IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.1347 of 2011 Between: Mallugari Narsimhulu .. Appellant AND The State of A.P. rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy .. Respondent JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment in Sessions Case No.24 of 2010 on the file of the Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, dated 15-03-2011. 2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy filed the charge sheet against the accused in crime No.357 of 2009 of Devanpally police station alleging that on 30-12-2009 at 7.30 P.M. Meesala Peda Ramulu gave a complaint to the police alleging that the accused picked up a quarrel with him at the house of Kasarla Bhumeeni Rajaiah on 29-12-2009. He alleged that on 30-12-2009 at 9.35 A.M. when he went to a toddy shop, the accused abused him in the name of his caste and beat him on his head with a toddy bottle resulting in a bleeding injury, which was witnessed by Sathu Narsareddy, Meesala Laxmaiah and Chetkuri Peda Rajaiah. The crime was registered and Peda Ramulu was sent to Government hospital for treatment. The Superintendent of Police appointed the Sub-Divisional Police Officer as the investigating officer who visited the scene and also examined the witnesses. The scene of offence panchanma was conducted and broken glass pieces of the toddy bottle were recovered. The accused was arrested on 02-01- 2010 and he voluntarily confessed the offence. He was sent for judicial custody and hence, the charge. 3. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy took cognizance of the offences in P.R.C. No.21 of 2010 and after furnishing copies of documents to the accused, committed the case to the Court of Session. The Special Court of Session framed charges under Section 324 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’) on the appearance of the accused and he pleaded not guilty. P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.6 and M.O.1 were marked during the 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. No defence evidence was produced. 4. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment considering the proof of both the offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court noted that P.Ws.1 to 4 and 6 stated that the accused beat P.W.1 on the head with a toddy bottle causing bleeding injuries and abused him in the name of his caste. The panch witness P.W.5 was noted to have corroborated the evidence of the eye witnesses and the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 corroborating each other was noted to have not been shattered by any cross-examination. P.W.8, the medical officer, was noted to have corroborated the claims of P.W.1 about the injuries sustained as stated in Ex.P.5 medical certificate. The trial Court also further observed that the investigating officer stated in detail about the process of investigation and the evidence of P.W.9 and Ex.P.6 caste certificate proved that P.W.1 is a ‘madiga’, a member of scheduled caste, and the accused is a ‘chakali’, a member of backward class. Under the circumstances, the trial Court concluded both the offences to have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and when the accused was questioned in respect of the sentence, he stated that he is the sole bread winner of the family with two children and wife and the trial Court handed over the sentence of simple imprisonment for one year and payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and the sentence of simple imprisonment for six months and payment of fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal code. Non-payment of fine was directed to result in default sentences of imprisonment and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently, while set off be permitted under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. The appellant challenged the said conviction and sentence in this appeal contending that P.Ws.2, 4 and 6, the alleged eye witnesses, are interested witnesses and P.W.1 was admittedly in a state of intoxication at the toddy shop at the time of the incident. An adverse inference should have been drawn against him and non-examination of the toddy shop owner should have resulted in the acquittal of the accused. 6. Heard Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned public prosecutor/the respondent. 7. The point for consideration is whether the prosecution did not prove both the offences against the accused beyond reasonable doubt ? 8. Point: P.W.1, the victim, was not suggested during his cross- examination to have any reason or motive for foisting a false case against the accused and the suggestion that he foisted a false case at the instance of Rajaiah cannot be acted upon in the absence of any material to establish such connection between Rajaiah and P.W.1 as to compel P.W.1 to foist a false case at the instance of Rajaiah. Similarly, any connection between Narayana, the Sarpanch, who contested against the accused, and P.W.1 is also not established by any material and suggestions cannot take the place of proof. P.W.2 is, of course, the cousin of P.W.1. But no such relationship between the other eye witnesses and P.W.1 is evident from the record. The statement of P.W.3 that the accused withdrew from the contest against Narayana at their request may indicate the absence of any reason for Narayana or P.W.1 to foist a false case and P.W.5 is an independent mediator for Ex.P.2 crime details form. P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 are independent eye witnesses and even the interestedness of P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have resulted in rejecting their evidence, as every interested evidence is not false evidence, the only precaution required being looking for satisfactory independent corroboration for such evidence. The evidence of P.Ws.3 to 6 provide such corroboration to the claims of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the investigating officer as P.W.7 can absolutely have no reason to either fabricate a panchanama or to record wrong statements of the witnesses. While it is true that P.Ws.1 to 6 faultered in giving minute details about the investigation, mathematical precision could not have been expected of oral evidence and lapse of time and consequential lapse of human memory should account for any inconsequential discrepancies. The positive evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, therefore, should be accepted and the medical evidence of P.W.8 proved P.W.1 sustaining the injuries mentioned in Ex.P.5 medical certificate. The social status of the accused and P.W.1 is proved by the evidence of Tahsildar as P.W.9, who issued Ex.P.6 certificate and under the circumstances, the conclusions of the trial Court about the proof of guilt of the accused for both the offences with which he was charged, cannot be considered to be not in tune with broad human probabilities arising out of the evidence on record. There is no scope for extending the benefit of any reasonable doubt to the accused and even the sentences handed over were not too harsh or severe and obviously the trial Court had taken into account the fact that the accused was the sole bread winner of his family consisting of his wife and two children. The circumstance that the accused had no past criminal record also must have been the reason for confining the period of imprisonment imposed to a reasonable term and therefore, the appeal should fail. 9. Sri S.S. Bhatt, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if the Court does not agree with his submissions, even then the appellant/accused is entitled to immediate release, as the judgment itself mentioned the accused to have undergone the period of detention from 02-01-2010 to 19-01-2010 and 06-01- 2011 till 15-03-2011, which period was directed to be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The accused is stated to be undergoing the sentence of imprisonment since the date of judgment up to date and coupled with any remission, which he might have earned due to his good conduct, he is due for release, according to the learned counsel. 10. The authorities of the prison where the accused/appellant is undergoing the sentences imposed by the impugned judgment, shall release the appellant/accused from prison, if he had undergone the sentences imposed on him for both the offences, which were directed to run concurrently, including the default sentences for non-payment of fine, if the fine amounts are not paid and if he is not required in any other cases. 11. Subject to the above, the criminal appeal is dismissed. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-12-2011 Svv