THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2012 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellants 1 to 3/A1 to A3 were convicted by the lower Court 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 rigorous imprisonment for six months and ﬁne of Rs.100/-; and were also convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and ﬁne of Rs.100/- . Questioning the same, A1 to A3 filed this appeal. It is alleged that on the morning of 09.11.1999, PW1/injured as well as A1 to A3 along with several others were going in jeep bearing No. ADB 7185 from Chimanguntapally village towards Wanaparthy and that on the way A1 to A3 stopped the jeep, dragged PW1 out of the jeep and A1 assaulted and tried to stab PW1, who kept his hand across due to which knife hit on his fingers and caused bleeding injury and that A2 and A3 also stabbed PW1 on his back and chest and other parts of the body and that PW1 ran away from the scene. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty and one of total denial. After trial, the lower Court found them guilty of the above two charges. PW1 belongs to madiga caste whereas the accused do not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. It is PW1’s evidence that at about 11.00 a.m., he got into a jeep to go to Wanaparthy and after the jeep crossed Wanaparthy, the jeep was stopped by the accused who were also travelling in the same jeep and that the accused forced him to get down from the jeep with knives and abused him as ‘mala bastard’ and that the accused persons stabbed him with knives on left hand and on back of left shoulder and that some person in the jeep tried to save him from the accused and that A3 threw a knife at him and that he freed himself from the person holding him and escaped. PW2 is driver of the jeep. He says that PW1 as well as the accused persons and other passengers were travelling in his jeep around 11.00 a.m. and that near Chityal Thanda some passengers asked him to stop the jeep. He says that he did not notice any attack with knives on any body. He turned hostile to the prosecution. PW3 supported the prosecution version. In cross-examination, he says that PW1 is his son by courtesy. He is not a near relation of PW1. He was also travelling in the same jeep. He says that when PW2 stopped the jeep, the accused persons dragged PW1 by abusing him as ‘madiga bastard’ and stabbed him causing bleeding injuries. He says that he scolded everybody in the jeep as to why they were not doing anything to save PW1. He says that PW1 was stabbed on hand and on back of left shoulder and that some body in the jeep caught A1 and in the meanwhile PW1 freed himself from the accused and ﬂed away and that one among the accused threw a knife at PW1 and it missed. PW7 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon in Wanaparthy Hospital. He examined PW1 on 09.11.1999 at 12.45 p.m. and found the following injuries: 1) Laceration over the left scapula size 1 x ½ cm. 2) Abrasion back lower part of left side of the chest size ½ x ½ c.m. 3) Laceration over right scapula 1 x ½ cm. 4) Laceration over left thumb ½ x ½ c.m. 5) Incised wound over lower part of left thumb size 1 x ½ x ½ c.m. 6) Incised wound over right thumb size ¾ x ½ x ½ c.m. He opined that all the injuries are simple in nature and that injury Nos. 1 to 4 were with blunt weapon and injury Nos. 5 and 6 are possible with sharp edged weapons like MOs 1 to 3. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that PW1 belongs to madiga caste and that PW1 says that he was abused as ‘mala bastard’, which is contrary to what was mentioned in Ex.P1, report to the police. If a person belonging to madiga caste is abused as ‘mala bastard’, it cannot be concluded that the accused intended to insult PW1 in the name of his caste. In my opinion, the lower Court should not have placed reliance on PW3 on this aspect. The lower Court erred in ﬁnding A1 to A3 guilty under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. Insofar as the oﬀence under Section 324 I.P.C. is concerned, there is evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and also medical evidence of PW7 corroborating their evidence. During the course of investigation, after arrest of A1 to A3, MOs 1 to 3 knives were said to have been seized by the Investigating Oﬃcer, PW9 in pursuance of their alleged confessional statements under the cover of Exs. P4 to P6 panchanamas. The mediators PWs 5 and 6 turned hostile to the prosecution. The alleged confessional statements of A1 to A3 are not relevant except to the extent of recovery of MOs 1 to 3 at their instance. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that PW1 could not give any motive for the incident. In examination in chief, PW1 deposed that he does not know the motive for the attack on him by the accused and that he came to know about a quarrel, which took place with the accused persons in his marriage without his knowledge. In cross- examination, he stated that he is unmarried still. Irrespective of the motive, there is evidence of PWs 1 and 3 as well as PW7 with regard to A1 to A3 attacking PW1 with knives and causing the injuries. When there are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, motive does not play any important role. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the lower Court rightly found A1 to A3 guilty under Section 324 I.P.C. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that both the parties have compromised with each other and that both are living peacefully in the village. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences passed by the lower Court against the appellants 1 to 3/A1 to A3 for the oﬀence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and the appeal is partly dismissed conﬁrming the conviction of the appellants 1 to 3/ A1 to A3 under Section 324 I.P.C., but altering period of sentence of imprisonment from six months to the period already undergone by them and maintaining the fine amount. SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 05.12.2011 lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2012 of 2004 Dt. 05.12.2011