State of Karnataka v/s. Appa Balu Ingale
- Rachel Mary Johnson
- May 24, 2020
Content :
The practice of untouchability stems from the caste system and the hierarchy determining the identity of an individual. Scholars and social activists have tried to uproot this issue. This stems from the superiority complex ingrained in the minds of those belonging to the upper castes. This results in grave discriminatory practices and oppressive actions against the depressed classes. It further adds to the inferiority complex and mental hardships faced by the individuals belonging to these classes. The nature of acts that enforces the disability of a person differs from one case to another.
The facts of the case revolve around an incident whereby individuals belonging to the Harijan community were threatened from drawing water from a public borewell. As disposed by the prosecution witnesses, this borewell was being installed at an area that was approximately 15 feet from harijan colony. During the drilling process, on the said day of the incident, water had sprayed from the well at about 9:30 PM. Groups of people belonging to both Hindu and Harijan communities were present at the said location. After the conclusion of a pooja performed by young Hindu girls, Hindus had taken water from the well for the purpose of performing pooja at the temple. The complainant and the prosecution witnesses intended to draw water from the same well and had carried pots for the same. However, at this point, they were asked by the respondents not to draw water from the well. The reason given to them stemmed from the fact that they belonged to the Harijan community and that they had the availability of a separate well for them to draw water.
Additionally, the Harijans were further obstructed by the respondents, particularly by Respondent 1 who threatened them with the use of a gun. Due to the possibility of having to suffer dire consequences, the complainants refrained from drawing water from the well.
This case has undergone various stages. First at the trial court, all accused individuals were convicted and sentenced to simple imprisonment and fine. On appeal to the Additional Sessions Judge, two of the accused were acquitted. The remaining three convicted accused preferred a revision petition to the High Court. Allowing this, the Single Judge of High Court discredited the evidence of the prosecution witnesses on the ground that the words were not uttered verbatim in their evidence. This resulted in the acquittal of the remaining three accused.
