State of Karnataka vs B. Nagaraja and Others

N. Ananda, J.—The respondents 1 to 18 (hereinafter referred to as accused No. 1 to 18) were tried for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 IPC and also for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondent-accused. Therefore, the State is before this court. I have heard learned Government Advocate for the State. The learned counsel for accused is absent.

The accused were tried for following charges:

That on 29.10.2006 at about 7:00 p.m. in front of Anganavadi school at Chaluvanahalli Village, Kolar Taluk, you all the accused persons were a member of an unlawful assembly, the common object of which was to assault C.Ws. 1 to 14 viz., Narayanaswamy, Smt. Jayamma, Muniyappa, Thipparaju, Smt. Venkatamma, Manjunatha, Manjunatha, Nagaraju, Shankara, Srinivasa, Govindappa Munivenkatappa, Smt. Radhamma and Smt. Muniyappa respectively and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 143 of IPC and within my cognizance.

Secondly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons were a member of an unlawful assembly, and, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, viz., to assault C.Ws. 1 to 14, committed the offence of rioting, and thereby committed and offence punishable U/S 147 of IPC and within my cognizance.

Thirdly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons were a member of an unlawful assembly and, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly viz., to assault C.Ws. 1 to 14, committed the offence of rioting and at that time were armed with a deadly weapon to wit clubs and stones and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 148 of IPC and within my cognizance.

Fourthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons were a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common object, you A15 voluntarily caused hurt to C.W. 4 by assaulting him with hands on his left shoulder, you A3 kicked C.W. 6 on his left leg, you A7 assaulted C.W. 7 with hands on his chest and all over his body, you A11 assaulted C.W. 8 with hands, you A13 assaulted C.W. 9 with hands on his neck, you A17 assaulted C.W. 10 with hands on his right shoulder, you A6 assaulted C.W. 13 with hands on her back and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 323 read with Sec. 149 of IPC and within my cognizance.

Fifthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons were a member of an unlawful assembly, and in prosecution of your common object you A4 voluntarily caused simple hurt to C.W. 1 by assaulting him with club on his fingers, left shoulder and left leg and also assaulted to C.W. 11 with the same club on his left arm, neck and all over his body, you A1 assaulted C.W. 2 with club on her back and hands, you A2 assaulted C.W. 5 with club on her both hands, you A5 assaulted C.W. 3 with stones on his right hand, shoulders and face, you A9 assaulted C.W. 8 with stones on his both hands and you A5 assaulted C.W. 12 with stone on his chest and all over his body and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 324 read with Sec. 149 IPC and within my cognizance.

Sixthly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons not being the members of SC/ST community, were a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common object, you A1, A2 and A6 assaulted C.Ws. 2, 5 and 13 women belong to scheduled caste, intending to outrage the modesty of the said C.Ws. 2, 5 and 13 by such assault and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and within my cognizance.

Lastly, on the aforesaid date, time and place, you all the accused persons not being the members of SC/ST community, were a member of an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of your common object intentionally insulted, humiliated and abused C.Ws. 1 to 14 who belongs to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe in filthy language by touching their caste by saying as you A8 and A10 abused C.W. 14 as within the public view knowing fully well that C.Ws. 1 to 14 belongs to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe communities and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and within my cognizance.

As could be seen from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, there was a dispute between some of the prosecution witnesses on one side and the accused on other side regarding cultivation of certain extent of Gomala land of Chaluvanahalli by some of the prosecution witnesses.

It is the case of prosecution that on the date of incident viz., 29.10.2006 at about 7.00 p.m., accused No. 1 to 18 formed unlawful assembly near Anganawadi School of Chaluvanahalli with the common object of assaulting C.W''s. 1 to 14. During the course of same transaction, accused wielded deadly weapons and also committed an offence of rioting. The accused also assaulted some of the prosecution witnesses with dangerous weapons and in the course of same transaction, accused used criminal force against C.W. 2 and 5 (women belonging to Scheduled Caste) to outrage their modesty. The accused intentionally insulted some of the prosecution witnesses (persons belonging to scheduled caste) by taking out the name of their caste within public vision to insult them.

The case of prosecution rests upon the eyewitness account of injured witnesses and medical evidence.

The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 7.00 p.m., on 29.10.2006. The first information of the incident was lodged on 01.11.2006, though the place of incident is at a distance of 6 kilometers from the jurisdictional police station. On perusal of evidence of prosecution witnesses, I find that they have not offered plausible explanation much less explanation for belatedly lodging the first information. It is also noticed from the medical evidence that after the date of incident, some of the prosecution witnesses were being treated in SNR Hospital at Kolar. Even then, the medico-legal intimation was not sent to the jurisdictional police. The evidence of injured eyewitnesses who are inimical to the accused has to be appreciated bearing in mind the inordinate delay of three days in lodging the first information.

P.W. 1-Jayamma has deposed; on the date of incident, there was quarrel between the accused on one side and some of the prosecution witnesses on other side; accused No. 1 and 13 pushed her; she fell down and suffered injuries.

During cross-examination, she has admitted that accused No. 13 asked her to go away from place of incident. She has admitted that, on the date of incident, she was shifted and treated in SNR Hospital at Kolar. The wound certificate of P.W. 1 (marked as Ex. P19) would reveal that she had suffered an abrasion on the right fore arm. If P.W. 1 had been surrounded and assaulted by accused No. 1 to 18 as put forth by the prosecution, she would have suffered grievous injuries. It appears, she had fallen down and suffered an abrasion. Therefore, evidence of P.W. 1 that accused No. 1 and 13 used criminal force against her cannot be accepted.

P.W. 2-Muniyappa has deposed; that accused No. 5 assaulted on his chest and right shoulder with a club and a stone. The wound certificate of P.W. 2 (marked as Ex. P20) does not reveal that he had suffered corresponding injuries. The evidence of P.W. 2 that accused No. 5 simultaneously assaulted P.W. 2 with a club and a stone looks improbable. P.W. 2 has admitted that on the date of incident, he was admitted and treated in SNR Hospital at Kolar yet, the first information of incident of assault was not lodged with the jurisdictional police station.

P.W. 3-Thipparaju has deposed; that accused No. 15 fisted his right shoulder. The wound certificate of P.W. 3 (marked as Ex. P21) does not reveal any corresponding injury.

During cross-examination, P.W. 3 has admitted that, on the date of incident, at about 8.00 p.m., his statement was recorded by the investigation officer however, the statement has not been made available to the court. P.W. 3 has admitted hat there was previous enmity between the accused and P.W. 3.

P.W. 4-Venkatanima has deposed; that after hearing the noise of quarrel, she reached the place of incident; accused No. 2 pushed her aside and she fell down. The wound certificate of P.W. 4 (marked as Ex. P22) would reveal that she had suffered certain abrasions on the right fore arm and abrasions on left fore arm, which could not have been caused due to push. Apart from this, P.W. 4 has deposed that two or three persons assaulted P.W. 4, which is not the case put forth by the prosecution.

P.W. 5-Manjunath has deposed; that accused No. 9 fisted on his chest and assaulted him. The wound certificate of P.W. 5-Manjunath (marked as Ex. P23) does not reveal injuries either on his chest or on his back.

P.W. 6-Nagaraja has deposed; that he reached the place of incident after hearing the noise of quarrel; accused No. 11 fisted on his back and accused No. 7 also fisted him. The wound certificate of P.W. 6-Nagaraja (marked as Ex. P25) does not reveal the corresponding injuries.

During cross-examination, P.W. 6 has admitted that on the date of incident, he was shifted and treated in SNR Hospital at Kolar. The police came and recorded his statement at about 9.00 p.m. The statement given by P.W. 6 on the date of incident has been suppressed by the prosecution.

P.W. 7-Shankarappa has deposed; that accused No. 13 fisted on the left side of his neck. The wound certificate of P.W. 7-Shankarappa (marked as Ex. P26) does not reveal corresponding injuries.

P.W. 8-Govindappa has deposed; that accused No. 4 fisted on his left shoulder. The wound certificate of P.W. 8-Govindappa (marked as Ex. P28) does not reveal corresponding injuries.

P.W. 9-Munivenkatappa has deposed; that accused No. 5 assaulted on his chest with a stone. The wound certificate of P.W. 9-Munivenkatappa (marked as Ex. P29) does not reveal corresponding injuries. P.W. 9 has deposed that he was treated in SNR Hospital at Kolar. The information of incident of assault was not lodged with the jurisdictional police station on the same day.

P.W. 10-Radhamma has deposed; that accused No. 6 assaulted her and she was treated in SNR Hospital at Kolar. The wound certificate of P.W. 10-Radhamma (marked as Ex. P10) does not reveal the corresponding injuries.

P.W. 11-Manjunatha has deposed; that accused No. 3 assaulted him. The wound certificate of P.W. 11-Manjunatha (marked as Ex. P24) does not reveal the corresponding injuries. P.W. 11 has deposed; that on the date of incident, he was treated in SNR Hospital at Kolar; the police had visited the place of incident after a period of one week, which is not the case put forth by the prosecution.

P.W. 12-Narayanaswamy has deposed; that some persons had assaulted P.W. 2. When P.W. 12 intervened, he received blows however, he was not able to identify the assailants. Therefore, his evidence is hardly sufficient to prove the charges against the accused.

The evidence of P.W. 13-Siddarangaswamy relates to registration of investigation of part of the case.

The evidence of P.W. 14-Muniyamma, P.W. 15-Rathnamma and P.W. 16-Srinivasa does not indicate their presence near the place of incident or presence of accused.

The evidence of P.W. 17-Dr. Kemparaju relates to examination of injured in SNR Hospital at Kolar and issuance of wound certificates.

In the discussion made supra I have referred to the wound certificates of some of the injured witnesses. On re-appreciation of evidence, I find that there was enmity between some of the prosecution witnesses and the accused relating to cultivation of certain extent of Gomala land of Chaluvanahalli by some of the accused. It appears some of the prosecution witnesses had taken objection for the same and there was dispute between the parties. On the date of incident, a quarrel ensued between the two parties, which was blown out of the proportion to implicate the accuse who are as many as 18 in number. In the circumstances, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.