TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court restores conviction under Civil Rights Act</h1> <h3>State of Karnataka Versus Appa Balu Ingale and Others</h3> State of Karnataka Versus Appa Balu Ingale and Others - 1993 AIR 1126, 1992 (3) Suppl. SCR 284, 1995 (4) Suppl. SCC 469, 1992 (0) Suppl. JT 588, 1992 (3) ... Issues Involved:1. Conviction and sentencing under Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955.2. High Court's interference with concurrent findings of lower courts.3. Evaluation of evidence by the High Court.4. Sociological and constitutional perspectives on untouchability and civil rights.Summary:1. Conviction and Sentencing under Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955:Appa Balu Ingale and four others were tried for offences u/s 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The trial court convicted all under Section 4, sentencing them to simple imprisonment for one month and a fine of Rs. 100 each. Appa Balu Ingale was further convicted u/s 7 but no separate sentence was awarded. The Additional Sessions Judge upheld the conviction and sentence for three accused and acquitted the other two. On revision, the High Court acquitted all. The State of Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court, which set aside the High Court's judgment and restored the conviction and sentence by the Additional Sessions Judge.2. High Court's Interference with Concurrent Findings of Lower Courts:The High Court disbelieved the evidence of four prosecution witnesses, citing discrepancies in their testimonies regarding the actual words and actions of the accused. The Supreme Court noted that ordinarily, it is not open for the High Court to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts, especially by reappreciating evidence in its revisional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court found that the High Court fell into patent error by rejecting the prosecution evidence, which had been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the trial and appellate courts.3. Evaluation of Evidence by the High Court:The Supreme Court examined the statements of the eye witnesses and found no infirmity in their evidence. The High Court had lost sight of the fact that the social disability of the Harijan community was enforced under the threat of using a gun. The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence proved beyond doubt that the complainants were stopped from taking water from the well on the ground that they were untouchables.4. Sociological and Constitutional Perspectives on Untouchability and Civil Rights:K. Ramaswamy, J. provided an extensive analysis of the sociological and constitutional angles of untouchability. He emphasized that untouchability is an indirect form of slavery rooted in the caste system, which segregates Dalits from mainstream society. Article 17 of the Constitution abolishes untouchability and its practice in any form is forbidden. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, and subsequent amendments aim to eradicate untouchability and integrate Dalits into the national mainstream. The judiciary has a duty to interpret and enforce these laws in line with constitutional goals to eliminate social inequalities and ensure justice for Dalits.The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the conviction and sentence of the accused as determined by the Additional Sessions Judge.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
