Somasekhara vs State of Karnataka

H.G. Ramesh, J.—The accused are in appeal challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions & Special Judge, Mandya in Spl. Case 18/2010 on 10.12.2010.

It is alleged, on 12.3.2010 the complainant and his witnesses and accused along with other villagers had gone to the house of one Manchasetty of Kalenahalli Village to attend a religious function, in a lorry. The complainant and his witnesses were invited for beating the drum in the function. After the function was over when the complainant demanded payment of Rs. 600/- for beating the drum, stating that they are demanding Rs. 300/- more, accused raised a quarrel taking out the name of the caste and also used abusive language. It is stated, the 1st accused assaulted the complainant on the left hip by kicking, the 2nd accused hit on the back side of the neck of the complainant and the 3rd accused pushed him down and bet him with hands. One Thammaiah and the brother of the complainant rescued. The incident happened in front of the house of one Manchasetty in the dark of the night. The next day, complainant was taken to K R Hospital for treatment of the injuries. Later he filed a complaint. The police have registered a case for the offences under S. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act r/w S. 323, 504, 506 r/s S. 34, IPC in Crime No. 44/2010. Charge sheet was filed after investigation. The trial court, examined in all about ten witnesses and got marked five documents. After recording the statement of the witnesses, charges were framed and the accused were examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C.. Their defense is total denial. Based on the evidence, after hearing, trial court convicted all the accused under S. 235(2), Cr.P.C. and sentenced the 1st accused for the offence under S. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced him to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- default sentence of two months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under S. 323 and 324, IPC, in default, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Accused 2 and 3 were sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence under S. 323 and 324 r/w S. 34 IPC and default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment. As against this, accused are in appeal.

Heard the counsel representing the parties.

According to the counsel representing the accused appellants, as per Ex. P1 - wound certificate, the overt act does not attract the offence under S. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The incident has taken place in the usual course as there was a misunderstanding regarding payment of wages for beating the drum in the religious function. There is no other witness except the version of interested witnesses. Neither it was deliberate nor with an intention the accused have committed the offence much less for the use of abusive language except the oral testimony of the complainant, there is no cogent evidence.

It is also submitted, the wound certificate shows that there is tenderness that could have occurred due to fall and naturally the injury is suffered. It is also stated, in the quarrel ensued in respect of paying wages and with a political motive complaint has been filed against the accused. Further, according to the counsel, there was no electricity at the time of the incident and therefore, no visibility at the time of commission of the offence and there are no eye witnesses to the incident except the testimony of interest witnesses.

On going through the evidence on record, it could be seen the incident has taken place during the night that too regarding beating the drum and some exchange of words has taken place. Regarding abusive words used against the complainant, it appears except the sole testimony of the complainant there is no other evidence on record and the ingredients of S. 504, IPC regarding use of abusive language, has not been satisfied in the real terms. So also the injury that is caused is shown to be in the form of tenderness. Might be during the struggle between complainant and the accused, some force must have been used. Due to fall or some other reason the complainant would have suffered injuries. In the evidence of PW 4 it is noted that he had gone to attend the function and he states that more than 50 to 60 persons had gathered and PWs 6 was also invited for beating the drum. The defense taken by the accused is, the complainant and others were drunk and even PW 2 has admitted that they were under intoxication and they were served with liquor. It appears, as per the defense of the accused, a quarrel ensued when the complainant and others were under the influence of liquor, in connection with payment of wages for beating the drums. In the circumstances, the evidence let in and the allegation made do not attract the provisions of S. 504 or 323, IPC much less the provision under S. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Rather, the offence alleged would attract the offence under S. 95, IPC - Act causing slight harm - Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

The evidence on record i.e., the wound certificate also disclose that there is tenderness but that is not with an intention to commit an offence much less the complainant and others were under intoxication at the time of happening of the incident, that too on account of payment of wages. Naturally in the absence of any such corroboration as to the evidence let in, the sole version of the complainant would not be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. Accused are acquitted of the offence with which they are charged and their bail bonds stand cancelled.