STATE OF KARNATAKA versus APPA BALU JNGALE AND ORS.

STATE OF KARNATAKA versus APPA BALU JNGALE AND ORS.

The respondents restrained Dalits by show of force from accessing water due to untouchability; prosecution evidence was consistent and credible; High Court erred in re-appreciating and rejecting concurrent findings of conviction; conviction and sentence restored, interpreting the Act in light of constitutional goals to eradicate untouchability.

Parties
Appellant: State of Karnataka; Respondent: Appa Balu Ingale; Respondent: Shankar Babaji Patil; Respondent: Rajaram Rama Sankpal
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 December 1992
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence of respondents restored.
Legal Topics
Untouchability, Protection of Civil Rights, Criminal Appeal, Judicial Review, Interpretation of Social Legislation
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Human Rights Untouchability Protection of Civil Rights Criminal Appeal Judicial Review Interpretation of Social Legislation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Karnataka

Appellant

Appa Balu Ingale

Respondent

Shankar Babaji Patil

Respondent

Rajaram Rama Sankpal

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal to Supreme Court From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restraint of Dalits from drawing water using force amounts to untouchability under Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955
  2. 2 Whether High Court could re-appreciate evidence and reverse concurrent findings in revisional jurisdiction
  3. 3 Interpretation of Protection of Civil Rights Act in light of constitutional goals

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents restrained Dalits by show of force from accessing water due to untouchability; prosecution evidence was consistent and credible; High Court erred in re-appreciating and rejecting concurrent findings of conviction; conviction and sentence restored, interpreting the Act in light of constitutional goals to eradicate untouchability.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence of respondents restored.

Orders

  • Respondents Shankar Babaji Patil and Rajaram Rama Sankpal to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay fine of Rs.100 each, with default clause as awarded by trial court and upheld by Additional Sessions Judge.