HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2551 of 2004 Between: 1. Thimma Reddy 2. Rajender Reddy .. Appellants/A.1 and A.2 And The State of A.P., rep., by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. ..Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2551 of 2004 JUDGMENT:- The appellants 1 and 2/A.1 and A.2 were convicted by the lower Court of offence 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 for six (6) months and fine of Rs.100/-. Questioning the same, this appeal is filed by A.1 and A.2. 2. The victim/P.W.1 is Madiga by caste, which is a scheduled caste. The accused belong to Reddy caste, which is not a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe. It is alleged that A.1 and A.2, on 23.04.2002 at about 07.00 p.m., took daughter and brother’s daughter of P.W.1 to Papaya garden of Narayan Reddy in order to have sexual intercourse with them and that when P.W.1 and another went to that garden in search of the girls, the girls ran away towards the house and that when P.W.1 questioned A.1 and A.2, the accused abused P.W.1 in the name of his Madiga caste in filthy language. Plea of A.1 and A.2 is one of total denial. After trial, the lower Court found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the charge. 3. In support of the prosecution, the de-facto complainant/victim was examined as P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 3 are stated to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence. P.Ws.4 and 5, who are mediators for the scene, turned hostile to the prosecution. The investigating officer is not examined. It is P.W.1’s evidence that when he was searching for his daughter and his brother’s daughter, Kirana shop owner Venkatesh informed him about the above two girls going towards Narayan Reddy’s garden along with the accused, and that when he went to the said garden, he found the accused and the girls and that he questioned the accused and that the accused abused him as Madiga Bastard and what was lost by him. Ex.P.1 is report given by P.W.1 to the police on the same day. But Ex.P.1 reads as if it was registered on the next day at 14.30 hrs. The prosecution did not examine daughter and brother’s daughter of P.W.1. The prosecution also did not examine Venkatesh. In cross-examination of P.W.1, the trial Court marked Ex.D.1-contradiction from previous statement of P.W.1. In order to prove the said contradiction, the prosecution did not examine the investigating officer who recorded statement of P.W.1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. As per Ex.D.1 portion, P.W.1 went to garden and called his daughters who escaped and that the accused came from the garden. 4. P.W.1 did not speak to the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 at the scene at the time of offence. P.Ws.2 and 3 also belong to Madiga caste. P.W.1 is related to P.W.2. It is evidence of P.W.2 that at about 07.00 p.m., he found commotion between the accused and P.W.1 and that the accused abused P.W.1 on caste basis and that he heard the same. P.W.2 did not say as to where the offence took place. P.W.2 in cross-examination deposed that he did not accompany P.W.1 to the garden. He did not specify at which place he heard the accused abusing P.W.1 in the name of caste. P.W.3 deposed that both the accused abused P.W.1 on caste basis and that he heard the same and that he does not know the reason why the accused abused P.W.1. P.W.3 also did not speak anything about the place of occurrence. In the absence of proof of scene of offence and in the absence of proof that the offence took place in a place of the public view, the commission of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is out of question. Though P.W.2 in cross-examination deposed that there are houses nearby garden, he adds that neighbours have not gathered there. Even if the alleged offence took place inside garden, it cannot be said that it is a place of public view. 5. In the above state of evidence of the prosecution, I am of the opinion that the lower Court erred in finding A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. There is no proof that the offence took place in a place of public view. 6. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences passed by the lower Court against the appellants 1 and 2/A.1 and A.2 and acquitting them. _________________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt.19.09.2011 Vjl