IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.917 of 2008 Between: The State of A.P. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Appellant AND P. Srinivas and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The criminal appeal is directed against the acquittal of the ﬁve accused involved in S.C. No.50 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the I Additional Sessions Judge at Nalgonda by the judgment dated 07-11-2006 ﬁnding them not guilty of the charges under Sections 353 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Act”). 2. The Sub-Divisional Police Oﬃcer, Nalgonda ﬁled charge sheet in crime No.46 of 2002 on the ﬁle of Chandur police station alleging that on 28-07-2002 Pogula Saralamma, the complainant, and Kalusani Manjula, Supervisor, visited Theretpalli in a jeep to conduct selection of Anganwadi teachers and Ayas as per the orders of their superiors. At about 3 P.M. in the presence of members of the Mothers’ Committee, they selected Mamidi Prameela as Anganwadi teacher, but in the meanwhile, the 1st accused, another lady and some others obstructed them tearing oﬀ the papers. When they were getting into the jeep, the lady caught and dragged her, while others beat the jeep driver Nayeem. Prameela and her husband were also beaten after Saralamma and Manjula left the place. On the report of Saralamma, the crime was registered and Mamidi Prameela, Achina Srinivas and Sangam Ramulamma also came to the police station with injuries caused by accused 3 to 5, while Prameela was stated to have been abused by accused 1 and 2 with reference to her caste. The injured were sent to Government hospital, Nalgonda for treatment. The Sub-Inspector conducted scene of oﬀence panchanama and seized the sticks from the scene. The Sub-Divisional Police Oﬃcer after taking up investigation examined the witnesses again and ﬁled the charge sheet after arresting and remanding accused 1 to 5 to judicial custody. 3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nalgonda committed the case to the Court of Session in P.R.C. No.6 of 2003 after taking cognizance of the offences and furnishing copies of the documents to the accused on their entering appearance. The Special Court of Session framed charges against the accused on their appearance, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and during trial, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.13 and M.O.1 were marked. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no defence evidence was produced. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment noting that though P.Ws.1 to 4 spoke about the incident, P.Ws.5 to 8 turned hostile and denied corroborating the prosecution story in Exs.P.2 to P.5 statements to the police respectively. Though the medical oﬃcer as P.W.9 spoke about Exs.P.6 to P.8 certiﬁcates, the independent mediators for examination of the scene for recovery of M.O.1 sticks did not support the prosecution story, as P.Ws.10 and 11. The Sub-Inspector of Police as P.W.12 spoke about his investigation and so was P.W.13, the Sub-Divisional Police Oﬃcer. The trial Court noted that P.W.1 admitted not naming the other accused apart from the 1st accused in Ex.P.1 report. She also admitted not knowing accused 1 and 2 earlier. She could not identify accused 1 and 2 before the Court and P.W.2 also did not know accused 1 and 2 previously and both P.Ws.1 and 2 were informed about the names of accused 1 and 2 by the persons present there. They could not name the remaining 100 persons present there and when P.W.3 was abused in the name of caste, P.Ws.1 and 2 were admittedly not present. P.Ws.3 and 4 claimed to have gone to the police station on the next day and the evidence of the medical oﬃcer about examining P.Ws.3 and 4 was contradicted. P.W.8, the then Sarpanch, did not corroborate the claims of P.Ws.3 and 4 and though she was claimed to be an injured during the incident, she stated the injuries to be due to a fall from a bullock cart. The village elders not supporting P.Ws.3 and 4 regarding injuries, is also considered fatal and as there was no other evidence except the evidence of the husband and wife as P.Ws.3 and 4, the trial Court refused to place any reliance on the prosecution story. The trial Court also referred to the precedents cited before it concerning violation of the statutory rules under the special statute in the investigation being conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police himself practically without any veriﬁcation by the Sub- Divisional Police Officer. The trial Court, therefore, for the above and other circumstances stated by it, gave beneﬁt of reasonable doubt to the accused and acquitted them. 5. The learned public prosecutor representing the State ﬁled the present appeal claiming the ingredients of the oﬀences to have been made out and the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, 8 and 9 corroborated by the documents to have established the guilt of all the accused. The acquittal was, therefore, requested to be reversed. 6. Heard Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor for the appellant and Sri A. Ravinder Reddy, learned counsel for the accused. 7. The point for consideration is whether the accused are proved beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty of the oﬀences punishable under Sections 353 and 324 of IPC read with Section 34 thereof and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act ? 8. Point: The Sub-Divisional Police Oﬃcer, who deposed as P.W.13, had practically conducted only veriﬁcation of the investigation conducted by P.W.12, the Sub- Inspector of Police and the claims of P.W.12 about recovering M.O.1 bunch of three sticks from the scene of oﬀence on the next day after the incident are plainly unnatural. The statements recorded by him were stated by him to have not been ﬁled into Court denying the advantage of having the earliest versions of the witnesses to him. P.W.11 denied being a mediator for Ex.A.10 panchanama for observation of the scene, while P.W.10 denied being mediator under Ex.A.9 panchanama for seizure of M.O.1 three bamboo sticks throwing further doubts on the claims of P.W.12. The evidence of the medical oﬃcer about the injuries found on the persons of P.Ws.3, 4 and 8 and his identiﬁcation of P.W.8 before the Court, was contradicted by the evidence of P.W.8 herself who denied the appointment of any Anganwadi workers during her tenure as Sarpanch or any Government oﬃcials coming to their village for such appointment in 2002 or any Government oﬃcials being obstructed in that process or anybody being abused in the name of caste. P.W.8 was positive that she or P.Ws.3 and 4 were not beaten and she claimed to have fallen from a bullock cart, due to which she suﬀered some injuries. P.W.8 was not shown to be in any way interested in the accused so as to resort to falsehood and P.Ws.5 and 6, the independent witnesses cited to support the version, turned hostile. P.W.6 stated that no incident happened in his presence and he did not state as in Ex.P.3. P.W.5 also stated similarly and denied giving Ex.P.2 statement. 9. That leaves the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.1 admitted not mentioning the names of other accused except the 1st accused in Ex.P.1. She had no personal acquaintance with the 1st and 2nd accused and was informed about their names only by others. When P.W.1 does not know how P.Ws.3, 4 and 8 received injuries, she no way corroborates P.Ws.3 and 4 and P.W.2 also does not know accused 1 and 2 and was not able to identify them even before the Court. While accused 3 to 5 are obviously totally unknown to P.Ws.1 and 2, their reference to the identity of the 1 st and 2nd accused also becomes doubtful under such circumstances. 10. P.Ws.3 and 4 are interested witnesses, accepting whose version at face value is unsafe and it will be a rule of prudence to look for satisfactory independent corroboration for their claims. The trial Court brought out in detail the contradictions between the claims of P.Ws.3 and 4 and the doctor about their visit to the hospital or the location of the injuries, which needs no replication and the driver Abdul Nayeem, who was also allegedly attacked, was not examined. P.W.4 deposed similarly as P.W.3 and their claims about P.W.8 receiving injuries during the incident being denied by P.W.8, the testimony of P.Ws.3 and 4 could not have been a satisfactory basis for concluding the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The conclusions of the trial Court, therefore, cannot be considered divorced from the broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record, apart from the technical lacuna about the practical absence of any investigation by the authorized Sub-Divisional Police Oﬃcer in patent non- compliance with Rule 7 of the statutory rules. The criminal appeal has to, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29-11-2011 Svv