THE STATE BY ASSISTANT vs SMT LALITHA & ANR

At the request of the learned counsels, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant is the member of Zilla Panchayath. She belongs to ''scheduled caste'' community. On

4.12.2011, at about 8.00 a.m., the complainant had gone to the premises of her brother Neelaya alongwith her sister and brother''s wife and while

they were picking up wood, the accused suddenly came to the spot questioning them as to why they are picking the wood which belongs to them.

The accused started abusing the complainant in filthy words by taking the name of caste of the complainant and insulted her. The accused

threatened the complainant that they would not spare their lives. Hence, the instant complaint was filed. A case was registered in Crime No.312 of

2011 for the offences punishable under sections 447, 506 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked seven documents. The marked portion of the statement of PW-3

was the list of document exhibited for the accused. By the impugned order, the trial court acquitted the accused and hence the present appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant contends that there is perversity committed by the trial court in acquitting the accused. The evidence of the

prosecution is wrongly appreciated.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents disputes the same.

The trial court found material discrepancies in the evidence of the eye witnesses. PW-1 is the complainant, where discrepancies were noticed in

her evidence. Firstly, the fact that there was an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint on the next day i.e., on 5.12.2011. The complainant being

a member of Zilla Panchayath was bound to lodge the complaint at the earliest point of time. Deliberately, on the next day, a false complaint has

been lodged. Therefore, the delay has not been explained by the prosecution.

However, in the cross-examination of PW- 7- the PSI, he has stated that the complainant did not come to the Police Station to lodge the

complaint on 4.12.2011 at all. In the cross-examination of PW-1, it is further stated that the complainant was accompanied by her brother Balu,

Sheenappa and her brother''s wife to the Police Station. But the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 and also evidence of PW-7 would indicate that the

complainant had gone alone to the Police Station.

Further more, the evidence of PW-3 discloses that the premises of Neelaya was in a paddy field. She denied that the premises is owned by

Ananthrama. That after the incident, they picked up wood which was in the premises, but the statement made to the police is contrary to the same.

Contradictions were therefore marked as Ex-D1. In the examination-in-chief of PW-4, he has not stated that the accused were abusing the

complainant. In the cross examination, he has stated that he has not told before the police that PW-1 to PW-3 were picking up wood in the hilly

area. Based on these evidences, the trial court was of the view that in view of the discrepancies in the evidence of the eye witnesses as well as the

complainant, benefit of doubt should be exercised in favour of the accused.

It is for the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The eye witnesses as well as the police witnesses have also not supported

the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, no conviction would lie. The trial court has rightly acquitted the accused. I find no

perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court that calls for any interference.

Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.10.2014 in S.C.No.13 of 2012

passed by the learned II Additional District & Sessions(Special) Judge, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru is confirmed.