RAMESHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) IT was the case of the complainant, the Sub -Inspector of Police, Saligrama Police Station, that on 12.3.2005, at about 11.30 p.m., he along with P.W. 2, was on beat duty at Saligrama town and around 11.45 p.m., it was noticed that a motor cycle was parked on a public road, causing hindrance to the movement of the general public. The complainant had questioned accused No. 3, who was present on the scene, as to who was the owner of the motor cycle. Accused No. 3 had failed to reply and on repeated questioning by PWs. 1 and 2 as to who was the owner of the motor cycle and that the vehicle should be moved, accused No. 3 is said to have reported that he had lost the key to the motor cycle and that if they helped him to look for it, it was possible to move the vehicle, at which P.W. 1 taking offense to the rude reply, is said to have got out of the jeep and told accused No. 3 to name himself. Since he did not disclose his name and address, he warned accused No. 3 that if he did not remove the vehicle, he would take away the vehicle. While the argument was on, it is alleged that accused Nos. 1,2, 4 to 8 had joined the scene and all of them had prevented PWs. 1 and 2 from discharging their duties. Therefore, P.W. 2 had contacted a Head Constable, P.W. 8, through his wireless set and had informed him of the circumstance. It transpires that the Head Constable had immediately arrived on the scene and as stated by PWs. 1, 2 and 8, all the accused had together abused and threatened PWs. 1, 2 and 8, while discharging their official duty and accused No. 3 had gone to the extent of challenging PWs. 1, 2 and 8 to move the motor cycle or taking any action against them and they were threatened that if they did so, on the very next day, there would be 20000 people present before the Police Station and that the said witnesses would be stripped and paraded naked if they took any such action and in the process, accused No. 3 is said to have twisted the little finger of P.W. 1 resulting in a fracture. It is in this background that a case was registered on the intervening night of 12/13.3.2005 and it is thereafter that further investigation is said to have been conducted and a case was registered against all the accused for offences punishable under Sections 179 and 333 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC, for brevity) read with Section 34 of the IPC.

(3.) THE learned State Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would seek to justify the judgment of the court below.