Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Bhaskar Rao on 1 July, 2014
-1-
Crl.RP. 20/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.S.PACHHAPURE
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.20/2014
BETWEEN
STATE OF KARNAKATA
MADHUGIRI POLICE
TUMKUR-572132.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP)
AND
BHASKAR RAO
OCCUPATION: BUS DRIVER
DARGA ROAD, MADHUGIRI
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 132.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri.R MANJUNATH, ADV.)
CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C BY S.P.P. FOR
THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO: A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.09.2012
PASSED BY THE III ADDL. S.J., TUMKUR IN
S.C.NO.206/2011. B) DIRECT THE III ADDL. DIST. AND
S.J., TUMKUR IN S.C.NO.206/2011 TO PROCEED FRAME CHARGE
AGAINST THE RESPONDENT -ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
3(i)(xi)(ii)(v) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989.
-2-
Crl.RP. 20/2014
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
The State has challenged the order of the learned Sessions Judge refusing to frame the charge for the offence under Sections 3(i)(xi)(ii)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. The facts reveal that Bhagyamma (the deceased) married the respondent about two years prior to the incident. She belonged to Scheduled Caste community. There was an affair between the deceased and the respondent and a child was born after the marriage. The deceased was living with the respondent and subjecting her to mental and physical cruelty. It is alleged that on the date of the incident the respondent set fire to the deceased after pouring kerosene. She was shifted to the hospital and succumbed to the burns. In the -3- Crl.RP. 20/2014 aforesaid circumstances, a complaint was filed by her father and on registration of the crime, investigation was held and additional charge sheet was filed against the respondent for the charge under Section 302 IPC and 3(i)(xi)(ii)(v) of the Act, 1989. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel ordered to frame charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC only. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present revision petition has been filed.
3. Heard the learned Government Pleader and also the learned counsel for the respondent.
4. Learned Government Pleader submits that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste community and it is for the said reason that the respondent caused her death, though married after an affair amongst them. He submits that the trial Court committed an error in not framing the charge under Section 3(i)(xi)(ii)(v) of the Act. -4- Crl.RP. 20/2014
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supports the order of the trial Court.
5. Reliance is placed on the decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1993 AP 229 (SMT.D.NEELIMA Vs. THE DEAN OF P.G. STUDIES, A.P. AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, HYDERABAD AND OTHERS) (DB). The High Court referring to many other decisions of the Apex Court has held that; on marriage the bride acquires the caste or tribe of her husband and the question whether there was acceptance for such acquisition of caste or tribe from the members of that caste or tribe, as the case may be, is irrelevant inasmuch as this is not an acquisition on reconversion to Hinduism nor a change over simpliciter, but by virtue of her marriage.
The High Court has also held that after the marriage, the person belongs to Scheduled Caste community marrying the Scheduled Tribe boy, no reservation can be claimed because of the change of -5- Crl.RP. 20/2014 the caste after the marriage. The High Court has taken into consideration the principles laid down by the Apex Court in many other decisions.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, as could be seen from the averments in the complaint, the fact that the respondent is married to the deceased who belonged to Scheduled Caste community is not challenged when she married the respondent and changed her caste to that of the family of the respondent. She was not a person belonging to Scheduled Caste community as on the date of the incident. Therefore, the trial Court was justified in framing the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC only. It was not necessary to frame the charge for the offence under Section 3(i)(xi)(ii)(v) of the Act or any other provisions of law.
-6-Crl.RP. 20/2014
Consequently the revision fails and it is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *AP/-