Karnataka High Court
Sri. Singrappa vs The State By Viswanathapura Police on 11 April, 2023
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1094 OF 2011
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SINGRAPPA,
S/O LATE. CHIKKARASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
R/AT BETTENAHALLI VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. H.V SUBRAMANYA & ASSCTS.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE BY VISWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
Digitally signed
by SANDHYA S ...RESPONDENT
Location: High
Court of (BY SRI. K.RAHUL RAVI, HCGP)
Karnataka
CRL.A. FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY THE ADV., FOR THE
APPELLANT NO.1 PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:21.9.11 PASSED
BY THE II ADDL. S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL
DIST., BANGALORE IN SPL.C.NO.403/10 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
354, 323 AND 324 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(xi) OF THE SC AND
ST (POA) ACT, 1989. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS
AND TO PAY FINE OF THE RS.5,000/- (RUPEES FIVE
THOUSAND ONLY) AND IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE TO
-2-
CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011
UNDERGO S.I. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 354 OF IPC R.W SEC. 3(1)(xi) OF THE SC AND
ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and order dated 21.09.2011 passed by the Court of IInd Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Special C.No.403/2010.
2. Vide impugned judgment the appellant-accused No.1 has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 324, 448, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for appellant- accused and the learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State and perused the evidence and material on record.
4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 08.09.2010 at about 9.00 a.m., when complainant-PW.1, a member of Scheduled Caste had come for coolie work in the -3- CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011 grapes garden of accused No.1 at Bettenahalli, the said accused, a non member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe called her near the cattle shed and then held her hand and dragged her and outraged her modesty. Further, he assaulted her with hand and voluntarily caused simple hurt to her and when her son- PW.3 came to the spot, he criminally intimated him and also assaulted on his right hand with a sickle and caused simple injuries to him. Further, he brought a gun from his house and slapped PW.2 and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him and threatened PWs.1 to 3, pointing the gun at them and abused them with filthy language referring to their caste. Accused Nos.2 to 4 with a common intention, trespassed into the house of PW.1 armed with weapons etc.,
5. Charges were framed under Sections 323, 324, 354 506 and 448 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959.
6. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit accused Nos.2 to 4 of all the charges leveled against them. Further, acquitted accused No.1 of the offences punishable -4- CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011 under Section 323 and 506 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. However, accused No.1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act and under Sections 323, 324 of IPC.
7. The prosecution in all examined 14 witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.12 and MOs.1 to 3. PW.1 is the complainant. PW.2 and PW.3 are the husband and son of PW.1. PW.4, PW.6 and PW.7 are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW.5 is the Brother-in-law of PW.1. PW.8 and PW.9 are the panchas to Ex.P6 namely seizure of MO.1. PW.10 and PW.11 are the panchas to spot mahazer- Ex.P2 under which MOs.2 and 3 are seized. PW.12 is the Head Constable who received the complaint from PW.1 and registered the case. PW.13 is the Dy.SP -IO, who conducted the investigation and laid charge sheet. PW.14 is the Medical Officer, who treated PW.1 and PW.3 and issued the wound certificates, marked as Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.11 respectively.
8. Out of the prosecution witnesses, PWs.5 to 11 have been treated hostile. The prosecution is mainly relying on the -5- CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011 evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and evidence of the Doctor - PW.14 and to certain extent the evidence of PW.5 and PW.6.
9. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against accused No.1 for offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC in respect of assault on PW.2 and also acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and 25 of the Arms Act as well as under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
10. The state has not challenged the acquittal order passed in respect of accused Nos.2 to 4 as well as the judgment of acquittal passed in respect of accused No.1 for the aforementioned offences.
11. The Trial Court has accepted the evidence of PW.1 in sofaras the first incident is concerned, wherein it is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1 called her near the cattle shed, when she had gone for coolie work, then pulled her hand etc., and outraged her modesty. In response to the defence raised by the accused, Trial Court has come to the conclusion -6- CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011 that prosecutrix to stake her chastity would not have falsely implicated the accused. There could have been other modes for the family of prosecutrix, if they opted to implicate falsely the accused for some other reasons, but not at the stake of her chastity.
12. The Trial Court has also accepted the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 and the medical evidence to convict the appellant-accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC.
13. The defence taken by the accused, as it could be seen from the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, is that PW.1 had taken hand loan of Rs.70,000/- from accused No.4 i.e., wife of accused No.1 and since accused No.4 was demanding her to return the said money and to avoid payment, a false case was foisted against accused No.4 and his family members. Secondly, there was an agreement between PW.2 and accused No.1 in respect of sale of certain land and after agreeing for selling the land to accused No.1, PW.2 sold the land to some other person and received a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- from him. The said land was sold to one Sri. Basavarajappa and therefore, there was a quarrel and later the amount paid was -7- CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011 received by him. It is also the defence taken by accused that accused No.4 had contested for panchayath election and PW.2 and others supported the candidate, who contested against the said accused No.4. Hence, there was some enmity.
14. In the cross-examination of PW.1, she has denied the suggestion put to her that she had received hand loan of Rs.70,000/- from accused No.4. Further even PW.3 has denied the said suggestion and the said witnesses have denied that a false case was foisted against the accused to avoid the said payment to Accused No.4. However, PW.1 has admitted in her cross-examination that accused No.4 had contested for some panchayath election and against her one Bhagyamma had contested. Even in cross-examination of PW.2, he has admitted that accused No.4 had contested for panchayath election and one Bhagyamma had contested against her and her family members supported Bhagyamma. Though he has denied, having entered into any agreement with accused No.1 in respect of his land and sold the same for Rs.2,20,000/-, he has admitted in the cross-examination that while registering the sale deed in respect of the land to one Basavarajappa, accused No.1 quarreled and later a sum of Rs.3,75,000/- was paid to -8- CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011 accused No.1 through Basavarajappa. He has admitted that, since then the two families were not in good terms. In the said background, evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 have to be scrutinized with great care and caution.
15. In Ex.P.1-complaint, PW.1 has stated that on 08.09.2010, when she had gone for coolie work at about 9.00 a.m., accused No.1 dragged her and attempted to sexually assault her and when she screamed, he threatened her with dire consequences. Hearing her cries, her son-PW.3 came and he was also threatened by accused No.1 and then the said accused assaulted on the hand of PW.3 with a sickle. When others namely PW.2, PW.4 to PW.6 came and enquired, accused No.1 showed a gun and threatened and abused them. He insulted them by taking the name of their caste and also slapped PW.2. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 to 4 trespassed into her house, holding the gun and clubs etc.,
16. A careful perusal of Ex.P1 shows that, PW.2 and PW.3 came after the first incident and therefore, they could not have seen accused No.1 dragging PW.1 and outraging her modesty. PW.2 has deposed that, on hearing the news about the quarrel, -9- CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011 he went near the cattle shed, where there were number of people gathered. He has not spoken about accused No1 attempting to outrage the modesty of his wife. He has not even stated that he was informed by his wife i.e., PW.1 about accused No.1 pulling her hand and outraging her modesty.
17. According to PW.3, on hearing the cries of his mother, he went near the house of accused No.1 at that time his mother i.e., PW.1 was in the cattle shed of accused No.1 and he was pulling her hands. He has deposed that, accused No.1 threatened him with dire consequences, if he informed the incident to others and assaulted him on his right hand with sickle etc.,
18. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the evidence of PW.3 that, when he went to the cattle shed of accused, accused No.1 was dragging his mother by hand etc., is an omission which is admitted by the IO-PW.13.
19. PW.3 has denied the suggestion put by the defence that he has not stated before the Police that, when he went to the spot, his mother was in the cattle shed of accused No.1 and said accused was dragging his mother by hand etc., However,
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011Investigation Officer- PW.13 has admitted that PW.3 while giving his statement has not stated that when he went to the spot accused No.1 was dragging his mother by her hand. This is a material omission. PW.3 has improved his version while deposing before the Court stating that when he went to the spot, he saw accused No.1 holding his mother's hand and dragging her. It is also relevant to see that PW.5, who is none other than the brother of PW.2 and brother-in-law of PW.1 has only stated that accused No.1 and his brother-PW.2 were seen quarrelling with each other.
20. In her deposition, PW.1 has stated that at about 8.45 a.m., on 08.09.2010, she had gone to the garden land of the accused for coolie work and when she was alone, accused No.1 called her and when she went near his house, he dragged her and closed the door and committed sexual assault. In Ex.P.1 she has not at all stated that, she was dragged inside the house by accused No.1 and then he closed the door etc., She has stated that the complaint-Ex.P1 was written through her brother-in-law i.e., PW.4. She has further admitted in the cross-examination that, when they went to the Police Station to lodge the complaint even one Narayanappa and other leader of
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011DSS had come to the Police Station. She has admitted that she does not know to read and write Kannada and she is not aware of the contents of Ex.P.1.
21. There are improvements made by PW.1 in her evidence. Further, the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of other witnesses.
22. PW.13 has categorically admitted that, PW.3 has not stated before him about accused No.1 holding and dragging the hand of PW.1 and trying to outrange her modesty. In the background of existing differences between the parties, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the court about the allegation of outraging the modesty of PW.1 by accused No.1.
23. The prosecution has got examined PW.14- Medical Officer, who has treated PW.1 and PW.3. He has issued the wound certificate-Ex.P.10 in respect of PW.1 and Ex.P.11 in respect of PW.3. Both the said witnesses have sustained simple injuries. PW.1 and PW.3 have stated that, the said injuries are caused by accused No.1. Their evidence is corroborated by the Medical evidence.
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011
24. The incident has taken place at about 9.00 a.m., on 08.09.2010. The complaint was lodged and a case was registered at about 2.30 p.m., on the same day. PW.14 has stated that at about 4.45 p.m. on 08.09.2010, PW.1 was brought by a Woman Police Constable and he examined her and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P.10. He has further stated that, PW.3 was also brought by the Police and he noticed certain injuries and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P.11.
25. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.3 regarding injuries sustained by them is corroborated by the evidence of PW.14 and both PW.1 and PW.3 have stated that the said injuries are caused by accused No.1. Hence, findings recorded by the Trial Court for convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC cannot be found fault with. For the foregoing reasons following order:
ORDER The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against appellant/accused No.1 by the Court of Sessions and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Special
- 13 -CRL.A No. 1094 of 2011
C.No.403/2010 dated 21.09.2011 insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC read with Section3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 is hereby set aside.
The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 of IPC and rest of the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MS* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20