THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.505 of 2006 And CRIMINAL APPEAL No.511 of 2006 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.505 of 2006 BETWEEEN: Bangisabgari Nanne … Appellant AND The State of A.P. … Respondents CRIMINAL APPEAL No.511 of 2006 BETWEEEN: 1. Bachepalli Pathi Narayana & 3 others … Appellant AND The State of A.P. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.505 of 2006 And CRIMINAL APPEAL No.511 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellants in both the appeals who are A1 and A2 to A5 respectively, were convicted by the lower Court under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each and were also convicted under Section 144 I.P.C. and were sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- each. Further, A2 and A4 were convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and were sentenced to fine of Rs.500/- each. Questioning the same, A1 and A2 to A5 filed these two appeals respectively. 2. It is alleged that A1 was indebted Rs.100/- to PW1 who belongs to Scheduled Caste and that on 13.02.2002 at about 9:00 A.M., PW1 demanded A1 near bus-stop of Alamoor Village for repayment of the said amount and that thereupon, A1 caught hold of PW1’s shirt and abused him in the name of his Mala caste and questioned his propriety of demanding the loan amount in bus-stand. It is further alleged that on the same day at about 4:00 P.M. when PW1 went to his fields and was returning to his house and reached land of Narayana, A1 to A5 formed themselves into unlawful assembly with the common object of killing PW1 and surrounded PW1 and abused him in the name of his Mala caste and beat him with sticks, hands and legs and threw him into thorns and dragged him causing injuries to him. Plea of A1 to A5 is one of not guilty and of total denial. After trial, the lower Court found A1 to A5 guilty of the charges as indicated above. 3. It is contended by both the appellants’ counsel that there are political factions in the village and that this case is the result of political factions and that A2 belongs to Congress Party and one Satyanarayana belongs to Telugu Desam Party and that Satyanarayana is behind PW1 in foisting this false case and that the lower Court failed to appreciate the evidence on proper lines. 4. PW1 is the victim/de facto complainant/injured. He says that he belongs to Mala community. Apart from his evidence about his caste, the prosecution examined PW8, the then Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram Mandal, who issued Ex.P4-caste certificate of PW1 to the effect that he belongs to Mala community, which is a Scheduled Caste. PW7 is Panchayat Secretary of Alamoor Village who made enquiry about caste of PW1 and gave report of the same to PW8, on the basis of which PW8 gave Ex.P4-caste certificate. Even though the accused contended that PW1 is a Christian by religion and attends Church and his marriage was performed in a Church, PW1 in cross-examination denied the said suggestions. There is no other evidence to show that PW1 belongs to Christian religion and professes Christianity. Therefore, the lower Court rightly found that PW1 is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. 5. Apart from examining PW1, the prosecution examined PWs 2 to 4 to prove the incident which took place at the fields at about 4:00 P.M. Insofar as the incident which is said to have taken place at Alamoor Bus-stand during morning hours, there is no other evidence than that of PW1. PW1 speaks to the incident which took place at about 9:00 A.M. in bus-stand and also at about 4:00 P.M. which took place in the fields. It is evidence of PW1 that at the fields, on seeing him, A2 abused him in the name of caste for making demand on A1 for payment of money and that the said abuses touched his caste and that stating so, A2 instigated the other accused to kill him and that A2 beat him on his right hand with stick and A4 beat him with stick on forehead and that A3 and A5 pushed him down and beat him with hands and legs due to which he sustained injury on his right thigh. PW1 himself did not speak about any of A3 to A5 abusing him in the name of his caste. According to PW1, A1 abused him at bus-stand in the morning and A2 abused him in the fields in the evening and that both the abuses were touching his caste. When A3 to A5 did not indulge in insulting or abusing PW1 in the name of his caste, the lower Court should not have found A3 to A5 guilty under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act at any rate even if any other witnesses stated in contra against A3 to A5. 6. PW1 in cross examination admits that there is faction between A2 and Satyanarayana in the Village and that Satyanarayana belongs to Telugu Desam Party and A2 is strong supporter of Congress Party. PW1 further admits that when he went to his Advocate to get private complaint prepared, Satyanarayana also came along with him and others and that all of them gave instructions to the advocate to prepare the private complaint. At this stage, it may be noted that immediately after the incident which took place on 13.02.2002, PW1 did not prefer to go to Police Station for giving report. For the first time, he approached the Magistrate at Allagadda on 20.02.2002 and filed Ex.P1-private complaint. The Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. PW5 who was the then Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Rudravaram Police Station, issued Ex.P2-FIR on 26.02.2002 on the basis of Ex.P1 referred complaint. There is absolutely no acceptable explanation for the delay in giving report or in filing complaint. In faction cases, delay in giving report or in filing complaint assumes greater importance. Because of gaining time, there is every possibility of consultations and confabulations resulting in roping in of persons into the crime and also additions and improvements to the real and basic incident. The delay of seven days in filing the complaint by PW1 in this case is a basic infirmity in this case. That apart, Ex.P1 complaint is also tainted in view of the faction leader Satyanarayana also participating in giving instructions to the Advocate for drafting the complaint. These two grounds are enough in this case to knock away bottom of the prosecution case. That apart, PW3 deposed in cross-examination that he and PW2 also accompanied PW1 to the counsel for drafting private complaint filed by PW1. This circumstance further indicates that PWs 2 and 3 are interested witnesses in PW1. Otherwise, there was no reason for PWs 2 and 3 to accompany PW1 and Satyanarayana to the Advocate after a week of the incident to give instructions to the advocate for drafting the private complaint. In those circumstances, the lower Court should not have placed reliance on evidence of PWs 1 to 3 to find favour with the prosecution. The prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court. This Court is of the opinion that the prosecution story is tainted by interestedness. In these circumstances, this Court does not agree with reasoning and conclusion of the lower Court. 7. In the result, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed setting aside the convictions and the sentences passed by the lower Court against the appellants/A1 and A2 to A5 and acquitting them of all the charges. _______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dated:18.11.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.505 of 2006 And CRIMINAL APPEAL No.511 of 2006 DATED:18.11.2011 ysk