Karnataka High Court
Venkataramareddy vs State Of Karnataka on 31 August, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
2. BHOSHANKAR, IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALDRE DATED THIS THE 31" DAY OF AUGUST BEFORE A A THE HON'BLE MR.JuST:,(;E1N.ANArTD_Af.f: V V CRIMINAL APPEAL if A A BETWEEN: ' A A 1. VENKATARAMAREDDY, S/O MUNISHAMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEA_RS. 1_ S/O MuN1SH_A'M_1RED'DY',"5'; _ - AGED ABQ'uT;2,1'YE;\RS, * 3. CH1KKARA!é~1AI€'EDDY["5?i'.': V' S/0..MUN'ISHW.IRED'DY:" ' AGED "ABQAJT 5'5 'YEATeS-, ALL ARE R/To 'KAOM~E3AMPALL'E.::':\(:LLAGE, BANGARP._ETTTA|,U|<."¢' , ' ' APPELLANTS (BY;S*R.I_: I<.H.SQMA'SEkHARA, ADV) :<AfR!\jATAKA, "REPTD B\--'7SPI?= OF HQ_N'BLE~ HIGH COURT, BANGALORE. ...RESPONDENT A(BY S"R1A:A:'P.KARUNAKAR, HCGP) CRL..A IS FILED U/3374(2) CR.P.C AGAINST THE Z7-JUDHOMENT DATED 09.04.2003 PASSED BY THE 11 ADDL. DIST. AND s.J., KOLAR IN SPL.CC.NO.97/2000 CONVICTING THE A A "AAPPELLANTS/ACCUSED 1 TO 3 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE JUDGMENT
The appellants 1 to 3 were arrayed as to 3 in spI.c.c.No.97/2ooo on the file of II"4':AddV'l;.:Vvlfiélstrtctlv' and Sessions jiudge, Koiar. Th;=.'--:-y"'w'ere"~triedfVfor_ offences A punishable under Sections 355 ahd__ of an offence punishable unde'r"ve4s:SectEon offaiélclheduiedl Castes and Scheduled Tribes""(P'reyehti_on of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred t&:;a§iath.eiipgetftror short)).
2. Th'e«g:.Vgl1earr:edg the following charges:
« date, time and place you aaausted{cw1_g'[to"3 as 'aémfiob ass; mega,
-- ., aEixac§oi1:"2s"a§g'ra3r'- touching their caste with 1-an "ir1tention""'to insult and humiliate him and A "vthereb:y'-.committed an offence punishable U/s '3'(i'jig{_x')g:= of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, within my cognizance."
The accused pleaded not guilty. On behaif of hgprosecution, PWs.1 to 12 were examined and documents has per Exs.P1 to P11 were marked and material object my ' M01 was marked. The contradictory portion of statements of PWs.2 to 3 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and "further statement of PW1 were marked as Exs.D1 to
4. The learned Trial Judge acceptin_g5_:éeVi'»d.'ence'..__of_V prosecution witnesses, convictedmand sentenc'_ed""accused".
Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable undetr arid 506 IPC and also for an offfence pu'n.ishable'v:'und»e.rWS.ectioni* 3(i)(x) of the Act.
5. I have heard'A_learinecl_..,.CoAA:;§nsel for appellants and learned 3h"i'g«hj:pj'Cou:rt Go;\fer'nmer1t_P_lVe'ader for the State.
"points would arise for determination: . if V " Whether the prosecution has "proved that at 7.30 am. on 29.05.1998 v%jn.ejar the house of one Munireddy in Eliambampalli police station, accused Nos.1 to 3 assaulted PWs.1 to 4 with chappal with intention to dishonour them and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 355 PC?
W K L7"V\/¥££~. ' S
b) Whether the prosecution has proved in the course of same transaction, accused Nos.1 to 3 abused cwa1to3asmom;ag5m¢w,$mo@x1t zsaérér érotira' touching name of their caste mwith inte'n--tlGn""'to'--AV insult them in pu3jlic».,.4WeW, "tiiVerebg.(r,_uE committed an offence'.__pu*nishabieAu'ndelVr*:.""--~ V' Section 3(i)(x) of.trieAAct? V . V V' 2
c) V ,\_/Vhethler vrtheiv"prosecut'ion has proved in ' I * the scourge of sarne trar:sactiovn~,...,_accused E\los;i to 3 t2hre'§:.ten.ed wiitiidi.reV_conseciuenc:es to life 4,' thereby committed an i' _ offe'nce.%Vpu.nishable under Section 506 of u\2I?C#.' Hi Whether the learned Trial "Judge has properly appreciated the uevillcience on record?
it 1: e) What Order?
V My findings on the above points and reasons " thereof are as follows: ..
6 It is the case of prosecution that on 29.05.1998 at about 7.30 a.m. P\Ns.1 to 4 had parked the tractor near the house of one Munireddy. At that time, accused._':'No_s.1 to 3 came there and questioned PWs.1 to _ the tractor to Kambampaiii village and toy. warned them not to bring his:=__vtra(;torfiv 4Vivi'i:a..t_;Ve:.;;vto compete with their busin.ess_, Accu_s'ed Na:os'.i,_t_o areas» alieged to have assauited to 'wit:h:V':chafppa|s and they aiso abused PWs;:..iTto' itVb$.{tto:u.cLhAingthe name of their caste with any._intenti.o.n:'_j.to insult them, thereby an under Section 3(a)(x) of C ._ 9 .
The«occ--uVrrejiice''..to'ok.--~piace at about 7.30 am. on
29._0_5.199'8 K_a'mbam'pVaIii viiiage which is at a distance ofjkatn. from the 'j"u'ri'sdictiona| poiice. The first information ti..o'ccurrence was Iodged at 10.00 a.m. on after a period of 2 days. There is no explanation for delay of 2 days in Iodging the first VEn_formation, either in the first information or in the ru . M-""'!n.
evidence given by PWs.1 to 4. This would create a reasonable doubt about the credibility of evidence gixlien by PWs.1 to 4. As already stated the first infor~mati:o_'n".j'was lodged by PW1 wherein it is stated thatlbj'thesfiacculseldV'l"~__ assaulted, humiliated and consequences to their iives_ne_ar In the first information';V.:l_V'b»i'*a is accused came and stopped in which PWs.1 to 4 were trayvetl'I_in,giv._VVAl§'hé'=:first;information is a typewritten "that accused assaulted PWs.:ito 4- aridlbrvooms are handwritten and subsequently first information.
'"8_ p'I"\!=.1V:i" Narayanappa has deposed that on is j29 V.o5}1.9a8«.at about 7.30 a.m., PWs.1 to 4 had gone to tractor of one Nagappa and at 7.30 a.m. they parked the tractor near the house of one Munireddy "tio..4_ha\Vv/Ve a cup of tea. At that time, accused asked them to Hreri'iove the tractor from the place of parking and also 'lllquestioned as to why they are trying to compete with the "L fmamg.
8 business of accused. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 3 fisted PWs.1 and 2 and accused No.1 assaulted PW1, 2 and 4 with chappais and they suffered bieeding injurives.h:""el?W3 escaped unhurt. Thereafter, accused threaterie.d_~.._'t:u1'iéill PWs.1, 2 and 4 by running over a tractor . die es
9. Thus, we find the evi=den;;-zeiyygiyen by not find corroboration ffircrn the"conterits.__of_:'1 fihrstii. information. In the first inforrnation, itdist stated that occurrence took piace*«--_ir'. frontgof "th'e.Ah~o_use of Munireddy, where they had In the first inforrnahtwiongit is:7jnot"s,t;ated"_'th'at accused No.1 assaulted PWs.1x",--.2' and wiijthll'Chappals. PW1 has vaguely deposed that _accused_' abused hirn by touching the name of his he has""n'o't deposed the words uttered by each which is necessary to attract an offence 'pi.;4:nishVable--.V.uinder Section 3(i)(x) of the Act. 2 During cross examination, PW1 has given .,.V'a.|_t.o'gether different version. At the time of occurrence, __:§they had stopped the tractor in front of the house of IV ~ .v.'>'t-'vtidtx Venkataramareddy. One Muniyamma, wife of Venkataramareddy had invited them for a cup .-of.' tea. They had parked the tractor in front Venkataramareddy and they took tea in Venkataramareddy. The galata tooiV<"pi«ajcej out of house for the reason PWs'.'1 to_z4 tractor to compete with the b'tlT§i"neSSV.0f-- accu":-:ieci';.; has deposed that accused' Nois}"iT-toassauited PW4 -- Aliabakash and he had iiim.-ed b_i~ee'c}.ir1Ig"_'_.injuries and his face was 'h.as'ii.d'e'p_osed:f'that accused No.1 assauited footwear and they suffered injuries andAVVt'h"ei--r._Vciothes'were bioodstained. 11':,__T"i:"hus,_ evidence of PW1 is entirely inconsistent with: thecontents of first information . which '. . . . . . L fa-ctn wnasji-oidged after two days. Though PWs.1, 2 and 4 'have depiosezd' that they had suffered bleeding injuries, thfeynnhvaveifiwnot been examined by medical officer. The "prosecution has not produced the medicai evidence to that they had suffered bieeding injuries. The ,..ct1L~ 10 evidence of PW1 that accused had assauited PWs1, 2 and 4 with chappals is aiso not consistent with the contents of first information. Therefore, his evidence does'..n'o:t"-ifnsipire confidence.
12. PW2 ---- Appaiah has gi'v'en.,altogether_ dViff.€5,~ref'iit version. He has deposed that they had stopped the Vtractor hear' of"? Venkataramareddy to shave at-cu--p,_:'of"'tea infia"hote3i. At that time, accused came and _asked* the tractor and they abuysed 'P_Ws§.;'1W byA"t°d:u_chirigvyithe name of their caste:'i"A"ccu.sied they suffered bieeding injuries, if TheV:w"i'fe_°of-\jenkataramareddy came with a broonj and-V aVss.a_u;.ite'd 'P'i'/ii/s.1 to 4, accused Nos.2 and 3 fisteid and' """ "accused No1 assauited them with l1v)_iJ.rin'ngi:; cross examination, PW2 has deposed that accused. came in a group and repeatedly fisted him and he hlad"A_«suffered injuries on his neck and e was admitted in _.M the hospitai for 3 days. The people i . 3' gathered near gycggfi f'/'n\.~&~ 11 wvfifzes I the place of occurrence. His clothes ~. stained with
1./"
blood.
13. The evidence given by PW2 1'C_|';l'3'iI"«.>Vvlf'..--1'=.,_l:.V':.l}.%da stopped the tractor in front of Venkatararnareddy to have a ofértfea-..airi'._.'a--. accused repeatedly bet him' -and cau's"ed and he was treated in hospita4l"'fo'r a perroclilol' 3:Vfg:lays does not find support from ef.ri1d'e_rf:»ce;.r 'PW2 has admitted the presence of indep.en.d_enti'.vvitnéssy'bu~--t'V"the prosecution has not exa3.rnir§1?eid_. indepjendent'Witness. PW2 apart frorn:'istalti'nQ:ivi,that'§V"accused them by touching the namezof deP¢)sed exact words uttered by each of-vaccusdedA't_o"attract an offence punishable under 3v(i)(x)V'"of""the Act. PW2 has not deposed that '"ac_cu.s:ed:V'threatened to kill them by running over a tractor. "E'iri4'elrefo.re'lf_i:h:e evidence of PW2 is not free from reasonable
14. PW3 - Venkataramappa has deposed that on date of occurrence, they had stopped the tractor to ,...i...m 12 have a cup of tea, at that time, accused came and asked him to remove the tractor and accused abused them by touching the name of their caste and started..__assa'ui.t'ing them. PW3 escaped from the ciutches of away from the place. The evide'ncVe"o«fy_avcc7used abused them by touching the narn_el'"o_t meir ¢asei deposing words uttered ol' is not sufficient to attract .a"n..V_Aoffenc'e"punishable'Vunder Section 3(i)(x) of the Act. The eyid'en"ce o.f:\:p.syi\j:3"'_t_hat accused had assauited and 4:: incredible. PW3 has atimitted;7'that9afte--r'j'.--alccusedtistarted assaulting them, he escapedAVV'ti~*:;1m_:"'the«»i.c'lu.tches of accused and ran away from the-__pl~ace"; theyrcilrcumstances, evidence of PW3 thataccused"'a.ssau|ted PWs1, 2 and 4 with chappals and the of*--\/enkataramareddy assaulted PWs.1, 2 and 4 ~_Wlit_h incredible.
" PW4 -- Ailabakash is yet another injured .w'i_tf;ess. He has given completely different version. He __?has deposed that at the time of occurrenc: they had f\) F 0"'*"E{/' ' 13 stopped the tractor near the house of Munireddy to have a cup of tea. At that time, accused came in a tra.cto'_rr.and asked them to remove the tractor. Thereaftelrgili.a:cc_use_ti No.1 questioned PWs.'£.. to 4 andyassau'l'ted:gth'e:m«Apwiithiigm- chappals. Accused Nos.1 to 3 t:h_rea:ten:ed'rlIéwls';-1*,'*3-at/,giArildl_4 to kill them by running over a.._Vtracto.r.'if complaint against them.
During cross e><'aVrni'natio'n:', admitted that accused No.1"hay1ifi chappal and other accused suffe'red injury on his face, next to llhlléambampalli hospital. They lodgeidtllie admitted that himself and P\N_l are lfriendsg PW4""has not deposed that the accused PM//s.1V"t'o""'3"Vby touching the name of their caste. PW4 that he suffered injury and he took Kambampalli hospital does not find support from ._t_Ahe medical evidence. The evidence of PW4 that 'wcofnplaint was lodged on following day is falsified from the Hgcontents of first information. (U fig/'.5/~.,.,,_§,.,, 14 :6. PWS -~ Gopai @ Rajagopai has deposed that he was a victim of assauit. The accused abused...VFéti\:i:'E2".,_ by taking out the name of his caste. In the first there is no reference to PW5.
During cross examination, deposed the time of occurrence, he ti'-acI'~igone 'i----n_si'de:".=thVeV,"v$}i'liage to coiiect hire charges, .Aftervrih'e"iteturnfled iiro"r'n the viilage, PWs.1 to 4 toid by the accused. He v:VThus, we find that PW5 occuirrence, though he had mad§3V"feei3xie.V_V éhaxreti it appear that he had witnes-sed. the .
17. Pi(V'6'.'"-- Siriniit/asa, PW7 - K V Manju Reddy and 1;i:/Mun,iswarn§'«Reddy have not supported the case of 'Vpirosecui:}on";-,:f~~The evidence of PW9 - S P Kushalappa rei.at€.,3"C<§.i'~"investEgation of case. PW1O - Papaiah Reddy ., who 'isiihaiieged to have signed the spot mahazar has not V' »u.pported the case of prosecution, so also PW11 ---- Rame GOWda_ r\_} . "'dl'\ 15'
18. PW12 -- G Gopaiaiah was the Sub Inspector of Poiice in Bethamangaia Police Station. I-ie h.a$'--.4':given evidence about the registration of case and_.ilns'p'ect--i:o'n--.ofV piace of occurrence. At this juncture, it is'reievant'~»to~gsterte . under Ruie 7 of the Scheduieid cpaetes9e'ridfi'ischeduled Tribes (Prevention of A'trc.c_ities')-.. VR:iieS--._;~.,Q?«:i.._,Vgwoiifenceliir committed under the _Act-- sha__i_l"':be_ investi'g-atetd a poiice officer not beiow the"'«r.an.k fa Superintendent of Police. In thercahse on jkushaiappa was the eepuiyilrst-ireirinrehaeht peace, he should have investi_g_ate'd.Vf:"tl5r.e:_ PW12 who had registered it also inspected the piace of occurrence, »--t:he"4a.ccused, recorded statements of w,it.nesses. :he had done substantial part of . :investAig.atio'n.i_n contravention of Ruie 7. 19}: In view of the inordinate delay in iodging the compiaint and absence of medical evidence to prove that to 4 had suffered injuries and vague and __inconsistent evidence given by PWs.1 to 4 that accused z / ,,__ /1, '\r' a» 16 abused them by touching the name of their caste, is not possible to hold that prosecution has prove_dv.uV_Vb:ey<ond reasonable doubt the charges leveled
20. The learned Trial evidence and without proper app'reci[ati~oné'ofl the accused guilty of thd--..:V4'a/Wrelstdégd findings recorded by the ieaArn:eld:Triagi 3udge:,.are:§not based on appreciation of not supported by reasons. The_r'ef_ore,:"th'e~ cannot be sustained, ' I V if pass the following:
a). The aplpealvvis accepted.
T Lb) .,Ti1e'«iui*fap__ugned judgment is set aside. are acquitted of offences punishable 2 Section 355 and 506 of IPC and also of an offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention We 17 of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in Sp|.CC No.97/2000 on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, cl) The bail bonds executed by the accused.'sba'iajl\:.:sltan:dl_V cancelled.
e) If the accused have deposited arnount, "lIVV§V'.::'§,,,.'3'¢V'll,'l_l'e shall be refunded to tn_em_.