THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1216 of 2011 Dated:31.10.2011 Between: The State of A.P., Rep.by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. …Appellant and Vemula Govindu, S/o.Pullaiah, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1216 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the judgment in Sessions Case No.51 of 2008 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Khammam, dated 03.02.2010, by which accused Nos.1 to 8 therein were found not guilty and were acquitted. 2. Accused Nos.1 to 8 were prosecuted on the strength of the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Wyra, in Crime No.28 of 2008 of Thallada Police Station. It was alleged that on 14.04.2008 Garika Sudhakar and others were taking the Gods in a procession after performing Sitaramula Kalyanam and when the procession reached the village centre at about 9.30 pm, accused Nos.1 to 8 called Sudhakar and others aside. Accused No.1 was alleged to have beaten Sudhakar on his head with stick and the other accused were claimed to have abused him in filthy language in the name of his caste. Sudhakar, who fell unconscious, was shifted in an ambulance to the hospital and when the accused attempted to pull Sudhakar out of the ambulance, Jakkampudi Satyanayarana, Narasimha Rao, Prasad, Venkateswar Rao, Bhushaiah and others intervened and rescued him. The next morning Sudhakar, who returned from the hospital, gave a report to the Police and the investigation disclosed offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Act, for brevity). 3. After the case was taken on file by the concerned Magistrate in P.R.C.No.44 of 2008, copies of the documents were furnished to the accused. On their entering appearance, the case was committed to the Special Court of Session. 4. The Special Court framed charges under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, against the accused who pleaded not guilty. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined by the prosecution and Exs.P-1 to P-7 were marked. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against them when they were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, and Ex.D-1 was marked during the cross examination of P.W.3. 5. The trial Court rendered the impugned judgment observing that the incident took place at a public place surrounded by residential houses, and the trial Court opined that the statements of P.W.1 during his cross examination suggest his disinclination to speak the truth. P.Ws.1 and 2 belong to the same political party and have grudge against the accused. P.W.3 was noted to have denied his earlier statement to the Police in Ex.D-1, and P.W.4 was considered to be not throwing any light, as he was present only when the Police Inspected the scene of offence, and P.W.6 was a similar witness. P.W.7, who is a Doctor, found an incised wound and two contusions on the person of P.W.1 when he examined him on 15.04.2008. But the only overt act attributed to the accused was P.W.1 being beaten by accused No.1 with a stick on the head. The injuries noted by P.W.7 were therefore considered to be not corroborating the claims of P.W.1. The evidence of other witnesses was noted to be having no direct bearing and the guilt of the accused was hence considered by the trial Court to have not been proved beyond doubt. 6. The State represented by the learned Public Prosecutor preferred the present appeal contending that the ingredients to constitute the offences with which the accused were charged have been satisfactorily made out by the prosecution through its evidence and hence the judgment of acquittal needs to be reversed. 7. Sri Rudresh Desh Pande, learned Counsel representing learned Public Prosecutor, and Sri C.Pratap Reddy, learned Counsel representing respondent Nos.1 to 8/accused Nos.1 to 8 are heard. 8. The point for consideration is whether the guilt of accused Nos.1 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has been proved beyond reasonable doubt? 9. Political differences are claimed to be the reason behind the prosecution of the accused according to the defence version, which, according to the trial court, found some basis in the evidence of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.1, the alleged victim, is necessarily tainted with interestedness and requires satisfactory independent corroboration before acceptance. The statement of P.W.3 recorded by the Police in Ex.D-1 was denied by him throwing a doubt on the credibility of the witness and his statement before the Court. Only P.Ws.1 to 3 were eyewitnesses examined by the prosecution before the trial Court and all the three were considered to be interested witnesses by the trial Court for reasons stated in its judgment. P.Ws.4 and 6 who were merely witnesses to the examination of the scene of offence by the Police would not have thrown any light on the believability of the incident as alleged, and the evidence of the Tahasilar who issued the caste certificate to P.W.1 is of no significance as the social status of P.W.1 is not in dispute. The registration of the crime by P.W.8 or its investigation by P.W.9 have no direct bearing and it is only the version of Medical Officer who examined P.W.1 and who deposed as P.W.7 that could have provided some corroboration to the claims by P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.7 found an incised wound on mid parietal region, a contusion on the nape of the neck and around the neck and a contusion on the left zigmotric region. If the first accused beat P.W.1 with a stick, which is a blunt object, the possibility of the incised wound being caused as a result is remote, and the prosecution version nowhere alleged any other overt act by the first accused or the other accused to link the other two injuries with the incident. The absence of corroboration between the medical evidence and the occular evidence therefore creates a doubt as to whether the entire truth has been placed before the Court. The allegations about the abuses by accused Nos.2 to 8 touching the caste of P.W.1 were omnibus in nature, and the prosecution did not bring out any specific motive for the accused to indulge in the crime. If political rivalry was the cause behind the incident, the same is a double-edged weapon, which could have also resulted in foisting a false case against the accused. The trial Court which had the benefit of observing P.Ws.1 to 3 in flesh and blood refused to place reliance on them, and the benefit of observing the demeanor of the witnesses for the trial Court makes it incumbent not to interfere with its impressions but for any strong reasons which cannot be considered to be present. The opinion of the trial Court under such circumstances that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt of the offences with which they were charged does not appear to be open for interference in appeal. 10. Hence the appeal should fail and is accordingly dismissed. _________________________ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J) 31.10.2011 vs