THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2457 of 2004 DATE: 15-03-2011 Between: The Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. .. Appellant And U.G.Venugopal .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2457 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal at the instance of the State filed against the order of acquittal of the accused passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool in SC & ST Sessions Case No.1 of 2002 on 03.01.2003. The brief facts of the prosecution are that P.W.1, the complainant is a member of the Scheduled Caste and Madiga by caste and the accused bore grudge against the complainant P.W.1 presuming that he is behind one R.M.P. doctor Ganesh for foisting a case against him and keeping the same in mind on 31.12.2000 at about 12.30 hours while P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 were proceeding near Sreenivasa Circle in Yemmiganur Town, the accused intercepted P.W.1, threatened him with dire consequences and accosted P.Ws. 2 and 3 alleging that they are making friendship with P.W.1 and thereby insulted and humiliated P.W.1 and abused him by caste name. Thereupon P.W.1 gave a complaint to the Yemmiganur Police Station and the Sub-Inspector of Police registered the case and P.W.5 investigated the case and filed the charge sheet. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool has framed the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short “the Act”) and Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) against the accused and the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges against the accused, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 and no defence witnesses were examined on behalf of the accused. The lower Court by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, found that there is a delay of 28½ hours in lodging the complaint and thereby given benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal. Now the point that is to be considered is whether the alleged delay occurred in lodging the complaint was properly explained by P.W.1 and if not, whether it is fatal to the case of the prosecution? Learned Public Prosecutor pleaded that P.W.1 has properly explained the delay in lodging the complaint and said delay is not fatal for the case of the prosecution when the prosecution could able to establish the offence of the accused. On the other hand, learned respondent’s counsel pleaded that P.W.1 has not given any proper explanation for the delay either in the statement before the police or in the complaint Ex.P-1, as such the lower Court has rightly disbelieved the explanation given by P.W.1 and thereby acquitted the accused. According to P.W.1, who is the complainant, the incident has taken place on 31.12.2000 at about 12.30 p.m. and according to him after occurrence of the incident he went to the police station, presented a written report, but the police refused to receive his report and on the next day himself and his friend Allabaksh went to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni and presented a written report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni but he did not receive the same and on the other hand, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni has a talk over phone with Yemmiganur Sub-Inspector of Police. Again he returned to Yemmiganur Police Station and gave a written report to I-Town Sub-Inspector of Police. Ex.P-1 is the complaint dated 1.1.2001 and in the cross-examination he has stated that the first complaint was not received by the Sub-Inspector of Police in Ex.P-1. He did not mention about the earlier complaint and also in his statement under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code (for short “Cr.P.C.”). He did not state before the police about giving the complaint to the police and refusal to receive the complaint and his going to the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police and presenting the complaint and refusal by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and also discussing about the same with the Sub-Inspector of Police by the Deputy Superintendent of Police over phone. He denied that he did not give complaint on the date of occurrence and he did not go to the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni and presented the complaint and refused by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni. As per the First Information Report, the complaint was received by the police on 01.01.2001 at 17.00 hours and the incident has taken place on 31.12.2000 at 12.30 hours. Thus, there is a delay of 28 hours as observed by the lower Court. According to P.W.1 he lodged the complaint immediately on the same day but the said complaint was not filed before the Sub-Inspector of Police on the next day i.e. on 01.01.2001. But he has presented a fresh complaint on 01.01.2001. Moreover, in the said complaint dated 01.01.2001 he did not state about his presenting the complaint on the earlier day and the same was refused by the police and referred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni who also refused to receive the same and thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni telephoned to the Sub- Inspector of Yemmiganur Police Station on which he received the complaint but the said fact was not borne by the record. Moreover, according to P.W.1 he has gone to the Sub-Inspector of Police on the same day and on his refusal on the next day he along with his friend Allabaksh went to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and presented a written report and the same was also refused to receive by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Adoni but said Allabaksh was not examined before the lower Court to establish the factum of their going to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on the next day on refusal to receive the complaint by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Yemmiganur. Therefore, except the oral evidence of P.W.1, there is no material on record to show the reasons for the delay in lodging the complaint. Moreover the complainant is an educated person and is working as an Attender in the State Bank of India, Yemmiganur and is an Assistant Secretary of A.P. Civil Liberties Committee of Kurnool District. Therefore, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool has rightly come to the conclusion that the delay of 28 hours was not properly explained by the prosecution. In view of the non-explanation of delay of 28 hours, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool has rightly given benefit of doubt to the accused. Thus, the said finding of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool does not warrant any interference by this Court. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. ___________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 15-03-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD Crl.A.No. 2457 of 2004 DATE: 15-03-2011 MR