THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA Crl.A.No.1461 of 2010 JUDGMENT Questioning the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs &STs(POA) Act, Kurnool, in SCST SC No.47 of 2004, dated 11.09.2006, the appellant-State filed the present appeal. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: On 27.04.2005 at 10.00 hours, P.W.2-Anupuri Venkata Swamy, who was suffering from Asthama, along with others went to the hospital of the accused for herbal treatment. On examination of P.W.2, accused poured a liquid made from leaves of a tree in his ears and told P.W.1 to remain in the hospital for about three days. P.W.1 convinced the accused that they were residing nearby Nandyal Town and they would bring P.W.2 on the next day. Again, on 28.04.2005, accused administered herbal medicine to P.W.2 and thereafter P.W.2 was taken back to his house. At about one hour in the mid night of 28/29.04.2005, P.W.2 suffered from reaction of the said medicine and when P.Ws.1,3 and 4 asked the accused about the said reaction, he abused them as ‘Yemira Maidga Naa Kodukullara Maa Inti Daggara Allari Chestara, Maryadaga Pothe Baguntadi Lekunte Ee Urilo Mimmulunu Kattivesthanu’. Thereafter, P.W.1 gave a report to the police, Dornipadu Police Station against the accused. On receipt of the same, a case in Crime No.13 of 2005 was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act (for short ‘the Act’). After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the said offence. 3. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the defence, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked. 4. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the respondent/accused not guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and accordingly, acquitted him. Hence, this appeal by the appellant-State. 5. Heard. 6. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the judgment impugned in this appeal, this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Admittedly, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 to bring home the guilt of the accused, but it should be remembered that P.Ws.1 to 4 belong to one village, whereas the respondent, who is an Ayurvedic Doctor, belongs to a different village. Further, there is absolutely no evidence to establish the fact that the prosecution witnesses have known the caste of the respondent. Further, according to the respondent, there was enmity between himself and P.W.1 for the reason that when P.W.1 demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- on the pretext that P.W.2 suffered from drug reaction due to the herbal medicine administered by him, he refused the same. Further, the alleged offence, according to the case of the prosecution, took place at about 12.00 Noon on 29.04.2005, whereas the report was given at 2.00 PM on 30.04.2005 i.e., after more than 24 hours. Therefore, the enmity between P.W.1 and the respondent coupled with the delay in lodging the FIR creates any amount of doubt with regard to the case of the prosecution. The same was taken into consideration by the trail Court in extending the benefit of doubt to the respondent. Hence, I see no merits in this appeal. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ___________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:30.11.2010 sj