HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRL.A.No.2602 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellants 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 were convicted by the lower Court of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) and were sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each; were convicted of the offence under Section 324/34 IPC and were sentenced to simple imprisonment of one year; and were also convicted of the offence under Section 447 IPC and were sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each. 2. It is the prosecution case that on 02.09.2002 at about 12.00 noon when A-1 to A-3 were taking double bullock cart through the land in possession of PWs 1 and 2, PW.1 objected for the same, due to which A-1 to A-3 abused PW.1 as ‘Madiga bastard’ and scolded him and that A-1 to A-3 beat PW.1 with cart pegs and caused injuries. Plea of the accused is one of total denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found A-1 to A-3 guilty of all the above three charges. 3. A-1 and A-2 are brothers. A-3 is their brother-in-law. PW.2 is wife of PW.1. PWs 1 and 2 belong to Madiga caste which is a scheduled caste, whereas A-1 to A-3 belong to Kamma caste which is not a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. There is no dispute about respective communities of both the parties. PW.7 namely K.Neelakanta Reddy owns land to the west of lands belonging to the accused. Ex.P.6 is rough sketch of the scene. PW.7 owns about Ac.8.00 of land in that locality and it was being cultivated by PW.1 as lessee under him. Family of the accused owns about Ac.100.00 of land. It is the evidence of PW.1 that previously the accused did not allow water from village tank to flow into the land in cultivation of PW.1 through their lands and that he informed the same to PW.7. Therefore PW.1 decided not to allow carts of the accused to pass through the land of PW.7 in his occupation. In that process, PW.1 objected for passing double bullock cart of A-1 to A-3 through the land of PW.7 in his possession. There was maize crop in that land, which crop had grown to the height of about 2 feet. According to the prosecution, the scuffle arose between the parties with the objection of PW.1 for passing cart of the accused through that land. When there is bona fide dispute between the parties with regard to existence of cart track through the land of PW.7 in my opinion, the prosecution could not make out its case under Section 447 IPC. The lower Court erred in finding A-1 to A-3 guilty under Section 447 IPC. 4. According to the prosecution, PW.s 2 to 4 and 9 are the eye- witnesses to the occurrence. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that in Ex.P.1 report given by PW.1 to the police, he did not mention about presence of PWs 2, 4 and 9. One cannot expect list of witnesses in the first information report. In Ex.P.1, PW.1 stated that when he raised cries, PW.3 and Mattaparti Gurupadaiah Swamy and some others came and separated him from the accused. Evidence of PWs 4 and 9 does not inspire confidence in the mind of this Court because they speak to the accused Nos.1 to 3 beating PW.1 with sticks and they did not speak to beating of PW.1 with cart pegs. According to cross-examination of PW.3, there were no sticks at all available, except cart pegs of the carts of the accused. The said fact indicates that PWs 4 and 9 were only speaking to what they were tutored with regard to overt acts of the accused. 5. It is the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 that A-1 beat PW.1 on head with cart peg. Evidence of PW.11 and Ex.P.8 medical certificate shows that PW.1 was having two lacerated injuries on left frontal region and one lacerated injury on right occipital region. PW.1 in cross-examination deposed that the injury on his occipital bone was due to his falling down on a stone. So he did not attribute injury No.3 to any one of the accused. Insofar as A-2 and A-3 are concerned, it is prosecution evidence of PWs 1 to 3 that A-2 beat PW.1 on left fore-arm and left shoulder whereas A-3 beat PW.1 on back side of knee and left thigh. Medical evidence of PW.11 and Ex.P.8 does not corroborate the said overt acts. The lower Court observed that when there is discrepancy in oral and medical evidence, oral evidence of the injured prevails over the medical evidence. This is not a case of discrepancy between oral and medical evidence. This is a case where the medical evidence falsifies oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 with regard to the overt acts attributed to A-2 and A-3 against PW.1. In the absence of proof of PW.1 sustaining any injuries or hurt in the hands of A-2 and A-3, the lower Court erred in finding A-2 and A-3 guilty under Section 324 IPC. This circumstance further falsifies presence and participation of A-2 and A-3 in this incident. 6. Even though PW.11 in cross-examination opined that injuries of PW.1 are possible by fall, all the injuries are not possible by a single fall. PW.1 admits sustaining of injury No.3 on occipital region due to fall on a stone. There is no other evidence to show that PW.1 had different falls during the course of offence to sustain other injuries also. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that if PW.1 was dealt with cart peg which is a heavy metallic object, there would have been severe injuries on PW.1. Injury No.1 is of the size of ¼ X ¼ cm and injury No.2 is of the size of ½ x ¼ cm. They are simple and superficial injuries. 7. Even as per the prosecution case, genesis of offence is dispute at the lands of the accused and PW.7. Admittedly the accused did not allow flowing of water from village tank through their lands into PW.7’s land from east to west. As a retaliation of the said obstruction of water by the accused through their land to PW.7’s land, PW.1 intended to stop double bullock cart of the accused to pass through the land of PW.7. Virtually the dispute is primarily between PW.7 and the accused at their lands. Both of them belong to forward communities. One belongs to Kamma community and the other belongs to Reddy community. It is elicited in cross-examination of PW.7 that PW.7’s wife contested for Sarpanch post and got elected in the elections. It shows that though the accused are financially sound as they are having Ac.100.00 of land, PW.7 was politically sound. In between the quarrel between two big heads, PW.1’s services were taken in this case in order to paint colour of atrocities on downtrodden in the land dispute between PW.7 and the accused. Since PW.1 belongs to Madiga community, he was introduced to say that the accused abused him in the name of his caste as madiga bastard during the course of quarrel which ensued with stoppage of double bullock cart of the accused by PW.1 at PW.7’s land. But for PW.1 being lessee, he had no business to be at the land. After all, the land was cultivated with maize crop and not paddy crop. If carts pass through maize crop which was not ripe with bunches, the crop is not going to be damaged. There is every element of doubt in the allegation that A-1 to A-3 abused PW.1 in the name of his caste, if the case is viewed having genesis of the dispute in mind. Therefore, I do not intend to place any reliance on PWs 1 to 3 with regard to the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The incident of stoppage of cart by the prosecution party was exaggerated into a case under the Act apart from beating of PW.1 with heavy metallic objects like cart pegs. In the circumstances, this Court does not intend to place reliance on evidence of PWs 1 to 3. I do not agree with reasoning and conclusion of the lower Court on all the charges. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and the sentences passed by the lower Court against the appellants 1 to 3/A-1 to A-3 and acquitting them. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 23rd September, 2011. PNV