Allowed

Maradi Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Sept 2014CRL.A/414/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal, the High Court acquitted twelve appellants convicted under the SC/ST (P.A.) Act and IPC. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of overt acts against most accused, absence of independent witnesses, and discrepancies, rendering the case unsupported and potentially fabricated.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentences set aside; accused acquitted; bail bonds cancelled; fines refunded if paid.

Maradi Rangaiah Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 414 OF 2008

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MARADI RANGAIAH S/O CHIKKAHALAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶9

RANGARAJU S/O BADAPPA AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,

¶10

MALLAIAH S/O KAMANNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,

¶11

NAGARAJU S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶12

HALAPPA S/O RANGAPPA

¶13

AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶14

KAMARAJU S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,

¶15

RAMACHANDRAIAH S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,

¶16

¶17

CHIDANANDA S/O RANGANATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,

¶18

RAJANNA S/O DODDAKAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶19

NAGARAJU S/O DODDAKAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶20

GANGANNA S/O KARIYANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,

¶21

RAGHUNATH S/O HALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,

¶22

NAGARAJU S/O PUTTAKAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,

¶23

KENCHANNA S/O NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O NANDIHALLI VILLAGE, KORA HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT. ... APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. S K VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORA POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT

¶25

(BY SRI.K.R.KESHAVA MURTHY, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR-1) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C BY

¶26

THE ADVOCATE FOR THE APPELLANTS AGAINST THE

¶27

¶28

JUDGEMNT DT.3.3.08 IN SPL.C.NO.18/06 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL.S.J, TUMKUR - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (P.A) ACT, 1989 R/W SECS. 506 AND 149 OF IPC AND U/S. 144, 1447 AND 427 IPC R/W S.149 IPC AND ARE HEREBY SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I FOR ONE YEAR AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.500/- EACH AND I,D TO UNDERGO S.I FOR A PERIOD OF EIGHT WEEKS IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST COUNT AND TO UNDERGO R.I FOR THREE MONTHS EACH IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER COUNTS. THE SENTENCES OF IMPRIOSNMENT SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.

¶29

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the

¶32

learned State Public Prosecutor.

¶33

The appellants were accused before the Trial Court in

¶34

the following circumstances:

¶35

It was alleged by the complainant Smt. Thimmakka that

¶36

on 1/1/2006 at about 8 a.m., the accused, namely the appellants herein, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, had picked up quarrel with her on

¶37

the footing that she had voted for rival political party, inspite of

¶38

¶39

she belonging to Schedule Tribe and some were schedule caste people in that party. The accused who belonged to the vokkaliga community were agitated and therefore they had come and destroyed several plants planted around her house and abused her in foul language with derogatory reference to her caste and threatened to burn her alive, apart from threatening to harm her with deadly weapons. It is on these allegations that cases were registered against the accused for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Sections 144, 148, 447 and 427 read with Sections 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After further investigation, the appellants were charge sheeted and their plea was recorded. The appellants having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had established evidence through eight witnesses and marked several exhibits on the basis of which the court below, after

¶40

¶41

hearing both sides, had framed the following points for determination:

¶42

1) Is it proved that PW-1 Thimmakka belongs to a scheduled tribe and the accused do not belong to any scheduled caste or scheduled tribe?

¶43

2) Is it proved that the accused threatened to kill PW-1?

¶44

3) Is it further proved that the accused humiliated PW-1 by making a castist attack using the words “ �� ”?

¶45

4) Is it further established that the accused trespassed into the garden in front of PW-1’s house and destroyed the flower and fruit plants?

¶46

5) Is it made out that such acts were committed by the accused in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly of which they were members?

¶47

The court below answered all the points in the affirmative and proceeded to convict the accused for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Sections 144, 148, 447 and 427 read with Sections 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced the accused Nos. 1 to 14 to

¶48

¶49

undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

¶50

The learned counsel for the appellants would point out

¶51

that apart from the evidence of PW-1, the complainant, three other witnesses have been examined to establish the occurrence of the incident. PW-2 was none other than the brother of PW-1 and lived in the neighbouring house. PWs. 3 and 4 were also said to be the relatives of PW-1. Though the complainant PW-

¶52

1 has referred to certain overt acts of some of the accused, she has not attributed any overt acts to most of the accused. The accusations are against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 13, namely that accused No.1 abused her, while accused No.2 brandished chopper and threatened to harm her with it, while accused No.3 was suggesting that she must be burnt alive, and no other overt acts are alleged against any of the accused. PWs. 2, 3 and 4 have merely stated that they witnessed the incident, but have

¶53

¶54

not stated as to the language used by the accused, as claimed by PW-1, except alleging that they saw the plants in front of the house of the complainant being destroyed. All the witnesses have consistently stated that while the incident was taking place, several people had gathered and had witnessed the scene. However, apart from PWs. 1 to 4, there are no other independent witness examined to establish the case of the prosecution. It is further pointed out that there is a delay of 36 hours in lodging the complaint, though the police station was only 14 kilometers away from the house of the complainant and it is also on record that PW-4 is said to have visited the town where the police station was situated, but has not chosen to lodge a complaint on behalf of the alleged victim. These, the learned counsel would submit, are serious discrepancies which have been grossly overlooked by the court below in holding that the case has been established against all the accused, even in the absence of allegations of any overt acts by several accused.

¶55

¶56

The learned Public Prosecutor would seek to justify

¶57

the judgment of the court below and would submit that the destruction of plants in front of the house of the complainant is ample proof of the incident having occurred and the abuses hurled on the complainant and the threats shelled out to her by the accused, are amply established by the evidence of PW-1, supported by the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4. Merely because the said witnesses are related to PW-1, it cannot be said that their evidence ought to be discarded and there is no denial of the caste to which the complainant belongs and hence the serious offence committed under the provisions of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, cannot be overlooked in the light of the cogent evidence that is established.

¶58

In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the rival contentions, the complaint having been lodged 36 hours after the incident, is sought to be explained on the footing

¶59

¶60

that the complainant was awaiting a settlement. This ground has glossed over as not being significant, even though the court has opined that the reason assigned is not tenable. Therefore on the ground of delay alone, the complaint ought to have been rejected, for the case as sought to be made out by the prosecution, does not ring truth, as it is evident that though there are allegations made against three of the accused, eleven other accused being roped in, is itself a circumstance which would disclose that the complainant was carrying out a randata against the accused and has been prompted at the instance of rivals of the accused. Therefore the omnibus allegations not being supported by any cogent evidence, is seen from the record. The so-called consistent evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 does not really support the case of the appellant, as the thrust of the complainant is of abuses and threats being hurled at the complainant by the accused and damage caused to plants around her house. Therefore it was necessary for all the witnesses to consistently point out the particular accused who

¶61

10 -

¶62

was uprooting the plants and destroying them and the particular accused who abused the complainant and the language that they had used. In the absence of the same, it would be incorrect to state that there is consistent evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. Added to this, the evidence of PWs. 2 to 4 being related to PW-1, alone having sought to support the case of the prosecution, when there has been a large number of people gathered, even according to the complainant and other witnesses, and no other independent witness being examined, give rise to a further suspicion that, indeed it may be a got-up case. Hence it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently the appeal is allowed. The judgment of the court below is set aside. The accused are acquitted. The bail bond stand cancelled. The fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

Rd/-

Maradi Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maradi Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Iynanda K Chinnappa Vs Balachanda M Thammaiah

Smt a B Neela Vs Sri N Dinesh Reddy

Sri Ramesh Batni Vs State by CBI

Sri Suresh K G Vs Smt Jyothi S G

State by Sub-Inspector of Excise Vs P Koragappa Shetty

Lokesha S/O Naganna Vs State of Karnataka by Amruthur Police