Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Muniraju on 27 March, 2012
Author: Jawad Rahim
Bench: Jawad Rahim
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 27*" DAY OF MARCH 2012.. BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JAwAD_R.A.H;1.M' -if . CRL. APPEAL No.:;:73/:2;.DQ_-3;' 4' ' BETWEEN: AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA S " BY SIDLAGHATTA. 'RURAL-PO"LICE_STATION A : AP'P%ELLANT (BY SRI RAJA SUBRAP-'!AN_Y:A}BHATE,.uHCGP.,) 1. A S/'Q T:HI;MMANNA['> A_ * V.' TAGAED ABQu_T -»2.SV._YEAR---S... , N--AGARTAj:A::'T 1- ' -S/D HDSAH*AEL'L~1E__KR1'SH NAPPA AC_ED_ABouT_ 2.9j(EARS r_\.x~ . . =:<R1SH N-ALPPA _ ' NANJEGDWDA 'AGED. ABOUT 21 YEARS 4}' 'T%IA..LLS:;J'¢§u MANJUNATHA NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDENCE OF BALUVANAHALLI VILLAGE SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, KOLAR DIST RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.A.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV.,) THIS CRL.A FILED u/s %78(1) & (3) CR.P.A_C._Fs2tA'%IN'(3 To GRANT LEAVE To FILE AN APPEAL Ac;-A1N'sT.1"-«--TH-E_'. JUDGMENT DATED 26.09.2007 IN SPL.C.C.NO."3_6/2:007 ON; THE FILE oF THE ADDL. D1sT.,_g& SESSIONS. 'JuD_GE, KOLAR--ACQUITTING THE RESPDND'ENT/«Ac;CusEDV 'FOR':
THE OFFENCES P/U/Ss 323, 504, '506_"R,./W 'SEC 34 AND u/s 3(1) (x) oF SC/ST (gP.A) Ac.T'1_989. . 1 This appeal coming on f'o.r;."hearing'--.this. court delivered the following Respondents the offences punishable un4d:er,__ Se:ct'io'ris:: read with Section 34,.» of the Scheduled Caste and of Atrocities) Act, 1989.7.__ By the?'-inépgugn'edt"ju_dgment, the learned trial judge has acqluitted which the state is in appeal.
' P_vrose4cuti_on case is, on 2.5.2007 there was a Car (_"Rat.hothsava) in Baluvanahalli village. PW1-- 0" 'Festi'va'l "Pl/V2-M.Narasimha Murthy, PW3-N.Narasimha 'Mu.rthv"'and others had gone to witness the festival. At 0"-that time, PW1--K.Babu asked the accused to give them a 0' "chair for sitting; the time was 3.00 p.m. Accused were A 3 infuriated when PW1 asked them to give a chair and abused them referring to their caste. Respondeintjls' accused--Muniraju is alleged to have assaulted~'~'PW;3.__'__i'with., hand on the left side of the chest, Nagaraja slapped him on the Krishnappa assaulted PW3-_l\l.Nara_s'i'mha slapped him and kicked shoullder'; :."4"'.'1';§acVcused-- Malluru Manjunatha istsaid .a_lssaulted"APllV3 on his cheek and kicked him is said to have feeding was arranged.:'_ '
4. ":_Prosecu'tioj'n_ca.se*--is;"---because complainant and others are Hariuj'a_ns.Vand belong to upper caste, they ind'iiyi.lge'd in assa«I.llt_and committed atrocity.
investigated by the designated Deputy Su.4perintenE'dent of Police and charge sheet was filed. Prosecution examined 9 witnesses and placed reliance on 9 'documents. Learned trial judge found such evidence not ___§sufficient to convict them and has recorded acquittal. ft»
6. As the state is seriously aggrieved by the acquittal, I have re-appraised the evidence.
7. Undoubtedly complainant--PW1's ev.id_e_jr'ice:wA.l.:'is_ of importance. He has spoken of the in,cid;e'n.t,':
which, according to him, occ_urred"'.at'--4.OO.v"V--pV..m.«' Rathothsava. According the accused for a chair',:_'"accLi's.ed: in vulgar language; he caught with his hands and alsoajssaiilted PW3 and PW5 tried to victims and accused kickedvfiv"t'hVe'miifg_ ag'ai'nst_ version, there is no allegation, in that they were assaulted with chairs, and""b:ucketsA."'- in evidence the witnesses eAx'a--gage1.rate*dgsayingthey were assaulted with chairs and serving food during mass feeding.
8. ggllllgthils regard, we have the evidence of the medical offi--c.er;l5W6, Dr.P.Narendra, who says he examined PWs1 He noticed tenderness on the left side of the chest of it "l7W1; similar tenderness was noticed on the chest of PW2, 5 on the left hand and mid~arm. PW5 is the pa_nch' to the mahazar. He has stated the incident. 3.5.2007 and he was present durir:igAA»Vd'_rawViri.g mahaza r.
9. PW9-K.V.Narayanappa, officer who speaks to the fact "thi:atAtléie 2::;ornpl'aAi.nt was given before him and during inyestigatiion», supported the Version'? the evidence on record, the ijnolticed is not only in the evadert-cellarrsém.gl'sgtlségpwalgglad PW4 also. While PW1 has stated '-in was slapped on the cheek, he changed*h_is Vv.e'--rsi'c-.nV°to say he was kicked on the legs "if2,andfllasis-aui'ted wilthkfhlappals. He was dragged holding his was caused to kill him. He further su.lj'initted.V--V'..th.éifincident occurred when he went to take food with others. But in the earlier part of the V' repo_rt,V"he has stated the incident occurred when he asked chairs to sit. Besides, there is no reference to the if "earlier incident and he does not speak to the fact that U fifiiggised had abused him in the panda! where the alleged 6 incident occurred. PW2 and PW3 are also silent.é.a"bojut..'theV alleged abusing referring to caste. Therefore,.--.4l:e'arnée'd.:"t'il'i5l"'s A' judge held evidence did not attractrthej 'p.un.ish.'a'ble._V under Section 3(1)(x) of the Sc. &'ij"sT '(Prévenfiiégnféirij Atrocities) Act.
10. As regards phyis'i~cal Vinconsistencv is with regard to the object by which were',j'assaulted. First it was stated theyawere:sl'ap.p:ed,*b'ut chajnged to assault by with buckets3-..,ancl'"c_hai4rs.i. the learned trial judge felt1evi'd.e;nVcexdidxuhxot'confidence to believe their ::j¢ersioln;f'._--vVThea ie:arn_ed_ judge's opinion is just and pro per';-, "
11. Acquittal'Vglrantedj for the reasons stated above, ' needs 'no interfereVn'ce'. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/-3 JUDGE Wax p§gh*