State vs Sri. M.K. Badruddin

K.N. Keshava Narayana, J.—This appeal filed u/s 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. by the State in directed against the judgment and order dated 01.09.2007, passed by the Special Judge, Chikmagalur, in SPL. Case No. 23/2001 acquitting the respondent/accused for the charge levelled against him for the offences punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 of IPC.

The respondent/accused was charge sheeted far the aforesaid offences by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chickmagalur Sub Division, alleging that on 04.09.2000 at about 5:00 p.m., when P.W. 1- Smt. Jamila @ Jayamma and P.W. 7- Kumari S. Manjula were waiting for K.S.R.T.C. bus in Chikmagalur to go to Shimoga, the accused came there and in the background of the fact that P.W. 1 had lodged a complaint against him in relation to vacation of the house, abused both P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 who are the members of Scheduled Caste, in filthy language touching their caste with an intent to insult and humiliate them in the place of public view and threatened them with injury to their lives, if the police complaint was not taken back and thus, the accused has committed the aforesaid offences.

According to the prosecution, the complainant- P.W. 1 sent the complaint about the incident to the police by post and the same was received by the police at about 10:30 a.m. on 14.09.2000. Based on the said complaint, the case was registered in Crime No. 191/2000 and investigation was taken up. After the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge levelled against him and came to be tried. During the trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 11 and got marked Exs. P 1 to P 10. During his examination u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused did not choose to lead any evidence. The defence of the accused was one of total denial and that of false implication.

The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, by the judgment under appeal acquitted the respondent/accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that the complainant -P.W. 1 was a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Trite, as such the provisions of the Special Act are not applicable to the case on hand. The learned Special Judge also held that the prosecution has failed to prove the alleged incident, therefore, the accused is entitled for an order of acquittal.

being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has presented this appeal Upon service of notice of this appeal, the respondent/accused has appeared through his Counsel.

I have heard the Counsel on both the sides. Perused the records and the judgment under appeal.

After hearing both the sides, I am of the opinion that there are no merits in the appeal and the learned Special Judge is justified in acquitting the respondent/accused for the charge levelled against him, Admittedly, the respondent/accused was the tenant of and house in Chikmagalur, owned by P.W. 1, There was some dispute between P.W. 1 and the respondent/accused in connection with the said house and also regarding payment of rent, and in that regard there was a police complaint. Though the incident alleged in this case said to have occurred on 04.09.2000, when P.W. 1 and P.W. 7 were waiting for K.S.RT.C. bus in Chikmagalur, P.W. 1 did not choose to lodge the complaint immediately thereafter.

According to the P.W. 1, she sent a complaint to the police through post as per Ex. P. 1. As per the endorsement made by the police on Ex. P. 1, the same was received at about 10:30 a.m. on 14.09.2000. Thus, the compliant has been lodged after about 10 days of the alleged incident. Absolutely no explanation is forthcoming for the delayed presentation of the complainant. Even during the evidence of P.W. 1, she has not stated anything about the delay in lodging the complaint. This long delay in lodging the complaint, in the background of the previous animosity, has been seriously taken note of by the court below to disbelieve the case of the prosecution.

The learned Magistrate has also noticed that P.W 1 is a person belonging to Muslim religion and therefore the provisions of the Special Act are not applicable. The provisions of the Special Act get attracted only, if atrocities are committed or perpetrated against the numbers of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In the case on hand, the complainant described herself as Smt. Jamila wife of B.M. Samad. However, during her evidence before the court, she tried to contend that she was originally a member of the Scheduled Caste and her name was Jayamma and later upon her marriage with B.M. Samad, she has changed her name as Jamila, nevertheless, she continued to be a member of the Scheduled Caste, as such the provisions of the Special Act are applicable. However, the learned Special Judge has disbelieved this version of P.W. 1 and held that the material on record indicates that P.W. 1 is a muslim by religion, therefore, the provisions of the Special Act are not applicable. I see no error committed by the learned Special Judge in acquitting the respondent/accused. The learned Special Judge has properly evaluated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the guilt of the respondent/accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find no ground to interfere with the judgement under appeal. The appeal is devoid of merits.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.