State vs D.V. Chandrashekar

Jawad Rahim

State is in appeal against acquittal of the respondents for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(iv) and (v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 1978, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity). Heard Sri Raja Subrahmanya Bhat, learned HCGP and Sri Shivakumar Totad for the respondents-accused.

From what learned HCGP and the learned counsel for the respondents have adverted to, it could be seen the genesis of this appeal is a dispute relating to right, title and interest allegedly acquired by the respondents relating to land granted by the Government to persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe.

PW12-Nagappa lodged report at the jurisdictional magistrate alleging that the respondents tried to dispossess him from land in Survey No. 16 which was allotted to him by the Government. The case was investigated, but the investigating officer found the allegation of alleged atrocity committed by the respondents was baseless, and hence submitted ''B'' report. The jurisdictional magistrate declined to accept the ''B'' report and rejected it, thus allowing the complainant to file protest.

The complainant (PW12) filed a detailed protest memo and it appears he approached the Home Minister. While in the magistrate court the protest memo was on record without further action, the direction of the Home Minister was complied by the officer of the police station and the case was registered against the respondents for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(iv) and (v) of the Act.

The complainant''s allegation was, land bearing Survey No. 16 of Gopal village was allotted to Kadamma in or about the year 1960; along with her two more persons were added as beneficiaries and they were in possession and enjoyment of the land. Kadamma left behind Nagappa (PW12) to succeed to her estate and he thus became entitled to the land. The other allottees also continued to be in possession of the land, but they sold the same to the respondents. The sale was in contravention of the condition imposed by the allotment order restraining sale in favour of any one except a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe.

Later, the said transaction of sale was questioned before the Assistant Commissioner who registered the case under the Karnataka Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. Noticing that the respondents who had purchased the land did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he cancelled the sale. It was questioned before the Deputy Commissioner with no better result. The writ petition filed before this court was also fruitless; writ appeal was also dismissed. Ultimately, the matter scaled up to the apex court and cancellation of sale was confirmed. Thereafter action was initiated to resume the land and deliver it to the original allottees. Accordingly, respondents were dispossessed from Survey No. 16 of Gopal village and PW12-Nagappa and PW13-Bhadrappa claim to have been put in possession. The complaint in question was lodged subsequently alleging respondents had tried to dispossess them from the land in question.

The averments in the complaint which became the genesis for all further action is virtually a statement on fact showing what transpired earlier till complainant and others were put in possession. In support of the allegation that the respondents have committed an act punishable u/s 3(1)(iv) and (v) of the Act, complainant tendered evidence as PW12, another vendor of the respondents was examined as PW13 (Bhadrappa) and LAO of Bagalkot, P. Upendra, who spoke of the allotment in favour of the original allottees was examined as PW14. PW15 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bangalore, who spoke about the investigation made by him.

Respondents brought out through their defence that PW12 was an impersonator; he was not the son of Kadamma; he was the son of Gadigeppa. They successfully brought out that it was not a mere allegation from the respondents, but it was a fact enquired into, verified and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner in a proceeding relating to allotment. Respondents have also brought out that Nagappa, son of Kadamma had petitioned to the Assistant Commissioner informing him of the atrocity committed by PW12 and also demonstrated the sinister design with which he had set up PW13 and others to initiate action against the respondents. The Assistant Commissioner had, after a detailed enquiry, accepted the statement of Nagappa and it appears he has cancelled the allotment so far as it relates to resumption of land and delivered possession to PW12, son of Gadigeppa.

In this fact situation, the question that arose for consideration was, whether the allegation in the complaint about alleged dispossession generated cause of action to prosecute the respondents for the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(iv) and (v) of the Act. The learned trial judge has, based on such finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, opined the charge against the respondents was not established beyond reasonable doubt and has granted acquittal which the state has questioned.

Though the trial court has granted acquittal to the respondents on different grounds, what must be noticed is the phraseology of clause (v) of Section 3 (1) of the Act. It envisages: ''Whoever not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe wrongfully dispossesses a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interferes with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. Therefore, the act of dispossession or act of interference must be established to sustain that action.

The averments in the complaint refer only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings relating to right, title and interest in respect of the land. There is no statement on fact that the respondents had at any time dispossessed the complainant or interfered with their possession. All that the complainant has stated in the complaint is, in view of dismissal of writ appeal filed by the respondents and the order of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the sale in their favour has since been cancelled and they have come in possession of the land. He has actually suppressed the fact that in different proceeding, he has been found to be imposter. In the absence of any allegation of dispossession or interference, they could not have been indicted at all and could not have been subjected to trial.

The second aspect is, the charge against the respondents would sustain only if the act is committed against the person protected by the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act who is an allottee in possession of land. In the instant case, PW12-Nagappa was not the allottee of the land as held by the Assistant Commissioner nor was he entitled to it.

For these reasons, prosecution against the respondents undoubtedly was unsustainable at it was at the instance of a person who had no legally sustainable right nor there was any cause of action to proceed against them. The allegation that PW12 was an imposter has not been answered in the earlier proceedings and it appears now finality has been given to that issue. In this fact situation, when there is a dispute regarding legal right and also factum of possession, as the circumstances described in clause (v) of Section 3(1) of the Act are not established, prosecution was untenable. Acquittal recorded by the trial court is justified and needs no interference. The appeal stands dismissed.