IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1260 of 2005 Between: Jampapuram Somasekhar Reddy .. Appellant/accused AND The SHO, Yemmiganur Rural Police Station, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District through the State rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Respondent Appeal against the judgment in SC ST S.C. No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Kurnool, dated 29-07-2005. The appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant and of the Public Prosecutor for the respondent, the Court made the following JUDGMENT: The conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 355 of the Indian Penal Code and the consequential sentences imposed by the judgment, dated 29-07-2005 in SC ST S.C. No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge’s Court for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Kurnool, led the aggrieved accused to file the present appeal. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Adoni filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under the Special Statute only alleging that Mala Thippanna Kumar and the accused are residents of Kotekal and belong to Telugu Desam and Congress parties respectively. The ill-feelings between them leading to absence of even talking terms dated back to 14 years and on 04-03-2004 at about 4.30 P.M., Thippanna Kumar was sitting on a pial near Chowdamma temple along with Boya Muddu Pedda Ranganna, Shaik Bapuram Khaja Hussain, Shaik Shavali, Ediga Urkundu, Boya Padegal Chinna Eranna, Ediga Jalamanchi Venkatesh and some others. As it was Boodida Punnami festival, the villagers disguised their faces with makeup and the accused came to Thippanna Kumar, abused him in the name of his caste, scolded him for his interference in the politics of the village and took him to task for sitting even when Reddys were going by walk. The accused was stated to have abused Thippanna Kumar in filthy language with reference to his sister followed by spitting on the face of Thippanna Kumar. The charge sheet stated that Thippanna Kumar stayed back at his house due to fear and could give complaint only on 06-03-2004 to the police, who registered the crime. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer arrested the accused and conducted investigation and filed charge sheet. On the accused appearing before the Magistrate and on his being furnished copies of documents, the case was committed to the Court of Session and to the charges framed by the Special Court of Session under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 355 of the Indian Penal Code, the accused pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked during trial. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and except Ex.D.1, no other defence evidence was produced. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment referring extensively to the oral and documentary evidence and opined that the evidence of P.W.4 supported by P.Ws.5 to 7 clearly revealed that P.W.4 was abused by the accused in the name of his caste and also insulted by being spit on the face. The long standing enmity between the parties provided sufficient motive to commit the offence in the view of the trial Court, which considered that motive is a double edged weapon and the strained relationship between the parties without any talking terms since 14 years due to their belonging to two rival political parties, can be equally the cause for the accused forming an intention to insult P.W.4 in public. The trial Court noted that P.Ws.5 to 7 are not related to P.W.4 and P.W.6, in fact, belongs to some other religion. The delay of two days in giving the report to the police was ignored by the trial Court due to the possibility of P.W.4 being gripped with fear or due to his thinking over before giving the complaint. The sanction order was considered to have been probably issued under Ex.P.7 before P.W.10 took up the investigation and therefore, the trial Court concluded the accused to be guilty of the two charges and convicted and sentenced him. The accused contends herein that there were material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses apart from rivalry motivating P.W.4 to implicate the accused in a false case. Non-compliance with Rule 7 of the Statutory Rules under the Special Act, the delay of two days in giving the first information report and the timing of the complaint just before elections to the Legislative Assembly, were also contended by the accused as the circumstances entitling him to the benefit of reasonable doubt. He, therefore, desired the judgment of conviction and sentence to be reversed. Sri T. Bali Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri K. Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor are heard at length. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was guilty of the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 355 of the Indian Penal Code ? Point: The earliest version Ex.P.4 was presented to the police at 9 A.M. on 06-03-2004, while the incident allegedly happened on 04-03-2004 at 4.30 P.M. The reason for the delay was attempted to be attributed in Ex.P.4 to the supporters of the accused being more in number at the time of the incident. But P.W.4, who claimed to have kept quiet immediately after the incident for that reason, did not claim the presence of the accused and his supporters in large numbers to have continued after the incident also deterring him from making any move to go to the police station. In fact, the claim of P.W.4 that he is a resident of Kotekal village to which the accused and other witnesses belong, was specifically contradicted by P.W.5, who stated that P.W.4 was not residing in their village, but he only used to come to their village now and then. If P.W.4 is a resident of some other village and is an occasional visitor to Kotekal, his being prevented due to the number of supporters of the accused since the incident, does not sound natural or convincing. It is also admitted even in Ex.P.4 that the accused belonging to the congress party and P.W.4 and his men belonging to the Telugu Desam Party were not even on talking terms since 14 years and such admitted strained relationship stated by the witnesses in the evidence, also necessitates scrutinizing the reasons for the delay in the first information report with extra care and caution. Such unexplained delay coupled with the enmity between the parties makes it necessary that the Court should look for independent satisfactory corroboration for the interested claims of P.W.4 before acceptance of the prosecution version. Adoption of such a rule of prudence is but inevitable in view of the strict rigour of the Special Statute, which even invokes statutory presumptions as to the offences in the situations, governed by Section 8 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (which, of course, has no relevance to the present offence). Analysed in that background, the evidence on record before the trial Court cannot be considered to be such as would inspire confidence in a judicial mind. The alleged victim P.W.4 admitted that he did not try to go to Sarpanch or Panchayat Secretary or Talari or any others and did not even attempt to telephone to the police station or any other person about the incident till he filed the complaint on 6th. He or other witnesses did not attribute any particular reason for the accused suddenly coming to him and abusing him and spitting on his face. P.Ws.4 to 7 were not very consistent about the actual abuses uttered by P.W.4, while it is not necessary to replicate the foul words stated by each of them to have been uttered by the accused. While P.W.4 had not even any land or house at Kotekal, he did not state for what reason he had come to the village on that day and he admitted having been shown as accused in Crime No.23 of 1997 of Yemmiganur Rural police station in connection with the death of Telugu Peddakka in a bomb explosion. That he had sufficient political experience, is evident from his narration about his activity in different elections and his claim that his statement was recorded by police on 05-03- 2004 is obviously false, as he gave the report only on 06-03-2004. He did not state to the police about the accused abusing his mother as admitted by him during the cross-examination and P.W.5, who attempted to corroborate him, was equally an accused in a bomb case. P.W.5 claimed the incident to have happened in the presence of about 200 people, while P.W.6 claims the persons present to be only around 40 and P.W.7 claims the persons present to be only about 50 to 60. While P.W.6 claims the altercation to have taken place for about 15 to 25 minutes, P.W.7 states the incident to have taken place only for about two minutes, which appears more in tune with the manner in which the accused was alleged to have abruptly come to P.W.4, abused him, spit on his face and went away. P.W.5 admitted that he is a close friend of P.W.4 and in spite of such closeness, he did not appear to have made any attempt to come to the rescue of P.W.4 during the incident or to persuade P.W.4 to report to the police immediately. P.W.6 tried to claim to be not connected with any politics, but his claim about his house being very near the scene of offence, is contradicted by the evidence of Investigating Officer, who stated about his not examining any of the persons who were residing nearby the scene of offence. P.W.7 claimed that P.W.4 went away weeping after the incident and leave alone any other witness, even P.W.4 did not claim that he wept while leaving after the incident. P.W.7 is connected with P.W.5 belonging to the same community and is related to him and he also admitted to be close to the persons accused of beating the brother of the accused, though he denied being an accused himself. This evidence of P.Ws.5 to 7, thus, cannot be considered to be totally disinterested and independent. The three other eye witnesses cited by the police turned hostile with P.W.1 claiming to have not gone to the scene on the date of the alleged incident. P.W.2 also claimed total ignorance about the incident and P.W.3 was similar in his version. Three of them denied stating to the police as in Exs.P.1 to P.3 respectively and no reason or motive has been attributed to them, which would have persuaded them to resort to falsehood to help the accused. While the evidence of P.W.8, who merely registered the crime or the evidence of P.W.9, who as a Mandal Revenue Officer, issued Ex.P.6 caste certificate, has no direct bearing on the offence proper, any non-compliance with Rule 7 of the Statutory Rules also needs no deep probe in the light of P.W.10, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer claiming to have been authorized by Ex.P.7 proceedings from the Superintendent of Police before he took up investigation. The non-supply of a copy of Ex.P.7 to the accused need not cast any shadow of doubt on the authorization itself, more so when P.Ws.8 to 10 or the Superintendent of Police cannot be accused of any interestedness to implicate the accused falsely. However, the investigating officer P.W.10 stated about P.W.4 and P.W.7 not stating to him about the accused abusing the mother of P.W.4 during the incident contrary to the claims in Ex.P.4 and the evidence and while the conclusions of P.W.10 were only dependent on what the witnesses told him, for the various reasons stated above, more particularly the hostility of P.Ws.1 to 3, the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 7 does not appear to be such as would lead to the proof of the alleged offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged sudden outburst by the accused against P.W.4 without any ostensible reason or cause, thus, does not inspire confidence and the conclusions of the trial Court about the acceptability of the prosecution version, therefore, cannot be concurred with. The accused has to be extended benefit of reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the judgment, dated 29-07-2005 in SC ST S.C. No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge’s Court for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Kurnool are set aside and the accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 355 of the Indian Penal Code and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded to him and his bail bonds shall stand discharged. The appeal is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 14-12-2009 Svv