THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1288 of 2010 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-State against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge- cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur in S.C.No.23/S/2008 dated 08.04.2009. The case of the prosecution, according to the charge sheet, is as follows: The defacto complainant Garlapati Sampoornamma belongs to Scheduled Caste and is resident of Savalyapuram Village and the accused belongs to Telaga Community which is a forward caste. The lands of defacto complainant and accused are side by side and under the irrigation of same irrigation canal. While so, on 23.09.2007 at about 4.00 P.M. defacto complainant went to their land and was watering. At that time, the accused who was in a drunken condition, came there and abused her in filthy language in the name of her caste and also stated that nobody should take water before his land is watered. Defacto complainant came back to the village and informed the same to the elders. On the same day at about 7.00 P.M. when defacto complainant was near her house, the accused came there and abused her in the name of her caste and threatened her with dire consequences. As the incident took place in a public place and as the defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste, the accused is guilty of the offence under Sections 506 and 509 of I.P.C. and also under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (for short “the Act”). To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. The learned Sessions Judge having considered the oral and documentary evidence available on record, found the respondent/accused not guilty of the offences under Sections 506 and 509 I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) and (1) (v) of the Act and accordingly, acquitted him. Hence, this appeal by the State. Heard. The victim was examined as PW1. PW2 is an eyewitness to the second incident. PW3 is the Mandal Revenue Officer who issued Caste Certificate. PW4 is also an eyewitness to the second incident. PW5 is the Head Constable who received and registered the complaint and PW6 is the Investigating Officer. No doubt, as seen from the evidence PWs 1 and 2 have spoken about the incident which has happened. But it was elicited during the course of cross-examination that there were disputes between both the parties. According to the case of the prosecution, the alleged incident took place at about 4.00 P.M. on 23.09.2007 at the fields. It is not as though it happened during night hours and in closed place. When it happened during daytime particularly in open area, the prosecution should have examined some more witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. Of course, it is not the quantum of evidence which is required. But in the case on hand, when there are disputes between the two groups, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 alone. Accordingly, I see no merits in the appeal and the same is dismissed. ____________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J Date.06.12.2010 lvl THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1288 of 2010 Dt. 06.12.2010