State of Karnataka vs Ramu

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—Appeal is by the State aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed against the accused for the offence punishable under S. 324, IPC and also for the offence under S. 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused was charge sheeted for the offence under S. 323, 324, 354, IPC and for the offence under S. 3(1)(x) & (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act alleging that on 10.6.2008 around 11.00 a.m. near Kanti Halla of Rampur Village, CW 1, 4, 5 and 6 were collecting firewood and bundling them, the accused went there and abused CW 1 in a filthy language taking out the name of their caste and also expressing his anguish as to why they were collecting firewood from his land. Also, having pulled the saree of Sabamma/CW 1 (PW2), assaulted on her left knee with a stick causing bleeding injuries and also assaulted CW 4 - Sharanamma with a club on the right side of her back. CW 5 and 6 who were at the spot saw the incident and ran away. The complaint came to be filed thereafter. Since the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, charges were framed against him. During trial, the trial court examined in all eight witnesses and got marked six exhibits and MO 1. Thereafter, the accused was examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. His defense was total denial. After hearing, while acquitting the accused for the offence under S. 3(1)(x) & (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and for the offence under S. 324, IPC, he was convicted for the offence under S. 354 and 323, IPC. Against the order of acquittal for the offence under the special enactment, the State has filed this appeal.

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

The point that arises for consideration is whether the trial court is justified in acquitting the accused for the offence under S. 3(1)(x) & (xi) of the SC/ST Act and also for the offence under S. 324, IPC.

The complainant is examined as P.W. 2. Her evidence is to the effect that on 10.6.2008 about seven months prior to her evidence before the Court on 7.1.2009, around 10.00 a.m., when she along with CW 4 to 6 was picking/collecting firewood, the accused came there and questioned them as to why they were collecting firewood from his land. He raised a quarrel and also abused them taking out the name of the caste, held her hands and pulled her saree and also assaulted her on left thigh and knee. She has also deposed to the effect that accused assaulted Sharanamma on the back, neck and also on the left leg. PWs 5-6 are said to be witnesses to the incident and they later filed a complaint before the police as per Ex. P3 and got themselves examined in the hospital. They have also shown the scene of offence and also identified the club - MO 1 from which the accused assaulted.

So far as the evidence of PW 2 and 4 is concerned, they have stated in the complaint about abusing them in a filthy language. It appears the place where the incident has taken place is a lonely place which is not accessible normally. In her evidence PW 5 - Sujata has stated that accused held the hand of the complainant and also pulled her saree. There is also an averment in the complaint as to the overt act of the accused in pulling the saree of Sabamma and also PW 6 was there. She has witnessed the incident.

The evidence on record though points out towards assault and outraging the modesty of a woman, as such, attracts the offence under S. 323 & 354, IPC, so far as the offence under S. 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and offence under S. 324, IPC is concerned, it is to be noted that the injuries said to be sustained by the complainant are only simple in nature and do not attract the ingredients of S. 324, IPC except simple hurt. As rightly observed by the trial court, the incident has taken place in a lonely place near Kanti Halla where except these witnesses and also the accused, no body was there. In that view of the matter, one cannot form an opinion as to uttering the words in public view taking out the name of the caste of the injured and the complainant. Accordingly, having analysed the evidence on record, it is to be noted that the place where the incident has happened is not a public place and question of anybody forming an opinion that in public the accused committed an offence taking out the name of the caste of the complainant and abused her, would not arise. In the usual slang language if such abuse is there, it is not as if it amounts to insulting the complainant or any other person taking out the name of their caste and in public view they have committed the offence. Rightly the trial court has acquitted the accused for the above two offences.

Having read the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, it is noticed that accused pulled the saree of the complainant/Sabamma and also pulled her having held her hand. Rightly the trial court convicted and sentenced the accused for the offence under S. 323 and 354, IPC. I do not find any illegality committed by the Special Judge acquitting the accused for the offence under S. 324, IPC as the ingredients of S. 324 is not attracted except causing simple hurt as also the offence under S. 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In that view of the matter, there is no scope for interference with the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge. However, it would meet the ends of justice if it is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under S. 354, IPC in stead of Rs. 2,000/-. Ordered accordingly. Appeal is dismissed.