HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.315 of 2007 and CRIMINAL Revision Case No.704 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: The Criminal Revision Case is filed by the de facto complainant and the Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellant-accused against the order dated 19.2.2007 passed in Special Sessions Case No.2 of 2005 by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, whereby and whereunder the accused was found guilty of the offences under Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘the Act’) and Sections 323 and 506 IPC, and was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act and to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 IPC and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 506 IPC. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The de facto complainant-T.Manemma (PW1) is a resident of Siddipet of Medak District. She is a Madiga by caste. Late Chandra Sekhara Reddy is her husband. Their marriage is a love marriage which took place in 1996 and she gave birth to a female child viz., Sandhya. PW1’s husband was a resident of Annur Village of Karvetinagar Mandal, Chittoor District. They lived at Siddipet till the death of Chandra Sekhara Reddy. Pw1 knows accused as her husband used to treat him as a Guruvu as he was under impression that the accused was having mythological powers. Late Chandra Sekhara Reddy went to the house of the accused at Upparapalle on 29.3.2003, on account of his ill-health under an impression that the accused will cure him with his mythological powers. On receipt of a telegram on 21.4.2003 from the accused informing that Chandra Sekhara Reddy became ill, PW1 went to Upparapalle to see him and went back to Siddipet on account of her employment. She received another telegram on 21.5.2003 stating that Chandra Sekhara Reddy was in serious condition. Therefore, on 23.5.2003 she again went to Upparapalle and asked her husband to go to hospital for better treatment, but, her husband refused to go to any hospital with a hope that the accused will cure him. On 25.5.2003, Chandra Sekhara Reddy died and his dead body was shifted to Annur village and was cremated there. Chandra Sekhara Reddy used to send money to the accused by way of Demand Drafts. After death ceremony, PW1 got mutated her name in the MRO Office, Karvetinagaram, in respect of the properties of her deceased husband. The accused filed a suit in Senior Civil Judge Court, Puttur, against PW1 and others. On 23.7.2004, PW1 boarded an APSRTC bus to go to Annur village and she got down at Annur bus stand. While she was proceeding on foot to village along with her brother T.Swamy (PW2), the accused came in the opposite direction and abused her as “Madiga Lanja Ikkadiki Vachava, neemogudini champinattu ninnu champuthanu” and pulled her saree and torn her blouse. PW3 and Pw4 came there and on seeing them, the accused ran away. At her request, PW3 and PW4 took her to Annur village to meet Lokanadha Reddy-PW5, Sarpanch of Annur. As PW5 was not available in the village, on the next day, PW1 stated the above facts to PW5 in the presence of village elders and after deliberations, they advised Pw1 to give a written complaint to the police. Pw1 gave Ex.P1- report to PW7-Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who in turn, registered the same and PW8 investigated the case and laid charge sheet. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P12 & MO.1 were marked. On behalf of the defence, DW1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. PW1, who is the aggrieved person and who allegedly lodged a complaint to the police, stated before the trial Court that on 23.7.2004, she boarded an RTC bus to go to Annur Village and got down at Annur Bus stand and proceeded towards village along with her brother. When she reached sugar cane garden, the accused came in an opposite direction and abused her as “Madiga lanja ikkadiki vacchava, nee mogudini champinnatu ninnu champuthanu” and also pulled her sari and torn her blouse. Thereafter, she along with two other persons went to house of Lokanadha Reddy at Annur Village. Since the said Lokanadha Reddy was not available, the next day i.e., on 24.7.2004 at 6.00 p.m after discussing with him she lodged the present complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1. PW2, who is the brother of PW1, deposed on the same lines as stated by PW1 before the Court. PW3, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence, deposed the same facts as deposed by PW1. PW4, who is also an eye witness, deposed the language used by the appellant-accused and also the fact that the appellant pulled the saree and torn the blouse of PW1. PW5, who is Sarpanch of Annuru Grama Panchayat, deposed that on information given by PW1, he gathered village elders and advised PW1 to give complaint to the police. PW6, who is resident of Allagunta Dalithawada, deposed that he noticed the police at the house of PW5 where PW1 showed her torn blouse to the police and the same was marked as MO1, which was seized by the police. He witnessed the same and signed in mahazar, which was marked as Ex.P2, and the police prepared mahazar of the scene of offence and the same was marked as Ex.P3. PW7, who is the Sub Inspector of Police, deposed regarding the fact that he received the complaint on 24.7.2004 at 6.00 p.m and on the basis of the said complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.42 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Section 354 IPC and Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also prepared the First Information Report, which is marked as Ex.P4. PW8, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police and who is the Investigating Officer, deposed that he took up the investigation on the basis of the crime registered by PW7 and examined the witnesses and filed charge sheet under Sections 354, 323 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 (1)(x) and (xi) of the Act. The learned trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence, more particularly the evidence of PWs.1 to 4, convicted the accused as stated above. Now the points for consideration are 1. Whether the conviction recorded by the trial Court is sustainable in law? and 2. Whether the evidence adduced by PWs.1 to 4 is cogent in nature and inspires the confidence of this Court? Learned counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that if it is the case of PW1 that while she was proceeding towards village, the accused obstructed her and abused her by caste name, there is nothing on record to show her presence at the place as alleged by the prosecution. He further pointed out that PW1, even though appears to be belonging to scheduled caste, has taken different stands in the present case. In Ex.P1, she has stated that she belongs to “Aadi Andhra” whereas she has deposed before the Court that she belongs to “Madiga” caste. He further pointed out that in the civil cases filed by her, she stated that she belongs to Kapu Reddy community having married Chandra Sekhar Reddy. Learned counsel further pointed out that even if the facts stated by PW.1 are taken to be true, the offences under Sections 3 (1)(x) and 3 (1)(xi) does not attract since she does not belong to the scheduled caste. He further argued that in a case of this nature where PW.1 felt that her modesty was outraged, the reason stated by her for the inordinate delay of one day in lodging the complaint is suspicious as the same was filed after consulting PW5-Lokanadha Reddy, who is inimical towards appellant. Further PW2, who is brother of PW1, admits that he is a witness in other two cases preferred by PW1 and the same is also admitted by PW1. The appellant and PW1 are also inimical towards each other as PW.1’s husband was treated by the appellant herein, her husband died and civil suits are pending between them. Hence, there is every chance of implicating the appellant in a false case. Learned counsel for the complainant pointed out that the evidence of PW1 coupled with PWs.2 to 4 proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Further, even though a charge was not framed under Section 354 IPC, he can be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC as the ingredients of Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act and Section 354 IPC are similar. Perused the record and heard the arguments. In the present case, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, P.W.1 has taken different stands as far as her caste is concerned as (1) Aadi Andhra (2) Madiga (3) Kapu Reddy, for which she is unable to give proper explanation before the Court. Further, in so far as the eye-witnesses to the occurrence are concerned, Pw2 is also a witness in two criminal cases filed by PW1. It is also evident from the record that PW1 filed a theft case against the accused alleging that he committed theft of mangoes in the mango garden belonging to her. In so far as PWs.3 and 4 are concerned, they were also named in the complaint after cool deliberations and discussions with PW5, for whose presence and availability PW1 waited for one day, and lodged the complaint. Even though the witnesses categorically stated before the Court, it is the duty of the Court to see and appreciate the evidence on its probability and whether it inspires the confidence of the Court. There is a delay of one day in lodging the complaint. In these type of cases mere plea is fatal to the prosecution. Though the husband of PW1 treated the appellant as his guru, it is evident from the record that after his death, the appellant and PW1 became inimical towards each other. Moreover, a civil dispute is also pending between PW1 and the appellant regarding the property on the basis of a will executed by the deceased Chandra Sekhara Reddy. Hence, this Court is of the view that the evidence of PW1 is exaggerative in nature and the said complaint is lodged with an intent to implead the appellant herein as she failed to succeed in her earlier two complaints and also to pressurize the appellant in some way or the other in respect of the civil suits. In view of the same, the judgment passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the judgment dated 19.2.2007 in Special Sessions Case No.2 of 2005 by the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati, is set aside and Criminal Appeal No.315 of 2007 is allowed and the accused is acquitted of all the offences. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the Criminal Revision Case fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. So far as the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the revision is concerned, there is no necessity to alter the conviction, as this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Sections 3 (1)(x) & 3 (1)(xi) of the Act. Inasmuch as the ingredients of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and Section 354 IPC are akin, the conviction of the petitioner cannot be altered to Section 354 IPC as he is not found guilty of the offence under Sections 3 (1) (x) & 3 (1) (xi) of the Act. ____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 13th February, 2014 rkk