Bangalore District Court
State By vs Nagashree W/O Late Guruswamy on 13 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 13 th day of September, 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI.MOHAN PRABHU, M.A.,LL.M.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
COMPLAINANT : State by:
Sanjayanagara Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED : Nagashree W/o Late Guruswamy,
35 years, R/at No.28, Lakshmi Nilaya,
2nd Floor, Geddalahalli, Sanjay Nagar,
Bengaluru-560 094.
(By Sri. M.T.Venkatesh, Advocate)
1. Date of commission of offence : 20-02-2017
2. Date of report of occurrence : 20-02-2017
3. Date of commencement of
recording of evidence : 24-03-2018
4.Date of closing of evidence : 07-08-2019
2 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
5. Name of the Complainant : Gangadhar
6. Offences Complained of : Sections 323, 504, 506 of
I.P.C. and u/s 3(1)(r) of
SC/ST (P.A.) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is acquitted.
J UD GM E N T
A Charge Sheet is submitted by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, J.C. Nagara Sub-Division, Bengaluru
city against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) of The
Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act.
2. Based upon the first information lodged by C.W.1
Gangadhar, Sanjaya Nagar police have registered a First
Information Report bearing Crime No.43/2017. After
completion of investigation, Charge Sheet is submitted
directly before the designated Special Court II Addl. City Civil
& Sessions Judge and Special Court, Bengaluru for the
aforesaid offences. After establishing this exclusive special
3 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
court this case transferred from II Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Court to this court as per Notification ADM I (A) 599/2017
dated 29.7.2017.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under:-
CW.1 is belongs to Scheduled Caste, accused is not
belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. That on
20.2.2017 at about 9.30 a.m. when CW.1 was standing near
the vegetable shop of CW.3 Anand situated at Sanjaynagar
Main Road near Geddalahalli Bus Stand at that time the
accused came there and picked up quarrel with CW.1 and
abused him in the name of caste knowing very well that he
belongs to Scheduled Caste and slapped CW.1 complainant
and also squeezed by holding his private part and also
threatened him that she will file sexual assault case against
him. Based on first information lodged by CW.1
Sanjayanagara Police registered case in Crime No.43/2017
and sent FIR to the court. The I.O., took up the investigation
and visited the place of incident and conducted the
panchanama. The I.O., recorded the statement of the
4 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
witnesses. I.O., after collecting the report of the Tahasidlar
regarding the caste of complainant and accused, 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 is on bail. Charge sheet copies
furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s 207
of Cr.P.C., is duly complied with.
5. On 12.12.2017 charges are framed against the
accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504,
506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which the
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During trial, the prosecution has examined 11
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and documents Ex.P.1 to
Ex.P.13 are marked.
5 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
7. On 16.8.2019 the statement of the accused as
required u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded by putting all
incriminating circumstances available in the prosecution
evidence to her. The accused has denied all such
circumstances and did not lead any defence evidence on her
behalf. The accused in her 313 statement has stated that no
such incident was occurred.
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned Special
Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused. I
have also perused the entire case papers.
9. The Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted
that P.W.1 is the first informant. PW.2, PW.3, PW.5 are eye
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and
they have spoken in detail about the incident. PW.8 is the
Investigation Officer who conducted the investigation. PW.9
and PW.10 who apprehended the accused and produced
before the I.O., have supported the case of the prosecution.
PW.11 PSI who registered the case based on the first
6 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
information statement lodged by the complainant/CW.1.
PW.4 Doctor who examined CW.1 have supported the case of
the prosecution. Though PW.6 and PW.7 mahazar witnesses
have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The oral
evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5 are cogent and reliable.
Certain minor inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3
and PW.5 which is natural in every cases which required to
be ignored. From the evidence of PW.1 to PW.5, PW.8 to
PW.11 since the prosecution has established charges framed
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, she is 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 the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5.
Accused is widow, CW.1 to CW.5 always teased the accused
and misbehaved with her because she is widow. He argued
that the medical evidence is not supporting the oral evidence
of PW.1. He submitted that even though PW.2 in his
7 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
examination-in-chief supported the case of the prosecution.
But in his cross-examination he has completely go bye the
case of the prosecution. PW.5 has also not fully supported
the case of the prosecution. The oral evidence of PW.1 to
PW.3 and PW.5 which is not corroborating with each other is
not believable. 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.
11. Upon hearing, the following points that arise for my
Consideration:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on 20-02-2017 at
about 9.30 a.m. in Sanjaynagar Main
Road, near Geddalahalli Bus Stand when
CW.1 standing near vegetable shop of
CW.3 the accused quarrelled with
complainant and abused him in the name
of caste and insulted and humiliated him
within public view and thereby the
accused has committed the offence
8 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
punishable u/s 3(1)(r) of for the offences
punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506
of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled
Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, accused slapped
CW.1 complainant and also squeezed his
private part and caused him simple hurt
and thereby the accused committed offence
punishable u/s 323 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, accused abused CW.1
complainant in filthy language and insulted
him and thereby the accused committed
offence punishable u/s 504 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid
date, time and place, accused criminally
intimidated C.W.1 by giving threat to him
that he will file false sexual assault case
9 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
against him and thereby accused has
committed the offence punishable u/s 506
of IPC?
5) 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:- In the negative
Point No.5:- As per final order
for the following
REASONS
13. POINTS No.1 to 4:- All these points are inter-
linked to each other, hence, they are taken together for
discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence.
14. P.W.1 Gangadhar has deposed that he belongs to
Adi Karnataka Community Scheduled Caste and accused
belongs to Brahmin community. He is not sure whether the
accused knows his caste. He has deposed that he been
selling vegetables from almost childhood days behind
10 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
Anjaneya Temple in Geddalahalli, Bengaluru. On 20.2.2017
at about 9.30 a.m. the accused came near the vegetable
selling place and abused him in the name of caste and did
galata. He has deposed that the accused slapped him and
then he fell down. The entire village people could not stop her.
The accused threatened him that she will file rape case
against him. The accused also pressed his genital and
scratched him on the said part. C.W.2 and C.W.3 saved him.
He has lodged the complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1.
The police taken him to K.C. General Hospital for treatment.
The police came to the spot. But he has signed Ex.P2 pancha
nama in the police station. The accused keep on abusing him
for no reasons. He felt insulted by the act of the accused. He
has identified 2 photos which are marked at Ex.P3 and Ex.P4.
During his cross-examination P.W.1 has deposed that Ex.P1
complaint was written by police themselves. The accused was
not giving trouble to him but giving trouble to the public.
Number of people gathered in the place of incident. He
admits that the husband of accused died. He has denied the
11 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
suggestion that after the death of the husband of accused he
and CW.2 to CW.5 started to misbehaving with her and
calling her and teasing her and ragging her. PW.1 has denied
the suggestion that when the accused warned them that they
will lodge complaint, hence in order to trouble her he had
lodged false complaint. He do not know the house of the
accused and do not know the occupation of the accused. He
has denied the suggestion that since there was dispute
between him and accused regarding the purchase of
vegetables he has filed false complaint against accused.
15. P.W.2/Lokesh has deposed that PW.1 is his elder
brother. They belongs to Adi Karnataka scheduled caste. He
do not know the caste of the accused. PW.2 has deposed that
on 19.2.2017 at about 9.30 a.m., he was standing near Tea
Stall at Geddalahalli bus stop, at that time accused came and
started abusing the public there. Hence he went to give
complaint but later changed his mind. On 20.2.2017 he was
standing near the shop of PW.1 and at about 9.30 a.m. the
accused came and slapped PW.1. She abused PW.1 and
12 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
pressed his genital and again slapped him and abused him as
"Holeya Nanna Magane". Hence, PW.1 lodged the complaint.
He has deposed that Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are the photos of
incident that appeared in TV.9. During his cross-examination
by the Learned Counsel for the accused PW.2 admitted the
suggestion that he has not given statement before the police.
He has admitted the suggestion that accused and their
community people had enmity since 5-6 years with respect to
vegetable vending business. He admits that near the shop of
CW.3 always beat police were there. He has admitted the
suggestion that the accused has not abused PW.1 in the
name of caste and not givee threat to him. He admits that he
has not witnessed any incident. Since PW.2 turned hostile at
the instance of learned Spl.P.P., he has treated as hostile and
permitted to cross-examine. During the course of cross-
examination by learned Spl.P.C., PW.2 has denied all the
suggestions made to him.
16. P.W.3/Anand B has deposed that PW.1 and PW.2
are belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste. He has
13 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
deposed that on 20.2.2017 he was standing near the Tea
Shop at near Geddalahalli bus Stop near Anjaneya Temple.
The accused came and said that you are lodging complaint
against me and slapped PW.1. Accused pressed genitals of
PW.1 and abused him in the name of caste as "Holeya
Madiga". Hence, he along with PW.1 went to police station in
order to lodge complaint. He has deposed that about the
galata it had appeared in the news. He identified Ex.P3 and
Ex.P4 photos appeared in TV.9. During his cross-examination
by the Learned Counsel for the accused P.W.3 has deposed
that on 20.2.2017 number of public gathered there and
pacified the quarrel. He has deposed that accused slapped to
PW.1 on right side face. He admits the suggestion that the
police have not recorded his statement. He has denied the
suggestion that as there was dispute between them and
accused regarding vegetable vending business in order to help
PW.1 he has giving false evidence against the accused.
17. P.W.4/Dr. Prameela, DCM (Deputy Chief Medical
officer) of K.C. General Hospital has deposed that on
14 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
20.2.2017 at 5.15 P.M., one Gangadhar brought by PC NO.
14208 of Sanjayanagar Police Station with history of assault.
On examination of said Gangadhar no external injuries are
found. No tenderness found on genital. She has issued
wound certificate as per Ex.P5. The oral evidence of PW.4
remained unchallenged as counsel for accused has not cross-
examined PW.4.
18. P.W.5/Murthy has deposed that at about 1 year
back at about 1.00 a.m., he was doing vegetable vending
business. At that time CW.1, CW.2 were also doing vegetable
vending business. They by spreading tarpal on footpath
vending vegetables. At that time accused who came there
asked them to remove the vegetables. Hence, they shifted the
vegetables to pushing cart and started to do vegetable
vending business. At that time accused abused them by
saying "Gandoogalu" and also abused them as "Holeya
Madigaru". He has deposed that when the accused was
quarrelling with them the public gathered at that time due to
traffic jam he went away from that place by pushing the cart.
15 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
During the course of his cross-examination by the learned
counsel for the accused PW.5 admitted the suggestion that he
and PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and CW.5 Rajanna are belongs to same
community. He do not know the caste of the accused. He do
not know the caste of the husband of the accused. He admits
the suggestion that Geddalahalli Bus Stand traffically busy
area. He has admitted the suggestion that he has not given
any statement before the police. He has deposed that the
accused has not abused him. He has deposed that since the
people gathered there, hence, he went from that place by
pushing the pushing cart. He has admitted the suggestion
that he has not given any statement before the police that
accused has abused PW.1 Gangadhar in the name of caste.
He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
19. P.W.6/Tejas is the mahazar witness has completely
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that at
about one year back Sanjayanagar police called him to the
police station and took his signature on Ex.P2. He do not
know anything about the contents of Ex.P2 mahazar.
16 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
20. P.W.7/Rajesh has deposed that in his presence, the
police have not conducted any mahazar. At about one year
back the Sanjayanagar Police called him to the police station
and took his signature on Ex.P2 mahazar. He do not know
anything about the mahazar. Having turned hostile to the
case of the prosecution learned Special Public Prosecutor
cross-examined PW.6 and PW.7 in detail. During the course
of their cross-examination PW.6 and PW.7 have denied the
entire contents of the document Ex.P2 mahazar. They have
denied the suggestion that the police called them near
Geddalahalli Bus Stand and conducted Ex.P2 mahazar in
their presence between 1.30 PM and 2.30 PM. Nothing has
been elicited from the mouth of PW.6 and PW.7 to support the
case of the prosecution.
21. PW.8. H. Manjunath Babu, ACP has deposed that
on 20.2.2017 he took up the case file from CW.11 PSI for
further investigation. On the same day he visited to the place
of incident and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the
presence of CW.6 Tejas and CW.7 Rajanna. He has recoded
17 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
the statement of CW.2 Lokesh, CW.3. Anand, CW.4 Murthy,
CW.5 Rajanna. On the same day at about 12.45 PM accused
was produced by CW.9 ASI and Woman Police and hence he
has arrested the accused and sent her to KC General Hospital
for treatment. Thereafter he has sent her to the court with
proper escort. He has received Ex.P5 Wound Certificate. ON
11.4.2017 he has received Ex.P10 report of the Tahasildar
regarding the caste of the complainant. On 9.5.2017 he has
received Ex.P11 report of the Tahasildar regarding the caste
of the accused. He has deposed that on 9.5.2017 on
completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet
against the accused. During the course of his cross-
examination by the learned counsel for the the accused he
has denied all the suggestions made to him. He has not
conducted the investigation to know whether CW.1 to 5 were
teased the accused. He has denied the suggestion that since
accused living alone after the death of her husband. CW.1 to
CW.5 were giving illtreatment to her. Hence, when accused
about to lodge complaint against them at that time at the
18 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
instance of CW.1 to 5 he has registered false case against the
accused. PW.8 has denied all other suggestions made to him.
22. PW.9 Krishnaiah, ASI has deposed that on
20.2.2017 PSI deputed him to trace out the accused. Hence,
he along with CW.10 Tanuja CW.11 Shashikala, Woman
Police Constables apprehended the accused near Geddalahalli
Bus stop at about 12.30 PM and produced the accused before
ACP at 12.45 PM and submitted report as per Ex.P7. During
the course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel
for the accused PW.9 has deposed that they have not called
any independent witnesses at the time of apprehending the
accused. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
23. PW.10 Shashikala, WPC has deposed that on
20.2.2017 she along with WPC No. 14259 Tanuja and ASI
Krishnaiah went in search of accused and apprehended the
accused at Geddalahali bus stand at about 12.30 PM and
produced the accused before ACP at 12.45 PM. The oral
19 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
evidence of PW.1 remained unchallenged as learned counsel
for the accused not cross-examined PW.10.
24. PW.11. N. Nagaraj, PSI has deposed that on
20.2.2017 on the basis of the first information statement
lodged by the complainant he registered the case in Crime
No.43/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sent Ex.P12
FIR to the court. He has sent the complainant along with his
staff to KC General Hospital for treatment. He has issued
Ex.P13 memo to ASI and WPCs in order to trace out the
accused. During the court of his cross-examination by the
learned counsel for the accused PW.11 has denied the
suggestion that at the instance of the complainant he has
registered the false case against the accused. He has
admitted the suggestion that they have deputed beat police at
Geddalahalli bus stand. He has admitted the suggestion that
husband of the accused died. He has deposed that he has
not made any enquiry whether the complainant and
20 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
witnesses were teasing the accused. He has denied all other
suggestions made to him.
25. Based upon the above evidence it is to be examined
if the prosecution has established the charges framed against
the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt. With regarding to
the caste of PW.1, there is no much dispute. PW.1 has
deposed that he belongs to Adi Karnataka community comes
under Schedule Caste. PW.2, PW.3 and PW.5 have also
deposed that PW.1 is belongs to Adi Karnataka comes under
Scheduled Caste. PW.8 is the Investigation Officer who has
collected the report of the Tahasildar as per Ex.P.10. The
document Ex.P10 is not denied by the accused in the cross-
examination of PW.8. Ex.P10 report of the Tahasildar
regarding the caste of PW.1 coupled with the oral evidence of
PW.1, PW.3 and PW.5 is sufficient to hold that PW.1 belongs
to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste. PW.1 has deposed the
accused is belongs to Brahmin community. This oral version
of PW.1 is not tested in his cross-examination. PW.8
Investigation Officer has deposed that he has collected the
21 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
document Ex.P11 report of the Tahasildar regarding the caste
of the accused. The accused has not taken any such defence
that she is belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
No doubt during the course of cross-examination PW.1 to
PW.3 questions asked regarding the caste of the husband of
the accused but they have answered they do not know the
caste of the husband of the accused. Since the accused has
not taken any such defence that she belongs to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
26. The oral evidence of P.W.1, PW.2, PW.8 coupled with
the document Ex.P.11 is sufficient to hold that the accused
do not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Thus,
it is established that PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and
accused do not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe.
27. PW.1 has deposed that the accused abused him for
no reasons. It is not the contention of the PW.1 is that
accused had any enimity with him in order to abuse him in
22 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
the name of caste and assault him. In Ex.P1 it is mentioned
that on 20.2.2017 at about 9.30 AM when he was standing
near the vegetable vending shop of Ananda at that time the
accused who came there picked up quarrel with him by
stating that he got lodged the complaint through one Lokesh
against her. Even though it is mentioned in Ex.P1 that
accused started to abuse the complainant questioning why he
got lodged the complaint against her through Lokesh but
PW.1 has not whispered anything about the same. PW.1 has
deposed that the accused without any reasons abused him.
PW.1 in his examination-in-chief has not deposed anything
about the alleged abusive language used by the accused.
PW.1 simply deposed that on 20.2.2017 at 9.30 a.m., accused
came near vegetable selling place and abused him in the
name of caste and slapped and pressed his genitals and
scratched him on the said part and also threatened him that
she will file rape case against him.
28. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P5 certificate issued
by PW.4 doctor of KC General Hospital, it is mentioned that
23 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
there was no external injuries seen, no tenderness in
scrotum. PW.4 has clearly deposed that on examination of
Gangadhar no external injuries found and no injuries were
found on the genitalia. PW.1 has deposed that the accused
slapped him at that time he fell down at that time accused
pressed his genitalia and scratched him on the said part. If
at all the accused was slapped PW.1 there should atleast
tenderness over that part but the oral evidence of PW.4 shows
that no external injuries were found on the body of PW.1 and
there was no tenderness over private part or over any other
part of the body.
29. PW.2 even though in his examination-in-chief
supported the case of the prosecution but during the course
of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the
accused PW.2 has completely go by the case of the
prosecution by stating that the accused has not abused PW.1
in the name of caste and not given threat to PW.1 and also
not pressed the genitalia of PW.1. PW.2 has admitted the
suggestion that he has not witnessed any incident. PW.2 is
24 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
the brother of PW.1. Even though learned Special Public
Prosecutor cross-examined PW.2 in detail nothing is elicited
from his mouth to support the case of the prosecution.
30. PW.3 Anand B has deposed that the accused came
and said that you are lodging complaint against him and
saying so she slapped PW.1 and pressed the genitalia and
abused PW.1 as "Holeya Madiga". PW.1 has not deposed
anything about the accused abused him in the name of caste
as "Holeya Madiga". On perusal of Ex.P1 complaint there is
no such mention that the accused abused the complainant as
"Holeya Madiga". In Ex.P1 it is mentioned that the accused
abused the complainant as "ಸಸಳ ಮಗನ, ಹಸಲಯ ನನನ ಮಗನ,
ಹಸಲಯ ಸಸಳ ನನನ ಮಗನ." The abusive language which is
deposed by PW.3 allegedly used by the accused is not
corroborating with the abusive language which are mentioned
in Ex.P1 complaint. More than that PW.1 has not deposed
anything about what type of abusive language was used by
the accused to abuse him. He has simply deposed that
accused abused him in the name of caste. He has not
25 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
deposed anything about the abusive language allegedly used
by the accused. PW.1 has deposed that the accused
threatened him that she will file rape case against him. But
PW.3 has not deposed anything about the criminal
intimidation giving life threat by the accused to P.W.1. The
oral evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with the oral
evidence of PW3.
31. Now, coming to the oral evidence of PW.5. PW.5 has
deposed that the accused abused him, PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 as
"Gandoogala and Holeya Madigaru". PW.5 has deposed that
when the accused quarrelling with them the public gathered
at that time he went away from that place by pushing the
pushing cart. During the course of the cross-examination by
the defence PW.5 has clearly admitted the suggestion that
accused had not abused him. PW.5 has deposed that
accused was talking with the complainant Gangadhar at that
time the people gathered in that place. Hence, he went away
from that place. That means PW.5 has not personally
witnessed the incident. In this case the prosecution has got
26 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
marked Ex.P3 and P4. PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 have identified
these photos and have deposed that these two photos are the
photos of the incident that appeared in T.V.9 news. I have
perused these two photos. The very heading of this photo
which appeared in T.V. news is that accused Nagashree was
tried to assault on the duty police. Another photo heading is
that ladies caught the Nagashree and assaulted her in the
public place. PW.1 to PW.3 have deposed that these photos
Ex.P3 and P4 are about the incident. But on perusal of the
the news heading it would shows that it is the photo alleging
that accused tried to assault police and the public assaulted
the accused. It is not the photos of the alleged incident as
deposed by PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5.
32. From the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5 it is
noticed that there were dispute between the accused and
these witnesses regarding vending of the vegetables. PW.5
has deposed that the accused who came to that place asked
them to remove the vegetables at that time they put the
vegetables in pushing cart. From the evidence of PW1, PW.3
27 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
and PW.5 it is clear that the ingredients of the offence u/s
3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (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 offences and the allegations that the
accused has 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)(r) of the Act is required to be established on the basis
of the evidence it is unimpeachable. There is no cogent and
consistent evidence that accused had any knowledge or knew
about the PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. PW.1 in his
examination-in-chief himself deposed that he is not sure
whether the accused knows about his caste. The alleged
derogatory words used by accused are not consistent from the
ocular evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5. They have each
stated about the derogatory words said to have been used by
the accused in a totally different manner and the same is also
in variance with the case put forth by the prosecution. PW.1
28 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
has not deposed anything about the abusive language used
by the accused. The oral evidence of PW.3 and PW.5
regarding the abusive language are not corroborating with
each other. PW.2 even though supported the case of the
prosecution in his examination-in-chief but during the course
of his cross-examination he has completely go bye the case of
the prosecution by deposing that he was not witnessed the
incident. On consideration of the derogatory words said to
have been used by the accused as stated by these witnesses
there is no corroborative and consistent evidence in this
regard. Admittedly PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5 are belongs to
same community. It also cannot be said that the alleged
incident has taken place in public view as no other person
other than the PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5 who belongs to same
community and unconcerned with the event was present and
have deposed about it. There is no cogent material to indicate
that the accused had abused PW.1 by name his caste with an
intention to humiliate him in public view when he evidence on
record is appreciated as a whole.
29 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
33. PW.1 has deposed that he has signed the mahazar
Ex.P2 in the police station. PW.6 and PW.7 independent
mahazar witnesses have completely turned hostile to the case
of the prosecution by stating that they have signed on Ex.P2
mahazar in the police station. Except the oral evidence of
PW.8 there are no other independent witnesses to show that
PW.8 has conducted the mahazar in the alleged place of
incident. Thus, the prosecution has not proved the document
Ex.P2 mahazar beyond reasonable doubt.
34. In so far as the alleged offences u/s 323 of IPC is
concerned, PW.4 Doctor has clearly deposed that there were
no external injuries found on the body of PW.1. No
tenderness found on the genitalia. There is absolutely no
evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the
accused has assaulted PW.1 and caused him simple hurt.
There is no cogent evidence to attract Sec. 323 of IPC.
35. In so far as the alleged offence u/s 504 of IPC is
concerned it is required to be established that the accused
30 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
had intentionally insulted PW.1 which provoked him to brake
public peace or to commit any further offences. PW.1 has not
deposed anything about the abusive language allegedly used
by the accused. PW.2, PW.4, PW.5 have also not deposed
regarding the abusive language allegedly used by the
accused. When the entire evidence is considered there is
nothing on record to even remotely satisfy the ingredients of
offence u/s 504 of IPC.
36. In so far as Sec. 506 of IPC is concerned PW.1 has
deposed that accused threatened him that she will file the
rape case against him. This oral version of PW.1 is not
supported by any other independent witnesses. PW.2, PW.3 ,
PW.5 have not deposed anything about the criminal
intimidation giving life threat by the accused to PW.1. The
uncorroborated version of PW.1 which is not supported by
any independent witnesses is not sufficient to hold that the
accused has given life threat to PW.1.
31 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
37. The accused has taken defence that since she is
widow all these witnesses CW.1 to CW.5 were abusing her
and when she about to lodge the complaint at that time CW.1
lodged the complaint against her. Admittedly the accused is
widow. On perusal of the oral evidence of PW.1,PW.2, PW.3
shows that there is dispute between the accused and these
witnesses regarding the vegetable vending business. The
admissions made by PW.1 to PW.3 and PW.5 cannot rule out
the possibility of a false complaint being lodged against the
accused. On an appreciation of the evidence on record I am
of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the
case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The
prosecution has failed to prove the case that the accused has
committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504,
506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond all
reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point No.1 to 4 in the
negative.
32 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
38. Point No.5:- In view of my findings on point No.1 to
4, I proceed to pass the following:-
O R DE R
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the
Accused Nagashree is hereby acquitted of the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of
IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Caste &
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Bail bond of the accused and her surety
bond stand cancelled. However the surety given in
compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force
till statutory period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him,
corrected, signed and then pronounced in open court on this
the 13th day of September, 2019.)
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
33 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
A N NE X U R E
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Gangadhar
P.W. 2 : Lokesh
P.W. 3 : Ananda
P.W. 4 : Dr. Prameela
P.W. 5 : Murthy
P.W. 6 : Tejas
P.W. 7 : Rajesh
P.W.8 : Manjunath Babu
P.W.9 : Krishnaiah
P.W.10 : Shashikala
P.W.11 : Nagaraj
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.11
Ex.P.2 : Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.2(c) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P 3 & 4 : Photos
Ex.P 5 : Wound Certificate
Ex.P 5(a) : Signature of PW.4
Ex.P5(b) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P 6 : DCP Order
Ex.P 6(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P 7 : Report regarding production of
accused
Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.7(b) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P.8 : Caste Certificate of complainant
Ex.P8(a) : Signature of PW.8
34 Spl.C.C. No. 264/2017
Ex.P9 : Caste Certificate of Accused
Ex.P9(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P10 : Report of Tahasildar regarding
the case of complainant
Ex.P10(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P11 : Report of Tahasildar regarding
the caste of accused
Ex.P11(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P12 : FIR
Ex.P13 : Order of PSI to search accused
Ex.P.13(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.C. No. 264/2017
Judgment pronounced in the
open court vide separate detailed order.
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused Nagashree is hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Bail bond of the accused and her surety bond stand cancelled. However the surety given 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.