HUSEINSAB AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 36/2008, on the file of Special Court (District and Sessions), Bagalkot, have come up in this appeal challenging the judgment and sentence passed in the judgment dated 29.7.2009.

(2.) The brief facts leading to this appeal are that accused Nos. 1 and 2 and complainant are neighbours residing in the same vicinity. The genesis of this dispute dates back to 1.6.2008, on which day the grandson of complainant Nagavva viz., Amaresh who is P.W. 3 in the Court below is said to have committed theft of Rs. 200/ - in the house of accused Nos. 1 and 2 along with two other friends of him. It is the case of the prosecution that when the said boy was caught in the act of stealing, he was apprehended by accused Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that they were trying to punish him for the said offence. At that time his maternal aunt Kasturawa -P.W. 2, who had come to her parents house for confinement, came to the place of incident along with her minor child aged less than one year to protect her nephew P.W. 3. Simultaneously the complainant who is grandmother of P.W. 3 also came to that place. In the commotion, Nagavva is said to have fallen down fracturing the neck of left thigh femur. That, P.W. 3 Amaresh is said to have suffered a small injury on his shoulder measuring to an extent of half an inch. The records would disclose that the complainant Nagavva and her grandson Amaresh were treated by doctors P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 and thereafter complaint was lodged by P.W. 1 on 4.6.2008 at about 9.00 p.m. The complaint is admittedly received by the respondent police on the very same date immediately after the alleged offence said to have taken place, which is punishable under Sec. 323, 338, 504, 109 read with Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3(i)(ix) and 3(i)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(3.) Based on the said complaint, FIR was registered, matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed against appellants 1 and 2 herein, who are accused Nos. 1 and 2 and another person by name Hussainsab S/o. Rajesab. Since there was accusation of accused No. 1 to 3 taking the name of caste to which the complainant belongs, which is scheduled caste, the provisions of Sec. 3(i)(ix) and 3(i)(xi) is also invoked. In the said proceedings on behalf of complainant in all 11 witnesses were examined and 10 documents were relied upon. Out of 11 witnesses, P.W. 1 is the complainant, P.W. 2 is the daughter of complainant, P.W. 3 is the grandson who is said to be the cause for this commotion. The independent eye witnesses are P.W. 4, 5 and 7. P.W. 6 is the husband of complainant.