Manjunatha vs State of Karnataka

N. Ananda, J.—The appellant (accused) was tried for offence punishable under Sections 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Trial Judge convicted the accused for an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(xi) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, he is before this Court. I have heard learned counsel for accused and learned Government Advocate for State.

In brief, the case of the prosecution is as follows:

On 7.1.2001, at about 9 a.m., PW1 Hanumakka was washing clothes in a stream situate in the land of father of accused. At that time, accused was near his pump house. The accused called PW1 to lend her hand to lift paddy bag. When PW1 went inside pump house, accused closed the door of pump house and tried to outrage her modesty. The accused used force and gagged her. PW1 screamed. On hearing the same, some of the prosecution witnesses came there. Accused ran away from that place.

The prosecution has relied on the evidence of PW.1-Hanumakka, PW.2-Siddagangappa (husband of PW.1), PW.3-Venkatesha and PW.4-Narayanamma.

PW.5-Siddappa is the father-in-law of PW.1. PW.6 Narayanappa had taken the investigation officer to the place of incident. The evidence of PW.7-Nagaraju, PW.8-Anjanappa and PW.9 K.V. Ramachandra relates to registration and investigation of the case.

As per evidence of PW.1, the incident of outraging her modesty took place at about 9.00 a.m., on 07.01.2001 in the pump house of accused. The first information relating to incident of outraging the modesty of PW.1 was lodged at about 12.30 p.m., (afternoon) on 09.01.2001. The distance between the place of incident and the jurisdictional police station is about 5 Kilometers. PW.1 had offered an explanation that her husband (PW.2) was not in the village. On the following day, her husband came to the village, thereafter, she lodged the first information. PW.2-Siddagangappa has also given similar explanation.

In the first information, it is stated, on the date of incident, PW.2 had gone to coolie work and returned home late in the night. Even if this explanation is accepted, there was no impediment for PW''s. 1 and 2 to lodge the first information on the following day i.e., on 08.01.2001. The first information was lodge at about 12.30 p.m., (afternoon) on 09.01.2001 and it had reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at about 11.40 a.m., on 10.01.2001.

During cross-examination, PW.1 has admitted that the father of accused had purchased the land from one Putta Reddy. The husband of PW.4 namely Narasimha Murthy wanted to purchase the said land. Therefore, there was enmity between the father of accused and husband of PW.4 namely Narasimha Murthy. PW.1 has admitted that husband of PW.4 namely Narasimha Murthy had accompanied her to police station.

PW.1-Hanumakka has deposed; that on 07.01.2001, at about 9.00 a.m., she was washing clothes in a stream situate in the land of accused; the accused was near his pump house; he called her near the pump house to help him to lift a head load (bag of paddy); when PW.1 went inside the pump house, the accused closed the door of pump house and tried to outrage her modesty and also gagged her; PW.1 screamed and witnesses namely PW''s. 3 and 4 came near the place of incident.

The version of incident given by PW.1 in examination-in-chief that accused called her near pump house to lift head load; PW.1 entered the pump house; accused bolted the door, gagged her and tried to outrage her modesty is contrary to version given by PW. 1 during cross-examination.

During cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, PW. 1 has deposed; that she lent her hand to lift a head load (bag of paddy) on the head of the accused; the accused with the help of PW. 1 had lifted one bag of paddy; when PW. 1 tried to help the accused to lift the second bag, he tried to outrage her modesty. These two versions are inconsistent. It is difficult to conceive that accused who was carrying a bag of paddy (head load) was in a position to gag PW.1, and close the door of pump house to outrage modesty of PW.1.

PW.1 has deposed; when she screamed, the accused opened the door and ran away from the place of incident.

In the first information, it is sated that after the incident, accused was sitting beneath a coconut tree in his land. Thus, the evidence of PW. 1 that accused ran away after the incident and the contents of first information that after the incident, accused was sitting beneath a coconut tree are not consistent. The contents of first information that accused after outraging the modesty of PW. 1 was sitting beneath a coconut tree near the place of incident even after the arrival of witnesses looks improbable. In the first information, it is stated that witness namely PW.4-Narayanamma assaulted the accused.

PW.3-Venkatesh has deposed; before the incident, PW.1 was washing clothes; PW.3 heard screams and shouts of PW.1 from the pump house of accused; on hearing screams of PW.1, he ran towards the pump house; before PW.3 could reach the place of incident, PW.4 had reached the place of incident; accused was quarrelling with PW. 1 in the pump house; when PW''s. 3 and 4 reached the place, the accused ran away from the pump house; PW.4 enquired PW.1 about the galata; PW.3 does not know the reasons given by PW.1.

During cross-examination, PW.3 has admitted that he has deposed as directed by the police. He was declared as a hostile witness.

During cross-examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, he has admitted that he has deposed before the court as directed by the accused. In the evidence given by this witness there are three versions, which are contrary to each other. Therefore, reliance cannot be placed on evidence of PW.3.

PW.4-Narayanamma has deposed; that on the date of incident, at about 8.00 a.m., PW.1 was washing clothes in a Halla (stream) situate in the land of father of the accused; at that time, PW.4 heard screams from the pump house situate in the land of accused; she rushed to that place; PW.3-Venkatesh had accompanied her; when they reached the place of incident, PW.1 was coming out of the pump house; the accused after seeing them, ran away from that place; when PW.4 enquired PW.1, she told PW.4 that accused called her inside the pump house on the pretext of helping him to lift a head load (bag of paddy) and when she went inside the pump house, accused molested her, PW.1 escaped and came out.

At this juncture, it is necessary to recall the evidence of PW.1. PW.1 has not deposed that accused molested her. The evidence of PW''s. 3 and 4 is not consistent.

During cross-examination, PW.4 has admitted that the father of accused had purchased the land of elder brother of her husband. The husband of PW.4 wanted to purchase the said land. There was enmity between the husband of PW.4 and the father of accused.

During cross-examination, PW.4 has deposed; that at the time of incident, she was serving food to PW.3. On hearing hue and cry, she came towards pump house. She has admitted that pump house of accused is not visible from her land. She has further admitted that, by the time she could reach the pump house, accused had fled away from that place.

Thus, the version given by PW.4 in the examination-in-chief that she had seen the accused near pump house and the version given by her in the cross-examination that by the time she reached the place of incident, accused had run away from the place cannot be reconciled.

The prosecution has not adduced medical evidence to substantiate that accused had used criminal force against PW.1.

Thus, on reappreciation of evidence, I find that there was unexplained delay of two days in lodging the first information; the investigation officer had withheld the first information for a day without sending the first information to the jurisdictional Magistrate as required by law; PW''s. 1, 3 and 4 had grudge and enmity against the accused as the father of accused had purchased the land of elder brother of PW.4; there was enmity between the father of accused and husband of PW.4.

The evidence of PW.1 is not consistent and credible. PW.1 has deposed that she did not know the accused before the date of incident. The version of incident given by PW.1 in the examination-in-chief and in cross-examination are entirely inconsistent. The evidence of PW.1 that accused was carrying a head load (bag of paddy), he bolted the door of the pump house and gagged her mouth and tried to outrage her modesty cannot be accepted. The evidence of immediate post-occurrence witnesses namely PW''s. 3 and 4 does not inspire confidence.

The learned trial judge has ignored the material discrepancies found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and inordinate delay in lodging the first information and held the accused guilty of an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside. The accused is acquitted of an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.