THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1078 of 2011 BETWEEEN: The State of A.P. … Appellant AND 1. Bandlaboina Sreenu & another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1078 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The lower Court acquitted A1 and A2 of the offences under Section 324 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A2 is wife of A1. There were disputes with regard to property between A1 and his brothers. It is alleged that A1 asked PW1 to mediate the disputes with his brothers with regard to property division and that after the mediation, A1 became aggrieved against PW1 with regard to division of properties and that a quarrel took place in which A2 beat PW1 with MO.1 stone and A1 assaulted PW1 and abused him in the name of his caste. A1 belongs to Non- Scheduled community, where as PW1 belongs to Scheduled Caste. PW1 was Mandal Praja Parishad President, but he belongs to Congress Party, where as A1 belongs to Telugu Desam Party. In those circumstances, it is difficult to believe that A1 invited PW1 to mediate his disputes with his brothers on property. PW2 is stated to be one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence. He turned hostile to the prosecution. PWs 3 and 4 are neighbours to the locality. They speak to A2 attacking PW1 stating that since the accused belong to Telugu Desam Party and PW1 belongs to Congress party, they will not get justice from him. In those circumstances, the prosecution case that A1 requested PW1 to mediate the disputes, appears to be improbable. Though PWs 3 and 4 speak to some incident between the accused and PW1, did not speak to the alleged utterances of A1 in the name of caste against PW1. 2. The lower Court also discussed infirmities in investigation. When the incident is stated to have happened during mediation between A1 and his brothers, the Investigating Officer did not choose to examine brothers of A1. It cannot be said that A1’s brothers will not support PW1 due to relationship, because as per the prosecution case, A1 and his brothers were at loggerheads due to property disputes. The lower Court also considered possibility of PW1 sustaining injuries due to fall because of previous rain and slushy soil. Having regard to the entire consideration of evidence and probabilities by the lower Court, I do not find any reason to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. 3. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:28.07.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJUL CRIMINAL APPEAL(SR) No.1354 of 2011 DATED:28.07.2011 ysk