Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
BELLUNKE A.S., J.
Ashok - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2800 of 2010
Decided on : 15-05-2019
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 323, 506, 353 and 504 - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Section 3(1) (x) - Criminal intimidation – Criminal force to deter public - Whether the prosecution had proved beyond any reasonable doubt before the trial Court that the accused had committed offence punishable under Section 323, 353 and 504 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Whether the appellant-accused proves that the judgment of the trial Court is perverse, capricious against to the law and therefore, it is liable to be interfered with - What order - whether the tender is correct or not - whether was occasion for the accused to come to the Gram Panchayath and abuse the complainant for the tender issue This is first doubt one can reasonably raise - whether he had cleared bills pertaining to the work done by accused - whether any Lokayukth case has been filed on the officials of his office - complainant was working as Assistant Engineer in Panchayatraj Engineering Section, District Administrative at about 4.30 P.M. the complainant was on duty at that time, the accused approached the complainant and initiated quarrel with respect to a tender of Hunnur Clean Village - He abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted him voluntarily. At that time, a driver working in the said office i.e., P.W.2(CW.4) Mohan Dodamani interfered and tried to pacify the accused - Accused assaulted the said Mohan Dodamani and also abused him in filthy language as thus, he insulted PW2 by taking the name of his caste. Therefore, a compliant was filed by the complainant in the concerned Police station - Crime No.69/2009 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Held, allegation is totally not forthcoming from the evidence. Once a doubt is raised about misusing the caste by a member of SC in order to aggravate the case, then corroboration by independent witnesses is a must. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of case, reasonable inference can be drawn that PW2 has been used as a dice in order to make the incident one - Having regard to that inference, I find that the evidence of PW1, 2 and 5 cannot be believed without due corroboration by independent witnesses. Admittedly, the independent witness examined has not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, I find that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Hence, the point No.1 answered in the negative and point No.2 answered in the affirmative. The appeal filed by the appellant-accused is bound to be allowed - Appeal is allowed
Bellunke A.S., J.
This appeal filed by the appellant-accused against the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.09.2010, passed by the Special (Sessions) Judge, Bagalkot, for the offences punishable under Section 323, 353 and 504 of IPC and for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under :
The complainant was working as Assistant Engineer in Panchayatraj Engineering Section, District Administrative Bhavan, Navanagar, Bagalkot. On 19.08.2009 at about 4.30 P.M. the complainant was on duty at that time, the accused approached the complainant and initiated quarrel with respect to a tender of Hunnur Clean Village. He abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted him voluntarily. At that time, a driver working in the said office i.e., P.W.2(CW.4) Mohan Dodamani interfered and tried to pacify the accused. The accused assaulted the said Mohan Dodamani and also abused him in filthy language as 'Madara Sule Magane' thus, he insulted PW2 by taking the name of his caste. Therefore, a compliant was filed by the complainant in the concerned Police station. A crime No.69/2009 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police of Bagalkot Sub-Division conducted the investigation in the said case. Spot panchanama was conducted. The statement of witnesses was recorded. Documents were collected. After completing the investigation, the said Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 323, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, before the Special Court. The Court took Cognizance of the alleged offences. The special case was registered.
4. The learned Judge after hearing both sides framed charge against the accused for the alleged offences. The accused was on anticipatory bail as per the order passed by the trial Court in Crl.Misc. No.262/2009 dated 1.9.2009 and his bail application under Section 439 was allowed on 24.11.2009 subject to certain conditions.
5. After holding the trial, the learned Judge found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 353, 504 and 506 of IPC and also for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence was passed.
6. The said judgment of conviction and sentence has been challenged by the accused on following grounds.
1. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Special (Sessions) Judge, is illegal and arbitrary since the same has been passed without considering the material facts, circumstances, documents and evidence on record.
2. The learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate that the PW2 and the accused are strangers and they don't know each other.
3. The Trial court failed to appreciate that the PW4 is the only eye witness in the present case and who has turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case.
4. PW1, 2 and 5 are not trustworthy as they are colleagues working in the same office. No independent witnesses has supported the case of prosecution.
5. The Trial court failed to appreciate fact that PW1 and PW2 were discharging their duties as public servants at the time of incident as such section 353 of IPC is not attracted.
6. There is delay in filing the complaint. Because, the distance between the police station and the office premises is 10 minutes walk.
7. Caste certificate produced by the IO is not affixed with round seal. Because, without affixing seal Tahasildar could not have issue the caste certificate.
8. Trail Court failed to appreciate the fact that there is no corroborative evidence. The statement of the prosecution witnesses is inconsistent.
9. It is contended that the compla
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
