IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Appeal No.580 of 2009 Between: Addanki Ravi Kumar .. Appellant AND The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, RCIU, through the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant for an oﬀence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SC/ST (POA) Act”) and consequential sentence by the judgment dated 28-04-2009 in S.C.No.91 of 2007 on the ﬁle of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, at Khammam. The accused was prosecuted in pursuance of the charge sheet ﬁled by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID, RCIU, Warangal, in Crime No.27 of 2004 of CID Police Station, Hyderabad. One Doddigarla Kamalamma, who belongs to Mala caste, which is a Scheduled Caste, is said to be working as a Staﬀ Nurse in Rural Family Welfare Centre (Primary Health Centre), Pinapaka where the accused was also working as Lab Technician. Kamalamma was a contract employee working since 25-04-2001 and the accused belonging to a Forward Caste was harassing her mentally and abusing her in unparliamentary language in the name of caste since inception about which she made several representations to the higher oﬃcials of the Department, but in vain. Then, she complained to the Additional Director General of Police, CID, which was referred to CID police station, Hyderabad and registered as Crime No.27 of 2004. During the investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police examined various witnesses and found that the accused was in the habit of making unnecessary comments and abusing co-employees, medical oﬃcers and others and was even imposed ﬁne in a petty case in STC.No.739 of 2004, dated 04-10-2004 by the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothagudem, on admission. The unmarried Kamalamma was stated to be a sincere and hard worker. On 26-01-2002, there was a farewell party to the retired H.E.O. Nagabhushanam by all the staﬀ members. At about 10-30 P.M., the accused came in a drunken state and abused Kamalamma in ﬁlthy language referring to her caste and stating that he will maintain both Kamalamma and her sister, which was witnessed by Iqbal Hussain, K. Radha Krishna, Pushpavathi and M. Ramu. Though Kamalamma informed Dr. B. Laxmaiah, he did not take any action. Again, on 21-01-2004, the accused went to the quarter of Kamalamma located in the premises and similarly abused her in the name of caste, which was witnessed by Dr. Ch. Chandra Reddy and his wife Karuna and others and again on 26-02-2004 at about 1.00P.M., the drunkard accused abused all the staﬀ members including Kamalamma in the name of caste, which was witnessed by Ch. Karuna and M. Pushpavathi. Though it was reported to the Additional D.M. and H.O., Bhadrachalam, no action was taken and the accused was harassing Kamalamma regularly due to which she brought her sister Nagati Vajramma and uncle N. Rayappa to her residential quarter for protection. Therefore, the accused was stated to be liable for punishment under Sections 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Khammam, took cognizance of the oﬀences and copies of documents were furnished to the accused on his appearance, after which the case was committed to the Court of Session in PRC.No.76 of 2006. The Special Court of Session framed charges under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act on appearance of the accused before it, for which the accused pleaded not guilty. PWs.1 to 16 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.16 were marked by the prosecution during the course of trial and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him when he was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the accused did not produce any defence evidence. The Special Court of Session rendered the impugned judgment referring to the factual background and the evidence placed before it and ﬁrstly, opining that PW.1 was proved to be belonging to a Scheduled Caste and the accused was proved to be not belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe in view of the caste certiﬁcates-Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.13 and the evidence of PWs.15 and 14 in this regard. The Court noted that the investigating oﬃcer categorically stated that PW.2 was not present at the time of incident on 26-01-2002 and even assuming that PW.2 was not present on that date, the evidence of PW.1 shall have to be looked into. The Court deduced from the evidence of PWs.5, 7 and 8 that there was a function of farewell on 26-01-2002 in the premises of Primary Health Centre. PW.1’s participation in the function was, hence, considered proved, while the allegation was that the accused came in a drunken state after the function and abused PW.1 in a ﬁlthy language. The Court also referred to the evidence of PW.1 about the incident on 21-01-2004 concerning which PWs.3 and 4, the alleged witnesses, turned hostile and considered that from Ex.P.1 complaint given by PW.1 to Dr. B. Laxmaiah and her evidence coupled with the departmental enquiry launched against the accused under Ex.P.12, the evidence of PW.1 cannot be brushed aside. The conviction of the accused on a report by PW.5 in a petty case was, of course, not considered to be proof of any illegal activity by the accused against PW.1. The trial Court was of the opinion that the accused had no right to question PW.1 living in the quarter whether it was allotted to her or not and it is only for the medical oﬃcer to question PW.1. The evidence of PW.10 about the incident on 26-01-2002 was considered to have been not shaken by any cross-examination and the witness was considered to be an independent witness, who deposed categorically about the incident and who referred to the words uttered by the accused in her statement to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if the evidence of PW.10 were to be ignored also, the trial Court felt that there is no rule of law, which compels it to discard the evidence of PW.1 and as PW.1 was abused by the accused in more than one incident in spite of the eﬀorts of PW.1 to launch complaints to the oﬃcers concerned, the trial Court felt that the oﬀence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the special statute has been made out, while the oﬀences under Sections 506 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code were not established and therefore, the accused was questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence concerning the oﬀence punishable under the special statute. After considering his claim that he was having children and the only earning member of the family, the Special Court of Session sentenced the accused to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and a ﬁne of Rs.2,000/- with a default sentence of two months imprisonment for the oﬀence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, while setting oﬀ any period of remand under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ﬁne was ordered to be paid to PW.1 under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The convicted accused challenges the impugned judgment in this appeal, ﬁrstly on the ground of his right to be acquitted of the oﬀence under the SC/ST (POA) Act also, having been acquitted on merits in respect of the alleged oﬀences under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. When PWs.3 to 9 turned hostile, any reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 10 was erroneous and the evidence of PW.16, the investigating oﬃcer, who positively stated about the presence of PW.10 being not established, was ignored without any reason. The appellant also contended that PW.10 is an interested witness being the elder sister of PW.1 and the wife of PW.2 and the solitary testimony of PW.1 could not have inspired conﬁdence in a judicial mind. The evidence of PW.13 and Ex.P.12 render the evidence of PW.1 unworthy of acceptance and the ingredients of the allegedly proved oﬀence were in fact not made out. The appellant further contended that PW.2 was also shown to be not present by the admission of PW.16 and the prosecution also is vitiated by the non-appointment of PW.16 in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules under the statute and non- completion of the investigation within the period contemplated by Rule 7 (2) of the said Rules. The appellant also contended that a compendious charge covering all the incidents, which were alleged to have taken place on three diﬀerent dates, for holding a joint trial, caused considerable prejudice to the appellant in defending himself and was not legal and hence, the appellant desired that his conviction be reversed. Heard Sri P.V. Vidya Sagar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rudresh Deshpande, learned counsel representing the learned Public Prosecutor/respondent. Insofar as the oﬀence under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code, which was taken cognizance by the committal Court, no charge has been framed by the Special Court of Session, while the accused was found not guilty of the oﬀences under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which speciﬁc charges were framed by the Special Court of Session. The absence of conviction of the accused in respect of these three oﬀences has not been subjected to any further challenge and the exoneration of the accused for these offences has, therefore, become final. Therefore, the only point for consideration in the present appeal is the establishment of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for an oﬀence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have uniformly not supported the version of the alleged victim concerning any of the incidents. PW.3 was the medical oﬃcer at Pinapaka Primary Health Centre and he was only stating about the complaint by PW.1 and a denial by the accused regarding an incident after his joining in the residential quarter in the premises, but he denied witnessing any incident by himself on 21-01-2004. While he admitted giving Ex.P.3 report to the higher oﬃcials on 28-09-2004, that was regarding an incident in which the accused allegedly abused PWs.4 and 5 and it only mentioned about PW.1 giving similar complaint earlier. Ex.P.3 also referred to the investigation under progress by PW.13. PW.3 denied giving Ex.P.4 statement to the police and similarly Ex.P.5-report from PW.3 to the Project Oﬃcer contained a general complaint against the conduct of the accused, which led the medical oﬃcer to surrender him, but had no reference to any speciﬁc incident involving PW.1. Similarly, PW.4, the wife of PW.3, also denied witnessing any incident or stating to the police as in Ex.P.6 about something happening on 21-01-2004. PW.5 was examined with reference to the incident on 26-01-2002 and also the other incidents on 21-01-2004 and 25-02-2004. She claimed total ignorance about any of the incidents and denied stating to the police as in Ex.P.7. Similar was the evidence of PW.6 who is the husband of PW.5 and a reporter of Eenadu, who denied stating to the police as in Ex.P.8 and he was positive that the accused never abused PW.1 at any time. PW.7 also stated that the accused never abused PW.1 in his presence and PW.8 stated that on 26-01-2002, he went to the farewell function only to bring back his grandmother and did not witness anything else as supposedly stated by him in Ex.P.9 to the police. PW.9 also claimed that on 26- 01-2002 after attending the function he went away and he did not witness any galata on the previous night, which was informed to him by PW.2 and he denied stating to the police as in Ex.P.10. None of these witnesses-PWs.3 to 9 were shown or alleged to be in any way interested in the accused to such an extent as to resort to falsehood to save him and the uniform hostility of the independent witnesses should necessarily lead to scrutinizing the interested version of PWs.1, 2 and 10 with more care, caution and circumspection before acceptance. The evidence of PW.12 about a quarrel between PW.1 and the accused on 26-01-2002 when the accused abused PW.1 was not about any abuses to PW.1 in the name of or with reference to the caste of PW.1 and the evidence of PW.13, the District Malaria Oﬃcer, who submitted Ex.P.12 enquiry report on these and other related issues, is that the complaints given by PW.1 against the accused regarding the abuses to PW.1 were not proved. Ex.P.12-report insofar as it relates to these allegations by the accused clearly stated that use of unparliamentary language in the Primary Health Centre area during night times in a drunken state by the accused against PW.1 was not proved. While the evidence of PWs.14 and 15 about Exs.P.13 and P.14 caste certiﬁcates of the accused and PW.1 are not the questions in issue, PW.11 only stated about the petty case in which the accused was prosecuted under Ex.P.11 and even the Special Court of Session was clear in its observation that the alleged petty oﬀence or the admission of the case therein will have no relevance insofar as the present prosecution is concerned. When it comes to the evidence of the investigating oﬃcer as PW.16, he was positive that as per the investigation, the sister and brother-in-law of PW.1 were not present on 26-01-2002 and they were called after the incident. The independence of the investigating oﬃcer can never be in doubt on the material on record and while he of course claimed that the witnesses gave statements to him as per Exs.P.3 and P.6 to P.10 respectively, the same will not dilute the eﬀect of uniform hostility of the independent witnesses and the very presence of PWs.2 and 10 during the course of any of the three incidents becomes doubtful in view of the speciﬁc ﬁnding of the investigating officer after independent investigation. That leaves the evidence of the alleged victim PW.1, her sister PW.10 and her brother-in-law PW.2 alone for consideration. PW.10 in her evidence did not specify what were the words used by the accused with reference to the caste of PW.1 on 26-01-2002 or during subsequent incidents referred to by her and in fact with reference to the second incident, she did not state about any reference to the caste in the abuses. Her claim that on 27-01-2002, they reported to the police is not corroborated by any document on record and she admitted that she never informed the incident to any elders. She also did not state about any others witnessing the incident on either occasion and the bald statement of PW.10 about the ﬁlthy language touching the caste of PW.1 on 26-01-2002 is no satisfactory corroboration in material details to the allegations of the prosecution. When it came to the evidence of PW.2, the brother-in-law of PW.1, he also did not specify what was the ﬁlthy language actually used touching the caste of PW.1 on the night of 26-01-2002 and insofar as the incident on 21-01-2004 is concerned, PW.2 only stated about the accused abusing PW.1, but made no reference to the caste of PW.1 in such abuses. During the cross- examination, he tried to claim that the incident on 26- 01-2002 was witnessed by others, but no such other witness named supported his version as already stated. The claim that PW.3 witnessed the incident on 21-04-2004 was denied by PW.3 himself and at any rate, the evidence of PWs.2 and 10 about the accused abusing PW.1 on any occasion might have been suﬃcient to constitute some other oﬀence but not an oﬀence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the special statute, which requires speciﬁc allegations and proof about the reference to the caste of the victim. PW.1 the alleged victim was clear in her evidence that the relationship between her and the accused was strained since inception of her joining in Pinapaka Primary Health Centre due to the disputes about the accused not allowing the attenders to attend when she was working. Dr. Laxmaiah to whom PW.1 allegedly complained in the ﬁrst instance could not be examined due to his death and concerning the second incident, the doctor and his wife as already stated turned hostile. The third incident, which was enquired into by PW.13, was found to be not proved by Ex.P.12. One Varadaiah, watchman was alleged to have witnessed the incident on 26-01-2002 but he was neither cited nor examined by the prosecution. While she admitted that the gap between the ﬁrst two incidents was about two years, she also admitted that she did not obtain any acknowledgements concerning various complaints said to have been given by her earlier. Under the circumstances, the uncorroborated version of PW.1 cannot be considered to be such as to inspire conﬁdence in a judicial mind and in view of the stringent provision of the special statute, it is in the interests of justice to insist on proof beyond reasonable doubt before concluding the guilt of any person for an offence thereunder. The allegations of the prosecution and the facts and circumstances arising out of the evidence are clear and unambiguous that the allegations against the accused concerning the committal of alleged oﬀences punishable under Section 504 and 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and the oﬀence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act are so closely interwoven that any separation of the credibility of such allegations in respect of the oﬀence under the special statute, but not in respect of the oﬀence under the Indian Penal Code is not feasible or acceptable. The allegations should have stood or fallen as a whole, but could not have been spilt up in the manner in which the impugned judgment had attempted, in concluding the accused not guilty of the oﬀences punishable under Sections 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code and convicting him for the oﬀence under the special statute. Sri P.V. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the appellant, also laid emphasis on the fact that in none of the occasions, the alleged intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste was stated to be in any place within the public view. The learned counsel also emphasized on the joinder of three speciﬁc incidents, apart from a number of oﬀences, to form the basis for a common charge as framed by the Special Court of Session apart from the very framing of the charge compendiously for all the oﬀences being not in tune with the procedural mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The learned counsel further relied on Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 to ventilate the grievance against the irregularity in the non-completion of the investigation within the time prescribed. While any non-compliance with Rule 7 might have resulted in an irregularity which might not have made the prosecution itself illegal, there is considerable force in the submissions of the learned counsel regarding the other aspects. However, any further probe into these technical or factual aspects is not needed in view of the conclusion of fact about the incredibility of the solitary testimony of PW.1 as the basis for any conclusion of the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under the special statute. Under the circumstances, the conviction even for that oﬀence has to be reversed and the appeal has to succeed. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused for an oﬀence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act in S.C.No.91 of 2007 on the ﬁle of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act at Khammam, dated 28-04-2009 are set aside and the accused is not found guilty of the said charge and is acquitted of the same under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The ﬁne amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the accused and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand discharged. The Criminal Appeal is allowed accordingly. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-11-2011 Ksn