State vs Sulochana

Anand Byrareddy, J.—The office is directed to delete the name of Mr. K.R. Keshavamurthy as appearing for the respondent since he has been appointed as the State Public Prosecutor. The respondents are however, represented by Mr. Sridhar C.K., learned counsel.

Heard the learned Government Pleader.

The present appeal is filed in the following circumstances:

It is alleged that on 27.05.2006 at about 10.15 p.m. the accused, who were said to be the clients of the complainant, one Smt. B. Radha, a legal practitioner had picked up a quarrel with her while in her chambers situated at 5th Main Road, Yadavagiri, Mysore and that they had physically assaulted her and abused her in foul language with particular reference to her caste, referred to in a derogatory fashion and therefore, were guilty of the offences punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ''SC & ST Act'', for brevity) as well as under Sections 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ''IPC, for brevity).

On the basis of the compliant, the police had registered a case in crime No. 44/06 and had investigated the matter and that after investigation; a charge sheet had been filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

The Court having taken cognizance, a case in Special Case No. 41/2006 was registered and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court, which framed the charges against the accused and the accused having pleaded not guilty had claimed to be tried. The prosecution is said to have tendered evidence through PWs 1 to 8 and produced material documents. The Court below had acquitted the accused. Hence, the State is in appeal.

The learned Government Pleader would contend that PW1 was the complainant and the victim. PWs 3, 4 and 5 were the eye-witnesses and in spite of the categorical evidence of the said witnesses as regards the manner, in which the accused had committed the offences, the court having acquitted the accused on the footing that the evidence of those witnesses was unreliable and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and seeks to question the findings of the Court below.

It is seen that the trial Court had framed the following points for its consideration:

(i) Whether the prosecution proves any simple injuries being caused to the complainant-B. Radha and that these accused were responsible for such injuries?

(ii) Whether the prosecution further proves that these accused acting in furtherance of their common intention, had ever intentionally insulted the complainant by abusing her in filthy language with an intent to provoker to commit any other offences or to break the public peace?

(iii) Whether the prosecution further proves that these accused acting in furtherance of their common intention, had ever criminally intimidated the complainant with dire consequences to her life intending to cause alarm in her?

(iv) Whether the prosecution further proves that this complainant B. Radha belonged to Madiga community covered under SC/ST community?

(v) Whether the prosecution further proves that these accused acting in further of their common intention, knowing that the complainant belonged to such a group, abused her in filthy language taking her caste name, with an intent to humiliate her within public view"?

The Trial Court had answered points 1 to 3 and 5 in the negative and point No. 4 in the affirmative.

On points 1 to 3, the reasoning of the Court below is to the effect that the incident had taken place in the chambers of the complainant, which was within the house of the complainant and the mahazar witness-PW2 having spoken to the mahazar having been drawn in her presence would only establish the location of the purported incident and the allegation that the accused dragged her around and roughed her up, as reiterated by PWs 3 to 5 which was sought to be corroborated by the evidence of PW4-Dr. Hemavathy who has stated that the complainant had reported pain in her arm and she having prescribed certain pain killers, which the Court below has held would be very weak evidence as it is only the oral testimony of the said witnesses, which is the sole basis of the case of the prosecution. There were no actual injuries and there was no wound certificate to indicate that there was any physical violence and PWs 1. and 4 who were found to be sisters, which again was received with doubt as to the veracity of the testimony when there were no independent witnesses.

There was no evidence tendered to indicate that the accused had committed any acts with an intent to cause alarm to the complainant and to establish that there was intention to insult and indulge in criminal intimidation at a place, within public view; The allegation that the accused had threatened that they would set goondas against the complainant was held to be vague evidence, which could not obtain a conviction for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC. Therefore, the verbal altercation, if any, that may have taken place invoke offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC were held not proved and were held in the negative.

Insofar as point No. 5 is concerned, the Court has examined the evidence at length and has found various discrepancies in the theory put forward by the complainant as to the reasons and the manner, in which the accused are said to have attacked and has held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case and has specifically found that insofar as the allegation of the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC & ST Act is concerned, admittedly the alleged offence was committed in the chambers of the complainant and therefore, would not meet the requirements of establishing a case for the aforesaid offence. The Court has also discussed the allegations with reference to the actual facts as regards the claim of the complainant and has found the same to be doubtful.

The learned Government Pleader on the other hand seeking to urge grounds generally to mechanically question the findings of the Court below cannot be addressed without a specific challenge against particular findings of the trial Court, which are with reference to the material on record. A bald and mechanical appeal filed against those findings is certainly not tenable and is therefore dismissed as being devoid of merit.