State of Karnataka vs R. Venkataramanareddy and Krishnareddy

N. Ananda, J.—The state has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal of respondents (accused Nos. 1 and 2) for offences punishable under Sections-323, 324 and 506 read with Section-34 of the Indian Penal Code and also for offences punishable under Section-3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. I have heard the learned State Public Prosecutor.

The accused were tried for the following charges:

That you accused No. 1 and 2 on 18.09.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. CW 1, Nareppa put mike set to Sri. Bhayikonda Gangamma temple near Kondamari cross, you accused questioned him regarding disturbance of noise by mike set and made galata with him and accused No. 2 assaulted him with a club on his right shoulder and neck and caused hurt to him and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section-324 read with Section 34 of IPC and within my cognizance.

Thirdly, that you accused no. 2 not being the member of SC/ST community with common intention on the aforesaid date, time and place, intentionally insulted, humiliated and abused CW 1 who belongs to schedule caste in filthy language touching him caste as "

" Within the public view knowing fully well that he belongs to scheduled caste and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section-3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989 ad within my cognizance.

Lastly on the aforesaid date, time and place, you the accused No. 2 committed criminal intimidation by threatening CW-1 with injury to his person with intent to cause alarm to the said CW 1 by saying as

and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section-506 read with Section-34 of IPC and within my cognizance.

In this appeal against judgment of acquittal, the points that would arise for determination are as follows:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused No. 2 not being the member of SC/ST community with an intention of insulting and humiliating PW-1, Nareppa (a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe) abusing him by taking the name of the case at 7.00 p.m., on 18.09.2007 in Sri. Boykonda Gangamma Temple near Kondamari cross coming within the jurisdiction of Gownipalli Police station, thereby accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed offences under Section-3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act?

(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted PW-1 with the club on the right shoulder and neck and caused hurt to him and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section-324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.?

(iii) Whether in the course of same transaction, accused No. 1 in furtherance of the common intention kicked on the testicles of PW-1 and committed offences punishable under Section-323 read with Section-34 of I.P.C.

(iv) Whether in the same course of transaction accused Nos. 1 and 2 committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW-1 with injury to his person with intent to cause alarm to the said PW 1 thereby committed offence punishable under Section-506 read with Section-34 of I.P.C.?

(v) Whether the learned Trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record?

(vi) To what order?

My findings on the above points and reasons thereof are as follows:-

PW-1 has not deposed that the accused abused with an intention to insult him in public, so also PW-2 wife of PW-1, PW 3 and PW-4 eye-witness have not deposed that the accused had insulted PW-1 by taking the name of the caste as alleged above. Therefore, the learned Trial Judge was justified in acquitting the accused for offences punishable Section-3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

PW-1 had reposed that he was the priest of Sri. Bhayikonda Gangamma temple near Kondamari cross and on the date of incident i.e., on 18.09.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. there were playing tape recorder with loud sound. At that time, accused No. 1 came and quarreled with PW-1 for playing tape recorder/mike. Thereafter, accused No. 1 assaulted PW-1 with club and kicked him on the testicles of PW-1. He was shifted to the house and police came to his house and shifted him to the Government Hospital and he took treatment for a period of eight days. From the contents of the would Certificate filed, PW-1 was examined by the Medical Officer, of the Government Hospital at 9.55 p.m., on 18.09.2007. The history of injuries was given as due assault at about 8.00 p.m. Therefore, the entries in the wound certificate cannot be reconciled. The Medical officer namely Shri. Sampath Kumar, was not examined before the trial court. The wound certificate reveal that PW-1 had severe pain on the testicles, back of the neck and right shoulder. Therefore, the medical evidence does not support the direct evidence of PW-1. As per the case of the prosecution the incident of assault had take place at 7.00 p.m., on 18.09.2007. The first information was lodged on 21.09.2007 at 4.00 p.m. PW-1 has reposed that the elders of the village told him that they will convene a Panchayath. Therefore, there was delay in lodging the First Information Report. The evidence of PW-1 is self-contradictory. PW-1 has admitted that on the date of the incident police had visited the place of incident and he was shifted in a car to Government Hospital at Srinivaspura. PW-2 has admitted that on the date of the incident police had came to the village and she had produced the weapons of offence before the police. Therefore, the prosecution has not offered explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. The evidence of PW-2 (wife of PW-1) that the accused No. 1 assaulted PW-1 on the right shoulder with club and the accused No. 2 kicked on the testicles of PW 1 does not find corroboration from the Medical evidence. PW-3 has deposed that on the date of incident on 18.09.2007 there was a quarrel in front of the temple. PW-1 and accused were quarreling and they were pushing each other and accused No. 1 assaulted him on the left shoulder of the accused No. 2 kicked on the testicles of PW-1.

During the cross-examination PW-1 to PW-4 they have admitted that police came to the place of incident and police took accused No. 1 and 2. They have deposed that the police came to the place of incident and PW-1 had lost conscious. Therefore, evidence of PW-4 is contrary to evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. Thus, the evidence of material witness executed by the prosecution is not consistent and cogent. The prosecution has not examined the medical officer to prove the injuries. The police had visited the place of incident soon after the incident. There was inordinate delay in filing the first information report. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with impugned judgment. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.