THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.203 OF 2008 JUDGMENT The appellant herein was tried as an accused in Spl. SC No.40 of 2007 by the Special Judge for the trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) for the offences under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the Act and under Section 506 Part-I of IPC. Having considered both oral documentary evidence, the trial Court though acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 506 Part-I of IPC, however, found him guilty of the offence under Section 3 (1)( x) of the Act and accordingly sentenced him to under go RI for a period of six months and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer SI for a period of one month The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: PW1 by name Ch.Jaya Lakshmi is a native of Machilipatnam and she was married to one Srinivas in the year 1984. Thereafter, she migrated to Hyderabad and she is residing at RTC Cross Roads. She got acquainted with the accused through a Driver by name Ghouse who used to borrow money from her. After borrowing money to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-,he repaid the same and thus gained confidence of PW1 . Thereafter, they developed body contact also. Between 2000 to 2004 PW1 gave an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- to the appellant as the appellant promised that he would invest money in the shares and agreed to pay interest at the rate of 24%. Again, on 10.4.2005, the appellant borrowed an amount of Rs.3,50,000/-. As the said amount is not repaid and when PW1 demanded, the appellant issued four cheques for a total sum of Rs.15,00,000/-. On presentation, they were dis-honoured and as such, she filed cases under the provisions of the Negotiable Instrument Act. As Pw1 filed cases against the appellant, he was threatening her to withdraw the cases and also return the cheques and other documents. On 8-5- 2006, on a telephonic call from the appellant that he would pay the entire amount, PW1 went to Secretariat along with Pws 2 and 3 with cheques and other documents. On the entry passes sent by the appellant, PWs.1 to 3 went inside the office of the accused and met him. When he asked her as to whether she brought the documents, PW1 asked for money, in that connection there was a galata and appellant pulled the documents from out of the hands of PW1. Thereafter, PW1 pulled back the documents and the appellant abused her by her caste and also beat her with his chappal. On account of galata, office people came out and prevented him from other abuses. Because of the said galata, the personnel security of the Chief Secretary brought PW1 to the ground floor and complained to PW5 with regard to the nuisance created by PW1. On the second day, after the incident, she went to the office of the DGP and presented a letter i.e., Ex.P1. Thereafter, she was referred to the Inspector of Police at Uppal, who on the basis of Ex.P1 registered a case in Cr.No.340 of 2006. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Saifabad on the ground of jurisdiction and there PW11 registered another case in Cr.No.316 of 2006 on 1.6.2006 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 420 and 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. After registration of the crime, FIR was issued to all the concerned and the same was marked as Ex.P4. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, who was examined as PW12 took up investigation, examined PWs. 1 to 8. During the course of the said investigation, he collected the caste certificate from PW2 and the same was marked as Ex.P2. The appellant was arrested on 1-7-2007 and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed by PW12. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P5. The main contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.C.Padmanabha reddy is that the alleged caste certificate marked as Ex.P2 does not relate to PW1 and it is not proved and on the basis of Ex.P2, it cannot be held that PW2 belongs to Mala community to attract the provisions of the Act. A further submission has been made by the learned Senior Counsel that except solitary testimony of PW1 with regard to her caste, there is absolutely nothing on record to establish that PW1 belongs to Mala community so as to attract the provisions of the Act. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor tried to impress upon the Court that the trial Court has taken every aspect into consideration in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence for which he was tried and no interference is needed in this appeal. In the light of the said submissions of the learned senior counsel this Court looked into Ex.P2 was given by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad and the said certificate was dated 15-10-1996 and as per the said certificate Ch.Jaya Lakshmi Razia son/wife/daughter of Ch.Samudrudu of Jawahar Nagar, Musheerabad belongs to SC Mala caste. From the above, it is not clear as to whether the said Jaya Lakshmi Razia is the wife of Samudrudu or daughter of Samudrudu. Of course, while giving report, she has categorically stated that she is the daughter of Samudrudu and her name is Ch.Jayalakshmi. On the basis of the said report, FIR i.e., Ex.P1 came into existence. No explanation is offered by the prosecution as to why the said certificate is given as Jaya Lakshmi Razia when the name of PW1 is Jaya Lakshmi. It is not as though she married a Muslim by name Razia and as such she is having the name of Razia after her name. For the reason that she has categorically stated that she married Srinivas in the year 1984 and she is living with said Srinivas. The said caste certificate marked as Ex.P2 was issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Musheerabad on 15-10-1996, but the MRO is not examined to prove the said document. Though it is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the said document is in admissible, this Court is unable to accept the said submission for the reason that the document as such will not become inadmissible in the absence of examination of author and the correctness of the said document all along becomes doubtful. As the said MRO is not examined and there is no explanation as to why the said certificate is given in the name of Jaya Lakshmi and the author of the said caste certificate is not examined, this Court is of the view that it cannot place reliance on the said caste certificate to hold that PW1 belongs to Mala community to attract the provisions of the Act. Of course, in the report Ex.P1 given by her, she has narrated so many things but it shall be remembered that FIR i.e., Ex.P4 was registered on the basis of the said complaint which is not substantive and on the basis of the contents of Ex.P4 ie., FIR, it cannot be said that PW1 belongs to Mala community. In fact, nothing was elicited during the course of evidence of PW1 with regard to the contents of Ex.P1 and P4. As stated supra, there is absolutely no evidence to hold that PW1 belongs to Mala community so as to attract the provisions of the said Act. In those circumstances, this Court is of the view that the benefit of doubt shall go in favour of the appellant. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, one month simple imprisonment, is hereby set aside. The fine amount paid, if any, shall be returned to the appellant. ______________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA,J rkk Dated: 14-12-2010