MARADI RANGAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) THE appellants were accused before the Trial Court in the following circumstances: It was alleged by the complainant Smt. Thimmakka that on 1/1/2006 at about 8 a.m., the accused, namely the appellants herein, forming themselves into an unlawful assembly and armed with deadly weapons, had picked up quarrel with her on the footing that she had voted for rival political party, inspite of she belonging to Schedule Tribe and some were schedule caste people in that party. The accused who belonged to the vokkaliga community were agitated and therefore they had come and destroyed several plants planted around her house and abused her in foul language with derogatory reference to her caste and threatened to burn her alive, apart from threatening to harm her with deadly weapons. It is on these allegations that cases were registered against the accused for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Caste and the Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and under Sections 144, 148, 447 and 427 read with Sections 149 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After further investigation, the appellants were charge sheeted and their plea was recorded. The appellants having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had established evidence through eight witnesses and marked several exhibits on the basis of which the court below, after hearing both sides, had framed the following points for determination:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would point out that apart from the evidence of PW -1, the complainant, three other witnesses have been examined to establish the occurrence of the incident. PW -2 was none other than the brother of PW -1 and lived in the neighbouring house. PWs. 3 and 4 were also said to be the relatives of PW -1. Though the complainant PW - 1 has referred to certain overt acts of some of the accused, she has not attributed any overt acts to most of the accused. The accusations are against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 13, namely that accused No.1 abused her, while accused No.2 brandished chopper and threatened to harm her with it, while accused No.3 was suggesting that she must be burnt alive, and no other overt acts are alleged against any of the accused. PWs. 2, 3 and 4 have merely stated that they witnessed the incident, but have not stated as to the language used by the accused, as claimed by PW -1, except alleging that they saw the plants in front of the house of the complainant being destroyed. All the witnesses have consistently stated that while the incident was taking place, several people had gathered and had witnessed the scene. However, apart from PWs. 1 to 4, there are no other independent witness examined to establish the case of the prosecution. It is further pointed out that there is a delay of 36 hours in lodging the complaint, though the police station was only 14 kilometers away from the house of the complainant and it is also on record that PW -4 is said to have visited the town where the police station was situated, but has not chosen to lodge a complaint on behalf of the alleged victim. These, the learned counsel would submit, are serious discrepancies which have been grossly overlooked by the court below in holding that the case has been established against all the accused, even in the absence of allegations of any overt acts by several accused.