Bangalore District Court
State By vs Unknown on 23 July, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2016.
PRESENT:
Shri Suresh S. Kogilgeri, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),
II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge.
Spl.C. No.187/2012
COMPLAINANT : State by:
Nandini layout police,
Bangalore.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED :
Suresh Kumar Jain
s/o Dhanaraj, 46years,
No.43/23-12, 3rd Main, 4th Cross,
Kantirava Nagar, Nandini Layout,
Bangalore.
(Sri. P.M. Advocate.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Date of commission of offence : 18.10.2010
2. Date of report of occurrence : 21.10.2010
3. Date of commencement of : 15-03-2014
recording of evidence
7. Date of closing of evidence : 29-01-2016
8. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Anjinamma
Offences Complained of :
Sections 3(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 & u/ss. 504 and
506 of the I.P.C.
9. Opinion of the Judge :Accused is acquitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Spl. C. No.187/2012
JUDGMENT
In the instant case, a complaint was filed by the Complainant against Accused to the Nandini Layout police station, Bangalore. Accordingly, the said complaint has been registered by the I.O. of the said police station in crime No.217/2010 against Accused for the offences punishable u/ss.504 and 506 of the I.P.C. and u/s.3(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act 1989.
.2. The brief facts of the case of the Complainant as per the written complaint of the Complainant are as under:
That on 18.10.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., Accused abused the Complainant as " ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ EµÀÄÖ PÉƧÄâ EgÀ¨ÉÃQzÀÝgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÃlÄ £À£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ¯Éà ºÉÆ®¸ÀÄ £À£ßÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ, PÀZÀqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ" and Accused used to come to the house of the Complainant often and giving trouble to her and also abusing her by referring the name of her caste and Accused threatened the Complainant that if he give Rs.10,000/- to the Inspector and Commissioner, it is enough and he will put her in jail. So, the Complainant prays to take action against Accused as per law.3 Spl. C. No.187/2012
.3. Subsequently, the I.O. has submitted 'B' Final Report pertaining to the said complaint. Later the sworn statement of the Complainant as PW.1 and sworn statements of witnesses of the Complainant as PW.2 and 3 are recorded by this court and got marked Ex.P-1 to 4.
.4. Thereafter this court on perusal of the materials placed before the court has taken cognizance of the offences punishable u/s.3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act and u/ss.504 and 506 of the I.P.C. against Accused and ordered to register a criminal case against Accused.
.5. Accused appeared before the court and he is enlarged on bail. Thereafter, the PWs.1 to 3 are examined before framing of charge and got marked Ex.P-1 to 4. PWs.1 to 3 are cross-examined by the defence counsel. Charge has been framed against Accused for the offences punishable u/ss. 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PA) Act. Accused pleaded not guilty for the said offences and claimed to be tried. The summons have been issued to PWs.1 to 3 for further examination as required u/s.245 of Cr.P.C. During the 4 Spl. C. No.187/2012 course of evidence, the learned P.P. filed a memo stating that the evidence already led by PWs.1 to 3 is adopted after framing the charge and the prosecution has no further evidence and further the learned counsel for the Accused filed a memo stating that earlier cross- examination made to PWs.1 to 3 has to be taken as present cross-examination and he has no further cross- examination to the said witnesses. The prosecution has closed its side of evidence. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, statement of Accused as required u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded by giving an opportunity to Accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution against him. Accused did not choose to lead defence evidence.
.6. Heard arguments of the learned P.P. for the State and of the learned counsel for Accused for the defence.
.7. At this stage, the following points have arisen for my determination:5 Spl. C. No.187/2012
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 18.10.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., Accused not being the member of SC/ST knowing well that the Complainant belonged to SC/ST, abused him in filthy language by taking the name of her caste on a public place near the house No.46/15, 4th cross, 2nd Main, Kanteerava Nagar, intending to humiliate her within public view and thereby, Accused has committed the offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act 1989?
2. Whether the prosecution proves that on the aforesaid date, time and place, Accused used force against the Complainant with an intention to dishonour/outrage her modesty and thereby Accused has committed the offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (PA) Act 1989?
3. What order?
.8. My findings on the above said points are held as under:
Point No.1:- In the Negative, Point No.2:- In the Negative, Point No.3:- As per final order for the below: 6 Spl. C. No.187/2012
REASONS .9. POINTS No.1 and 2:- Considering the nature of points 1 and 2 framed in this case with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel points 1 and 2 are to be discussed together for better appreciation of evidence on record and to avoid repetition of discussion. So, I proceed to discuss points 1 and 2 together.
.10. It is contended by the prosecution that on 18.10.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., Accused abused the Complainant as " ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ EµÀÄÖ PÉƧÄâ EgÀ¨ÉÃQzÀÝgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÃlÄ £À£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ¯Éà ºÉÆ®¸ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ, PÀZÀqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ" and Accused used to come to the house of the Complainant often and giving trouble to her and also abusing her by referring the name of her caste and Accused threatened the Complainant that if he give Rs.10,000/- to the Inspector and Commissioner, it is enough and he will put her in jail. So, the Complainant prays to take action against Accused as per law. 7 Spl. C. No.187/2012
.11. Now it is for the prosecution to prove its aforesaid case by adducing cogent, consistent, corroborative and acceptable evidence before the court.
.12. Now I proceed to discuss how the prosecution has adduced its evidence to prove its aforesaid case. PW.1 Anjinamma the Complainant has deposed in her evidence that she belongs to Adi Dravida community. It comes under scheduled caste. Accused belongs to Marwadi community. It does not come under SC/ST. Accused is running a jewellery shop. Accused knows that she belongs to scheduled caste. The shop of Accused is situated in front of her house. The house in which she is residing was belonging to her father-in-law Ramaiah. Half of the said house was sold to Accused during the year 2009 and remaining half portion of the said house was given to her husband. She has deposed that during 2010 in order to construct a new house, she had stored sand on the road. On one day at 9.00 a.m., Accused picked up quarrel with her to remove the sand from that place. For that she replied to Accused that she has not stored the sand in front of his house and 8 Spl. C. No.187/2012 she stored the sand on a road. She will remove the said sand within a week. In spite of it, Accused picked up quarrel with her and abused her as " ªÀiÁ¢UÀjUÉ JµÀÄÖ PÉƧÄâ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÃoÁV £À£ÀUɶÖgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ At that time, many people were gathered on the road. Accused threatened her to kill if she files a complaint. At that time and place, one Yashodamma PW.2, Rita PW.3 and others were present. On the very same day, she went to Nandini police station and filed a complaint as per Ex.P-1. The police have not investigated the case properly and filed a 'B' Final report. She appeared before the court and filed objections.
.13. PW.2 Yashoda is an eye-witness to the incident in question. She knows the Complainant Anjinamma from the date of incident. She has seen Accused. Accused had jewellery shop. It is situated at a distance of 10-15 houses away from her house. She is residing in the 1st main and Complainant's house is situated in the 3rd main. On 18.10.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., she left her house to bring milk. At that time, there was galata between PW.1 Anjinamma and Accused 9 Spl. C. No.187/2012 near the house of PW.1 Anjinamma with regard to storing of the sand on a road. Accused abused the Complainant as "ªÀiÁ¢UÀ d£ÁAUÀzÀªÀgÁzÀ ¤ªÀÄUÉ EµÀÄÖ PÉƧÄâ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÃoÀÄ £À£ÀUɵÀÄÖ PÉƧÄâ EgÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ". At that time, the Complainant told that she is going to file a complaint. Accused threatened the Complainant that he will give Rs.10,000/- to the Inspector and put her inside. Thereafter, the Complainant went to file a complaint.
.14. PW.3 Rita is another eye-witness to the incident. She deposed in her evidence that she knows the Complainant. She has seen Accused. Accused had jewellery shop at Kantheerava Nagara. That on 18.10.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., she had been to ration shop of Kantheerava Nagara to bring ration. The house of the Complainant is situated in front of the said ration shop. Galata was taken place between Accused and the Complainant. At that time, the Accused abused the Complainant as "ªÀiÁ¢UÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄUÉ EµÀÄÖ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ £ÁªÀÅ ¸ÉÃoÀÄ d£À £À£ÀUɵÀÄÖ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, ¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ PÀZÀqÀ d£À, ºÉÆ®¸ÀÄ d£À JAzÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ eÁw JwÛ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ CAvÀ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÞU½À AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ". 10 Spl. C. No.187/2012 People gathered there advised Accused not to make galata. At that time, Accused told that if he goes to police station, he will come out by paying Rs.10,000/- and Complainant will not do anything. Later, she went to her house.
.15. I have scrutinised the aforesaid evidence placed before me. Ex.P-1 is the written complaint filed by the Complainant. She stated in Ex.P-1 written complaint that on 18.10.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., Accused abused her as "¤ÃªÀÅ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ d£ÁAUÀPÉÌ EµÀÄÖ PÉƧÄâ EgÀ¨ÃÉ PÁzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÉÃoÀÄ £À£ÀUɵÀÄÖ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛ JAzÀÄ ºÉÆÃUÀ¯Éà ºÉÆ®¸ÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ, PÀZÀqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ". She further stated in Ex.P-1 written complaint that like this Accused used to come her house always and giving trouble to her and abusing her by referring the name of her caste. On careful scrutiny of the written complaint does not reveal where exactly Accused picked up quarrel with the Complainant and abused the Complainant by referring the name of her caste. Ex.P-1 written complaint also does not reveal as to Accused abused the Complainant like so within a public view and insulted the Complainant in front of others. The 11 Spl. C. No.187/2012 written complaint also does not reveal who other persons were present on the said date, time and place of incident. Though Ex.P-1 written complaint does not reveal for what reason the incident was taken place, the PW.1 deposed in her evidence that Accused had picked up quarrel with her with regard to storing of sand on the alleged place of incident. PW.1 has specifically deposed in her evidence that at the time of incident, many people were gathered on the road. Out of them she knows PW.2 Yashoda and PW.3 Rita. PW.2 Yashoda and PW.3 Rita are examined as eye-witnesses to the incident in this case. But unfortunately PW.1 has not disclosed the names of PWs.2 and 3 in her written complaint Ex.P-1 as to their presence in the place of incident. She has not stated in Ex.P-1 written complaint as to other public people were also present at the time of incident. PW.1 has specifically deposed in her evidence that at the time of incident, Accused threatened her to kill if she files a complaint. But she has not stated the said fact in her written complaint Ex.P.1. PW.1 in her written complaint Ex.P-1 has 12 Spl. C. No.187/2012 stated that during the course of quarrel Accused threatened her that he will pay Rs.10,000/- to the Inspector and Commissioner and she will be put in jail. But PW.1 Complainant has not stated the said material fact in her evidence.
.16. PW.2 Yashoda eye-witness to the incident has deposed in her evidence that during the course of galata Accused abused the Complainant as to he will pay Rs.10,000/- to the Inspector to put the Complainant in jail. So also PW.3 Rita has deposed in her evidence that during the course of galata, Accused told the Complainant that if she goes to police station, he will come out by paying Rs.10,000/-. She cannot do anything to him. But PW.1 the Complainant has not deposed the said fact in her evidence as deposed by PWs.2 and 3 eye-witnesses to the incident in question. Though PW.1 to 3 have deposed as to during the course of galata, Accused abused the Complainant by referring the name of her caste, considering the entire evidence on record and for the discussion made before me, I am of the opinion that the evidence of the prosecution is not 13 Spl. C. No.187/2012 consistent and corroborate. It creates doubt over the story of the prosecution. There is no satisfactory evidence on record to hold that Accused abused the Complainant by referring the name of her caste with an intention to humiliate her within public view. There is no evidence as to Accused used force against the Complainant who belonging to SC/ST with an intention to dishonour / outrage her modesty. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged offences against Accused. There is no satisfactory and acceptable evidence to connect the Accused with the alleged offences. The benefit of doubt shall be extended to the Accused. Accordingly, the Accused is entitled to be acquitted for the alleged offences. So, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the negative.
.17. Point No.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit Accused for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of 14 Spl. C. No.187/2012 the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
The Bail bond of the Accused and surety bond stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 23rd day of July, 2016.) (Suresh S. Kogilgeri) II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Anjinamma
P.W.2 : Yashoda
P.W.3 : Rita
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2 : FIR
Ex.P.3 : Caste Certificate
Ex.P.4 : Sale deed
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil 15 Spl. C. No.187/2012
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil (Suresh S. Kogilgeri ) II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Gr/- and Special Judge, Bangalore. 16 Spl. C. No.187/2012
Order portion of Judgment pronounced in the open court ( vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit Accused for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
The Bail bond of the Accused and surety bond stand cancelled.
II A.C.C. and S.J., and S.J., Bangalore.17 Spl. C. No.187/2012