Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 9513
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.P.SANDESH, J
Manja Naik S/o. Dasyanaik – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1739 OF 2023 C/W CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1458 OF 2022
For the Appellant :(BY SRI. PAVAN KUMAR G., & SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH G., ADVOCATES)
For the Respondent:(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP A/W. SMT. K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
The court ruled that specific allegations of caste-based abuse and threats necessitate charges under the SC/ST Act, regardless of public presence.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 227 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) - Discharge of accused - The Trial Court discharged accused for offences under SC/ST Act, finding no ingredients of the offences attracted - The appellate court found that specific allegations of caste-based abuse and threats were made, necessitating charges under relevant sections - The court emphasized that the presence of public is not a prerequisite for establishing offences under SC/ST Act - The reasoning of the Trial Court was deemed erroneous, requiring intervention. (Paras 2-11)
(B) Criminal Law - Ingredients of Offences - The court clarified that intentional touching of a woman belonging to SC/ST, knowing her status, constitutes an offence under SC/ST Act, irrespective of public presence. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that the accused abused him and his family using caste names, threatened their lives, and caused injury to a family member with a vehicle. The Trial Court partially discharged the accused, leading to appeals.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the Trial Court erred in discharging the accused for certain offences and directed that charges be framed.
Issues: Whether the Trial Court erred in discharging the accused for offences under the SC/ST Act and IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that specific allegations of caste-based abuse and threats warranted charges under the SC/ST Act, and the absence of public presence does not negate the applicability of the Act.
Result: Criminal appeal and revision petition allowed in part.
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the appellant-complainant in criminal appeal and learned Additional SPP for petitioner-State in criminal revision petition and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2-accused.
2. The Criminal Appeal No.1739/2023 is filed by appellant-complainant and Criminal Revision Petition No.1458/2022 is filed by the petitioner-State to set aside the order dated 04.06.2022 in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.24/2020 allowing the application filed under Section 227 Cr.P.C. in part, discharging accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence under Section 506 and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainant before the Trial Court by lodging the complainant before the police is that on 08.05.2020 at about 9.00 a.m., when the complainant, his aunt Rathna Bai and his uncle Sajyanaik were working in the land, respondent Nos.2 and 3, Jagadish Kumar and Vinay Kumar came in the Bolero Jeep bearing registration No.KA-16-M-5088 and abused the complainant in filthy language by taking name of the caste as Sukali and Lambani. It is further alleged in the complaint that, Civil Court has passed decree in their favour, at that time, the respondent Nos.2 and 3 abused and said that, no Court can do anything to them. When Rathnai Bai and Poryanaik came for rescuing the complainant, at that time, respondent No.3 dragged Rathnabai by holding her clothes and respondent No.2 with an intention to do away the life has run over the Bolero Jeep on Poryanaik, due to hit by Bolero Jeep, Poryanaik sustained injuries and he was shifted to the hospital. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 threatened to do away their life and went back.
4. Based on the complaint, the police registered Crime No.145/2020 for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)(ii) and 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 504, 307, 324, 323, 506 and 354B read with Section 34 IPC. The police after registration of the case, investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet and thereafter, an application is filed for discharge and Trial Court vide impugned order allowed the application in part and comes to the conclusion that no ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w)(i)(ii) attracts and comes to the conclusion that there are material to proceed against the accused under Sections 323, 354B and 504 IPC that charges can be framed against them. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant-complainant has filed the criminal appeal and the petitioner-State has filed the criminal revision petition contending that order passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and the very approach made by the Trial Court with regard to ingredients of the offences and interpretation by the Trial Court is erroneous and it requires interference of this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- complainant in the criminal and learned Additional SPP for the petitioner-State in the criminal revision petition brought to notice of this Court contents of the complaint, wherein it is specifically mentioned that accused took caste name and they came to land saying that they are having work to do and when the complainant’s mother-in-law tried to pacify the galata, abused taking their caste name and also dragged by holding her saree and assaulted the other witness and at the same time, the person, who was sitting in the Bolero vehicle abused taking caste name and also caused life threat and even made an attempt to take away life by moving Bolero vehicle, as a result, Poryanaik has sustained injuries and specific averments are made in the complaint and as well as C.Ws.6 and 7 made the statement with regard to the incident is concerned and inspite of Trial Court taken note of averments made in the statement of C.Ws.6 and 7, extracted the same in paragraph No.13, but committed error in interpreting the same that it will not attract Section 3(1)(r) and also Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act and so also 3(w)(i)(ii) of SC/ST (POA) Act and it must be prima-facie made o
