Bangalore District Court
The State By vs S.V.Narayanappa S/O on 25 June, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL
& SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 25th day of June 2019
:PRESENT:
SRI. MOHAN PRABHU
M.A., L.L.M.,
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No. 556/2017
COMPLAINANT: The State by
Gangammana Gudi Police Station,
BENGALURU
(By Special Public Prosecutor)
v/s
ACCUSED: 1. S.V.Narayanappa S/o
Late Veeradasappa, 70 years,
R/at No.27, 1st Main Road,
Chikkabanavara post, Abbigere,
Bengaluru.
2. S Sunil S/o Late Siddagangappa, 33
years, R/at No.1, Vinayaka, Suvila
Apartment, Medaranahalli, Chikka
Banavara post, Bengaluru.
3. T Ashok S/o Late Thimmaiah, 52
years, R/at No.882, 1st Main,
Bahubali Nagar, Jalahalli post,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri. A.G.M., Advocate)
2 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
1. Date of commission of offence: 08-03-2017
2. Date of report of occurrence : 12-03-2017
3. Date of commencement of : 05-09-2018
recording of evidence
4. Date of closing of evidence : 30-04-2019
5. Name of the Complainant : Shakunthala
6. Offences Complained of : Sec. 354, 323, 509, 506
r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and u/s.
3(1)(r) (s) (w) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.)
Act.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused are Acquitted.
JUDGMENT
The Assistant Commissioner of Police Yeshwanthpura Sub-Division Bengaluru City has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 509, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(w) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution briefly stated as follows:
C.W.1 Smt Shakunthala is the first informant before the Gangammanagudi Police. C.W.1 is belongs to Adi Dravida community which comes under Schedule Caste. C.W.1 has 3 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 entered into agreement with C.W.6 in order to purchase a site situated near Abbigere Petrol Pump, Gangammanagudi, Bengaluru. It is alleged that on 8.3.2017 at about 11 AM C.W.1 along with C.W.2 to C.W.5 went near the site situated near Abbigere Petrol Pump, Gangammanagudi, Bengaluru at that time the accused No.1 to 3 who came there asked the C.W.1 why they came near the property. Then the C.W.1 told the accused that she has purchased the site and in order to see the site she came there. Then the accused persons have abused them in filthy language by saying that "F eÁUÀ £ÀªÀÄäzÀÄ, ¨ÉÆý ªÀÄUÀ AiÀiÁgÁågÉÆà ºÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀjUɯÁè ¸ÉÊmï PÉÆlÖªÉß." When C.W.1 asked accused No.1 to give respect and shown her visiting card to show that she is the President of "Dalitha Mahila Sangha", at that time the accused No.1 torned the visiting card and abused her in the name of caste as "ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀgÀÄ ¤ÃªÉ¯Áè £ÀªÀÄä d«Æ¤UÉ PÁ°lÖgÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ zÀjzÀæ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ." The accused No.1 kicked C.W.1 and assaulted her with hands on her face and head. The accused No.2 and 3 abused her in filthy language and gave life threat to her.4 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
3. Based upon the first information statement lodged by C.W.1, Gangammanagudi Police registered the case in Crime No.46/2017 on 12.3.2017 at 3 PM and sent FIR to the court. The I.O., took up the investigation and visited the place of incident and conducted the mahazar. The I.O. recorded the statements of witnesses. The I.O. after collecting the report of the Tahasildar regarding the caste of the complainant and accused and on completion of investigation has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 509, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(w) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
4. The accused No.1 to 3 are on bail. Charge sheet copies furnished to them and thereby the provisions u/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. is duly complied with.
5. After hearing on both sides charge came to be framed against the accused No.1 to 3 on 20.2.2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323, 509, 506 r/w Sec.34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(1)(w) of The Scheduled Castes 5 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses as P.W.1 to 10 and documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 are marked. During the course of cross examination of P.W.5 document Ex.D.1 portion of his statement is marked on the side of the accused.
7. That on 20.5.2019, the statement of the accused No.1 to 3 as required u/s 313 of Cr.P.C is recorded by putting all the incriminating evidence available in the prosecution evidence to them. The accused persons have denied all the incriminating evidence and did not lead any defence evidence. The Accused in their 313 statement stated that "£ÁªÀÅ ¦gÁå¢zÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄ F PÉù£À°è £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ¨ÁjUÉ £ÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ. CªÀgÀ ¥ÀjZÀAiÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ E®è É.
8. I have heard the arguments of the Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the Learned Counsel for the accused. I have perused the entire case papers.
6 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that PW.1 is the first informant who has spoken about the incident. PW.2 and PW.3 are the eye witnesses. PW.5 is the witness who has entered into agreement with PW.1 to sell the property. Pw6 is the eye witness. They are all supported the case of the prosecution. PW.7 is the mahazar witness. PW.8 is the PSI who has registered the case based on the complaint lodged by PW.1. PW.9 is the ACP who has conducted the investigation. PW.10 was the Tahasildar who has issued the report regarding the caste of the complainant and accused. All these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. She has submitted that the accused persons who knows about the caste of PW.1 abused her in the name of caste and assaulted her and gave life threat to her. She submitted that from the evidence of PW.1 to PW.8 the prosecution has established the charges framed against the accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt and they are liable to be convicted for the said charges.
10. The learned counsel for the accused No.1 submitted that there is civil dispute pending between the PW.5 Suresh 7 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 and the accused. He submitted that the accused persons have filed the suit in O.S. No. 25958/2016 and the same pending. He submitted that the accused are the co-owners of the property bearing Sy. No. 21/4B situated at Abbigere village, measuring 2 acres 25 guntas. The entire property standing in the name of late Veeradasappa @ Eradasappa, father of the accused No.1. He argued that the civil suit is pending between one Shankar and Sanjay and accused No.1 with respect to the alleged sale agreement. He argued that PW.5 who is doing Real Estate Business set up complainant and lodged the false complaint against the accused in order to harass them. He submitted that according to the case of the prosecution alleged incident occurred on 8.3.2017. There is abnormal delay of 4 days 3 hours in lodging the complaint. He submitted that there is no corroboration in the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6. He argued that the civil case is converted into a criminal case in order to harass the accused. He submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
8 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
11. He submitted that since the prosecution has failed to establish the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt the accused are liable to be acquitted from the said charges. He submitted that the prosecution has not produced any wound certificate not produced visiting card of PW.1. The prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 has filed written arguments and contended that there is abnormal delay in lodging the complaint which is not properly explained by the prosecution. It is submitted that the accused and complainant were not known to each other. They are strangers. Under such circumstances, knowing of accused by PW.1 does not arise. It is submitted that as the accused No.2 filed the suit in O.S.No.25932/2016 in CCH-29 and as the accused No.3 has filed the suit in O.S.No.25958/2016 in the court of CCH-22. The Real Estate business man PW.5 through complainant filed the false complaint against the accused. It is submitted that on 28.8.2016 the accused No.1's brother by name A.V. Anjaneyappa executed sale agreement with a Real Estate Group of Agent by name Abhivrudhi Developers in order to 9 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 develop the property. Thereafter the developers approached the accused No.2 and 3 and asked them to sell property for low price but the accused were not agreed for the same. Hence, they have filed false criminal case through PW.1 and her supporters in order to harass the accused. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 submitted that there is no corroboration in the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5, PW.6. The learned counsel for the accused No.2 and 3 submitted that since the prosecution has failed to establish the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt the accused are liable to be acquitted from the said charges.
12. Upon hearing, the following points arise for my consideration:-
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 08.03.2017 at about 11.00.a.m. in the vacant place near Abbigere Petrol Bunk, Gangammanagudi, Bengaluru the accused persons with common intention assaulted C.W.1 complainant with hands 10 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 and kicked her and voluntarily caused her simple hurt and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place the accused persons with common intention assaulted C.W.1 and outraged her modesty and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 354 r/w 34 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused persons with common intention criminally intimidated C.W.1 by giving life threat to her and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 506 r/w 34 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the above said date, time and place, the accused persons with common intention abused C.W.1 complainant and when she has 11 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 shown her visiting card the accused persons torn the visiting card and insulted C.W.1 and assaulted her and outraged her modesty and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable u/s 509 r/w 34 of IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the accused persons with common intention picked up quarrel with C.W.1 and knowing very well that C.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste abused her in the name of caste and insulted and humiliated her within public view and thereby the accused No.1 to 3 have committed the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
6. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No1 to 3 with common intention in order to insult C.W.1, assaulted and used force on her with intent to dishonour and 12 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 outrage her modesty and thereby the accused have committed the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(w) of S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act?
7. What order?
13. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1:- In the Negative Point No.2:- In the Negative Point No.3:- In the Negative Point No.4:- In the Negative Point No.5:- In the Negative Point No.6:- In the Negative Point No.7:- As per final order for the following REASONS
14. POINT No.1 to 6:- Since all these points are interlinked with each other to avoid repetition of facts and for the sake of convenience they are taken up together for common discussion.
15. P.W.1 Smt. Shakunthala has deposed that she knows the accused but do not know the caste of the accused. She 13 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 has deposed that she belongs to Adi Dravida comes under Scheduled Caste. She has deposed that she has purchased the site at Abbigere from Suresh and given advance amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to Suresh. She has deposed that on 8.3.2017 she along with C.W.2 to 5 went near the site situated near the Abbigere Petrol Bunk. When they were seeing the site suddenly the accused persons came there and abused her as "ºÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀgÀÄ". Then she has shown the visiting card to the accused No.1, he has snatched the visiting card and torned out and assaulted her with hands. She has deposed that all the accused persons assaulted her with hands and when C.W.2 to C.W.5 came to pacify the quarrel, the accused persons assaulted C.W.2 to C.W.5 with hands. The accused persons abused them as "ºÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀgÀÄ E°è ¸ÉÊmï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä §A¢zÁÝgÉ DZÉ ºÉÆÃV." She has deposed that as the accused persons quarrelled with her in order to lodge the complaint she went to the Gangammanagudi police but the Police Inspector was not there. Thereafter she has lodged the complaint to the police on 12.3.2017 as per Ex.P1. She has deposed that the ACP of Yeshwanthpura visited the place of incident and conducted the 14 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 mahazar as per Ex.P3 and taken the photographs as per the Ex.P3 and P4. During the course of her cross-examination she has denied all the suggestions made to her.
16. P.W.2 Parvin has deposed that at about one year three months back she along with C.W.3 went to the house of C.W.3 at that time C.W.1 took her and C.W.3 to near the site situated near Abbigere Petrol Bunk. When they went near the site the accused persons came there and picked up quarrel with them and when C.W.1 asked the accused why they are quarrelling then the accused abused as "a£Á° ªÀÄÄAqÉ, ¤ÃªÀÅ KPÉ §A¢¢ÝÃgÁ" She has deposed that the accused persons tried to assault C.W.1 complainant at that time they pacified the quarrel. Thereafter C.W.1 went to the police station in order to lodge the complaint. During the course of her cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused P.W.2 has deposed that she is the Secretary of Mahila Sangha. She has deposed that she knows P.W.1 since from 20 years. She has deposed that the distance between their house and the place of incident is 10 kilometers. She has deposed that she and C.W.3 15 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 went along with along with C.W.1 in order to see the site. She has stated that she do not know the names of the accused. She has deposed that in their Sangha there are 9 members. The motive of their Sangha is to help the society and to help the women. She has denied all the suggestions made to her.
17. P.W.3 Kshama has deposed that on 8.3.2017 she went to the house of C.W.1 Shakunthala, at that time she along with her friends C.W.2 Parvin, C.W.4 Nasneen Bhanu, C.W.5 Neela are went along with C.W.1 in order to see the site situated near Abbigere Petrol Bunk. When they went near that site the accused persons came there and quarrelled with them and beat C.W.1. When the accused persons beating then the accused persons abused them by saying "¨ÉêÀ¹ð ªÀÄÄAqÉ". She has deposed that the accused abused C.W.1 in the name of caste. Thereafter they went to the police station in order to lodge the complaint but the madam was not there. Thereafter on 12.3.2017 C.W.1 lodged the complaint. During the course of her cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused P.W.3 has deposed that she is also Secretary of the 16 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 Chamundeshwari Mahila Sangha. She has deposed that there are more than 200 members are there in their Sangha. She has deposed that C.W.1 is the Founder President of the said Sangha. She has deposed that the place of incident is situated 10 kilometers away from the house of C.W.1. She has denied all the suggestions made to her.
18. P.W.4 Neela has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution by stating that she do not know the case of P.W.1. She do not know the accused. She do not know anything about the incident. In her presence, the accused persons have not quarrelled with P.W.1 and not abused her in filthy language and in the name of caste and not tried to outrage the modesty of P.W.1 and not given life threat to P.W.1. Having turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined P.W.4 in detail. During the course of her cross-examination P.W.4 has denied all the suggestions made by the learned Special Public Prosecutor. She has denied of giving such statement before the police as per Ex.P5. Nothing is elicited from her mouth to support the case of the prosecution.
17 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
19. P.W.5 Suresh even though cited as circumstantial witness he has deposed that as if he is an eye witness. P.W.4 has deposed that he had entered into agreement of sale with P.W.1 on 4.2.2017 in order to sell the site. He has deposed that at about one year back when he went near his site between 11 AM and 12 PM at that time the accused persons quarrelling with P.W.1. He has deposed that the accused persons have torn the visiting card of P.W.1 and abused her as "ºÉÆ¯É ªÀiÁ¢UÀgÀÄ" and assaulted her with hands. He has deposed that when he went to pacify the quarrel at that time the accused persons abused him by saying that "ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀjUÉ ¸ÉÊmï PÉÆnÖ¢ÝÃgÁ ¤ªÀÄUÉ zÀjzÀæ §gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.". He has deposed that P.W.1 went to the police station in order to lodge the complaint. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused No.1, P.W.5 has deposed that he is doing Real Estate Business. When questioned asked to him, the boundary of the site which he has allegedly agreed to sell to P.W.1 he has stated that he forgotten the boundary of the property. He has deposed, when question asked in what way he is having property then he has answered as one Shankar 18 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 and Sanjay Kumar entered into a sale agreement with him in respect of the property in Sy. No.21/4B, he is having the right. He has contended that Sahankar and Sanjay have purchased the land from the brothers of accused No.1. He has admitted the suggestion that till today the revenue documents of Sy. No.21/4B are standing in the name of the accused and their family members. P.W.5 has deposed that P.W.1 had sustained injuries and she has taken treatment in the hospital. PW.5 has admitted the suggestion that the accused persons have filed the suit against Shankar and Sanjay Kumar. He has deposed that has entered into written agreement with PW.1 for sale of site measuring 30 ft. X 40 ft.
20. During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused No.1 PW.5 has denied of giving statement before the police as per Ex.D.1. He has admitted the suggestion that accused No.1 has filed the suit against Shankar and Sanjay before CCH-3 Court with respect to Sy.No.21/4B in O.S.No.7363/2016. He has denied the suggestion that in order to pressurize the accused he got filed 19 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 false complaint through PW.1. He has denied all the suggestions made to him.
21. PW.6/Nazneen Banu has deposed that PW.1 is the president and she C.W.2, C.W.3, C.W.5 are all members of Women Association of their area. She has deposed that on 08.03.2017 PW.1 took her and C.W.2-Parveen, C.W.3- Kshama and Babujan to the Abbigere to show the site. At that time the accused persons who came there abused the PW.1/Complainant in filthy language. When PW.1 shown her visiting card then all the accused torn the visiting card and assaulted PW.1 with hands and kicked her and abused her as "¤ªÀÄäAvÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÊnUÉ §AzÀgÉ zÀjzÀæ DUÀÄvÀÛzÀÉ". Thereafter, they went to police station and lodged the complaint. Since PW.6 is not fully supported the case of the prosecution at the instance of learned Special Public Prosecutor she has treated as hostile and permitted to cross-examine. During the course of her cross-examination when leading questions asked to her then she has admitted suggestions regarding the caste of PW.1 and regarding the time of alleged incident. She has admitted the 20 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 suggestion that the accused persons abused PW.1 as "Hole Madigaru Neevella Jameenige Kalu Ittare Namage Daridra Baruthade".
22. During the course of cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused PW.6 has deposed that on the next day of incident PW.1 lodged the complaint to the police. She has denied all the suggestions made to her. She has denied the suggestion that as she is the member of Women's Association in order to help PW.1 she is giving false evidence.
23. PW.7/Pradeep has deposed that on 12.03.2017 Gangammagudi police summoned him near the site of PW.1 situated by the side of Abbigere road and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P.2. During the course of cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused he has deposed that he has not witnessed the incident. He has denied all the suggestions made to him.
21 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
24. PW.8/B.R.Rajappa, P.S.I. has deposed that on 12.03.2017 at 3.00 p.m. he has registered the case in Crime No.46/2017 based on the Ex.P.1 complaint lodged by complainant and sent the Ex.P.6 FIR to the court. He has given the case file to the ACP for further investigation. The oral evidence of PW.8 is remained unchallenged as learned counsel for the accused have not cross examined PW.8.
25. PW.9/Ravi Prasad, ACP has deposed that on 12.03.2017 he took up the case file from PW.8 for further investigation and on the same day he has visited to the place of incident and conducted the panchanama as per Ex.P.2 in the presence of Babujan, Pradeep and Haribabu. He has prepared sketch as per Ex.P.7. He has taken the photographs as per Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. On 13.03.2017 he has recorded the further statement of PW.1 and statements of C.W.2 to C.W.6. He has collected Ex.P.8 copy of Agreement entered into between G.K.Shankar and Suresh and collected Ex.P.9 copy of agreement entered into between G.K.Shankar and Anjinappa. He has collected Ex.P.10 report of Tahasildar regarding the caste of accused and also collected Ex.P.11 22 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 report of Tahasildar regarding the caste of complainant and also collected Ex.P.12 caste certificate of complainant. He on completion of investigation has filed the charge sheet. During the course of his cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused he has denied all the suggestions made to him. He has denied the suggestion that after filing the Civil Suit by the accused against Shankar and Sanjay they by violating the Temporary Injunction order created sale agreement in the name of Suresh. He has denied the suggestion that Shankar, Sanjay Kumar, Suresh and complainant who are all doing real estate business colluding with them he has filed false charge sheet against the accused. He has deposed that in Ex.P.3, Ex.P.4 Photos except the photo of complainant and one pancha no other persons are there in these photographs.
26. PW.10/Sri.Mahadeva, Tahasildar has deposed that on the basis of the report of Revenue Inspector, he has issued his report as per Ex.P.11 that complainant Smt. Shakunthala is belongs to Adi Dravida comes under Scheduled Caste. The oral evidence of PW.10 is remained unchallenged as the 23 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 learned counsel for the accused has not cross examined PW.10.
27. Based upon the above evidence, it is to be considered if the prosecution has established the charge framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
28. With regarding the caste of PW.1 that she belongs to Adi Dravida caste come under Schedule Castes there is no much dispute. P.W.1 has deposed that she belongs to Adi Dravida Scheduled Caste. P.W.3, P.W.5 and P.W.6 have also deposed that P.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. P.W.10 who was working as Grade-II Tahasildar of Bengaluru North Taluk has issued Ex.P11 report regarding the caste of P.W.1 by stating that P.W.1 belongs to Adi Dravida comes under Scheduled Caste. In this case, the document Ex.P12 caste certificate of P.W.1 marked through P.W.9 I.O. This document Ex.P12 also remained unchallenged. The oral evidence of P.W.10 Tahasildar so also the documents Ex.P11 and P12 are remained unchallenged. The oral evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.9, P.W.10 which is supported by the 24 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 documents Ex.P11 and P12 are sufficient to hold that P.W.1 is belongs to Adi Dravida comes under Scheduled Caste. P.W.1 has deposed that the accused are not belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The document Ex.P10 report of the Tahasildar regarding the caste of the accused marked through P.W.9. The accused persons have not denied this document Ex.P10. It is not the defence of the accused that they belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes. Thus, it is established that P.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and the accused No.1 to 3 do not belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
29. In this case, it is the specific case of the prosecution is that on 8.3.2017 at about 11 AM P.W.1 along with her Women's Association Members went to see her site situated near Abbigere Petrol Bunk at that time this incident was occurred. It is not the case of the prosecution is that prior to this incident, the accused and P.W.1 knows each other. In Ex.P1 complaint, it is mentioned that when the complainant along with her friends Neela, Parvin, Kshama, Nasneen Banu 25 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 went near the site at that time the accused who came there asked them who are, you then complainant shown the visiting card. At that time the accused persons by snatching the visiting card torned out and kicked her and assaulted her with hands on her head and face and abused her as "CPÀÌ, CªÀÄä ºÉƯÉAiÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀgÀÄ" and also given life threat to her. It is mentioned in Ex.P1 is that after this incident, the complainant met the elders and as she has not get any justice from elders then she lodged the complaint. Hence, delay was caused in lodging the complaint. It is pertinent to note that in this case the prosecution has not explained the delay in lodging the complaint. Admittedly, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6 are all members of the Women Association in which P.W.1 is the President. Under such circumstances, the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.6 shall be scrutinised very carefully as they are all interested witnesses. It is the specific case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 has entered into agreement of sale with P.W.5 in order to purchase a site and in order to see that the site on 8.3.2017 at about 11 AM P.W.1 and her friends went near the site at that time this alleged incident was 26 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 occurred. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that P.W.1 has entered into sale agreement with P.W.5 in order to purchase the site. P.W.1 has deposed that she has paid Rs. Three lakhs to P.W.5 in order to purchase the site. There is absolutely no evidence on the side of the prosecution to show when the sale agreement was entered into between P.W.1 and P.W.5 and on which date P.W.1 has paid amount of Rs. Three lakhs towards the site. P.W.5 has deposed that on 4.2.2017 he has entered into agreement with P.W.1 in order to sell the site. P.W.5 has not deposed anything about the receiving of Rs. Three lakhs from P.W.1 towards sale consideration amount. During the course of the cross- examination of P.W.5 he has deposed that he has entered into an agreement with Shankar and Sanjay in order to purchase the property in Sy. No.21/4B. It is pertinent to note that P.W.5 is not the owner of the site in order to sell the site to P.W.1. According to P.W.5 is only agreement holder. P.W.5 has admitted the suggestion that there is a civil dispute pending between the accused and Shankar and Sanjay Kumar. In this case even though P.W.5 is cited as circumstantial witness he has deposed as if he is eye witness that itself indicates the 27 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 interestedness of P.W.5 to depose against the accused as there is civil dispute pending. P.W.1 in her cross-examination has stated that she has not entered into any written sale agreement in respect of this property. But P.W.5 has deposed that he has entered into written sale agreement with P.W.1. The prosecution has not produced any document to show that P.W.5 has entered into written sale agreement with P.W.1 in order to sell the site to her. There is absolutely no document on the side of the prosecution to show that P.W.5 has entered into sale agreement with P.W.1 in order to sell the site.
30. P.W.1 has deposed that on 08-03-2017 she along with C.W.2 to C.W.5 went near the Abbigere Petrol bunk in order to see the site at that time the accused persons suddenly came there and picked up quarrel with her and abused her as "Hole Madigaru" and at that time when she shown the visiting card to accused No.1, he torned it and assaulted her with hands on her face and then all the accused assaulted her with hands and when C.W.2 to C.W.5 came to pacify the quarrel then the accused persons also assaulted them. The oral evidence of PW.1 is not 28 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 corroborating with the document Ex.P1 complaint. In Ex.P1 complaint it is mentioned that when they went near the site the accused started asked them who are they, then when they said they came to see the site at that time the accused said that they have to leave the place otherwise they have to talk in vulgar, then the complainant shown her visiting card to the accused at that time the accused persons torn the visiting card and assaulted her and abused her in the name of caste. But quite contrary to the document Ex.P1 PW.1 has deposed that when they visited to the site then the accused persons suddenly came there and abused her as "Hole Madigaru" then she shown the visiting card at that time the accused No.1 torn the visiting card and assaulted her and all the accused No.1 to 3 assaulted her with hands and when C.W.2 to C.W.5 came to pacify the quarrel at that time the accused persons assaulted C.W.2 to C.W.5. In Ex.P1 complaint there is no mention that accused persons have assaulted C.W.2 to C.W.5. The improved version of PW.1 which is not corroborating with the document Ex.P1 complaint creates doubt about her version. PW.1 has not deposed anything about whether she has sustained any injuries or not. She 29 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 has not deposed anything whether she has taken any treatment in the hospital or not. There is absolutely no evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that PW.1 has sustained any injuries.
31. Now coming to the oral evidence of PW.2. The oral evidence of PW.2 is quite contrary to the oral evidence of PW.1. PW.2 has deposed that when she and C.W.3 went along with PW.1 near Abbigere Petrol Bunk in order to see the site at that time the accused persons quarrelled with them and abused them as "Chinali Munde, neevu eke bandiddira." PW.2 has deposed that when the accused persons tried to assault PW.1 at that time they pacified the quarrel. According to PW.2 the accused persons only tried to assault PW.1. PW.1 has deposed that the accused persons assaulted her with hands and also assaulted C.W.2 to C.W.5. C.W.2 who is examined as PW.2 has deposed that when the accused persons tried to assault PW.1 then they pacified the quarrel. According to PW.2 the accused persons have not assaulted PW.1. The abusive language which is deposed by PW.2 which is allegedly used by the accused is not corroborating with the 30 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 abusive language which is deposed by PW.1. PW.2 has deposed that the accused persons abused them as "Chinali Munde".
32. PW.3 has deposed that on 8.3.2017 she along with C.W.2 Parvin, C.W.4 Nasneen Banu, C.W.5 Neela and her friends accompanied PW.1 and went near Abbigere Petrol Bunk in order to see the site at that time the accused persons abused them and beaten two blows to PW.1. Then they asked the accused why they are beating then the accused persons abused them as "Bevarsi Munde". The abusive language which is deposed by PW.3 is also not corroborating with the abusive language which is allegedly used by the accused as deposed by PW.1 and PW.2. The oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3 are not corroborating regarding this incident.
33. PW.4 Neela has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.4 has deposed that in her presence no such incident was occurred. The accused persons have not abused the complainant and not abused her in the name of accused and not given life threat to her. 31 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
34. PW.5 Suresh who is cited as the circumstantial witness has deposed before the court as if he is the eye witness. During the course of his cross-examination the portion of his 161 Cr.P.C. statement is marked as Ex.D1. As per Ex.D1 he came to know about this incident through PW.1 Shakunthala. But quite contrary to the case of the prosecution PW.5 has deposed as if he was present in the alleged place of incident. PW.1 to PW.3 have not deposed anything about the presence of PW.5 in the alleged place of incident. According to PW.1 she has purchased the site from PW.5. Under such circumstances, if PW.5 was present in the alleged place of incident, PW.1 would have stated regarding the same in her oral evidence. The oral evidence of PW.5 is also not corroborating with the oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3. PW.5 has deposed that when he went to pacify the quarrel at that time the accused persons abused him as "Hole Madigarige site kottare namage daridra baruthade." PW.5 improved the version in examination-in-chief. The oral evidence of PW.5 is not trustworthy.
32 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
35. PW.6 Nasneen Banu has deposed that she along with C.W.2 Parveen C.W.3 Kshama went to the house of the PW.1 in order to talk with her at that time as PW.1 requested them to accompany her in order to see the site. Hence, she, C.W.2 Parvin, C.W.3 Kshama and one Babu Jan, husband of C.W.3 Parvin went from the house of PW.1 near the Abbigere in order to seen the site. PW.6 has deposed that one Babu Jan also accompanied with them in order to see the site. PW.1 to PW.3 have not deposed anything about the presence of Babujan. PW.6 has improved the version as deposed that the Babujan also accompanied with them in order to see the site. PW.6 in her examination-in-chief has not deposed anything about the abusive language allegedly used by the accused and also not deposed the time of the alleged incident. Hence, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross-examine PW.6. At the instance of learned Special Public Prosecutor PW.6 has treated as hostile and permitted to cross-examine. During the course of cross- examination of PW.6 only when the learned Special Public Prosecutor asked the leading questions by putting the suggestions then only PW.6 has admitted the suggestion that 33 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 the accused persons abused PW.1 as "Holeya Madigaru". That itself shows that PW.6 is the tutored witness.
36. From the evidence of PW.1, PW.5 it is noticed that there is dispute regarding the site. PW.1 in her cross- examination has deposed that she came to know that the accused are all partners of the site which she intends to purchase. It is the defence of the accused are that the property in Sy. No.24/1B is the joint family. It is the defence of the accused that there is a suit pending between them and one Shankar and Sanjay. PW.5 has admitted the suggestion that the accused persons have filed a suit against Shankar and Sanjay Kumar. PW.5 has taken contention that he has entered into agreement with Shankar and Sanjay in order to purchase the property. PW.5 who is the alleged agreement holder has deposed that he has entered into agreement with PW.1 in order to sell the site is not believable. There is no document to show that PW.5 is having right to sell the site in favour of PW.1. According to PW.5 he is the prospective purchaser and only agreement to sell was entered into between him and Shankar and Sanjay. Under such 34 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 circumstances it is very difficult to believe that PW.5 has agreed to sell the site in favour of PW.1.
37. From the evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6, it is clear that the ingredients of the offence u/s 3(1)(r) (s) (w) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act are not attracted. The burden of proof is strictly on the prosecution to establish that there was commission of such an offence and the allegations that the accused had used derogatory expressions with reference to caste of PW.1in public view with an intention to insult or humiliate her and thus it constituted an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of the Act is required to be established on the basis of the evidence which is impeachable. First of all there is no cogent and consistent evidence that the accused No.1 to 3 had any knowledge or knew about the PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. On plain reading of the document Ex.P1 complaint itself go to show that the complainant and accused are strangers. On perusal of Ex.P1 it shows that for the first time on the date of alleged incident, the complainant came to know the accused. The story of the prosecution that PW.1 35 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 has shown the visiting card to the accused at that time the accused persons torn her visiting card also not believable. PW.1 has deposed that accused No.1 has torn her visiting card but PW.5 and PW.6 have deposed that all the accused persons have torn the visiting card of PW.1. The Investigating Officer has not seized any visiting card to show that PW.1 was holding any such visiting card. At the time of conducting panchanama also no material objects such as piece of visiting card are seized. The alleged derogatory words used by the accused No.1 to 3 are not consistent from the ocular evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6. They have each stated about the derogatory words said to have been used by the accused No.1 to 3 in a totally different manner and the same is also not in variance with the case put forth by the prosecution. On consideration of the derogatory words said to have been used by the accused No.1 to 3 as stated by these witnesses there is no corroboration and consistent evidence in this regard. In view of the dispute pending in respect of the property in Sy. No.21/4B the possibility of a false complaint being lodged cannot be ruled out.
36 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
38. According to the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident was occurred on 8.3.2017 at 11 AM. Ex.P1 complaint was lodged on 12.3.2017 at 3 PM. PW.8 PSI has deposed that on 12.3.2017 at 3 PM on the basis of complaint lodged by complainant he has registered the case in Crime No.46/2017 and sent Ex.P6 FIR to the court. On perusal of Ex.P6 FIR it shows that the alleged place of incident is situated ten kilometer away from the police station. PW.1 has deposed that she went to the police station on the same day but the Inspector was not there. Hence, she again went to the police station on 12.3.2017. On perusal of Ex.P1 complaint there is no such mention that the complainant visited the police station on 8.3.2017 and as the Inspector was not there, she could not lodge the complaint on that day. Admittedly Ex.P1 complaint was received by PSI. Under such circumstances, the deposition of PW.1 is that as in the police station the Inspector was there, she returned is not acceptable. The oral evidence of PW.1 is quite contrary to the document Ex.P1 because in Ex.P1 it is mentioned that she approached the elders of the village and thereafter as she could not get justice, hence she lodged the complaint. The 37 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5, PW.6 which is quite contrary to the document Ex.P1 creates doubt about their version. PW.2 has deposed that immediately after the incident PW.1 went to the police station in order to lodge the complaint. PW.3 has deposed that on the date of incident when they came to police station, the lady police was not there, hence, thereafter on 13.2.2107 PW.1 has lodged the complaint. PW.6 has deposed that on the very same day of the incident they went to the police station and lodged the complaint. PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5, PW.6 have given different versions regarding the lodging of the complaint. Fact remains that there is no four days delay in lodging the complaint which is not properly explained by the prosecution. There is absolutely no explanation by the prosecution for such inordinate delay of 4 days in lodging the first information. The stand of PW.1 stating that when she went to the police station, the Inspector is not there cannot be believed. By considering the material on record there is inordinate delay of four days in lodging the first information which is not explained and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
38 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
39. PW.1 has deposed that after lodging the complaint the Assistant Commissioner of Police has visited to the place of incident and conducted the spot panchanama as per Ex.P.2. PW.7 is the mahazar witness has supported the case of the prosecution by stating that the Assistant Commissioner of Police has visited the place of incident and conducted the mahazar. PW.9/ACP has deposed that on 12.03.2017 he visited place of incident and conduct the Ex.P.2 panchanama in the presence of C.W.7-Pradeep, C.W.8-Babujan, C.W.9- Haribabu. PW.9 has deposed that he has taken the photographs, as per Ex.P.3 and P.4. It is pertinent to note that in Ex.P.3 and P.4 photographs, there is no material to show that mahazar was conducted. Ex.P.4 is the photograph wherein ACP, the complaint and one mahazar witness standing in the site. Except they posing for photograph no such pen or sheets to draw the mahazar finds a place in these photographs. In other words photographs Ex.P.3 and P.4 are not the photographs of conducting the mahazar. It is only photographs taken by standing in site. In Ex.P.2 mahazar there is no mention that at the time of conducting the mahazar, the photos were taken. Since PW.1, PW.7 and PW.9 39 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 have supported the case of the prosecution regarding conducting the mahazar Ex.P.2, it can be held that PW.9 has conducted the mahazar as per Ex.P.2. But it cannot be held that Ex.P.3 and P.4 photos were taken at the time of conducting a mahazar.
40. In so far as the alleged offences under Sec.354, 323, 509, 506 of IPC are concerned there is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences. PW.1 has not deposed anything about the criminal intimidation by giving life threat to her by the accused. When the entire evidence is considered, there is nothing on record to even remotely satisfy the ingredients of the offence under Sec.506 of IPC. In order to show that the accused persons were assaulted PW.1 with hands there is absolutely no documentary evidence. There is no medical evidence to show that PW.1 has sustained injuries or pain. PW.1 has not deposed anything about whether she has taken the treatment in the hospital or not. PW.5 who is stated to be the intending vendor of the site. PW.5 in his cross-examination has deposed 40 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 that PW.1 has sustained injuries and she has taken treatment in the hospital. If that is so there should be a medical evidence to show that PW.1 has sustained injuries. PW.9 the Investigating Officer has deposed that he has recorded the further statement of PW.1. According to the case of the prosecution PW.1 has given her further statement in order to show that she has not taken treatment in the hospital. But PW.1 has not deposed anything about giving of further statement before PW.9. There is no cogent evidence on the side of the prosecution to show that accused persons have assaulted PW.1 with hands and kicked her and outraged her modesty. The uncorroborated oral evidence of PW.1 to PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 creates doubt about their version. If at all any such incident was occurred on 08.03.2017 and on the same day PW.1 went to the police station in order to lodge the complaint, what prevented her to take treatment in hospital is not explained. First of all there is no evidence to show that on 08.03.2017 PW.1 went to the police station in order to lodge the complaint. PW.8/PSI who registered the case has deposed that PW.1 came to the police station on 12.03.2017 at 3.00 p.m. and lodged the complaint. If at all PW.1 went to the 41 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 police station on 08.03.2017 itself she should have mentioned the same in Ex.P.1 complaint. Four days delay in the lodging of first information which is not explained is also creates doubt about the incident. In order to support the oral evidence of PW.1 and to show that the accused persons have assaulted with her hands and kicked her, there is no medical evidence. PW.1 has improved the version by deposing that the accused persons have also assaulted C.W.2 to C.W.5 with hands. On an appreciation of the evidence on record it shows that there is civil suit pending the accused and Shankar and Sanjay Kumar. PW.5 who has taken contention that he has purchased the property from Shankar and Sanjay Kumar by entering into sale agreement with them. It is not the evidence of PW.5 is that he has purchased the property under sale deed. Under such circumstances it is very difficult to believe the oral version of PW.1 and PW.5 that PW.5 has entered agreement of sale to sell the site in favour of the PW.1. There is no cogent and consistent evidence of the side of the prosecution to show that accused No.1 to 3 had any knowledge or knew about PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. Since there is no any corroboration in the oral evidence PW.1 42 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 to PW.3, PW.5 and PW.6 their oral evidence creates doubt about the incident. More than that there is no medical document to support the oral evidence of these witnesses. There is abnormal delay of four days in lodging the complaint, which is not properly explained by the prosecution. Hence, on an appreciation of the evidence on record I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against accused No.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Secs.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Secs.323, 354, 506, 509 and r/w Sec.34 of IPC. Hence, I answered point No.1 to 6 in the negative.
41. Point No.7:- In view of my findings on point no.1 to point no.6, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1-S.V.Narayanappa, accused No.2-S.Sunil, accused No.3-T.Ashok are acquitted of the offences punishable under 43 Spl.C.No. 556/2017 Sections 323, 354, 509, 506 r/w Sec. 34 of IPC and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(w) of S.C./S.T. (P.A.) Act.The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3
and their sureties shall stand cancelled.
However the surety bond executed in compliance of Section 437A of Cr.P.C. shall be in force till statutory period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by him, transcript corrected and inserted some paragraphs directly on the computer, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25th day of June, 2019.) (MOHAN PRABHU) LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Shakunthala
P.W. 2 : Parvin
P.W.3 : Kshama
P.W.4 : Neela
P.W.5 : Suresh
P.W.6 : Nazneen Banu
44 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
P.W.7 : Pradeep
P.W.8 : B.R.Rajappa
P.W.9 : Ravi Prasad
P.W.10 : Mahadev
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 : Complaint
Ex.P1(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P1(b) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P2 : Spot Panchanama
Ex.P2(a) : Signature of PW.1
Ex.P2(b) : Signature of PW.7
Ex.P2(c) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P3 & 4 : Photographs
Ex.P5 : 161 of Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4
Ex.P6 : F.I.R.
Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW.8
Ex.P7 : Hand sketch map
Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P8 : Notarized attested copy of Agreement of
Sale
Ex.P9 : Notarized attested copy of Agreement of
Sale
Ex.P10 : Tahasildar's report regarding caste of
accused
Ex.P10(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P11 : Report of the Tahasildar's issued by PW.10
regarding caste of PW.1
45 Spl.C.No. 556/2017
Ex.P11(a) : Signature of PW.9
Ex.P11(b) : Signature of PW.10
Ex.P12 : Caste certificate
Ex.P12(a) : Signature of PW.9
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D1 : Portion of Statement of PW.5
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil
(MOHAN PRABHU)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.