Bangalore District Court
The State By vs A1: Kum. Salma @ Saira on 12 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 12th day of June 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No. 566/2017
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Kothanur Nagar Police Station,
BENGALURU
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
v/s
ACCUSED: A1: Kum. Salma @ Saira,
D/o. Hasan,
Aged about 40 years,
A2: Smt. Fathima @ Khathijabi,
W/o. Hasan,
Aged about 60 years,
A3: Sri. Nazir @ Noor Ahmed,
S/o. Hasan,
Aged about 29 years,
A4: Sri. Majar Pasha,
S/o. Hasan,
Aged about years,
1 to 4 are R/0 No.66,
4th Cross, Nagareshwara
2 Spl.C.No. 566/2017
Nagenhalli, S.R.K. Nagar Post,
Bengaluru.
(In person)
1. Date of commission of offence: 02-03-2017 to 08.07.2017
2. Date of report of occurrence : 09-07-2017
3. Date of commencement of : 26-07-2018
recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 14-02-2019
5. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Sumalatha
6. Offences Complained of : Sec. 504, 506 r/w Sec. 34
of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r) of
S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police Sampigehalli Sub- Division Bengaluru City has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows:
C.W.1 is the first informant before the Kothanur Police.
Based on her first information statement lodged on 9.7.2017 3 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 the PSI., the Kothanur police registered the case in Crime No.140/2017 and sent FIR to the court. It is alleged in the complaint that in the month of March i.e., on 2.3.2017 the accused persons have thrown the garbage on the picture of the Dr. Ambedkar which was on the compound wall of the building belongs to the complainant and her husband and thereby the accused persons insulted and humiliated the complainant. That on 8.7.2017 at about 1.45 PM when the complainant went near her house at that time the accused persons picked up quarrel with her and abused her in filthy language like "¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ, PÀgÉAmï PÀ½î, ªÀiÁ£À ªÀÄAiÀiÁðzÉ E®èzÀªÀgÀÄ, PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£ÀzÀ ©°ØAUï ¤ªÀÄäzÀÄ." The accused persons also abused C.W.1 in the name of caste by saying "ºÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀ ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¤ªÀÄä eÁwUÉ JµÀÄÖ ºÉýzÀgÀÆ ¤ÃªÀÅ PÉüÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¤ªÀÄä eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÊmï£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖªÀjUÉ ZÀ¥Àà° vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ." The accused persons also criminally intimidated by giving life threat to the Complainant. Based upon the first information lodged by C.W.1, the Kothanur police have registered a first information report bearing Crime No.140/2017. After completion of investigation charge sheet is directly submitted before this 4 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 designated special court against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. Charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby the provision u/s 207 of Cr.P.C. is duly complied with.
4. In this case the accused persons have not engaged any advocate, they have personally conducted the case.
5. On 31.03.2018 charge came to be framed against the accused No.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution 8 witnesses have examined as P.W.1 to 8 and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 are marked. During the course of cross examination of the witnesses, the documents Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.18 are marked on the side of the accused.
7. On 29.4.2019, the statement of the accused as required u/s 313 of Cr.P.C is recorded by putting all the 5 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 incriminating evidence available side of the prosecution. The accused persons have denied all the incriminating evidence. The accused persons have submitted their written statement. The accused persons have not lead any defence evidence.
8. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the arguments of the accused No.1. The accused persons have also filed written arguments.
9. The following points arise for my consideration:-
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 08.07.2017 at about 1.45.p.m. near the building in site No.6 and 7, 3rd Cross, Nagareshwara Nagenahalli, S.R.K. Nagar, Kothanur, Bengaluru belongs to C.W.1 and 2, the accused persons with common intention picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and abused her in filthy language and insulted her and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/s 504 r/w 34 of IPC?6 Spl.C.No. 566/2017
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons with common intention criminally intimidated C.W.1 by giving life threat to her and there by the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offence punishable u/s 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No1 to 4 who belongs to Muslim community with common intention knowing very well C.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste, have abused C.W.1 in the name of caste on 8.7.2017 at 1.45 P.M., and also thrown the dirt on the picture of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar situated on the compound wall and insulted and humiliated C.W.1 within public view. On 2.3.2017 also thrown the dirt on the picture of Dr. Ambedkar and thereby insulted and humiliated C.W.1 and thereby the accused No.1 to 4 have committed the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(r) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act?7 Spl.C.No. 566/2017
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:- These points are taken up together for discussion for the sake of convenience and in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence. In this case out of 29 witnesses cited in the charge sheet the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.8.
12. P.W.1 is the complainant and victim. P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1 is the eye witness. P.W.3 Ramanji, P.W.4 Smt. Yashodhamma. P.W.5 Smt. Asha W/o Ramanji are the eye witnesses. P.W.6 Ramanjaneya is the Head Constable of Kothanur police station who has registered the case in Cr. No.140/2017 based on the complaint lodged by P.W.1. P.W.7 C.N. Bhopaiah is the Investigating Officer who has conducted 8 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 further investigation and filed the charge sheet. P.W.8 K. Narasimhamurthy, Tahasildar Grade-II, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North Taluk who has issued Ex.P13 Caste Certificate of P.W.1.
13. It is undisputed fact that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have constructed a building in site No.6 and 7 near the house of the accused. It is the contention of the accused persons that P.W.1 is not belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is the contention of the accused is that P.W.1 is belongs to Christian community. It is the contention of the accused is that as they have given application to the concerned authorities for demolition of the illegally constructed building by P.W.1 and 2 without obtaining plan, sanction, licence by encroaching public road of 4th Cross, the complainant and her husband colluding with the police registered false case against them.
14. P.W.1 Sumalatha has deposed that C.W.2 Edwin is her husband. She has deposed that she belongs to Adi Dravida Scheduled Caste. She states that she do not know the caste of the accused. The house of the accused is situated at Nagenahalli behind her house. She has deposed that her husband P.W.2 had purchased the site bearing No. 6 & 7 9 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 situated at 3rd Cross, Nagenahalli. Thereafter they have started construction in that site on 15.11.2015. She has deposed that after they started constructing building, the accused persons started to give trouble to them. The accused persons used to come near the site and giving threat to them by stating that they will not allow them to construct the building. She has deposed that they have constructed two stories building in site No.6 and 7 and given 3 houses on rent. The accused persons used to abuse the tenants in filthy language. Hence, nobody coming forward to get the house on rent. Hence, they forced to give the house for rent to Nigerian people. She has deposed that they have painted the Dr. Ambedkar's picture on backside compound. They have painted Dr. Ambedkar's picture on 2.3.2017. She has deposed that she and her husband residing in Lingarajapura in rented house and 2-3 times in a week they used to go to near their building constructed in site No.6 and
7. She has deposed that on 8.7.2017 at about 1.45 P.M., she had been to her building in site No.6 and 7. At that time the accused No.2 brought some dirty water in the vessel and thrown on the Dr. Ambedkar's picture on the wall. When she 10 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 saw this, then the accused No.2 abused her by saying "¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ, PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£ÀzÀ ©°ØAUï ¤ªÀÄäzÀÄ. ¤ªÀÄä eÁwUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÆ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀÄvÉÛ E°èUÉ §gÀÄwÛÃgÁ, ¤ªÀÄä eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÊmï£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖªÀjUÉ ZÀ¥Àà° vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ." She has deposed that accused No.1 and accused No.2 abused her in filthy language as "Sule Munde, Malemathi Munde". She has deposed that the accused persons used to abuse her in filthy language as "Soole Munde" whenever she going her building. She has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1. The police have visited the place of incident and conducted mahazar as per Ex.P2. She has identified Ex.P3 to P6 photos of her building and compound wall.
15. During the course of her cross-examination by the accused No.1 she has admitted the suggestion that in her school records there is no such mention her caste as "Adi Dravida". She has admitted that in her school records, her mother's name is mentioned as 'G. Halli'. She has deposed that her father's name is Cruse. She has deposed that her marriage with P.W.2 Edwin Joseph performed in the Church. She has deposed that she has married in the name of Sophia with C.W.2 Edwin Joseph. She has admitted the document 11 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 Ex.D1 copy of notice sent by her through her advocate in the name of Sophia. She has admitted the suggestion that in Crl. Misc. No. 25019/2016 in anticipatory bail while giving vakalath to her advocate she has signed as Sophia. She has admitted the suggestion that her marriage was performed prior to 1.1.2016. She has admitted the suggestion that in the Caste Certificate issued by Bengaluru North Taluk Tahasildar without mentioning the name of her husband, the name of her father is mentioned. She has deposed that as on 1.1.2016 she was residing in Lingarajapuram. She has admitted the suggestion that in the caste certificate which is produced before this court, her address is mentioned as Kamaraja Road, Bharathi Nagara. She has deposed that while constructing the building in site No.6 and 7, her husband has not obtained approved plan by BBMP. She has identified the photos Ex.D2 to D12 and admitted that the BBMP authorities have vacated the compound which was constructed by encroaching the road. She has admitted the suggestion she and her husband are arrayed as accused No.11 and 12 in CC No. 54276/2016 pending in the court of XI ACMM. She has admitted the suggestion that her husband has filed the suit in O.S. No. 12 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 25704/2016 against the accused. She has denied the suggestion that when the BBMP passed order for demolition of the building then in order to file the false case she has obtained false Caste Certificate by giving false information to the Tahasildar. She has denied the suggestion that in order to prevent the demolition of building, she colluding with C.W.29 ACP Bhopaiah and Police Inspector Hariyappa as per their instructions, she has drawn the picture of Dr. Ambedkar in the wall. She has admitted the suggestion that they have not taken any permission from BBMP or any other authorities in order to draw the picture of Dr. Ambedkar on the compound wall. She states that she has lodged the complaint as per Ex.P1 to the Police Inspector. She has contended that she has given the videos and photos to show that accused has thrown the dirt on the photo of Dr. Ambedkar. She has deposed that at the time of conducting the mahazar the police seized the photographs and videos. She states that police Satish and Police Inspector Hariyappa came to the place of incident to conduct mahazar. She has pleaded her unawareness whether the Addl. Director General of Police, DCRE Cell passed an order to cancel her Caste Certificate. She has admitted the document Ex.D13 is 13 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 the copy of complaint wherein she has mentioned her name as Sumalatha and Sophia. She has denied all other suggestions made to her.
16. P.W.2 Edwin has deposed that P.W.1 is his wife. He has deposed that his wife P.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. He belongs to Christian community. Accused persons belong to Muslim community. He has deposed that on 8.7.2017 when he and his wife P.W.1 came near their building situated at Nagareshwara Nagenahalli at about 1.45 PM the accused persons who came there asked to stop the construction work. He has deposed that the accused persons abused his wife P.W.1 in filthy language and in the name of caste as "¤ÃªÀÅ vÉÆÃn eÁwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ, ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀgÀÄ, E°è ¤ªÀÄä£ÀÄß EgÀ®Ä ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è, HgÀÄ ©lÄÖ Nr¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉ." He has deposed that the accused persons abused his wife P.W.1 as "Hole Madiga munde and thoti". He has further deposed that prior to this incident, accused No.1 and 2 thrown the garbage on the photo of Dr. Ambedkar situated on the compound wall. He has not seen this incident personally but when he verified the CCTV Camera record he found that accused persons thrown the garbage on the photo of Dr. 14 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 Ambedkar. He has deposed that his wife lodged the complaint to the police.
17. During his cross-examination he has stated that his marriage solemnized with P.W.1 13 years back. He admits that he has constructed the building without approved plan and licence. He admits that the BBMP Authorities have vacated the compound wall constructed by them in 4th cross. He has admitted the suggestion that the case in CC.No.54276/2016 registered on the basis of complaint lodged by accused No.1 is still pending against him and his wife P.W.1. He has admitted the suggestion that in that criminal case his wife name is shown as Sophia. He has admitted that he has filed suit in O.S.No.25704/2016. He has denied the suggestion that after demolition of illegally constructed compound wall by BBMP thereafter he by constructing new compound wall got drawn the picture of Dr. Ambedkar. He has deposed that he do not know the caste of father of P.W.1. He cannot say which accused used which words to abuse P.W.1. He has deposed that the accused persons by standing on 4th cross road in front of Dr. Ambedkar photo quarrelled with his wife who was 15 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 standing near the house door situated within compound wall. He has denied the suggestion that in order to prevent the BBMP Authorities and neighbours to proceed against illegal construction he by creating false caste certificate of P.W.1 has lodged false complaint against the accused colluding with police. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
18. P.W.3/Ramanji has deposed that he is residing near the house of P.W.1 in N. Nagenahalli. He has deposed that the accused persons used to throw the dirty water, left out food on the Dr. Ambedkar photo of the compound wall belongs to P.W.1 and P.W.2. That on 08.07.2017 at about 1-45 p.m. to 2- 00 p.m. when he was in his house he heard the quarrel sound and came out from the house. He has deposed that he saw accused persons quarrelling with P.W.1. He has deposed that the accused persons abused P.W.1 as Sulemunde, Holemunde, Madigamunde, Current kalli. During his cross examination he has admitted the suggestion that since 2002 several criminal cases registered against him in Kothanur police station. Cases in Crime No.98/2017, Crime No.157/2016, Crime No.137/2017, Crime No.144/2017 are registered against him. 16 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 He has admitted the suggestion that based on the complaint lodged by the accused No.1 the case in CC.No.33745/2015 which registered against his wife ended in conviction. He has admitted the suggestion that based on the complaint lodged by present accused No.2 Hennur police registered the case and the said case numbered as CC.No.24601/2004. He has admitted that C.W.6/P.W.5 Asha is his wife, C.W.5 Anjinamma is his mother and C.W.17 is his sister. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
19. P.W.4/Smt. Yashodhamma has deposed that P.W.1 is belongs to Madiga caste comes under Schedule Caste. She has deposed that one year back accused persons quarrelled with P.W.1 by saying. "Neevu Madiga Janaru, Neenu Cuurent kallathana Maduthiya, Neenu Illi Irabaradu, Neenu Illi Iddare Ninnannu Balalu Biduvudilla". She has deposed that P.W.1 has given complaint to the police. During her cross examination by the defence she has admitted the suggestion that her son C.W.10 Shashidar has done the electrical work of the three floor building belongs to P.W.1. She has admitted the suggestion that the XI ACMM Court convicted her in 17 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 CC.No.24609/2004 and imposed fine. She has deposed that P.W.1 alone was on the stair case at the time of incident. She has denied all other suggestion made to her.
20. P.W.5/Smt. Asha has deposed that the house of P.W.1 and accused are situated near her house. She has deposed that on 08.07.2017 the accused persons quarrelled with P.W.1 and abused her by saying Sule munde, Hole madiga munde. At that time she came out of the house and saw the incident. During the course of her cross examination by the defence she has admitted the suggestion that C.W.5-Ramanji, C.W.7-Anjinamma, C.W.8-Subbareddy, C.W.9-Yashodhamma, C.W.10-Shashidhar, C.W.17-Anitha are her relatives. She has admitted the suggestion that several criminal cases pending in the court of XI ACMM Court against them which are all registered based on the complaint lodged by these accused. She has admitted the suggestion that on the basis of complaint lodged by accused No.1 case in CC.No.33475/2016 registered against her and the court convicted her in this case. She has admitted the suggestion that the criminal case which is pending against her in CC.No.54276/2016 registered based on 18 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 the complaint lodged by accused No.1. She has denied the suggestion that in order to save illegally constructed building of P.W.1 they are all colluding with each other have filed false case against the accused.
21. P.W.6/Ramanjineya Head Constable of Kothanur police station has deposed that based on the Ex.P.1 complaint lodged by P.W.1 on 09.07.2017 at 11-00 a.m. he has registered the case in Crime No.140/2017 and sent Ex.P.7 FIR to the court. During his cross examination by accused No.1 he has admitted the document Ex.D.14 copy of FIR No.13/2016 where in the present complainant's name is mentioned as Sophia. He has deposed that he has not verified whether P.W.1 was residing in the address mentioned in her complaint as per Ex.P.1. He has deposed that they have not received any complaint on 02.03.2017 in order to say that incident was occurred on that day. He has denied the suggestion that after taking print out of FIR as per Ex.P.7 they have over written to make change in printed timing which is 11-00 p.m. and made it as 11-00 a.m. He has denied the suggestion that they have registered the case by inserting word 'others' only in order to fix 19 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 the innocent accused. He has denied the suggestion that in order to save illegally constructed building of the complainant he along with police Inspector Hariyappa and ACP Bopaiah have registered false case against the accused. He has admitted the suggestion that in Ex.P.1 the names of eye witnesses are not mentioned. He has denied all other suggestions made to him.
22. P.W.7/C.N. Bopaiah is the Investigating Officer has deposed that on 09.07.2017 he has took up the case file from P.W.6 for further investigation. On the same day he visited to the place of incident and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of panchas Dinesh Kumar and Murali as the place of incident was shown by the complainant. He has taken the photograph of the compound which contains the picture of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. He has identified Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.6 photographs. He has deposed that on 09.07.2017 he has recorded the further statement of P.W.1 and recorded the statement of P.W.2. On 13.07.2017 he has recorded the statement of C.W.5, C.W.6, C.W.7. He has deposed that on 15.07.2017 his police staff have produced accused No.3 Nazir 20 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 @ Noor Ahmed before him at 9-30 a.m. and on the same day accused No.1 was produced before him at 9-45 a.m. hence he arrested these accused by following the arrest formalities and after medical examination he has sent accused No.1 and accused No.3 to the court along with remand application. On 16.07.2017 he has recorded the statements of Subbareddy, C.W.9- Yashodhamma, C.W.10- Shashidhar. On 17.07.2017 he has recorded the statements of C.W.11, C.W.12. On 19.07.2017 has recorded the statements of C.W.13, C.W.14. On 22.07.2017 he has recorded the statement of C.W.16, C.W.15. On 25.07.2017 he has recorded the statements of C.W.17, C.W.18, C.W.19. On 11.09.2017 he has received Ex.P.9 report of Tahasildar, Bengaluru East. On 13.09.2017 he has sent requisition to the Tahasildar, Bengaluru North. On 22.09.2017 he has received Ex.P.10 report of Tahasildar North Taluk where in the Tahasildar given report that complainant belongs to Adi-Dravida Schedule Caste. He has deposed that after completion of investigation he has filed the charge sheet against the accused. He has identified Ex.P.12 order passed by DCP for having appointed him as Investigating Officer. P.W.7 has cross examined by accused No.1 in length. During the 21 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 course of his cross examination he has denied all the suggestion made to him. During the course of his cross examination documents Ex.D.15 and Ex.D.16 are marked on the side of defence.
23. P.W.8/K. Narasimha Murthy is the Tahasildar has deposed that he was worked as Grade-2 Tahasildar of Bengaluru North Taluk, Yalahanka from 02.01.2015 to 12.04.2017. He has deposed that on 01.01.2016 one Sumalatha C. D/o Cruse by giving address as R/o No.249, Kamaraj Road, Bharathi Nagar, Bengaluru has filed application under Sakal scheme seeking her caste certificate. Hence he after receiving the report of Revenue Inspector and Deputy Tahasildar and on verifying the school records which submitted by Smt. Sumalatha he has issued the Caste certificate stating that Sumalatha C. is belongs to Adi-Dravida comes under Schedule caste. He has identified the copy of caste certificate same is marked as Ex.P.13.
24. During his cross examination by accused No.1 he has deposed that he on verifying the school records of Sumalatha and after verifying the report of Revenue Inspector 22 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 he has issued the caste certificate. He has admitted the suggestion that he has not personally visited to the address No.249, Kamaraj Road, Bharathi Nagar, Bengaluru. He has admitted the suggestion that Sumalatha was not residing in this address. He has admitted the suggestion that in the school records of Sumalatha no where it is mentioned her caste as Adi-Dravida. He has deposed that in the school records of her brothers by name Vijaya Kumar, Uday Kumar and Dinesh Kumar their caste is mentioned as Adi-Dravida. He has not verified the school records of Cruse father of Sumalatha. P.W.8 has admitted the suggestion that caste certificate dated 01.01.2016 cancelled on the order passed by DC/Chairman of District Caste Verification Committee. He has identified the copy of order of DC/Chairman of District Caste Verification Committee, same is marked as Ex.P17. He has admitted the suggestion that the present Tahasildar has already passed an order to cancel the caste certificate dated 01.01.2016. He has identified the copy of Tahasildar order which is marked at Ex.P.18. He has denied the suggestion that by issuing false caste certificate he has made trouble to the accused. 23 Spl.C.No. 566/2017
25. 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.
26. In this case, the accused persons have seriously disputed regarding the caste of P.W.1 by contending that P.W.1 is not belongs to Scheduled Caste but she is belongs to Christian community. P.W.1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that she belongs to Adi Dravida Scheduled Caste. In her cross-examination by the defence she has admitted the suggestion that in her school records her caste is not mentioned as Adi Dravida. She has deposed that her caste is mentioned in school records as Scheduled Caste. She states that her father's name Cruse, her mother's name is G. Halli. It is admitted fact that P.W.2 who belongs to Christian is husband of P.W.1. P.W.1 in her cross-examination stated that her marriage with P.W.2 Edwin Joseph performed in the Church. P.W.8 Tahasildar who has issued the Caste Certificate as per Ex.P13 in his cross-examination admitted the suggestion that this Caste Certificate dated 1.1.2016 was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner/Chairman of District 24 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 Caste Verification Committee, Bengaluru. P.W.8 has admitted the suggestion that the present Tahasildar of Yalahanka Taluk, Bengaluru has cancelled the Caste Certificate dated 1.1.2016. P.W.8 has identified the copy of orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and District Caste Verification Committee Chairman which is marked at Ex.D17. The document Ex.D18 is also marked through P.W.8. The document Ex.D18 is the copy of orders passed by the Tahasildar wherein he has cancelled the Caste Certificate dated 1.1.2016 issued as per RD 003927536815. On perusal of the documents Ex.D17 and D18 it would go to show that the Caste Certificate issued in the name of P.W.1 as per Ex.P13 was cancelled by the Tahasildar as per order of the DC/Chairman of Caste Verification Committee. The oral evidence of P.W.8 would go to show that on the basis of the report given by the Revenue Inspector and Deputy Tahasildar he has issued the Caste Certificate in the name of P.W.1. But subsequently Caste Certificate issued by P.W.8 cancelled as per order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Chairman of District Caste Verification Committee. P.W.7 Investigating Officer in his cross- examination admitted the suggestion that the case in Crime 25 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 No.224/2018 is registered against P.W.1 on the ground that she has obtained false caste certificate. P.W.1 in her cross- examination also admitted the suggestion that she has received the notice from Director of Civil Rights Enforcement. But she has pleaded her ignorance whether any criminal proceedings was initiated by the DCRE against her. The documents Ex.D17 and Ex.D18 would go to show that the Deputy Commissioner and the Chairman of the Caste Verification Committee, Bengaluru has already passed order cancelling the Caste Certificate of P.W.1 issued on 1.1.2016. It is the evidence of P.W.8 is that on the basis of the Revenue Inspector Report and Deputy Tahasildar report and on the basis of the school records he has issued caste certificate as per Ex.P13. The fact remains that Caste Certificate as per Ex.P13 is already cancelled by the Tahasildar as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner and Chairman of the Caste Verification Committee. The criminal case also registered against P.W.1 for fraudulently obtaining the caste certificate. More than that admittedly P.W.1 married to P.W.2 who belongs to Christian. P.W.1 has admitted that her marriage performed in the Church. The prosecution has not produced any Caste 26 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 Certificate or school records of the father of P.W.1 to show that P.W.1 by birth belongs to Scheduled Caste. On perusal of the document Ex.D17 and D18 it would go to show that since P.W.1 is belongs to Christian, the Tahasildar on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/President, Caste Verification Committee has cancelled the caste certificate. Since the caste certificate issued in favour of P.W.1 is already cancelled, hence the document Ex.P13 copy of Caste Certificate of P.W.1 looses its value. Except the Ex.P13 document, the prosecution has not produced any other document to show caste of P.W.1. On the side of the prosecution the document Ex.P10 is report of Tahasildar, Grade-II, Bengaluru North Taluk is marked. On perusal of Ex.P10 it would go to show that on the basis of the very same caste certificate bearing No. RD 0039275136815, the Tahasildar has issued his report stating that Sumalatha is belongs to Adi Dravida caste. Since the very same caste certificate bearing RD 003927536815 is cancelled, the document Ex.P10 which was issued on the basis of the caste certificate also looses its evidentiary value. During the course of the cross-examination of P.W.1, the document Ex.D1 27 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 marked. Ex.D1 shows that P.W.1 has issued notice to accused No.1 through her counsel by saying her name as Smt. E. Sophia W/o Edwin. Ex.D13 is the copy of complaint lodged by P.W.1 is marked through P.W.1 in her cross-examination. On perusal of Ex.D13 also it shows that P.W.1 has signed by mentioning Sumalatha (Sophia). It is also come in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that in CC No. 54276/2016 in which P.W.1 is arrayed as accused No.11 her name is mentioned as Sophia. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have also admitted that while filing the bail application and giving vakalath to their counsel P.W.1 has signed as Sophia. All these oral evidence and document Ex.D1, Ex.D13, Ex.D16, Ex.D17 and Ex.D18 are sufficient to hold that P.W.1 called by name Sophia. It is the contention of the accused is that P.W.1 has obtained the Caste Certificate by giving false address and by suppressing the name of her husband. In Ex.D13 copy of Caste Certificate the address of P.W.1 is mentioned as No. 249, Kamaraj Road, Bharathi Nagar, Ward No.85. The prosecution has not produced any documents to show that P.W.1 was residing in the Kamaraj Road, Bharathi Nagar. Even though during the course of her cross- examination P.W.1 has taken contention that Kamaraj Road, 28 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 Bharathinagar is the address of her mother's side family temple, but in order to substantiate the same, the prosecution has not produced any documents. The oral evidence of P.W.8 and document Ex.P10 and P13 are not sufficient to hold that P.W.1 belongs to Adi Dravida Scheduled Caste. The very cancellation of the caste certificate by the Tahasildar, Yelahanka as per Ex.D18 order, on the basis of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner/District Verification Committee Chairman itself shows that P.W.1 is belongs to Christian community. Since the criminal case is pending against P.W.1 before this case, at this stage, it is not advisable to give definite findings regarding the documents Ex.D17 and D18. However, on perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the documents Ex.D1 to D13, Ex.D17 and D18 shows that P.W.1 belongs to Christian community. Since the prosecution has not produced any document to show that by birth P.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste, hence, the prosecution has failed to establish that the P.W.1 belongs to Adi Dravida Scheduled Caste. There is no dispute that the accused persons are belongs to Muslim community. The prosecution has failed to establish that P.W.1 belongs to Adi Dravida Scheduled Caste. 29 Spl.C.No. 566/2017
27. P.W.1 has deposed that they were painted the Ambedkar picture on 2.3.2017. According to the case of the prosecution, the first incident was occurred on 2.3.2017. In Ex.P1 complaint it is mentioned that on 2.3.2017 the accused No.2 thrown the garbage on the picture of Dr. Ambedkar situated on the compound wall. But quite contrary to Ex.P1 complaint P.W.1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that they have painted the Ambedkar picture on the compound wall on 2.3.2017. If that is so there was no chance to occur the incident on 2.3.2017. More than that P.W.1 has not deposed anything about the alleged incident dated 2.3.2017. P.W.2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he was not personally seen the accused persons throwing the garbage and dirt water on the photo of Dr. Ambedkar situated on compound wall. However, he has seen this incident when he verified CCTV Camera storage. In this case, the Investigating Officer has not collected any CCTV footage or photos to show that any such incident was occurred on 2.3.2017. Hence there is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused persons have thrown any garbage or dirty water to the 30 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 photo of Dr. Ambedkar on 2.3.2017. Now the question is whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 8.7.2017 at about 1.45 PM the accused persons picked up quarrel with P.W.1 and abused her in the filthy language and in the name of caste and given life threat to her could be seen.
28. P.W.1 has deposed that on 8.7.2018 at about 1.45 PM she had been to the building situated in site No.6 and 7. She has deposed that at that time accused No.2 brought some dirty water in vessel and flashed to the photo of Dr. Ambedkar situated on the compound wall. She has deposed that when she saw this at that time the accused No.2 abused her by saying "¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ PÀ¼ÀîvÀ£ÀzÀ ©°ØAUï ¤ªÀÄä eÁwUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÆ ªÀÄvÉÛ ªÀÄvÉÛ E°èUÉ §gÀÄwÛÃgÁ ¤ªÀÄUÉ ¸ÉÊmï£ÀÄß PÉÆlÖªÀjUÉ ZÀ¥Àà°¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆqÉAiÀĨÉÃPÀÄ."
29. P.W.1 further deposed that accused No.1 and 2 have abused her as "Sule munde, Malmathi munde". She has deposed that at the time of this incident neighbourers by name RamaReddy, Shobha Reddy, Shashidar and Ashadevi were present. In her oral evidence before this court, P.W.1 has not 31 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 deposed anything about the presence of accused No.3 and 4 in the alleged place of incident on 8.7.2017. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborating with the document Ex.P1 complaint. P.W.1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that on 8.7.2017 accused No.2 has thrown the dirty water on the picture of Dr. Ambedkar which was on the compound wall. In Ex.P1 there is no mention regarding the accused No.2 throwing the dirty water to the photograph of Dr. Ambedkar on the well on 8.7.2017. It is mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint that the alleged incident of throwing dirty water was occurred on 2.3.2017. P.W.1 in her examination-in-chief improved her version and she has deposed what is not there in Ex.P1 complaint. In Ex.P1 complaint, it is mentioned that on 8.7.2017 at about 1.45 PM when she went near her house at that time accused No.1 and 2 abused her as "Sule Munde, current kalli, mana maryade illadavaru, kallathanada building nimmadu. Neenu hole madiga munde. Nanu nimma jathige estu helidaru neevu keluvudilla." But quite contrary to the document Ex.P1, P.W.1 has deposed that when she went near her building situated in House No.6 and 7 on 8.7.2014 at about 1.45 PM accused No.2 who brought some dirty water in 32 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 vessel thrown the same to the Dr. Ambedkar's picture on the compound wall. When she saw the same at that time accused No.2 abused her by saying "Sule munde, kallathanada building, nimma jathige estu baidaru mathe mathe illige baruthiya, nimage site kottavarannu chappaliyinda hodeya beku." She has deposed that accused No.1 and 2 have abused her as "Sule Munde, malathi munde." In Ex.P1 it is mentioned that accused abused her in the name of caste as "Hole Madiga Munde". But P.W.1 has not deposed anything about using such abusive words by the accused. As I already noted P.W.1 in her examination-in-chief has not deposed anything about the overt act of accused No.3 and 4. P.W.1 in her examination- in-chief has not deposed whether the accused No.3 and 4 were present or not on 8.7.2017. P.W.1 in her cross-examination has admitted that there is no such mention in Ex.P2 mahazar regarding the existence of any such dirt on the picture of Dr. Ambedkar or below the compound wall. The prosecution has produced the document Ex.P3 to P6 photos of the building and compound wall belongs to P.W.1 and P.W.2 which shows the picture of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar drawn on the backside compound wall. On perusal of Ex.P3 to P6 also there is no 33 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 visible sign to show that any dirty water was thrown on the Ambedkar picture. In Ex.P2 mahazar also there is no mention regarding the existence or non-existence of dirty water on the Ambedkar Picture or any signs of commission of any offence. The oral evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated with the documents Ex.P1 complaint. P.W.1 has not deposed anything about giving of further statement to the ACP.
30. P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1. P.W.1 in her oral evidence has not deposed anything about the presence of her husband in the place of incident on 8.7.2017. P.W.1 has deposed as if she alone went near the building situated in Site No.6 and 7. P.W.2 has deposed that on 8.7.2017 he along with his wife P.W.1 went near their building situated at Nagenahalli. He has deposed that when they reached near the building, the construction work was going on. At that time the accused persons have asked them to stop the construction work and abused his wife P.W.1 in filthy language as "Thoti jathiyavare, hole madigare, illi nimmanu iralu biduvudilla." First of all P.W.1 has not deposed anything about the presence of her husband in the alleged place of incident on 8.7.2017. P.W.1 in 34 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 her examination-in-chief has deposed that the neighbourers by name Rama Reddy, Shobha Reddy and Asha Devi were present. P.W.2 has not deposed anything about the presence of these witnesses in the place of incident. The abusive language which are allegedly used by the accused which is deposed by P.W.2 is not corroborating with the abusive language allegedly used by accused deposed by P.W.1. P.W.2 has deposed that the accused persons abused P.W.1 as "Thoti jathiyavaru, hole madigaru, hole madiga munde." P.W.1 has not deposed anything about these abusive language allegedly used by the accused. P.W.1 has deposed that accused No.2 abused her as "Sule munde and accused No.1 and 2 have abused her as "Sule munde, malemathi munde." The abusive language which allegedly used by the accused which is deposed by P.W.2 is not corroborating with the abusive language deposed by P.W.1. During the course of the cross- examination of P.W.2 by the defence, P.W.2 has deposed that when the accused persons abused his wife at that time his wife was standing near the door of the house situated within the compound wall. P.W.2 has deposed that the accused persons by standing on the 4th cross road in front of Dr. Ambedkar's 35 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 photo which was there in the wall abused his wife who was standing near the door of the house within the compound wall. P.W.1 and 2 have not deposed anything about the actual height of the compound wall. P.W.2 in his cross-examination has stated that back side compound wall of his house is 5 feet. He has denied the suggestion that the back side compound wall is 10 feet. However the very admission given by P.W.2 shows that the back side of his compound wall of his building 5 feet or more. Admittedly, there is no gate in the back side compound wall to get enter into the building of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Even if we peruse the photos marked at Ex.P3 to P6 it would go to show that the height of the compound wall is more than 5 feet. If at all the accused persons were standing in front of the picture of Dr. Ambedkar whether there is any possibility to see the person who are inside the compound wall is not made known to this court. Admittedly, the house of the accused are situated near the building of P.W.1 and P.W.2. According to P.W.2, when the construction work was going on, on 8.7.2017 at that time the accused persons who came there for to stop the construction work. In this case, the prosecution has not cited any construction worker as witness. In Ex.P1 36 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 complaint also there is no mention that when the construction work was going on then the accused persons came there and picked up quarrel with P.W.1. The improved version of P.W.2 who has deposed that when the construction work was going then the accused persons came near his building and asked to stop the construction work and abused his wife P.W.1 in filthy language and in the name of caste is creates doubt about his version. P.W.2 has deposed that he has not personally seen accused persons throwing the dirty water on the picture of Dr. Ambedkar which was on the compound wall. If at all P.W.2 and P.W.1 were present they would have stated regarding the incident in similar way. But on perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.1 and 2 there is no corroboration in their oral evidence regarding the alleged incident.
31. P.W.3 Ramanji has deposed that on 8.7.2017 at about 1.45 to 2 PM when he was in his house he heard the quarrel sound and then he and his wife P.W.5 Asha and his mother Anjanappa came out of the house and seen the accused persons abusing P.W.1. P.W.3 has deposed that the accused persons abused P.W.1 as "Soole munde, hole madiga munde, 37 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 current kalli, chappali thegedukondu hodeyutheve." During the course of his cross-examination by the defence P.W.3 has deposed that accused No.1 and 2 have abused P.W.1 as "Soole munde, home munde, madiga munde" and all the accused persons abused P.W.1 in filthy language. When the question asked to him whether the accused persons have simultaneously abused C.W.1 or one by one abused, he answered he do not know about the same. The presence of P.W.3 in the place of incident is also doubtful. Admittedly, there are several criminal cases registered against P.W.3. He admitted the suggestion that the accused in Crime No.98/2017, 157/206, 137/17 to 144/2017 registered against him in Kothanur Police station. He has also admitted the suggestion that based on the complaint lodged by the accused No.2 case in CC no. 24601/2017 was also registered against him. He has also admitted the suggestion that his wife P.W.5 also convicted in CC No. 3345/2016 which was registered based on complaint lodged by the accused No.1. The oral evidence of P.W.3 would go to show that he had enimity with the accused persons. The oral evidence of P.W.3 is also not corroborating with the oral evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 has not 38 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 deposed anything about the accused persons abused her as "Hole munde, madiga munde". The abusive language which is deposed by P.W.3 is also not corroborating with the abusing language deposed by P.W.1. Hence, oral evidence of P.W.3 is also not creates doubt his version.
32. P.W.4 has deposed that at about one year back, the accused persons by throwing the dirty water to the Dr. Ambedkar picture abused P.W.1 by saying "Neevu madiga janaru, current kallathana maduvavaru neenu illi irabaradu, neenu illinda hogabeku." During the course of her cross- examination by the defence, P.W.4 has deposed that at the time of this incident, P.W.1 was standing in the staircase of the building. P.W.4 has deposed that all the accused persons have abused P.W.1 as "neevu madiga janaru". The abusive language which is deposed by P.W.4 is also not corroborating with the oral evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 in her cross-examination admitted the suggestion regarding the criminal case registered against her. She has admitted the suggestion that she was convicted in CC No. 24609/2004. She is also accused in criminal case registered on the basis of complaint lodged by the 39 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 accused No.1. The oral evidence of P.W.1 shows that she is also not in good terms with the accused. She is interested witness. The uncorroborated oral evidence of P.W.4 is also creates doubt about her version.
33. P.W.5 is wife of P.W.3. P.W.5 has deposed that on 8.7.2017 when she was in the house she heard the quarrel sound. She has deposed that the accused persons abused P.W.1 as "Soole munde, hole madiga munde, nimmadu kallathanada building". During the course of her cross- examination by the defence she has stated that when this incident was occurred at that time she was in her house. She has not deposed the distance between her house and the building of P.W.1. P.W.5 has deposed that the accused persons were abusing P.W.1 by standing near the gate. It is pertinent to note that the gate of the P.W.1 and 2 is situated towards the front side. According to the case of the prosecution this incident was occurred near the back side of the wall of the building of P.W.1 and 2. In the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is not made clear regarding the distance between the house of the accused and the building of 40 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 P.W.1 and 2. In Ex.P8 hand sketch map, the house of the accused is shown near the building in site No.6 and 7. P.W.5 has deposed that the accused as persons have abused P.W.1 by standing near their gate. P.W.5 has not deposed anything about putting dirty water by the accused persons to the Dr. Ambedkar picture on the wall. P.W.5 in her cross-examination has deposed that the police have not recorded her statement. The oral evidence of P.W.5 is also not corroborating with the oral evidence of P.W.1 and 2.
34. From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 it is noticed that they had enimity with the accused as accused persons have prevented P.W.1 and 2 for constructing the building without approved plan from the proper authority. On the side of the accused, the documents Ex.D2 to D12 photographs are marked which would go to show that the BBMP authorities have affixed the notice on the wall of the building for demolition of the building as it was constructed without approved plan. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have admitted the fact that they have completed the building without approved plan. It is the defence of he accused is that as they were prevented P.W.1 41 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 and 2 to construct the building without obtaining any plan, sanction by filing the petition before the proper authorities, hence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 had enimity with the accused. It is also the defence of accused persons is that as they have filed criminal case against P.W.3 to P.W.5 they are also having enimity with the accused. The oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 would go to show that as the accused persons resisting to construct the building by filing petition before the proper authorities. P.W.1, P.W.2 and remaining witnesses P.W.3 to P.W.5 are all having enimity with the accused. In this background, there are several criminal cases registered against the witnesses as well as the accused. From the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.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 offence and the allegation that the accused had used derogatory expressions with reference to caste of P.W.1 in public view with common intention to insult or humiliate 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 which is 42 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 unimpeachable. In the present case, there is no cogent and consistent evidence that the accused No.1 to 4 have any knowledge or knew about the caste of P.W.1. The accused persons have produced the document such as Ex.D1, Ex.D13, Ex.D14, Ex.D15, Ex.D16 to show that P.W.1 is called by name Sophia. The prosecution has failed to establish that P.W.1 is belongs to Adi Dravida Scheduled Caste. The alleged derogatory words used by the accused are not consistent from the ocular evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.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. On consideration of the derogatory words said to have been used by he accused as stated by these witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.5 there is not corroboration and consistent evidence in this regard. The oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 cannot rule out the possibility of a false complaint being lodged in view that the accused persons have resisted for construction of the building without obtaining any plan, sanction or licence and also for encroaching public road on 4th cross. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that P.W.1 and P.W.2 have 43 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 constructed the building and compound wall after obtaining permission from the proper authorities. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have admitted that they have constructed the building without approved plan. There is no cogent material to indicate that the accused had abused P.W.1 by naming her caste with an intention to humiliate her in public view when the evidence on record is appreciated as whole.
35. According to the case of the prosecution this incident was occurred on 8.7.2017 at 11 AM. On perusal of the document Ex.P7 there is some corrections made regarding time of receiving information and general diary reference entry. P.W.6 who has registered the case in Crime No. 140/17 based on the complaint as per Ex.P1 has deposed that he has registered case on 9/7/2017 at 11 AM. Even if it is presumed that the case was registered at 11 AM on 9.7.2017 there is one day delay in lodging the complaint. P.W.1 and P.W.2 have not deposed anything about the reason for delay in lodging the complaint. P.W.6 who has registered the case also not deposed regarding the reason for delay in lodging the complaint. On perusal of Ex.P7 FIR it shows that the alleged place of incident 44 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 is situated 3 kilometres away from the police station. Though the alleged incident took place on 8.7.2017 the first information is lodged only on9.7.2017 at 11 AM. There is absolutely no explanation by the prosecution about such inordinate delay of nearly one day in lodging the information. By considering the material on record, I am of the opinion that that there is inordinate delay nearly one day in lodging the first information which is not explained and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
36. P.W.1 is the complainant who is also witness to Ex.P2 spot mahazar has deposed that the police visited to the place of incident and conducted as per Ex.P2 and taken the photographs as per Ex.P3 to P6. P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer also deposed regarding the document Ex.P2 mahazar. P.W.2 has deposed that on 9.7.2017 he visited to the place of incident and conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P2 in the presence of panchas by name Dinesh Kumar and Murali and drawn the sketch as per Ex.P8 and also taken the photographs as per Ex.P3 to Ex.P6. During the course of his cross- examination by the defence, nothing is elicited from the mouth 45 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 of P.W.7 to discard his version regarding the document Ex.P2 mahazar. No doubt the prosecution has not examined Dinesh Kumar and Murali independent mahazar witnesses. But the oral evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7 are sufficient to hold that P.W.7 has conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P2 on 9.7.2017. The arguments of the accused that no mahazar was conducted by P.W.7 is not acceptable. The accused persons in their written arguments, much submitted about the investigation conducted by P.W.7 contending that P.W.7 colluding with the complainant has created the documents. It is submitted in the written arguments that ACP C.N. Bopaiah (C.W.7) performed illegal acts on 9.7.2017 by filing the FIR, conducting the mahazar and recording further statement of the complainant and recording the statement of witnesses C.W.1, C.W.2, C.W.3, C.W.4 and attested his signature and prepared statement of arrest of accused No.1 and 3. This court cannot find a fault on P.W.7 conducting further investigation expeditiously. The law under the provisions of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act mandates the Investigating Officer to conduct investigation expeditiously and submits charge sheet to the court within stipulated period. Under such 46 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 circumstances, the arguments of the accused that P.W.7 hurriedly created documents such as mahazar, further statement of the complainant and statements of C.W.2 to C.W.4 is not acceptable. The accused persons in their written arguments submitted that ACP C.N. Bopaiah and Police Inspector Hariyappa at the influence of the complainant arrested the accused No.1 and 3 and sent them to the court along with remand application. It is also submitted that even though no FIR was registered against the accused No.3 he was arrested and produced before the court. This argument of the accused is also not acceptable. On perusal of Ex.P1 complaint, it shows that the complainant not only mentioned the name of accused Fathima, Sairabanu and also mentioned in page No.2 as "Ivara jothe fathima avara maga mathu magalu bagiyagiruthare." Under such circumstances, this court cannot find a fault in mentioning the word 'others' in FIR. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.7 by the accused No.1, he has admitted the suggestion that these accused persons have filed Private Complaint against him before XI ACMM Court in PCR No. 54551/2018. Under such circumstances, it is left to the complainant to prosecute the said private complaint if they 47 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 had any such grievance against P.W.7 and other police officials. In this case, during the course of cross-examination of P.W.7, nothing is elicited from his mouth to show that he has exceeded his power while conducting investigation. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.7, question is asked to him that he has taken bribe from the complainant. He has denied the said suggestions made to him. The accused persons in their written arguments submitted that P.W.7 without any authority has conducted the investigation in this case. This argument of the accused persons is not acceptable, because the prosecution has produced the document Ex.P12 order passed by the DCP dated 9.7.2017 appointing P.W.7 Bopaiah as Investigating Officer in this case. No doubt this order may be received in ACP office on 13.7.2015. P.W.7 during the course of his cross-examination made clarification that he has received the information regarding appointing him as Investigating Officer by the DCP on 9.7.2017. He has deposed that DCP informed him at 2 PM on 9.7.2017 about passing the order to appoint him as Investigating Officer. P.W.7 has clearly deposed that DCP informed him over phone on 9.7.2017 itself that he has appointed as Investigating Officer. Under such 48 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 circumstances, the contention of the accused that P.W.7 without any authority has conducted the investigation is not acceptable. P.W.7 is the official witness who has spoken about the conducting further investigation. The accused persons in their written arguments prayed to take action against the ACP Bopaiah, Police Inspector Hariyappa, Ramanjaneya Vajal and also prays to take action against the complainant and eye witnesses and also prayed for compensation u/s 357 of Cr.P.C., In this case, the accused persons have not lead any defence evidence by entering into the witness box. No doubt documents Ex.D1 to Ex.D18 are marked on the side of the accused during the course of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. Since the accused persons have not stepped into the witness box and not lead any defence by way of oral evidence. Under such circumstances, merely on the basis of the prayer made in the written arguments, this court cannot pass such orders to take action against the witnesses. In this case, P.W.1 to P.W.5 are all supported the case of the prosecution. But since there is no corroboration in their oral evidence, their oral evidence creates doubt about the alleged incident dated 8.7.2017. P.W.6 to 8 are official witnesses. Since 49 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 the criminal case is already registered against P.W.1 complainant in Cr. No.224/2018 and pending before this court at this stage, this court cannot give definite finding about that case.
37. In the present case, on perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 there is no cogent and consistent evidence on the side of prosecution to show that the accused persons have used derogatory words to abuse P.W.1. The alleged derogatory words which are deposed by P.W.1 to P.W.5 is not corroborating with other. They have each stated about the derogatory words said to have been used by the accused in different manner and the same is also in variance with the case put forth by the prosecution. On perusal of the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5, it shows that they are all not in good terms with the accused as the accused persons prevented P.W.1 and 2 by filing the petition before the concerned authorities contending that P.W.1 and 2 have constructed the building without sanction from BBMP. P.W.1 admitted in her cross- examination admitted that BBMP AEE passed order for demolition of the building. P.W.2 has also admitted the 50 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 suggestion that BBMP authorities have issued notice in order to stop the construction and also issued notice to vacate encroached area of 4th Cross. P.W.1 and 2 have deposed that they have challenged the order passed by BBMP by filing the writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Admittedly, writ petition is pending before Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and the suit is also pending in the civil court in respect of the building constructed by P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence, this court cannot discuss much about whether the construction made was illegal one. But fact remains that as the accused persons resisted by filing the application before concerned authorities raising objections for construction of building without obtaining any plan sanction and licence, the same was lead enimity between P.W.1, P.W.2 and the accused. It is the contention of the accused is that P.W.3 to P.W.5 are all supported P.W.1 and P.W.2 for illegal construction of the building. P.W.3 to P.W.5 in their cross-examination have admitted the suggestion that the criminal case is pending against them which was registered based on the complaint lodged by accused No.1. The accused persons got marked document Ex.D16 copy of charge sheet during the course of 51 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 cross-examination of P.W.7 to show that the criminal case in CC No.54276/2016 is pending against P.W.1 to P.W.5. The uncorroborated oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 creates doubt about their version. In so far as the alleged offence u/s 504 of IPC is concerned, it is required to be established that the accused persons had intentionally insulted P.W.1 which provoked her to brake public peace or to commit any other offence. When the entire evidence is considered, there is nothing on record to satisfy the ingredients of offence u/s 504 of IPC. In so far as the alleged offence u/s 506 of IPC is concerned P.W.1 to P.W.5 have not deposed anything about criminal intimidation and giving life threat by the accused persons to P.W.1. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges framed against the accused persons for the alleged offences u/s 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution has failed to prove that P.W.1 is belongs to Adi Dravida Scheduled Caste. On an appreciation of the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has only established that there was verbal quarrel taken place between P.W.1 and the accused persons regarding the 52 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 construction of building. However, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that on 8.7.2017 at about 1.45 PM, the accused persons with common intention abused P.W.1 in the name of caste and in foul and filthy language and put life threat to her. The prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have put dirty water on the photo of Dr. Ambedkar on the compound wall of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused for the offences punishable u/s 504, 506, r/w 34 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point No.1 to 3 in the negative.
38. Point No.4:- In view of my findings on point no.1 to point no.3, I proceed to pass the following ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 Kum. Salma, accused No.2 Fathima @ Khatijabi, accused No.3 Nazir @ Noor Ahmed and accused No.4 Mazhar Pasha are hereby acquitted of the offences 53 Spl.C.No. 566/2017 punishable under Sections 504, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act.
The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 and their sureties shall stand cancelled.
However the surety bond executed in compliance of Section 437A of Cr.P.C. shall be in force till statutory period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, transcript corrected and inserted some paragraphs directly on the computer, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 12th day of June, 2019.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sumalatha
P.W.2 : Edwin
P.W.3 : Ramanji
P.W.4 : Yashodamma
P.W.5 : Asha
P.W.6 : Ramanjaneya
P.W.7 : C.N. Bopaiah
P.W.8 : K. Narasimhamurthy
54 Spl.C.No. 566/2017
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature P.W.1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature P.W.7
Ex.P.2(c) : Signature P.W.
Ex.P.2(d) : Signature P.W.
Ex.P.3 to 6 : Photos
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature P.W.7
Ex.P.5(a) : Signature P.W.7
Ex.P.7 : FIR
Ex.P.7a) : Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.8 : Rough Sketch
Ex.P.8(a) : Signature P.W.7
Ex.P.9 : Report of Tahasildar regarding caste of
accused
Ex.P.9(a) : Signature P.W.7
Ex.P.10 : Report of Tahasildar regarding caste of
Complainant
Ex.P.10(a) : Signature P.W.7
Ex.P.11 : Report of HC 8956
Ex.P.11(a) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.12 : Order of DCP
Ex.P.13 : Copy of Caste Certificate of complainant
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 : Copy of Notice dt. 24.6.2017
Ex.D2 to 12: Photos
Ex.D13 : Copy of complaint dt. 15.2.2016
Ex.D14 : Copy of FIR in Cr. No. 13/2016
Ex.D15 : Endorsement dt. 31.3.2016 issued by
Kothanur police
55 Spl.C.No. 566/2017
Ex.D16 : Copy of Charge sheet
Ex.D17 : Copy of order of DC & President District Caste Verification Committee Ex.D18 : Order of Tahasildar Grade-2
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.