Bangalore District Court
State By vs Unknown on 1 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
HOLDING C/C XLVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE FOR CBI CASES AT BANGALORE CITY (CCH-47)
Dated this the 1st day of April, 2017.
PRESENT:
Shri. G.BASAVARAJA B.A.,LL.M.
XLVI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge & Special Judge for
CBI Cases, Bangalore City, holding c/c of II Addl. City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bangalore.
Spl. Case NO. 64/2013
COMPLAINANT : State by:
Chikkajala police,
Bengaluru.
(By learned Spl. Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED :
1) B.S. Narayanagowda s/o B.C.
Shivaraju, 46 years, R/at
Bettahalasuru village & post,
Bangalore North Taluk.
2) B.C. Shivaraju s/o late.
Chikkanna, 52 years, R/at
Bettahalasuru village & post,
Bangalore North Taluk.
3) B.K. Subbaiahnaidu s/o B.S.
Krishnamurthy, 49 years, R/at
Bettahalasuru village & post,
Bangalore North Taluk.
(By Sri C.R, Advocate)
2 Spl. C. No.64/2013
1 Date of commission of 02.07.2012
offence
2 Date of report of 09.07.2012
occurrence
3 Date of commencement 09.06.2016
of recording of evidence
4 Date of closing of 01.09.2016
evidence
5 Name of the M. Nagaraja
Complainant
6 Offences Complained of u/ss.504 and 506
r/w Section 34 of
I.P.C. and u/s.
3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA)
Act 1989.
7 Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 to 3
are acquitted of all
offences.
JUDGMENT
The Asst. Commissioner of police, Devanahalli Sub Division, Bangalore filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the commission of offence punishable u/ss. 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and u/s. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act 1989.
.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: 3 Spl. C. No.64/2013
That on 02.07.2012 at about 2.00 p.m., the Accused No.1 to 3 being member of non SC/ST knowing well that the Complainant CW.1 M. Nagaraju belongs to SC/ST abused him in filthy language by taking the name of his caste as " K ¨ÁåqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£É K £ÁAiÀÄPÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£É" at Kuduregere village which comes under the jurisdiction of Chikkajala police station intending to humiliate him within the public view and also insulted the Complainant by abusing him in filthy language as "¨ÉÆý ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, ¸ÀƼÉà ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, K ¨Áåqï £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, K £ÁAiÀÄPÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ" and also the accused No.1 criminally intimidated the said C.W.1 - M. Nagaraju, with dire consequences to his life and thereby the Accused No.1 to 3 have committed the above said offences.
.3. After registering the case, summons were issued to the Accused persons. The Accused persons appeared before this court through their counsel and obtained bail from this court. All the prosecution papers were made available to Accused as required u/s.207 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing the charge, the then Presiding Officer has framed the charge against the Accused persons for the 4 Spl. C. No.64/2013 above said offences. The charge was read over and explained to the accused as contemplated u/s.228(2) of Cr.P.C. They pleaded not guilty for the alleged offences and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case of the prosecution has been posted for evidence.
.4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution only 7 witnesses have examined as PWs. 1 to 7 and got marked the documents at Ex.Ps. 1 to 4 and closed its side. No material object got marked on behalf of the prosecution. After closure of prosecution side, the statement u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded. The Accused persons have totally denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. But they have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
.5. Heard arguments of both sides.
.6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the following points would arise for my determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 02.07.2012 at about 2.00 p.m., the Accused No.1 to 3 being member of non SC/ST knowing well that the Complainant CW.1 M. Nagaraju belongs to SC/ST abused him in 5 Spl. C. No.64/2013 filthy language by taking the name of his caste as " K ¨ÁåqÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£É K £ÁAiÀÄPÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£É" at Kuduregere village which comes under the jurisdiction of Chikkajala police station intending to humiliate him within the public view and thereby, the Accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable u/s.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act 1989?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place of incident, in furtherance of their common intention, the Accused persons insulted the Complainant by abusing him in filthy language as "¨ÉÆý ªÀÄUÀ£ÃÉ , ¸ÀƼÉà ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, K ¨Áåqï £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, K £ÁAiÀÄPÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ"
and thereby giving him provocation knowing well that such provocation would make the Complainant to break the public peace and thereby, the Accused No.1 to 3 have committed 6 Spl. C. No.64/2013 an offence punishable u/s.504 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place of incident, in furtherance of their common intention, the Accused persons criminally intimidated the Complainant M. Nagaraj with dire consequences to his life and thereby, the Accused No.1 to 3 have committed an offence punishable u/s.506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.?
4. What order?
.7. My answer to the above points is as under:
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 below:
REASONS .8. POINT No.1 to 3:- I have gone through the materials placed by the prosecution. In all 9 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet. Out of that, CW.1 M. Nagaraj is examined as PW.1. He has deposed in his evidence that he belongs to 7 Spl. C. No.64/2013 'Nayaka' caste, which comes under scheduled Tribe group. He further deposed in his evidence that the accused No.1 Narayana Gowda and accused No.2 Shivaraju belong to 'Vakkaliga' caste. The accused No.3 Subbaiah belongs to 'Naidu Banagiga' caste. He further deposed in his evidence that on 02.07.2012 the grama sabha was arranged in Betta Halasooru village panchayathi. The MLA and representatives of the people came there. He also invited to attend the function. Afterwards he was invited to speech in that assembly. Then he went to Dias for addressing the assembly. Then accused No.1 Narayana Gowda snatched the mike and abused him in filthy language as "DvÀ£ÀÄ ¨ÉÆý ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¤ÃªÉãÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DUÀĪÀÅ¢®è, ¤Ã£ÀÄ E°è §AzÀÄ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ EzÉà vÀgº À À ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀgÉ ¤£ÀUÉ AiÀiÁªÀ vÀgÀºÀ §Ä¢Þ PÀ°¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ, ¤£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄÄV¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉ, ¤£Àß eÁw J®è £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÀÄÛ ¤£Àß §AqÀªÁ¼À £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛzÉ. ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄUÀ, ¤ÃªÀÅ PÀrªÉÄ eÁw, ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀ JAzÀ ¨ÉÊzÀ. UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ¯É EzÀÝgÀÄ." Then accused No.3 Subbaiah Naidu came and abused him in filthy language by referring his caste and tried to assault him and also abused him as " FvÀ£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÁgÀzÀÄ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ eÁwAiÀĪÀ, QüÀÄ eÁw, ¤£Àß PÀÄlÄA§ £À£UÀ É UÉÆvÀÄÛ, ¤£ÀUÉ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É £ÉÆÃqÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ©Ã¼À®Ä §AzÀ" He further deposed in his evidence that the accused No.2 also made galata along with 8 Spl. C. No.64/2013 accused No.1 and 3. He further deposed in his evidence that Sadashivaiah, B.M. Narayana Swamy and others rescued him from the galata. Then he lodged the complaint to the police as per Ex.P-
1. Thereafter, the police came to the spot and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P.2.
.9. PW.3 Nasrayana Swamy has deposed in his evidence that 0n 02.07.2012 he attended the grama Sabha of Bettahalasooru village panchayath at Kuduregere. He further deposed in his evidence that the complainant Nagaraj asked some questions as to the work conducted in their village. Then the accused Narayana Gowda snatched the mike from him and abused him in filthy language as "¤£ÀߣÀÄß MAzÀÄ PÉÆ£ÉUÉƽ¸ÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¤Ã£ÀÄ PÀ«Ää eÁwAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄ, ¤£ÀUÉ J°è ¨ÉÃPÉÆà C°è ¸Àj ªÀiÁr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. fêÀ ¨ÉzjÀ PÉ ºÁQzÀgÀÄ. ¤£ÀߪÀÄä£Éà ¨ÁåqÀzÀ §rAiÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀgÀÄ". He further deposed in his evidence that the accused No.2 and 3 tried to assault him.
.10. PW.4 Sadashivaiah has deposed in his evidence that on 02.06.2012 he attended the grama sabha at Kuduregere village. The complainant Nagaraj is the President of 'Muthyalamma Parisara Samrakshana Vedike' and they have submitted a requisition to the assembly and complainant Nagaraj asked some 9 Spl. C. No.64/2013 questions. Then the accused No.1 Narayana Gowda snatched the mike from the complainant and abused him as "¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÁAiÀiPÀ, ¤£ÀUÉãÀÄ ¨ÉÃPÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ¨ÉÃqÀ". He further deposed in his evidence that the accused No.3 Subbaiah has abused him as " ¤Ã£ÀÄ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ eÁwAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄ, ¤£ÀUÉãÀÄ UÉÆvÀÄ"Û . He further deposed in his evidence that the accused No.2 Shivaraj has abused him as " £ÁAiÀÄPÀ ¤£ÀUÉãÀÄ UÉÆvÀÄÛ ºÉÆÃUÀÄ".
.11. PW.5 H.D. Puttaswamy has deposed in his evidence that on 09.07.2012 at 3.00 p.m., he has received the complaint from the complainant. On that basis he registered a case in crime No.27/2012 and submitted FIR to the court.
.12. PW.6 B.S. Venkataramana Swamy has deposed in his evidence that in the year 2012 on one day the police came to the spot and conducted the panchanama as to the galata as per Ex.P-2 in his presence.
.13. PW.7 M.V. Chandrakantha has deposed in his evidence that he has received the case file from PSI Puttaswamy on 10.07.2012 and on the same day he visited the spot and conducted the spot panchanama as per Ex.P-2. He further deposed in his evidence that on 16.07.2012 he recorded the statements of 10 Spl. C. No.64/2013 Venkataramanaswamy, Bhaskar, Narayanaswamy and Sadashiva. He further deposed in his evidence that PW.2 Bhaskar has given statement before him as per Ex.P-3.
.14. The alleged incident took place on 02.07.2012 at about 2 p.m., at Kuduregere village. Ex.P-1 the complainant reveals that the complaint came to be filed on 09.07.2012 at 15 hours. The contents of Ex.P-1 does not reveal as to the explanation for delay in filing the complaint. The complainant Nagaraj has examined before this court as PW.1. He has deposed in examination in chief that after the incident he approached the police and tried to compromise. But the matter was not compromised. Hence, he lodged a complaint to the police as per Ex.P-1 on 04.07.2012. This evidence of PW.1 is quite inconsistent to the contents of Ex.P-1. If really the PW.1 approached the police as to this galata, the concerned police ought to have registered a case against the accused as the alleged offences punishable under the provision of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (PA) Act 1989 are not compoundable. But they have not done so. The I.O. has not collected any materials to show that on 02.07.2012 there was a grama Sabha in Kuduregere village said to have been conducted by Bettahalasuru village panchayathi. The I.O. has not furnished any 11 Spl. C. No.64/2013 explanation as to the non-collecting of material evidence as to the meeting of grama sabha at the relevant point of time. The I.O. has not examined before this court. Despite of sufficient opportunity provided, the concerned police have failed to produce the I.O. before this court. Therefore, in the absence of these materials evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has not placed any cogent, corroborative, acceptable and trustworthy evidence as to the alleged offence. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4 cannot be accepted.
.15. In the cross-examination of PW.1 he has clearly admitted that C.W.3 Bhaskar who is examined before this court as PW.2, C.W.4 Narayanaswamy who is examined before this court as PW.3, C.W.5 Sadashivaiah who is examined before this court as PW.4, are working in their environmental Protection Forum. However PW.2 Bhaskar has not fully supported to the case of the prosecution. PW.2 Bhaskar has stated in his evidence that he is working as Secretary in the Environmental protection Forum. PW.3 Narayana Swamy has admitted in his cross-examination that on the date of alleged incident, the said Bhaskar was not present. PW.4 12 Spl. C. No.64/2013 Sadashivaiah has stated in his evidence that he is working as Chief Secretary in the Muthyalamma Environmental Protection Forum. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 that PW.1 is the President of the Environmental protection forum. It is crystal clear that PW.1 Nagaraj is working as President in the Muthyalamma Environmental Protection Forum. PW.2 Bhaskar is one of the Secretary. PW.4 Sadashivaiah is the Chief Secretary of the said forum. Therefore, all these witnesses are the interested witnesses. Even the statements of interested witnesses are not consistent to each other. Therefore, viewed from any angle the prosecution has failed to place consistent, cogent and corroborative evidence before this court. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the Accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer point No.1 to 3 in the negative.
.16. Point No.4:- For the foregoing reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:-
13 Spl. C. No.64/2013
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit Accused No.1 to 3 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and u/s.3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Accused No.1 to 3 shall execute self bond for Rs.25,000/- each so as to undertake to appear before this court or Higher Courts whenever directed to do so. Such bail bonds shall be in force for 6 months as contemplated U/s.437A of Code of Criminal Procedure.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 1st day of April, 2017.) (G. BASAVARAJA), C/c II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore.
14 Spl. C. No.64/2013
ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Nagaraju
P.W.2 : Bhaskar
PW.3 : Narayanaswamy
PW.4 : Sadashivaiah
PW.5 : Puttaswamy
PW.6 : Venkataramana Swamy
PW.7 : Chandrakanth
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2 : Spot mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.2
Ex.P.3 : Statement of PW.2
Ex.P.4 : FIR
Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.5
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil (G. BASAVARAJA ), C/c II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Gr/- and Special Judge, Bengaluru. 15 Spl. C. No.64/2013 16 Spl. C. No.64/2013 01.04.2017 Order portion of Judgment pronounced in the open court ( vide separate order) ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit Accused No.1 to 3 for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. and u/s.3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Accused No.1 to 3 shall execute self bond for Rs.25,000/- each so as to undertake to appear before this court or Higher Courts whenever directed to do so. Such bail bonds shall be in force for 6 months as contemplated U/s.437A of Code of Criminal Procedure.
C/c II A.C.C. and S.J., and S.J., Bangalore.