Bangalore District Court
State By vs Unknown on 27 June, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE (C.C.H. No.17)
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2016.
PRESENT:
Shri Suresh S. Kogilgeri, B.Com.,LL.B.(Spl.),
II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge.
Spl.Crl.Case No.149/2012
COMPLAINANT : State by:
Halasuru Gate police,
Bangalore.
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
-VERSUS-
ACCUSED :
M.G. Ramachandra s/o
late. Muniyappa, 56 years,
R/at No.C-67, East first
lane, ITI colony, Dooravani
Nagar, Bangalore.
(By Sri.DSN, Advocate)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Date of commission of offence : 02-02-1995
2. Date of report of occurrence : 22-08-2008
3. Date of commencement of : 10-10-2014
recording of evidence
7. Date of closing of evidence : 27-05-2015
8. Name of the Complainant : A.B. Heregowda
9. Offences Complained of : Section 3(1)(ix) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989
10. Opinion of the Judge :Accused is acquitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2 Spl.C. No.149/2012
JUDGMENT
This is a charge sheet presented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement, Bangalore against the accused alleged that Accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
.2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:
Originally Accused belongs to backward community called as 'Kuruba' caste. Accused gave a false information to the Government stating that he belongs to 'Kada Kuruba' community which comes under Scheduled Tribe and taken caste certificate as 'Kadu Kuruba' on 02.02.1995 from Tahsildar, Bangalore North. Though Accused was knowing that the said caste certificate is false one, he has taken the same in order to avail benefits entitled by the members of scheduled caste and scheduled Tribe community. He has taken the said false certificate in order to take 3 Spl.C. No.149/2012 promotion in ITI factory. So, it is alleged by the prosecution that Accused has committed the offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (PA) Act 1989.
.3. After investigation, I.O. has submitted the charge sheet against Accused to this court for the aforesaid offence. After receipt of the charge sheet, this court has taken cognizance of the alleged offence against Accused and registered a case in Spl C.C.No.149/2012. Accused appeared before the court and he is enlarged on bail. All the prosecution papers were made available to Accused as required u/s.207 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing the charge has been framed against Accused for the offences punishable u/s.3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (PA) Act 1989 and explained to the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the case of the prosecution has been posted for evidence.
.4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined 5 witnesses as PWs. 1 to PW. 5 and got marked the documents at Ex.Ps. 1 to 9. After closure of 4 Spl.C. No.149/2012 the evidence of prosecution, statements of Accused as required u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded by giving an opportunity to Accused to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution against him. Accused has admitted some of the questions and denied some of the questions while recording his statement u/s.313 of the Cr.P.C. Accused has not chosen to adduce any evidence in support of his defence.
.5. Heard arguments of the learned P.P. for the State and of the learned counsel for Accused No.1 and 2 for the defence.
.6. At this stage, the following points have arisen for my determination:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that Accused in order to take promotion in ITI factory has taken a false caste certificate informing that he belongs to 'Kadu kuruba' which comes under scheduled Tribe though he does not belong to the said community and thereby the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ix) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
2. What order?5 Spl.C. No.149/2012
.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 following REASONS .8. POINTS No.1:- It is contended by the prosecution that originally Accused belongs to backward community called as 'Kuruba' caste. Accused gave a false information to the Government stating that he belongs to 'Kada Kuruba' community which comes under Scheduled Tribe and taken caste certificate as 'Kadu Kuruba' on 02.02.1995 from Tahsildar, Bangalore North. Though Accused was knowing that the said caste certificate is false one, he has taken the same in order to avail benefits entitled by the members of scheduled caste and scheduled Tribe community. He has taken the said false certificate in order to take promotion in ITI factory. So, it is alleged by the prosecution that Accused has committed the offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (PA) Act 1989. 6 Spl.C. No.149/2012
.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. PW.1 Marry Yelizabath is the Head Mistress in Vidhya Mandira High School, Dooravani Nagara, Bangalore. She deposed in her evidence that C.R.E. Cell had requested her to furnish the documents in respect of one Anil Kumar s/o Ramachandra with regard to his study in the said school. Accordingly, she gave admission extract and the T.C. They are marked at Ex.P-1 and 2. The said admission extract is belonging to Accused Ramachandra. It is mentioned under caste column in the said document as 'Hakku matha'. Ex.P-3 is RTC extract pertaining to Accused. Admission application extract of Accused is at Ex.P-4. In the said document under caste column, it is mentioned as 'Halu matha'. Ex.P-5 is T.C. extract of son of Accused by name Anil Kumar. Under the religion column it is mentioned as Hindu. Ex.P-6 is admission application 7 Spl.C. No.149/2012 extract of the said Anil Kumar. Under caste column in the said document it is written as 'Hindu Kuruba'.
.11. PW. 2 Allamma Prabhu Hiregowdar is the PSI, C.R.E. Cell, Bangalore. He has deposed in his evidence that as per the orders of the Superior officers, he filed a complaint in the Halasooru gate police station as Accused had obtained a false caste certificate as 'Kadu Kuruba' from North Taluka, Bangalore and cheated the members of Scheduled Tribe to get facilities. This witness during the course of cross-examination has deposed that he has filed the said complaint as per the orders of one S.P. Smt. N.N. Indira and A.D.J.P. Sri. Ravindranath Thagore, who were superior officers to him. At that time, he has not seen any documents. He further deposed that he does not know whether Accused had taken any facilities available to the members of scheduled Tribe.
.12. PW.3 H.D. Venkatesh is the Head Master of ITI Vidhya Mandira, Kannada Primary school, Dooravani Nagara, Bangalore. He has deposed in his evidence that as per the school records, name of the 8 Spl.C. No.149/2012 caste of Accused is 'Kuruba'. This witness during the course of cross-examination has deposed that he has not given any statement before the police and any of the police have not come to him and none of the police officers have made any enquiry.
.13. PW.4 M. Venkatesh is the chief Manager of I.T.I. factory. He has deposed that Accused was working under him as assistant during the year 2005-2011. Accused had retired earlier to his retirement. He does not know to which caste Accused belongs. He has not given statement before the police. This witness has turned hostile to the prosecution case.
.14. PW.5 is a person working in the Vigilance Department of ITI. He has deposed in his evidence that he has seen Accused. He is working in the ITI factory for the last 32 years. Accused was also working in the said factory. He does not know which caste Accused belongs to. He has not given any statement in this regard.9 Spl.C. No.149/2012
.15. I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence placed before me. In the instant case, it is alleged by the prosecution that Accused had obtained a false caste certificate as 'Kadukuruba' and he belongs to scheduled Tribe community by giving false information to the Government, though he belongs to Kuruba community. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed before me, it goes to show that absolutely there is no evidence as to he has given false information to the Government and obtained a false caste certificate as to he belongs to 'Kadu Kuruba' which comes under scheduled Tribe.
.16. Considering the evidence on record, I am of the clear opinion that evidence of prosecution is not clear, satisfactory, corroborative, cogent and consistent. It does not inspire the confidence of this court to connect the Accused with the alleged offences. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove the alleged offence against Accused. The evidence of prosecution creates doubt. So, I am of the opinion that benefit of doubt shall be extended to the Accused. Accordingly, 10 Spl.C. No.149/2012 the Accused is entitled to be acquitted for the alleged offence. So, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
.17. 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 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Bail bond of the accused and surety bond stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, revised by me and after corrections, pronounced in open Court on this the 27th day of June, 2016.) (Suresh S. Kogilgeri) II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore. 11 Spl.C. No.149/2012 ANNEXURE
1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Mary Yelizabath P.W.2 : Allama Prabhu Hiregowdar P.W.3 : Venkatesh PW. 4 : M. Venkatesh PW. 5 : Basavaraju
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Admission Extract Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2 : Admission Extract Ex.P. 2(a) : Signature Ex.P. 2(b) : Name of caste Ex.P.3 : T.C. Extract Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.4 : Admission application Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.5 : T.C. Extract Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.6 : Admission application Ex.P.6(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.7 : Complaint Ex.P.7(a) : Signature of PW.2 12 Spl.C. No.149/2012 Ex.P.8 : Statement of PW.4 Ex.P.9 : statement of PW.5
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.13 Spl.C. No.149/2012
14 Spl.C. No.149/2012
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 for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(ix) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Bail bond of the accused and surety bond stands cancelled.
II A.C.C. and S.J., and S.J., Bangalore.15 Spl.C. No.149/2012