The State of Karnataka vs Rayappa, Malappa, Paramanna and Mahadevappa

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—This appeal is filed by the State against the order of acquittal passed in S.C. No. 66/2010 dated 14.3.2013 by the Special/Sessions Judge, Yadgir, where the respondent accused Nos. 1 to 5 were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and also for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant CW-1 Ambalappa S/o Shivappa Naikodi is a resident of Banatihal village, Tq: Shahapur. On 9.10.2009 around 11.50 a.m. when the complainant''s son CW. 6 Dharmappa was grazing cattle in a land within the limits of Saidapur village, the accused No. 1 Rayappa went to him and asked him as to why he quarreled with his younger brother on the previous day and abused him in filthy language and assaulted him with a stone behind the right ear on the neck causing bleeding injury. He also assaulted on the left forearm and left hand causing internal injuries. When Dharmappa shouted for help, CW. 1 and CWs. 7 to 11 went there to rescue him. The accused Nos. 2 to 5 who were also present on the spot formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with spade, sticks and stones came there shouting themselves that they should not leave them alive. The accused No. 2 Malappa assaulted Ambalappa on the right forearm causing internal injury, he also assaulted CW. 9 on his right hand and left shoulder causing internal injuries. The accused No. 3 Mariyappa assaulted CW. 8 Jatteppa with a stick on his back causing scratch injury. The accused No. 5 Mahadevappa assaulted CW. 7 Subhash with a stick on the right waist and also on the right hand causing bleeding injuries and by assaulting on the back, caused internal injury. The accused No. 4 Paramanna assaulted CW. 11 Manappa with hands on his stomach and back. After the incident, all the accused gave life threat to the witnesses saying that they would kill them if they dared to challenge them again and went away from the place. The injured complainant along with others, came to Gogi police station and lodged complaint against the appellants for the alleged offences.

The prosecution examined in all about 13 witnesses and got marked 13 documents. After hearing, the Special Judge holding that there is evidence for convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w 149 of IPC, acquitted the accused for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The specific allegation against the accused is that on the date of the incident on 9.10.2009 the accused abused the complainant and other witnesses by taking out the name of their caste and threatened with dire consequences. The Special Judge having read over the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the point of offences committed under the special enactment, has noted that nothing has been stated by the witnesses regarding the abuse and insult.

The evidence of Dharmappa PW. 4 is to the effect that all the accused expressed taking out the name of the caste and abused them in a filthy language. The trial Court of course pointed that the complainant has not specifically stated which of the accused abused him and who gave life threat to him. Further it is noted that none of the witnesses have deposed about alarming situation arising due to the alleged threat. Evidence of PW. 4 one Dharmappa, evidence of PW. 7 one Subhash, and PW. 8 Jatteppa, all of them have made omnibus) statement stating that the complainant and other belongs to Bayada community and also threatened to kill them. PWs. 10 and 11 Parashuram and Manappa respectively came to rescue, the accused have expressed that they would kill this complainant and others. It is not made clear which of the accused abused the complainant and others by taking out the name of the caste. In that view of the matter, by an omnibus statement making allegation of abusing the complainant and others by taking out the name of the caste and threatening with dire consequences without pin pointing as to which accused used such words, it cannot be ascertained as to whether the accused intended to insult the complainant and others by taking out the name of the caste. The very statements made by these witnesses is not sufficient to attract the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The expressions made in the usual course do not depict that it was with an intention to cause harm to the reputation in the public. As such the trial Court has opined that the very evidence of the witnesses and also of the complainant do not satisfactorily establish the case against the accused for the alleged offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Special Judge having noted the demeanor of the witnesses formed an opinion that they never intended to insult the accused by taking out the name of the caste of the complainant and other witnesses so as to attract the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. However the trial Court has considered the evidence on record to hold the accused guilty for other offences but so far as offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, it has acquitted the accused. I find no illegality in the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge. The above appeal has to be dismissed at the threshold. Accordingly, appeal filed by the State is dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, question of condonation of delay does not survive for consideration.