IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2625 of 2004 DATE: 18.10.2011 Between: Sathoor Janardhan Goud and 5 others …… Appellants And The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P, …..Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2625 of 2004 JUDGMENT : The appellants 1 to 6/A-1 and A-3 to A-7 were convicted by the lower Court under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.Cs and S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and fine of Rs.1,000/- each. Aggrieved by the same, A-1 and A-3 to A-7 filed this appeal. It is the prosecution case that on 10.09.2001 at about 7.00 P.M when P.Ws 1 and 3 along with others went to toddy shop of A-1, there was A-3 to A-7 also and that all of them abused them in the name of their caste as Madiga bitches. Plea of A-1 and A-3 to A-7 is one of not guilty and total denial. After trial, the lower Court found them guilty of the charge. 2) The prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 4 in support of the prosecution case. Out of them, P.Ws 1 and 3 belong to Madiga caste which is a scheduled caste, whereas P.Ws 2 and 4 belong to Musti Golla caste which is a backward class. All the accused 1 and 3 to 7 do not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. P.W-3 totally turned hostile to the prosecution. She says that she does not know anything about this case. P.W-4 also turned hostile to the prosecution, she says that she did not witness the occurrence. It is evidence of P.W-1 that she belongs to Harizana caste. She did not depose that she belongs to Madiga caste. P.W-5 who is the Mandal Revenue Officer, Balanagar Mandal who gave Ex.P-3 letter to the investigating officer deposed that P.Ws 1and 2 belong to Harijana caste. As per Ex.P-3 letter, P.Ws 1 and 3 belong to Madiga caste which is scheduled caste. 3) It is evidence of P.W-1 that when she along with P.Ws 2 to 4 went to toddy shop of A-1 to consume toddy, all the accused abused them in filthy language. She did not say that the accused abused them in the names of their caste or insulted them in the name of their caste. She did not say in specific words that any of the accused abused her as Madiga bitch. It is contended by the Additional Public Prosecutor that in Ex.P-1 report given by P.W-1 to the police she narrated the language in which the appellants are stated to have abused her in the name of caste. But P.W-1 did not subscribe to that version contained in Ex.P-1 during trial in the lower Court. Ex.P-1 is not a substantive piece of evidence by itself. It being a first information report given under Section 154 Cr.P.C it can only corroborate or contradict evidence of its maker and nothing more. When the maker as P.W-1 did not speak to the version of abuses contained in Ex.P-1 during trial in the lower Court, Ex.P-1 has no corroborative value muchless any value at all. P.W- 2 deposed that A-1 abused them in filthy language and that other accused also abused them and that now she cannot say those words. She also did not speak about any of the accused abusing anybody in the name of caste or scheduled caste. P.W-2 in cross-examination admitted that she did not state to the police that A-1 abused them in filthy language. She says that at the instance of villagers on the date of evidence, she gave evidence against A-1. P.W-1 deposed in cross-examination that there were disputes between her caste and the accused in connection with elections and that wife of A-1 by name Chandrakala was defeated in the elections. She further says that she had not gone to the house of A-1 at 7.00 P.M. It is contrary to the contents of Ex.P-1. That portion relating to timing of offence was marked as contradiction vide Ex.D-1. On total scrutiny of evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4, it is evident that the prosecution could not make out any case under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against any of A-1 and A-3 to A-7. Finding of the lower Court against A-1 and A-3 to A-7 is contrary to material on record and it is unsustainable both on facts as well as in law. 4) Accordingly, the appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences passed by the lower Court against the appellants 1 to 6/A-1 and A-3 to A-7 and acquitting them. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J October 18, 2011 ksh