Karnataka High Court Convicts 10 Persons For Barging Into Harijan Colony & Assaulting Dalits
The Karnataka High Court has convicted and sentenced 10 people who in 2008 had barged into a Harijan Colony in Tumkur district abused them and assaulted the Dalits residing their by referring to their caste names and assaulted them with clubs, stones and caused bleeding injuries.A single judge bench of Justice J M Khazi set aside the acquittal order and convicted the accused for...
The Karnataka High Court has convicted and sentenced 10 people who in 2008 had barged into a Harijan Colony in Tumkur district abused them and assaulted the Dalits residing their by referring to their caste names and assaulted them with clubs, stones and caused bleeding injuries.
A single judge bench of Justice J M Khazi set aside the acquittal order and convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of SC and ST (POA) Act. It
The Court sentenced them to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) and Section 3 (1) (xi) (POA) Act r/w/s 149 I.P.C.
Regarding the plea for leniency raised by the accused, the Court said “Though at this stage, the accused have come up with several reasons for taking lenient view, this Court cannot lose the sight of the fact that without any justification, the accused have chosen to enter the Harijan colony and indiscriminately assault the complainant and others for the simple reason that two of them approached the police and complain against accused No.1 Sudeep with regard to an incident which took place in the land of PW-19 Shivamurthy. The accused have chosen to assault the complainant and others for the simple reason that though they belong to Schedule Caste, they had the courage or audacity of complaining against a person belonging to the forward community.”
On 14.08.2008, a complaint came to be filed by Lakshmamma. Based on the complaint, the concerned police registered the case against accused No.1 to 11 and took up investigation. On completion of trial the trial court acquitted the accused in 2011. The state government has not challenged the impugned judgment and order. It was challenged by the complainant contending that the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court are opposed to law, facts, circumstances and probabilities of the case. The impugned order of the trial Court is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable.
The bench on going through the records said “The cumulative reading of the evidence of the injured witness clearly prove the complicity of the accused persons and the reason for the assault carried out on them is the fact that PW-19 and 20 choose to complain the high-handed act of accused No.1 Sudeep in assaulting them when they went to work in the land of PW-11 Gopalakrishna. They were angry that PW-19 and 20 had the audacity of complaining against them despite belonging to the Scheduled Caste.”
It added “Being injured, their presence at the scene of occurrence is guaranteed the evidence of these witnesses lend support to the prosecution case. Absolutely, they have no motive to falsely implicate the accused persons.”
Setting aside the order of the trial court the bench said “Without examining the entire evidence on record, including the documents, the trial Court has erred in making an observation that the complainant and FIR are anti-dated and thereby thrown away the entire prosecution case as false and set up. The trial Court cannot stop by just making an observation that the complaint and FIR are anti-dated. It has to state as to how the prosecution is benefited by it or the accused are prejudiced.”
It added “The trial Court has not at all examined the testimony of injured/eyewitnesses and given reasons as to why he would not believe their evidence, except making an observation at para No-31 that the prosecution case created a lot of doubt and the complaint at Ex.P2 is created. It has observed that thousands of persons have participated in the incident which is not even the case of the prosecution. Of course a number of persons have acted in a concerted manner and after detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer has arraigned those persons against whom the evidence has come as accused. That itself would not make the prosecution case false or concocted.”
Accordingly it allowed the appeal and convicting the accused said “The view taken by the trial Court is wholly unreasonable and is not a plausible view. Certainly, there is non-consideration of evidence placed on record. There is also palpable misreading of evidence and consequently, the conclusions arrived at by the trial Court is perverse.”
Appearance: Advocates Clifton D Rozario, Raghupathy S, Maitreyi Krishnan for Appellant.
Advocate K.G.Sadashivaiah for R-1 TO R-7, R-9 TO R-11.
HCGP K.Nageshwarappa FOR R-12)
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
Case Title: Lakshmamma AND D R Sudeep and Others
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.876 OF 2011