STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. APPA BALU INGALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appa Balu Ingale and four others were tried for the offences under Ss. 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (the Act). The trial Court convicted all of them under S. 4 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 100/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further five days. Appa Balu Ingale was further convicted under S. 7 of the Act but no separate sentence was awarded to him for the said offence. The Additional Sessions Judge, Belgaum, on appeal, upheld the conviction and sentence of Appa Balu Ingale, Shankar Babaji Patil and Rajaram Rama Sankpal. The learned Judge, however, allowed the appeal of the other two convicts and acquitted them. Against the judgment of the Appellate Court Appa Balu Ingale and two others went in revision before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowed the criminal revision petition and acquitted all of them. This appeal by way of special leave petition is by the State of Karnataka against the judgment of the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal respondent Appa Balu Ingale died on November 4, 1991. The appeal against him has thus abated.

(2.) The charge against the respondents was that they restrained the complainant party by show of force from taking water from a newly dug-up borewell on the ground that they were untouchables. The prosecution produced four witnesses who were all Harijans. The trial Court and the Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence, reached the concurrent finding that the charge against the respondents-accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Ordinarily it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below specially by re-appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court disbelieved evidence of all the four witnesses who deposed to the actual incident as happened before their eyes. According to the High Court their evidence was not uniform in regard to actual words uttered by the accused persons and the manner they prevented the complainant party from taking water from the well. The High Court rejected the testimony of the eye-witnesses on the following reasoning:-

(3.) We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error in rejecting the prosecution evidence. We have examined the statements of eye-witnesses as dealt with in detail by the Appellate Court. We are of the view that the charge against the respondents has been proved beyond doubt. PW1 Thalu, who is the complainant, has deposed that the borewell in question was being drilled at a distance of about 15 feet from Harijan colony and water sprouted from the well on the date of the incident at about 9.30 p.m. At that time many persons including the accused persons and some Harijans including PWs 1 to 4 were present there. Two yound girls of the Hindu community performed pooja. Thereafter 10/15 Hindus took water from the well for performing pooja at the temple. He further stated that he along with five other persons including PWs, who were all Harijans, also brought pots for taking water from the well. At that time the three respondents told the Harijans not to take water from the well as they were "mahars" and that there was a separate well for them. According to the complainant the three respondents further obstructed the Harijans from taking water saying that if the Harijans insist on taking water the result would be unhappy. Respondent 1 told his men to bring a gun from his house and threatened the Harijans with dire consequences. The complainant further stated that he told the accused persons that, the Harijans have also right to take water from the well. On that the respondents accused told the Harijans not to persist on taking water from the well otherwise the consequences would be serious. The Harijans thereafter left the well without taking water and went to their colony. PW2, Appaji Shinde, PW3, Sripati Mane and PW4, Lahu Shinde have repeated the occurrence in similar words as stated by PW1.