Sri Manjanna Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 18.02.2013 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. & S.J., CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.NO.28/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504, 506 OF IPC AND U/S 3(1)(10) OF SC/ST (P.A.) ACT, 1989.

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Heard Sri.N.Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri.Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for State/respondent No.1 and Sri.B.S.Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶26

Accused who suffered an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶27

Brief facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

¶28

A complaint came to be lodged with Challakere Police Station, Chitradurga District by contenting that on 16.09.2010, when Devaputra and Anand had been to cut the grass said to

¶29

3 -

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:6838 CRL.A No. 292 of 2013

¶31

have been grown in the land belonging to the accused. There was an altercation in the evening near the house of the complainant where under, accused said to have abused the father of the complainant by taking out his caste name and thereafter, pushed him in the gutter and stamped on him with his legs. At that juncture, complainant came and so also Thippeswamy arrived on the scene and thereafter, they lodged the complaint seeking action.

¶32

Based on the complaint, police registered the case and after thorough investigation, filed the charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

¶33

Thereafter, learned Trial Judge secured the presence of the accused. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

¶34

After due trial, accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶35

1. The accused-Manjanna S/o Thippeswamy, Aged about 26 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Basapura village, Challakere taluk, Chitradurga District shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:6838 CRL.A No. 292 of 2013

¶38

2. Further, the accused above state shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC.

¶39

3. Further, the accused above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year, for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC.

¶40

4. Further, the accused above stated shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay fine amount of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989.

¶41

5. In default to pay fine amount above stated, the accused shall further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶42

6. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

¶43

7. The bail bond and surety bond shall stand cancelled.

¶44

Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this

¶45

Court in this appeal.

¶46

Sri.N.Srinivasa, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that even if the entire allegations found in the complaint is to be accepted as gospel truth, there are no ingredients to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and whereby conviction of the accused for the

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:6838 CRL.A No. 292 of 2013

¶49

aforesaid offences cannot be sustained and sought for allowing the appeal.

¶50

He would further contend that abusive words said to have been heard by the appellant to the complainant is not proved except the self serving testimony of the complainant and father of the complainant. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC and there is no positive evidence which would attract the offence under Section 323 of IPC and thus, sought for allowing the appeal in toto .

¶51

Per contra, Sri.Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri.B.S.Harish, learned counsel for the defacto complainant/respondent No.2 supports the impugned judgment.

¶52

Sri.B.S.Harish, learned counsel for respondent No.2 would contend that even though the complainant was not present when the incident has taken place on hearing the hue and cry, he arrived on the spot and he has seen the accused pushing the father of the complainant and so also Thippeswamy pacified the quarrel and rescued the father of the complainant

¶53

6 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:6838 CRL.A No. 292 of 2013

¶55

from the clutches of the accused. Therefore, all ingredients to attract the offences are made out and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶56

Sri.Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader adopting the arguments on behalf of the defacto complainant, contended that material evidence are sufficient enough to sustain the conviction order recorded by the learned Trial Judge and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶57

Having heard the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶58

On such perusal of the material on record, following

¶59

points would arise for consideration:

¶60

1. Whether the prosecution was successful enough in establishing all ingredients to attract the offences under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?

¶61

2. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference?

¶62

3. Whether the sentence needs modification?

¶63

4. What order?

¶64

7 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:6838 CRL.A No. 292 of 2013

¶66

In the case on hand, accused and complainant being the villagers of same village and residents of Basapura village is not in dispute. Incident has occurred in the evening, on account of Devaputra and Anand cutting the grass grown in the land of the complainant which has been enquired in the evening by the complainant.

¶67

Even according to the complaint averments, accused said to have abused the father of the complainant when no one else was there. After the incident of pushing the father of the complainant to the gutter, complainant and P.W.4 - Thippeswamy came to the place of incident. Therefore, necessary ingredients to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 namely degrading the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community in the public view is not established in the case on hand. Therefore, on that count, conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.

¶68

However, insofar as offences under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC is concerned, not only the complainant, but father of the complainant, Devaputra and Thippeswamy have

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6838 CRL.A No. 292 of 2013

¶70

supported the case of the prosecution insofar as pushing P.W.5 - Vishakhappa to the gutter by the complainant and hearing the abusive words is established. Therefore, conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offences needs to be maintained. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered partly in the affirmative.

¶71

REG.POINT No.3:

¶72

In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, taking note of the fact that complainant and appellant are residence of Basapura village and they continued to be the residents of same village and there is no further altercation between them and incident having occurred in the year 2010, by setting aside the imprisonment period and enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.5,000/- would meet the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, point No.3 is answered partly in the affirmative.

¶73

REG.POINT No.4:

¶74

In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following:

¶75

9 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:6838 CRL.A No. 292 of 2013

¶77

ORDER

¶78

i. Criminal appeal is allowed in part.

¶79

ii. Conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is hereby set aside.

¶80

iii. Conviction of the appellant for the remaining offences punishable under Section 323, 504 and 506 of IPC is maintained.

¶81

iv. Consequently, the sentence of imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment is hereby set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.5,000/to be payable on or before 15.03.2025 failing which the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

¶82

10 -

¶83

NC: 2025:KHC:6838 CRL.A No. 292 of 2013

¶84

v. Out of the enhanced fine amount recovered, sum of Rs.5,000/- to be paid as compensation to P.W.5 – Vishakhappa under due identification.

¶85

vi. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith.

¶86

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

¶87

KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39 CT: BHK

Sri Manjanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Manjanna v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Bangarappa Vs State of Karnataka by

K.N.Parashurama Vs State of Karnataka

C Surendra Hegde @ C.S. Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha B R @ Mithun Vs State of Karnataka

Sri L S Dinamani Vs State by Inspector of Police

N.S. Suhas Vs the State of Karnataka