IRASANGAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed seeking for anticipatory bail for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323, 353, 354 and 504 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.' for brevity) and Section 3 (1) (x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity)

(2.) THE facts that emanate from records are that on 03.11.2013 at about 8.30 a.m. the complainant by name Kannappa Ramappa Kalasad was in Panchayat office and at that time all the accused persons i.e., petitioners herein went inside the office and picked up quarrel with complainant. In fact it is alleged that, Irasangappa Basalingappa Soudi, Nagesh Madev Golasetti and Basalingappa Irasangappa Soudi have assaulted the complainant with their hands and Subhas Basalingappa Soudi, Shantavva W/o. Padiyappa Karadi has assaulted the complainant on his back with iron rod, and therefore, he has sustained some pain to his stomach. On hearing the galata, complainant's wife Parvathevva and son Manju came to the spot and questioned the illegal acts of accused persons, then Nagesh Golasetti assaulted the complainant and his wife. At that time one Padiyappa Soorappa Theerakannavar and Nagappa Shivalingappa Bisanal were present and in their presence the said incident has taken place and petitioners have also used abusive words by taking the caste of complainant as "XXX XXX XXX." (Bastards of "Beda" community). Thereafter the witnesses have resolved the dispute between complainant and accused persons.

(3.) THE learned Additional State Public Prosecutor brought to my notice that the statement recorded by police of witnesses Padiyappa Soorappa Theerakannavar and Nagappa Shivalingappa Bisanal, who have in their statements reiterated the entire incident and they claim that they were also present at the time when the petitioners have assaulted and abused the complainant and his family members in filthy language by taking their caste. Learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon a ruling of Hon'ble Supreme Court between Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P., 2011 AIR(SC) 1905 The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at Head Note (A) as follows5