HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.173 OF 2010 DATE:16.07.2010 Between: Jayamma and another …… Petitioners And: Peddannagari Venkata Swamy and 5 others …..Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.173 OF 2010 ORDER: 1. This revision petition is sought to be filed by P.Ws.1 and 2/victims against judgment of acquittal dated 27.11.2009 passed by the Special Sessions Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short, the Act), Anatapur. At the out set, it can be noted that while exercising powers of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C, this Court cannot convert a finding of acquittal into one of conviction as per Section 401(3) Cr.P.C. 2. It is alleged that A-1 to A-5 not being members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe intentionally insulted and humiliated P.Ws.1 and 2 who belong to Scheduled Caste by abusing them in the name of their caste as ‘Mala Lanja Kodaka’ within public view and beat P.Ws.1 and 2 causing injuries to them. The lower court framed charges against A-1 to A-5 under Section 324/34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act. A-1 to A-5 not pleaded guilty of the charges. During trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P-6. Ex.D-1 was marked on behalf of the accused. After considering evidence on record, the lower court acquitted the accused. 3. P.Ws.1 and 2 are wife and husband. P.Ws.3 to 9 are stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. Out of them, P.Ws.3 and 7 to 9 turned hostile to the prosecution. P.W.10 is the Sub Inspector of Police who received Ex.P-1 report from P.W.1 and issued Ex.P-6 FIR. The investigating officer is not examined in the lower court. The lower court, after assessing the evidence on record, did not believe the prosecution case and found the accused not guilty. In the lower court, no medical evidence is produced by the prosecution to prove the alleged offence under Section 324 IPC in order to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 suffered any injuries in the transaction. Admittedly, there is delay of 13 days in giving Ex.P-1 report to the police. No valid explanation is given for the delay. Except the victims P.Ws.1 and 2, no other witnesses supported their evidence regarding abusing in the name of caste. No torn cloths of the victims are produced. There is no dispute that A-3 is working as Filed Assistant in N.R.E.G. Programme in which P.Ws.1 and 2 were working. It is elicited from cross-examination of P.W.5 that bills relating to work under that programme are not paid. Therefore, it is suggested to P.Ws.1 and 2 that because of the dispute regarding non payment of wages under the above programme by A-3, all the accused were roped in in this case. The lower court took note of the fact that because of the delay in giving report, there is possibility of roping in innocent persons into the case. Considering all the evidence on record, the lower court found A-1 to A-5 not guilty of the charges. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment passed by the lower court. It is neither improper nor illegal nor irregular. 4. Hence, the revision petition is dismissed. __________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J. Date:16.07.2010. Gk. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO.173 OF 2010 DATE:16.07.2010 Gk.