LAWS(KAR)-2013-11-194

STATE BY WADI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. BANDAGEMMA, MEERAN PATEL ALIAS BABLU AND RAJMAHMED

Decided On November 26, 2013
State By Wadi Police Station, Represented By Addl. State Public Prosecutor Appellant
V/S
Bandagemma, Meeran Patel Alias Bablu And Rajmahmed Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the State challenging the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge and II Addl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga in Special Case No. 57/2008 dated 13.01.2010. According to the prosecution, on 23.12.2007 around 3.00 p.m. in the afternoon in Wadi town when C.W. 2 -Padrnavathi demanded accused No. 1 -Bandagemma to pay the rent of Rs. 200/ -, accused No. 1 refused to pay the same. In the evening around 8.00 p.m. on that day, one Maremma -C.W. 1 and C.W. 2 - Padmavathi went to the house of accused No. 1 and questioned her as to why she raised dispute and quarrel when C.W. 2 demanded rent. For that all the accused persons joined together, taking out the name of her caste, abused C.W. 1 -Maremma in filthy language. Accused No. 1 held the tuft of C.W. 1 -Maremma and assaulted her on her cheeks with hands. Accused No. 2 assaulted Maremma on her forehead with a club and accused No 3 assaulted from hands on the back of C.W. 1. Accordingly, on the complaint filed, police registered the case and after investigation, filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 R/W Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and also under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) DURING the trial, prosecution examined in all 13 witnesses and got marked 10 documents and M.Os. 1 to 3. The accused denied the charges framed against them. The accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Their defence was one of total denial. Having heard the Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the trial court acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal by the State.

(3.) I have perused the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. P.W. 1 is the complainant, P.W. 2 is the injured, P.W. 3 is the eyewitness to the incident and the husband of complainant. P.Ws. 4, 6 and 10 are the eyewitnesses to the incident. P.W. 9 is the doctor who treated the injured. Other witnesses are panchas and police officials.