The determination of whether an object constitutes a 'dangerous weapon' is fact-specific, and the absence of evidence supporting caste-based animosity led to the reversal of the conviction under the SC/ST Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction dtd. 23/12/2011 and order on sentence dtd. 24/12/2011 passed in Special Case No.31/2011 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Mysuru, convicting the appellant - accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 504 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short hereinafter referred to as " IPC ") and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act").

2. The appellant - accused has been sentenced to pay fine of Rs.200.00, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for ten days for the offence under Sec. 341 of IPC; further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months for the offence under Sec. 504 of IPC; further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.3, 000.00, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sec. 326 of IPC and further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500.00, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for fifteen days, for the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that; PW1 - Sri.Nagaesh, S/o Sri.Shivannanaika (complainant) is the resident of Kottegala village, residing with his wife and children in the house standing in the name of his mother which is abutting the house of Sri.Krishnegowda, father of the appellant - accused. There is a live-hedge in between the house of PW1 and Sri.Krishnegowda. There was a dispute between PW1 and the said Sri.Krishnegowda in respect of the said fence, since four years prior to filing of the complaint. Three days earlier to the incident, the appellant - accused has cut the branches of one jungle wood tree grown in the said live-hedge in the absence of PW1 and at that time, when the wife of PW1 enquired, the appellant - accused abused her in filthy language. Thereafter, PW1 enquired one Sri.Venkatesh Naika. He told that the tree belongs to PW1 and he could cut and take the same. A day prior to the date of the incident, at about 6.00 pm., PW1 cut the branches of the said tree. on the next day ie., on 13/2/2011 at about 7.30 pm, when PW1 was coming from the tank towards his house, the appellant - accused restrained him, abused him taking his caste name and enquired as to why he has cut the tree situated in the live-hedge and abused PW1 in filthy language. When PW1 requested the appellant - accused not to abuse him, the appellant - accused went and brought chopper from his house and came to assault PW1. At that time, father of the appellant - accused and brothers of the appellant - accused also came to assault PW1. One Sri.Chandrappanaika snatched the chopper from the hands of the appellant - accused. The appellant - accused picked up a stone from the ground and threw it at PW1 and it hit the head of PW1, as a result, he sustained bleeding injury. One Sri.Venkatesh Naika, Sri.Mancha Naika and Sri.Swamy Naika came and pacified the quarrel. PW1 was taken to Government Hospital, Hunsur. The Police Sub-Inspector who received the memo from the Government Hospital, Hunsur, went to the Government Hospital, Hunsuru and recorded the statement of PW1 and registered the case. After completing the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against this appellant - accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 341, 504, 326 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act.

4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs.1 to 3. The statement of the appellant - accused has been recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C.

5. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the Trial Court framed the points for consideration and convicted the appellant - accused for the offences under Ss. 341, 504, 326 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said judgment of conviction and order on sentence has been challenged by the appellant -