Back
2011 Supreme(Kar) 867
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
B.V. Pinto, J.
Hanumanthappa and Another — Appellant
Vs.
State By Davanagere Rural Police — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1131 of 2004 (SJ)
Decided on : 29-03-2011
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. C. Shivakumar, for the Appellants, for the Appellant.
Mr. Sathish R. Girji, HCGP, For the Respondent.
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence presented must be consistent and reliable.
Headnote:
IPC - Appeal against conviction under Sections 147, 323, 325, 508 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 147, 323, 325, 508, 149 IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - The court discussed the evidence and discrepancies in the case, including the date of the incident, injuries sustained, and the validity of the caste certificate. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against the conviction of the accused for various offences including assault and abuse under IPC and Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution alleged that the accused formed an unlawful assembly, assaulted individuals, and abused them based on their caste.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution, including conflicting dates of the incident, lack of visible injuries, and validity of the caste certificate. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: Discrepancies in evidence, validity of caste certificate, lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and highlighted the need for consistent and reliable evidence. It also stressed the significance of valid documentation and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the accused of all charges.
B.V. PINTO, J.—This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 2.7.2004, passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere in Spl. SC/ST Case No. 59/2000 convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 323, 325 and 508 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence under Section 147 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, further sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, further sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable tinder Section 325 IPC read with Section 149 IPC and further sentencing them to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, further sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.8.1.996 at about 5 p.m.., near the vacant site of one Kumarappa situated at Janatha Colony at Kogganur village, the accused forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object, of hurting C.W. 1 Kumarappa committed rioting thereby, they are charged for having committed an offence punishable under Section 147 IPC. It is further charged against them that on the above said place, date and time in furtherance of the common object, knowing fully well that C.Ws. 1 and 2 belong to scheduled caste community abused them by taking the name of their caste within the public view thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 149 IPC. It Is further charged against them that on the aforesaid date, place and time, the accused Nos. I to 3 voluntarily caused hurt to C.W. 1 Kumarappa thereby, they are alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 149 IPC. It is further charged against the accused that on the aforesaid date, place and time, the accused have assaulted C.W. 2 Anjinappa and caused grievous injury to him, thereby, they are alleged to be guilty of an offence punishable under Section 325 IPC read with 149 IPC, It is further charged against them that on the aforesaid date, place and time, they have committed offence of criminal intimidation by threatening C.Ws. 1 and 2 to finish them of, thereby, they are alleged to have committed offence under Section 506 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
3. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined in all 9 witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P8.
4. 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 convict, and sentenced them as mentioned above. The convicted accused have filed this appeal.
5. Heard Sri C. Shiva Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri Satish R. Girji, learned HCGP for the respondent State.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that out of 9 witnesses examined in this case, P.Ws. 2 to 5 have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W. 1 has stated before the Court that he has given the complaint, 2 days after the date of incident, whereas, the prosecution papers indicate that the complaint has been given on 4.6.1996, stating that incident has happened on 3.6.1996. Hence, he submits that there is discrepancy regarding the actual date on which the incident has happened. He further submits that the place where the incident is alleged to have happened is the vacant site and therefore, the ingredients of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not attracte
