Bangalore District Court
Konanakunte Ps vs A1 Chandrakantha on 9 January, 2025
KABC010165932020
IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
CITY (CCH-71)
Dated this the 09th day of January, 2025.
Present;
Sri. Rajesh Karnam.K, B.Sc., LL.B., LL.M.,
LXIX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.Case.No.351/2020
COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Konanakunte Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Special Public Prosecutor).
-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1. Smt Chandrakantha W/o Vishwanath,
aged 54 years, R/o House No. 16, Model
House Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru
City.
2. Vishwanath B.R. S/o Lt. M. Rangaswamy
aged 57 years, R/o House No. 16, Model
House Street, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru
City.
3. Manjunatha S. S/o Shrinivasappa
aged 36 years, R/o No. 51, Jambusavari
Dinne, JP Nagar, 8th Phase, B.G. Road,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Sri. BCC., Advocate)
Spl.C.No:351/2020
2
1. Date of commission of offence : 18.07.2019
2. Date of report of Offence : 17.10.2019
3. Name of the Complainant : Sampangi G.P.
4. Date of commencement of : 14.08.2023
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 28.10.2024
6. Offences Complained are : U/s. 506 r/w.34 IPC and
sec. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of
SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Charges not proved
JUDGMENT
This case is registered as the ACP,
Subramanyapuram Sub-Division, Bengaluru has
submitted Charge-sheet against the accused
persons for the offences punishable under Section
506 r/w.34 IPC and sec. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of
SC/ST(POA) Act, 1989.
2. The complainant approached the jurisdictional
police, but the jurisdictional police police did not
took the complaint of complainant, accordingly,
complaint did file PCR. No.50/2019. My Predecessor
in office referred the matter to the jurisdictional
Spl.C.No:351/2020
3
police on 1.10.2019. On the basis of the PCR
jurisdictional police registered crime No.280/2019.
3. The case of the complainant is that complainant is
having property site No.38/1 and 39 wherein site
No.38/1 having katha No.6/9, measuring east to
west 30 feet and north to south 40 feet, similarly
the site No.39 Khata No.6/9, measuring east to west
30+15/2 feet and north to south 40 feet, in all
measuring 900 sq.ft., situated at Ward No.194,
Gottigere village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk.
4. The complainant submits he got the property by
way of purchase from his erstwhile owner by name
R.Mahesh Chandra for a valuable sale consideration
on 8.2.2019 wherein document JPN-1-10870/2018-
19 Book No.1 of Sub-Registrar, Jayanagar
(J.P.Nagar), Bengaluru. Further complainant submits
the property are self-acquired properties of one
B.S.Savithri Devi the mother of the complainant’s
vendor he had got the property by way of
registered sale deed dated:14.6.1973 vide
Spl.C.No:351/2020
4
document No.1684/1973-74, book No.1, Volume-
1008 pages 210-213.
5. The complainant submits the said B.S.Savithri Devi
expired on 17.3.2003 and as her husband expired
on 25.2.2019, accordingly the vendor of the
complainant Mahesh Chandra succeeded to the
estate and he is the absolute owner of the property
who alienated the same. The complainant submits
on 18.7.2019 accused persons along with their
henchmen tried to disturb the property of the
complainant by attempting to destroy the
compound wall put up. The accused persons are not
having right, title, interest over the property of the
complainant. They are trying to cause physical and
mental harassment to the complainant. In fact the
complainant has been abused as “holeya madiga”
as he hails from schedule caste community. On
20.7.2019 even though police being informed by
the complainant failed to register any complaint.
Accordingly complainant is forced to come up with
this complaint.
Spl.C.No:351/2020
5
6. On the basis of this PCR the Investigating Officer
took up investigation by registering Cr.No.218/2019
on 17.10.2019. On conclusion, Investigating Officer
filed charge sheet.
7. During the course of investigation the accused were
apprehended and produced before this Court and
subsequently got enlarged on bail. After filing of
charge sheet, this court took the cognizance of the
offences. The Charge sheet copy was furnished to
the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of
Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As there was
sufficient materials available, charge was framed
for the above said offences and read over and
explained to the accused persons in vernacular
language and they pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
8. At trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to 8
and placed Ex.P.1 to 5 and closed their side. On
behalf of defence Exs.D.1 to D.6 got marked
through complainant and matter reserved for
recording of statement of the accused persons as
Spl.C.No:351/2020
6
required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., duly
recorded.
9. The learned SPP for the prosecution relied on
following citations:
1. (2012) Supreme Court Cases 777 – Ramesh Harijan
Versus State of Uttar Pradesh.
2. 1963 A.I.R. 200, 1963 SCR(2) 405 – M.G.Agarwal
Versus State of Maharashtra wherein it is held that:
“There is another point of law which must be considered
before dealing with the evidence in this case. The
prosecution case against accused No. 1 rests on
circumstantial evidence. The main charge of conspiracy
under section 120 B is sought to be established by the
alleged conduct of the conspirators and so far as
accused No. 1 is concerned, that rests on circumstantial
evidence alone. It is a well established rule in criminal
jurisprudence that circumstantial evidence can be
reasonably made the basis of an accused person’s
conviction if it is of such a character that it is wholly
inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and is
consistent only with his guilt. If the circumstances
proved in the case are consistent either with the
innocence of the accused or with his guilt, then the
accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. There is no
doubt or dispute about this position. But in applying this
principle, it is necessary to distinguish between facts
which may be called primary or basic on the one hand
and inference of facts to be drawn from them on the
other. In regard to the proof of basic or primary facts the
Court has to judge the evidence in the ordinary way, and
in the appreciation of evidence in respect of the proof of
these basic or primary facts there is no scope for the
application of the doctrine of benefit of doubt. The Court
considers the evidence and decides whether that
evidences proves a particular fact or not. When it is held
Spl.C.No:351/2020
7
that a certain fact is proved, the question arises whether
that fact leads to the inference of guilt of the accused
person or not, and in dealing with this aspect of the
problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt would apply
and an inference of guilt can be drawn only if the proved
fact is wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the
accused and is consistent only with his guilt. It is in the
light of this legal position that the evidence in the
present case has to be appreciated. The Court then
considered the evidence and the findings of the High
Court and dismissed the appeals.
3. Supreme Court of India – State of U.P. Versus Naresh
and Ors. Wherein it is held that:
“The trial Court had taken note of the first incident that
occurred in the morning and considered the same in
correct prospective, that in the morning incident Balak
Ram (PW.5) got an injury on his arm as has been found
by Dr. R.C. Gupta (PW.3) and not on the head. The
statement made by Balak Ram (PW.5) may not be
correct in this regard for the reason that he could not
remember that he got the injury on his arm and not on
the head. This version is duly supported by the NCR
shown by (Ex. Ka.6). Had there been any concoction in
the said NCR (Ex. Ka.6), either with the police personnel
at Kampil Police Station or at the behest of Inspector
Surjan Singh, brother of Balak Ram (PW.5), then there
could not have been any discrepancy in the contents
thereof. So far as this minor contradiction was
concerned, Constable Shiv Nath Singh (PW.6) was not at
all cross-examined in this respect. No suggestion was put
to Constable Shiv Nath Singh (PW.6), who was examined
much later than Subedar (PW.1) in this regard. In respect
of the first incident S.I. Brijendra Singh (PW.7), the I.O.,
has stated that he had seen the pits made by Naresh,
accused on the western side of the Chak Road in front of
his house. It had not been a suggestion of any person
that the pits had been made by any person from the
complainant party. Presence of the pits was an important
circumstance supporting the prosecution version so far
as the morning incident was concerned and the High
Court erred gravely not taking note of this specific
Spl.C.No:351/2020
8
finding by the trial Court. The High Court had doubted
the prosecution case that if in respect of the first
incident NCR had been lodged in the morning, why had
the complainant party stayed at Kampil for the whole
day? The trial Court had recorded a finding after scrutiny
of the evidence that 12 rowdy persons had been taken
into custody and that the police officers of that police
station remained pre-occupied with that particular
dispute and so not a single constable was available to
come with the complainants.
The High Court also fell in error that whilst reaching from
the place of occurrence to the police station, the
complainant party covered the distance in one hour but
while coming back in the evening they had taken a
longer time. The time gap was not so much that it could
give rise to any kind of suspicion. Such a trivial issue
could not have been a ground for acquitting the accused.
More so, no question in this regard was put to either of
the star witnesses, when they were cross-examined.
The evidence of an injured witness must be given due
weightage being a stamped witness, thus, his presence
cannot be doubted. His statement is generally
considered to be very reliable and it is unlikely that he
has spared the actual assailant in order to falsely
implicate someone else. The testimony of an injured
witness has its own relevancy and efficacy as he has
sustained injuries at the time and place of occurrence
and this lends support to his testimony that he was
present during the occurrence. Thus, the testimony of an
injured witness is accorded a special status in law. The
witness would not like or want to let his actual assailant
go unpunished merely to implicate a third person falsely
for the commission of the offence.
Thus, the evidence of the injured witness should be
relied upon unless there are grounds for the rejection of
his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and
discrepancies therein. [Vide: Jarnail Singh v. State of
Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719; Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of
Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673; and Abdul Sayed v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259].
Spl.C.No:351/2020
9
“24. The High Court disbelieved both the witnesses
Subedar (PW.1) and Balak Ram (PW.5) as being closely
related to the deceased and for not examining any
independent witnesses. In a case like this, it may be
difficult for the prosecution to procure an independent
witness, wherein the accused had killed one person at
the spot and seriously injured the other. The
independent witness may not muster the courage to
come forward and depose against such accused. A mere
relationship cannot be a factor to affect credibility of a
witness.
Evidence of a witness cannot be discarded solely on the
ground of his relationship with the victim of the offence.
The plea relating to relatives’ evidence remains without
any substance in case the evidence has credence and it
can be relied upon. In such a case the defence has to lay
foundation if plea of false implication is made and the
Court has to analyse the evidence of related witnesses
carefully to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
[Vide Jarnail Singh (supra), Vishnu & Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477; and Balraje @ Trimbak
(supra)].
25. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound
to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal
errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to
lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock
and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the
omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious
doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other
witnesses also make material improvement while
deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to
rely upon. However, minor contradictions,
inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on
trivial matters which do not affect the core of the
prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which
the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.
An appellate court must also consider whether the court
below has placed the burden of proof incorrectly or failed
to take into consideration any admissible evidence or
had taken into consideration evidence brought on record
contrary to law? In exceptional cases, whether there are
Spl.C.No:351/2020
10
compelling circumstances and the judgment in appeal is
found to be perverse, the appellate court can interfere
with the order of acquittal. So, in order to warrant
interference by the appellate court, a finding of fact
recorded by the court below must be outweighed
evidence or such finding if outrageously defies logic as to
suffer from the vice of irrationality. [Vide: Babu v. State
of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189; and Dr. Sunil Kumar
Sambudayal Gupta & Ors. (supra)].
28. The instant case is required to be examined in the
totality of the circumstances and in the light of the
aforesaid legal propositions. The Court has to strike a
balance in the interest of all the parties concerned. Thus,
there is an obligation on the court neither to give a long
latitude to the prosecution, nor construe the law in
favour of the accused. In view of the aforesaid analysis
of facts and evidence on record, we reach the
inescapable conclusion that the High Court has gravely
erred in discarding the evidence of Subedar (PW.1) and
Balak Ram (P.W.5) as a result of merely being relatives
of the deceased, Sri Ram. The High Court further fell into
error in not giving due weightage to the deposition of
Balak Ram (P.W.5), a stamped witness, who had suffered
gun shot injuries. The High Court made too much of
insignificant discrepancies, which were made the basis
for acquittal.
4. Karnataka High Court – Sri J.C.Pillappa Versus Sri
Narayana.
“Though these witnesses have been cross- examined,
barring some minor contradictions here and there,
absolutely there is nothing in the cross- examination so
as to disbelieve their evidence. Merely because the
accused and the complainant are close relatives that
cannot be a ground for the acquittal of the accused.
Learned Magistrate, upon proper appreciation of the
entire evidence on record, has rightly held that the
prosecution has proved the charges levelled against the
accused persons under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506
of IPC and thereby convicted the accused. But the
Spl.C.No:351/2020
11
learned Sessions Judge has not properly appreciated the
evidence on record. He has observed that the provisions
of Probation of Offenders of Act have not been pressed
into service by the Magistrate. That observation itself
presupposes that there is material against the accused
to hold them guilty for the aforesaid offences. Though
the learned Sessions Judge has stated that the
prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled
against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt,
the said observation made by the learned Sessions Judge
is contrary to the evidence on record. Since the learned
Sessions Judge failed to properly appreciate the
evidence, it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned
judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
5. (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 163 – S.Sudershan
Reddy and Others.
In Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab (AIR 1953
SC 364) it has been laid down as under:-
“A witness is normally to be considered independent
unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to
be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has
cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation would be
the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an
innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and
there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a
tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a
witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but
foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere
fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a
sure guarantee of truth. However, we are not attempting
any sweeping generalization. Each case must be judged
on its own facts. Our observations are only made to
combat what is so often put forward in cases before us
as a general rule of prudence. There is no such general
rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by
its own facts.”
Spl.C.No:351/2020
12
“We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the
High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses
requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an
observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are
women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their
testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on
the reason that they are closely related to the deceased
we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to
many criminal cases and one which another Bench of
this Court endeavoured to dispel in ‘Rameshwar v. State
of Rajasthan‘ (AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find,
however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the
judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of
counsel.”
In Krishnan and Another v. State of Kerala (1996(10) SCC
508 ) it was observed as follows : “After giving our
careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of
the case and the evidence adduced, we do not find any
reason to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment
passed by the High Court in convicting appellant-2
Vijaykumar. So far as the contention of insufficient light
is concerned, we may indicate that in an open field on a
cloudless starry night, there was no difficulty in
identifying the victim by the assailants because of
existence of some light with which identification was
possible. PW1 being a close relation of both the accused,
there was no difficulty for PW 1 to identify them. The
accused were also known to the other witness for which
he could also identify them. So far as appellant-
Vijaykumar is concerned, PW1 had physically prevented
him from causing further injury on the deceased and
there was a tussle between the two. Hence there was no
difficulty for PW1 to identify Accused 2- Vijaykumar. His
deposition gets corroboration from the deposition of PW3
who had seen Vijaykumar at the place of occurrence.
PW3 had not seen Vijaykumar causing any injury on the
deceased because by the time PW3 came near the place
of the incident and noticed the incident, Vijaykumar had
been prevented by PW1 and his knife had fallen on the
ground.”
Spl.C.No:351/2020
13
6. Supreme Court of Inida – Vijay Shankar Shinde & Ors.
Versus State of Maharashtra.
In support of the appeal, leaned counsel for the
appellants submitted that PWs 9 presence at the spot
appears to be doubtful and in fact the Trial Court noted
that she had not seen the actual incident but after
learning about the occurrence she came to the place and
her husband told her that it was the accused who had
beaten him. It is also submitted that PW11 had reason to
falsely implicate the accused persons. Learned counsel
for the respondent-State on the other hand supported
the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the High Court.
8. Though the Trial Court observed that PWs 9 and 11
may have tried to exaggerate because former was the
widow and latter was injured victim, the evidence of PWs
12 and 13 establish the prosecution version.
9. The Trial Court was not justified in holding that
because PW11 was an injured witness he may have
reason to falsely implicate the accused. However, as
rightly observed by the Trial Court and the High Court,
the evidence of PWs 12 and 13 does not suffer from any
deficiency. PWs 11, 12 and 13 were cross-examined at
length but nothing substantial could be elicited to
destroy the credibility of their version. As a matter of
fact, the evidence of injured person who is examined as
a witness lends more credence, because normally he
would not falsely implicate a person thereby protecting
the actual assailant.
10. The Trial Court as well as the High Court have rightly
placed reliance on the evidence of the eye-witnesses and
as noted above their evidence was clear and cogent.
7. 2008(1) KCCR 129 Supreme Court – Shaik China
Brahmam V/s. State of A.P.
C. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872- CRIMINAL TRIAL- Section
3-Appreciation of evidence- Statement made
examination- in chief- No effective cross examination- No
Spl.C.No:351/2020
14
suggestion even to the effect that the case of the other
side not correct-The version of the prosecution needs to
be accepted.
Held: In fact, the defence has given no suggestion in
cross examination that he had any reason to implicate
the accused. Thus from his evidence on record the case
of the prosecution in fully established.
Appeal dismissed.
8. Supreme Court of India – Ashok Kumar Chaudhary &
Ors. Versus State of A.P.
It is trite that mere delay in lodging the first
information report is not by itself fatal to the case of the
prosecution. Nevertheless, it is a relevant factor of which
the Court is obliged to take notice and examine whether
any explanation for the delay has been offered and if
offered, whether it is satisfactory or not. If no
satisfactory explanation is forthcoming, an adverse
inference may be drawn against the prosecution.
However, in the event, the delay is properly and
satisfactorily explained; the prosecution case cannot be
thrown out merely on the ground of delay in lodging the
F.I.R. Obviously, the explanation has to be considered in
the light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case.
15. On this aspect, in State of H.P. Vs. Gian Chand , a
three-Judge Bench of this Court had observed thus:
“Delay in lodging the FIR cannot be used as a ritualistic
formula for doubting the prosecution case and discarding
the same solely on the ground of delay in lodging the
first information report. Delay has the effect of putting
the court on its guard to search if any explanation has
been offered for the delay, and if offered, whether it is
satisfactory or not. If the prosecution fails to
satisfactorily explain the delay and there is a possibility
of embellishment in the prosecution version on account
Spl.C.No:351/2020
15
of such delay, the delay would be fatal to the
prosecution. However, if the delay is explained to the
satisfaction of the court, the delay cannot by itself be a
ground for disbelieving and discarding the entire
prosecution case.”
16. More recently in Ramdas & Ors. Vs. State of
Maharashtra it has been observed that the question
whether the delay in lodging the report adversely affects
the case of the prosecution has to be considered in the
light of the totality of the evidence. This is a matter of
appreciation of evidence. There may be cases where
there is direct evidence to explain the delay. Even in the
absence of direct explanation, there may be host of
circumstances appearing on record which may provide
reasonable explanation for the delay.
9. S.92 S.C. & S.T.Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 8.
Presumption as to offences- In a prosecution for an
offence under this chapter, if it is proves that:-
“b) a ground of persons committed an offence under this
Chapter and if it is proves that the offence committed
was a sequel to any existing dispute regarding land or
any other matter, it shall be presumed that the offence
was committed in furtherance of the common intention
or in prosecution of the common object;
10. Learned counsel for accused Nos.1 to 3 has relied on
following citations :
1. 2023 (2) AKR 787 (Mirle Vardaraj Vs State of
Karnataka)
Criminal P.C (2 of 1974), S.482 -Penal Code (45 of 1860),
S.420, S.447, S.465, S.468, S.471, S.504, S.34 Scheduled
Castes and the scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S.3(1)(r), S.3(1),(s)-Quashing
of FIR-Offences alleged against accused punishable
Spl.C.No:351/2020
16
u/Ss.420, 447, 465, 468, 471, 504, 506, 34 of Penal code
and u/S.3(1)(r), (s) of SC and ST Act-FIR lodged after
more than eight months from the date of alleged
incident without offering plausible explanation-FIR
appearing to be after thought with intention to
circumvent order passed by Joint Director of Land
Records confirming sketch and sub division in favour of
accused in respect of subject-matter of property-
Although offences were covered under SC/ST Act, per-
existing dispute being civil in nature between parties
arising on account of possession over property would not
disclose offence under said Act-It would be abuse of
process of law if investigation is allowed to be continued-
FIR, quashed.
AIR Online 2008 SC 121, Followed.
2. AIR 2023 SUPREME COURT 2999 (Gulam Mustafa Vs
Stage of Karnataka)
Constitution of India, Art 136, Art. 142-Quashing of FIR-
Complainant raised a dispute regarding ownership of
land after unexplained delay of over 60 years- Criminal
case was lodged after failure to obtain relief in civil suits,
coupled with denial of interim relief to her family
members- Criminal proceedings were initiated with
ulterior motive, for oblique reasons and was a clear case
of vengeance- No offence can be said to have been
made out under ST/ ST Act against appellant-
complainant and FIR were frivolous, vexatious and
oppressive -Order rejecting application for quashing FIR
and consequent proceedings was erroneous, hence set
aside-FIR and also any proceedings emanating therefrom
were quashed.
3. 2023 (1) AKR 22 (Siddappa Yellappa Shirur Vs State of
Karnataka)
(A) Scheduled Castes and the scheduled
Tribes( Prevention of Atrocities) Act (33 of 1989), S.3(a)
(x), S.3(1)(xi)–Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S.3- Offence of
Spl.C.No:351/2020
17
atrocity- period- To attract an offence under S.3(1)(x)
and (xi) of SC and ST Act, abuse to informant or any
other person must be ‘in any place within public view’-
complainant parties belonged to Scheduled Caste-
Alleged incident of abuse by accused persons touching
the caste of complainant parties tool place inside the
house of complainant- Alleged scene of offence was not
‘in any place within the public view’-Moreover, except
complainant and her relative witnesses, no witnesses
has seen the incident withing the four walls of building-
Offences of atrocity was not made out- Conviction set
aside. AIR 2020 SC 5584, Followed.
(B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) S.323, S.324, S.451, S.504,
S.143, S.147, S.148, S.506, S.149 Evidence Act (a of
1872) S.3, S.8- Hurt by dangerous weapons- proof-
Contradiction was found in testimonies of prosecution
witnesses regarding injuries suffered by them, manner of
occurrence and weapons used by accused persons used
by accused persons- Existence of political rivalry
between accused persons and complainant parties-As a
candidate belonging to a political party of accused had
won the election, they were celebrating victory by
bursting crackers in front of temple situated near the
house of complainant-There was no grudge by accused
persons against complainant and her family members –
Who were having grudge as a candidate of their motive
for accused persons to commit offences alleged against
them-Conviction,set aside.
4. (2023) 2 SCC 195 (R. Nagendra Yadav Vs State of
Karnataka)
Criminal procedure Code 1973-S.482- Quashment of
proceedings – when warranted principles summarised.
Complainant disclosing civil transaction may also have a
criminal texture – But High Court must examine whether
the dispute which is in substance of a civil nature os
given a cloak of a criminal offence – In such a situation, if
civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted. High
court, held may quash criminal proceedings.
Spl.C.No:351/2020
18
5.(2023) 3 SCC 423 (Deepak Gaba & Others Vs State of
Karnataka)
6. CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5497/2022( Sri. Rasik Lal Patel
& another Vs State of Karnataka)
intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
“abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within
public view;complainant alleging harassment by him and
disturbance of peaceful possession. It can neither be
malicious or vexatious or even false. Therefore, the said
provision also cannot be invoked in the case at hand.
The other provisions are Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of 23 the
Act – hurling of abuses in a public place or in a place of
public view. Neither of them are present in the case at
hand, as the property of the petitioners and the
complainant abut each other.
The ingredients of clauses (r) and (s) are sought to be
pumped into the complaint or the summary of the
charge sheet only to wreck vengeance against the
petitioners for having registered a crime against the
complainant in which the Police have filed a charge
sheet. Therefore, the provisions under clauses (r) and (s)
are only a counter blast to what is aforesaid. Now
coming to Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, whoever commits
any offence against a person or property knowing that it
is belonging to a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe becomes liable for punishment. It is
again ununderstandable how the said provision could be
invoked, as the complainant in the complaint avers that
pursuant to certain sale deeds, the petitioners were put
in possession of the property, not today but decades
ago. Therefore, the said provision is loosely laid against
the petitioners.
In the light of the aforesaid facts, glaring enough they
are, what would unmistakably emerge is that, this case
would form a classic illustration of misuse of the
provisions of the Act and the penal provisions under the
Spl.C.No:351/2020
19
IPC. It is such cases which clog the criminal justice
system and consume considerable time of the Courts, be
it the Magistrates Court, Court of Session or this Court,
while genuine cases where litigants have actually
suffered would be waiting in the pipeline. Therefore,
such cases, which on the face of it is an abuse of the
process of the law, are necessarily required to be nipped,
failing which, it would be a heavy burden on the criminal
justice system, apart from it becoming a harassment to
the petitioners and ultimately resulting in miscarriage of
justice”.
11. Heard the arguments, perused the materials
available on record and the following points would arise
for the determination of this Court are as follows;
POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that at the site No.38/1
and 39, Gottigere village Khata No.6/9,
Uttarahalli Hobli, within the limits of
Konanakunte police station, the son of
Savithridevi Mahesh Chandra C.W.1
Sampangi purchased the said property on
8.2.2019, the accused persons in
prosecution of their common intention on
18.7.2019 attempted to demolish the
compound wall of the site, when C.W.1
questioned accused persons, they have
committed criminal intimidation by
threatening the CW1 with injury to his
person with intent to cause alarm to him
and thereby committed the offence
Punishable under Section 506 r/w.34 of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date,
time and place, accused persons in
Spl.C.No:351/2020
20
furtherance of their common intention, the
accused though not belonging to SC/ST have
intentionally insulted with intent to humiliate
CW1 being the members of Scheduled caste
in a place within the public view as “ಹೊಲೆಯ
ಮಾದಿಗ, ಕೀಳುಜಾತಿಯವನು” and thereby
committed offence punishable u/sec 3(1)(r)
of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date,
time and place, accused persons in
furtherance of their common intention,
accused persons though not being the
member of SC/ST have abused CW1 being
the member of Scheduled caste by taking
the name of his caste as “ಹೊಲೆಯ ಮಾದಿಗ,
ಕೀಳುಜಾತಿಯವನು” in a place within public view
and thereby committed offence punishable
u/sec 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act?
4) What order?
12. My findings to the above points are as follows;
Point No.1 : In the Negative
Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : As per final order
for the following;
REASONS
13. The learned SPP submits as per the complaint made
before this court, the same being referred to the
Spl.C.No:351/2020
21
jurisdictional police in PCR. No.50/2019 the Investigating
Officer has taken cognizance and filed charge sheet for
the offence punishable u/s.506 r/w.34 of IPC and
sec.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. The complainant
has specifically deposed in his evidence that accused
did abused the complainant in filthy language and also
gave life threat. Similarly all the material witnesses
examined for the prosecution Pws. 1 to 8 have
supported the prosecution case. The complainant has
specifically mentioned in the complaint how he got right
over the property namely site No.38/1 and 39. In fact in
the cross examination of P.W.1 question has been raised
with regard to the purchase of site Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 by
the accused persons, however complainant has
specifically given explanation that the sites are situated
at difference places, however accused on the guise of
the purchase of the site Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 are trying to
lay their hands on the property belonging to the
complainant which is purchased through registered
documents by complainant. The Learned SPP argues, In
the cross examination of P.W.1 at page-3 the questions
put to the victim specifically proves the prosecution
Spl.C.No:351/2020
22
case, wherein it has been suggested with regard to
accused persons are known to the victim since 10 to 12
years is an admitted fact. It is further admitted by the
complainant that he is a witness to the documents got
registered by the accused persons. This fact clearly goes
against the case of the defence since the existence of
the sites of the complainant are not disputed, however
the verbal spat between the accused persons against
the complainant is established even by the material
witnesses Pws. 2 to 4 namely Prasanna Kumar, D.Rajesh
and K.S.Naveen have deposed about the same. In fact
the P.W.5 is an eye witness to the incident who has
supported the prosecution case. In the case on hand,
this court has to appreciate the fact that as per sec.8(b)
of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 when the property being in
existence belonging to the complainant, then
presumption is to be drawn that persons or group of
persons committed offence with regard to existing
dispute land or other matter as such presumption if
drawn prosecution is to be believed.
14. In the case on hand, there is no rebuttal evidence
placed by the defence, as such the site Nos.1,2,3 and 6
Spl.C.No:351/2020
23
sold to third persons. Hence, accused making claim to
that effect cannot affect the actual right of the
complainant concerning the same of complainant. Under
these circumstances, the interest over the property of
complainant cannot be made by the accused persons, as
such accused are to be convicted for giving life threat to
the victim.
15. In fact the accused persons were knowing the
complainant even before the purchase made by them
with regard to their alleged sites since complainant is a
witness to the first document of accused. Accordingly,
the specific words used by the accused persons against
the complainant in a public place in presence of public
as deposed by independent witness before this court
establishes the commission of offence. Accordingly, seek
for conviction.
16. The learned counsel for the accused Sri.BCC
submits the ingredients of alleged offence punishable
u/s.506 of IPC, not made out since though complainant
deposed as per his PCR, in his cross examination he has
given specific admissions that he had signed
documents, namely site being purchased by the accused
Spl.C.No:351/2020
24
persons. Further the complainant has admitted the
defence documents namely Ex.D.1 to 6. It is a fact that
complainant is a very influential person who was also a
village Panchayath member of Gottigere village. In fact
what is written in the complaint is not known to the
complainant, but he had put only his signature. The
complainant has admitted in his cross examination that
accused No.1 had purchased sites from Ramalingam
namely site Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 which are in total 7,000
sq.ft. However though complainant has denied the total
extent but the purchase made is established, in fact the
date is 28.3.2012 which is purchased, so called date of
purchase being allegedly made by the complainant.
Such being the case the allegations made by the
complainant are having no any genesis. It is specifically
admitted by the complainant as per Ex.P.4 there is an
original suit pending between the accused and the
complainant. Under these circumstances, the question
of filing the present criminal case is only an attempt
made by the complainant to arm twist the accused
persons to budge for the attempt made by the
complainant by making false complaint by way of PCR.
Spl.C.No:351/2020
25
As per para-7 of the complaint, there is nothing
mentioned in the complaint with regard to incident,
however in the evidence complainant has made a blown
out case which cannot be considered without any basis.
There is considerable delay in making complaint since
the date of alleged offence 18.7.2019, however
complainant has made complaint before this court only
on 1.10.2019, however complainant had made attempt
to lodge complaint before the jurisdictional police and no
any material is placed. Under such circumstances the
alleged crime cannot be considered being committed by
the accused since it is only an after thought to crime
cannot be considered being committed by the accused
since it is only an after thought to implicate falsely all
the accused persons.
17. The learned counsel for the accused submits there
is no explanation given by the complainant for the
delay. In fact the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 the ingredients have not been
made in the complaint, it is only an after thought to
include or invoke the provisions just to harass the
accused persons by making false atrocity case.
Spl.C.No:351/2020
26
18. In the case on hand, the time of actual offence has
not been specified by the complainant either in the PCR
or further before the Investigating Officer, therefore as
O.S.No.886/2020 being pending and complainant failed
to get any suitable orders in his favour, he has made an
attempt to get false crime to be registered. In the case
on hand, there are other criminal case got registered
against the accused persons, this is an additional
attempt to implicate the accused falsely. The learned
counsel for the accused submits if at all the property of
the complainant is distinct and situated in a public place
than that of accused No.1, then question of interference
by the accused persons for the enjoyment of the
property belonging to the complainant does not arise. In
fact the documents of the year 2019 has been got
created only by paying stamp duty to a non-existing
property. As such the accused are innocent of the
alleged offence. Accordingly, seeks acquittal.
19. POINT NO.1: The prosecution to prove the alleged
offence punishable u/s.506 r/w.34 of IPC basically relies
on the PCR. The complainant in the PCR has specifically
mentioned in para-7 the accused persons made attempt
Spl.C.No:351/2020
27
to destroy the compound wall put up by the
complainant. The complainant has mentioned at that
time, accused abused him in foul language by
mentioning as ‘holeya madiga’ belonging to schedule
caste. Accordingly, he has filed the PCR. In the PCR
there is no mention about the life threat given by the
accused persons. In the evidence of the complainant, he
has specifically mentioned that accused abused in filthy
language and gave life threat in page-2 of his
examination in chief. This Pw.1 witness in cross
examination at page-8 deposed he does not know
Kannada to read but he can sign his signature. The
complainant specifically admits in page-4 that accused
purchased site No.1, 2, 3 and 6 from one Ramalingam,
he deposed ‘may be’. This witness admits he was
present when the sale deed was got registered on
28.03.2012 and he has also signed the concerned
document as a witness. This witness has specifically
admitted in page-5 that he is a party in
O.S.No.1127/2019 on the board of the Senior Civil Judge,
Bengaluru Rural, wherein he has made his appearance.
This witness admits on 29.07.2019 the case has filed.
Spl.C.No:351/2020
28
This witness pleads ignorance that there is injunctive
order passed against him on 31.07.2019. This witness
admits there is another suit O.S.886/2020 which is also
pending in the Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural as of
another suit O.S.1385/2019. This witness pleads
ignorance about O.S.No.580/2020 is also filed. This
witness pleads ignorance that tenant of the accused had
made O.S.No.580/2020. This witness pleads ignorance
that the suit filed came to be disposed on 27.10.2022 is
not within his knowledge. This witness specifically
admits in page-9 the land originally belongs to wife of
Ramalingaiah Sy.No.6/9 namely Savithramma
W/o.Ramalingaiah during her life time had made sites
and sold the same, he denies the same. The Pw.1
further deposed certain sites have been sold, certain
sites have not been sold. This witness pleads ignorance
that site No.17 is not concerned to him. This witness
admits site No.17 has been given as a Gift by Mahesh
Chandra to him on 26.5.2014 as per Ex.D.1 is admitted.
Similarly he admits Ex.D.2, 3 and 4 which are registered
in his name. This witness denies he has concocted the
documents concerning 20 or 25 sites in the layout. This
Spl.C.No:351/2020
29
witness denies as injunction has been obtained by the
accused in O.S.No.1127/2019 he had filed this suit with
a malicious intention. This witness submits the assault
has been made against him and they are all available in
pen drive placed on record. This witness admits there is
a compound wall up to the height of 15 feet, witness
replies they have previously of low height and now it has
been raised to 15 feet. This witness denies the
suggestion that there is no any incident happened, there
is no any possibility of seeing by public and he had
brought the witness as eye witness or his own. This
witness denies when in July itself, accused No.1 had
obtained injunctive order, then question of filing this
complaint does not arise in the month of October 2019,
he denies the same. This witness denies other
suggestions made by learned counsel for the accused.
This witness admits he had given complaint to the
Konanakunte Police who had not registered crime, then
only he has filed PCR again with an intention to grab the
property of the accused. This witness admits the
signature on Ex.D.1 made on 26.05.2014 belonging to
him. He has admitted Ex.D.1 to 6 being in existence
Spl.C.No:351/2020
30
which are registered documents. This witness admits as
per Ex.D.1 Vanja has made a complaint against him
concerning the same property. This witness admits
opposite to property of accused site No.16 is in situation
and which belongs to Vanja is admitted. This witness
admits civil suit is also filed by Vanja is admitted. The so
called eye witness Prasanna deposed he observed on
18.07.2019 about incident and they were persons
gathered abusing with regard to site where accused
questioned whether they have given site for rent, to that
accused have questioned who is to question those
things and this witness deposes you are low caste
person you should not come here and pacified the
dispute and sent them to police station.
20. In the cross examination P.W.2 Prasanna Kumar
deposes he knows the complainant since 10 to 15 years.
This witness admits complainant is a political person
having won the election. This witness deposes whether
the tractor broken down the spot at a distance of 15
kms, from there he went there at about 11.45 to 12.00
p.m and went there within 15 minutes. This witness
deposes complainant is not a relative to him. This
Spl.C.No:351/2020
31
witness deposes he has given statement in police
station and he had signed the same. This witness
deposes he along with Sampangi and Sunder went to
the police station. This witness denies suggestion made
by learned counsel for the accused. This witness
deposes he went to the police station at about 5.00 p.m,
police took his statement about 6 to 6.30 p.m. This
witness deposes when his statement was recorded
Sunder and complainant were not present.
21. The P.W.3 Rajesh.D deposes about signing the
Mahazar as per Ex.P.2 on 13.02.2020. This witness in
cross examination deposes he knows the complainant
since 30 years. The complainant is known as he is a
customer to him, who is a political person. This witness
deposes the panchanama was drawn in front of the shop
of Naveen and there is a compound all around the spot.
This witness deposes his shop is at a distance of 3 kms
from the spot. This witness deposes Mahazar has been
drawn at 2 to 3.00 p.m., to the specific question he was
unable to attend the Mahazar, witness deposes he was
having some other work he had gone outside.
Spl.C.No:351/2020
32
22. The P.W.4 Sunder is another Granite worker who
deposed about signing Ex.P.2 as per Ex.P.2(c). This
witness deposes in front of the shop of Sampangi police
have drawn Mahazar and he is a witness to that on
13.2.2020. This witness admits he does not know the
contents of Mahazar.
23. The P.W.5 Sundar is another Contractor of stone
business deposes on 17.8.2019 he had gone to adjacent
site at about 12.00 p.m is found there is shouting going
on in the adjacent site, he went there and found one
Manjunath was abusing Sampangi as ” ನೀನು ಹೊಲೆಯ
ಮಾದಿಗ ನೀನು ಇಲ್ಲಿ ಇರಬಾರದು, ಹುಡುಗರನ್ನು ಕರೆಸಿ ನಿನ್ನ ನ್ನು
ಹೊಡೆಸುತ್ತೇನೆ”. This witness in cross examination
depsoes he is residing near the house of the
complainant knowing since 15 years. This witness
admits Sampangi had won election. This witness
admits he had supported Sampangi during his
election. This witness deposes he does not know
know the name of the owner of the site. This witness
deposes he has not at all seen what are all there
inside in the spot, to which witness replies he does
Spl.C.No:351/2020
33
not know . This witness admits he does not know the
contents of his statement. This witness denies no
any incident happened on 18.7.2019.
24. The P.W.6 Ramesh deposes he had issued ‘B
katha document to police concerning katha No.6/9
site No.38/1 and 39 as per Ex.P.3. This witness
deposes he decides the tax to each sites in BBMP
Ward limits. This witness deposes when site was
examined only police inspector and police personnel
were present and accused or complainant were not
seemed there. This witness deposes he has not
collected any documents with regard to the spot
before visiting. With regard to Sy.No.6/9 of Kottigere
they have confirmed the B Extract but they have
mentioned about existence of registered documents
to that effect.
25. The P.W.7 Srinivas Prasad.K is the Investigating
Officer who registered the crime on the basis of PCR
as Cr.No.280/2019.
Spl.C.No:351/2020
34
26. The P.W.8 is the Investigating Officer who
conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. This
witness in cross examination deposes he did not
collected demand register extract, copy of the sale
deed, ‘B form and encumbrance certificate of the
property of the complainant. This witness deposes
he did not receive any documents from the DCRE.
This witness denies CWs.2 and 3 are friends of the
complainant. This witness pleads ignorance that
accused No.1 had purchased even in the year 2009
itself. This witness admits he collected revenue
documents who not got spot sketch.
27. The learned SPP argues as there is
corroboration in the evidence of complainant and
other witnesses the ingredients of alleged offences
being specifically established and there is specific
mention by each of the witness about the abuse
made by the accused person to the complainant.
Therefore the accused responsible for the alleged
Spl.C.No:351/2020
35
incident. Accordingly, seeks conviction of the
accused.
28. The learned counsel for the accused submits as
per the PCR Ex.P.1 there is no specific mention
about giving life threat to the victim, however in the
evidence of the complainant, he has specifically
mentioned about life threat being given in page-2 of
his examination in chief. In the evidence of PW2 who
is so called eye witness, witness has deposed as
follows: ನೀನು ಕೀಳು ಜಾತಿಯವನು ನಮ್ಮ ಸೈಟ್ ಬಳಿ ಬರಬಾರದು
ಎಂದು ಬೈದಾಡಿದರು”. However this witness does not
deposes about the accused giving life threat to the
complainant. PWs.3 and 4 are the so called spot
Mahazar witnesses. Under such circumstances in the
absence of ingredients of alleged offence punishable
u/s.506 being available in the complaint itself the
charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer finds
no any support fro the material placed on record.
29. In the case on hand, the existence of property of
the accused and complainant are different and
Spl.C.No:351/2020
36
distinct is the arguments of the learned SPP. In fact
after evidence evidence being over, the learned SPP
has placed certified copies of the documents
concerning the properties obtained from the
revenue authority wherein sale deed of the site
No.1, the layout blue print copy, the sale deed
dated:24.6.2000 and the sale deed executed by
Sumithra Devi to Navarathan Mal Badolla and Vijay
Shankar dated:25.2.2001, sale deed dated;6.8.2011
executed by Veeraiah and Ramaiah concerning
Sy.No.6/1, Khata Sl.No. 578, is laced on record, the
sale deed dated:10.4.2017 between Ramamurthy
and Nanji Reddy is placed concerning site No.1823
property No.4861/43 of Sy.No.6/9 are being placed
and accordingly argues the accused are claiming
with regard to site No.1, 2, 3 and 6 and they are all
not the property of the complainant. In fact
complainant properties are different namely 39 and
38/1 which are situated as per the blue print at
different locations. Such being the case, the accused
Spl.C.No:351/2020
37
coming to the property of the complainant itself is
an offence, though offence is not registered as per
sec.447 of Cr.PC the accused tried to dispossess the
complainant from his property by trying to demolish
the compound wall. Therefore the interference by
the accused persons in the proeprty, in the
complaint is established. Accordingly, accused to be
convicted is the prayer.
30. In fact as per the prosecution case, when the
accused came to the property of complainant he
had tried to prevent them from causing damage to
him other than accused No.1 alongwith other
accused persons on 18.7.2019 have abused the
complainant. In the evidence of P.W.2, this witness
has deposed on 18.7.2019 abusive words have been
exchanged by the accused persons, he has pacified
the dispute. However this witness does not depose
any caste abuse being made by the accused to the
complainant. The learned counsel for the accused
argues the so called incident had happened as per
Spl.C.No:351/2020
38
the complainant only on 18.7.2019 however he has
filed the PCR before this court only on 1.10.2019
which is after a period of 3 months as Investigating
Officer even after receiving the complaint from this
court, as referred by this court though crime has
been registered on 17.10.2019 the spot inspection
has been done only on 13.2.2020 which is not as per
the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 since after a
period of 3 months the spot inspection has been
conducted which is abuse to law and facts and the
Mahazar discloses it has been conducted between
2.00 p.m. to 3.00 p.m., however the witnesses
namely PW.3 has specifically deposed wile
answering the specific question that this witness
was not able to attend the drawing of panchanama
he had specifically gives explanation that he had
gone on some duty work outside. This fact
contradicts that the P.W.3 being present in the spot
or not. Further more, P.W.4 another panch witness
specifically admitted he does not know the contents
Spl.C.No:351/2020
39
of Mahazar. Therefore these Mahazar have not
supported the prosecution though the prosecution
relies on their evidence. In fact the documents are
being got prepared by the ACP and no any proper
investigation being conducted. In fact as admitted
by the complainant, civil suit has been filed and
wherein injunctive order has been passed in favour
of the accused persons. Such being the case, there
is no any circumstances arising for the accused
persons to go to the property of the complainant
and make galata since they have got specific order
from the civil court in O.S.No.1127/2019 pending on
the board of Ist Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru
Rural. There is no any explanation offered by the
prosecution to that effect and brings to the court
notice the citation above wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court and Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka have
specifically mentioned and observed when there is
civil suit the duty of the trial court to accept the
allegations made in criminal case is to be scrutinized
Spl.C.No:351/2020
40
in detail and the proof is to be beyond reasonable
doubt as per the mandate of law. In the case on
hand, the learned counsel for the accused brings to
the court notice Ex.D.1 Gift Deed got by the
complainant on 26.5.2014 with regard to site No.17
and with regard to the same site No.17 having the
same boundaries the absolute sale deed is also got
registered by the same complainant from the same
vendor mentioned as Mahesh Chandra who actually
executed the registered Gift Deed on 26.5.2014 had
once again executed the registered sale deed on
1.9.2017. This fact contradicts the ownership of the
site by the complainant since as admitted by the
complainant himself in his cross examination that
with regard to the same spot one Vanuja had filed a
suit against this complainant is admitted in his cross
examination page-9, it has been brought to the
court notice in page-9 of his cross examination of
P.W.1 has admitted in Sy.No.6/9 site No.17 is not
belonging to him but now he admits on 26.5.2014
Spl.C.No:351/2020
41
the site No.17 has been given to him by Mahesh
Chandra as per Ex.D.1. Further this witness further
admits execution of Ex.D.2 by the same Mahesh
Chandrda in his favour with regard to the same one
Vanuja has filed a suit is also admitted in page-14 of
his cross examination dated:9.7.2024. Therefore the
complainant call itself is not proper, moreover in the
case on hand, the abusive words used by the
accused persons in presence of public is not
forthcoming though he got the so called eye witness
P.W.2 as per PCR, came to the spot along with
P.W.5.
31. The learned counsel for the accused brings to
the court notice in the cross examination of P.W.1 in
page-12 with regard to site belonging to the
accused No.1 which is a subject matter in
O.S.No.1127/2019 there is a 15 feet height
compound witness has volunteered that one year,
only a small compound previously has been
demolished and 15 feet wall compound is built.
Spl.C.No:351/2020
42
However complainant has not made any explanation
that the compound wall was built after the incident
or before incident is not forthcoming. Therefore the
complaint given after the incident after lapse of
more than 3 months as per the observations made
by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon’ble
Apex Court the cognizance taken by this court on
the allegations made on considerable delay cannot
be a ground to consider the ingredients of offence
being committed as per sec.3(1)(r) and (3)(s) of
SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.
32. In fact to contradict the so called eye witness
the complainant has mentioned the eye witness as
Naveen and Sunder P.W.4 and 5 has been made as
panch witness but he is not considered as eye
witness by the police. Further P.W.5 the so called
eye witness has not specified that he was working
adjacent to the spot where the dispute was going
on. However he does not specify in which site. This
witness has specifically mentioned that he cannot
Spl.C.No:351/2020
43
give the measurement of the site where he was
working and he has specifically mentioned inside the
site what are all present, he pleads he never
observed the same. Therefore, it is evident from the
material on record that the property of the accused
is secured by building compound wall all around
clearly goes to show that it is not the property of the
complainant where accused have come, but it is
vice-versa. As per the evidence of P.W.5, the fact
with regard to abusive words used by the accused
persons namely as mentioned by P.W.5 “Holeya
Madiga Neevu” the complainant in his evidence has
mentioned some other different words and he never
specified what are the words used by the accused
persons seems reasonable prayer. In the case on
hand, the material on record makes clear that as per
the citations relied “(2020)10 SCC 710 in case of
Hitesh Verma V/s. State of Uttarkhand” the actual
words used by the accused persons against the
complainant has not been specified by the
Spl.C.No:351/2020
44
prosecution witnesses. Moreover as mentioned by
the P.W.2 the so called another eye witness, he has
not at all shown as eye witness by the complainant
in PCR. Such being the case on what basis after
lapse of many months this witness has come up
from no where and this witness P.W.2 has not
specified what are the words used by the accused
persons while abusing the complainant. Under such
circumstances in the absence of corroboration, this
court is satisfied to answer this Point No.1 in the
Negative.
33. POINT NOS.2 AND 3: In the case on hand, in
proof of the ingredients of alleged offence
punishable u/s.3(1)(r) and (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act
1989 the complainant has mentioned in the
complaint in para-4 para-7 that accused mentioned
“holeya madiga”. The Investigating Officer has
collected the copy of the sale deed with regard to
site No.38/1 in sy.No.6/9 which is dated:8.2.2019.
The boundary to the property 38/1 has been
Spl.C.No:351/2020
45
mentioned as 30 feet x40 feet in all measuring 1200
square feet. However in the blue print of the
approved plan issued by Administrative Officer,
Gottigere Grama Panchayath towards the north of
the site No.38 boundary shown as 39, 40, 41 and 42,
however as per the sketch, there is no any property
by No.38/1 being approved by authority, however
there is only one site mentioned as site No.38 which
is in irregular shape as visible from the documents
placed by the learned SPP. In fact the Sy.No.38/1
cannot be called out in the blue print approved by
the authority. Moreover another site copies of sale
deed being collected by the Investigating Officer is
dated:8.2.2019 which is mentioned as site No.39
which is irregular shape. In all measuring only 900
sq.ft. The learned counsel for the accused submits
as per the O.S.No.1127/2019 order has been passed
by the IV Addl.Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural
District by disposing I.A.2 by granting an order of
Temporary Injunction against the present
Spl.C.No:351/2020
46
complainant including the vendor of the
complainant. The schedule of the property in
O.S.No.1127/2019 site No.1 as per order of
conversion of Deputy Commissioner
dated:25.08.2011 and the same has been purchased
by the accused No.1 on 28.3.2019. The original sale
deed executed in favour of the plaintiff is
28.03.2012 and plaintiff had filed suit as
interference has been made, as first defendant
namely Mahesh Chandra and further executed sale
deed on 8.02.2019 in favour of the second
defendant, based on the same, defendant tried to
interfere in the possession of the plaintiffs.
Accordingly plaintiff had filed suit. In fact
complainant did approached the jurisdictional police
who had issued LCR.675/2019 as on 22.2.2019 and
accordingly plaintiff has further reported cause of
action is on 29.7.2019 when defendant tried to
interfere in his possession. This court on going
through the document collected by the Investigating
Spl.C.No:351/2020
47
Officer, the so called sale deed infavour of the
plaintiff has come into existence on 8.2.2019 which
is subsequent to the sale deed got by the present
defendant No.1 from father of the vendor of the
plaintiff which has been confirmed only after the
alienation being made by the Deputy Commissioner,
Bengaluru by passing conversion order to that effect
and confirmation deed has been executed in favour
of the plaintiff only on 28.3.2019 to which the
present complainant is also witness. However the
site numbers are distinct from that of the property
of the complainant. Therefore as per the sketch
placed by the prosecution, the property of the
accused No.1 at no stretch of imagination over lap
of the property of the complainant as per the sketch,
and arguments made by the prosecution itself.
When the dispute has been made with regard to the
property by the accused as alleged by the
complainant, there is no any spot sketch prepared
by the Investigating Officer from the Revenue
Spl.C.No:351/2020
48
Authorities to identify whether the property is as per
the blue print of the sketch whether situated in site
Nos.1, 2, 3 and 6 or site No.39 and 38/1. In fact the
existence of site No.38/1 cannot be imagined since
there is no demarcation made by the approved
authority, Guttigere village in the year 1992 when
the layout has been approved on 12.10.1992.
Therefore the contention of the complainant the
existence of property 38/1 as placed by the
prosecution even after evidence is over as on
13.12.2024 contradicts with the existence of site.
Under such circumstances on the entire evidence of
the prosecution with regard to interference being
made by the accused and abusive words being
made cannot be imagined. Therefore the citation
relied by the learned SPP cannot be applied since
the facts differs in the present case. In fact citation
relied by the prosecution can be applied to the facts
only when the identification of property is
undisputed one and the property can be
Spl.C.No:351/2020
49
distinguished from the property of the accused and
that of the complainant. In the case on hand, the
existence of property of complainant as on date of
approval in the year 1992 no any site bearing
No.38/1 being carved out. Under such
circumstances, the sale deed placed on record by
the Investigating Officer does not comes to the aid
of the prosecution, to show its existence being there
as on date of the approval of the blue print.
34. Under these circumstances, the allegations
made against the complainant with regard to 3(1)(r),
(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 as observed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in 2023 (2) AKR 787
(Mirle Varadaraj V/s State of Karnataka) has observed in
para-7 of the judgment :
“The filing of the suit by the sisters of the 2 nd
respondent and also the challenge to the revenue
sketch and the sub-division effected in favour of the
petitioner- accused which culminated in dismissal of the
petition clearly establishes that the allegations made in
the FIR arises out of dispute relating to the title between
the parties in respect of the subject land. The apex court
in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) has held as under:
“13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would
indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and
Spl.C.No:351/2020
50
intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or
intimidations to a person will not be an offence under
the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account
of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-
economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil
rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made
out when a member of the vulnerable section of the
Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and
harassment. The assertion of title over the land by
either of the parties is not due to either the indignities,
humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to
avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if
the appellant or his family members have invoked
jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2
has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the
parties are availing their remedies in accordance with
the procedure established by law. Such action is not for
the reason that respondent No.2 is member of
Scheduled Caste.”
comes to the aid of the accused is my firm view.
Further more the citation brought to the court
notice namely (2023)3 SCC 423 though the offences
tried in the above case of Deepak Gaba and others
V/s. State of U.P cannot be applied to the facts on
hand the observations made by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India that the attempt made by
the complainant therein claiming right over the
property which is to be protected, in a similar
situation in the case of the hand, the accused has
trespassed or went to the property of the
Spl.C.No:351/2020
51
complainant cannot be imagined since the property
38/1 is a non-existing property as per the approved
sketch placed by the prosecution itself which is a
unmarked document.
35. In the case on hand, the learned counsel for
the accused has brought to the court notice with
regard to Ex.D.1 and 2, the complainant had got 2
documents namely one Gift Deed and another
registered sale deed only in the year 2019 the first
one has been executed on 26.5.2014 and the
second one came in existence on 1.9.2017 with
regard to the site No.17 actually contradicts with
each other namely Ex.D.1 and 2. Therefore how the
present complainant got right over site No.17, the
conduct of the complainant as prayed by learned
counsel for the defence makes clear that
complainant has approached this court with clean
hands.
36. Per contra, the contention of the defence that
after the injunctive order passed in
O.S.No.1127/2019 passed in favour of the accused
Spl.C.No:351/2020
52
No.1 the complainant had hatched a plan to
implicate the accused by filing PCR only on
1.10.2019 seems reasonable. Under these
circumstances, the allegations made by the
complainant having no any substance, finds no any
corroborative evidence of the material witness with
regard casteist remarks the citations relied by the
defence actually comes to the aid of the defence.
Though this proceedings is not for quashing the FIR
as in those citations relied. Even after trial, the
complainant is unable to show existence of his
property especially site No.38/1 measuring 1200
sq.ft as per the approved layout plan. Under these
circumstances, this court is of the firm opinion that
to prove the ingredients of alleged offence
punishable u/s.3(1)(r),(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989
are being not established. In fact this court cannot
consider only the verbal spat as disclosed from the
pen drive placed by the complainant, unless it is
placed as per the procedure established under law.
In fact the Investigating Officer ha snot collected
the pen drive from the complainant at the first
Spl.C.No:351/2020
53
instance and no any audio video Mahazar being
drawn as per the procedure especially for
conduction of the investigation under the provisions
of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. The date into violation
made by the Investigating Officer against the
provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 Rule-7 the
contentions raised by the learned SPP to draw
presumption as per sec.8(1)(b) is missing, being
substantiated by the prosecution in the case on
hand is my firm opinion. Accordingly, prosecution is
failed to prove the ingredients of alleged offence
punishable u/s.3(1)(r) and (s) of SC/ST (POA) Act
1989. Accordingly, these two Point Nos.2 and 3 are
answered in the Negative.
37. POINT No.4 : The accused persons do comply the
provisions of section 437A of Cr.P.C., by providing
personal bond before this court, for their appearance
before the Hon’ble Appellate court. In view of my
foregoing reasons, I proceed the pass the following;
ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 3 are
Spl.C.No:351/2020
54
acquitted of the offences under
Section 506 r/w.34 IPC and sec.
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act,
1989.
The accused Nos.1 to 3 are set
at liberty.
However, the bond executed in
compliance of Sec.437(A) of
Cr.P.C., shall be in force till appeal
period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by her, corrected, signed and
then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9 th day of January 2025).
(Rajesh Karnam.K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge,
Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No:351/2020
55
ANNEXURE
1.WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 G.P. Sampangi P.W.2 Prasanna Kumar P.W.3 D. Rajesh. P.W.4 K.S. Naveen P.W.5 Sundar P.W.6 Ramesh P.W.7 Srinivas Prasad. P.W.8 Manjunath Babu
2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 :Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) :Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.2 :Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) :Signature of P.W.1
Ex.P.3 :Document
Ex.P.3(a) :Signature of P.W.6
Ex.P.4 PCR Complaint.
Ex.P.4(a) :Signature of P.W.7
Ex.P.5 :FIR
Ex.P.5(a) :Signature of P.W.7
Spl.C.No:351/2020
56
Ex.P.6 : Dep Order
Ex.P.7 :Requisition
Ex.P.7(a) :Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.8 : Requisition to Tahsildar B'lore South
Ex.P.8(a) :Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.9 : Caste report of complainant
Ex.P.9(a) :Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.10 : Caste report of accused
Ex.P.10(a) :Signature of P.W.8
Ex.P.11 :Requisition
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of P.W.8
3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Nil
4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
Ex.D.1 :Gift Deed
Ex.D.1(a) :Certified copy of Gift Deed
Ex.D.2 :Sale deed
Ex.D.3 :Gift Deed
Ex.D.4 :Gift Deed
Ex.D.5 Gift Deed
Ex.D.6 Affidavit (7 pages RTI Doc.)
Spl.C.No:351/2020
57
5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:
Nil
(Rajesh Karnam.K)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Session Judge,
Special Judge, Bengaluru