Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 324 (KAR)

State By Rural Police, Tumkur v. Krishnappa

2011-03-22

B.V.PINTO

body2011
JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment dated 16.7.2003, passed by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S.C. No. 152/2001 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) and (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 323 read with 34 IPC. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.11.1991 at about 7.30 p.m., in Vokkodi village, Harijan Colony accused had tried to outrage the modesty of P.W. 1 Nagarathnamma knowing that she belongs to schedule caste community and abused her in the name of her caste, thereby, they are alleged to have committed offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Further, it is alleged that the accused have assaulted by hands and caused her bodily pain and thereby, they have committed offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC. 3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P5. The defence of the accused was one of total denial. However, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused holding that the prosecution has not proved the case against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The State has filed this appeal. 4. Heard Sri Vijaya Kumar Majage, learned HCGP for the appellant State and Sri Mahesh, learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned HCGP submits that the prosecution has proved the case against the accused. On the date of the offence, the respondents have tried to outrage the modesty of P.W. 1 Nagarathnarnma by entering into her house and removing her clothes. Further, he submits that the evidence of P.W. 1 coupled with the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 proves that the accused had assaulted her and has also taken the name of her caste as Madigiti, thereby, they have committed the offence charged against them. The learned Sessions Judge has erroneously acquitted the accused and submits that the appeal may be allowed and accused may be convicted. 6. 2 and 4 proves that the accused had assaulted her and has also taken the name of her caste as Madigiti, thereby, they have committed the offence charged against them. The learned Sessions Judge has erroneously acquitted the accused and submits that the appeal may be allowed and accused may be convicted. 6. On the other hand, Sri Mahesh, learned Counsel for the respondents submits that the P.W. 1 has admitted in her evidence that her blouse and saree was torn during the incident and that she has shown the said torn clothes to the police. The police have not seized the said clothes nor produced the same before the Court. He further submits that caste certificate issued by the Thasildhar is not proved, since, the Thasildhar is not examined. It is the case of the accused that they also belong to the bhovi community, which is a schedule caste, the prosecution has not investigated into the caste of the accused persons and hence, the order of learned Sessions Judge in acquitting the accused does not call for interference. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be dismissed. 7. The prosecution in this case commenced with the filing of the complaint with Tumkur Rural Police Station on 10.11.1991. It is stated in the complaint by Smt. Nagarathnamma that she is earning her livelihood by masonry work. On 9.11.1991 at about 7.30 p.m., when her husband was not in the house, the accused Balaraj and his brother Srinivasa came near her house and with previous enemity they abused her in filthy language and thereafter, entered into her house and tried to outrage her modesty. She screamed due to fear and came out from her house, at that time one Krishnappa and brother found outside the house. Her elder brother came running to the scene of occurrence, at that time Krishnappa and Ramesh assaulted her and her brother and caused bodily pain to her. People from her village namely Murthy, Doddaiah and Ganganarasamma came there and extricated from the clutches of the accused and hence, prayed for action according to law. Tumkur Rural Police Station registered the case in crime No. 305/1991, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 448, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and commenced investigation. People from her village namely Murthy, Doddaiah and Ganganarasamma came there and extricated from the clutches of the accused and hence, prayed for action according to law. Tumkur Rural Police Station registered the case in crime No. 305/1991, for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 448, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and commenced investigation. After completion of the investigation, the police have filed the charge sheet for the offences punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 8. P.W. 1 has reiterated the averment in the complaint while deposing before the Court. She has stated that the accused have dragged her, removed her clothes and tried to outrage her modesty. She was wearing saree and jacket. All the accused joined in dragging her by holding her. She was able to see the faces of the accused because of street light. When the accused removed the saree and jacket, she shouted and on hearing her voice, her brother Doddaiah came to the scene of occurrence. The accused have thereafter abused her in vulgar language and at the intervention of the villagers the accused ran away. On the next day, she filed a complaint before the police, Ex. P1 is the said complaint. She has stated that accused has tried to outrage her modesty due to previous enemity. Al is the father and A2 is the son, A3 and A4 are brothers. In the cross-examination, she has stated that, herself, her husband, A3 and A4 are working as masons at the same place together. She has denied the suggestion that earlier to the said incident, her husband had beaten A4 in respect of monetary transaction and related to the same transaction, a panchayath was held. In the further cross-examination, it is stated that at the time of incident her saree and jacket were torn, police saw them but did not seize the same. P.W. 2 Doddaiah Chikkarangaiah is the brother of P.W. 1. He has stated that on the date of the incident he saw accused dragging his sister by holding her saree and blouse. As soon as he went inside the house, the accused left the place seeing him and others. His house is situated at 30 feet away from the house of the complainant. He has stated that on the date of the incident he saw accused dragging his sister by holding her saree and blouse. As soon as he went inside the house, the accused left the place seeing him and others. His house is situated at 30 feet away from the house of the complainant. He has stated that the blouse and saree of his sister was not torn. His sister’s husband came on the next day morning and thereafter, himself, his sister and sister’s husband went to the police station to give complaint. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that he has given statement to the police stating that 4 accused have tried to dishonour his sister. By the time he reached the incident, the accused were already in the house. It, is suggested that false complaint has been filed by the complainant at his instance. P.Ws. 3 and 5 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, P.W. 4 has stated that the complainant belongs to Adikarnataka caste and his house is at a distance of 20 feet from the house of P.W. 1. He has further stated that when he went to the house of the complainant, he saw all the 4 accused dragging the complainant by holding her clothes. The saree was torn, the blouse was removed. As soon as he went inside, the accused had left the house. The incident lasted for one hour. In the cross-examination, he has denied the knowledge about the caste of the accused, he is also not aware of the avocation of the accused. The complainant is his niece and P.W. 2 Doddaiah is his relative. He does not remember whether the police have recorded the statement from him. He is not aware as to whether the complainant’s husband had beaten A4, in the earlier quarrel between them. However, he has admitted that by the time he reached the scene of occurrence, the Incident was almost over. About 20 to 30 people have gathered at the scene of occurrence. P.W. 6 is PSI of Tumkur Rural Police Station. He has stated that on the basis of the complaint, the police registered the said case in crime No. 302/91 as per Ex. P1. Ex. P2 is the spot mahazar. He has further recorded the statement of certain witnesses. About 20 to 30 people have gathered at the scene of occurrence. P.W. 6 is PSI of Tumkur Rural Police Station. He has stated that on the basis of the complaint, the police registered the said case in crime No. 302/91 as per Ex. P1. Ex. P2 is the spot mahazar. He has further recorded the statement of certain witnesses. P.W. 7 is the Inspector of Police who has conducted the investigation and has filed the charge sheet against the accused. He has produced the caste certificate of the complainant as per Ex. P3 issued by the Thasildhar Tumkur. In the cross-examination, he has stated that he has not verified about the caste of the accused. 9. It is from the evidence of above witnesses that the learned Sessions Judge has found the accused not guilty and acquitted them. 10. On the careful re-appreciation of the evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has not proved the case. The Thasildhar was not produced nor he was examined for having issued the caste certificate of the complainant. Under the circumstances, the fact that P.W. 1 belongs to Scheduled castes or Scheduled tribes is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is seen that the police have not investigated into the caste of the accused, though they say that they belong to bhovi community. P.W. 1 has stated that accused tried to abuse her by using the name of her caste. The said name is not found in the complaint Ex. P1 given by the complainant. It is the evidence of P.W. 1 that, saree and blouse were torn and she has shown the said saree and jacket to the police when they came for investigation, however, saree and blouse is not seized nor produced. Other witnesses have stated that saree or the blouse is not torn. In view of the discrepancy in the prosecution witnesses, I do not find any basis to convict the accused in such weak and ambiguous evidence on record. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In that view of the matter. I hold that this appeal does not merit any consideration and accordingly, this appeal is liable to be dismissed and therefore appeal is dismissed.