THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2260 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Act, Mahabubnagar, covered in S.C.No.14 of 2002, on 08-10-2004. 2. The appellants/A-1 to A-7 were prosecuted for the offence under Section 324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), alleging that on 12-07-2001 the complainant/ PW-1-Smt.Padmamma after casting her vote went to Veeranjaneyaswamy temple. At about 12.40 p.m. seven T.D.P. workers namely Kammari Jagadeesh, Kavali Basanna, Kommuri Shankar, Wadla Gopal, Chakali Narsimulu, Marati Narayana and Kavali Bichappa came there and abused Dharma Naik and Chandra Naik in filthy language by their caste name and beat Padmamma-PW-1 and Dharma Naik-PW-2 with chappals causing bleeding injuries on the head. The said incident was witnessed by Laxmamma-PW-4 and Ramappa-PW-5. On the complaint given by PWs.1 and 2, the S.I. of Police, Damargidda, registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2001 under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act and under Section 324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and send the injured to the Government hospital at Narayanpet for treatment. 3. Later on the investigation was taken up by S.D.P.O., Narayanpet, and he arrested A-1 to A-5 on 02-08-2001 and remanded them to judicial custody and he arrested A-6 and A-7 on 29-08-2001 and remanded them to judicial custody. 4. Doctor Narsimha Kumar who treated PW-2 was opined that PW-2 received laceration over left parietal bone which is simple in nature and PW-1 did not receive any external injuries. Hence, they were charged for the above said offences. 5. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and under Section 324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused. All the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. 6. PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Ex.P-1 was marked on behalf of the prosecution to establish the said charges. The learned Sessions Judge by taking into consideration of oral and documentary evidence found A-1 to A-7 guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days and also found A-1 and A-2 guilty for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days and A-3 to A-7 were found not guilty for the offence under Section 324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted for the said charge. Aggrieved by the said conviction the present appeal is filed. 7. The appellants’ counsel has pleaded that the learned Sessions Judge basing on the evidence of PWs.1 and 5 found the accused guilty for the said charges even though the Doctor and the Investigating Officers were not examined by the prosecution. He further pleaded that the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 contradict to each other and that the lodging of complaint by PW-1 is also doubtful and all the accused belongs to T.D.P. party and witnesses belong to Congress party and due to the political rivalry a false case is foisted against the accused. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the lower Court has rightly come to the conclusion with regard to the commission of offences by the accused and even though the Investigating Officer and Doctor were not examined by the prosecution the evidence available on record is sufficient to convict the accused for the above said charges. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the prosecution could able to establish the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against A-1 to A-7 and charge under Section 324 of the IPC against A-1 and A-2 beyond all reasonable doubt ? 10. P O I N T:- The investigation was started on the complaint Ex.P-1 said to have been given by PWs.1 and 2. In the said complaint it is stated that Padmamma- PW-1 and others after casting their votes in the polling booth came out and at about 12.40 p.m. near Veeranjaneyaswamy temple seven T.D.P. workers namely Kammari Jagadeesh, Kavali Basanna, Kommuri Shankar, Wadla Gopal, Chakali Narsimulu, Marati Narayana and Kavali Bichappa came there and abused Dharma Naik and Chandra Naik in filthy language by their caste name and abused PW-2-Dharma Naik by their caste and beat Padmamma-PW-1 and Dharma Naik-PW-2 with chappals causing bleeding injuries on the head. In the said complaint PWs.4 and 5 were cited as eye- witnesses to the incident. With regard to the lodging of the said complaint PW-1-Padmamma has stated that about three years back after returning from the polling booth after casting vote and when she reached Veeranjaneyaswamy temple to take water A-1 called her by their caste name and questioned her to which candidate she voted. Meanwhile, A-2 came there and beat her on her face with a chappal. All the accused pushed her and she lost her conscious. Jyothi, Darmiya Naik, Chandra Naik and Kistamma witnessed the incident. On the same day, she gave a report to Damargidda Police Station and the report is Ex.P-1. Darmiya Naik also gave a report along with her. Police send her to the Government Hospital, Narayanpet. Darmiya Naik was also sent to the hospital by the Police. But in the cross-examination she has stated that the Police obtained report from her at Government Hospital and they also taken a report from Darmiya Naik. One Laxmikanth Reddy scribed Ex.P-1. Laxmikanth Reddy was in Government Hospital when Police came there. Laxmikanth Reddy brought the Police to the hospital. Except Ex.P-1 report she did not give any other report to the Police. Therefore, according to PW-1 the complaint was lodged by her in the Government Hospital scribed by one Laxmikanth Reddy. 11. Whereas PW-2-Dharma Naik has stated that immediately after the incident they went to Damargidda Police Station and gave a report and the Police send them to Narayanpet hospital. In the cross-examination, he stated that immediately after the incident he telephoned to Damargidda Police Station and informed about the incident. Laxmikanth Reddy scribed the report at the Police Station. Therefore, with regard to the lodging of the complaint PW-1 in her chief examination stated that she gave the report in Police Station and whereas in the cross-examination she stated that it was given in the Government hospital, Narayanpet. PW-2 has only stated that the report was scribed by Laxmikanth Reddy at the Police Station. According to PWs.1 and 2, immediately after the incident PW-1 became un-conscious and she regained consciousness in the Government hospital. Therefore, the version of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to their going to Police Station immediately after the incident and lodging complaint appears to be false. However, the S.I. of Police who registered the crime was not examined by the prosecution to resolve the controversy between the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. 12. With regard to the overt acts of the accused in Ex.P-1 it was mentioned that all the accused abused PWs.1 and 2 by naming their caste and beat them with chappals causing bleeding injuries on the head of PW-2. Whereas PW-1 has stated that A-1 alone had called her by their caste name and questioned her to which candidate she has casted vote. Thereafter A-2 came there and beat her with chappal on her face and all the accused pushed her and she lost her conscious. 13. PW-2-Dharma Naik has stated that A-1 beat PW-1 when she was returning from polling booth near Hanuman temple. A-2 beat her with a chappal and when he tried to rescue PW-1, A-1 picked up a stone and beat him on his head causing bleeding injury. So far he did not speak anything about all the accused abusing him by their caste name. The other witness PW- 3-Mudavath Chandra Naik also did not speak about the accused abusing PWs.1 and 2 by their caste name. PW-4-Nadimilla Laxmamma has stated that all the accused abused PWs.1 to 3 by their caste name. PW-5-Dabbu Ramappa also did not speak anything about the accused abusing PWs.1 to 3 by their caste. Therefore, except the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 none others have spoken about the accused abusing PWs.1 and 2 naming their caste. 14. As already observed above, in Ex.P-1 complaint it was mentioned that all the accused abused PWs.1 and 2 by their caste name but PW-1 has told that A-1 called her by naming her caste and PW-4 stated that PWs.1 to 3 were abused by the accused by their caste name. Therefore, the evidence with regard to the accused abusing PWs.1 to 3 was not established by the prosecution. 15. With regard to A-1 and A-2 beating PWs.1 and 2, PW-1 has stated that A-2 beat her on her face with chappal and she did not speak anything about A-1 beating Dharma Naik- PW-2. But whereas PW-2 has stated that A-2 beat PW-1 with chappal and when he tried to rescue her near Hanuman temple A-1 picked up a stone and beat him on his head causing bleeding injury. PW-3 has stated that A-1 alone beat her father with a stone on his head and A-2 beat PW-1 with chappal. PW-4 has only stated that A-1 beat PW-2 with a stone on his head. PW-5 has stated that A-2 beat PW-1 with chappal on her face and A-1 beat PW-2 with a stone on his head. 16. According to PW-2, he sustained a bleeding injury. Apart from the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 5, there is no other evidence on record to show that PW-2 has sustained bleeding injury as the Doctor who treated PW-2 and issued wound certificate was not examined before the lower Court. 17. More over, the Investigating Officers were not examined by the prosecution and thereby, prejudice was caused to the accused as they lost the opportunity to put-forth the omissions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 to the Investigating Officers. 18. More over, all the witnesses have admitted that the accused belong to T.D.P. party and they belong to Congress party and there is a political rivalry in between them in the village. 19. In view of the political rivalry in between them it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 without any independent evidence and in absence of examination of Investigating Officers to conclude that A-1 and A-2 committed offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the prosecution has failed to establish the charges for the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act against A-1 to A-7 and for the offence under Section 324 of the I.P.C. against A-1 and A-2 beyond all reasonable doubt. 20. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Act, Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.14 of 2002 is hereby set aside and all the accused are acquitted. _______________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J February 24, 2011 PN THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2260 OF 2004 February 24, 2011