AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N. Ananda, J.—The learned trial judge has acquitted the respondents (accused no. 1 and 2) for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(xiv) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Therefore, the State is before this court.
I have heard learned Government Advocate for the State.
As could bee seen from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, PW. 2-Mayanna was working as a Watchman of Sampangirama Temple situate in Cunningham road, Bangalore. In the year 2003, he was suspended from his job. The temple is under the control of Mujarai department. He was dismissed from the service on 27.02.2004 on the allegations that he had collected excess rents for the choultry attached to the temple.
PW. 2 had requested the Endowment Commissioner on 30.06.2004 to permit him to stay in the house (quarters) allotted to him for one more year. There is no evidence to prove that he was permitted to continue in occupation however, PW. 2 and his family members continued to remain in occupation of the house which was allotted to him when he was appointed as a watchman. PW. 1 (first informant) who professes himself as a social worker had lodged the first information alleging that accused no. 1 and 2 who were Archaks of Sampangirama Temple had not permitted the family members of PW. 2 to collect water from the tap installed in the premises of temple. Therefore, accused have committed offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(xiv) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act").
In order to prove an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(v) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove that the person belong to Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe was wrongfully dispossessed from his land or premises or there was interference with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water.
In order to prove an offence punishable u/s Sections 3(1) (xiv) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove that any person has denied a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to.
In my considered opinion, if the entire case of prosecution is accepted at its face value, an offence u/s 3(1) (xiv) of the Act is not attracted.
As regards Section 3(1)(v) of the Act, it is necessary to state that PW. 2 did not have right over the premises in which he was overstaying. PW. 2 or his family members did not have right to use the water from the tap installed in the temple premises. The tap installed in the temple is meant for the use of devotees. In the circumstances, PW. 2 and his family members cannot claim right to collect water from the tap installed in the temple premises.
From the evidence on record, we find that Wakf property premises and temple premises are adjacent to each other. There was direct water connection from BWSSB to temple premises. There used to be supply of water unless it was shut down by BWSSB. In the premises belonging to Wakf Board, they had constructed a sump and overhead tank. In the circumstances, if family members of PW. 2 were collecting the water from the tap situate in the premises of wakf property, it is hardly possible to hold that accused have committed aforestated offences.
The learned trial judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the accused. There are no reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed.