In the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad Dated This the 11 Th Day of July 2013 Before the Hon’Ble Mr
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11 TH DAY OF JULY 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.535/2008 BETWEEN: Ningappa Siddappa Nidagundi Age: 37 years R/o. Kappalguddi Taluk: Raibag District: Belgaum. …Appellant (By Sri Srinand A.Pachhapure, Advocate) AND: The State of Karnataka Through Dy.S.P. Chikodi. …Respondent (By Sri K.S.Patil, HCGP) This appeal is filed under section 374(2) Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 11.04.2008, passed in Special Case No.65/2006, on the file of Special (III Additional Sessions) Judge at Belgaum & etc. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, the court delivered the following: 2 J U D G M E N T The accused was tried, convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 504, 506 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’). Therefore, accused has filed this appeal. 2. I have heard learned counsel for accused and learned HCGP for State. 3. It is the case of prosecution that on 09.10.2006, PW1- Kamappa Ranappa Metri (Chairman of Kappalguddi Village Panchayat), PW2-Srikanth Ramappa Yadravi (the clerk of Kappalguddi Village Panchayat) were distributing ration cards in Kappalguddi village. At that time, accused entered the office of Kappalguddi Village Panchayat and scolded PW1 & PW2 and prevented them from distributing ration cards and also abused PW1 & PW2 by taking out the names of their caste with an intention to insult them within public vision. 3 4. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and relied on documents marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. 5. The first information (Ex.P.1) relating to alleged incident was lodged on 09.10.2006. The first information was prepared on the letterhead of Kappalguddi Village Panchayat. The first information was lodged by PW1. The first information was registered at 5.30 p.m., on 09.10.2006. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 11 a.m., on 09.10.2006. 6. PW1 has admitted that first information was recorded by police in Kudachi Police Station. PW1 has admitted that he had gone to Kudachi Police Station along with PW2 and other prosecution witnesses. PW1 has admitted that Kappalguddi Village Panchayat had not passed any resolution to lodge first information on behalf of Village Panchayat. 4 7. There is no evidence on record to indicate that PW1 & PW2 had been authorised by the concerned Tahsildar to distribute ration cards. When clarification was sought by learned HCGP, learned HCGP has produced the letter dated 09.07.2013, addressed by Tahsildar of Raibag Taluk, wherein it is stated that Tahsildar had not directed PW1 & PW2 to distribute ration cards. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove that PW1 & PW2 had authority to distribute ration cards. In the circumstances, it looks probable that accused had questioned PW1 & PW2 about illegal acts committed by them. PW1 & PW2 got enraged by this, lodged first information, alleging aforestated offences. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused had caused simple injuries to PW2. The prosecution has not examined the doctor, who treated PW2 to prove that he had suffered simple injuries. The prosecution has not taken pains to prove that PW1 & PW2 belonged to “Holeya Caste” (Scheduled Caste). The prosecution having contended that accused had abused PW1 & PW2 by taking out the name of their caste (Holeya Caste) 5 should have proved that PW1 & PW2 belong to Holeya Caste and accused knew that PW1 & PW2 belong to Holeya Caste. The prosecution has not produced caste certificates of PW1 & PW2. On the other hand, prosecution has relied on a letter dated 09.07.2013 (Ex.P5) addressed by Tahsildar, wherein it is shown that PW1 & PW2 belonged to ‘Madar Caste’. Ex.P.5 is not a caste certificate, it is in the form of information. Ex.P.5 is not a public document to raise any presumption. Even otherwise, in order to prove an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is necessary for prosecution to prove that person insulted or abused belonged to scheduled caste and he was insulted by taking out the name of his caste with an intention to insult him within public vision. PW2 has deposed that Tahsildar had instructed him to distribute ration cards. The accused came and questioned him about his authority to distribute ration cards. PW2 has deposed that he had obtained authorisation from Tahsildar to distribute ration cards. PW2 has not produced any 6 document to prove that Tahsildar had authorised PW1 & PW2 to distribute ration cards. 8. It is needless to state that ration cards will have to be distributed to eligible candidates based on their economic and social background and there shall not be any mischief in distribution of ration cards. Such unauthorised distribution of ration cards is likely to deprive real beneficiaries and help bogus beneficiaries. It is not out of place to state that existence of bogus ration cards has become a problem for the State and the State is taking steps to eliminate bogus ration cards. In the circumstances, accused had justification to question the illegal and unauthorised distribution of ration cards. 9. PW3-Bharamappa Santhappa Methri has given exaggerated version of evidence. PW3 has deposed that accused had repeatedly assaulted PW2. 10. As already stated, prosecution has not examined the Medical Officer, to prove the nature of injuries suffered by 7 PW2. If accused had repeatedly assaulted PW2 as deposed by PW3, PW2 would have suffered injuries. 11. PW2-Srikanth Ramappa Yadravi has deposed that accused assaulted him on chest and his back. In order to substantiate the evidence of PW2, prosecution should have examined the doctor, who treated PW2. The mere production of medical certificate is not sufficient to prove injuries. 12. PW4-Kempanna Krishnappa Methri has given yet another version. PW4 has deposed; on 09.10.2006, ration cards were being distributed in Village Panchayat office of Kappalguddi village; he had gone to collect ration card; there were several persons, who were waiting to receive ration cards; at that time, accused came to village panchayat office and proclaimed that he would stop distribution of ration cards; thereafter, some persons had requested PW2 not to stop distribution of ration cards; when PW2 started distributing ration cards; accused abused and assaulted PW2; PW4 and other persons separated quarrel. 8 During cross-examination, PW4 has admitted that he was working in the office of Village Panchayat and at the relevant time, one Raju was working as a peon. 13. It is clear from the evidence of PW1 to PW4 that there was enmity between PW1 & PW2 and accused. PW1 to PW4 have admitted that accused had filed a complaint against PW3-Bharamappa Santappa Metri and Mundennavar, Secretary. The Lokayukta Police had arrested said persons and Lokayukta Police had taken action against aforestated persons under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Investigating Officer has not examined the persons who had gathered in Kappalguddi Village Panchayat office to collect ration cards. The Investigating Officer has not seized the list of persons to whom ration cards were distributed or had to be distributed. 14. Thus, on re-appreciation of evidence, I find that there was enmity between accused and PW1 & PW2. On the date of incident, PW1 & PW2 were illegally distributing ration cards. The accused questioned them and prevented them 9 from distributing ration cards. PW1 & PW2 and other members of Kappalguddi Village Panchayat joined hands to lodge a false complaint against accused. The learned Special Judge without appreciating evidence in proper perspective and without considering the background of case has held accused guilty of aforestated offences. Therefore, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 15. In the result, I pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment is set aside. The accused is acquitted of offences punishable under sections 341, 323, 504 & 506 IPC and also of an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The bail bonds executed by accused stand cancelled. The fine amount if any deposited by accused shall be refunded to him. SD/- JUDGE SNN.