Nandisha and Others vs State

N. Ananda, J.—Appellants 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred as ''accused 1 to 3'') were tried for offences punishable under Sections 341, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also for an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ''the Act''). The learned Special Judge convicted accused 1 for an offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC and also for an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. The learned Special Judge acquitted accused 1 of an offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC. The learned Special Judge convicted accused 2 and 3 of an offence punishable -under Section 341 of IPC and acquitted them of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC and also of an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. Therefore, accused 1 to 3 are before this Court. I have heard Sri K.S. Aswathanarayana Reddy, learned Counsel for accused and Sri B. Vishweswaraiah, learned H.C.G.P. for State. I have been taken through evidence.

The accused were tried for the following charges:

CHARGE

Firstly, 21-4-2008, around 11.00 a.m. on a Road in Byaladakere Village of Maddur Taluk, you wrongfully restrained C.W. 1-Ramesh and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC and within my cognizance.

Secondly, on the same day, at the same time and at the same place, the first of you assaulted C.W. 1 with the handle of an agricultural implement locally called ''Guddali'' and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him and thereby first of you have committed an offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC and within my cognizance.

Thirdly, on the same day, at the same time and at the same place first of you, with an intention to insult the above named C.W. 1, as also C.W. 2-Smt. Sudha and C.W. 3-Raju, they being members of Scheduled Caste, in public view abused them by referring to their caste and thereby first of you committed an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and within my cognizance.

Fourthly, on the same day, at the same time and at the same place the first of you, threatened to kill C.Ws. 1 to 3 and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC and within my cognizance.

P.W. 1-Ramesha is the husband of P.W. 2-K. Sudha. P.W. 3-Raju is the son of younger sister of P.W. 1. They belong to Scheduled Caste. They are natives of Byaladakere Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. Accused 1 to 3 are also from the same village. About 20 days prior to 21-4-2008, P.W. 1 was working in the brick kiln of accused 1. P.W. 1 worked for a few days and thereafter abruptly stopped to work in the brick kiln of accused 1.

P.W. 1-Ramesha has deposed; on 21-4-2008 at about 11 a.m., P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 were proceeding towards their land along with cattle; when they were walking near land of accused 1, accused 1 called P.W. 1 to work in his brick kiln; P.W. 1 refused to work in the brick kiln of accused 1; there was quarrel between accused 1 to 3 on one side and P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 on the other side; accused 2 and 3 held P.W. 1; accused 1 assaulted on head of P.W. 1 with handle of a spade and caused injuries to him; P.Ws. 2 and 3 came to rescue P.W. 1 and shifted P.W. 1 to Government Hospital at Kesthur; the doctor in Government Hospital at Kesthur referred P.W. 1 to a major hospital at Maddur; before going to Government Hospital at Maddur, P.W. 1 lodged first information in Kesthur Police Station as per Ex. P. 1; P.W. 1 was treated in Government Hospital at Maddur for one day, thereafter, P.W. 1 was treated in NIMHANS at Bangalore. P.W. 1 has deposed; when incident took place, accused 1 abused P.W. 1 by taking out the name of his caste within public vision.

During cross-examination, P.W. 1 has admitted that his wife (P.W. 2) was carrying clothes for washing; she was going ahead of P.W. 1; P.W. 1 told P.W. 3 to bring his bicycle to carry clothes after they were washed by P.W. 2; except P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, no other villager was present near place of incident.

From the evidence of P.W. 1, we find that there was dispute between P.W. 1 and accused 1. It appears P.W. 1 was working in the brick kiln of accused 1, later he refused to work in the brick kiln of accused 1, therefore, there was dispute between accused 1 and P.W. 1. Accused 1 assaulted P.W. 1 on his head with handle of a spade. There was no reason either for accused 1 or accused 2 and 3 to abuse P.W. 1 by taking out the name of his caste within public vision. P.W. 1 has not deposed that accused 2 and 3 had wrongfully restrained P.W. 1. In view of this, accused 2 and 3 cannot be held guilty of an offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC.

P.W. 1 has made an omnibus statement that accused 1 to 3 abused him by taking out the name of his caste, within public vision. P.W. 1 has not deposed that accused 1 to 3 had abused him by taking out the name of his caste and accused 1 to 3 had intention to insult P.W. 1 within public vision.

P.W. 2-K. Sudha is the wife of P.W. 1. P.W. 2 had given an exaggerated version that accused 1 abused P.W. 1 by taking out the name of their caste, which is not the evidence of P.W. 1.

P.W. 1 has deposed that accused 2 and 3 had held P.W. 1 when accused 1 assaulted on the head of P.W. 1 with handle of a spade. P.W. 2 has deposed; soon after the incident, P.W. 1 was taken to Government Hospital at Kesthur; doctor gave preliminary treatment and stitched injury and referred P.W. 1 to Government Hospital at Maddur.

During cross-examination, P.W. 2 has admitted that P.W. 1 had lodged complaint against one Biliya and Kariya. P.W. 2 has not deposed that accused 1 to 3 had wrongfully restrained P.W. 1.

P.W. 3-Raju has deposed; on the date of incident, accused 1 abused P.W. 2 and also P.W. 3. P.W. 3 has not deposed; accused abused P.W. 1 by taking out the name of his caste. P.W. 1 has categorically admitted that except P.W. 2 and P.W. 3, none else had witnessed the incident.

From the evidence of P.W. 6-Dr. K.V. Prakash, the then Senior Specialist in General Hospital at Maddur, we find that P.W. 6 examined P.W. 1 at about 9.30 p.m., on 21-4-2008 and found following injuries:

I. A sutured wound measuring 8 cms. in length on left fronto parietal region.

II. An abrasion on right scapular region.

III. An abrasion on left scapular region.

IV. A contusion over anterior aspect above clavicle tenderness was seen.

Thus, from the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 and medical evidence of P.W. 6, it can safely be held that accused 1 had assaulted on the head of P.W. 1 with handle of spade and caused injuries to him. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the findings of learned Trial Judge that accused 1 had committed an offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC.

In the discussion made supra, I have held that P.W. 1 to P.W. 3 have not deposed that accused 1 to 3 had wrongfully restrained P.W. 1. In the circumstances, the judgment of conviction of accused 2 and 3 for an offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC cannot be sustained.

In the discussion made supra, I have held that there is no cogent and consistent evidence in relation to an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. The reason for accused 1 to assault P.W. 1 would belie that accused 1 had abused P.W. 1 by taking out the name of his caste, within public vision with intention to insult him. Therefore, conviction of accused 1 for an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act cannot be sustained.

The learned Counsel for accused submits that P.W. 1 was working in the brick kiln of accused 1. Accused 1 was enraged when P.W. 1 suddenly remained absent from work. Accused 1 had caused a solitary injury on head of P.W. 1. The incident of assault was preceded by a brief quarrel. In the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment may be substituted with fine.

The learned H.C.G.P. would oppose the same.

On consideration of the above mitigating circumstances and also the background of incident, I deem it proper to substitute sentence of imprisonment with fine. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is modified. The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused 1 for an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act is set aside. Accused 1 is acquitted of an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. If accused 1 has deposited the fine amount in terms of the impugned judgment for an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act, the same shall be refunded to him. The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused 2 and 3 for ah offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC is set aside. Accused 2 and 3 are acquitted of an offence punishable u/s 341 of IPC. The bail bonds executed by accused 2 and 3 stand cancelled. If accused 2 and 3 have deposited the fine amount, the same shall be refunded to them. The judgment of conviction of accused 1 for an offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC is confirmed, however sentence is modified. Accused 1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs. 20,000/- shall be paid as compensation to P.W. 1-Ramesha.