Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 1229 (KAR)

Husainsab v. State Of Karnataka

2020-06-25

B.A.PATIL, M.G.UMA

body2020
JUDGMENT M.G.Uma, J. - Accused Nos.1 to 4 as appellants are before this Court aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/6/2017 passed in SC No.70/2013 on the file of the II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court"), whereunder all the accused were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 341, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the S.C. and S.T.(P.O.A.) Act. 2. We have heard Sri K.L. Patil on behalf of Sri Santosh B. Mane, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.M. Banakar, learned Addl. SPP for the respondent-State. 3. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution against the accused are that on 18/7/2013 at about 7.45 p.m. when the informant Rajkumar Rangappa Madar, was proceeding alone, near Muchakhandi towards Sulikeri village, accused Nos.1 to 4 and four others have wrongfully restrained him, abused him in filthy language, for the reason that he had shown the house of the accused, in criminal case to the police. Accused No.1 assaulted the informant with an axe on his head, accused No.2 assaulted with stone, accused No.3 assaulted with an axe on the forehead and accused No.4 assaulted with an axe on the left cheek near the left ear and caused injuries, as result of which, the injured fell on the road and on seeing his condition, al l the accused thought that he had already dead and went away from the seen of offence. It is stated by the informant in his first information that from the seen of offence he got up and again proceeded towards his village and PW-5- Muttappa Jumkmanna Bhajantri came to his aid and accompanied him till his house and informed the fact to the mother and wife of the informant. He further stated that since he was in unconscious state due to the injuries sustained by him, he could not lodge the first information immediately. He stated that he knows the names of accused Nos.1 to 4 but does not know the names of other four persons, who have also wrongfully restrained and assaulted him. He further stated that since he was in unconscious state due to the injuries sustained by him, he could not lodge the first information immediately. He stated that he knows the names of accused Nos.1 to 4 but does not know the names of other four persons, who have also wrongfully restrained and assaulted him. It is stated further that all the accused with a common intention wrongfully restrained and abused him in filthy language referring him as 'Holeya' and also criminally intimidated and assaulted with axe, stone, club and hands causing bleeding injuries. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case. 4. On the basis of the first information lodged by the informant, Crime No.109/2013 of Kerur Police station was registered. 5. After investigation, the charge sheet was came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the above said offences and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the matter after following the procedure as contemplated under Sections 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C., committed the matter to the Principal District and Sessions Court at Bagalkot which inturn made over it to the trial Court, which had secured the presence of the accused and framed the charge. The accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. After hearing the learned public prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused the trial was fixed. The prosecution has examined 12 witnesses, got marked 13 documents and identified two material objects in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. 7. The trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and convicted the accused for the offences alleged against them. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the accused have preferred this appeal seeking interference of this Court on various grounds. 9. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that initially the first information was filed against in all eight persons. But inspite of that, in the charge sheet, there is no reference to the remaining four accused persons. The first information lodged by the informant itself creates a doubt about its genuinity. 9. The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that initially the first information was filed against in all eight persons. But inspite of that, in the charge sheet, there is no reference to the remaining four accused persons. The first information lodged by the informant itself creates a doubt about its genuinity. The allegation regarding abusing the informant in filthy language referring to his caste was subsequently inserted to attract the provision of SC/ST (POA) Act. Moreover, the allegations made in the first information do not attract any of the provision of the special enactment or of IPC. Even though the incident said to have taken place on 18/7/2013 at 7.45 p.m., the FIR was registered on 19/7/2013 at 3.15 p.m. The said FIR reached the Jurisdictional Magistrate only at 8.00 p.m. on 19/7/2013. This itself creates a doubt regarding the case made out by the prosecution at the initial stage. None of the material witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the prosecution case rests only on the interested version of first informant-PW-3. 10. He further submitted that the allegations made by the informant against the accused about assaulting with axe, club and stone do not get support from the medical evidence. Even the Investigating Officer has not recovered any of those weapons said to have been used by the accused. Admittedly, the informant PW-3 do not belongs to Holeya community and the alleged incident had not occurred within public view. Under such circumstances, none of the provisions of law quoted by the Investigating Officer can be invoked against the accused. Even the interested testimony of the informant examined as PW-3 is also not consistent. There are material contradictions and omissions. Even though the prosecution relies on the alleged motive for the accused to commit the offence, said motive remains a bare allegation, without any proof. 11. It is further submitted that even according to the informant, he was intoxicated and was proceeding on a vil lage road. He might have fallen on the road and might have sustained some injuries. Taking advantage of the same, these accused were falsely implicated to make the wrongful gain and allegations are made against the accused for having assaulted with deadly weapons like axe, club and stone. 12. He might have fallen on the road and might have sustained some injuries. Taking advantage of the same, these accused were falsely implicated to make the wrongful gain and allegations are made against the accused for having assaulted with deadly weapons like axe, club and stone. 12. He further submitted that when the version of the sole witness PW-3 do not inspire confidence in the mind of the Court and that there are no eye witnesses to the incident, it is not just and proper to convict the accused on such uncorroborated version of the interested witness. The prosecution has even failed to make out prima facie case against these accused. But inspite of that, the trial Court proceeded to convict the accused for all the offences al leged, without any basis, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 13. The learned Advocate further submitted that it is not proved that the accused knowing fully well that PW-3 belonging to either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe deliberately, with a criminal intention abused him in the caste name. Under such circumstances, the conviction of the accused under the provisions of the said enactment cannot be justified. Therefore, he relied on the decision in KHUMAN SINGH VS. STATE MADYA PRADESH, (2019) AIR SC 4030 and seeks interference of the Court to acquit all the accused for all the charges leveled against them, in the interest of justice. 14. Per contra, the learned Additional SPP submitted that accused Nos.1 to 4 and PW-3 belonging to the same village and they were knowing each other. After knowing his caste as belongs to scheduled tribe and since accused Nos.1 to 4 were under the impression that it was PW-3 who showed their house to the police in connection with a criminal case, committed the offence with an intention to cause the death and to defame him in the name of his caste. PW-3 the injured eye witness deposed before the trial Court with regard to the commission of the offence in clear terms. He had even identified accused Nos.1 to 4 before the Court, there is no mistaken identify of these accused. Under such circumstance, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is justified and do not call for any interference. He had even identified accused Nos.1 to 4 before the Court, there is no mistaken identify of these accused. Under such circumstance, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court is justified and do not call for any interference. He submitted that since there are no good grounds for the appellant to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, he prays for dismissal as devoid of merits. 15. We have carefully perused the materials on record, including the Trial Court records in the light of the submissions made by the learned advocates representing the parties. 16. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 4 with other four unknown persons illegally restrained the informant while he was proceeding on the village road leading from Muchakhandi towards Sulikeri, on 18/7/2013 at 7.45 p.m. as they were under the impression that it was PW-3 who had shown their house to the police in connection with a criminal case which was already registered and with an intention to cause his death, assaulted him with deadly weapons like axe, club and stone and caused grievous injures. Further accused with criminal intent abused him in filthy language by addressing him with his caste and thereby they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 307, 341, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the S.C. and S.T.(P.O.A.) Act. 17. To prove this contention, the prosecution examined PWs.1 and 2 who are panch witnesses to the spot panchanama Ex.P1 wherein MOs.1 to 3 and three stones were recovered from the seen of offence. Both these witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have treated hostile. PW-4 is said to be the friend of PW-3 who had accompanied the informant earlier to the incident and left mid away. This witness also not fully supported the case of the prosecution for the reasons best known to him. PW-5 is the villager who shifted the injured to the hospital and informed about the incident to his wife and mother. This witness also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-6 is the wife and PW-7 is the mother of PW-3, both of them have stated about the information which they had received from the injured. Therefore, both of them are hearsay witnesses. This witness also not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-6 is the wife and PW-7 is the mother of PW-3, both of them have stated about the information which they had received from the injured. Therefore, both of them are hearsay witnesses. PW-8 is the father of PW-3 who admitted the injured to the hospital for treatment. PW-9 is the Doctor who examined the injured and issued the wound certificate as per Ex.P5 and his opinion as per Ex.P6. PW-10 is the ASI who registered the first information report as per Ex.P7. PW-11 is the Dy.S.P. and PW-12 is the investigation officer who conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 18. On perusal of these materials on record, it is clear that we have the evidence of PW-3 injured eye-witness and the alleged first information as per Ex.P2. We have also gone through the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured and issued wound certificate and given his opinion about the nature of the injury. We have also perused the evidence of PW.12-the Investigating Officer. We have to consider the evidence of PW-3 injured eyewitness to know as to whether the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. PW-3 in his evidence stated that he belongs to 'Madar' community and the accused belong to Muslim community and they are from his village. On 18/7/2013 he along with PW.4-Yamanappa Yankappa Goudar have gone to Bagalkot on the motorcycle and while returning back, they purchased two quarter liquor and consumed the same near Durgammanagudi of Muchakhandi village. In the meantime, PW.4-Yamanappa Yankappa Goudar received a phone call and he went on his motorcycle saying that he has some urgent work but did not return back even though informant waited for about 10-15 minutes. Therefore, he started towards Sulikeri village by walk. When he came near Pattar Mutyana Gudi, accused Nos.1 to 4 and four other persons illegally restrained him after questioning that he had shown their houses to the police and abused him in filthy language, referring to him as 'Holeya'. Accused No.1 assaulted with an axe on the back of head, accused No.2 assaulted with stone on the back, accused No.3 assaulted with an axe on the forehead and accused No.4 with an axe on the left cheek near the ear. Accused No.1 assaulted with an axe on the back of head, accused No.2 assaulted with stone on the back, accused No.3 assaulted with an axe on the forehead and accused No.4 with an axe on the left cheek near the ear. Therefore, he sustained bleeding injuries on his head, shoulder, near the mouth and fell on the ground. The accused abused him again and thinking that they have finished the injured, they went away from the seen of offence. It was 7.45 p.m. in the night that the incident had taken place. Witness further stated that when he was returning towards his village, he met PW-5-Muttappa Jumanna Bhajantri who assisted him to reach the house. In the meantime, his wife Suvarna Rajakumar Madar, mother-Kamalawwa Rangappa Madar have came and all of them together shifted him to the District hospital, Bagalkot for treatment. Witness stated that since he was unconscious, he could not lodge the complaint immediately but fi led the complaint on 19/7/2013. He himself had filed the complaint as per Ex.P2 and police received the same. But this witness has not identified the stones shown to him by the learned Public Prosecutor and also stated that he had not given further statement before the police to the fact that the accused have not assaulted him with axe and club. Therefore this witness was treated as hostile and the public prosecutor cross examined him. Even during the cross examination by the prosecutor, witness denied the suggestion that the accused assaulted him with the sharp edged stone and caused injuries and they have not assaulted with axe or club. He also denied and he had given further statement as per Ex.P4. 19. During cross examination by the counsel for accused, witness stated that he had studied up to II PUC and he was an agricultural coolie. He admitted that 'Holeya' and 'Madar' community are different from one another. He admitted that at the seen of offence, there were no light and also admitted that on the date of incident it had rained. He reiterated that accused Nos.1 and 3 have assaulted him with axe, accused Nos.2 and 4 with club. He also stated that due to the injuries sustained by him, the pant and shirt worn by him were stained with blood. The mud at the seen of offence also stained with blood. He reiterated that accused Nos.1 and 3 have assaulted him with axe, accused Nos.2 and 4 with club. He also stated that due to the injuries sustained by him, the pant and shirt worn by him were stained with blood. The mud at the seen of offence also stained with blood. But he had not handed over the blood stained cloths to the police, nor the police have collected the blood stain mud from the scene of offence. Witness stated that at the scene of offence, there were no houses in the nearby places and far away from the said place, there were sheds. 20. Witness pleaded his ignorance whether the axe used by the accused were recovered by the police or not. Witness stated that apart from accused Nos.1 to 4, four others also assaulted him. But he does not know their names. He denied the suggestion that he lodged the false complaint against accused Nos.1 to 4 with an intention to make wrongful gain for himself. He denied the suggestion that since he was a drunker and since he had consumed alcohol on the date of alleged incident, he had fallen and had sustained injures. Even during cross examination he had not identified the stones which has been produced by the prosecution as the weapon used for commission of offence. 21. Pw-4 Yamanappa Yankappa Goudar is the friend of PW-3 who had accompanied him on the date of incident to go to Bagalkot. Witnesses supported the say of PW3 that both of them have consumed liquor and after sometime, he went away from the scene of offence on his motor cycle. But this witness stated that after sometime, he came on his motorcycle and found accused Nos.1 to 4 assaulting him with axe and stone and caused bleeding injuries. Immediately, he took the injured PW-3 towards his house. PW-5 Muttappa Bhajantri had also joined him and they informed this fact to the wife and mother of the injured, who have shifted the injured to the District Hospital, Bagalkot. However, this witness stated that he had not stated before the police that he had witnessed the incident where the accused have abused and referred PW-3 with his caste or assaulting him. He has also stated that he had not seen nor heard the abuse by the accused. Therefore, this witness was treated as hostile. However, this witness stated that he had not stated before the police that he had witnessed the incident where the accused have abused and referred PW-3 with his caste or assaulting him. He has also stated that he had not seen nor heard the abuse by the accused. Therefore, this witness was treated as hostile. But during the course of cross examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, this witness admitted that the accused have assaulted PW-3 with sharp edged stones and abused him in filthy language by referring to his caste and caused injuries. 22. During the course of cross examination by the learned Advocate for the accused witness stated that when he went in search of PW-3 on his motorcycle, he saw four persons who were abusing PW-3 and he had seen PW-3 with bleeding injuries on his head and face. PW-3 informed that accused have assaulted him with axe and stone. 23. Pw-9 is the Dr.Raghunathrao Martandarao who treated the injured for his injuries. He stated that PW-3 came to the District Hospital at Bagalkot on 18/7/2013 at 9.30 p.m. with history of injury as a result of assault. He sustained one lacerated injury over the lip on left side, one cut incised injury over forehead, three cut incised wounds over occipital region and all the injuries were grievous in nature. He opined that all these injures could be caused if a person is assaulted with sharp and heavy object. 24. During cross examination this witness stated that the injured was conscious when he came to the hospital, he was given the first aid and he informed the police regarding MLC at about 10.30p.m. He admitted that the injuries mentioned in the wound certificate Ex.P5 cannot be caused with the stones which are produced before the Court. He stated that only if a person is assaulted with sharp edged object, the said injuries could be caused. 25. If all the materials on record are taken into consideration, it is clear that the informant had given the first information as per Ex.P2 on 19/7/2013 at 3.15 p.m. even though the incident had taken place on 18/7/2013 at 7.45 p.m. The reason assigned by PW-3 for the delay in lodging the complaint is that he was unconscious as a result of the injuries sustained by him. But this version of PW-3 is not supported by PW-9, the Medical Officer who treated him for the injuries. This witness stated that PW-3 was conscious when he came to the hospital. He had given the first aid treatment and informed regarding the history of assault given by the witness to the police at 10.30p.m. on the same day. The prosecution has not explained as to why there was such a delay in registering the FIR. 26. It is pertinent to note that even though in the wound certificate-Ex.5, the history of injuries is mentioned as assault, the names of the assailants are not mentioned. It assumes importance when according to PW3, he knew accused Nos.1 to 4 by name as they belong to his vil lage. 27. Further on perusal of the first information which is as per Ex.P2, it contains 2 pages and creates reasonable suspicion in the mind of the Court regarding its genuinity. It appears that in the 2nd page, some more information is deliberately added which includes the allegation that accused have abused the informant referring to his caste. By reading the first information, it appears that some of the allegations are made deliberately. Further such allegations are never corroborated by any of the prosecution witnesses. Therefore Ex.P2 the first information does not inspire confidence of the Court to rely on the same. 28. It is the contention of the prosecution that from the scene of the offence, M.Os.1 and 2 were seized under the spot mahazar Ex.P1. Strangely the injured eye witness PW3 never identified those stones, as the same were used for assaulting him. On the other hand, PW-3 consistently stated that accused Nos.1 to 4 have assaulted him with axe and club, whi le lodging first information and also while deposing before the Court. But strangely none of these weapons were recovered by the investigating officer. There is no reference to any stone with which the accused have assaulted PW-3, as referred to in the first information or in the evidence. Under such circumstances, serious doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the contention of the prosecution. 29. But strangely none of these weapons were recovered by the investigating officer. There is no reference to any stone with which the accused have assaulted PW-3, as referred to in the first information or in the evidence. Under such circumstances, serious doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the contention of the prosecution. 29. One more circumstance which is to be highlighted is that, as per the injured eye witness, apart from accused Nos.1 to 4, there were 4 other accused, who have also assaulted him and abused him in filthy language, but he could not identify them. Even after detailed investigation, investigating officer had no clue, as to who are those assailants who infact assaulted PW-3. 30. It is the specific contention taken by the injured eye witness that he had consumed alcohol just before the incident and while proceeding alone, accused came and wrongfully restrained, abused and assaulted him with axe, stone and club. It appears that the accused had made an attempt to contend that PW3 in the state of intoxication, fel l on the rough surface and had sustained injuries. PW9 the doctor who treated PW-3, in his evidence, stated that the injuries sustained by PW3 could be caused by any heavy sharp edged weapon. Strangely M.O.1 and 2 were not shown to this witness even at the time of evidence before the Court. He never stated that those injuries mentioned in the wound certificate Ex.P5 could be caused if the injured was assaulted with such stones. Even though the opinion of the doctor was obtained as per Ex.P6, there is no reference to any stone or to axe or club but the doctor only refers that the injuries could be caused by heavy sharp edged weapon. It is pertinent to note that during cross examination, this witness specifically admitted that the injuries mentioned in Ex.P5 could not be caused, if the injured was assaulted with stone that are before the Court. However, he denied the suggestion that those injuries could be caused if a person intoxicated, falls on rough surface. From the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured eye witness, it is clear that the stones that are produced before the Court could not be the weapon with which he was assaulted. Even according to PW-3, he was assaulted with axe, stone and club but not with MO1 and 2. From the evidence of the doctor who treated the injured eye witness, it is clear that the stones that are produced before the Court could not be the weapon with which he was assaulted. Even according to PW-3, he was assaulted with axe, stone and club but not with MO1 and 2. Strangely neither the axe nor the club is before the Court. Under such circumstances, there is no corroboration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, in order to connect the accused and the weapons with the injuries sustained by PW- 3. 31. The prosecution has invoked Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the purpose of brevity) the relevant portion is extracted as under: "3.Punishments for offences of atrocities.- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Schedule Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (i)-(ix)xxxxxx (x) intentional ly insults or intimidates with intent to humi l iate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within publ ic view;" "3.(2)Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (i)-(iv)xxxxxx (v)commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property (knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member), shal l be punishable with imprisonment for l i fe and with fine;" 32. Bare reading of this provision discloses that there must be intentional insult to humiliate the member of the schedule caste or scheduled tribe in any place within public view. In the present case, PW-3 specifically stated that he belongs to 'Madar' community, which is a schedule tribe. He also stated that the accused did not belong to his community and all of the accused belonged to 'Muslim' community. He also speaks about intentional insult with an intention to humiliate him, but he never states that the incident was viewed by any of the public. On the other hand, the first information and the evidence of the injured eye witness disclose that, the incident had taken place in a remote place where there were no person in the nearby place. 33. On the other hand, the first information and the evidence of the injured eye witness disclose that, the incident had taken place in a remote place where there were no person in the nearby place. 33. Ex.P13 is the spot sketch drawn by the investigating officer. Even as per this document, the incident had taken place in a deserted and remote area, far away from the kaccha road leading from Sulikeri to Muchakhandi tanda. Unless the case is made out that there were utterance of words in the public view and unless it discloses that the occurrence had taken place in a public view, the provision of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act cannot be invoked. This proposition of law is laid down by this Court in CHANDRA POOJARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SESHADRIPURAM POLICE, BANGALORE, (1997) 4 KarLJ 81 wherein it is held as under: "7. To attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is necessary that it should be in a place where publ ic could view the incident. In support of this argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the decision rendered by this Court in B.N.Channegowda and Another v. State of Karnatataka Cri.P.No.1449 OF 1995, DD: 27-1-1997, wherein this Court has held: "It is also stated that al l these words were uttered in the private chamber of the petitioner and not in publ ic view and no other person was present". In this case also the complaint does not disclose that the occurrence had taken place in publ ic view." 34. Further PW3 categorically states that the accused have abused him by referring him as 'Holeya'. He admits that he does not belong to 'Holeya' community, but he belongs to 'Madar' community, which was not referred to by any of the accused. Under such circumstances, there is nothing on record to suggest that the offence was committed against the injured belonging to ''Madar' community, which is a schedule tribe. Under such circumstances, Section 3(1)(x) or Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, cannot be invoked. 35. The basic requirement of law to attract the provision of law under the special enactment is that the accused committed the offence only because PW3 belonged to scheduled tribe. Unless that is proved by the prosecution, no offence could be made out against the accused. Under such circumstances, Section 3(1)(x) or Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, cannot be invoked. 35. The basic requirement of law to attract the provision of law under the special enactment is that the accused committed the offence only because PW3 belonged to scheduled tribe. Unless that is proved by the prosecution, no offence could be made out against the accused. This proposition of law was laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in KHUMAN SINGH Vs.STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (supra) wherein it is held: "12.From the evidence and other materials on record, there is nothing to suggest that the of fence was committed by the appel lant only because the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Both the trial court and the High Court recorded the f inding that the appel lant-accused scolded the deceased Veer Singh that he belongs to "Khangar" Caste and how he could drive away the cattle of the person belonging to "Thakur" Caste and therefore, the appel lant-accused has committed the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Section 3 of the said Act deals with the punishments for offences of atrocities committed under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act reads as under: "Section 3-Punishments for offences of atrocities- (1) . (2)Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, (v)commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shal l be punishable with imprisonment for l ife and with fine." The object of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act is to provide for enhanced punishment with regard to the of fences under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that the victim is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe." 36. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in DINESH @ BUDDHA Vs. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in DINESH @ BUDDHA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN, (2006) AIR SC 1267 wherein it is held: "15.Sine qua non for appl ication of Section 3(2)(v) is that an offence must have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case no evidence has been led to establ ish this requirement. It is not case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) has no appl ication. Had Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act been appl icable then by operation of law, the sentence would have been imprisonment for l ife and fine." 37. In the case on hand, there is no evidence to show that all the offences were committed only on the ground that the victim is the member of the schedule tribe and therefore the conviction of the appellants/accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is not sustainable. 38. From the discussions held above, it is clear that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences alleged, for which they were charged. Under such circumstances, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and they are to be acquitted. 39. We have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. The trial Court committed an error in relying on the evidence of PW3 and by ignoring all the inconsistencies and improbabil ities proceeded to convict the accused on presumptions and assumptions. It has also lost sight of the requirements of law to prove the offence. Under such circumstances, impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside and the accused are entitled to be acquitted. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/06/2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in SC No.70/2013, is set aside. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: ORDER Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28/06/2017 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot in SC No.70/2013, is set aside. The accused Nos.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 307 read with Section 34 of IPC under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the S.C. and S.T.(P.O.A.) Act. The bail bonds executed by accused Nos.1 to 4 and the surety bonds stand cancelled. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount deposited by the accused, if any, after proper identification. Registry is directed to send back the trial Court records.