Bangalore District Court
The State By vs Subbaraju on 29 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 29 th day of November, 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C. NO. 125/2018
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Subramanyapura Police Station,
BENGALURU
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: Subbaraju, 49 years,
S/o. late Ramaiah,
R/at:No.813, 32nd Cross,
Poorna Prajna Extension,
Uttarahalli, Bengaluru.
(By Sri. S.P. Advocate)
1.Date of commission of offence: 16-10-20167
2. Date of report of occurrence : 30-10-2017
3. Date of commencement of : 26-02-2019 recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 25-09-2019
5. Name of the Complainant : Smt. Shanthamma 2 Spl.C.No. 125/2018
6. Offences Complained of :Sec. 354B, 506, 504 of I.P.C.
and Sec. 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused is acquitted.
J UD GM E N T A Charge Sheet is submitted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Subramanyapura Sub-Division, Bengaluru City against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354B, 506, 506 of I.P.C., and Sec.3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Based upon the first information statement lodged by CW.1 Smt. Shanthamma, Subramanyapura Police registered the first information report bearing Crime No. 480/2017. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet is directly submitted before this designated Special Court against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
3. The case of the prosecution is as under:
3 Spl.C.No. 125/2018
C.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accused do not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. CW.1 working as 'D' Group employee in BBMP and working as Water Woman of Arehalli village. That on 16.10.2017 at about 10 AM the Pipeline work was in progress at Arehalli 2 nd Cross Road near Laxmi Textiles. CW.1 was deputed to supervise the work as the road was dug with JCB in order to lay the water pipeline. In order to prohibit vehicular movement, the rope was tied across the road. The said rope which was tied across the road was cut. Hence, CW.1 asked the people including the accused to assist to tie the rope in order to prevent the vehicular movement as the pipeline work is in progress. At that time the accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 complainant and abused her in filthy language as " ಸಸಳ ಮಮಮಡ, ಬಸಬಳ ಮಮಮಡ, ನನನ ಅಮಮ ನ" and abused her in the name of caste as "ಹಸಲ ಮದಗ, ದನ ತನಸನಬ ಮಮಮಡ", the accused pulled and torned the Nighty and outraged her modesty. The accused also given life threat to her. Based on the first information statement lodged by CW.1 on 30.10.2017 at 5 PM the PSI of Subramanyapura Police Station registered the case in Crime No. 480/2017 and 4 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 sent FIR to the court. The Investigation Officer/ACP conducted further investigation and after collecting all the materials on completion of the investigation has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
4. The accused released on bail. The charge sheet copies furnished to the accused and thereby the provisions u/s 207 of Cr.P.C., is duly complied with.
5. Charges are framed against the accused on 11.7.2018 for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During trial the prosecution has examined four witnesses as P.W.1 to PW.4 and the documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 are marked.
7. On 8.11.2019 the statement of the accused as required u/s 313 of Cr.P.C., is recorded by putting all the incriminating circumstances available in the prosecution evidence to him. The accused has denied all such circumstances and did not lead any defence evidence on his behalf.
5 Spl.C.No. 125/2018
8. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the accused. I have also perused the entire case papers.
9. Upon hearing, the following points arise for my determination:-
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 16.10.2017 at about 10.00 a.m. when C.W.1 asked the people and accused to tie the rope across the road in order to prohibit the vehicular movements at that time the accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and abused her in filthy language and insulted her and thereby the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 504 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place accused picked up quarrel with CW.1 and pulled and torn her dress and outraged her modesty and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 354B of IPC?6 Spl.C.No. 125/2018
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the afore said date, time and place the accused criminally intimidated CW.1 by giving life threat to her and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 506 of IPC?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused not being the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe insulted and humiliated CW.1 who belongs to Scheduled Caste by knowing her caste with an intention to humiliate her within the public view and assaulted her and thereby committed the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of The Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
5) 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:- In the Negative Point No.5:- As per final order for the 7 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 following REASONS
11. POINT No.1 to 4:- Since these points are inter linked with each other in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence and for the sake of convenience they are taken together for common discussion.
12. PW.1 is the complainant and victim. PW.2 is the Tahasildar who issued Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 report regarding the caste of accused and complainant. PW.3 and 4 are the Police Constables who apprehended the accused and produced before the Investigation Officer. In this case, despite sufficient opportunity given to the prosecution the prosecution has not examined the remaining witnesses CW.2 to CW.5, CW.7, CW.10 to CW.12.
13. P.W.1 Smt. Shanthamma has deposed that she belongs to schedule caste. Accused belongs to Gowda community. The accused knows about her caste. She is working as 'D' Group employee in BBMP since 19 years and working as Water Woman of Arehalli village. That on 8 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 16.10.2017 at about 10.30 a.m., the road of 2nd cross of Arehalli was dug in order to lay the water pipeline, at that time the accused was standing in that place. She has deposed that she asked the people who gathered there to tie the rope in order to prevent vehicular movement at that time the accused picked up quarrel with her by saying why she asking to tie the rope. She has deposed that the accused abused her as "ಹಸಲಯ ಮದಗತತ, ದನ ತನಮ ನ ವವಳಮ, ನನನನಮಮ ನ, ನನನಕಕನ". She has deposed that accused by holding her pulled her dress assaulted her with hands. She has deposed that she went to the Subramanyapura Police Station in order to lodge the complaint but the police have not received her complaint. Thereafter one week later she again went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. The police visited the place of incident and conducted Ex.P2 mahazar in her presence. During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, PW.1 has admitted the suggestion that it is found that she has written the date as 16.10.2017 in her palm and seeing the said date she has deposed about date as 16.10.2017. She do not know who were all persons working in that place who digging 9 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 the road. She states that the BBMP authorities have not given written order to her in order to supervise the road digging work. She states that she has not given any document to the police to show that she was on duty on 16.10.2017. She has deposed that except her there are no other employees of their department were present in the place of incident. She has deposed that 4 to 5 workers who were doing road digging work was not present at the time of incident. She has deposed that one Manjunath, Nagaraj, Krishnappa were were present at the time of incident. She has deposed that she has mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint that she was lodged the complaint on the same day of the incident. She has deposed that the police came to the place of incident to conduct the mahazar between 12 PM and 1 PM. At the time of conducting mahazar no public were present. She has denied all other suggestions made to her.
14. PW.2 G. Manjunatha, Tahasildar has deposed that on 9.11.2017 ACP of Subramanyapura Sub-Division sent requisition letter and sought the caste certificate of the accused and the complainant. Hence, he after receiving the report of 10 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 Deputy Tahasildar issued Ex.P3 on 11.12.2017 stating that accused Subbaraju belongs to Vakkaliga community and he has issued Ex.P4 report stating that complainant Shanthamma belongs to Adi Karnataka Scheduled Caste. During the course of the cross-examination of PW.2 by the learned counsel for the accused nothing is elicited from the mouth of PW.2 to discard his examination-in-chief version and the documents Ex.P3 and P4.
15. PW.3 Nagaraju Police Constable has deposed that the Investigation Officer/ACP deputed him and PC No. 11046 on 31.11.2017 to trace out the accused. Hence, they apprehended the accused at Poornaprajna Layout and produced the accused before ACP and he submitted his report as per Ex.P5. During the course of his cross-examination by the defence PW.3 has denied all the suggestions that he has not apprehended the accused at Poornaprajna Layout.
16. PW.4 Balappa, Police Constable has deposed that on 31.10.2017 ACP deputed him and PC No.7028 Nagaraj to trace out the accused. Hence, they went to Arehalli and Vaddarapalya and with the help of informant they apprehended 11 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 the accused at Sandhya Deepa Ashrama and brought the accused to the police station and produced before ACP. PW.4 in his cross-examination by the defence has denied all the suggestions made to him.
17. Based upon the above evidence, it has to be considered if the prosecution has established the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. Regarding the caste of PW.1 and accused PW.1 has clearly deposed that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and accused belongs to Gowda caste. This version of PW.1 regarding her caste and the caste of the accused not tested in her cross-examination. PW.2 G. Manjunath, Tahasildar who has issued Ex.P3 report regarding caste of accused and issued Ex.P4 report regarding the caste of the complainant has deposed that the accused is belongs to Vakkaliga caste and complainant is belongs to Adi Karnataka scheduled caste. The oral evidence of PW.1 which is supported by the oral evidence of PW.2 and documents Ex.P3 to P4 are sufficient to hold that PW.1 belongs to Adi Karnataka comes under Scheduled Caste and the accused belongs to Vakkaliga caste which does not 12 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 comes under Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Thus it established that PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and accused do not belongs to Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe. Mere proof of the caste of PW.1 and accused is not sufficient to hold that the accused has committed the offence. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. In this case, except PW.1 no other independent witnesses have examined on the side of the prosecution. PW.1 has deposed that the accused assaulted her with hands and pulled her dress. In this case, the prosecution has not produced any medical report or medical certificate to show that PW.1 has sustained any injuries. The Investigation Officer has not seized any clothes to show that the accused pulled the Nighty of PW.1 and torned her Nighty. PW.1 in her cross- examination by the defence has deposed that Manjanna, Nagaraju, Krishnappa were witnessed the incident. One Manjanna has pacified the quarrel. It is pertinent to note that in the charge sheet the Investigation Officer has not cited any such witnesses by name Manjanna, Nagaraju and Krishnappa. In the charge sheet, CW.4 Jyothi, CW.5 Laxmi are cited as eye 13 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 witnesses. The prosecution has not examined CW.4 and CW.5. PW.1 has not deposed about the presence of CW.4 Jyothi and CW.5 Lakshmi in the place of incident. The prosecution has not examined any mahazar witnesses. PW.1 in her cross- examination has deposed that she has signed Ex.P2 mahazar in the police station. PW.1 has deposed that the police came to the place of incident to conduct mahazar between 12 PM and 1 PM. This oral evidence of PW.1 is quite contrary to the document Ex.P2 mahazar wherein the timing is mentioned as 11.30 a.m. to 12.30 PM. The oral evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 who have deposed that they have also apprehended the accused is not corroborating with each other. PW.3 has deposed that he was apprehended the accused at Poornaprajna Layout, but PW.4 has deposed that he apprehended the accused at Sandhya Deepa Ashrama. In this case, except PW.1 no other independent witnesses have examined on the side of the prosecution. The oral evidence of PW.1 regarding the time of incident is also not corroborating with Ex.P1 complaint. In Ex.P1 she has not mentioned the name of the eye witnesses. PW.1 has deposed that one Manjanna, Nagaraju and 14 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 Krishnappa were the eye witnesses to this incident. In this case the Investigation Officer has not cited Manjanna, Nagaraju and Krishnappa as eye witnesses. The Investigation Officer has not seized any clothes to show that the accused has torn the cloth of PW.1 complainant. PW.1 has deposed that the accused assaulted her with hands. In order to support her oral evidence there is no medical evidence. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that on 16.10.2017 the work of digging road for laying water pipe line was in progress and PW.1 was deputed to by the BBMP to supervise the work. The alleged incident was occurred on 16.10.2017 but Ex.P1 first information statement lodged on 30.10.2017, there is delay of more than 14 days in lodging the complaint which is not properly explained by the prosecution. PW.1 has deposed that she went to the Subramanyapura Police Station on the same day of the incident but the police refused to receive her complaint. PW.1 has deposed that after one week later, when she went to the police station to lodge the complaint, the police received Ex.P1 complaint. According to PW.1 she has lodged the complaint in one week from the date of incident. This oral 15 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 evidence of PW.1 is also quite contrary to the document Ex.P1 which shows that Ex.p1 was lodged after 14 days of the alleged incident. PW.1 in her cross-examination stated that in Ex.P1 she has mentioned that as on the date of the incident itself she has lodged the complaint. On perusal of Ex.P1 complaint there is no such mention that it was written on 16.10.2017 itself. In first page of Ex.p1 it shows that the date which was written as 20 was altered as 30. The oral evidence of PW.10 is that she went to the police station to lodge the complaint on the date of incident itself but police has refused to receive the complaint is not believable. There is inordinate delay of 14 days in lodging the first information which is not properly explained by the prosecution is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The oral evidence of PW.1 is not corroborating with the document Ex.P1 complaint. Hence, her oral evidence creates doubt about the incident. The uncorroborated oral evidence of PW.1 which is not supported by any independent witness creates doubt her version. There is no satisfactory explanation by the prosecution about the inordinate delay of 14 days in lodging the first information. PW.1 has not deposed anything about 16 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 the criminal intimidation by giving life threat to her by the accused. On an appreciation of evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that accused has committed the offence punishable u/s 354B, 504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence, I answered the above point No.1 to 4 in the negative.
19. Point No.7:- In view of my findings on point no.1 to point no.4, I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Subbaraju is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 354B, 504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety stand cancelled. However the bond 17 Spl.C.No. 125/2018 executed in compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 29th day of November, 2019.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
A N NE X U R E
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Shanthamma
P.W.2 : G.Manjunath
P.W.3 : Nagaraju
P.W.4 : Balappa
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2 : Mahazar
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P3 : Tahasildar Report regarding caste of
accused.
Ex.P3(a) : Signature of P.W.2
Ex.P4 : Tahasildar Report regarding caste of
18 Spl.C.No. 125/2018
complainant
Ex.P4(a) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P5 : Report of PW.3 to ACP
Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW.3
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.19 Spl.C.No. 125/2018
Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate judgment.
O R DE R Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., accused Subbaraju is hereby acquitted for the offences punishable under Sec. 354B, 504, 506 of IPC and u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The bail bond of the accused and his surety stand cancelled. However the bond executed in compliance of Sec. 437A of Cr.P.C., shall be in force till statutory period.
(MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.20 Spl.C.No. 125/2018