THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRL.A.No.1466 of 2010 JUDGMENT This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under Scs & STs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in S.C.No.22 of 2008, dated 11.09.2009 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: P.W.1-de facto complainant and the accused are residents of Ramadugu village. A civil litigation is pending between A2 and one Panjala Jagan Mohan Goud in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar. On 11.09.2007 at about 10.00 PM, P.W.1, after attending the Court, went to Venkata Sai Brandy shop for purchasing liquor, at that time, A1, the elder son of A2, came there and abused him as ‘ Madiga Lanjakoduka Jagan Mohan Goud Tarupna Court ku velli vachinavaraa, siggu leda etc., and insulted him by holding his collar. Thereafter, A1 along with A2 to A5 came there and all of them abused him in filthy language. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, a case in Crime No.84 of 2007 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs/STs/(POA) Act (for short ‘the Act’). After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused. 3. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D5 were marked. 4. Learned Sessions Judge having considered the oral and documentary evidence, found the respondents/accused not guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and accordingly, acquitted them. Hence, this appeal by the State. 5. Heard. 6. P.W.1 has categorically stated in his evidence about the alleged incident. But the alleged eyewitnesses-P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support his case. Though P.Ws.4 to 6 supported the case of the prosecution, it does not inspire confidence of the Court to bring home the guilt of the accused. For instance, P.W.6, who is the owner of the wine shop, stated that all the accused i.e., respondents, abused P.W.1 as ‘Madiga Lanjakoduka’. Similarly, P.W.5, who was working as servant in the wine shop of P.W.6, also stated the same. But, P.W.5 admitted in his cross- examination that A1 eloped with the daughter of P.W.6 and married her without the knowledge of P.W.6. From the above, it is clear that there is enmity between P.W.6 and A1 and as such, there is every possibility of P.W.6 to speak against A1. Obviously, P.W.5, who is the servant of P.W.6, might have spoken in those lines, but his cross-examination amply establishes that the said evidence cannot be given any credence. When the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 6 is not accepted and the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 did not support the case of the prosecution, there remains the evidence of P.W.1 alone. Of course, the Courts can act upon the solitary testimony of P.W.1, but this appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal passed long back. Further, the crime was registered as early as in the year 2007. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that there are no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed, at the state of admission. _________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date.30.11.2010. sj