STATE OF KARNATAKA V. APPA BALU INGALE AIR 1993 SCC 1126
FACTS
Appa Balu Ingale and four others were tried for the offences under Sections 4 and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (The Act). 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. Appa Balu Ingale was further convicted under Section 7 of the Act but no separate sentence was awarded to him for the said offence. The Additional Sessions Judge Belgaum, on appeal, upheld the conviction and sentence of Appa Balu Ingale, Shankar Babaji Patil and Rajaram Rama Sankpal. The learned Judge, however, allowed the appeal of the other two convicts and acquitted them. Against the judgement of the Appellate Court Appa Balu Ingale and two others went in revision before the High Court.
HELD
- The current case was considered as the first case to have come up before this Hon'ble court under the act. It was observed that the abolition of untouchability in itself was complete and its effect in all pervading applicable to state action as well as acts of omissions by individuals, institutions or juristic bodies of persons. The court upheld the conviction of the accused respondents by the two lower courts but reversed by the High Court.
- This Hon'ble court observed certain discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses about the actual words used by the accused and accordingly disagreed with the assessment of the Hon'ble high court
- This Hon'ble court further observed that “The High Court” had lost sight of the fact that the social disability of the Harijan community was enforced on a threat of using a gun." In a passionate concurring opinion going into the sociological angularities of the evil of untouchability and the Constitutional resolve to remove it lock, stock and barrel at the earliest. Subsequently, Justice K. Ramaswamy said that the evil is not founded on mens rea and in appreciating the evidence the courts should adopt a psychological approach and should not be influenced by deep-seated prejudices or predilections covertly found in other walks of life about this evil.