THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.997 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This revision is filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C. against judgment made in S.C.No.544 of 2003 dated 12.3.2004 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. The accused was charged of the offences punishable under Sections 451, 506(ii), 354 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) on the ground of abusing the wife of defacto-complainant with reference to her caste and beating on her stomach. The prosecution version is that the defacto-complainant a Civil Assistant Surgeon gave report to the police against the accused that the accused caught hold of the hands of his wife and abused her in filthy language with reference to her caste i.e. Scheduled Caste and threatened to commit rape on her and beat on her legs, face and neck and also kicked her and caused her injury and the same was registered as Cr.No.325 of 2001 of Banjara Hills Police Station and thereafter the accused was tried for the offences punishable under Sections 451, 506(ii), 354 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Act. For the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.7 were examined and EXs.P1 to P5 were marked whereas for the defence, none was examined, but Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. The Court below on a detailed consideration of the matter held the accused not guilty of the charge framed against him and acquitted him of the charge under Section 235 Cr.P.C. and being aggrieved by that, the present revision is filed by the defacto-complainant. Though the matter is coming up under the caption ‘for orders’, there is no representation on behalf of the revision petitioner, hence arguments on his side are closed. It is the case of the revision petitioner that the Court below erred in acquitting the accused of the offence, though there was ample evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. Now the point for consideration in this case is whether the Court below properly examined the evidence adduced and arrived at correct conclusions and whether the judgment passed by it is tenable or not. I have gone through the record. The accused produced Ex.D2 said to be xerox copy of statement of the so-called victim (P.W.2) given to the police. P.W.2 admitted that it contained her signature which therefore is to be taken cognizance of, but it does not contain any allegation that the accused abused her with reference to her caste and also with reference to outraging her modesty and intimation of her which is fatal to the prosecution case. Further, no record was filed about causing of any injury to her, which is also fatal. P.W.3 stated that the accused beat him when he went to the scene of offence on hearing her mother (P.W.2) cries, but according to P.W.4 the Investigating Officer P.W.3 did not state him accordingly. Further, P.W.4 (I.O.) deposed that there was no written authority given to him to investigate the case, which is also fatal. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the Court below has properly examined the matter and arrived at correct conclusions while holding that the charge against the accused was not established. I do not find any reason to interfere with the cogent and acceptable evidence adduced before the trial Court and therefore, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. _________________________ G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY, J Date: 27.6.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY Crl.Rc.No.997 of 2004 27.6.2011