Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Ramesh.C S/O Late on 25 January, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 25th day of January 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions &
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No:300/2016
Complainant The State by
Commercial Street Police
Station,
Bengaluru.
By Special Public Prosecutor
Vs
Accused Ramesh.C S/o Late
Chennegowda, 49 years, R/at
No.77, Sabarwal Hotel, Behind
Chethan Hotel Nala Cross, K.H.
Road, Sudhama Nagar,
Shantinagar Bengaluru.
(By Sri. R. Venkatesh, Advocate)
1 Date of commission of 21.4.2016
offence
2. Date of report of 21.4.2016
2 Spl.C.No:300/2016
occurrence
3. Date of commencement of 8.2.2018
recording evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence 19.12.2018
5. Name of the complainant N. Devadas
6. Offences complained of U/Sec: 3(1)(x) of
SC & ST (POA)
Act, 1989 & 504,
506(B) IPC.
7. Opinion of the Judge Accused is
acquitted.
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pulikeshinagar Sub-Division, Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and u/s 504, 506(B) of IPC.
2. Based upon the first information lodged by CW1 Sri. N. Devadas, the Commercial Street Police have registered first information report bearing 3 Spl.C.No:300/2016 Cr.No.49/2016. After completion of investigation charge sheet is submitted directly before the designated Special Court against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under; C.W.1 belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste and accused is not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe. C.W.1 is the Driver of BMTC Bus. The accused is working as Conductor of BMTC Bus. They were working in different bus. That on 21.4.2016 at about 9.30 AM the accused picked up quarrel with C.W.1 in Jeevanahalli Bus Stand on the ground that the bus was started early, the accused abused C.W.1 for starting the bus early and abused him in filthy language by saying 'K£ÉÆà ¨ÉÆýªÀÄUÀ£É ¤£ÀߪÀÄä£Àß PÁåAiÀiÁ ¤£ÀUÉ ºÉÆgÀqÉÆà mÉʪÀiï DV®éÉ. Thereafter on the same day at about 1.10 PM after parking the BMTC bus in Flat 4 Spl.C.No:300/2016 Form No.8, when C.W.1 was standing in order to get relieve, at that time the accused again picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and abused in the name of caste by saying "K£ÉÆà ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£É, PÀA¥ÉèAmï ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ K£ÀÄ QvÀÄÛPÉÆÃwÃAiÀiÁ." The accused by showing a knife criminally intimidated C.W.1 by giving life threat to him that if he lodges any complaint he will do away his life. Based on the information statement lodged by C.W.1 on 21.4.2016, the Commercial Street Police registered a case against the accused in Crime No.49/2016 and sent the FIR to the court. The Investigating Officer took up the investigation and visited to the place of incident and conducted the mahazar. Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary statement and at the instance of the accused seized M.O.1 knife. The 5 Spl.C.No:300/2016 Investigating Officer after collecting all the materials on completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and u/s 504, 506(B) of IPC.
4. The accused who has obtained anticipatory bail appeared before the court on 1.9.2016 and engaged counsel and released on regular bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s 207 of Cr.P.C., is duly complied with. This case which was pending before II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court and Special Court, Bengaluru transferred to this exclusive special court as per Notification No. ADM-I(A) 599/2017 dt.29.7.2017.
6 Spl.C.No:300/2016
5. After hearing on both sides, charge came to be framed against the accused on 29.8.2017 for the offences punishable u/s.504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, 9 witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and documents Ex.P.1 to P.16 are marked. M.O.1 knife is marked. During the course of cross-examination PW.1 documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 are marked.
7. After closure of evidence on the side of prosecution, statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded on 5.1.2019 by putting all incriminating evidence available on the side of prosecution to the accused. Accused has denied all the incriminating 7 Spl.C.No:300/2016 evidence. In his 313 statement the accused has stated as "zÉêÀzÁ¸ï, CgÀÄuï PÀĪÀÆgï, gÁd±ÉÃRgï EªÀÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ¸ÉÃj £À£ÀUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀgÀÄ. D PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ ¨ËjAUï D¸ÀàvÉæAiÀÄ°è aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉzÉ£ÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ aQvÉì ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ §gÀĪÀµÀÖgÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛãÉAzÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛV ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀļÀÄî zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ." The accused has not led any defence evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and perused the entire case papers.
9. The following points arises for my determination:-
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 22.4.2016 at about 9.30 am at Jeevanahalli Bus stand, the accused picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and abused him in filthy language so as to provoke him 8 Spl.C.No:300/2016 and insulted him and thereby, the accused has committed offence punishable u/s.504 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.4.2016 at about 1.10 P.M. at Flat Form No.8 of Shivajinagar BMTC Bus stand the accused by showing knife to C.W.1 complainant criminally intimidated by giving life thereat to him and thereby, the accused has committed offence punishable u/s.506 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 21.4.2016 at about 1.10 PM at Flat Form No.8 of Shivajinagar BMTC Bus stand, the accused abused C.W.1 complainant in the name of caste as "K£ÉÆà ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß 9 Spl.C.No:300/2016 ªÀÄUÀ£É, PÀA¥ÉèAmï ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ K£ÀÄ QvÀÄÛPÉÆÃwÃAiÀiÁ" and insulted and humiliated him within public view and thereby, accused has committed offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act?
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 interlinked with each other and are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence. P.W.1 is the complainant and victim. 10 Spl.C.No:300/2016 P.W.2 is the eye witness, P.W.3 is the spot mahazar witness, P.W.4 is the seizure mahazar witness. P.W.5 is the Asst. Commissioner of Police who conducted further investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused. PW.6 is the circumstantial witness. P.W.7 is the Tahasildar who issued Ex.P15 report regarding caste of PW.1. PW.8 is the PSI who registered the case in Crime No.49/2016 based on Ex.P1 complaint lodged by PW.1 and sent Ex.P17 FIR to the court. P.W.9 is the Tahasildar who issued Ex.P16 report regarding the caste of accused.
12. P.W.1 has deposed that he belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste. He do not know the caste of he accused. He has deposed that on 21.4.2016 he was driving the bus then the accused who is conductor of another bus had stopped his bus in 11 Spl.C.No:300/2016 Jeevanahalli Cox Town Bus Stop at about 9.30 AM he was stopped his bus in the same place, the accused had stopped his bus. The accused abused him as "Gandu Nanna Makkala, Hole Madiga." He told the accused not to abuse as many passengers and public are there. The accused threatened to kill him. He complained to the Shivajinagar ATS at about 10 AM. He has deposed that he was standing in Shivajinagar Bus Stand Flat Form No.8 to relieve C.W.8 Rajashekaran. At that time the accused came with knife to assault him then he escaped from there. He felt insulted by the act of the accused. He has lodged complaint to Commercial Street Police as per Ex.P1. The police came to the spot next day and conducted Ex.P2 mahazar between 3 P.M. ad 4 P.M. in the presence of C.W.2 Susheel Chandra Misra and C.W.3 Kiran Kumar. He has identified M.O.1 knife. During the 12 Spl.C.No:300/2016 course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused PW.1 has deposed that C.W.6 Narasamma has written the complaint Ex.P1. He has deposed that on 21.4.2016 he was working in first shift between 6.30AM to 1.30 P.M. He was in Shivajinagar at 1.10 P.M. to relieve himself and hand over the bus to second shift driver C.W.8 S. Rajashekar. He states that he has not given complaint immediately after the Jeevanahali incident. The distance from Shivajinagar Bus Stop to Commercial Street police station is about 3 kilometers. He has deposed that he has given the complaint to the police at about 2.30 P.M. He has denied the suggestion that the accused had complained against him to Depot Manager. He has denied the suggestion that he and C.W.7, C.W.8 have beat the accused and caused him bleeding injuries. He has admitted the suggestion that the 13 Spl.C.No:300/2016 accused has given complaint against him, C.W.7 and C.W.8 on 3.6.2016. PW.1 has denied all other suggestions made to him.
13. PW.2 I.D. Narasamma has deposed that she belongs to Adi Dravida community while PW.1 belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste and the accused belongs to Gowda community. She has deposed that she is working as Conductor in the bus of which PW.1 is driver. On 21.4.2016 at 9.30 a.m. accused came prior to them though his timing was later in Jeevanahalli Bus stand and parked the bus near bakery. They had parked the bus in the bus stand. They supposed to leave at 9.35 AM and the accused was supposed to leave at 9.45 A.M. The accused at 9.30 A.M. brought the bus and parked it exactly behind their bus. PW.1 was sitting on a bench (katte) near the bus. At that time, the 14 Spl.C.No:300/2016 accused and the driver of his bus came near PW.1 and accused abused PW.1 in the name of caste and in foul and filthy language as "¤ªÀÄäªÀÄä£ï ºÉÆ¯É ªÀÆ¢UÀ." She came down from the bus. She states that at 9.35 a.m. they left Jeevanahalli and went to Shivajinagar and parked the bus at Flat Form No.127. They went to complain to A.T.M. (Assistant Traffic Manager) then the ATM asked PW.1 to call and bring the accused. The accused reached there and PW.1 called him to come before the ATM, then again accused abused him in the name of caste. She has deposed that at about 1.10 PM they again came to Shivajinagar for getting relieved as there was no place in the Flat Form No.127 they parked the bus in Flat Form No.8, at Flat Form No.8, PW.1, C.W.7 and C.W.8 were there, then the accused brought knife to attack PW.1 and at that time C.W.7 caught hold of 15 Spl.C.No:300/2016 accused and saved PW.1. PW.1 has deposed that the accused threatened to kill PW.1. She has identified M.O.1 Knife. During the course of cross- examination by the learned counsel accused, PW.1 has deposed that she is working as Conductor in the bus driven by PW.1 since 5 years. She has denied the suggestion that she has not stated before the police about having gone to the ATM and the accused abusing PW.1 outside the bus. She has deposed that Ex.P1 is not in her handwriting. She has stated that she do not know whether PW.1 is working as Guide in Lalbagh. She has denied the suggestion that C.W.7 and C.W.8 were working in the place of PW.1. She has denied the suggestion that she is giving false evidence because PW.1 is driver of her bus. She has denied the suggestion that PW.1, C.W.8 have stopped the accused near the parking place in the first floor of 16 Spl.C.No:300/2016 BMTC Bus stand and snatched the keys of two wheeler of the accused and beat the accused in the parking lot causing bleeding injuries and the accused took treatment in Bowring Hospital. She has denied the suggestion that the accused has given complaint to that effect in Commercial Street police station.
14. PW.4 Sheik Firdose has deposed that at about 2 years back police called him near Pallavi Nagar Memorial Park. In that place, the accused shown a knife to the police then the police seized M.O.1 Knife by conducting mahazar as per Ex.P3. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW.4. In the cross-examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor PW.4 has denied the suggestion that Pulikeshi Nagar ACP called him to the ACP office. He has denied the 17 Spl.C.No:300/2016 suggestion that the accused shown M.O.1 knife kept in the Honda Activa vehicle bearing No. KA- 01-HG-1269. He has denied the suggestion that when the accused produced M.O.1 knife kept in Honda Activa then the ACP conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P3 and seized the same. During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel, PW.4 has denied all the suggestions made to him.
16. PW.5 Noorulla Sheriff, ACP has deposed that on 22.4.2016 he took up the further investigation as per Ex.P4 order passed by DCP. That on the same day on 22.4.2016 he visited to the place of incident i.e., Flat Form No.8 of Shivajinagar Bus Stand and conducted the spot mahazar Ex.P2 in the presence of C.W.2 and C.W.3 as the place of incident was shown by PW.1 complainant. He has deposed that on the same 18 Spl.C.No:300/2016 day he has recorded the further statement of the complainant and statement of C.W.6/PW.2. On 23.4.2016 he has recorded the statement of C.W.7, C.W.8 and C.W.9. On 25.4.2016 he has sent Ex.P5 requisition to the Shivajinagar Depot Manager to give CCTV footage of the place of the incident and also Ex.P6 requisition to send Attendance Register and other documents of complainant and accused. He has deposed that the Depot Manager has sent Ex.P8 copy of Service Register of the complainant. He has deposed that on 23.4.2016 he has sent requisition Ex.P9 to the Depot Manager to furnish the documents pertaining to the accused. He states that on 2.3.2016, the Depot Manager sent Ex.P11 copy of Service Book of the accused. On 23.4.2016 he has sent requisition as per Ex.P12 to the Tahasildar seeking Caste Certificate of the complainant and 19 Spl.C.No:300/2016 on 19.5.2016 he has sent Ex.P13 requisition to the Tahasildar seeking Caste Certificate of the accused. On 7.6.2016 he has received Ex.P15 report of the Tahasildar regarding the caste of the complainant and received Ex.P16 report of the Tahasildar regarding the caste of the accused. He has deposed that on 3.6.2016 accused appeared before him and produced copy of the anticipatory bail order. He has recorded the voluntary statement of accused as per Ex.P14 and seized M.O.1 Knife produced by the accused which was kept in Honda Activa vehicle bearing No. KA-01- HG-1269 by conducting seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3 in the presence of C.W.4 and C.W.5. After completion of the investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused.
17. PW.6 Allah Baksh has deposed that he was doing the cucumber and pineapple vending 20 Spl.C.No:300/2016 business near Shivajinagar Bus stand near Vinitha Hotel. He has deposed that he knows PW.1 Devadas who is the Driver of BMTC bus and knows accused who is the conductor of BMTC bus. He stated that on 21.4.2016 at about 1.00 pm., when he was doing the business at that time accused who came there took the knife which was used to cut cucumber and went towards Shivajinagar Bus stand Flat Form No.8. He has deposed that even though he called the accused, the accused without hearing went away by carrying the knife. He states that he came to know that accused took the knife in order to stab the driver of the bus. He has identified M.O.1 knife. During the course of is cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused PW.6 has admitted the suggestion that he knows C.W.7 Arun Kumar and C.W.8 Rajashekar who are the drivers of BMTC Bus. He has 21 Spl.C.No:300/2016 admitted the suggestion that C.W.8 Rajashekar brought him to the court and he was sitting along with him in the court. He has admitted the suggestion that he is the friend of C.W.7 Arun Kumar and C.W.8 Rajashekar. He has denied the suggestion that in order to help C.W.7 and C.W.8 he has given false evidence.
18. PW.7 S.M. Shivakumar, Tahasildar deposed that he has received letter of ACP dated 23.4.2016 who sought for the Caste Certificate of complainant Devadas. Hence he has received the Revenue Inspector Report on 19.5.2016. On the basis of the Revenue Inspector Report on 6.6.2016 he has sent his report as per Ex.P.15 by stating that complainant Devadas is belongs to Adi Karnataka Caste. During the course of cross- examination by the defence nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.7 to discard his version. 22 Spl.C.No:300/2016
19. PW.8 Gowrishankar, PSI has deposed that on 21.4.2016 at about 3 P.M., he has received Ex.P1 complaint lodged by PW1 and based on the same, he has registered the case in Crime No.49/2016 and sent Ex.P17 FIR to the court. During the course of cross-examination by learned counsel for accused PW.8 has admitted the suggestion that the accused has also lodged the complaint against the complainant to their police station. He has admitted the suggestion that Ex.D1 Endorsement was issued by their police station. He has admitted the suggestion that Ex.D3 is the Medical Records having taken treatment by the accused in Bowring Hospital. PW.8 admitted the suggestion that Ex.D2 is the copy of complaint lodged by the accused. PW.8 has denied the suggestion that he has registered 23 Spl.C.No:300/2016 the false case against the accused at the instance of the complainant.
20. PW.9 K. Narasimhamurthy, Tahasildar has deposed that on 18.6.2016 he has sent his report as per Ex.P16 to the ACP by mentioning that accused Sri. Ramesh belongs to Vakkaliga caste. During the course of the cross-examination of PW.9 nothing is elicited from his mouth to discard his version.
21. Based upon the above evidence, it is to be considered if the prosecution has established the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
22. Ex.P15 is the report of PW.17 Tahasildar regarding caste of PW.1 complainant which shows that PW.1 belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste. The document Ex.P16 is the report issued by PW.9 24 Spl.C.No:300/2016 regarding the caste of the accused wherein it is clearly mentioned that the accused is belongs to Vokkaliga caste. PW.1 is the complainant. PW.2 is the eye witness in their examination-in-chief have deposed that PW.1 is belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste. During the course of the cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.2 nothing is elicited or suggested denying their examination-in-chief version regarding the caste of PW.1. The oral evidence of PW.7, PW.9 Tahashildar who have issued Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 respectively and the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 is sufficient to hold that PW.1 is belongs to Adi Karnataka community which comes under Schedule Caste and accused is belongs to Vokkaliga caste which does not comes under Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe. Thus, it is established that PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste 25 Spl.C.No:300/2016 and the accused do not belongs to any Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe.
23. There is no much dispute that PW.1 is working as a Driver of BMTC Bus and accused is the conductor of BMTC Bus. The prosecution has produced the documents Ex.P8 copy of the Service Register Extract of PW.1 complainant which would go to show that he is the driver of the BMTC bus. The prosecution has also produced Ex.P11 copy of Service Book of accused which shows that the accused is working as Conductor of the bus. It is the case of the prosecution that accused and PW.1 are working in different bus, but in the same depot i.e., Depot No.2 Shivajinagar. Mere proof of the caste of PW.1 and accused and their occupation is not sufficient to hold that the accused has committed he offences alleged against him. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the 26 Spl.C.No:300/2016 accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In this case, except PW.2 no other eye witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution. PW.1 is the complainant and PW.2 is the eye witness. It is not in dispute that PW.2 is the conductor and PW.1 is the driver of the same bus.
24. PW.1 has deposed that on 21.4.2016 at about 9.30 AM he was stopped his bus in Jeevanahalli Cox Town Bus Stop. In the same time, the accused had stopped his bus and accused abused him by saying "Gandu Nanna Makkala, Hole Madiga." Then he has told the accused not to abuse as many passengers and public are there. Then accused threatened to kill him. According to PW.1 this is the 1st incident 27 Spl.C.No:300/2016 which was occurred in Jeevanahalli Bus stop. PW.2 I.D. Narasamma, Conductor of the bus has deposed that on 21.4.2016 at 9.30 am., the accused came prior to them to the Jeevanahalli bus stop though his timing was later and parked the bus near bakery. She states that they had parked their bus in the bus stand and supposed to leave at 9.35 AM and the accused supposed to leave at 9.45 AM. She states that the accused at 9.30 AM brought the bus and parked exactly behind their bus, at that time PW.1 was sitting on a bench (katte) near the bus stop, then the accused and the driver of his bus came near PW.1 and accused abused PW.1 in the name of caste and in filthy language as "Nimmamman Hole Madiga". She has deposed that then she came down from the bus. PW.1 has not deposed anything about by stopping his bus in Jeevanahalli 28 Spl.C.No:300/2016 Bus stop he has got down from the bus and sitting on a bench (katte) near the bus. PW.1 has deposed that when he has stopped the bus in Jeevanahalli bus stop at that time accused also stopped the bus and abused him as "Gandu Nanna Makkala, Hole Madiga." PW.1 deposed as if while he was sitting in the bus in driving seat the accused abused him as "Gandu Nanna Makkala, Hole Madiga." But PW.2 has deposed that when PW.1 was sitting on a bench (katte) near the bus, the accused went near PW.1 and abused him by saying "Nimmamman, Hole Madiga." The abusive words which deposed by PW.1 is not corroborating with the abusive words deposed by PW.2. The place of incident in Jeevanahalli bus stop which is deposed by PW.1 is also not corroborating with the oral evidence of PW.2.
29 Spl.C.No:300/2016
25. According to the case of the prosecution, the second incident was occurred on 21.4.2016 at about 1.10 P.M., near Flat Form No.8 of Shivajinagar Bus Stand. PW.1 has deposed that he complained Shivajinagar ATS at about 10 AM and he was standing in Shivajinagar Flat Form No.8 to relieve C.W.8 Rajashekaran at that time the accused came with knife to assault him then he escaped from there. PW.1 has not deposed anything about the accused abused him in the name of accused in Flat Form No.8 of Shivajinagar Bus Stand. PW.1 has deposed that when he was standing in Shivajinagar Flat Form No.8 at that time accused came with knife to assault him then he escaped from there. PW.1 has neither deposed regarding giving life threat to him by the accused nor deposed regarding abuse made in the name of caste in Shivajinagar Bus Stand Flat Form No.8. 30 Spl.C.No:300/2016 PW.1 simply deposed that when the accused came with knife to assault him then he escaped from there. PW.1 has not deposed about the time of the alleged incident occurred at Shivajinagar Bus stand PW.1 has examined on 8.12.2018. Thereafter on 5.4.2018 PW.2 conductor of the bus examined before this court. PW.2 has deposed that at about 9.35 AM they left Jeevanahalli and went to Shivajinagar and parked the bus at Flat Form No.127 and they went to complain to ATM (Asst. Traffic Manager) in Shivajinagar then ATM asked PW.1 to call and bring the accused. The accused reached there and PW.1 called him to come before the ATM then accused again abused in the name of caste. This is the improved version of PW.2. It is not the case of the prosecution that the incident was occurred thrice. But PW.2 has deposed that the 2nd incident was occurred in Shivajinagar Bus 31 Spl.C.No:300/2016 Stand when PW.1 called accused to come before the ATM. PW.2 has deposed that at about 1.10 P.M., they came to Shivajinagar again for getting relieved. As there was no place in Flat Form No.127 they parked the bus in Flat Form No.8. PW.2 has deposed that at that time accused brought knife to attack PW.1 and at that time C.W.7 caught hold of accused and saved PW.1 then accused threatened to kill PW.1. PW.2 has not deposed anything about the accused abused PW.1 in the name of accused in Shivajinagar Bus Stand at about 1.10 P.M. It is the specific case of the prosecution that at about 1.10 P.M, the accused who brought the knife showed the knife to PW.1 and threatened to kill him if he lodges complaint and also abused him in the name of caste. PW.2 has not deposed anything about the accused abused PW.1 in the name of caste at 32 Spl.C.No:300/2016 about 1.10 P.M. in Shivajinagar bus stand. Except the oral evidence of PW.1 and 2 no other eye witnesses have been examined in this case. The prosecution has not examined C.W.7 and 8. The accused has taken specific defence that C.W.1, C.W.7 and C.W.8 were assaulted him and caused him bleeding injuries. Hence he has taken treatment in Bowring Hospital. The accused has produced the document Ex.D3 Out Patient record issued by the Bowring Hospital for having taken treatment on 21.4.2016 at about 6.45 P.M. In Ex.D3 it is mentioned history of assault by three people at about 1.30 P.M., near Shivajinagar Bus stand. PW.2 who is the conductor of the bus of which PW.1 is the driver is interested witness.
26. From the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2, it is clear that the ingredients of the offence u/s 3(1)(x) 33 Spl.C.No:300/2016 of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (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 offence and the allegation that the accused had used derogatory expressions with reference to 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)(x) of the Act is required to be established on the basis of the evidence which is unimpeachable. PW.1 has not deposed anything about the accused had any knowledge or knew about the PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. The alleged derogatory words used by the accused are not consistent from the ocular evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. They have stated about the derogatory words said to have been used by the accused in a totally different manner and the same is also in 34 Spl.C.No:300/2016 variance with the case put forth by the prosecution. PW.1 has admitted the suggestion that the accused has given complaint against him C.W.7 and C.W.8 on 3.6.2016. Even though PW.1 has denied the document Ex.D2 copy of complaint but PW.8 PSI in his cross-examination admitted that the document Ex.D2 is the copy of complaint which was lodged by the accused to their police station. PW.8 also admitted the document Ex.D1 endorsement issued by Commercial Street police station for having received the complaint from the accused. PW.8 has also admitted the document Ex.D3 medical records of Bowring Hospital by admitting that this document Ex.D3 is the medical records pertaining to the treatment taken by the accused in Bowring Hospital. On consideration of the derogatory words said to have been used by the accused as stated by PW.1 and PW.2 there is no 35 Spl.C.No:300/2016 corroborative and consistent evidence in this regard. The admission made by PW.1 that accused had also lodged complaint against him, C.W.7 and 8 cannot rule out the possibility of false complaint being lodged in view of injuries sustained by the accused due to assault made by them. It also cannot be said that the alleged incident has taken place in public view as no other person other than PW.1 and PW.2 unconcerned with the event was present and have deposed about it. PW.2 has deposed that she is also belongs to Scheduled Caste. There is no cogent material to indicate that the accused had abused PW.1 by naming his caste with an intention to humiliate him in public view when the evidence on record is appreciated as a whole.
27. PW.3 Karan Kumar is the spot mahazar witness to Ex.P2. PW.3 even though has deposed 36 Spl.C.No:300/2016 that he has signed Ex.P2 in Shivajinagar Bus Stand but he has not deposed the contents of Ex.P2 and not deposed who was shown the place of incident to the police. PW.3 in his examination-in- chief has deposed that he do not remember to say about the contents of Ex.P2. PW.4 is the signatory to the document Ex.P3 seizure mahazar has deposed quite contrary to the document Ex.P3 by deposing that the police have drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P3 in Memorial Park and seized M.O.1 knife at Memorial Park at the instance of the accused. It is the specific case of the prosecution that M.O.1 knife was seized by the Investigating Officer, ACP in front of his office in the dickey of Honda Activa vehicle bearing No. KA-01-HG-1269 of the accused. But quite contrary to this, PW.4 has deposed that M.O.1 was seized at the instance of accused in Bharathinagar Memorial Park. The 37 Spl.C.No:300/2016 oral evidence of PW.4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution. The oral evidence of PW.5 who conducted part of investigation and filed charge sheet is formal in nature. PW.6 Alla Bakash has supported the case of the prosecution by stating that on 21.4.2016 at about 1.00 P.M., the accused took the knife which was used to cut cucumber from his shop and carried M.O.1 knife towards Shivajinagar Bus Stand at Flat Form No.8. It is come in the evidence of PW.1 is that he is the friend of C.W.1, C.W.7 and C.W.8 who are all drivers of the BMTS Bus. It is the specific defence of the accused is that C.W.7 and C.W.8 used to do the driving work of PW.1 as PW.1 was working as a Guide in Lalbagh. The accused has taken defence that as C.W.7 and C.W.8 were assisting PW.1 to do the work as a Guide in Lalbagh in duty hours by driving the bus of PW.1. Hence, the accused has 38 Spl.C.No:300/2016 informed this to the concerned authority. It is the defence of the accused that PW.1, C.W.7 and C.W.8 who had enimity with him assaulted him on 21.4.2016 and caused him bleeding injuries. Hence, he has taken treatment in Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital. In order to substantiate this contention taken by the accused, the accused has produced Ex.D2 hospital records to show that he has taken treatment on 21.4.2016 in Bowring & Lady Curzon Hospital with history of assault made by 3 persons. It is settled principle of law is that the accused need not prove his defence beyond all reasonable doubt. The defence if any taken to be proved by preponderance of probabilities. In this case, the accused has produced the documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D3. PW.1 has also admitted the suggestion that on 3.6.2016, the accused lodged the complaint against him and C.W.7 and C.W.8. 39 Spl.C.No:300/2016 The very admission given by PW.1 and the documents marked at Ex.D1 to D3 probabilise the defence taken by the accused.
28. In so far as the alleged offence u/s 504 of IPC is concerned, it is required to be established that the accused had intentionally insulted PW.1 which provoked him to break public peace or to commit any other offences. When the entire evidence is considered there is nothing on record to satisfy the ingredients of the offence u/s 504 of IPC. PW.1 has not deposed anything about the accused has intentionally insulted him in order to provoke him to break public peace or to commit any other offences. With regarding to sec. 506 of IPC is concerned, there is no corroboration in the oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2. PW.1 has deposed that on 21.4.2016 at about 9.30 AM., accused threatened him that he will kill him. PW.2 40 Spl.C.No:300/2016 has not deposed anything about giving life threat by the accused to PW.1 on 21.4.2016 at 9.30 AM. PW.1 has not deposed anything about whether the accused has given life threat to him by verbally threatening him at about 1.10 P.M., in Shivajinagar Bus stand. PW.1 has simply deposed that the accused came with knife to assault then he escaped from there. But quite contrary to the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 has deposed that in the Shivajinagar Bus stand, the accused threatened to PW.1. The uncorroborated oral version of PW.1 and PW.2 are not sufficient to hold that the accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC. Hence the prosecution has failed to establish charges framed against the accused for the alleged offences u/s 504 and 506 of IPC also. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution 41 Spl.C.No:300/2016 has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable u/s 504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point No.1 to Point No.3 in the Negative.
29. Point No:4: In view of my findings on Point Nos.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused Ramesh is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable u/s.504, 506(B) of IPC and u/s 3(1)(x) of The Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.42 Spl.C.No:300/2016
The bail bond of the accused and his surety shall stand cancelled.
M.O.1 knife is ordered to be confiscated to the State after completion of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, transcript corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 25th day of January 2019) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW1 N. Devadas
PW2 I.D. Narasamma
PW3 Karan Kumar
PW4 Sheik Firdose
PW5 V. Noorulla Shariff
PW6 Alla Bakash
PW7 S.M. Shivakumar
PW8 Gowrishankar
PW9 K. Narasimhamurthy
43 Spl.C.No:300/2016
2.Documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.1(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2 Spot Panchanama
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW.3
Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.3 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.3(b) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.4 Copy of Order of DCP
Ex.P.5 Notice
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.6 Notice
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.7 Covering letter
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.8 Service Register of Devadas
Ex.P.9 Letter to Depot Manager dt. 23.4.16
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.10 Covering letter
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.11 Service Book of accused
Ex.P.12 Letter to Tahsildar dt. 23.4.2016
Ex.P.13 Letter to Tahsildar, Bengaluru
North Taluk dt. 19.5.2016
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW.5.
Ex.P.14 Statement of accused
Ex.P14(a) Signature of accused
Ex.P14(b) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P15 Caste Certificate of Devadas
Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P16 Report of caste of accused
Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P16(b) Signature of PW.9
44 Spl.C.No:300/2016
Ex.P17 FIR
Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW.8
3. Witnesses examined for the defence:
Nil
4. Documents marked for the defence:
Ex.D.1 : Acknowledgement Ex.D.2 : Copy of complaint Ex.D.3 : Patient Slip of Bowring Hospital
5. List of material objects:
M.O.1 Knife (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.