KABC010157602016

IN THE COURT OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL

AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
BENGALURU (CCH. No.71)

Dated this the 17th day of March, 2023.

Present;
SRI. PRAKASH.V., B.A(L)., LL.B.
LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge, Bengaluru.

[Link].301/2016

COMPLAINANT: STATE
Represented by
Vidyaranyapura, Police Station,
Bengaluru.
([Link] Special Public Prosecutor).

-V/s-
ACCUSED : 1 Sri. Shaik Farooq(Dead),
S/o, Shaik Akbar,
Aged 53 years,
R/at No.324, 2nd Main,
Yelahanka Main Road,
M.S. Palya, Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-560097.
2 Sri. Javeed Pasha,
S/o. Shaik Farooq,
Aged 25 years,
R/at No.324, 2nd Main,
Yelahanka Main Road,
M.S. Palya, Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-560097.
 2 [Link].301/2016

3 Sri. Adil Pasha,

S/o Late. Mheedin,
Aged 40 years, R/at No.7,
Property No.55/13,
Old Katha No.55/13,
[Link], Yelanka Hobil,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-560097.
4 Sri. Shaik Raheem,
S/o Late. [Link] Mohammed Sab,
Aged 70 years,
R/at No.72,
Doddabettahalli Layour,
Doddabettahalli,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-560097.
5 Sri. Shaik Mahaboob,
S/o Late. Shaik Mohammed Sab,
Aged 68 years,
R/at No.46, M.S. Palya,
Mosque Road,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-560097.
6 Sri. Shaik Hafeez,
S/o Late. S.K.S.M.S.,
Aged 59 years,
R/at [Link],
Mosque Road,
Vidyaranyapura Post,
Bengaluru-560097.
7 Sri. Shaik Ibrahim,
S/o [Link] Mohammed Sab,
Aged 55 years,
R/at: No.262, 1st Main Road,
Manjunath Nagar,
Bengaluru-560073.
([Link] Sri.A.J.B., Advocate).
 3 [Link].301/2016

1. Date of commission of offence : 15-07-2015

2. Date of report of Offence : 02-08-2015
3. Name of the Complainant : Vasantha Kumar
4. Date of commencement of : 08-03-2018
recording of evidence
5. Date of closing of evidence : 01-08-2022
6. Offences Complained are : U/sec.448, 201, 504, 506
R/w 34 of IPC and u/s
Sec.3(1)(x), 3(1)(v), 3(1)
(xv) of the SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989.
7. Opinion of the Judge : Accused found not guilty

JUDGMENT

ACP, Yashavanthapura Sub-division, Bengaluru

has submitted Charge-sheet against the accused for

the offences punishable under Section U/sec.448,

201, 504, 506 R/w 34 of IPC and under section 3(1)

(x), 3(1)(v), 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is that, CW2

had purchased site bearing No.2 measuring 30x45

feet formed in [Link].55/13, at [Link], Jarabande

Kaval of Yelahanka Hobli, which is situated within

the jurisdiction of Vidyaranyapura Police station and

 4 [Link].301/2016

said site was purchased in the year 1984 and CW2

had constructed A.C. Sheet house over the same

and obtained Electricity connection under

[Link].46763 and also given said house on rent to

CW5 and CW6. On 19.12.2014, the CW2 has given

said site to his son/CW1, the accused No.1 to 3 with

an intention to grab the said site, hatched plan and

filed application before K.E.B with indemnity bond

by forging signatures of CW2, submitted the same

before CW8 and CW9 and got canceled the

Electricity connection and caused disappearance of

evidence. On 15.07.2015 at about 7.30 to 8.25 pm.,

the accused No.1 to 3 have illegally trespassed into

the house of CW1 and picked up quarrel with CW1

and CW2 and proclaiming that they purchased the

said site from accused No.4 to 7 in the year 2014

and abused in filthy language and intentionally

insulted by taking the name of caste, threatened to

take away their life, wrongfully dispossessed and

used force to leave the house property. Accordingly,

the [Link] Kumar has lodged his complaint

 5 [Link].301/2016

before the SHO of Vidhyaranyapura Police Station.

On the basis of said complaint, a case has been

registered in Crime No.286/2015. The Investigating

officer has visited the place of incident, prepared

the Spot Panchanama, recorded the statement of

witnesses, collected specimen signatures for

comparison of disputed signatures, send the said

signature to scientific verification and filed charge

sheet after collecting report regarding caste of

complainant as well as accused persons.

3. During the course of investigation, the accused No.1

to 7 have approached the learned II Additional City

Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge and

obtained anticipatory bail. After filing of charge

sheet, this court was took the cognizance of said

offence and issued summons to the accused No.1 to

7. On service of the same, the accused persons

have appeared before this Court and they got

enlarged on bail. The charge sheet copies were

furnished to the accused as contemplated under

Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before the charge. As

 6 [Link].301/2016

there was sufficient materials available, charge was

framed for the above said offences, read over and

explained to the accused in vernacular language

and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the course of trial, the accused No.1 is

reported to be dead, hence the case against

accused No.1 stands closed as abetted.

4. The prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused

got examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and

got exhibited 87 documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.87.

During the course of cross examination of PW1,

Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were marked by way of

confrontation. The statement of the accused u/sec

313 was recorded, read over and explained to the

accused in vernacular language and the accused

have denied all the incriminating evidence and they

did not choose to lead defence evidence on their

behalf.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the materials

available on record.
 7 [Link].301/2016

6. The following points would arise for the

determination of this Court are as follows;

POINTS
1) Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that on
15.07.2015 in between 7.30 to
8.25pm., the accused No.1 to 3 have
illegally trespassed into the house of
CW1 and thereby committed the
offence punishable u/s.448 r/w 34 of
IPC?

2) Whether the prosecution proves

beyond all reasonable doubt, the
accused No.1 to 3 in furtherance of
their common intention to grab the
said site, the accused No.1 to 3 have
got canceled the Electricity
connection of said property by
submitting the forged indemnity
bond before K.E.B and caused
disappearance of evidence and
thereby committed the offence
punishable u/s.201 r/w 34 of IPC?

3) Whether the prosecution proves

beyond all reasonable doubt that on
the aforesaid date, time and place,
 8 [Link].301/2016

the accused persons in furtherance

of their common intention have
intentionally insulted and thereby
gave provocation to CW1 and CW2
intending that such provocation will
cause the said CW1 and CW2 to
break the public peace and thereby
committed the offence punishable
u/s.504 r/w 34 of IPC?

4) Whether the prosecution proves

beyond all reasonable doubt that on
the aforesaid date, time and place,
the accused persons in furtherance
of their common intention have
criminally intimidated by threatening
the CW1 and CW2 with injury to their
persons with intent to cause alarm to
them and thereby committed the
offence Punishable u/s.506 r/w 34 of
IPC?

5) Whether the prosecution proves

beyond all reasonable doubt that on
the aforesaid date, time and place,
the accused are not belongs to SC/ST
have intentionally insulted/intimidated
with intent to humiliate the CW1 and
CW2, who belonged to Scheduled
 9 [Link].301/2016

Caste in a place within the public view

and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s.3(1)(x) of The
Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989?

6) Whether the prosecution proves

beyond all reasonable doubt that on
the aforesaid date, time and place,
the accused persons are not belonged
to SC/ST wrongfully dispossessed CW1
and CW2 from their house who
belongs to members of the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes and
thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s.3(1)(v) of the
Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?

7) Whether the prosecution proves

beyond all reasonable doubt that on
the aforesaid date, time and place,
the accused persons are not SC/ST
have forces the CW1 and CW2 to
leave their house and thereby
committed an offence punishable u/s
3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989?
 10 [Link].301/2016

8) What order?

7. My findings to the above points are as follows;

Point No.1 : In the Negative

Point No.2 : In the Negative
Point No.3 : In the Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : In the Negative
Point No.6 : In the Negative
Point No.7 : In the Negative
Point No.8 : As per final order,
for the following;

REASONS

8. Point No.1 to 7: These points are inter-linked with

one another, hence, I took up these points together

for common discussion to avoid the repetition of

facts and evidence. It is the definite case of

prosecution that, CW2 had purchased site bearing

No.2 measuring 30x45 feet formed in [Link].55/13,

at [Link], Jarabande Kaval of Yelahanka Hobli,

which is situated within the jurisdiction of

Vidyaranyapura Police station and said site was

purchased in the year 1984 and CW2 had

 11 [Link].301/2016

constructed A.C. Sheet house over the same and

obtained Electricity connection under [Link].46763

and also given said house on rent to CW5 and CW6.

On 19.12.2014, the CW2 has given said site to his

son/CW1, the accused No.1 to 3 with an intention

to grab the said site, hatched plan and filed

application before K.E.B with indemnity bond by

forging signatures of CW2, submitted the same

before CW8 and CW9 and got cancelled the

Electricity connection and caused disappearance of

evidence. On 15.07.2015 at about 7.30 to 8.25 pm.,

the accused No.1 to 3 have illegally trespassed into

the house of CW1 and picked up quarrel with CW1

and CW2 and proclaiming that they purchased the

said site from accused No.4 to 7 in the year 2014

and abused in filthy language and intentionally

insulted by taking the name of caste, threatened to

take away their life, wrongfully dispossessed and

used force to leave the house property.

9. To bring home the guilt of the accused persons, the

prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses.

 12 [Link].301/2016

[Link] is said to be the victim and

complainant, [Link] is said

to be the another victim, [Link]

is said to be the eye witness to the incident, PW5-

Rajanna is said to be the tenant of disputed house,

PW6-Amjad Khan is said to be Electrical Contractor

who said to have filed application to surrender the

electricity meter standing in the name of CW1,

[Link], the then AEE of BESCOM,

Sahakaranagar Sub-Division said to have given

permission to surrender the Electricity meter after

perusal of report and documents submitted by

junior Engineer, PW4-Adi Narayana, Junior Engineer

of BESCOM, Vidhyaranyapura is said to have visited

the place and collected the information regarding

the electricity meter and submitted Surrender Form

before Executive Engineer after payment of

surrender fee by the accused, PW7-Fareed and PW8-

Syed Pyarejaan are said to be the attesting witness

to the Ex.P.2/Spot Mahazar, PW9-Mohan Raj Murthy

is said to be the attesting witness to the Specimen

 13 [Link].301/2016

signatures and handwritings of PW2-Gopalakrishna

obtained by CW21, PW11-Yasin and PW13-Syed

Basha are said to be the attesting witness to the

specimen signatures and handwritings of CW2 and

accused No.2 obtained by the CW21, PW12-Dr.V

Aravindan is the scientific officer of FSL, Madiwala

said to have issued FSL report after examination of

Specimen signatures and handwritings of CW2 and

accused No.2, [Link] Kumar, the then

Police Inspector of Vidhyaranyapura police station

said to have registered the case and PW15-Ashok

Pise, ACP of Yeshwanthapura Sub-division is the

investigating officer in this case. The evidence of

CW3, CW13, CW16 and CW17 are given by Special

Public Prosecutor.

10. On careful perusal of the materials available on

record it appears to me that, the total denial is the

defence of accused. On the background of above

defence taken up by the accused, the burden is

heavily lies on the prosecution to connect the

accused for the alleged offence. Whether the

 14 [Link].301/2016

prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of

accused or not is to be discussed. Hence, it is just

and necessary to go through the oral as well as

documentary evidence placed on record.

11. [Link] Kumar in his chief-examination

deposed that he know the accused persons. CW2

and CW3 are his parents, CW4 is his aunt and CW5

and CW6 are his tenants. He belongs to Scheduled

Caste-Madiga Community. In the year 1984, his

father/CW2 had purchased site bearing No.55/13/2

measuring at 30x45 [Link] situated in M.S. Palya

and 5 feet of the land was used by BBMP. In the

year 1984, CW2 had constructed 250 [Link] A.C.,

Sheet house and was in possession of the same

upto December 2014 and subsequently given the

said house on rent. In the year 2015, they wanted

to reconstruct house by demolishing the old house

and said house is covered with compound wall. On

11.04.2015 the accused persons have illegally

trespassed into the house by breaking the lock of

house and committed the theft of barbed wire, pick-

 15 [Link].301/2016

axe, bucket and mug. The accused No.3 and his

wife occupied the house and obtained electricity

connection with different number by forging the

signatures of his father. He came to know about the

same through his father. The electricity meter

number was YLG 46763 which was standing in the

name of his father and they got changed into 8693.

On 15.7.2015 at about 7.30 p.m., when he along

with his parents and CW4 went to the said house

and asked about changing of Electricity meter at

that time the accused persons replied that they

have got it from children of one Sheik Mohammed in

the year 2014 and abused them in filthy language

as ‘ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ …..’ and also caused threat to

take away their live. Thereafter, he went to police

station and lodged complaint after collecting

revenue documents, Record of Rights and Index of

land. This witness identified the complaint and

same is marked as Ex.P.1. He further deposed that

on 03.08.2015 the police have prepared spot

panchanama at the place of incident as per Ex.P.2

 16 [Link].301/2016

and took the photographs. This witness identified

two photographs and the same are marked as

Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4.

12. During the course of cross-examination of defence

counsel it was elicited from his mouth that he do

not know the accused person. The contents of

Ex.P.9 was confronted to this witness and he

accepted that the measurement of said site is

mentioned as 30x45 feet. Further he admits that

the Survey number one mentioned in the Ex.P.9 is

over written. He admits that in the Ex.P.14/Sale

deed, the measurement of site is mentioned as

30x40 feet and Survey number is mentioned as

55/12. Ex.D1/photograph confronted to this witness

and he denied the suggestion that 2 rooms were

appearing in the Ex.D.1/photo. He denied the

suggestion that the house appearing in the

Ex.D1/photograph was constructed by accused No.2

and accused No.3 was residing in the said house

since 2014. He admits that the accused No.3 had

executed rent agreement in favour of accused No.2

 17 [Link].301/2016

in connection with house situated in [Link].55/13/7.

The copy of rent agreement is confronted this

witness and same is marked as Ex.D2. He admits

that the Electric meter bearing No.8693 situated in

site No.7 was taken by the accused No.2. He admits

that they have lodged complaint on 17.07.2015 in

connection with site No.2. He admits that site No.7

belongs to accused and site No.2 belongs to him.

13. [Link] in his chief-

examination examination deposed that PW1 is his

son and he belongs to Scheduled Caste-Adi

Karnataka community. He know the accused

persons. Accused persons are aware of his caste. He

had purchased site No.2 measuring 30x45 [Link].,

one Gangadhar had purchased site No.1 measuring

15x45 [Link]., and site No.3 and 4 have purchased by

one Malayadri. One Gowari Prasad had sold said

sites on the basis of GPA. On 24.10.1984, affidavit

of sale was executed by Gowri Prasad. The sale

deed was not executed in view of existence of

Fragmentation Act. The land bearing [Link].55/13

 18 [Link].301/2016

measuring 16 guntas was originally belongs to

[Link] Mohammed, who is the father of accused by

name Shaik Rahim, Shaik Mehaboob and Shaik

Abbees. [Link] Mohammed had sold 16 guntas of

land in favour of [Link] in the year 1974 and

during the execution of sale deed the Survey

number was wrongly mentioned as 55/12 instead of

55/13 and said mistake was rectified in the year

1982 by the Revenue Court. During the year 1985-

86 he had constructed AC sheet house in the ½

portion of the site and said house was given to one

Suresh for occupation without rent. In the year 2006

he obtained Electric connection to the said house

and given house on rent in favour of Rajanna in the

year 2012. In the year 2013, he had given said

house on rent in favour of Ashwathamma. Since

2013, he is using the said house. In the year 2014

he had executed sale deed in favour of his son.

Since 2006 to 2015 he had paid electric charges. In

the mean time in the month of January 2015 he

kept locked his hose. On 11.04.2015, the accused

 19 [Link].301/2016

by name Shaik Farooq, Javid Pasha, Adil Pasha have

broken the lock put to the compound and also lock

of main door and illegally occupy the house. The

accused by name Adil Pasha, his wife and children

are residing in the said house. He had collected

Revenue documents pertains to his house property

in the month of July 2015. On 15.07.2015 at 7.30 to

8.25 pm., he along with his son, his wife and sister

in law came near the said site in Maruthi Omni van,

the accused by name Javid Pasha filed application

before K.E.B authorities by forging his signature and

surrendered electric meter and illegally obtained

new connection. On 15.07.2015, he asked accused

persons by name Farooq and Javid Pasha, at that

time they informed him that they have purchased

the house property from children of Shaik

Mohammed by name Shaik Raheem, Shaik Abees,

Shaik Mohammed. Further they have intentionally

insulted by taking the name of caste and

threatened to take away of his life. Prior to that on

09.04.2015 he along with his son were in talking

 20 [Link].301/2016

terms in the site No.2, the accused by name Shaik

Farooq, Javid Pasha, Adil Pasha have threatened

them by saying that the said house belongs to

them. Thereafter, his son had lodged complaint

before the Vidhayaranyapura Police station. He had

filed Petition before BESCOM stating that the

accused persons have illegally disconnected the

meter by forging his signatures. Thereafter,

BESCOM have disconnected the changed meter

obtained by the accused.

14. During the course of further chief-examination of

this witness, he has produced copies of Mutation

Register, Index of land, Record of Rights, RTC for the

year from 1981-82 to 1996-97, GPA dated

20.10.1984, affidavit dated 20.10.1984, GPA dated

24.06.1989, 'B' Khata Extracts, Sale deed, EC, Tax

paid receipts, Electric bills and receipts for having

paid electricity charges, Gas bills, antenatal Card,

Birth Certificate, Death Certificate, Rent agreement,

copy of complaint, reply given to the police, FIR,

copy of the Mahazar, Complaint given before SC/ST

 21 [Link].301/2016

Commission, Reply issued by SC/ST Commission,

Copy of complaint lodged by accused No.2, copy of

complaint given by his son before the police, FIR,

Electricity bills and receipt for having paid electricity

charges, photographs, Endorsements, Service

Certificate with regard to Electric connection, the

Memo issued by BESCOM, the notice issued by the

BESCOM to accused No.2, copy of complaint in

[Link].6729/2007, copy of the interim application,

copy of the order sheet, photos of sheeted house

and CD pertains to the photographs were

respectively as Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.51.

15. During the course of cross-examination of defence

counsel it was elicited from his mouth that in

Ex.P.9/GPA the measurement of site is mentioned as

30x45 [Link]. He do not know as to whether Gowri

Prasad is alive or not. He denied the suggestion that

he has not right in connection with GPA executed by

Gowri Prasad. He admits that Ex.P.14/Sale deed

executed by him is pertains to site No.2 and

[Link].55/12. He admits that he has not produced

 22 [Link].301/2016

Mutation order with regard to change of khata. He

admits that there is no reference in the sale deed

with regard to acquisition of 5 feet land by the

Government. He denied the suggestion that the

accused No.3 is residing in the said house since

2014. He denied the suggestion that the site No.7

situated in [Link].55/13 is belongs to accused No.2

who given the said house on rent in favour of

accused No.3.

16. [Link] in her chief-examination

deposed that CW3 is her sister, CW2 is her brother

in law and CW1 is the son of her sister. They

belongs to Madiga community. She know the

accused persons who belongs to Muslim community.

PW2 owns property in [Link].55/3 measuring 30x45

feet at [Link] of Jaraka Bande Kaval. PW2 had

purchased site No.2 in the year 1984 from one

Gowriprasad. The said Gowriprasad sold the said

site through GPA. The PW2 had constructed sheet

house and given the same on rent. On 09.04.2015

PW1 and 2 have went near the house at that time,

 23 [Link].301/2016

the accused persons were illegally occupied the

house. PW1 and 2 questioned the accused persons

at that time the accused persons abused CW1 to 3

by taking the name of caste. She was not present

on that day at the place of incident. On 15.07.2017

she along with CW1 to 3 came near the said house

and they found that the accused persons have

changed the electricity meter by forging the

signatures of PW2 and when they enquired with the

accused, they replied that they have purchased the

site in the year 2014 and intentionally insulted by

taking the name of caste. Further the accused

persons have caused threat to take away the lives.

PW2 had lodged complaint before the police. During

the course of cross-examination of defence counsel

it was elicited from her mouth that she is residing at

Koratagere.

17. PW5-Rajanna in his chief-examination deposed that

during the year 2008 he was residing at [Link].

He know the PW1 and PW2. He came in contact with

PW1 and PW2 through one Rangalakshmamma.

 24 [Link].301/2016

During the year 2008 he has taken the house No.2

on rent from PW2. He along with his wife were

residing in the said house upto 3 ½ years. After the

death of his wife, he went back to his native place.

He identified the Ex.P.19/Rent Agreement. During

the course of cross-examination of defence counsel

he admits that in the Ex.P.19 his signature is not

finds place.

18. PW6-Amjad Khan in his chief-examination deposed

that he is working as Electrical Contractor since 15

years under the Name and Style Fazal Electricals.

About 3 years back, he got installed electricity

meters to the house of accused No.2 by filing

application before BESCOM office. He identified his

signature on the Ex.P.53. He has not given

statement to the police. After treating this prime

witness as turned hostile, the Special Public

Prosecutor accord permission to cross-examine this

witness. During the course of cross-examination, he

denied the version of prosecution and also denied

 25 [Link].301/2016

for having given the statement before the police as

per Ex.P.56.

19. [Link], the then AEE of BESCOM,

Sahakaranagar Sub-Division in his chief-examination

deposed that on 15.03.2015 he had received case

file pertains to Gopalakrishnamurthy along with the

application submitted by the said

Gopalakrishnamurthy. After receipt of said

application, the junior Engineer visited the spot and

submitted report regarding surrender of electricity

meter. After perusal of report and documents,

Memo was passed permitting to surrender the

electricity meter.

20. PW4-Adi Narayana, Junior Engineer of BESCOM,

Vidhyaranyapura, who in his chief-examination

deposed that on 15.03.2015 one Amzad Khan,

Electrical Contractor submitted application which is

in the name of Gopalakrishna in connection with

surrender of Electricity meter along with Indemnity

bond. On the next day he visited the place and

 26 [Link].301/2016

collected the information regarding the electricity

meter and submitted surrender form before

Executive Engineer. After payment of surrender fee,

the Executive Engineer had passed an order by

giving permission to surrender the electricity meter.

Thereafter, he has collected the electricity meter

from house No.2. During the course of cross-

examination of defence counsel it was elicited from

his mouth that the Ex.P.52/Form is not bears the

signature of Amzad Khan Electricity Contractor.

21. PW7-Fareed and PW8-Syed Pyarejaan are the

material attesting witnesses to the Ex.P.2/Spot

Mahazar who turned hostile to the case of

prosecution. Nothing has been elicited from their

mouth during the course of cross-examination of

Special Public Prosecutor to prove the contents of

Ex.P.2/Spot Mahazar.

22. PW9-Mohan Raj Murthy in his chief-examination

deposed that the Vidyaranyapura police have

obtained the Specimen signatures and handwritings

 27 [Link].301/2016

of PW2-Gopalakrishna so as to compare the forged

signatures made by the accused.

23. PW11-Yasin in his chief-examination deposed that

Vidyaranyapura police have obtained the Specimen

signatures and handwritings of accused No.2 so as

to compare the forgery signature made by the

accused.

24. PW13-Syed Basha is one of the attesting witness to

the Ex.P.64 to Ex.P.69 which are the sheets contains

the Specimen signatures and handwritings of

accused No.2 who in his chief-examination turned

hostile to the case of prosecution and nothing has

been elicited from the mouth of this witness during

the course of cross-examination of Special Public

Prosecutor.

25. PW12-Dr.V Aravindan, FSL, Madiwala in his chief-

examination deposed about giving of his opinion

report as per Ex.P.70 as to the disputed and

admitted signatures appearing on Ex.P.57 to Ex.P.62

and Ex.P.64 to Ex.P.69. During the course of Cross

 28 [Link].301/2016

examination of defence counsel, he admits that he

was not able to express opinion with regard to

questioned signatures marked as Q1 and Q2.

26. [Link] Kumar, the then Police Inspector of

Vidhyaranyapura police station, who in his chief-

examination deposed about registration of case on

the basis of complaint.

27. PW15-Ashok Pise the then ACP of Yeshwanthapura

Sub-division who in his chief-examination deposed

about preparing of spot mahazar at the place of

incident, submission of requisition before Tahasildar

to furnish report regarding the caste of complainant

and accused persons, submission of requisition to

BBMP to prepare sketch, receipt of sketch from the

BBMP, receipt of report regarding the caste of

complainant and accused, recording of statement of

witnesses, receipt of Xerox copies of documents

from BESCOM, collecting the specimen signatures of

complainant and accused No.2 and sending the said

 29 [Link].301/2016

signatures to FSL and filing charge sheet after

receipt of FSL report.

28. Upon careful perusal of materials available on

records it is clearly discloses that the evidence of

PW1 to PW6, PW9 to PW10, PW12 to PW14 are

available on record to consider the allegation of

prosecution regarding criminal trespass, intentional

insult, criminal intimidation, causing disappearance

of evidence, intentional insult with intent to

humiliate them by taking the name of the caste of

PW1 and PW2 within public view, wrongfully

dispossessed PW1 and PW2 from their house and

use of force to PW1 and PW2 to leave their house .

The evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW5 plays very

important role to prove the allegation.

29. The learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for

the State would argued that, the evidence of PW2,

PW3 and PW5 is corroborated with the evidence of

PW1 and same is sufficient to prove the commission

 30 [Link].301/2016

of offence by the accused persons and accordingly

prayed for convict the accused persons.

30. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused would

submit that, the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and PW5

is not corroborated with each other and there is a

materials contradictions in their evidence and no

independent witnesses were examined. The PW1

has foisted false case against the accused in

connection with civil dispute relating to the house.

The witnesses examined before this Court are all

interested witnesses and their testimony cannot be

considered. Accordingly, prayed for acquit the

accused persons.

31. With the rival contentions urged by both sides, it is

just and necessary to go through the materials

placed on record. On careful perusal of the defence

taken up by the accused it appears to me that, the

accused No.1 to 3 are in the possession of the

disputed house property in which the PW1 is

claiming his title. The PW1 and PW2 have come up

 31 [Link].301/2016

with definite contention that the disputed site was

purchased by the PW2 and subsequently it was

transferred in the name of PW1 AND ACCUSED No.1

to 3 are in illegal possession of the same. According

to PW1, the disputed house property bears property

No. 55/13/2 measuring 30x45 feet and the accused

No.1 to 3 have contended that the property which is

in their possession bears property No.55/13/7. From

these rival contentions of the parties, it is proper to

go through the materials available on record.

32. Before going into the discussion on the other aspect

of the matter, it is just and proper to go through the

contents of the Ex.P.1/complaint for better

appreciation of the facts. In the complaint, the

complainant has specifically stated that his father

had purchased site property situated at [Link] in

[Link].55/13/2 measuring 30x45 feet on 24.10.1984

from one [Link] and constructed sheet

house over the same. His father as well as tenants

were in possession of the said house from 1985 to

2014 and from 2015 they were in possession of the

 32 [Link].301/2016

same for their personal use. In para No.2 of the

complaint it is mentioned that they have kept the

property as vacant with an intention to put up new

house by demolishing 31 year old house. By seeing

the same, the accused persons trespassed in to the

said site on 11.04.2015 by breaking the lock put to

the main gate of the compound and illegally

occupied by the accused No.3 and started to reside

in the said house. The accused No.2 changed the

electricity meter installed by his father and illegally

taken new electricity connection. On 15.07.2015 at

7.30 to 8.25 pm., he along with his father came

near the house of accused persons, at that time the

accused persons intentionally insulted by taking the

name of caste and also threatened to take away

their lives.

33. PW1 in his chief-examination has reiterated the

averments made in the Ex.P.1/complaint, but during

the course of cross-examination he admits that in

the Ex.P.9/Power of Attorney, the survey number is

mentioned as 55/12 and measurement is mentioned

 33 [Link].301/2016

as 30X45 feet. Further he admits that in the Ex.P.14

the survey number of the property is mentioned as

55/12 and measurement is mentioned as 30x40

feet. Rental Agreement is confronted to him and

same has been marked as Ex.D2 and said

agreement was executed in respect of house No.7

khata No.55/13/7. Further he admits that, even in

the sale deed executed by his father the survey

number is mentioned as 55/12.

34. As I have already stated above, the accused No.1 to

3 have taken specific contention that they are in

possession of disputed property as per the

Ex.D2/Rental agreement said to have been

executed by one Javeedh Pasha S/o Sahik Farooq in

favour of accused No.3, which is specifically

disputed by the PW1 and PW2 claiming their

ownership over the Suit Schedule property.

According to PW1 and PW2, the accused No.3 and

his family members trespassed in to the disputed

property and started to reside in the same. It is

important to note that the PW1 and PW2 have taken

 34 [Link].301/2016

specific contention that the accused No.3 and his

family members are illegally occupied the disputed

house property, but there is no explanation from

PW1 and 2 with regard to discrepancy of survey

number mentioned in the GPA and sale deed. The

PW1 has made an attempt show that, the survey

number 55/12 was re-numbered as 55/13, but no

materials were placed on record to substantiate the

said contention. Inspite of it, PW2 had executed sale

deed infavour of PW1 in respect of property bearing

No.55/13 and claiming ownership through his son/

PW2 without any basis. The GPA said to have

executed in favour of PW2 is in respect of property

bearing Survey Number 55/12, but the PW2 had

executed sale deed in respect of property bearing

Survey Number 55/13. Furthermore, the GPA relied

by the PW2 is a unregistered document and on the

basis of said GPA the right over the immovable

properties cannot be transferred as per law. Apart

from that, PW1 and PW2 have not taken any action

against accused No.1 to 3 to get vacate them from

 35 [Link].301/2016

the disputed property through due process of law by

filing civil suit on the basis of sale deed, if really

they are the rightful owners of disputed property.

The PW1 and 2 without approaching the competent

court of law to get declare their ownership over the

disputed property have made an unsuccessful

attempt to prove their right over the same in this

case by producing defective title deed, which

cannot be considered in this case. PW2 has

produced certified copies of the plaint, IA No.I and

order sheet in [Link]. 6729/2007 as per Ex.P.42 to

Ex.P.45. I have carefully gone through the contents

of said documents wherein it is discloses that, one

[Link] Bee and others had instituted suit

against one [Link] for the relief of

permanent injunction. The contents of those

documents are not in any way come to the aid of

PW1 and PW2 for a simple reason that, neither PW1

and PW2 nor the accused persons are parties to the

said suit. Furthermore, the contents of Ex.P.42 to

Ex.P.45 discloses that the said suit was dismissed

 36 [Link].301/2016

for non prosecution and same was not disposed off

on merits. Hence, the said documents cannot be

looked into for any purpose.

35. It is important to note that, PW2 has produced as

many as 86 documents before this Court and out of

which the Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.87 have been produced

before this Court by the PW2 and same has not

been produced before the IO for the reasons best

known to him. Hence, much importance cannot be

given to the contents of Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.87 as the

accused persons have no opportunity to dispute the

authenticity of documents as it was produced

before this Court to the surprise of the accused

persons. The PW2 has produced copy of GPA and

Affidavit before this Court as per Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10,

which are the unregistered documents. Hence,

much importance cannot be given to the said

documents. Even the rent agreement which is

produced on record as per Ex.P.9 is also not

attached evidentiary value, as the said document is

an Notarized document which is a secondary

 37 [Link].301/2016

evidence. The PW2 has also produced Antenatal

Card as per Ex.P.21 and said document is also not in

any way come to the help of PW2, as the author or

the holder of card was not examined. Furthermore,

the entire property number of disputed site has not

been mentioned in the same. Ex.P.22 and Ex.P.23

are the Birth Certificate and Death Certificate of

alleged tenant and her daughter not bears the door

number of the disputed site. Ex.P.24/Rental

Agreement also cannot be taken into consideration

for non examination of alleged tenant. On the

background failure on the part of PW1 and PW2 to

prove their attempt to get vacate the accused No.3

and his family members from the disputed property,

by taking the recourse to law, it is very difficult for

this Court to hold that the accused are in illegal

possession of the disputed property. The

prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of

Section 448 of IPC.

36. So far as allegation of intentional insult and criminal

intimidation is concerned, the PW1 in his chief-

 38 [Link].301/2016

examination deposed that the accused No.1 to 3

abused him and his father as “ ಸಸಳ ಮಕಕಳಳ”, which

has not been stated in his chief-examination.

Furthermore, PW3 said to be the sister in law of PW2

deposed that the accused persons have abused the

PW2 as “ಸಸಳ ಮಕಕಳಳ”, which is goes against the

deposition of PW1. As per the Ex.P.1/complaint the

accused No.4 to 7 said to have intentionally insulted

and caused threat to the life of PW1 and PW2.

Hence, I have no hurdles to hold that, the evidence

of PW1 to 3 is not corroborated with each other to

prove the ingredients of Section 504 and 506 of IPC.

37. So far as allegation of giving false information to the

BESCOM authorities so as to surrender the Electrical

Meter standing in the name of PW2 and obtaining

fresh electrical connection by the accused is

concerned, the prosecution has relied upon the

evidence of PW4, PW6, PW10 and PW12 and also

produced Ex.P.52 to Ex.P.55, Ex.P.57 to Ex.P.74.

PW12 is the Scientific Expert who given Ex.P.70/FSL

Opinion Report with regard to the questioned

 39 [Link].301/2016

signatures. The investigating officer has collected

specimen signatures of PW2 and accused No.2 and

sent the same for comparison so as to obtain the

opinion regarding the signatures appearing on the

Ex.P.52 and Ex.P.53, which are marked as Q1 and

Q2. The questioned signatures are compared with

the specimen signatures of accused No.2 which are

appearing on the Ex.P.64 to Ex.P.66, but the

Scientific officer in his report opined that Q1 and Q2

signatures are not comparable with the specimen

signatures appearing on Ex.P.64 to Ex.P.66. On the

background of the evidence of Scientific officer, it

can be held that the prosecution has failed to prove

that the accused No.2 had applied for surrender of

electrical meter by forging the signature of PW2.

Hence, allegation of giving false information to the

BESCOM authorities by the accused No.2 so as to

surrender the electrical meter holds no water at all.

38. The allegation of intentional insult with intent to

humiliate the PW1 and PW2 by taking the name of

caste, wrongful dispossession and using force to

 40 [Link].301/2016

leave the house is proved through the evidence of

PW1 to 3 or not is to be considered. Before going

into the discussion on the other aspect of the

matter it is just and proper to go through the

Sec.3(1)(x), (v) and (xv) of the Act, which reads as

follows;

“3(x): intentionally insults or intimidates

with intent to humiliate a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within
public view;
3(1)(v):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;
3(1)(xv): forces or causes a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe to leave his house, village or
other place of residence”.

39. The basic ingredients of the offence u/sec.3(1)(x)

can be classified as intentionally insults or

intimidates with intent to humiliate member of

 41 [Link].301/2016

SC/ST by caste name in any place within public

view. The “place in public view” had come up for

consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

judgment reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435 (Swaran

Singh & Ors., Vs. State through Standing

Counsel & Ors). In the said judgment the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that, if an offence is committed

outside the building, i.e, in a lawn outside a house,

and the lawn can be seen by someone from the

road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the

lawn would certainly be a place within the public

view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a

building, but some members of the public are there

(not merely relatives or friends) then it would be an

offence since it is not in public view. In the case on

hand, it is not the case of PW1 and PW2 that there

was any member of the public (not merely relatives

or friends) at the time of incident in the place of

occurrence. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the

words were uttered “in any place within public

view” is not made out. The incident said to have

 42 [Link].301/2016

been occurred in the public place but there was no

public view. No independent witnesses were

examined to prove the allegation of caste based

attack. Hence, I have no hurdles to hold that the

alleged incident cannot be construed to be occurred

in public view. Further, the evidence of PW1 to 3 is

not sufficient to prove the ingredients of wrongful

dispossession and using of force to leave the house

is also not proved, as the PW1 and PW2 have not

placed sufficient materials before IO to prove their

ownership over the disputed house as on the date

of incident.

40. It is important to note that the alleged incident said

to have took place on 15.07.2015, but the

complaint was lodged on 02.08.2015 and the delay

in filing complaint has not been properly explained.

Furthermore, the place of incident is also not proved

as the material attesting witnesses to the spot

mahazar were not supported the version of

prosecution. The witnesses examined before this

Court to prove the incidence are the interested

 43 [Link].301/2016

witnesses and no independent witnesses were

examined to prove the incident. In the absence of

independent corroboration as to the commission of

offence by way of documentary evidence, any

amount of oral evidence adduced by the

prosecution not in way come to the aid of

prosecution to prove the allegation. In the absence

of independent corroboration from the eye

witnesses, the allegation of criminal trespass,

intentional insult with filthy language, causing

threat to take away the life, giving false information

to the BESCOM authorities and intentional insult

with intent to humiliate the PW1 by taking the name

of the caste, wrongful dispossession and using for

force to leave the house cannot be considered.

Furthermore, in the absence of independent

corroboration as to the incident, the evidence of

investigating officers is also not in any way come to

the aid of prosecution. The oral as well as

documentary evidence placed on record by the

prosecution is not at all sufficient to bring home the

 44 [Link].301/2016

guilt of accused persons beyond all reasonable

doubt. Under such circumstances the benefit of

doubt should go infavour of accused persons.

Accordingly, point No.1 to 7 are answered in the

'Negative'.

41. POINT No.8 :- In view of my foregoing reasons, I

proceed the pass the following;

ORDER
Acting under Section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C, the accused No.2 to 7 are
hereby acquitted for the offence
punishable under Sections 448, 504,
506, 201 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)
(x)(v)(xv) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of
Atrocities Act), 1989.
The accused No.2 to 7 are set at
liberty. Bail bonds of the accused
No.2 to 7 and their surety stands
cancelled.
(Typed my dictation by the Stenographer directly in computer, corrected, signed
and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 17 th day of March, 2023).

(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.
 45 [Link].301/2016

ANNEXURE

1. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 : Vasanth Kumar G

P.W.2 : [Link]
P.W.3 : [Link]
P.W.4 : Adinarayana
P.W.5 : Rajanna
P.W.6 : Aamjad Khan
P.W.7 : Fareed
P.W.8 : Syed Pyarejaan
P.W.9 : Mohan Raj Murthy
P.W.10 : [Link]
P.W.11 : Yasin
P.W.12 : Dr. V. Aravindan
P.W.13 : Syed Bhasha
P.W.14 : Puneeth Kumar
P.W.15 : Ashok N

2. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) to (d) : Signatures of PW1, PW7, PW8 & PW15
Ex.P.3 & 4 : Photos
Ex.P.5 : Copy of Mutation register
Ex.P.6 : Copy of Index of land
Ex.P.7 & 8 : Copy of Record of rights
Ex.P.9 & 11 : Copy of General Power of Attorney
Ex.P.10 : Copy of Affidavit with regard to sale
 46 [Link].301/2016

Ex.P.12 & 13 : Copy of Self Assessment Tax paid

Receipt
Ex.P.14 : Copy of Sale deed dated 19-12-2014
Ex.P.15 : Copy of Property Register Extract
Ex.P.16 : Copy of Encumbrance Certificate
Ex.P.17 : Copy of Tax Paid Receipts
Ex.P.18 : Copy of Electricity Bill & Receipts
Ex.P.19 : Copy of Rental Agreement
Ex.P.20 : Copy of Gas Bill
Ex.P.21 : Copy of AntenatalCard
Ex.P.22 : Copy of Birth Certificate of Monika R
Ex.P.23 : Copy of Birth Certificate of Madhu
Ex.P.24 : Copy of Rental agreement
Ex.P.25 : Copy of Complaint lodged by accused
No.2
Ex.P.26 : Copy of reply given by PW2
Ex.P.27 : Copy of complaint in Crime
No.156/2015
Ex.P.28 : Copy of FIR No.156/2015
Ex.P.29 : Copy of Mahazar dated in Crime
No.156/2015
Ex.P.30 : Copy of Complaint lodged before
SC/ST Commission
Ex.P.31 : Copy of Acknowledgment issued by
SC/ST Commission
Ex.P.32 : Copy of Complaint lodged by accused
No.2.
Ex.P.33 : Copy of complaint dated 17.07.2015
Ex.P.34 : FIR No.286/2015
Ex.P.35 : Copy of Electric Bill
Ex.P.36 & 37 : Copy of Photos
Ex.P.38 : Copy of NCR Nos.249/2015 &
 47 [Link].301/2016

324/2015
Ex.P.39 : Copy of Service Certificate
Ex.P.40 : Copy of objection filed before
BESCOM.
Ex.P.41 : Copy of Official Memorandum
Ex.P.42 : Copy of Cancellation order of
Electricity connection
Ex.P.43 to 45 : Copy of plaint, Interim application,
order sheet in [Link].6729/2007
Ex.P.46 to 51 : Photos
Ex.P.46(a) : CD pertains to said photos
Ex.P.52 : Letter written by CW2 with regard to
returning of Electricity meter
Ex.P.53 : Indemnity Bond executed by Azli
Electricals belongs to PW6
Ex.P.54 : Copy of Declaration issued by BESCOM
Ex.P.55 : Official Memorandum issued by
BESCOM with regard to permanent
surrender of Power supply
Ex.P.56 : Statement of PW6
Ex.P.57 to 59 : Standard Signatures of PW2
Ex.P.57(a) to (c),
Ex.P.58 (a) to (c) & : Signatures PW9, PW12 & PW15
Ex.P.59(a) to (c)
Ex.P.60 to 62 : Standard Hand writings of CW2
Ex.P.60 (a) to (c)
Ex.P.61 (a) to (c) : Signatures PW9, PW12 & PW15
Ex.P.62 (a) to (c)
Ex.P.63 : Letter written by PW2 with regard to
returning of Electricity Meter
Ex.P.64 to 66 : Standard signatures of accused No.2
 48 [Link].301/2016

Ex.P.64(a) to (d),
Ex.P.65 (a) to (d) & : Signatures of PW11 to PW13 & PW15
Ex.P.66 (a) to (d)
Ex.P.67 to 69 : Standard hand writings of accused
No.2
Ex.P.67 (a) to (d) : Signatures of PW11 to PW13 & PW15
Ex.P.68 (a) to (d)
Ex.P.69 (a) to (d)
Ex.P.70 : FSL Report
Ex.P.70(a) : Signatures of PW12
Ex.P.71 : Reasons for opinion letter
Ex.P.71(a) : Signature of PW12
Ex.P.72 & Ex.P.73 : Questioned & Standard Signature of
PW2
Ex.P.74 : Questioned and Specimen Signature of
PW2
Ex.P.72(a) to : Signatures of PW12
Ex.P.74(a)
Ex.P.75 : Canceled Rental agreement
Ex.P.75(a) : Signature of PW.12
Ex.P.76 : Report regarding the caste of accused
No.7
Ex.P.76(a) : Signature of PW.15
Ex.P.77 & 78 : Report regarding caste of PW1, PW2 as
well as accused.
Ex.P.77(a) & : Signatures of PW.15
Ex.P.78(a)
Ex.P.79 : FIR No.286/2015
Ex.P.79(a) : Signature of PW14
Ex.P.80 : DCP order
 49 [Link].301/2016

Ex.P.80(a) : Signature of PW.15

Ex.P.81 : Covering letter issued by BBMP
Ex.P.81(a) : Signature of PW.15
Ex.P.82 : Rough sketch of the spot issued by the
AEE, Vidhyaranyapura Sub-division.
Ex.P.83 :Application FORM
Ex.P.84 : Agreement of Permanent Power
Supply to non Commercial Lighting
Ex.P.85 : Wiring Contractor's Completion and
(Final) Test Report
Ex.P.86 & Ex.P.87 : Wiring Diagrams

3. WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENCE:

Nil

4. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.D.1 : Photo
Ex.D.2 : Rental Agreement

5. LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:

Nil

(PRAKASH.V)
LXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bangalore.