Bangalore District Court
The State By vs K.P. Sudhindra Reddy @ on 16 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 16 th day of September, 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C. NO. 654/2018
COMPLAINANT: The State by
H.S.R. Police Station,
BENGALURU
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: K.P. Sudhindra Reddy @
Chamarajareddy ,
S/o. late K.C.Papanna,
Aged about 50 years,
R/at:No.15828, 23rd Main,
1st Sector, HSR Layout,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. B.H. Advocate)
1.Date of commission of offence: 30-11-2017
2. Date of report of occurrence : 30-11-2017
3. Date of commencement of : 30-08-2019 recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 30-08-2019 2 Spl.C.No. 654/2018
5. Name of the Complainant : R. Venkatesh
6. Offences Complained of :Sec. 506 of I.P.C. and Sec.
3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is Acquitted.
J UD GM E N T The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Madiwala Sub- Division, Bengaluru City has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. and u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Based upon the first information lodged by CW.1 HSR Layout Police have registered a First Information Report bearing Crime No. 577/2017. After completion of investigation charge sheet is submitted directly before this designated Special Court.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under:
C.W.1 is the first informant before the police. It is alleged that on 30.11.2017 at about 10.50 a.m., within the jurisdiction of H.S.R. Layout Police Station at 6 th Sector, near BDA complex on public road when CW.1 asked the accused to 3 Spl.C.No. 654/2018 repay the hand loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at that time the accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and abused him in the name of caste and criminally intimidated by giving life threat to him. Based on the first information statement of C.W.1 the HSR Layout Police registered the case in Crime No.577/2017 and sent FIR to the Court. The Investigation Officer after 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.
5. On 13.12.2018 charges are framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 506 of I.P.C. and u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During trial, on the side of the prosecution CW.1 has examined as P.W.1 and the documents Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2 are marked. Rest of the witnesses are not secured.
7. On 07.09.2019 the statement of the accused u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded. Accused has denied all the 4 Spl.C.No. 654/2018 incriminating evidence. Accused did not lead any defence evidence on his 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 following points arise for my consideration:-
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 30.11.2017 at
10.50 a.m. at H.S.R. Layout, 6th Sector, Near BDA Complex on public road accused abused the C.W.1/ complainant in the name of caste and insulted and humiliated him within public view and thereby accused has committed the offences punishable 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 afore said date, time and place accused abused CW.1/complainant in filthy language and in the name of caste and insulted and humiliated him within public view and 5 Spl.C.No. 654/2018 thereby accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all Reasonable doubt on the above said date, time and place the accused criminally intimidated C.W.1 by giving life threat to him and thereby the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC?
4) What order?
10. 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:- As per final order for the following REASONS
11. POINT No.1 to 3:- All these points are inter connected to each other hence they are taken together for discussion for the sake of convenience.
12. It is the specific case of the prosecution is that on 30.11.2017 at 10.50 a.m., at H.S.R. Layout 6th Sector near 6 Spl.C.No. 654/2018 BDA Complex on public road when CW.1 asked the accused to repay borrowed amount of Rs.5,00,000/- at that time the accused abused him in the name of caste and insulted and humiliated him within public view and also criminally intimidated him by giving life threat. But quite contrary to the case of the prosecution PW.1 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by deposing that accused has not abused him in the name of caste and not given life threat to him.
13. P.W.1/R. Venkatesh has deposed that he belongs to schedule caste. He do not know the caste of the accused. He has deposed that at about 2 years back he attended the one marriage function held at H.S.R. Layout at that time accused also came there. At that time he asked the accused to repay the amount payable to him. Then verbal exchange taken place between him and accused. He has deposed that the accused has not abused him in filthy language and not abused him in the name of caste. He has deposed that the accused has not given life threat to him. He states that as there was oral altercation held between him and accused hence he went to the police station at that time the police took his signature on 7 Spl.C.No. 654/2018 Ex.P1. He has deposed that the police came near the Marriage Hall and conducted the mahazar and took his signature. He has deposed that he do not know the contents of the documents Ex.P1 and Ex.P2.
14. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution learned Spl.P.P., cross examined PW.1 in detail. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned Spl.P.P., PW.1 has denied the entire contents of Ex.P1 complaint and Ex.P2 mahazar. PW.1 has admitted the suggestion that accused had borrowed sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from him. He has deposed that accused has repaid only Rs.2,00,000/- and due to pay remaining amount. He has admitted the suggestion that as accused has promised him that he will pay balance amount hence he has compromised the case with the accused. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
15. During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused PW.1 has denied the suggestion that accused has not borrowed any hand loan from him. He has denied the suggestion that no altercation taken place between him and accused.
8 Spl.C.No. 654/2018
16. In this case except P.W.1 the prosecution has not examined any witnesses. P.W.1 is the important witness. PW.1 has not deposed anything against the accused. Even though PW.1 has deposed that some altercation was taken place between him and accused while he was demanded for repayment of hand loan amount but he has clearly deposed that the accused has not abused him in the name of caste and not given life threat to him. The very admission made by the PW.1 indicates that he has compromised the case with accused. PW.1 might have compromised the case with the accused hence he may not supported the case of the prosecution for which the prosecution cannot be blamed. Even though learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.1 in detail nothing is elicited from his mouth to show that the accused has committed the offences u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 506 of I.P.C. There is no incriminating evidence against the accused. Even though it is not in dispute that PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste, but there is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused has committed the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1) 9 Spl.C.No. 654/2018
(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 506 of I.P.C. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer the above point No.1 to 3 in the negative.
17. Point No.4:- In view of my findings on point no.1 to point no.3, I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused K.C. Sudhindra Reddy @ Chamarajareddy is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 506 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety stand cancelled. However the bond executed in compliance of Section 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period.10 Spl.C.No. 654/2018
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16th day of September, 2019.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
A N NE X U R E
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : R. Venkatesh
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW.1
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.11 Spl.C.No. 654/2018
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment.
O R DE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused K.P. Sudhindra Reddy @ Chamarajareddy is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 506 of IPC.12 Spl.C.No. 654/2018
The bail bond of the accused and his surety 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.