Bangalore District Court
State By vs Unknown on 8 August, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 8th Day August, 2016.
PRESENT:
Shri Suresh S. Kogilgeri, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),
II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge.
Spl.C. No.269/2010
COMPLAINANT : State by:
Kodigehalli police,
Bangalore.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED :
1) M. Govindaraju s/o late.
Chikka Venkatappa, 50
years,
2) Smt. Shantha w/o
Govindaraju, 42 years,
3) Chennappa s/o late. Chikka
Venkatappa, 56 years,
All are residing at No.80,
Venkateshwara Nilaya, Renuka
Temple street, Dodda
Bommasandra, Bangalore.
(Sri.R.R. Advocate.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Date of commission of offence : 09.08.2008
2. Date of report of occurrence : 22.08.2008
3. Date of commencement of : 07-02-2013
recording of evidence
7. Date of closing of evidence : 20-12-2014
2 Spl. Case No.269/2010
8. Name of the Complainant : Vadivelu M
Offences Complained of :
Sections 3 and 4 of SC/ST (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989
9. Opinion of the Judge :Accused are acquitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet presented by the Asst. commissioner of police, Yalahanka Sub Division, Bangalore city alleging that Accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offences punishable u/ss.3 and 4 of the SC/ST (PA) Act 1989.
.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
That on 09.08.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., CW.1 Murugesh came near his site situated in Sy.No.109/B-1. At that time, Accused No.1 to 3 came there. Accused No.2 told Accused No.1 that " ªÀiÁ¢UÀ §A¢zÁÝ£É ºÉÆÃV ºÉÆÃV ªÀiÁ¢UÀ£À ªÀÄÄRªÀ£ÀÄß ¨É½UÉÎ KPÉ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛÃgÁ zÀjzÀæ ¸ÀÄwÛPÉƼÀÄîvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ eÁw »rzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀ". Accused No.1 to 3 have further abused as "F ¨ÉÆý ªÀÄUÀ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ¤AzÀ¯Éà £ÀªÀÄä D¹Û J¯Áè ºÉÆìÄvÀÄ. CªÀ£À ªÀA±À ¤£ÁðªÀĪÁUÀ° JAzÀÄ EvÁå¢ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". So, it is alleged by the prosecution that Accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offences punishable u/ss. 3 and 4 of the SC/ST (PA) Act 1989.3 Spl. Case No.269/2010
.3. After investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet before this court for the aforesaid offences against Accused No1 to 3. After receipt of the charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance of the alleged offences against Accused No.1 to 3. Accused are on bail. All the prosecution papers were made available to Accused persons as required u/s.207 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing the charge has been framed against the Accused persons for the offences punishable u/s.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act 1989 and explained to the accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case of the prosecution has been posted for evidence. During the course of recording the evidence, Accused No.3 is dead. So, case against Accused No.3 is abated as per the order dated 20.07.2013.
.4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 9 witnesses as PWs. 1 to PW. 9 and got marked the documents at Ex.Ps. 1 to 4 and closed its side. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, 4 Spl. Case No.269/2010 the statement of Accused No.1 and 2 as required u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded by giving an opportunity to the Accused No.1 and 2 to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution against them. Accused No.1 and 2 have denied the evidence of the prosecution and they have not chosen to adduce their defence evidence.
.5. Heard arguments of the learned P.P. for the State and of the learned counsel for Accused for the defence.
.6. At this stage, the following points have arisen for my determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves that on 09.08.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., near the site of CW.1 Murugesh situated in Sy.No.109/B-1, Accused No.1 and 2 along with Accused No.3 abused CW.1 Murugesh by referring the name of his caste with an intention to humiliate him within a public view and thereby, Accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offence 5 Spl. Case No.269/2010 punishable u/s.3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act?
2. What order?
.7. My findings on the above said points are held as under:
Point No.1:- In the Negative, Point No.2:- As per final order for the below:
REASONS .8. POINT No.1:- It is contended by the prosecution that on 09.08.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., CW.1 Murugesh came near his site situated in Sy.No.109/B-1. At that time, Accused No.1 to 3 came there. Accused No.2 told Accused No.1 that " ªÀiÁ¢UÀ §A¢zÁÝ£É ºÉÆÃV ºÉÆÃV ªÀiÁ¢UÀ£À ªÀÄÄRªÀ£ÀÄß ¨É½UÉÎ KPÉ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛÃgÁ zÀjzÀæ ¸ÀÄwÛPÉƼÀÄîvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ eÁw »rzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀ". Accused No.1 to 3 have further abused as "F ¨ÉÆý ªÀÄUÀ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ¤AzÀ¯Éà £ÀªÀÄä D¹Û J¯Áè ºÉÆìÄvÀÄ. CªÀ£À ªÀA±À ¤£ÁðªÀĪÁUÀ° JAzÀÄ EvÁå¢ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ". So, it is alleged by the prosecution that Accused No.1 and 2 along with Accused No.3 have committed the offences punishable u/ss. 3 and 4 of the SC/ST (PA) Act 1989. 6 Spl. Case No.269/2010
.9. Now it is for the prosecution to prove its aforesaid case by adducing cogent, consistent, corroborative and acceptable evidence before the court.
.10. Now I proceed to discuss how the prosecution has adduced its evidence to prove its aforesaid case.
.11. It reveals from the evidence of PW.1 Vadivelu that he is the Complainant. He knows all the Accused. He belongs to 'Adi Dravida' community. It comes under scheduled caste. Accused are belonging to vakkaliga community. They know the name of his caste. He has purchased a land bearing Sy.No.109/B-1 of Kodigehalli measuring to an extent of 12.5 guntas under a registered sale deed from one Narayanappa about 10-12 years ago. Since then he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said land. He has put up a shed and kept a watchman there. Accused No.1 Govindaraju is the son of his vendor Narayanappa. Accused No.2 Shantha is the wife of Accused No.1 Govindaraju. Accused No.3 is the brother of Accused No.1. Accused had filed a civil suit against him with 7 Spl. Case No.269/2010 regard to the said land. It might be filed during 2006 in the court of Mayo hall. The said suit came to be dismissed as the plaintiffs were not appearing in the said suit. The plaintiffs therein did not take any further steps in the said suit. Apart from this suit, Accused persons have also filed the Criminal case against him. In the said Criminal Case, the I.O. after investigating the matter has filed 'B' report stating that it is a false complaint. In the said case, Accused No.2 was the Complainant. Since Accused No.2 had appeared and filed objections to 'B' report, the matter is pending for consideration. It is further evidence of PW.1 that on 09.08.2008 at about 10.30 a.m., he had gone to his land to see it. The land of Accused is adjacent to his land purchased by him. There is a tomb of deceased parents of Accused No.1 and 2. At that time, Accused persons were cleaning the said place in order to perform the pooja. He went to his land. At that time, Accused No.2 Shantha " £ÉÆÃr ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ §A¢zÁÝ£É" . Accused No.1 Govindaraju told his wife as " ¨É¼ÀV£À ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è D ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÀÄÄRªÉãÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ, ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÀÄÄR £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ zÀjzÀæ ¸ÀÄwÛPÉƼÀÄîvÀÛzÉ". 8 Spl. Case No.269/2010
He asked them as to why they are abusing so him. They came to pick up quarrel with him. Accused No.1 Govindaraju caught hold his caller patti. Accused No.3 Channappa dragged him. Accused No.1 Govindaraju abused him as " ªÀiÁ¢UÀ JAzÀÄ C£ÀÄßvÉÛÃ£É K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ". By abusing so dragged him. Accused No.1 told his wife as "ZÀ¥Àà° vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆÃ". Accused No.2 Shantha came to assault him by holding chappal in her hands. By that time, neighbours came and pacified the galata. Kumaresh is one of the said neighbours. The said Kumaresh is a driver of his car. In spite of it Accused were abusing him. On the very same day he went to the police station to file the complaint. But non-availability of the Inspector in the said police station, they asked him to come later. Thereafter, he went to police station for 2-3 days. The inspector did not receive his complaint and advised him to go smoothly. So, he filed the private complaint before the court. The police have registered a case as directed by the court and filed final report. Ex.P-1 is the complaint filed by him. The police have 9 Spl. Case No.269/2010 drawn up a mahazar as per Ex.P-2 at the place shown by him to them.
.12. It reveals from the evidence of PW.2 Kumaresh. He knows PW.1 Vadivelu the Complainant. At the time of incident, he was a driver of the car owned by the Complainant. He knows Accused. The incident was taken place approximately 4 years ago. During 2008 in the morning at about 10.00 a.m., he had taken the Complainant in a car to the land of Complainant. There is a tomb adjacent to the land of the Complainant. At that time and place, Accused were performing pooja. PW.1 was alighting from his car. At that time Accused No.1 Govindaraju abused the Complainant as " ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£À ªÀÄÄR £ÉÆÃrzÁݬÄvÀ®è JAzÀÄ eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ". Accused No.2 Shantha came to assault PW.1 with a chappal by holding shirt of PW.1. One more person was with Accused. The said person came to pacify the galata. The other persons also came and pacified the galata. He attempted to pacify the galata. 10 Spl. Case No.269/2010
.13. It reveals from the evidence of PW.3 Krishna. He knows the Complainant and Accused persons. About 4 years ago he was going to Kodigehalli in a matter of site. Accused were performing a tomb at Chikkavenkatappa layout. At that time, PW.1 came there. At that time, it was 10.30 a.m. Accused No.2 Shanthamma abused PW.1 the Complainant as " £ÀªÀÄä d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆAqÀ, ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ, CAvÀ ªÀÄUÀ EAvÀ ªÀÄUÀ". Accused No.1 Govindaraju assaulted PW.1 the Complainant and dragged him by holding his neck patti. One more person was with Accused No.1. That person told that "DvÀ£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ºÁQPÉÆArzÁÝgÉ ºÉÆqɬÄj ºÉÆqɬÄj ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¤UÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀ".
.14. It reveals from the evidence of PW.4 C. Challamuttu that he knows the Complainant and Accused. About 4 years ago he was going to Chikkavenkatappa layout in order to see his friend Prabhakara. Accused were performing pooja to a tomb in the said layout. At that time it was 10.30 a.m. PW.1 the Complainant came there. Accused No.2 11 Spl. Case No.269/2010 Shanthamma abused as " £ÉÆÃræ ºÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀ §A¢zÁÝ£É, CªÀ¤AzÀ¯Éà £ÀªÀÄä d«ÄãɯÁè ºÁ¼ÁV ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ". Accused No.1 Govindaraju caught hold the neck patti of PW.1 and dragged him. Another person who was present with Accused No.1 told that "DvÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄlÖ¨ÉÃqÀ ®vÉÛ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀ". Thereafter, they pacified the galata.
.15. It reveals from the evidence of PW.5 Srinivasa that 4 years ago himself and his friend Krishna were going towards Kodigehalli in a bike. They noticed that two male persons and a woman were performing pooja to tomb at Chikkavenkatappa layout. By that time, two persons came in a car. At that time it was 10.30 a.m. By that time, Accused No.2 Shanthamma abused PW.1 Vadivelu as " ¨ÉÆýªÀÄUÀ, ºÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ JAzÀÄ ¥ÉÇgÀPÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÀ¼ÀÄ". Accused No.1 Govindaraju also abused the PW.1 Vadivelu as abused by Accused No.2. One more Accused abused as " ºÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀ£À£ÀÄß K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¸ÀÄwÛÃgÁ, ®vÉÛ ºÉÆqÉAiÀÄÄvÀÛzÉ, CªÀ£À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄlÖ¨ÉÃr JAzÀgÀÄ". Thereafter, all of them pacified the galata. 12 Spl. Case No.269/2010
.16. It reveals from the evidence of PW.6 Rajkumar that since 10 years his parents were residing in a house, which is constructed by PW.1 Vadivelu the Complainant. He has seen Accused. About 4 years ago Accused were performing the pooja to a tomb in Chikkavenkatappa layout. At that time, he had gone to the house to see his father. At that time, the PW.1 Vadivelu came there. There was a galata between Accused and Vadivelu. At that time, Accused abused the Complainant PW.1 as " ªÀiÁ¢UÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ £ÀªÀÄä d«ÄãÀÄ FvÀ¤AzÀ ºÁ¼ÁVzÉ JAzÀgÀÄ". Accused No.2 Shanthamma came there by holding broomstick and went to assault the Complainant. Accused No.1 Govindaraju picked up the quarrel with the Complainant and abused him. Thereafter, he sent him.
.17. It reveals from the evidence of PW.7 Kemparamaiah, PSI, Kodigehalli that on 24.09.2008 when he was in the police station, he received the complaint Ex.P-1, registered the same and sent FIR to the court. On the next day of the incident, he went to the place of incident and drawn up mahazar as per 13 Spl. Case No.269/2010 Ex.P-2. He handed over the case file to CW.11 ACP for further investigation.
.18. It reveals from the evidence of PW.8 B.R. Somashekar that about 4-5 years ago Kodigehalli police had come to the place of incident. PW.1 the Complainant Vadivelu showed the place of incident to the police. At that time, the police have drawn up mahazar as per Ex.P-2.
.19. It reveals from the evidence of PW.9 Sirigowri D.R. S.P. Homicide, CID Division, Bangalore that on 20.09.2008 as per the orders of the court, he issued a memo to PI to register a case under section 3 and 4 of the SC/ST (PA) Act. On 01.10.2008 as ordered by DCP, he took up further investigation of the case from PSI Kemparamaiah. He took a case file from PW.9. for further investigation. On 03.10.2008 he directed the PSI Kemparamaiah to arrest the Accused by receiving a letter. He issued two notices to the Complainant to appear for investigation on 10.10.2008 and 15.10.2008 respectively. On 20.01.2009, he recorded the statements of CW.5 Srichalla and CW.6 Kumaresh. On 14 Spl. Case No.269/2010 10.02.2009 he recorded the statements of CW.4 and 7. On 17.03.2009 he wrote a letter to the Tahsildar regarding issuance of caste certificates of the Complainant and the Accused persons. On 30.04.2009 Accused persons appeared before him by obtaining anticipatory bail from the court. So, he released them. On 25.11.2009 he obtained the caste certificates of Accused from the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk as per Ex.P-4. on 08.01.2010 he has handed over the case file to CW.12 on account of his transfer.
.20. I have scrutinised the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution. It reveals that the incident in question was taken place on 09.08.2008. The Complainant has filed the private complaint against Accused persons before the court on 22.08.2008. So, it is clear that there is a delay of 13 days in filing the complaint by the Complainant. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 Complainant that on the very same day of the incident, he had gone to the police station to file a complaint. As the Inspector was not in the police station, they asked him to come later. For this reason, he visited the police 15 Spl. Case No.269/2010 station for 2-3 days. The Inspector of police did not receive the complaint and advised him to go smoothly. So, he filed a private complaint to the court. This witness PW.1 in his cross-examination has deposed that he is a politician and member of the Congress Party. He knows to go to the police station and protest in any matter. He also knows for taking further action if the police did not receive the complaint. So, it is clear that the PW.1 Complainant is a literate person and knows how to take further action if the police refused to take the complaint. In the instant case, though PW.1 has deposed that the Inspector has not received the complaint, he has not filed the complaint before the Superior Officer of the Inspector as permissible under law. He has also not filed the private complaint before the court immediately. The Complainant has not explained the delay of 13 days caused in filing the complaint satisfactorily.
.21. It has come in the evidence of PW.1 Complainant that Accused persons have filed Civil case against him in respect of the land purchased by him. 16 Spl. Case No.269/2010 The said suit is came to be dismissed. Accused persons have also filed a Criminal case against him. The police have filed B final report in the said case. Accused No.2 has appeared in the said B final report case and filed objections. So, the matter is pending. So, it is clear that there is an ill-will between Complainant and Accused persons as there are civil and criminal cases pending between them.
.22. Considering the aforesaid discussion made by me, I am of the opinion that evidence of the Complainant/prosecution has to be considered very carefully.
.23. On perusal of Ex.P-1 written complaint of the Complainant, it goes to show that on the alleged date, time and place of the incident, Accused No.1 to 3 have abused him by referring the name of his caste and insulted him. Except this incident of abusing the Complainant by the Accused, nothing more galata was taken place between Complainant and Accused. In spite of it, PW.1 in his evidence has deposed as to apart 17 Spl. Case No.269/2010 from abusing him by Accused persons, Accused No.1 Govindaraju caught hold his caller patti and dragged him and Accused No.1 has further abused him as " ªÀiÁ¢UÀ JAzÀÄ C£ÀÄßvÉÛÃ£É K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ". By abusing so dragged him. Accused No.1 told his wife as "ZÀ¥À° à vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆÃ". Thereafter, Accused No.2 Shantha came to assault him by holding chappal in her hands. Whereas, he has not stated the said fact in his written complaint. PW.1 Complainant for the first time has deposed about the said incident in his evidence. He has improved his version before the court, except Accused persons have abused him in filthy language.
.24. PW.1 Complainant in his evidence has deposed that on the alleged date, time and place of the incident, neighbours came and pacified the galata. Out of the said neighbours, his car driver Kumaresh was also present. But the Complainant has filed the private complaint before the court by making delay of 13 days. He has not stated in his written complaint as to the fact that neighbours including his car driver were present on 18 Spl. Case No.269/2010 the alleged date, time and place of the incident and pacified the galata.
.25. PW.2 Kumaresh is the car driver of the Complainant. According to the PW.1 Complainant, PW.2 is an eye witness to the incident. PW.2 has deposed in his evidence that Accused No.1 abused the PW.1 Complainant by taking the name of his caste and Accused No.2 Shanta caught hold the shirt of PW.1 and came to assault PW.1 with chappal. Another one person who was with Accused attempted to pacify the galata. But according to the written complaint Ex.P-1 of the Complainant it is not the case of the Complainant that Accused No.2 Shantha caught hold the shirt of PW.1 and attempted to assault the PW.1 Complainant with a chappal. Though according to Ex.P-1 written complaint, Accused No.2 and 3 have also abused the PW.1 the Complainant by referring the name of his caste, PW.2 has not deposed as to the said fact in his evidence before the court. The presence of PW.2 on the alleged date, time and place of the incident is also not 19 Spl. Case No.269/2010 stated by the PW.1 in his written complaint as per Ex.P.1. Admittedly PW.2 is a car driver of the Complainant. So, considering the discussion made by me herein before as to the evidence of PW.2, I am of the opinion that PW.2 might be planted witness in this case.
.26. PW.3 Krishna is another eye witness to the incident in question. He has deposed in his evidence that on the alleged date, time and place of the incident, Accused No.2 Shantha abused the PW.1 Complainant by referring the name of his caste. Accused No.1 Govindaraju caught hold the caller patti of the Complainant, dragged him and assaulted him. But PW.1 has not deposed in his evidence that Accused No.1 Govindaraju assaulted him. It is also not the case of the Complainant as per Ex.P-1 written complaint that Accused No.1 Govindaraju caught hold his caller patti and dragged him and assaulted him. Though PW.1 the Complainant has deposed in his evidence that Accused No.1 abused him by referring the name of his caste, PW.3 Kirshna has not deposed the said fact in his evidence. The presence of PW.3 Krishna on the alleged 20 Spl. Case No.269/2010 date, time and place of the incident is not forth-coming in Ex.P-1 written complaint which is filed by the Complainant by making delay of 13 days. So, it creates doubt about the presence of PW.3 Krishna on the alleged date, time and place of the incident.
.27. PW.4 C. Challa Muttu is another eye witness to the incident in question. He has deposed in his cross-examination that he knows the Complainant for the last 7 years. The Complainant had purchased a computer from him. So, he knows the Complainant. So, considering the said evidence of PW.4 C. Challa Muttu, it goes to show that PW.1 knows PW.4 C. Challa Muttu very well since 7 years. But unfortunately, PW.1 Complainant has not stated in his written complaint as to the presence of PW.4 on the alleged date, time and place of the incident. If really PW.4 was present on the alleged date, time and place of the incident, PW.1 Complainant would have specifically stated in his written complaint Ex.P-1 as to his presence. The said fact is missing in the written complaint which is filed by the Complainant by making delay of 13 days. PW.4 C. 21 Spl. Case No.269/2010 Challa Muttu has deposed in his evidence that Accused No.1 caught hold the caller patti of PW.1 Complainant and dragged him, whereas, it is not the case of the PW.1 Complainant as per his written complaint Ex.P-1 that Accused No.1 Govindaraju caught hold the caller patti of PW.1 and dragged him. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that PW.4 C. Challa Muttu might be a planted witness.
.28. PW.5 Srinivas is another eye witness to the incident. He has deposed in his evidence that on the alleged date, time and place of the incident, all the Accused abused the PW.1 Complainant by referring the name of caste. PW.1 the Complainant has deposed in his evidence that Accused No.1 caught hold his caller patti and dragged him and told his wife to take chappal and thereafter, Accused No.2 Shantha the wife of Accused No.1 came to assault PW.1 the Complainant by holding chappal in her hands, PW.5 Srinivas an eye witness to the incident has not deposed the said facts in his evidence. PW.5 has deposed that Accused No.2 Shantha went to assault PW.1 the Complainant with a 22 Spl. Case No.269/2010 broomstick. But it is not the case of PW.1 either in his evidence or in his written complaint that Accused No.2 Shantha came to assault him with a broomstick. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that it creates doubt as to the presence of PW.5 Srinivasa on the alleged date, time and place of the incident.
.29. PW.6 Rajkumar is another eye witness to the incident in question. He has deposed in his evidence that he is residing in the house constructed by the Complainant for the last 6 years. So, it is very clear that the Complainant knows very well PW.6 Rajakumar for the last 6 years as he is his tenant. In spite of it, PW.1 Complainant in his written complaint as per Ex.P- 1 has not stated the presence of this witness on the alleged date, time and place of the incident though he has filed the private complaint by making delay of 13 days, PW.6 is an interested witness in this case. PW.6 has generally deposed in his evidence that Accused have abused the Complainant by referring the name of his caste. This witness has further deposed that Accused 23 Spl. Case No.269/2010 No.2 Shanthamma went to assault the Complainant with broomstick, whereas, it is not the case of the Complainant that in his evidence or in his written complaint as to Accused No.2 Shantha came to assault the Complainant with a broomstick. On the other hand, it has come in the evidence of PW.1 that Accused No.2 Shantha came to assault him with a chappal.
.30. Taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, I am of the clear view that evidence of the prosecution is not clear, satisfactory, corroborative, cogent and consistent. The presence of the eye witnesses on the alleged date, time and place of the incident creates doubt for the reasons discussed by me in the paragraphs supra. It does not inspire the confidence of this court to connect the Accused with the alleged offence. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged offence against Accused No1 and 2. The evidence of prosecution creates doubt. So, I am of the opinion that benefit of doubt shall be extended to the Accused No1 and 2. Accordingly, the Accused No.1 and 24 Spl. Case No.269/2010 2 are entitled to be acquitted for the alleged offence. So, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
.31. Point No.2:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., I hereby acquit Accused No.1 an 2 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Bail bonds of the Accused No.1 and 2 and their surety bond stand cancelled. (Dictated to the Judgment Writer, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 8th day of August, 2016.) (Suresh S. Kogilgeri) II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore. 25 Spl. Case No.269/2010 ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Vadivalu @ Velunaika
P.W.2 : Kumaresh
P.W.3 : Krishna
P.W.4 : C. Challamuttu
P.W.5 : Srinivas
P.W.6 : Rajkumar
P.W.7 : Kemparamaiah
P.W.8 : B.R. Somashekar
P.W.9 : Sirigowda D.R.
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Private complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature
Ex.P.1(b) : Signature
Ex.P.2 : Panchanama
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature
Ex.P.2(b) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P.3 : FIR
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P.4 : Report of caste certificate of accused
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil (Suresh S. Kogilgeri ) II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge Gr/- and Special Judge, Bangalore. 26 Spl. Case No.269/2010
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 an 2 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The Bail bonds of the Accused No.1 and 2 and their surety bond stand cancelled.
II A.C.C. and S.J., and S.J., Bangalore.27 Spl. Case No.269/2010