THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1222 of 2014 01-12-2014 BETWEEN:
M.Venkataiah …..Appellant/ Complainant AND Nalapati Panduranga Rao And another.
…..Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1222 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant/de facto complainant challenging the Judgment dated 01.11.2012 passed in S.C.No.7 of 2011 by the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused/first respondent for the offences under Sections 323 IPC and 506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That the appellant/complainant (P.W.1) gave evidence in the Court against the accused/first respondent in a civil dispute. When the appellant went to the Court, Kodad, to meet advocate to file a complaint against one Nerella Sidulu, who failed to repay the loan amount taken from him, and while returning the Court at about 12.00 noon, near the main gate of the Court, the accused picked up a quarrel with the victim alleging that as to why he gave evidence against him and abused him in the name of his caste and forcibly pressed his throat and threatened him with dire consequences to kill him. The persons, who present there, intervened and separated the victim from the clutches of the accused. Basing on the complaint lodged by the appellant/victim, a case was registered against the accused for the offences under Sections 323, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed.
To prove the case of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.7 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Ex.D.1.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the following grounds.
The appellant/complainant is well aware of the Court proceedings and also the legal implications. When the occurrence took place near the Court premises, and when the police station is adjacent to the compound of the Court, the appellant/P.W.1 would have lodged a complaint to the police, which would enable the police to catch the accused. Instead, the appellant/P.W.1 lodged a complaint before the Court of J.F.C.M., Kodad and the same was forwarded to the police after seven days. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish the presence of the accused at the Court or need of the accused at the premises of the Court. Further, in the complaint, P.W.1 stated that the persons who present there witnessed the occurrence, but he could not mention the names of the persons, who witnessed the occurrence and that the prosecution failed to bring any eyewitness. P.Ws3, 5 and 7 supported the case of the prosecution. But, all of them have property disputes with the accused and as such, their evidence cannot be believed. Further, even admitting that the accused abused the appellant/P.W.1 by touching upon the caste, the said act would not fall under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act.
To attract an offence under Section under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, there should be an intentional insult or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within the public view. In the case on hand, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused insulted P.W.1 in the name of the caste, and as such, he cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act.
Heard and perused the material available on record.
On perusing the evidence available on record and the Judgment of the Court below, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given while acquitting the accused is in accordance with law. The Judgment of the trial Court does not suffer from any perverse findings and the acquittal recorded by the trial Court needs no interference by this Court.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 01.12.2014 pln