Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 343 (KAR)

ANANDA PANGALA v. T. R. JAGANNATH

2003-04-08

K.SREEDHAR RAO

body2003
K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) ALL the three petitions are considered together for passing common order, as they arise out of the proceedings in Criminal Revision Petition Nos. 126/2001 and 129/2001 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mangalore arising out of the proceedings in P. C. R. No. 251/2000 on the file of the J. M. F. C. , Puttur. ( 2 ) THE complainant in P. C. R. No. 251 /2000 is the petitioner in Crl. P. Nos. 2312/02 and 2313/02 and the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2315/02 is the person who lodged F. I. R. in Crime No. 18/98 on the file of Kadaba Police Station, Puttur Circle. The brief facts leading to the case are stated thus:one Kum. Vasanthi, aged about 18 years was found missing from 24-12-1997. Her whereabouts were not known. The father of the deceased lodged a missing complaint before the Sirur Police Station in Crl. Misc. No. 3/98 on 5-1-1998. About 5 months thereafter, skeleton remains of a person were found in Kepukudi Jungle. Near the scene chappals, Chodidar and other articles were also found. It transpired that the articles belonged to the deceased Vasanthi. Therefore, F. I. R. was lodged by the petitioner in Crl. P. 2315/02, on 23-5-1998 on the file of Kadaba Police Station. It is alleged that the deceased was wearing gold ear studs and other jewellery. The deceased was moving friendly with the accused persons, who are respondents 2 to 5 in Crl. P. No. 2315/02. When Vasanthi was found missing, it is said that the complainant and her family members approached the accused to know about the deceased. The accused ill-treated the complainant and her family members in a harsh manner using abusive language telling them not to come and make any enquiries henceforth. On account of the said belligerent and evasive conduct, it was suspected that accused have caused the murder of Vasanthi for gain. ( 3 ) THE Kadaba Police, after investigation filed the charge-sheet in S. C. No. 50/98 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Mangalore for committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 392, 411, 201, 504 and 506 r/w 34, IPC. In the charge-sheet, the prosecution has placed a material discovery of jewellery worn by the deceased at the voluntary instance of the accused persons. In the charge-sheet, the prosecution has placed a material discovery of jewellery worn by the deceased at the voluntary instance of the accused persons. The Forensic Laboratory report discloses that the skeleton remains are of a human being. It is only on the basis of the wearing apparels found at the scene, the identity of the corpus delecti has been found to be that of Vasanthi. The cause and time of death has not been ascertained and stated by the prosecution in the charge-sheet. Only on the basis of the discovery evidence and the motive, the prosecution contends that the murder of deceased by the accused is for gain. ( 4 ) THE petitioner in Crl. P. Nos. 2313/02 and 2312/02 filed a private complaint before the Special Court cum Prl. Sessions Judge, Mysore alleging that the Police have not properly investigated into the case and that the respondents in Crl. P. Nos. 2313/02 and 2312/02 who are the Investigation Officers have not conducted the investigation in proper manner and have not charged the accused for committing the offences punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of S. C. /s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, despite furnishing of proper material by the complainant. Therefore, under the private complaint, the complainant sought for taking action against the accused including the Investigating Officers concerned for the offences alleged. The Sessions Judge referred the complainant for investigation to Police under Section 156 (3), Cr. P. C. The police field a B-report. Then a protest petition was filed. Sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and then summons was issued to the respondent herein. ( 5 ) THE Sessions Judge transferred the case file to the J. M. F. C. Court Puttur, who on the basis of sworn statement, ordered issuance of summons. Aggrieved by the said order, the revision was filed in Crl. R. P. Nos. 126/01 and 129/01 by the Investigation Officers who are accused 5 and 6 in the complaint. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Mangalore allowed the revision and set aside the proceedings initiated against the accused 5 and 6. The complainant in S. C. No. 50/99 filed a petition before this Court in Crl. R. P. No. 891/2001 for stay of the proceedings in S. C. No. 50/99 till committal of the case in P. C. R. No. 251/2000. The complainant in S. C. No. 50/99 filed a petition before this Court in Crl. R. P. No. 891/2001 for stay of the proceedings in S. C. No. 50/99 till committal of the case in P. C. R. No. 251/2000. This Court dismissed the petition with a liberty to the complainant to approach the Sessions Court. Accordingly, the complainant filed a petition before the Sessions Judge under Sections 210 and 309, Cr. P. C. for stay of the proceedings in S. C. No. 50/99 till committal of the case in P. C. R. No. 251/2000. The Sessions Judge rejected the request. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant has filed Crl. P. 2315/2002. The petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2315/02 virtually sail with the petitioner in Crl. P. Nos. 2312/02 and 2313/2002. ( 6 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the investigation has not been conducted by the respondents in Crl. P. Nos. 2312/02 and 2313/2002 in a proper manner. There is sufficient material to disclose that the accused have committed the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the S. C. /s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and deliberately the said offence has not been included. In that regard, a private complaint has been filed. After carefully going through the statement of the petitioner in Crl. P. No. 2312/02, who is cited as C. W. 2 in S. C. No. 50/99 and averments made in the private complaint, they do not disclose any material to enable invoking of provisions of Section 3 (2) (V) of the S. C. /s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In the F. I. R. in S. C. No. 50/99 and the statements of C. Ws. 1 and 2, who are the petitioners herein, nowhere it is stated that he deceased was murdered with an animus that the belongs to scheduled caste. The motive offered by the petitioners, only indicate that the murder has been committed for gain. The golden jewellery worn by the deceased is alleged to have been robbed by the accused in S. C. No. 50/99. Of course the prosecution has placed material to show discovery of the said articles at the voluntary instance of the accused, it is very preposterous on the part of the petitioners to contend that the Police Officers have committed offence in this regard. Of course the prosecution has placed material to show discovery of the said articles at the voluntary instance of the accused, it is very preposterous on the part of the petitioners to contend that the Police Officers have committed offence in this regard. The provisions of Section 4 of the S. C. /s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 fasten criminal liability on the public servants, who wilfully neglect their duties required to be performed by them under the Act and make punishable for imprisonment for a term not less than six months and may extend up to one year. In order to invoke Section 4 of the Act against the Investigation Officers, there should (be) necessary and proper averments of facts to the effect that they have wilfully neglected their duties by not properly investigating the offence covered by Sections of S. C. /s. T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In what manner there is a failure to take steps on the part of the Investigation Officers is to be clearly stated. In the context of provision of Section 4 of the Act, if the averments made in the Private complaint in S. C. No. 50/99 is read, it does not suggest that necessary material showing ingredients of Section 4 has been made out to proceed against the Police Officers under the complaint in P. C. R. No. 251/2000. Therefore, I find that the Sessions Judge was justified in setting aside the order as against the respondents in Crl. P. Nos. 2312/02 and 2313/02. The said impugned order does not call for interference. ( 7 ) ON the contention of the petitioner that the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) has been committed is also untenable contention and it appears to be an after-thought with some oblique motive. The F. I. R. allegations and statements of C. W. 1 and 2 in S. C. No. 50/99 and the averments in 251/2001 does not state that the accused caused the murder of Vasanthi with an animus that she belongs to scheduled caste. The allegations disclose that deceased was friendly with the accused persons and that the complainant suspect some foul play on the part of the accused. The allegations disclose that deceased was friendly with the accused persons and that the complainant suspect some foul play on the part of the accused. In order to attract provision of Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, it is essential for the prosecution to show that the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a scheduled caste person is committed on the ground that such member is a member of scheduled caste. There are no necessary averments in the F. I. R. envisaged under sub-section (5) of Section 3 (2) of the SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. In that view of the matter, taking cognizance on the basis of private complaint by the J. M. F. C. appears to be bad in law and without exercisable jurisdiction. ( 8 ) IN the result, the revision petitions are dismissed and the proceedings in P. C. R. No. 251/2000 is quashed. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .