STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad in Spl.(SC.ST)CCNo.35/2012 in acquitting the respondents (accused Nos.1 to 3) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 504 read with Section 34 IPC and also u/s.3(1)(X) and 3(1)(XI) of SC/ST Act, 1989.

(2.) I have heard the arguments of the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the appellant State. There is a delay of 71 days in preferring the appeal. For the reasons stated, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Perused the records.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusal of the records, I found that there is no need to issue any notice to the respondent to call upon them to appear before this Court. The records disclose that the members of a Women Organisation of Hireharkuni village, in the month of August 2012, have resolved to create awareness regarding the ill -effects of consuming arrack. They have taken up a drive to close the arrack shops in the village and also to prevent the arrack shop keepers from selling the arrack in the village. In that process, on 20.08.2012, under the leadership of the complainant Smt. Parvatevva w/o. Sahadevappa Pujar, along with the members of the women organisation at about 9.00 p.m. went near the shop of the accused persons to see that the said arrack shop is closed. The accused persons having enraged by the acts of PW1 and other women, and also with an intention to insult and humiliate PW1 in public, abused her in a filthy language referring to her caste name and also assaulted her and outraged her modesty and thereby committed the offences alleged. It is also alleged that the incident had taken place near the bus stop of Hireharkuni village. On these allegations, the police have investigated the matter and submitted a charge sheet. The Court after taking cognizance issued summons to the accused persons. In the mean time, they were also released on bail. The Court has also framed charges against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences and put them on trial. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined PWs.1 to 12 as witnesses and got marked Exs.P1 to P12. The accused persons did not choose to lead any defence evidence as such, after hearing the arguments, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused persons holding that the prosecution has not proved the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court should bear in mind that normally, unless it is warranted, the appellate court should not interfere with the judgment of acquittal. It is worth to note here a decision of the Apex Court between S.Govindaraju Vs. State of Karnataka,, 2013 4 AIRKarR 289 wherein it is held that