THE HON'BLE SRI BILAL NAZKI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.955 of 2007 Dated: 29-11-2007 Between: A.P.Rao .... Appellants AND 1.The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and 4 others. .....Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI BILAL NAZKI, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT APPEAL No.955 of 2007 Dated: 29-11-2007 Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri Bilal Nazki, The Acting Chief Justice) This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellant-appellant aggrieved by an order dated 30-07-2007 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.14729 of 2007. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant-appellant. The appellant, who has been an IAS Officer and had disputes with his former wife i.e., the fourth respondent herein, is not ready to give up harassing her even after divorcing her many years before. He wanted this Court to direct the respondent- Police officials to register a case under Sections 3(1)(viii), 3(1) (ix), 3(2)(ii) and 3(2)(vii) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), against respondents 4 and 5 and a case under Section 4 of the Act against the Police concerned on the basis of the complaints made by him on 03-12-2004, 20-11-2006, 22-02-2007 and 27-03-2007. On a complaint given by respondents 4 and 5 before the Police, the appellant was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 367, 498-A, 343 & 323 IPC. After trial, the appellant was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 367, 343 & 323 IPC, but, was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and was sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and fined with Rs.1000/-. Thereafter, he filed an appeal being Crl.A.No.672 of 1997 before this Court and it was allowed on 27th April 2001. In view of the acquittal of the appellant by this Court in Crl.A.No.672 of 1997, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that false allegations were levelled against the appellant which resulted in wrong prosecution. It is further submitted that the appellant, being a member of the Scheduled Caste community, the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(viii), 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(ii) and 3(2)(vii) of the Act, was committed against him by respondent Nos.4 and 5, therefore, the respondent-Police officials were bound to register a case for the aforesaid offences against respondents 4 and 5 and investigate into the matter. Since the respondent-Police officials have failed to do their duty, they are also guilty of having committed an offence punishable under Section 4 of the Act. Section 3 (1) of the Act lays down that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits the Acts which are mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (xv) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. sub-clauses (viii), (ix) and (x) to Section 3 (1) of the Act are reproduced below: ‘3.Punishments for offences of atrocities:- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- (viii) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe ; (ix) gives any false or frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; Coming to sub-clause (viii), it lays down that if the person, who does not belong to or who is not a member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe, institutes a false, malicious or vexatious suit or criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he shall be guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of the Act. But, in the present case, respondents 4 and 5 did not institute any case whatsoever against the appellant. They filed a report before the Police concerned, who investigated into the matter and filed a charge sheet and the same cannot be taken to be a criminal case instituted by respondents 4 and 5. Under sub-clause (ix), an offence is made out, if anybody, not belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, gives any false and frivolous information to any public servant and thereby causes such public servant to use his lawful power to the injury or annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe Community. We have gone through the judgment dated 04-07-1997 rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.139 of 1985 and also the judgment dated 27-04-2001 rendered by this Court in Crl.A.No.672 of 1997. At no point of time, it was recorded that respondents 4 and 5 gave any false evidence. While referring to the evidence of respondent No.4, who was the wife of the appellant, both the Courts have only recorded that her evidence was not corroborative. We have also gone through the record. Respondent No.4 had deposed as to what had happened in privacy in the bedroom at her matrimonial house. Obviously, she could not produce the evidence, which could corroborate, as to what had been experienced by her in the bedroom at the hands of her husband. Uncorroborrated evidence cannot be taken to be false evidence. Though false evidence is not defined in the Act, ‘Giving false evidence’ is an offence and it has been defined in following terms in Explanation 2 to Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code: ‘Explanation 2:- A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this Section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know. False statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this Section and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing, which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing, which he does not know. By putting the testimony given by respondents 4 and 5 to this test, we do not find that they have given any false evidence. Section (3) (1) (x) of the Act lays down that whoever intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view would be committing an offence. It was also not the finding of either the learned sessions Judge or this Court that the respondents 4 and 5 were, at any point of time, responsible for any Acts of intimidation as regards the appellant. Under Section 3(2) (ii) of the Act, whoever not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause any member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe shall be convicted of such an offence. This also cannot be accepted for the reason, we have already mentioned hereinabove, that there is no finding of any Court to the effect that the testimony of respondents 4 and 5 was either false or fabricated. For these reasons, we do not find any merit in this Writ Appeal and no interference is called for in the impugned judgment rendered by the learned single Judge. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _______________________ (Bilal Nazki, A.C.J) Dated 29th November, 2007 _______________________ (Ramesh Ranganathan, J) lur