LexSTATE OF KARNATAKA versus APPA BALU JNGALE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c STATE OF KARNATAKA v. APPA BALU JNGALE AND ORS. DECEMBER 1, 1992 [KULDIJ> SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 15, 17, 23 and 29-Un- touchability-Eradication of-Sociological and constitutional angulations- Considered. · . Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955: Sections 4 and 7-Untouchability- Practice of-Members of Harijan Community restrained by show of force from drawing water from newly dug welf-Trial Court and appellate court holding charge against accused proved beyond reascmable doubt-In revisional jurisdiction High Court reappreciating evidence .and reversing con- D viction and sentence of accused-Validity of-Scope of legitation-Ex- plained-Court to interpret provisions keeping in view constitutional goals and purpose of Act. The first respondent and four others were tried for the offences E under Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The trial court convicted all of them under Section 4 of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs.100 each, and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for further five days. The first respondent was further convicted under Section 7 of the Act but no separate sentence was awarded. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, F upheld the conviction and; sentence of the first respondent and two others, but allowed the appeal of the other two convicts and acquitted them. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the criminal revision petition filed by the first resp1Jndent and two others. Hence, the appeal by special leave by the State. During the pendency of the appeal, the first respondent died G and the appeal against him thus abated. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD: l.1. There is no infirmity in the evi<lence of the prosecution witnesses. The High Court lost sight of the fact that disabilify of the H Harijan Community was enforced on a threat of using a gun. It is proved 284 -i STATE v. APP A BALU 285 beyond doubt that complainants were stopped from taking water from the A well on the ground that they were untouchables. [290-G] 1.2. The charge against the respondents was that they restrained complainant party by show of force from taking water from a newly dug-up borewell on the ground that they were untouchables. The prosecution produced four witnesses who were all Harijans. The trial court and. the B Appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence, reached the concurrent- finding that the charge against the respondents-accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Ordinarily, it is not open for the High Court to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below specially by re-appreciating the evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. The High Court C disbelieved evidence of all the four witnesses who deposed ·to the actual incident as happened before their eyes. It was of the view that their evidence was not uniform in regard to actual words uttered by the ac<;used persons and the manner in which they prevented the complainant party from taking water from the well. The High Court rejected the testimony of ; the eye witnesses on the ground that it could not be said with any amount D of certainty which accused was guilty of the offences and that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution was wholly insufficient to establish the charge of the offence under Section 4(iv) of the Act levelled against the accused. The High Court fell into patent error in rejecting the prosecution evidence. The charge against the respondents has been proved beyond E doubt. [289-C-E; 290-A] Per Ramaswamy, J. (Concurring) 1.1. The cri.ninal law primarily concerns with social protection, prescribes rules of behaviour to be observed by all persons and punishes them for deviance,transgression or omis 1sion. Mens rea is not an essential ingredient in social legislations is the settled law. Where social necessity demands from the angle of public welfare or because of the difficulty of proof of accused's mental stage, jurisprudence points dispensing with or of the onus of proof of mens rea. [307-B-C] 1.2. The Judge concentrated more on sequence or absence of parrot like repetition of occular words spoken by illiterate persons or play upon words and sought consistence forsaking the sense it conveyed and the effect it produced in preventing PWs. 1to4 and other Dalits to exercise the right F G to draw water from pub
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.