State of Karnataka vs Shankarappa and Others

Mohan M. Shantana Goudar, J.—Heard the learned Govt. Pleader and learned amicus curiae and perused the records.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order of acquittal of four accused persons passed by Special Court, Tumkur, in Special Case No. 19/2005.

Case of the prosecution in brief is that P.W.2 and Accused No. 2 are the neighbours; Accused No. 1 is the son of Accused No. 2; It is alleged in the complaint that one Basavalingappa, the neighbour of the complainant was sharing the ration distributed by the State Govt. in favour of the complainant to extent of half; Accused No. 2 was paying the amount of money to the said extent to the complainant; Accused No. 2 had paid Rs. 100/- about 15 years prior to the incident to the sister of the complainant by name Puttamma-P.W.3 for purchasing the ration to an extent of half as usual; Since the complainant did not part with half of the ration to Accused No. 2, there was a quarrel between Accused No. 2 and the complainant; At about 8.00 p.m., on 31.12.2004, P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were taking dinner in their house and at that time, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came to their house and demanded the ration; P.Ws.2 and 3 told Accused Nos. 1 and 2 that they need the ration of that month completely and therefore, they are unable to part away with the ration; Accused No. 1 went back and came back along with Accused Nos. 3 and 4 to the house of the complainant and once again asked the complainant to part with half of the ration; Such request of the accused was turned down by P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 and consequently, all the accused assaulted P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 with sticks and caused bleeding injuries; P.Ws. 1 and 9 separated the quarrel. Based on these allegations, complaint came to be lodged by P.W.2 as per Ex. P.4, which came to be registered in Crime No. 66/2004 of Honnavalli Police, Tipatur Taluk, Tumkur District. The crime came to be registered by the Sub-Inspector of the Police/P.W.12 and on completion of investigation, P.W.14 laid charge-sheet against all the accused for the offences under Sections 450, 324, 326, 307 and 448 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ''the Act''). It is relevant to note that initially, the complaint was not registered for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Act. However, the same was subsequently added with the intervention of the community people of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 16 witnesses, got marked 14 exhibits and 7 material objects. The Trial Court, on evaluation of the case, acquitted the accused.

P.Ws.1 and 9 are the eye-witnesses to the incident. P.W.1 is also the witness for the mahazars/Exs.P.1, P.2 and P.3. M.Os.1 to 4 are clubs, M.O.5 is the shirt and M.O.6 is the baniyan and M.O.7 is the blood-stained saree of P.W.3. P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are the injured eye-witnesses. P.W.5 is a witness for seizure panchanama/Ex. P.1. P.W.6 is another witness for seizure panchanama/Ex. P.3. P.W.7 is the gram panchayath employee who issued the katha extract of the place where incident has taken place. P.W.8 is the doctor who has treated P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 and issued wound certificates as per Exs.P.8, 9 and 10. As afore-mentioned, P.W.9 is the eyewitness and also witness for seizure mahazars/Ex. P.1 and P. 3. P.Ws.10 and 15 are the police constables who participated during the course of investigation and arrested the accused. P.W. 11 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He recorded further statement of witnesses. P.W. 12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police of Honnavalli Police Station. He registered Crime No. 66/2004 based on the complaint/Ex. P.4 lodged by P.W.2. P.W. 13 is another eye-witness. However, he has turned hostile. P.W. 14 is Deputy Superintendent of Police. He has completed the investigation and laid the charge-sheet. P.W. 16 is one of the Investigating Officers who investigated into the crime in part.

It is relevant to note that the complaint was not registered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, initially. However, after five days after the incident in question, the community people of P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 intervened and thereafter, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act came to be included. However, by then, the statements of all the eyewitnesses were recorded. They have not stated before the Police that the accused abused them in filthy language taking the name of their caste. The witnesses have improved their version before the Court by deposing that the accused scolded them taking the name of their caste. The omissions are proved by the defendants during the course of recording of evidence. If these omissions are eschewed from consideration, it is clear that no case is made out against the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The Trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused for the said offence.

Out of six eye-witnesses, one of the eye-witness, viz., P.W.13 has turned hostile completely. His evidence is not helpful either to the case of the prosecution or to the defence.

P.W.2 has clearly admitted that himself and P.W.9 came to the spot together and by the time they came to the spot, the incident was already over in as much as P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 had sustained injuries by then. The admission of P.W.2 makes it clear that P.Ws.2 and 9 are not the eye-witnesses to the incident in question. Therefore, the Trial Court is justified in concluding that the evidence of P.W.9 runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.2. Looking to the afore-mentioned facts and circumstances, the Trial Court is justified in concluding that P.Ws.2 and 9 are not the eye-witnesses to the incident in question.

We are aware of the fact that the injured witness normally do not depose falsehood at least in respect of assault on themselves. They may to certain extent exaggerate the facts while deposing before the Court or during the course of investigation, but normally will not leave the actual assailants from consideration. But in the matter on hand, we find that the motive is alleged against Accused No. 2. Accused No. 1 is the son of Accused No. 2. However, Accused Nos. 3 and 4 are not related to Accused Nos. 1 and 2. According to the case of the prosecution as well as the injured eye-witnesses, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 quarreled with P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 in the matter of sharing of ration for a particular month; and thereafter, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 went back to their house and once again, returned to the spot with Accused Nos. 3 and 4. It is the further case of the prosecution that all the accused assaulted the injured.

On going through the evidence on record meticulously, we are of the opinion that quarrel has taken place between the two groups. It seems there was pull and push between the two groups. It has come on record that the injured P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 are in the habit of lodging false complaints against the villagers at large. They have even lodged the complaint against Gollar community people. Number of complaints and counter-complaints are filed by P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 or against them. Virtually, it seems P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 and their family members are Court birds and they are always in one Court or the other. In this view of the matter, learned amicus curiae is justified in contending that there is every likelihood of foisting false case by P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 against the accused. The tendency of the injured eye-witness appears to be to rope in as many persons as possible as accused in the case. The Trial Court has pointed out in detail as to the material variations in the evidence of all the three injured witnesses. Virtually, no allegation is found against Accused No. 4. P.W.4 who has sustained fracture of a little finger of right hand, has deposed that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have assaulted her. Whereas P.W.3-the daughter of P.W.4 has deposed that it was Accused No. 3 who assaulted on the right hand of P.W.4. It seems the incident has taken place in a Mele and the confusion is created. Therefore, it cannot meticulously be said as to who assaulted whom. Having gone through the material on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not come out with full and true story before the Court. At one stage, it has come on record that P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 were due Rs. 100/- to the accused. Per contra, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused has paid Rs. 100/- for obtaining half of the ration. It seems the origin and genesis of the case of the prosecution is suppressed by the Investigating Officer. The case as made out before the Court is rightly disbelieved by the Court below by concluding that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even on re-consideration of the entire material, we do not find any ground to interfere with the Order of acquittal of the Trial Court. The view taken by the Trial Court is acceptable under the facts and circumstances of the case.

Hence, Appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

We place on record assistance rendered by learned amicus curiae. A fee of Rs. 3,000/- shall be paid as honorarium to learned amicus curiae.