SANGAMESH Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has called in question the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him by the II -Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Gulbarga, on 02.11.2011 in Special Case No. 264/2010 convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentencing him to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - for the said offence and in default to pay fine, to undergo S.I. for a period of three months.

(2.) THE brief factual matrix of the case that emanate from the records are that, the State through Station Bazaar Police Station, Gulbarga, has laid the charge sheet against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on the grounds that, the complainant by name Allama Prabhu examined as PW.1 was having a Bank Account in SBH Bank at Vidyanagar, Gulbarga; On 12.10.2009 when he had been to the bank, he has drawn a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. While returning, the appellant/accused a police personnel came to the said bank and picked up quarrel with the complainant and assaulted the complainant with his lathi. Because of the said assault, the lathi was broken and thereafter, the accused has assaulted him with his hands and kicked him with his boot -leg and also abused him in vulgar language taking his caste into task. At that time, one Revanasiddapa S/o. Saibanna was present and he rescued the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant has lodged a complaint with the Station Bazaar Police Station, Gulbarga, and the police after due investigation submitted the charge sheet. The Court has secured the presence of the accused and framed charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PA) Act, 1989.

(3.) SRI Ravi K. Anoor, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the Trial Court convicted the accused morally though there is no legal evidence. There are lot of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. More than that, the victim and the so -called eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. This has not been properly considered by the Trial Court. The accused is a government servant and he has been falsely implicated into the crime. If the judgment of conviction and sentence is allowed to be continued, it will have severe impact on his job as well as on his future career. Therefore, he argued that the accused is entitled for acquittal.