Dismissed

Govinda v. Puttaiah

Karnataka HC10 Oct 2023CRL.A/1046/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the State's criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of 11 accused in an election-related caste atrocity case. The Court upheld the trial judge's decision, noting the delay in filing the complaint and lack of independent witnesses to corroborate the prosecution's case.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the impugned judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court was confirmed.

Govinda Vs Puttaiah — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1046 OF 2012

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GOVINDA

¶10

S/O DEVANAYAKA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT NAGAVALA VILLAGE YELAWALA HOBLI MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY KUM. PRIYANKA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR

¶13

SRI. P MAHESHA & SRI. KRISHNA B, ADVOCATES)

¶14

AND:

¶15

1 . PUTTAIAH S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶16

2 . RAJANNA S/O BASAVALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶17

3 . SHIVAPRAKASHA @ PRAKASHA S/O LINGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶18

4 . RAVI @ UPENDRA S/O PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

¶19

5 . RAMESHA S/O SAAKARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶20

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶21

¶22

6 . ANGADI SHANKARA @ ANGADI SADASHIVA @ SHIVASHANKARA S/O EERATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶23

7 . SADASHIVA @ ANGADI SADASHIVA S/O MAHADEVAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶24

8 . N P KUMARA S/O PUTTASWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶25

9 . M N MURTHY S/O MALLIKARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS

¶26

10 . CHENNAVEERAIAH @ CHENNURAIAH S/O NINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶27

11 . M VEERABHADRAIAH S/O SHIVANANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT NAGAVALA VILLAGE, YELAWALA HOBLI, MYSORE DISTRICT.

¶28

12 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY YELAWALA POLICE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. …..RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI. ADARSH GANGAL, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-11; SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-12)

¶30

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO a) SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE LEARNED VI ADDL. DISTRICT

¶31

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶32

¶33

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE UNDER SC & ST (POA) ACT, 1989 AT MYSORE, IN SPL. CASE NO.64/2010, DATED 12.12.2011 AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED / RESPONDENTS; b) PLEASED TO PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR JUDGMENT AS THIS HON'BLE COURT FEELS DEEM FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.07.2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

J U D G M E N T

¶36

This appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. is by the complainant, challenging the impugned judgment

¶37

and order dated 12.12.2011, in Spl.Case.No.64/2010 on the file of Spl.Judge under The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC & ST (POA) Act’), by which the accused Nos.1 to 11 are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶38

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

¶39

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶40

¶41

It is the case of the prosecution that complainant Govinda, resident of Nagawala Village, Yelawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk belong to Nayaka community coming under the Scheduled Caste Category. In the panchayat election dated 12.05.2010, one Puttaraju, contested from category-A and one Dhananjaya has contested for general seat. The accused persons who are companions of Dhananjaya came and requested Puttaraju to cast vote in favour of Dhananjaya. Complainant replied that one Shivanna has contested from general category and already people of Nayaka community have decided to support Shivanna. Hearing this reply, the accused persons abused the complainant saying that if they fail to support Dhananjaya, then the people of Nayaka community have to face problem. They are not civilized and they are not fit to contest election. They are only fit to eat mutton and consuming alcohol. They are fit to work as bonded labourers. They abused complainant referring to his caste and gave threat to his life.

¶42

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶43

¶44

3.1 Again on 13.05.2010, at 7.30 p.m. accused No.10 - Chennaveeraiah, abused complainant in filthy and indecent language and gave threat saying that if they failed to vote in favour of their candidate and if he is elected, then the people of Nayaka community have no future and abused him at the bus stand circle. When complainant and PWs-3 to 5 advised accused No.10 not to abuse and it is not proper, the remaining accused abused the complainant and gave threat to his life. At 10.00 p.m., police came and disbursed them. Accused persons also gave threat referring to his caste and stated that they would not allow the complainant and people belonging to Nayaka community to enter the hotel. Though the complainant and villagers tried to settle the dispute in panchayat, accused did not attend it. Therefore, on 15.05.2010, at 11.00 a.m., complaint was filed belatedly.

¶45

4. After completing the investigation, charge

¶46

sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 11 for the offences

¶47

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶48

¶49

punishable under Sections 143, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶50

During investigation, accused secured

¶51

anticipatory bail. After due service of notice accused entered appearance and contested the matter. They pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and claimed trial.

¶52

In support of prosecution case, 10 witnesses are examined as PWs-1 to 10 and Exs.P1 to 8 are marked.

¶53

During the course of their statement, accused have denied the incriminating evidence.

¶54

They have not led any oral evidence, but got marked Exs.D1 and 2.

¶55

Vide the judgment and order dated 12.12.2011, the trial Court acquitted the accused.

¶56

Being aggrieved by the same, complainant is before this Court contending that the impugned

¶57

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶58

¶59

judgment and order is illegal, erroneous and not maintainable either in law or on facts. The learned Special Judge has erred in acquitting the accused persons even though sufficient evidence is placed on record to prove the allegations against the accused. The reasons assigned for acquitting the accused are erroneous and as such the Special Court has slipped into an error, resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice.

¶60

10.1 The evidence placed on record prove that on the date of incident the accused persons abused the complainant and others referring to their caste and giving threat that if they fail to cast vote in their favour, they would not be allowed to enter the hotel, etc. The eye witnesses have clearly supported the prosecution case and the Special Court has miserably failed to appreciate their evidence. The reasons assigned by the Special Court are not based on the oral evidence placed on record. Viewed from any angle the impugned judgment and order are not sustainable and prays to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of

¶61

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶62

¶63

the Special Court, convict and sentence them

¶64

appropriately.

¶65

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the accused has supported the impugned judgment and order contending that on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court has come to a correct conclusion in acquitting the accused and prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶66

Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and

¶67

perused the record.

¶68

Thus, the State has challenged the impugned judgment and order of the Trial Court, by which accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 504, 506, read with Section 149 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act.

¶69

The specific allegations made against the accused are that they belong to Hindu Lingayat caste where as CWs.1 to 4 belong to scheduled caste. On 13.5.2010 at 7:30 p.m., at the bus stand circle of

¶70

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶71

¶72

Nagawala village, where CWs.1 to 4 were standing and talking to each other, accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in the background of the persons belonging to Nayaka community coming under scheduled caste not supporting the candidate indicated by them, picked up with quarrel with CWs.1 to 4 and abused them referring to their caste stating that they are not civilized and they only know to eat non-vegetarian and drink and they are only suitable to be bonded labourers. They also abused CWs.1 to 4 using filthy language and gave threat that if the candidate supported by them is elected, then, they will have no future and give threat of dire consequences.

¶73

As evident from the material placed on record, more particularly the complaint averments at the relevant point of time i.e., on 13.5.2010 panchayat election was scheduled. Two days prior to the election, accused persons who are supporting Dhanunjaya, approached the complainant and others belonging to Nayaka community and requested them to support

¶74

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶75

¶76

Dhananjay. When complainant and others replied that they would rather support Shivanna, who is a candidate belonging to their community, the accused became furious and gave an ultimatum saying that if they fail to support their candidate, they know how to trouble them. The persons belonging to Nayaka community are not civilized and not fit to contest election. They know only how to consume non-vegetarian food and alcohol and are fit to work as bonded labourers. They also gave threat to the life of CWs.1 to 4. On 13.5.2010 at 7:30 p.m.,

¶77

accused No.10-Chennaveeraiah abused the persons belonging to Nayaka community using abusive and derogatory words and gave ultimatum that if their candidate is elected, they have no future. Mahadevanaika, Mariswamy, Mahesha and others intervened and send him home. In this regard, the persons belonging to Lingayat community created ruckus in the entire village. On the same day at 10.00 p.m., police came to the village and brought the situation under control. The accused persons carried out tirade only because CWs.1 to 4 belong to schedule caste.

¶78

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶79

¶80

16. The Trial Court has acquitted the accused on

¶81

the ground that the prosecution has failed to prove that PWs.1 to 4 belong to Nayaka community coming under - schedule caste. The evidence of PW1 B.S.Manjunathswamy, Tahsildar prove that complainant belong to Nayaka caste, which come under schedule caste category. He has been cross-examined at length suggesting that some of the family members of complainant are shown their caste as Parivar and in fact objections have been filed for granting the schedule caste certificate to complainant. On this ground, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that prosecution has failed to prove that complainant belong to Nayaka community coming under scheduled caste category. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the issue of caste certificate and deciding its validity is the responsibility of Tahsildar. Definite procedure is provided under the SC/ST and other BC (Reservation of Appointments etc.,) Act, 1990. Anyone who is aggrieved by the decision of the

¶82

Tahsildar is at liberty to challenge the grant or refusal of

¶83

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶84

¶85

caste certificate before the Assistant Commissioner. When the caste certificate is issued by the Tahsildar, it would be valid till it is cancelled by the District Caste Verification Committee. Anyone who is aggrieved by the same is it liberty to approach the Divisional Commissioner under the Act. Therefore, despite issue of caste certificate by the Tahsildar, the trial Court has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that complainant and CWs.1 to 4 belonging to Nayaka community coming under scheduled caste category.

¶86

So far as the allegations against the accused

¶87

are concerned, the incident has taken place in three separate parts i.e., the first incident took place two days prior to 13.5.2010, when the accused persons approached the complainant and others with a request to support Dhananjay and when they refused saying that they would rather support Shivanna, who belongs to their caste, they were abused in filthy language referring to their caste etc. The next incident took place at 7:30 p.m. on 13.5.2010 after the election at bus stand circle. It is

¶88

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶89

¶90

specifically deposed by PW3-Mahadevanaika, PW4Mariswamy and PW5-Mahesha and others, the people belonging to Lingayat Community created galata in the entire village and gave threat to the life of many persons in the village. At 10.00 p.m., the police intervened and brought the situation under control.

¶91

Admittedly, complaint was not lodged immediately at the first available opportunity i.e., when the incident dated 11.5.2010 took place. Even on 13.5.2010, when the second and third incident took place, complaint was not lodged. It has come in the evidence that on 13.05.2010, the wife of accused No.10Chennaveeraiah @ Chennuraiah lodged a complaint against Siddappaji, Puttaraju, Devanayaka, Thammaiah, Mariswamy and Chandru on 13.5.2010 and thereafter at the instance of PW8- Shivanna, they have chosen to file a belated complaint.

¶92

Though some of the prosecution witnesses have expressed ignorance as to the complaint filed by the wife of accused No.10, during his cross-examination,

¶93

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶94

¶95

PW3-Mahadevanaika has admitted the said suggestion and stated that he is also one of the accused in the said case. In the complaint, the complainant has not given any plausible explanation for the delay. Though it is stated that a panchayat was convened and as accused violated the panchayat, complaint was filed. However, the prosecution has not led any convincing evidence regarding holding of Panchayat. On the other hand, the prosecution witnesses had deposed that though they wanted to hold a panchayat, accused did not participate in the same and therefore belatedly the complaint was filed.

¶96

Except the evidence of interested witnesses, the prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to prove the allegations against the accused persons. In the light of case and counter case against each other and inordinate delay in filing the complaint and also in the absence of support by any independent witnesses, the trial Court is justified in acquitting the accused. The findings given by the Trial Court is

¶97

CRL.A.NO.1046 OF 2012

¶98

¶99

consistent with the evidence brought on record. This Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the same. In the result, the following :

¶100

ORDER

¶101

Appeal filed by the complainant is

¶102

dismissed.

¶103