Karnataka High Court
Nagappa vs The State Of Karnataka And Anr on 25 June, 2021
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200089/2021
BETWEEN:
NAGAPPA
S/O. RAMANNA
AGE: 44 YEARS
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O.TIPPANAHATTI VILLAGE
SINDHANUR TALUKA
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 101.
... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SHO, BALAGANUR PS
SINDHANUR TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT-584 101
REP. BY ADDITIONAL SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH.
2. RAMALINGAPPA
S/O. GANGAPPA
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. TIPPANHATTI
SINDHANUR TALUK
RAICHUR DISTRICT - 584 101
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. GURURAJ V. HASILKAR, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADV. FOR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14-A OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23.04.2021 IN CRL. MISC.
NO.528/2021 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT (SC/ST ACT)
I.E., I- ADDITIONAL SESSSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 22.06.2021, COMING ON
FOR 'PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT' THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused has filed this appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'SC & ST Act') for setting aside the order passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.528/2021 by I-Additional Sessions Judge, Raichur District, Raichur/Special Court (SC/ST Act), whereby the said Court has rejected the anticipatory bail sought for by the present appellant/accused in Crime No. 44/2021 of Balaganur Police Station.
2. The factual matrix leading to this case are that, the complainant is belonging to Scheduled Caste community. It is alleged that on 11.04.2021 in the afternoon at 1.00 'O' Clock, the complainant had been 3 to a canal in Tippanahatti Village of Maski Taluk for taking bath and at that time, the present appellant/accused, who was present there, started to abuse the complainant with reference his caste and asked him to go and take bath in lower-end of canal, and tried to attack him by a knife on his chest and when the complainant tried to escape, the knife hit on his left hand and he suffered injuries. At that time, Accused No. 2 was present there and he instigated the present appellant to finish off the complainant and thereafter, Accused No.2 called other accused to the spot, who are belonging to Kuruba community, and abused the complainant with reference to his caste and assaulted him. Then Duragappa and Sharanappa came there and pacified the matter and the appellant and other accused have threatened him with dire consequences. The complainant was admitted in the hospital and from hospital itself, he lodged a complaint in this regard.
(1) On the basis of the complaint, the Investigating Officer has registered a crime against the 4 appellant and other accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 355, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC and also under Section 3(1)(r) and (s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC & ST Act by issuing FIR in Crime No.44/2021 of Balaganur Police Station.
(2) Thereafter, the appellant along with other accused has moved bail petition for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court/Special Court under ST & ST Act, but the Special Court has granted bail to other accused persons and rejected the bail petition in respect of the present petitioner on the ground that there are serious allegations against him in respect of caste abuse.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Special Judge, the appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A of SC & ST Act before this Court for setting aside the order passed by the learned Sessions/Special Judge and to grant bail to him. 5
4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court Government Pleader (for short, 'HCGP') for Respondent No.1-State and also the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2. Perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that, the appellant is innocent and the allegations made in the complaint prima facie disclose that the offences under the provisions of SC & ST Act are not attracted as there was no intention to humiliate the present appellant and only assertion is regarding abusing with reference to caste and it does not amount to humiliation. He further contended that, other accused have been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions/Special Judge and the present appellant is also standing on the same footing as that of other accused persons and hence, he should have also been extended the benefit of anticipatory bail. He further contended that the basic ingredients required for attracting the provisions of SC & ST Act are not 6 present and the appellant claims to be a respectable person of the village, possessing movable and immovable properties and he also undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Sessions/Special Court by admitting him on anticipatory bail.
6. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for Respondent-State and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 have seriously opposed the appeal on the ground that, there is sufficient material evidence and intention of the appellant is manifest, as he referred the complainant with reference to his caste and abused him and he did not restrict there itself, but he asked the complainant not to take bath there and insisted him to take bath at the lower-end of the canal. Hence, these aspects clearly establish that there is a bar under Section 18-A of the SC & ST Act, when there is prima 7 facie case. Therefore, they sought for rejection of the appeal.
7. Having heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents, it is evident that the complainant is admittedly belonging to Scheduled Caste community. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant is not belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. This basic ingredient is already referred in the complaint. The SC & ST Act was enacted to improve the social and economic conditions of vulnerable section in the society, as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment and further they have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section-3 of the SC & ST Act. Further, the basic ingredient of the Act is that there should be an intentional insult or intimidation with 8 an intention to humiliate a Member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and it should be in any place within public view. In the instant case, the place of incident is a canal and it is not a place within four corners and hence, admittedly, it is a place of public view.
8. The allegations disclose that, when the complainant went for taking bath to canal, the appellant, who was present there, abused him with reference to caste and the verbatim of the wordings used are re-produced here under:-
''............¯Éà ¨ÁåqÀgï ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄUÀ£É ¤£ÀUÉ JµÀÄÖ ¸ÉÆPÀÄÌ ¤Ã£ÀÄ PɼÀUÉ ºÉÆÃV d¼ÀPÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄ........'' (1) These wordings establish that the complainant was not only abused with reference to his caste, but he was humiliated on the ground that, he was directed to take bath in the lower-end of the canal. The canal is not a private property of the appellant and he had no business to obstruct the complainant in taking bath wherever he wishes and his intention in asking him to take bath at different place is with reference to his 9 caste and it clearly establish that he had an intention to humiliate him. Hence, the basic ingredient that the appellant has intentionally insulted and humiliated the complainant with an intention to humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe is forthcoming in the complaint.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.422/2021 dated 01.06.2021 (N. Srinivas Vs. State of Karnataka by BEML Nagar P.S.). In the said case, the abuse with reference to caste was not within public view, as it was within four corners and hence, the principles enunciated in the above said decision cannot be made applicable to the case in hand.
(1) Learned counsel for appellant has further placed reliance on the decision in Criminal Appeal No.707/2020 (arising out of SLP (criminal) No.3585/2020 Dated 05.11.2020) (Hitesh Verma Vs. The state of Uttarakhand and Others). But, the 10 facts and circumstances of the said case are entirely different. No doubt, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed that, unless there is an intention to humiliate the member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste, the provisions of the said act are not attracted. But, the said principles cannot be made application to this case, as in the instant case, there is a specific assertion that with reference to caste, the appellant asked the complainant to go and take bath somewhere else i.e., in lower-end of canal, which clearly indicates that, the complainant was subjected to humiliation. Further, in the complaint, the complainant has specifically referred his caste as well as the caste of the present appellant and therefore, the other basic ingredient of provisions the said Act is also forthcoming. Hence, the said principles referred in the above cited decision do not come to the aid of appellant in any way.
(2) The learned counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on an unreported decision of 11 Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.250/2020 (Papu Ashok Supekar and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others). But, the facts and circumstances in the said case are entirely different. In the said case, there was a fight between the brother of the complainant and other village boys, who assembled on the ground to fly kites on the occasion of "Makar Sankranti" festival and it was not between Tribal Schedule Caste and Non-Tribal Scheduled Caste members. Further, the scuffle between boys had given raise to fight between family members of both groups and exchange of verbal expression and there was no intention of humiliation. Hence, the said principles also had no applicability in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. However, when there is prima facie material, there is a bar under Section 18-A of the SC & ST Act for granting of anticipatory bail and in the instant case, there is prima facie material to show that the appellant had an intention to humiliate the complainant, which is manifest from the allegations 12 made in the complaint. Further, there is an allegation of assault by knife on the complainant.
10. Under these circumstances, the appeal is devoid of any merits and needs to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KGR*