief- examination deposed that accused No.1 to 3 abused in the name of caste and accused No.2 assaulted on the chest of PW2 with legs and all the accused persons have slapped him by holding his collar which is also not mentioned in the Ex.P.1/complaint. It is important to note that as per Ex.P.7/wound certificate, PW2 said to have been sustained abrasion and tenderness on scalp and PW1-Mahesh said to have been tenderness on left side of scalp. It is not the case of PW1 and 2 that they have sustained alleged injuries to their scalp. In Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.9/Wound certificates there is no reference with regard to injuries on the chest of PW2 and waist of PW1. The injuries said to be sustained by the PW1 and 2 is not corroborated from the contents of Wound Certificates issued by Medical officer. The admissions of PW1 and 2 available on record, further discloses that the neighbouring land owners were present at the time 32 Spl.C.No.06/2016 of alleged incident, but those neighbours have not cited and also not examined before this Court for the reasons best known to the prosecution.
32. So far as allegation of insult and humiliation by taking the name of caste is proved through the evidence of PW1 to 3 or not is to be considered. Before going into the discussion on the other aspect of the matter it is just and proper to go through the Sec.3(1)(x) of the Act, which reads as follows;
"Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Schedules Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view".
33. The basic ingredients of the offence u/sec.3(1)(x) can be classified as intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate member of SC/ST by caste name in any place within public view. The "place in public view" had come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 (Swaran Singh & Ors., Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Ors). In the said judgment the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if an offence is committed 33 Spl.C.No.06/2016 outside the building, i.e in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would be an offence since it is not in public view. In the case on hand, it is not the case of PW1 and PW2 that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of incident in the place of occurrence. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. PW1 and 2 who are examined before this Court have deposed regarding the intentional insult and humiliation by taking the name of their caste but the said deposition is not corroborated by any of the witnesses. The incident said to have been occurred in the public place but there was no public view. Hence, I have no hurdles 34 Spl.C.No.06/2016 to hold that the alleged incident cannot be construed to be occurred in public view.
34. The evidence of PW1 and 2 is not corroborated by any of the independent eye witnesses and witnesses examined before this Court are all interested witnesses and there is a material contradictions in their evidence with regard to criminal trespass, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, criminal intimidation, voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult or humiliation by taking the name of the caste. In the absence of independent corroboration from the material eye witnesses as to the incident, the evidence of Tahasildar, PWD Engineer and the Investigating Officers are not in any way come to the aid of prosecution to connect the accused for the alleged offence. The oral as well as documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Under such circumstances the benefit of doubt should go 35 Spl.C.No.06/2016 infavour of accused. Accordingly, I answered Point No.1 to 6 are answered in the 'Negative'.
35. POINT No.7 :- In view of my foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(v)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.
The accused are set at liberty and bail bonds of accused and their surety stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcripted by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 26th day of July 2022.) (PRAKASH.V) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
PW1 : H.H.Mahesh
PW2 : Lakshmaiha
PW3 : Srinivas
36
Spl.C.No.06/2016
PW4 : Nagaraju
PW5 : K.Gopalaswamy
PW6 : K.Narasihmamurthy
PW7 : B.N.Dwarakinath
PW8 : Dr.Ramachandra
PW9 : Jayaprakash
PW10 : P.Muralidhar
PW11 : H.A.Theertaraju
PW12 : Y.Nagaru
PW13 : Mahendra
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : Agreement
Ex.P.4 and 5 : Caste report of A2 & 3
Ex.P.6 : Sketch
Ex.P.7 and 8 : Wound Certificates
Ex.P.9 : Caste report of the CW1
Ex.P.10 : FIR
Ex.P.11 : DCP order dtd 22.11.2014
Ex.P.12 : Caste report of A1
Ex.P.13 : DCP order dtd 10.01.2015
Ex.P.14 : GPA
Ex.P.15 : Letter from Sub-Registrar
Ex.P.16 : Attested copy of deed.
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil 37 Spl.C.No.06/2016
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D.1 : Statement of PW1
Ex.D.2 and 3 : Statement of PW3 & 4
Ex.D.4 : Sale Agreement
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil
(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
38 Spl.C.No.06/2016 Accused No.1 to 3 are present.
Judgment pronounced in the open court (vide separately).
ORDER
Acting under Section
235(1) of Cr.P.C, the accused
No.1 to 3 are hereby acquitted
for the offence punishable
under Sections 447, 323, 504,
506 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)
(v)(x) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of
Atrocities Act), 1989.
The accused are set at
liberty and bail bonds stands
cancelled.
However, the bond
executed in compliance of Sec.
437(A) of Cr.P.C., shall be in
force till appeal period.
LXX Addl. City Civil & SJ &
Special Judge, Bengaluru.