THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1684 of 2007
25-07-2014
BETWEEN:
K. Dhanapal Reddy …..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.1684 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused against the Judgment dated 28.11.2007 passed in S.C. No.107 of 2006 by the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for the Trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahboobnagar, 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 Sections 447 IPC and 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 rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 447 IPC; and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only), in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 323 IPC.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the de facto complainant, P.W.1 and his two brothers were given Government land and they were in possession of the land. They went to Hyderabad for doing labour work and when they returned to their village in 2001, they found that the accused, who is their neighbor, encroached 20 guntas of their land, dug a borewell and doing agriculture. Then the de facto complainant filed a requisition before the Mandal Revenue Officer, who after enquiry, restored 20 guntas of land to them. When the de facto complainant was watering the paddy crop, the accused trespassed into the land of the complainant and abused him in the name of his caste and insulted him for which the complainant questioned him as to why he was abusing the complainant, and on that, the accused beat him with hands and kicked him. Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, a case was registered and was investigated. After completion of the investigation, Police filed charge sheet against appellant/accused for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, and Sections 447 and 323 IPC.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.
No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D.1 to D.4 were marked.
P.W. 1, who is the de facto complainant, deposed regarding the occurrence. He deposed that when he returned from Hyderabad, he found that the accused encroached his land, he submitted application before the Survey Department and the Surveyor, after conducting survey, found that the accused occupied 20 guntas of land of the complainant. He further deposed that when he was watering his paddy crop, the accused came to him and abused him in filthy language in the name of his caste and also beat him. P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the brothers of P.W.1, deposed regarding the incident. P.Ws.4 to 7 turned hostile and have not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.8 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, who received complaint, Ex.P.1, from the P.W.1 and registered the case. P.W.9 is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, who issued caste certificates to
P.W.1 and accused. P.W.10 is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, under whose presence survey was conducted and found that the accused have encroached the land of complainant. P.W.11 is the Sub Divisional Police Officer, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant/A.1 guilty for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and Sections 447 IPC and 323 IPC and sentenced them as stated above. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant/A.1.
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 Sections 447 IPC and 323 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that the occurrence is witnessed by his neighbor Boya Rajanna who is shown as L.W.4 in the charge sheet, but the said witness is not examined by the prosecution. It shows that except P.W.1, the complainant, there is no other eye witness to the alleged occurrence. P.W.1 in his evidence deposed that he was abused in the name of his caste, but he has not stated the exact words uttered by the appellant/accused to attract an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (PoA) Act. In this regard, the evidence of P.W.1 runs as follows:
“The accused abused me in filthy language and also on the name of our caste and he also beat me. The accused also kicked me with force. Boya Rajanna (L.W.4), the neighbor, witnessed the incident.”
Except the above evidence, there is no other witness available on record to establish the said occurrence. Further, P.W.1 deposed that he sustained injuries, but the same is not proved by the prosecution by way of producing any medical certificate or by examining the Doctor, who treated the complainant. In the present case, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence that the alleged occurrence was actually happened, the appellant/accused cannot be convicted for the charges leveled against him. There is no hard and fast rule that to convict a person, there should be other witnesses in addition to the evidence of the complainant, to support the case of the prosecution. But, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, in view of the differences between the complainant and the appellant/accused and also in view of the fact that Civil Suit is pending between them, it is highly unsafe to convict the appellant/accused on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 alone. Hence, the appellant/accused cannot be convicted for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and Sections 447 IPC and 323 IPC.
In view of the above discussion, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below against appellant/accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and Sections 447 IPC and 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 offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and Sections 447 IPC and 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 25.07.2014 Pln