THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.44 of 2009 24-11-2014 BETWEEN:
Ketha Appa Rao & others …..Appellant AND State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad …..Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.44 of 2009 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by A.1 to A.4 challenging the judgment dated 05.01.2009 passed by the Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, East Godavari at Rajahmundry in SC ST S.C.No.34 of 2008 whereby the learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo S.I. for two months. They are also convicted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo S.I. for one month. However, they were acquitted of the charges under Sections 3(1)(iv), 3(1)(v) of the Act and also under Section 188 of IPC.
It is represented that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant No.4-A.4 died. Hence, the appeal is dismissed as abated as against him.
The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows: Scheduled Castes Educated Unemployees’ Field Labour Society, Rajahmundry (for short ‘Society’) was registered under the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act. On 26.9.2006 the District Collector, East Godavari leased out lanka land to the said society to an extent of Ac.18.50 cents in RS No.594 in Alcot Gardens, Rajahmundry for a period of one year from 1.7.2002 to 30.6.2003 under Ek-sal lease. The complainant-P.W.1 is its Secretary, One N.Suybba Rao is its President and one Mukidi Venkateswara Rao is the Vice-President and that all the members of the said society belong to Scheduled Caste. There were disputes between father of A.1 and the Society regarding the allotment of said land to the Society. While so, ten days prior to 5.4.2006 A.1 to A.4 engaged coolies i.e. L.Ws.17 to 21 and got cut big trees located in the land allotted to the society. The coolies cut the trees and went away. When they were trying to remove the logs, complainant and others approached the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rajahmundry Urban and informed the incident, who deputed his staff and directed the accused not to shift the logs. On 31.3.2006 Mandal Revenue Officer instructed the members of the Society to collect the cut logs to the river bund and issued orders. Two days prior to 5.4.2006 complainant and others were bringing logs to the river bank. On 5.4.2006 they were doing the said work from 7.00 a.m. At about 5.00 p.m., accused came there and abused them as ‘MALA LANJA KODAKALLARA’ do you want to have the lanka lands and how dare to shift the logs cut by them. Abusing so, they threatened to kill them if they enter into the said land again. They assaulted them with sticks and stones and caused hurt to L.Ws.2 to 4, who are members of the society. On 5.4.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., complainant lodged Ex.P.1 report before the Police, II Town (Law & Order) Police Station, Rajahmundry, basing on which, a case was registered, investigation was taken up and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for the alleged offences.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14. On behalf of defence, Exs.D.1 to D.5 were marked.
After evaluating the entire evidence brought on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the material brought on record.
P.W.1-complainant, who is the Secretary of the Society deposed that in March, 2006 A.1 to A.4 cut away the trees in the land allotted to the Society and made them into bundles. On their complaint, the Mandal Revenue Officer initiated action and stopped the activities of accused. On 31.3.2006, the Mandal Revenue Officer requested them to cooperate to keep all the cut tree bundles to bring to river bank and issued proceedings to that effect. On 5.4.2006 while they were attending the said work, at about 5.00 p.m., A.1 to A.4 came there armed with sticks, beat them and abused as “MALA MADIGA LANJA KODAKALLARA”. Further A.1 beat P.W.2 with sticks on chest, fact and on mouth; A.2 beat P.W.3 with stick on her right hand and right leg; A.3 and A.4 beat P.W.4 with sticks all over the body. On the same day, at about 9.30 p.m. they lodged Ex.P.1 complaint with the police against the accused. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that A.1 to A.4 and their family members were in possession of the disputed land and they were cultivating the said land. P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore, he was declared hostile. P.Ws.3 to 7 deposed in similar lines as that of P.W.1 regarding the manner in which the incident had happened. P.Ws.8 & 9 were declared hostile as they did not support the case of the prosecution.
P.W.10 is the doctor, who examined and treated the injured P.Ws.2 to 4 on 5.4.2006 and issued wound certificates. He observed the following injuries over the victims:
Injuries on the body of P.W.2:
1. tenderness on right chest.
2. found a red laceration of the lower lip measuring ¼” x ¼” x ¼”. The X-ray was reported to be subfluxation of the tooth.
He issued Ex.P.9 wound certificate opining that the injuries are simple in nature.
Injuries on the body of P.W.3:
1. Superficial red abrasion 4” x 1” of the right forearm.
2. Superficial red abrasion ¾” diameter of the right ankle.
He issued Ex.P.10 wound certificate opining that the said injuries are simple in nature.
Injuries on the body of P.W.4:
1. There was a red abrasion on the chin 1/8” x 1/8”
2. Red abrasion on the right cheek of 1/8” x 1/8”
3. Red contusion of the chest 1/8” x 1/8”.
He issued Ex.P.11 wound certificate opining that the said injuries are simple in nature.
P.W.11 is the Head Constable, who deposed about his receiving Ex.P.1 complaint from P.W.1 on 5.4.2006 at about 9.00 p.m. and his registering a case in Crime No.55 of 2006. He issued Ex.P.12 F.I.R. and sent the injured-P.Ws.2 to 4 to the Government District Hospital, Rajahmundry.
P.W.12 is the investigating officer, who took up investigation, examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch-Ex.P.14, arrested the accused and filed the charge sheet.
P.W.13 is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, who deposed regarding the allotment of land to the Society. He also deposed regarding the pendency of dispute between father of A.1 and the society.
In a case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, it is the primary duty of the prosecution to prove that the aggrieved persons belong to scheduled caste by way of producing caste certificate. In the present case, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the said fact by way of producing individual certificates of the aggrieved persons those who are allegedly abused by the accused in the name of their caste. Further even as per the evidence of complainant, the accused-appellants abused only in the name of the caste concerned. It is only an abusive word with the name of the caste concerned, and therefore, it cannot be stated an intentional insult by the accused- appellants. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is liable to be set aside.
As far as the offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4 is consistent with regard to the attack made by the appellants herein. But as extracted above, the injuries received by P.Ws.2 to 4 are simple in nature even as per the evidence of P.W.10-doctor, who treated them. Further no weapons were produced before the Court alleged to have been used by the appellants herein. Hence, considering the nature of injuries received by P.Ws.2 to 4, the conviction imposed by the trial Court under Section 324 IPC is liable to be modified to the one under Section 323 IPC.
In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is set aside and they are found not guilty of the offence and acquitted of the said charge. The fine amount, if any, paid by them under the said count shall be returned to them. The conviction imposed by the trial Court against the appellants-A.1 to A.3 for the offence under Section 324 IPC is modified to the one under Section 323 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment imposed under Section 324 IPC is set aside and that the fine amount paid by them for the offence under Section 324 IPC is treated to be the sentence of fine imposed under Section 323 IPC.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
RAJA ELANGO,J 24.11.2014 Tsr