THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.36 of 2006 BETWEEEN: Vemula Srinivasulu @ Uppari Srinu … Appellant AND The State of A.P. rep. by its P.P. … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.36 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the lower Court under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Section 354 I.P.C. and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five years and fine of Rs.500/-. Questioning the same, the accused filed this appeal. 2. There is no dispute that the victim/PW1 belongs to Scheduled Tribe namely Lambada and that the accused belongs to Uppari Caste which is neither a Scheduled Caste nor a Scheduled Tribe. PW7 who is the then Mandal Revenue Officer, certified the above castes of PW1 and the accused in his Ex.P4 letter and also reiterated the same before the trial Court. 3. It is alleged that on 18.11.2003 at about 1:00 P.M., when PW1 was getting cattle grazed in the land in Manganoor Village, which land was taken on lease from PW5, the accused came there, caught hold of her hand and expressed his desire to have sexual intercourse with her and that the accused also gagged her mouth with cloth and that she wriggled out of his hands and raised cries and that on hearing cries of PW1, PW2 rushed there and on seeing PW2, the accused went away. Plea of the accused is one of total denial. After trial, the lower Court found the accused guilty of the above charge. 4. The sole eyewitness to the occurrence viz. PW2, turned hostile to the prosecution. PW3 is husband and PW4 is mother-in-law of the victim, PW1. After the incident, PW1 is stated to have informed the same to PWs 3 and 4. All of them went to Bijinepally Police Station and PW1 gave Ex.P1 written report to PW8 who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police in that Police Station. PW8 registered Ex.P1 as case in crime No.92 of 2003 and issued Ex.P5- First Information Report. PW9 is Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nagarkurnool Sub-Division, who took up investigation in this case as per Ex.P6- order of appointment as such by the Superintendent of Police. After examining witnesses, observing scene of the offence under the cover of Ex.P3- observation report in the presence of mediators including PW6 and seizing MO.1 broken bangle pieces from the scene and also arresting the accused, he filed charge sheet in this case. 5. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that there is sole evidence of the victim as PW1 in support of the prosecution and it would be risky if that evidence is accepted. It is well settled principle of law that a conviction can be based on sole testimony of a prosecution witness, in case the said evidence is believable. Therefore, the only question herein would be whether evidence of PW1 is believable or not. PW1 reiterated the allegations in Ex.P1 report when she was examined as witness before the trial Court. In cross-examination, PW1 deposed that she had no prior acquaintance with the accused and that she does not know father’s name of the accused and that Gopal(PW6) who is her brother-in-law, furnished name of the accused to her. She says that Gopal doubted the accused as the culprit. She further says that she did not show the accused to Gopal. According to PW1, it was Gopal who scribed Ex.P1 report. From this evidence of PW1, it is evident that PW1 did not know identity of the person who is said to have committed the offence against her and that out of suspicion by Gopal, name of the accused was furnished in Ex.P1 report. PW1 further says that Gopal informed name of the accused to the Police and that she did not give name of the accused to the Police. But surprisingly, PW6 in cross-examination disowns his association in preparation of Ex.P1 report. He admits that PW1 is wife of his cousin and that he accompanied PW1 and others to the Police Station. He says that he is not the scribe of Ex.P1 and that he does not know who scribed Ex.P1. Therefore, genesis of Ex.P1 report is in doubt. The report was given naming the accused out of suspicion. The sole eyewitness to the occurrence who is PW2, deposed that he does not know anything about this case and that he did not witness any incident in this case. In these circumstances, it is not safe to place reliance on evidence of the victim/PW1 in this case in order to find the accused guilty. The lower Court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence properly and landed in erroneous conclusion in favour of the prosecution. I do not agree with reasoning and finding of the lower Court. 6. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and the sentence passed by the lower Court against the accused/appellant and acquitting him. __________________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:29.10.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.36 of 2006 Dt:29.10.2011 ysk