Read Order:SURESH POOJARY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA 

Tulip Kanth

Bengaluru, June 7, 2022: While observing that the abusive words used by the accused prima facie attracted the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the accused was also alleged to have caused injuries to the complainant, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed the appeal against the order of the order passed by the Sessions Judge whereby the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.to release the appellant on anticipatory bail was rejected.

The Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz was considering a matter wherein the second Respondent lodged a complaint against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V), 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

It was  alleged that when the complainant/victim was returning to his house on a scoote, the accused who came in a car abused him in filthy language referring to his caste and there was a verbal exchange of words.Thereafter the accused brought a long knife from the car and assaulted over the left side of complainant’s head, left hand and left elbow. Seeing this, one Janardhana Mogaveera and Manohara intervened and rescued the complainant.This appeal was filed by the appellant-accused as his application u/s 438 CrPC was rejected.

Justice Nawaz took note of the fact that the complainant belonged to scheduled caste and affirmed, “Since the appellant is accused of committing the offence punishable under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act, as rightly contended by the respondent’s counsel, the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.”

The Bench also considered that the injuries sustained by the victim-respondent prima facie established the incident in question and the abusive words used by the complainant attracted provisions of SC/ST Act. Thus, the appeal was dismissed and the order of the Sessions Judge was upheld.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment