Karnataka High Court
State By Bindiganavile vs Suresha on 20 March, 2023
Author: P.N.Desai
Bench: P.N.Desai
-1-
CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.N.DESAI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1553 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
STATE BY BINDIGANAVILE
POLICE STATION, MANDYA
REP BY STATE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
BENGALURU-571401.
...APPELLANT
(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP)
AND:
1. SURESHA
S/O NANJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
2. UDAYKUMAR @ AUTO VIJI @ VIJI
Digitally signed by S/O NINGEGOWDA
NAGARATHNA M
Location: HIGH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. SRINIVAS
S/O SHAMBU GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
ALL ARE R/O LALANAKERE VILLAGE,
NAGAMANGALA TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT-571432.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K. A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3
SRI. L. K. MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
-2-
CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3)
CR.P.C BY THE STATE/THE APPELLANT PRAYING THAT THIS
HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 16.04.2014 PASSED IN SPL.C.NO.86/2012 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED I ADDL. DISTRICT AND S.J., MANDYA FOR THE
OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 323, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND UNDER
SEC.3(1)(X) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT AND ETC.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of acquittal dated 16th April, 2014 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Special Case No.86/2012, whereby the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (PoA) Act' for short) and Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for short). -3- CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015
2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 31.07.2012 there was a Grama Saba at Lalanakere Grama Panchayath in respect of the Accounts of National Rural Employment Programme, the Panchayath Development Officer of the Grama Panchayath was giving the details of the Accounts. The complainant-Smt.Susheelamma and her husband Sri.Chinnaiah questioned regarding the construction of building of Rajiv Gandhi Service Centre; at that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused them as "Vaddara Mundeva"
and CW.3-Ningachar stated that he has also given an application for the said building, at that time, accused Nos.1 and 2 abused him in filthy language and insulted and dragged CW.3 and pushed him to the ground. Accused No.1 caught hold of the hair of CW.2-Chinnaiah and also assaulted him on his back, abusing him in the filthy language by taking his caste name, knowing full well that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and also assaulted CW.3 as well as CW.2 with hands and threatened them with dire consequences. In this regard, PW.1-Susheelamma, lodged a complaint with the -4- CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015 Bindiganavile police. The case was registered and the Investigating Officer investigated the matter and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences stated above.
3. The prosecution in all examined 16 witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and got marked 14 documents at Exs.P1 to P14. After recording the statement as required under Section 313 of Cr.PC., and hearing the arguments, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 3. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the appellant-State.
4. Heard Smt.K.P.Yashodha, learned HCGP for the appellant-State and Sri.K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and learned Counsel Sri.L.K.Manjunatha, learned Counsel for respondent No.2.
5. Learned HCGP argued that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is opposed to law and facts and probabilities of the case. The learned Sessions -5- CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015 Judge has not appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and failed to draw the proper inferences. It is further argued that PWs.1 to 3 have supported the case of the prosecution. Only on the ground that PWs.11 to 13 have turned hostile, the trial Court acquitted the accused, which is illegal. On the other hand, there is evidence to show that the accused have intentionally insulted PWs.1 to 3 by abusing them in public by taking their caste name to humiliate and insult. The trial Court without appreciating the evidence properly has acquitted the accused, which needs to be set-aside. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge is illegal and erroneous and needs interference by this Court. With these arguments, learned HCGP prayed to allow the appeal and convict the accused.
6. Against this, learned counsels for the respondents argued that the learned Sessions Judge has considered the evidence in proper perspective and has given reasons in detail for acquitting the accused. Learned counsel for the -6- CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015 respondents further argued that in Ex.P1-complaint, there is no actual abusive words or the area of assault on particular part of body as stated by the prosecution witness, is not forthcoming. None of the independent witnesses, who are admittedly present have supported the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 suffers from contradiction and consistency. Admittedly, they are all belonging to one political party and there is some political rivalry between the parties. There is no sufficient evidence to show that the accused have abused the complainant and her husband by taking their caste knowing fully well that they belong to Scheduled Caste community with an intention to insult or humiliate. Therefore, the trial court after revaluating the entire evidence came to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and has given benefit of doubt to the accused. Therefore, this Court being an appellate Court will not interfere, unless it is shown that the judgment of -7- CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015 the Trial court, is perverse or illegal. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. I have perused the judgment of acquittal and also gone through the material on record.
8. PW.1-Complainant has stated about lodging of a complaint. A perusal of the Ex.P1-complaint, states that when the meeting was going on, she enquired about the Accounts, at that time, the accused persons abused her and assaulted her husband and in her further statement she has stated that the accused-Viji pushed her husband PW.2-Chinnaiah. The complaint was lodged at about 8.30 p.m., on 31.07.2012, though according to the complainant, the incident took place in the morning at about 11.00 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. Her cross-examination reveals that her husband was a registered contractor and is doing the contract work of the Panchayath. She is a member of the Panchayath. She has denied the suggestion that the accused were objecting for her husband's work, so she has filed a false complaint. In her examination-in- -8- CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015 chief, she has stated that accused No.1 abused her husband by taking caste name, which is contrary to the written complaint Ex.P1. Ex.P1 is silent about as to where her husband was assaulted. But in her further statement, she has stated that accused No.1-Suresha assaulted on her husband's head. But before the Court she has stated that accused Nos.1 and 3 assaulted on the back of her husband and accused No.2 pushed CW.3 and assaulted him with hands. These are all her evidence brought before the Court. She has also admitted that though they belong to one political party earlier, subsequently, they were separated from their earlier group. She also stated that her husband has written complaint and she is not aware as to what was written in the complaint. She has also stated that her husband is transacting the Panchayath business on her behalf. So it shows that the husband of the complainant was interfering with the Panchayath work simply because his wife is a member. She clearly denied the suggestions that nobody has abused her by taking caste name and nobody came to her rescue also. -9- CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015
9. PW.2-Chinnaiah has given a different version stating that he himself asked the one who was giving the details of the accounts about construction of a building and when he questioned him, at that time the Pachayath Development Officer asked PW.2 as to in what way he is related to Panchayath; at that time accused No.3 assaulted CW.3 with hands and when he questioned, accused Nos.1 and 2 came and abused him by taking caste name and abused in filthy language and his wife came and abused, then they all threatened them. So this version is totally contradictory to the evidence of his wife- PW.1. In the cross-examination, he was not able to state as to when the meeting started and when it ended. He has also stated that except the officers, nobody is talking about the Panchayath. He has also admitted that about 100-150 villagers gathered in the said meeting. He does not know what are the abusive words used by accused No.3 and he has also admitted that accused No.1 was earlier the President of the Panchayath and he was
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015requesting him to give some work. He has also stated that he himself and CW.3 have carried out the drainage work in the village. He denied the suggestion that the accused were objecting for such a work. His evidence is contrary to the evidence of PW.1.
10. PW.3-Ningachari has given a new version stating that he was in the said meeting on that day and lot of villagers had gathered there. He stated that he himself and CW.2 asked the Panchayath Development Officer about the accounts, at that time accused No.2 pushed him on a chair and he stamped him with slipper on his legs. Then he stated about the threatening words used by the accused. Nowhere he has stated that the accused have abused by taking the caste of PW.1 and PW.2 in filthy language. Since the quarrel took place between them and the accused, the meeting was adjourned. In the cross- examination, he has admitted that he himself and accused contested from one group and won the election and now they are separated from the group. In this regard the
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015villagers have questioned them. He further stated that only accused No.1 assaulted him and he went to the police station at 5.00 p.m. His evidence is totally a new version with evidence of other witnesses.
11. The other eyewitnesses, PW.4-Sunitha, PW.5- Yallamma, who are the Grama Panchayath President and Member, have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.6-Thayamma, PW.7-C.L.Ramegowda, PW.8-Manjunath and PW.9-T.J.Chetan, the other members of the Grama Panchayath have not supported the case of the prosecution.
12. PW.10-B.Shivalingegowda, Panchayath Secretary, PW.11-Thimmachar, the Panchayath Development Officer and PW.12-Udayakumar, Assistant Director of Veterinary Hospital and PW.13-Manohara, the Internal Auditor have not at all supported the prosecution case. The trial court treated all these witnesses as hostile witnesses and cross- examined them at length, but nothing has been elicited in support of the prosecution case.
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015
13. PW.14-Siddaraju, A.S.I, has stated about the written complaint that has been filed by PW.1 as per Ex.P1. PW.15-Channabasavanna, Dy.S.P. has stated about the further investigation and he has filed a charge sheet against the accused.
14. On perusing the entire evidence of prosecution and documentary evidence, it is evident that the accused and CWs.1 to 3 are not in good terms. Regarding offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, evidence regarding the abusive words stated to have been used by the accused is not forthcoming. On the other hand, Ex.P1 does not speak about any such abusive words, however, the complaint has been lodged belatedly. The version of PWs.1 to 3 differs regarding the alleged assault and abuse. It is also evident that when the meeting was going on, it is PWs.1 and 2 who started questioning and objecting the Panchayath Development Officer and other officers. Admittedly, the accused are also members of the Grama Panchayath and have now in a
- 13 -
CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015separate group in the same political party. It appears that there was some rivalry between them. Though in the meeting, about 100 to 150 villagers were present, none of them have supported the prosecution case. Even the official witnesses such as Grama Panchayath Secretary, Panchayath Development Officer and Auditor, none of them have supported the charges leveled against the accused. The prosecution has treated them as hostile witnesses and cross-examined them at length, but nothing has been elicited to prove the alleged incident.
15. Regarding the use of threatening words and assault also, there is no legally admissible evidence. On the other hand, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is full of contradiction and inconsistency, which goes against the material evidence on record and there is no corroboration to the evidence to the charge. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge found that in view of the evidence of PWs.4 to 13, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and further they do not
- 14 -
CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015inspire any confidence in the Court. Therefore, in view of the discussions made above and on considering the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses and the judgment of Trial Court, in my considered view, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly given the benefit of doubt to the accused.
16. It is settled principles of law that if two views are possible from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the view favourable to the accused will have to be accepted. Admittedly, there is an ill-will and enmity between the PWs.1 to 3 and accused and they are split up from one group to another group. Though PW.2 is not a member of the Panchayath, he was working as a Panchayath member for and on behalf of his wife-PW1, definitely that might have caused some friction between them. But here, the independent official witnesses who are admittedly present in the meeting have also not supported the prosecution case. This Court being appellate Court will not interfere in
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015the judgment of acquittal passed by the Session Judge unless the judgment of acquittal is illegal, perverse, erroneous and the judgment has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SAMPAT BABSO KALE AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [(2019) 4 SCC 739], while dealing with the power of the appellate court in interfering with the judgment of acquittal held that unless the judgment of trial court is perverse, illegal and not based on sound principles regarding appreciation of evidence, the appellate court shall not interfere in the judgment of acquittal, because the judgment of acquittal gives double presumption of innocence to the accused.
18. In view of the principles stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision referred to above and on re-assessing the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned Sessions Judge has considered the entire evidence meticulously and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused by giving the benefit of doubt. I find that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is neither illegal, perverse, erroneous nor the judgment has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Absolutely, there are no grounds to interfere in the judgment of acquittal. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
19. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
1. The appeal filed by the State-appellant under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
2. Consequently, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 16th April, 2014 passed in Special Case No.86/2012 by the learned I
- 17 -CRL.A No. 1553 of 2015
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, against the respondents/ accused is hereby confirmed.
3. Bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused persons, shall stand cancelled.
4. Office is directed to send back the records to the Trial court.
5. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL