CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

NAYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR, PATNA-800001

A FINAL DRAFT SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE COURSE

The Code Of Civil Procedure,1908, 5thSemester during the Year 2020-21

SUBMITTED BY:
AMIT DIPANAKAR
Roll No. – 20181609
B.B.A LL.B

SUBMITTED TO:

Prof. Dr. Anirudh Prasad

Faculty of Professor of Law

JANUARY, 2019
CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,
NAYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR,
PATNA-800001
CASE ANALYSIS OF
STATE OF KARNATAKA V. APPA BALU INGALE
 STATE OF KARNATAKA V. APPA BALU INGALE

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

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.
 INTERNATIONAL LAW RELATED TO ABOLISHING DISCRIMINATORY
PRACTICES
The main object of the international legal instrument – Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) is to recognize and protect certain inalienable human rights which all individuals are
equally entitled to in the world. Irrespective of one’s background and identity, they are to be
treated equally with respect and dignity. As engraved in Article 2 of the UDHR, no person can
be deprived of their rights on the grounds of “race, colour, religion, gender, national or social
opinion, birth”, etc. These rights are an intrinsic part of their identity, oppression faced by
individuals and lack of recourse against such discriminatory norms and practices may result in
disruption of internal order and peace. The purpose of recognizing these rights at an international
level is to promote progressive and effective measures at the national level eliminating all kinds
of discriminatory practices and disabilities.
FACTS IN ISSUE

At this juncture of the present case, where an appeal has been preferred to the Supreme Court
against the decision of the High Court, the issue addressed in the case surrounds the re-
examination of the prosecution evidence in a case involving an offence listed as such in social
legislation.
In this particular case, the respondents were accused of the offences provided under Sections 4
and 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. These provisions list the punishment for
committing those acts which enforce social disabilities such as obstructing the use of or access to
well and acts which prevent or attempt to obstruct an individual from exercising their rights.