Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
N. Ananda and Pradeep D. Waingankar, JJ.
State By Terakanambi Police —Appellant
versus
Shivappa & Ors. —Respondents
Cri. Appeal No.698 of 2011 connected with Cri Appeal No.695 of 2012
Decided on 17.12.2014
For the Appellant:Vijaykumar Majage and P. Mahesha, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
It true that PW1 is illiterate person, he could not have lost sight of fact or forgotten his visit to Hospital if he visited Hospital.
Headnote:(i)Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(x) — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 324, 326, 341, 506 & 114 — Conviction under — PW1 suffered injuries — He gone to General Hospital in 10 hours — Distance between place of incident and General Hospital was 10 km. — PW1 not deposed where he treated for injuries — HELD — In circumstances evidence of Doctor and contents of wound certificate would create reasonable doubt. [Para 6]
(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 324, 326, 341, 506 & 114 — Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Section 3(1)(x) — Conviction under — PW2, junior uncle of PW1 deposed that on date of incident PW1 ploughing his land with Tractor — Versions of PW1 and PW2 contrary — PW2 not deposed that PW1 suffered grievous injuries — HELD — Evidence adduced by prosecution in proof of offences alleged against accused not free from reasonable doubt. [Para 7]
Result: Appeal No. 695 accepted & Appeal No. 698 dismissed
JUDGMENT
N. Ananda, J.—Crl.A.No.695/2012 is filed by appellants (hereinafter referred as ‘accused Nos.1 to 4’) against the judgment of conviction for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 IPC. Crl.A.No.698/2011 is filed by the State against the judgment of acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 4 of offences punishable under Sections 326, 341, 114 IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. We have heard Sri. P. Mahesha, learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. Vijayakumar Majage, learned Government Pleader for the State.
3. It is established from the evidence on record that this criminal case is an offshoot of a civil case which was pending between the parties. It is established from the evidence on record that late Doddarangaiah, father of PW.1-Rangadasaiah had sold certain extent in lands bearing Sy.Nos.259 and 260 of Triyambakapura village, Gundlupet Taluk for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 05.04.1965 in favour of Gurumallappa (father of accused Nos.1 to 4). In the registered sale deed dated 05.04.1965, by inadvertence survey numbers were mentioned as 251 and 253 instead of mentioning correct survey numbers 259 and 260. Therefore, accused Nos.1 to 4 were constrained to file a suit against PW.1-Rangadasaiah and others in O.S.No.129/2002 on the file of Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Chamarajanagar. After contest, suit was decreed on 09.09.2004, against which PW.1-Rangadasaiah was before this Court in R.F.A.No.11/2005. This Court by judgment dated 14.07.2008 dismissed the first appeal and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court. Thus we find that on the date of incident viz., 18.11.2005 accused Nos.1 to 4 being lawful owners were in possession and enjoyment of lands bearing Sy.Nos.259 and 260.
It is the case of prosecution that on 18.11.2005, accused Nos.1 to 4 were tilling their land bearing Sy.No.259 by a Tractor. PW.4-Srinath was the driver of the Tractor. At that time, PW.1-Rangadasaiah came near that land and told the accused not to plough the land. Accused Nos.1 to 4 got enraged and abused PW.1 by taking out name of his caste. The accused fisted and assaulted PW1 with stones and caused injuries to him. Accused Nos.1 to 4 were tried for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324, 326, 506 r/w 114 IPC and also for an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4 of offences punishable under Sections 326, 341 r/w 114 IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of two months. The learned Sessions Judge convicted accused Nos.3 and 4 for offences punishable under Section 506 IPC and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each with default sentence of simple imprisonment for a period of one month. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 4 and accused Nos.1 to 4 are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction for the aforestated offences.
4. In pre-paragraph we have narrated the background of incident. After going through the evidence of PW.1 and the judgment of this Court in R.F.A.No.11/2005, we find that on the date of incident, disputed land (land bearing Sy.No.259) of Triyambakapra village was in lawful possession and enjoyment of accused Nos.1 to 4. PW.1 had suffered decree before the Trial Court. PW1 had gone near the land bearing Sy. No.259 to obstruct accused Nos.1 to 4 from ploughing the land at about 11.30 a.m. on 18.11.2005. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 4 had assaulted PW.1 and also abused him by taking out the name of his caste. In our considered opinion, the civil litigation had e
