HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1028 of 2006 Dated: 28.01.2014 Between:
1. Kanneti Peda Singaiah
2. Marthala Bramaiah
3. Marthala Eswaraiah
4. Marthala China Venkateshwarlu @ Dallaiah
5. Pilli Poli Reddy
6. Kanneeti Sreenu
7. Pilli Eswaramma … Appellants/A-1 to A-7 And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1028 of 2006 JUDGMENT:
This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants-A-1 to A-7 against the judgment dated 02.08.2006, passed in Sessions Case No.27 of 2004 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Prakasam Division, Ongole, whereunder and whereby the appellants/A-1 to A-7 were found guilty of the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, they suffer for one month simple imprisonment. Further, A-2 was found guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
One Kola Ankamma Rao (PW-1) indebted an amount of Rs.200/- to Chamakuri Sreenu (PW-2) and on 31.07.2003 at about 12.00 Noon PW-2 demanded PW-1 to pay back his debt. Then PW-1 tried to convince him for grant of some more time, A-1, who is no way connected with the affair, abused P.W.1 as “mala nakodukulaki dabbulu isthe thirigi istara”. PW-1 resisted A-1 for the abuses, then A-2 intervened and abused PW-1 as ‘mala nakodukulaku maaku eduru matlade dhyryam vachindira’ and beat him with a chappal, in the meantime A-3 to A-6 also joined with A-1 and A-2, all of them chased PW-1 and abused by touching his caste and also beat with sticks and caused bleeding injuries and also threatened him with dire consequences. Basing on the complaint given by PW-1, a case was registered and investigated into.
3. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet against the appellants-A-1 to A-7 and another for the offences punishable under Sections 352, 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act’).
4. On committal, the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Prakasam Division, Ongole, took up the same for disposal. The learned Special Judge framed charges under section 3 (1)(x) of the Act and Section 324 IPC against A-1 to A-6, read over and explained to them, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Later, the Additional Public Prosecutor filed Crl.M.P.No.363 of 2006 to implead A-7 and A-8 and the same was allowed. On 12.04.2006 death certificate of A-8 was filed and the case against him is abated. A-7 was examined and charges were framed on the same counts.
5. To substantiate the said charge, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-6. On behalf of accused, no oral evidence was adduced and no document was marked.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A-1 to A-7 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. so as to enable them to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them. The accused denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW-2 who belongs to Reddy community has turned hostile and that there was a delay of two days in sending the F.I.R. to the concerned committal court and that PW-1 foisted a case against the appellants due to political grudges. He further submits that there are discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the scene of offence and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are not sustainable.
8. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that there are no substantial grounds to interfere with the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
9. Heard and perused the material available on record.
10. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt?
11. The main grievance of PW-1 is that he borrowed an amount of Rs.200/- from PW-2. When PW-2 asked for return of amount, he informed him that he will pay the same shortly. In the meanwhile, the appellants herein questioned the act of PW-1 and abused him by touching upon the name of his caste and also threatened to kill him. Further, it is alleged that the injuries were caused to PW-1 with chappal and sticks and that the appellants abused him by touching upon the name of his caste. Basing on these allegations, a complaint was registered for the offence under Sections 352, 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act.
12. It is to be examined as to whether the evidence of PWs.1, 5, 6, 7 and 8, who were cited as eye witnesses to the occurrence, inspires the confidence of the Court. PW-
1 lodged the complaint on 31.07.2003. In the said complaint, no where he has mentioned the date of occurrence, time of occurrence and place of occurrence. But, the Investigating Officer registered the F.I.R. by mentioning the date, time and place of occurrence. It is evident from the F.I.R. that after due deliberations, they prepared the complaint. But even in the said complaint, he has not stated the material aspects of the case of the prosecution. In the cross-examination PW-1 admitted that he has lodged another complaint. But, PW-1 has not cross-examined on that aspect. It was not clarified that basing on which complaint, the case was registered.
13. Further, according to the prosecution, when PW.2, from whom, PW.1 was alleged to have borrowed the amount, questioned PW.1 for repayment of that amount, the entire occurrence took place. But, PW.2, who is the main witness for the scene of occurrence, turned hostile and he was treated as hostile witness by the prosecution. In the chief examination PW-2 categorically stated that PW-1 never borrowed money from him. Even on perusal of the complaint and evidence of PW-1, it is apparent that nothing was specifically stated as to the reason which necessitated the accused to quarrel with P.W.1 and as to who among the accused actually quarreled with P.W.1. In the circumstances, the case of PW-1 is highly unbelievable. Further, the prosecution examined PWs.5 to 8 to substantiate that they are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. But in the complaint lodged by PW.1, the presence of PWs.5 to 8 at the time of occurrence was not stated. In the absence of any recitals in the complaint as to the presence of P.Ws.5 to 8 at the time of occurrence, their evidence cannot be believed. Apart from that PWs.5 to 8 are closely related to PW-1. Merely placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.5 to 8, whose names were not even mentioned in the complaint, it is highly unsafe to convict the appellants for the alleged offence. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside.
14. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 02.08.2006, in Sessions Case No.27 of 2004 for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act against A-1 to A-7 and for the offence under Section 323 IPC against A-2. Consequently, the appellants are hereby acquitted of the said charges. Fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded to the appellants. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties are discharged.
15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO, J 28th January 2014. mar/nn