THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1132 of 2014 06-11-2014 BETWEEN:
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.
…..Appellant AND Boosa Ramachandram …..Respondent/accused THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENT: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1132 of 2014 JUDGMENT:
The Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State challenging the Judgment dated 30.07.2009 passed in S.C. No.9 of 2008 by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, at Karimnagar, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The case of the prosecution is as follows:
That P.W.1 was a ward member of Jagtial Municipality and belongs to Mala community. Ambedkar road was laid in Jagtial in 1990 and that the accused raised objections alleging that some portion of the proposed road occupied his land and a dispute is pending in that regard. In 2007, the said road was damaged and on the representation of the public of locality and on the contribution being made by them, P.W.1 was effecting road repairs by engaging labourers. That on 26.05.2007 at 9.00 p.m., when the said labourers were undertaking the said work, P.W.1 left for taking tea, and then the accused abused the said labourers and had driven them away. A little later P.W.1 went to the house of the labourers and requested them to come again and continue the work. When they were attending to the work at about 10.30 a.m., the accused came and abused P.W.1 as “mala lanjakoduka kulam thakkuvoda ninnu champuthanu” and beat him and pushed him down, as a result of which, he fell down and received injuries. On the complaint of P.W.1, a case was registered against the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act and was investigated. After completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet.
To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but marked Exs.D.1 to D.4.
On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused on the following grounds.
The evidence of the independent witnesses does not corroborate with the evidence of P.W.1. Even though P.Ws.2 and 3 claim to be the eye witnesses, their evidence would show that they have reached the scene of offence after the alleged hurling of abuses and delivering the blow by the accused. If that be so, P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be treated as eye witnesses to the incident particularly when it had occurred in the night hours at about 10.00 p.m.
Insofar as the evidence of P.Ws.5 and 6 are concerned, they stated that when they were working, the accused pushed P.W.1 to the ground and abused him saying ‘Maala kulam”. Each of them claimed to have been present along with P.W.1. P.W.5 stated that except himself and P.W.1, no one was present. P.W.6 also stated that except himself and P.W.1, no one was present at the scene. Further, they did not speak about the accused beating P.W.1 with a stick. In view of the absence of P.Ws.5 and 6 to speak about the beating P.W.1 by the accused with a stick as claimed by P.W.1, it would indicate that their presence at the scene is doubtful.
Heard both sides and perused the entire material available on record.
On perusing the entire evidence and hearing the submissions on both sides, this Court is of the view that the Court below correctly came to a conclusion that the accused has not committed the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act. This Court is of the view that the Court below has considered the evidence in proper perspective and the reasoning given above while acquitting the accused is also 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 fails and is liable to be dismissed.
The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this appeal, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 06.11.2014 pln