Judgment:
(Prayer: This Appeal Is Filed Under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., Praying To Set Aside The Judgment Dated 13.02.2009, Passed By Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge At Mandya In Spl.C.N0.45/2008, Convicting Appellant No.1 Accused No.1 For An Offence Punishable Under Section 324 Ipc And Also For An Offence Punishable Under Section 3(L)(X) Of The Scheduled Castes And Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities;, Act and Convicting Appellants 2 and 3-Accused 2 and 3 For An Offence Punishable Under Section 341 Ipc and Etc.)
1. Appellants 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred as 'accused 1 to 3') were tried for offences punisnable under sections 341, 324 and 506 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act'). The learned Special Judge convicted accused No.1 for an offence punisnable under section 324 IPC and also for an offence punishable under section 3(l)(x) of the Act. The learned Special Judge acquitted accused No.l of an offence punishable under section 506 IPC. The learned Special Judge convicted accused 2 and 3 of an offence punishable under section 341 IPC and acquitted them of offences punishable under sections 324 and 506 IPC and also of an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Therefore, accused 1 to 3 are before this court.
2. I have heard Sri K.S.Aswathanarayana Reddv, learned counsel for accused and Sri B.Vishweswaraiah, learned HCGP for State. I have been taken through evidence.
3. The accused were tried for the following charges:-
CHARGE
1. Firstly, 21.4.2008, around 11.00 a.m. on a road in Byaladakere Village of Maddur Taluk, you wrongfully restrained C.W. 1 Ramesh and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec 341 IPC and within my cognizance.
2. Secondly, on the same day, at the same time and at the same place, the first of you assaulted C.W.1 with the handle of an agricultural implement locally called 'Guddali' and voluntarily caused simple hurt to him and thereby first of you have committed an offence punishable under Sec 324 IPC and within my cognizance.
3. Thirdly, on the same day, at the same time and at the same place first of you, with an intention to insult the above named C.W.1, as also C.W.2 Smt.Sudha and C.W.3 Raju, they being members of Scheduled Caste, in public view abused them by referring to their caste and thereby first of you committed an offence punishable under Sec.3(l)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and within my cognizance.
4. Fourthly, on the same day, at the same time and at the same place the first of you, threatened to kill C.Ws.1 to 3 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sec.506 IPC and within my cognizance."
4. PW1-Ramesha is the husband of PW2-K.Sudha. PW3- Raju is the son of younger sister of PW1. They belong to Scheduled Caste. They are natives of Byaladakere Village, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. Accused 1 to 3 are also from the same village. About 20 days prior to 21.04.2008, PW1 v/as working in the brick kiln of accused No.1. PW1 worked for a few days and thereafter abruptly stopped to work in the brick kiln of accused No. 1.
5. PW1-Ramesha has deposed; on 21.04.2008 at about 11 a.m., PW1 to PW3 were proceeding towards their land along with cattle; when they were walking near land of accused No.1, accused No.1 called PW1 to work, in his brick kiln; PWI refused to work in the brick kiln of accused No.1; there was quarrel between accused 1 to 3 on one side and PWI to PW3 on the other side; accused 2 and 3 held PWI; accused No.1 assaulted on head of PW1 with handle of a spade and caused injuries to him; PW2 and PW3 came to rescue PW1 and shifted PWI to Government Hospital at Kesthur; the doctor in Government Hospital at Kesthur referred PWI to a major hospital at Maddur; before going to Government Hospital at Maddur, PW1 lodged first information in Kesthur Police Station as per Ex.P.1; PWI was treated in Government Hospital at Maddur for one day, thereafter, PW1 was treated in NIMHANS at Bangalore. PW1 has deposed; when incident took place, accused No. 1 abused PW1 by taking out the name of his caste within public vision.
During cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that his wife (PW2) was carrying clothes for washing; she was going ahead of PW1 ; PW1 told PW3 to bring his bicycle to carry clothes after they were washed by PW2; except PW2 and PW3, no other villager was present near place of incident
6. From the evidence of PW1 , we find that there was dispute between PW1 and accused No.1. It appears PW1 was working in the brick kiln of accused No.1, later he refused to work in the brick kiln of accused No.1, therefore, there was dispute between accused No.1 and PW1 . Accused No.1 assaulted PW1 on his head with handle of a spade. There was no reason cither for accused No.1 or accused 2 and 3 to abuse PW1 by taking out the name of his caste within public vision. PW1 has not deposed that accused 2 and 3 had wrongfully restrained PW1 . In view of this, accused 2 and 3 cannot be held guilty of an offence punishable under section 341 IPC.
7. PW1 has made an omnibus statement that accused 1 to 3 abused him by taking out the name of his caste, within public vision. PW1 has not deposed that accused i to 3 had abused him by taking out the name of Ms caste and accused 1 to 3 had intention to insult PW1 within public vision.
8. PW2-K.Sudha is the wife of PW1. PW2 had given an exaggerated version that accused No.1 abused PW1 by taking out the name of their caste, which is not the evidence of PW1.
9. PW1 has deposed that accused 2 and 3 had held PW1 when accused No.1 assaulted on the head of PW1 with handle of a spade. PW2 has deposed; soon after the incident, PW1 was taken to Government Hospital at Kesthur; doctor gave preliminary treatment and stitched injury and referred PW1 to Government Hospital at Maddur.
During cross-examination, PW2 has admitted that PW1 had lodged complaint against one Biliya and Kariya. PW2 has not deposed that accused 1 to 3 had wrongfully; restrained PW1 .
10. PW3-Raju has deposed; on the date of incident, accused No.1 abused PW2 and also PW3. PW3 has not deposed; accused abused PW1 by taking out the name of his caste. PW1 has categorically admitted that except PW2 and PW3, none else had witnessed the incident.
11. From the evidence of PW6-Dr.K.V.Prakash, the then Senior Specialist in General Hospital at Maddur, we find that PW6 examined PW1 at about 9.30 p.m., on 21.04.2008 and found following injuries:-
"I. A sutured wound measuring 8 cms in length on left fronto parietal region.
II. An abrasion on right scapular region
III. An abrasion on left scapular region
IV. A contusion over anterior aspect above clavicle- tenderness was seen."
12. Thus, from the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and medical evidence of PW6, it can safely be held that accused No. 1 had assaulted on the head of PW1 with handle of spade and caused injuries to him. In the circumstances, there are no reasons to interfere with the findings of learned trial Judge that accused No.1 had committed an offence punishable under section 324 IPC.
13. In the discussion made supra, I have held that PW1 to PW3 have not deposed that accused 1 to 3 had wrongfully restrained PW1. m the circumstances, the judgment of conviction of accused 2 and 3 for an offence punishable under section 341 IPC cannot be sustained.
14. In the discussion made supra, I have held that there is no cogent and consistent evidence in relation to an offence punishable under section 3(l)(x) of the Act. The reason for accused No.1 to assault PW1 would belie that accused No.1 had abused PW1 by taking out the name of his caste, within public vision with intention to insult him. Therefore, conviction of accused No. 1 for an offence punishable under section 3(l)(x) of the Act cannot be sustained.
15. The learned counsel for accused submits that PW1 was working in the brick kiln, of accused No.1. Accused no.1 was enraged when PW1 suddenly remained absent from work. Accused No. 1 had caused a solitary injury on head of PW1. The incident of assault was preceded by a brief quarrel. In the circumstances, the sentence of imprisonment may be substituted with fine.
16. The learned HCGP would oppose the same.
17. On consideration of the above mitigating circumstances and also the background of incident, I deem it proper to substitute sentence of imprisonment with fine.
18. In the result, I pass the following:-
ORDER
The appeal is accepted in part. The impugned judgment is modified. The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused No.1 for an offence punishable under section 3(l)(x) of the Act is set aside. Accused No.1 is acquitted of an offence punishable under section 3(l)(x) of the Act. If accused No.1 has deposited the fine amount in terms of the impugned judgment for an offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the same shall be refunded to him. The impugned judgment as it relates to conviction of accused 2 and 3 for an offence punishable, under section 341 IPC is set aside. Accused 2 and 3 are acquitted of an offence punishable under section 341 IPC. The bail bonds executed by accused 2 and 3 stand cancelled. If accused 2 and 3 have deposited the fine amount, the same shall be refunded to them. The judgment of conviction of accused No.1 for an offence punishable under section 324 IPC is confirmed, however sentence is modified. Accused No.1 is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under section 324 IPC. Out of the fine amount, a sum of Rs.20,000/- shall be paid as compensation to PW1- Ramesha.