Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

iv) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforementioned date, time and place, the accused, in the absence of any grave and sudden provocation by PW.1 and PW.4, assaulted PW.1 and PW.4 and used criminal force against them intending thereby to dishonour PW.1 and PW.4 by assaulting both PW.1 and PW.4 and pulling their saree, tearing the blouse worn by them and thereby has committed an offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC?

43. Thus, when the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 355 and 506 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC and ST Act, the Special Court without appreciating the evidence placed before it, in its proper perspective, has drawn its own conclusion by irrationally reasoning that, the pendency of the civil suit between the parties, creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution, as such, the complaint filed against the accused was a false complaint. Further, its observation that the complainant at one place in her cross-examination has said that she has not lodged the complaint but her son has lodged the complaint whereas her son who was examined as PW.5 has stated that it was her mother (PW.1) has lodged the complaint also creates a doubt in the case of the prosecution, is not a convincing reason. No doubt PW.1 at one place has stated that it was her son who has lodged the complaint but the analysis made above go to show that her son was also present in the police station when PW.1 and PW.4 returned from the hospital after obtaining the treatment. Further, the evidence of PW.16 also goes to show that it was PW.1, who lodged the complaint as per Ex.P-1. As such, the Special Court has created a doubt on its own and improperly accepted the said doubt which made it to pronounce the judgment of acquittal giving the benefit of doubt to the accused. Since the said reasoning of the Special Court now appears to be not acceptable, on the contrary since the prosecution, as analysed above, has proven the alleged guilt of the accused except the offences punishable under Section 504 and 427 of IPC, the judgment of acquittal under appeal deserves to be set aside and the accused deserves to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 355, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST Act.

44. Accordingly, we allow the appeal in part. The impugned judgment dated 04.07.2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, in Special Case No.18/2012 acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 504, 323, 355, 427 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST Act is set aside.

The accused(Kishore Vajra Naik) is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 323, 355 and 506 (Part-I) of IPC and for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of SC & ST Act.

ORDER

(i) The accused (Kishore Vajra Naik) who is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is sentenced to pay a fine of `750/-, in default, to undergo a simple imprisonment for fifteen days.

(ii) For the offence punishable under Section 355 of IPC, the accused shall pay a fine of `2,000/-, in default, to undergo a simple imprisonment for three months.