ASHOK NEKRAJE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Senior Advocate Shri K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner is said to be arraigned as accused No. 13 in the remand application on allegations of having committed offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 324, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 clause (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is the case of the complainant that he and forty others had been to Bisile Gadi Chowdamma temple, which is in the midst of a jungle to perform pooja and it was noticed that one Ashok, who is a Forest Watcher and twenty of his friends were making merry and holding a party with drinks and non -vegetarian food in the Forest Guest House and therefore, since the complainant and others were on a holy mission, they did go to the Guest House and complain that there should not be partying in the guest house and create a nuisance. There was an altercation in this regard. However, it transpires that it was pacified. At about 4.00 p.m. when the complainant and others were having their food near the temple, the accused are said to have come there in a group and kicked the food that they were eating and again picked up a quarrel with the complainant and his group. This was again pacified and they went away. It transpires that one Hallappa went to the guest house to drink water from a tap. He was kicked and assaulted and told that he belonging to a scheduled caste should not venture to drink water from the tap and he should go and drink from the river or elsewhere and Halappa, who was badly injured was shifted to a nearby Health Centre, but he was declared brought dead.

(2.) IT is in the above background, that a case has been registered against Ashok, Forest Watcher and several others and on the basis of his voluntary statement, the petitioner is said to have been named as one of the accused and the police having been making enquiries and threatening the female members of the petitioner's home, on the footing that he was actively involved in the said incident and therefore, he is required by the police for interrogation. The petitioner apprehends arrest and therefore is before this Court.