State of Karnataka vs Raju and Others

N. Ananda, J.—The State has filed this appeal against acquittal of respondents (accused no. 1 to 9) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 143, 148, 448, 427, 354, 504, 506 r/w 149 IPC and also of an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

I have heard learned Government Advocate for the State.

The learned trial judge on consideration of contents of final report and charges framed against the accused had formulated following points for determination:-

1) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 31.10.2004 at about 7.30 p.m., due to pre-existing enmity in relation to monitory dispute between accused no. 2 and 4 and CW. 2, accused formed into unlawful assembly with the common object of assaulting and causing damage to the properties of prosecution witnesses and also abused some of the prosecution witnesses (members of scheduled caste) with an intention to humiliate them in public vision?

2) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused no. 5 and 8 being the members of unlawful assembly assaulted CW. 7-Kadle, thereby accused have committed an offence punishable u/s 323 r/w 149 IPC?

3) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused no. 1 to 9 wielded deadly weapons and committed rioting in front of house of CW. 2, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 148 r/w 149 IPC?

4) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused no. 1 to 9 trespassed into the house CW. 2, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 448 r/w 149 IPC?

5) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused no. 1 to 9 being the members of unlawful assembly trespassed into the house CW. 2 and broke the Television and other utensils and caused damage to CW. 2, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 427 r/w 149 IPC?

6) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused outraged the modesty of CW. 4-Jayamma, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 354 r/w 149 IPC?

7) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction accused criminally intimidated CW. 2, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 504 r/w 149 IPC?

8) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction accused held out threats to some of the prosecution witnesses, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 506 r/w 149 IPC?

9) Whether the prosecution has proved that in the course of same transaction, accused no. 1 to 9 abused CW''s. 1, 2 and 4 by taking out the name of their caste with an intention to insult them in public vision, thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?

It is seen from the impugned judgment that on the date of incident, about 30-40 persons had gone near the house of prosecution witnesses namely PW. 1-Dinesha, PW. 3-Jayamma, PW. 4-Prasanna, PW. 5-Shashikala, PW. 6-Rajamma and PW. 7-Kanthamma to held out threats to them. The aforestated witnesses have consistently deposed that after seeing the crowd of 30-40 persons, they went inside their houses and bolted the doors from inside. They could not see what was happening outside their houses.

PW. 1-Dinesha who is the prime witness admits that he was a crime news reporter and he had received compensation of Rs. 10,000/- from the Government. He had also lodged a complaint that the daughter of his elder sister has been kidnapped. He has admitted that the place of incident is at a distance of 2 Kilometers from Kanakapura Police Station. He has admitted that the Circle Inspector of Police had visited the place of incident during same night and he did not record the statements of witnesses.

PW. 2-Somu, PW. 3-Jayamma, PW. 4-Prasanna have deposed; after seeing the crowd of persons, they went inside their houses and bolted the doors from inside. They were not able to see what was happening outside their house.

Though the prosecution has alleged that accused being the members of unlawful assembly had trespassed into the house of aforestated witnesses and damaged the Television and other utensils, the investigation officer had not seized the damaged articles.

In view of evidence of aforestated witnesses that they went inside their houses and bolted the doors from inside, the case of prosecution that accused had trespassed into their houses and committed mischief in the houses of aforestated witnesses looks highly improbable. The prosecution has alleged that some of the accused had outraged the modesty of PW. 3-Jayamma, there is no evidence worth of its value to prove this charge.

The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has held that there was a quarrel between the two parties in the background of elections which had been held before the date of incident.

Thus, on re-appreciation of evidence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed without reference to other side.