The court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, while affirming the conviction for assault under Section 323 IPC with a modified fine.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri S.S. Aspalli, learned counsel, for the appellant-accused and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader, for the respondent-State.

2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case No.3/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocity Act, is sentenced as under:

“The accused is hereby sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in-default S.I. for one month of the offence punishable under Section 323 of INDIAN PENAL CODE and further he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in- default S.I. for two months of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (P.A.) Act, 1989.

The sentences and in-default sentences shall run concurrently.

Considering the nature of the offence and the injury and humiliation sustained by the complainant, it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant acting under Section 357 of Cr.P.C. and the accused is directed to pay the said compensation to the complainant.”

3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged by the Bill Collector of GESCOM by name Hanumantha S/o. Bheemshin Singh with the Surpur Police on 31.10.2010, contending that he is working as a Bill Collector, (Grama Vidyut Prathinidhi (G.V.P.)) and he is resident of Vagangera. His duty is to visit the villages in and around Vagangera and supervise the electricity connection and collect the bill amount.

3.1 As a part of his job, on 31.10.2010 at about 09.00 a.m., he is said to have visited T. Bomanahalli Village for bill collection. At that juncture, the appellant herein belonging to Kurba Community approached him all of a sudden and abused him in filthy language taking out his caste name and enquired as to why the electricity connection has been disconnected to his house. Complainant replied to him stating that he is not responsible for the alleged disconnection and it is the duty of the Lineman.

3.2 Being enraged with such reply of the complainant, appellant herein said to have kicked him holding the shirt of the complainant and also tried to kick again. At that juncture, near the main entrance of the village, Irapa Kattimani and Devendrappa, who were proceeding near the place of incident, pacified the quarrel. After registering the case in Crime No.51/2010, the Police investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences.

4. Learned Special Judge secured the presence of the accused and framed the charges for the aforesaid offences after taking cognizance of the alleged offences.

5. Appellant pleaded not guilty, therefore, trial was held. In order to establish the case of prosecution, complainant got examined himself as PW1 and eight more witnesses were examined as PW2 to PW9. Among them, PW2 to 4 have supported the case of prosecution besides the complainant. PWs.5, 6 and 7 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.

6. Prosecution in all relied on seven documentary evidence, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P7, comprising of complaint, letter from GESCOM Department and Spot Mahazar. Exs.P4 and P5 are the portion of Exs.P6 and P7.

7. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Special Judge recorded the statement of the accused as i