THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.291 of 2009 26-11-2014 BETWEEN:
Chodapuneni Sathibabu …..Appellant/accused AND State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of A.P.
…..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.291 of 2009 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment dated 09.03.2009 passed in SC ST SC No.84 of 2008 by the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, whereby the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 323 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 323 IPC.
The case of the prosecution, as recorded by the Court below, is as follows:
That the victim was elected as 18th ward member and looking after the development of SC pet of Yegugula Mahal. Electric poles were installing in the streets to arrange street lights and the work was going on. But, the accused was making propaganda in the village that the victim was firstly installing electric poles in SC pet without giving priority to other streets of other caste people. While so, on 11.03.2007 at about 9.00 p.m., while victim was proceeding to medical shop and when he reached canal bridge, on seeing the accused, victim himself stopped him with a view to talk with the accused about his behaviour. Then the accused abused the victim as ‘Mala Lanja Kodaka’ and when the victim questioned the same, accused warned not to talk more or otherwise he would kill him. The accused caught hold of shirt collar and beat him with chappal four times on left upper arm. On hearing the cries, Kakara Satyam and others came to the scene, witnessed and separated the accused. Later, victim placed the matter before the caste elders and in the meantime, the accused proposed for compromise. But, the elders advised not to go for compromise. So, he filed report on 14.03.2007 at 9.00 p.m. A case was registered and investigated into by the Sub Divisional Police Officer. Victim refused to go to hospital etc., Hence, the charge.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 were marked.
No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Ex.D.1 was marked.
P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant, deposed regarding the occurrence. He deposed that when he was going to medical shop, he found the accused at the bridge and he questioned as to why the accused was making bad propaganda against him. Then the accused abused him as ‘Mala Lanja Kodaka, Nee Yamma Pookina Denga’ and beat him with cheppal on his left shoulder. He further deposed that the said occurrence was witnessed by L.Ws.2, 3, 4, 5 and 8. P.W.2 deposed that when himself along with L.W.2 and L.W.4 went to bridge to purchase eatables, he heard some galata near the bridge and then they went and found the accused beating P.W.1 with cheppal by caught holding of his collar and abused him. P.W.3 who also claims to be the eye witness also deposed on the same line of P.W.2. P.W.4, who is the elder of the village, deposed that P.W.1 informed him that the accused abused him and beat him. The relatives of the accused approached their leaders for compromise, but for two days, they did not turn up. Later, the elders took P.W.1 to police station and got presented the police complaint, Ex.P.1. P.W.5 deposed that P.W.1 informed him about the incident and later the caste people conveyed for meeting and that the elders of the accused approached them for compromise, for which they refused. P.W.6 is the then Tahsildar, who issued caste certificate of P.W.1 and the accused. P.W.7 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, who received Ex.P.1, complaint from P.W.1 and issued F.I.R.
P.W.8 is the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant/accused guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and Section 323 IPC and sentenced him as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused.
Heard and perused the entire material available on record.
Whether the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and Section 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
Insofar the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act is concerned, in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 mentioned that the accused abused him as ‘Mala Lanja Kodaka’, whereas he has improved his version in his evidence and deposed before the Court that the accused abused him as ‘Mala Lanja Kodaka, Nee Yamma Pookina Denga’ Hence, it clearly shows that P.W.1 improved his version while giving evidence. According to P.W.1, he lodged complaint, Ex.P.1, on the same night when the occurrence was happened at 9.00 p.m. In this connection, he deposed before the Court ‘on the same night at 11 p.m., I lodged police complaint. Ex.P.1 is my complaint, which contains my signature.’ Whereas P.Ws.2 to 4 deposed that when the village elders did not take up the matter, two days later, complaint was given on 14.03.2007. In Ex.P.1, P.W.1 also clearly revealed that the complaint was lodged belatedly on 14.03.2007. Hence, it also clearly shows that there is a delay in lodging the complaint, whereas P.W.1 in his evidence differs from his statement given in Ex.P.1, complaint, and as such, it is self-contradictory and contradictory to the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4.
If it is the case of P.W.1 that he lodged the complaint on the same night on the day of occurrence at 11.00 pm., it is to be presumed that first complaint is suppressed by the investigation agency. The present complaint is belated in nature even though some reasons are given that a Panchayat was held with an intention to compromise the issue. The said Panchayatdars were not examined to establish the fact that the panchayat was really held.
Further, calling a person in the name of the caste with some abusive words, that too in a sudden quarrel between the accused and the aggrieved person, P.W.1, would not attract an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act. To attract an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, the accused intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within the public view. In the case on hand, it is the admitted fact that when the accused was waiting at the bridge, P.W.1 started quarrelling by way of questioning the accused. Hence, it cannot be said that the accused has committed an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, and as such, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
Insofar as the offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, in the complaint Ex.P.1, P.W.1 stated that the accused beat him with cheppal on his left upper arm, whereas in his evidence as P.W.1, he deposed that the accused beat him with cheppal on his left shoulder. Hence, there is discrepancy with regard to assault also, and as such, the evidence of the P.W.1 does not inspire the confidence of the Court and as such, the evidence of P.W.1 cannot be believed. Hence, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC and as such, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below for the offence under Section 323 IPC is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside.
In the result, the Judgment of the Court below in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offences under Section 3(1) (x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and Section 323 IPC is set aside, and the appellant/accused is acquitted of the said charges. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to him. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties stand discharged.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly allowed. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 26.11.2014 pln