Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 932
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
K.L. MANJUNATH and H.S. KEMPANNA, JJ.
NAYYU @ NAYAZ AND OTHERS —Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 603 of 2009
Decided on : 02-01-2013
Advocate Appeared:
V. Srinivasa, for the Appellant
P.M. Nawaz, for the Respondent
The prosecution must provide evidence to prove that the accused committed the offences because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste in order to establish the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Headnote:
Conviction - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3(2)(v)
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for various offences including gang rape and causing hurt under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the appellants, knowing the victim's Scheduled Caste status, committed the offences. The appellants challenged the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offences because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste. The court noted that there was no evidence to support the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution proved that the appellants committed the offences because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the mere fact that the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste was not sufficient to attract the provisions of the Act. It emphasized the need for evidence to support the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while confirming the conviction and sentence for other offences. The accused were given the benefit of Section 428 for the period of detention undergone during the trial.
K.L. MANJUNATH, J.-The present appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. challenging the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Ramanagara dt.7.7.2008 in Special (Sessions) Case No. 1/2007.
2. The appellants were tried for the offences punishable under Sections- 323, 324, 326, 376(2)(g) IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C.S.T. (POA) Act 1989, wherein they have been convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC., and also to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs, 1000-00 each with default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. They are further sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each with default sentence of RI for six months for the offence punishable under Section 376(2) (g) of IPC and they are also sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is further ordered to substantive sentence for all the offences shall run concurrently.
3. Heard Sri. V. Srinivasa, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. P.M. Nawaz, Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the State.
4. Though several grounds are urged in support of the appeal Memo, at the time of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants requests the Court to reconsider only the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellants to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In other words, the appellants are not challenging the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against them for other offences.
5. In the circumstances, we are considering this appeal only in regard to the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in respect of the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
6. In order to consider the case of the Prosecution in regard to the aforesaid conviction and sentence, it would be appropriate for us to narrate the case of the prosecution.
7. It is the case of the prosecution that on 9.3.2005 at about 7.30 p.m., complainant Sannibai PW18 was returning to her home after completion of day's work. When she was near Addahalla culvert, the accused persons wrongfully restrained her and carried her to a dilapidated house, and forcibly inter-coursed on her by one after the other and caused bite injury on her left thigh and also on her private parts of the body and inflicted the injuries with the knife MO9 and left her in the dilapidated house. PW18 however managed to reach her house and reported the incidence to her sister PW1 Munnibai and her brother-in-law PW2 Mariya Naika. On the next day, she went to Kanakapura General Hospital alongwith PW1 for treatment and a case was registered against the accused persons based on the information received by the Police. A2 was arrested and A1 and A3 surrendered before the Court. Charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Ramanagara as rape was committed on PW18 who belongs to Scheduled Caste (Lambani by caste ) for the aforesaid offences. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, they were tried for the aforesaid offences.
8. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWs. 1 to PW28, Exs.P1 to P35 and M.Os.1 to 22. The Special Court recorded the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and the appellants denied the in criminative statement in the evidence of the prose
