The High Court of Karnataka heard a criminal appeal against a conviction for assault and insulting a Scheduled Caste. Finding the offences not serious and the sentence lenient, the Court exercised no interference.
The criminal appeal was dismissed; the conviction and sentence were upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2580 OF 2008
BETWEEN:
All are residents of Bailhongal, District: Belgaum.
…APPELLANTS
(By Shri K. Anand Kumar, Advocate)
AND:
State of Karnataka, Through Bailhongal Police Station, Represented by
2
State Public Prosecutor. …RESPONDENT
(By Shri V.M. Banakar, Additional State Public Prosecutor)
This appeal is filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to set aside the judgment dated 25.08.2008 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge at Belgaum in S.C.No.92/2007 and consequently be pleased to acquit all the appellants.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.
3
was installed by the side of the said garden. Basavaraj was one of the members of the committee who organised the function. At about 11.00 a.m., the switch of the lights in the pendal was operated by PW-2 Basavaraj and as he received an electric shock and was thrown to the ground, while falling, he had touched the hand of one Shantavva who was present in the pendal. Shantavva took offence and quarreled with Basavaraj in this regard. PW-2 had returned home and reported the incident to the complainant – PW-1. The complainant and his family members pacified him and on the same day, at about 3.00 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding towards bazaar, he heard some noise from the side of Channamma garden. When he went there, he saw Accused Nos.1 to 3 quarrelling with Basavaraj. The complainant asked the accused as to why they were quarrelling, at which all the accused had abused him in filthy language referring to his caste, which was a Scheduled caste, and thereafter assaulted him with a stick. Accused No.1 had assaulted the complainant PW-1 with a stick
4
on his left forehead and on the back of his head, thereby causing bleeding injuries. Accused No.2 had assaulted PW-2 Basavaraj with a cement pole and Accused No.3 had assaulted PW-2 with a stick on his head causing bleeding injuries, as a result of which PW-2 had fainted. In the meantime, PW-3 also went to the rescue of PW-1 and PW-2 and she was also assaulted. Gangavva PW-4, the mother of the complainant, PW-10 Channamma, the wife of the complainant and CW-12 Lalitha, the sister of the complainant had all tried to rescue them. All of them were assaulted with weapons by the accused. It is in this background that a case had been registered against the accused. They had been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity) and under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had tendered its evidence and had closed
5
its side. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the court below had heard the parties and had framed the following points for consideration:
6
4. What order or sentence?
The trial court answered Point No.1 in the affirmative and Points 2 and 3 in the negative and convicted the accused to a lenient punishment of imprisonment till the rising of the court and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 324. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.
3. The appellants having suffered imprisonment and also
having paid the fine, the only reason for preferring this appeal is
7
on a matter of principle and that it ought not to remain on record that the accused have been convicted for the offences alleged when the alleged offences were not of a serious nature and when there were only minor injuries suffered by the complainant and others. In any event, the prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and present appeal filed on several grounds, is sought to be canvassed by the appellants.
8
punishment. Hence, there is no warrant for interference. The appeal is dismissed.
����
�����
KS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lenient sentence of fine and imprisonment till the rising of the court imposed by the trial court.
Whether the prosecution established its case beyond reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 324, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PA) Act.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Basanappa Shivappa Kadakol
Golappa Mallappa Hosur
Shivanand Ulavappa Inchal
State of Karnataka
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
