Ramesh vs State of Karnataka

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Appeal is by the accused challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court i.e., Sessions Judge, Bidar for the offence punishable under S. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and for the offence under S. 355, IPC. According to the prosecution, complainant Dayanand S/o Ganpath and accused Ramesh S/o Vaijinath are residents of Dongapur Village, Bhalki Taluk. Complainant was working as a Teacher in Gadag district. The incident has taken place on 19.2.2008 around 12.30 p.m. near Sangameshwar Temple at Dongapur Village near the bus stop. There was a Turn vehicle bearing No. KA 38, 3473 and complainant had reserved a seat in that vehicle by keeping his bag. When the accused went there and removed the bag of the complainant and sat in the said place, the complainant inquired after which the accused assaulted the complainant from chappal on the face and dishonoured him and also abused in a filthy language taking out the name of his caste in a public place knowing fully well that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. Accordingly, complaint came to be lodged. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhalki investigated the matter, recorded the statement of the witnesses by preparing a mahazar, arrested the accused and submitted a charge sheet. After filing of the charge sheet, since accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, trial, was held and in all, about thirteen witnesses were examined and twelve documents were got marked. On examination of the accused under S. 313, Cr.PC, since his defense was total denial, trial was held. Thereafter, the trial court convicted the accused for both the offences and imposed simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and default sentence of one month for the offence under S. 355, IPC and further sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and default sentence of two months for the offence under the S. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal by the accused on various grounds.

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

According to the counsel representing the accused/appellant, a false case has been foisted against the accused at the instance of ill-wishers. Except the complainant, no other witness supported the incident. PWs 10-11 are the friends of PW 8/complainant. Their evidence cannot be believed. PWs 1-2 who are witnesses to the mahazar have not supported the version of the prosecution. So also PWs 5-6 who are alleged eye witnesses to the incident, have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the evidence of the doctor is to the effect that such injuries, as is suffered by the complainant, could be caused by a fall. The injury certificate is at Ex. P3. As per the evidence of PWs 10-11, they have pacified the quarrel. One Diwakar and Balu were present at the time. The prosecution has not examined those persons. It is also his submission, nobody has spoken about the public place and question of insulting the complainant in a public place does not arise and there is no corroboration of the independent witnesses. As such, the Special Judge ought to have acquitted the accused and accordingly, sought allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed.

Per contra, Addl. SPP submitted, there is clear evidence of that of the injured PW 8. The incident of assault by a chappal has occurred in a public place taking out the name of the caste knowing fully well that complainant belongs to scheduled caste. There is other corroborating evidence. Even the trial court has taken a lenient view in the matter in sentencing the accused. There is no illegality in the order passed and accordingly, sought dismissal of the appeal.

In the light of the arguments advanced, the points that arise for consideration are:

Whether the trial court is justified in convicting and sentencing the accused for the alleged offence under S. 354, IPC r/w S. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt;

Whether the trial court committed any irregularity or error in convicting and sentencing the accused for the above said offences;

What offence, if any the accused has committed and

What order.

It appears the incident has taken place in connection with boarding of Turn vehicle by the complainant. The complainant is said to have reserved a seat by way of keeping a bag in the vehicle, which the accused removed and sat there. When the complainant questioned, accused abused in a filthy language taking out the name of the caste of the complainant and assaulted from a chappal. Ex. P3 is the injury certificate issued noting the injuries suffered by the complainant. The complainant PW 8 in his evidence has vividly explained as per the prosecution story. In the cross-examination it is elicited that he knew the accused since fifteen years. He admitted that he knew Sudhakar as Ex-Gram Panchayat Member. He pleaded his ignorance as to Sudhakar, Narayan and Diwakar belong to Prakash Khandre group and admitted that there were 4 to 5 persons in the vehicle and one Babu Rao was also in the vehicle and there were some ladies. It is also elicited that nearby the place, there is a medical shop of Kashappa which is at a distance of 250 ft. from the spot. He pleaded his ignorance as to brother of accused belongs to Ishwar Khandre''s group who is a sitting MLA and admitted that one Narayan is his friend. Also he came to know that earlier there was an atrocity case filed against others in respect of getting a seat in the bus. He has further pleaded ignorance as to Sudhakar, Narayan and Diwakar had also filed a case against a Lineman. It is elicited further that it is not true to suggest that accused has assaulted him with a chappal and he has not suffered any injury. However, in the evidence of PWs 10 and 11 one Narayan and Sudhakar respectively, they have spoken about the accused abusing the complainant. But, in the cross examination PW 10 admitted that accused is in Poona serving there and he had come from Poona to his native place. He has admitted that he has filed another case also about one year back in respect of reserving a bus seat and it was a atrocity case. The accused was also involved in the said case. However, a suggestion was got denied to the effect that with ill motive, colluding with the complainant, he Med a false case against the accused. A suggestion is also made that accused was a staunch follower of Prakash Khandre which was denied. He has also denied the suggestion that the brother of the accused belong to Ishwar Khandre group.

The evidence of PW 11 - Sudhakar is also to the same effect. This witness has also admitted in the cross-examination that he has filed case against Lingayat people in respect of reserving a seat in the bus and in that case accused people were acquitted and that Dayanand and himself are friends and he belongs to his caste.

From the evidence of PWs 10 and 11 and the evidence of complainant, it could be seen the alleged incident has taken place in a scuffle in connection with reserving a seat in turn vehicle near the bus stand. So far as the accusation made against the accused that he assaulted the complainant from a chappal and abused in a filthy language taking out the name of the case, the defense taken by the accused is in a political faction between two groups i.e., PW 10 and complainant belong to one group whereas accused belongs to another group, PW 10 and 11 also have filed similar such case against the accused persons wherein accused was also there and also the case ended in acquittal.

What transpires from the evidence on record is, some incident has taken place between the complainant and accused with regard to keeping a seat in Turn vehicle. Except that it does not inspire the confidence of the court that the accused assaulted the complainant with a chappal and also abused him taking out the name of his caste. The witnesses who have supported the complainant belongs to the same caste much less they also have filed similar such cases. Even other witnesses who have gathered there who are independent witnesses have not supported the version of the prosecution. In that view of the matter, a petty incident is shown to have been made much of taking undue advantage to file a case against the accused alleging atrocity. This might be probable in the background that accused belongs to one political group and the complainant and witnesses belong to another group. There appears to be exaggeration in the version of the complainant and the accused. In the spur of moment, some incident would have taken place but not to the extent of abusing taking out the name of the caste and assaulting from a chappal. It might be a make believe story to wreak vengeance against the accused as it quite happens in village politics. In that view of the matter, the trial court without properly analysing the evidence and the implication and the defense taken, simply proceeded to convict the accused holding him guilty of the above said offences. In the result, appeal is allowed. Impugned order of conviction and sentence are set aside. Accused is acquitted of the offences with which he was charged. The bail bond, if any executed stands discharged.