HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2235 of 2004 Date:31.01.2011 Between: Neelaknati Rajeswara Reddy and 6 others. ….Appellants And: State of A.P., rep. by PP .…. Respondent. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2235 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal arising out of the conviction and sentences passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kurnool in SC ST SC No.16 of 2003 against the appellants. The learned Special Judge has found A-1 to A-7 guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act (for short, the Act). A-1 to A-4 and A-6 are found guilty for the offence under Section 324 IPC. A-1 to A-7 are found guilty for the offence under Section 427 IPC and A-1 to A-7 are found guilty for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C and A-1 to A-7 are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences, the present appeal is filed. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.9.2001 at about 7.00 p.m at Jagadurthi village, accused 1 to 7 attacked P.W.1 when he quarrelled with Harijana Rangamma of the same village near water tank and beat P.W.1 with a stick by abusing him in the name of his caste as “ Further, they beat the brother of P.W.1 and also caused bleeding injuries. Later they destroyed the cattle shed of P.W.1 by removing the pillars of the cattle shed and went away by threatening him that they would see his end. The Special Judge has framed the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against A-1 to A-7 under Section 324 IPC against A-1 under Section 324 read with 149 IPC against A-1 to A- 7 and under Section 506 IPC against A-1 to A-7 and under Section 427 IPC against A-2 to A-7. All the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. The prosecution in order to establish the said charges, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. On behalf of the accused Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked in defence. The learned Special Judge basing on both oral and documentary evidence found the accused guilty of the said charges and convicted A-1 to A-7 for simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default for simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. A-1 to A-7 are further convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year for the offence under Section 324 read with 149 IPC and they were further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default for simple imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 427 IPC. A-1 to A-7 are convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for offence under Section 506 IPC in default simple imprisonment for 3 months each. All the sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentences passed by the learned Special Judge, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution could be able to establish the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and under Sections 324, 506 and 427 of IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt? The learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded that there is a political rivalry between the accused group and the group of P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.Ws.1 to 4 supported one Pratap Reddy in the Panchayat elections and whereas the accused supported his opponent in the said election and due to which a false case was foisted against the accused. The learned counsel for the appellants further pleaded that the medical evidence is not supporting the overt-acts stated by the P.Ws.1 to 4 and more over P.Ws.1 to 4 who are the only witnesses to speak about the incident are related to each other and they belong to one family and as such their evidence cannot be relied upon in view of the political rivalry in between them. The learned Public Prosecutor has pleaded that the political rivalry is not between the accused and the P.Ws.1 to 4, but it might be there between their leaders and that cannot be a ground for acquitting the accused and he further pleaded that the P.Ws.1 to 4 has specifically stated about the overt-acts and the said overt-acts are supported by the medical evidence of P.W.7., as P.Ws.1 and 2 have received corresponding injuries. As such the prosecution could able to establish the charges framed against the accused. According to the prosecution on 24.9.2001 at about 7.00 a.m, the accused attacked the P.W.1 when he was quarrelling with Harijana Rangamma of the same village near water tank and beat P.W.1 with natu stick by abusing him in the name of his caste and also beat his brother and caused bleeding injuries and later they destroyed the cattle shed of the complainant by removing the pillars of the cattle shed and went away by threatening him that they would see his end. P.W.1 who is the complainant has spoken about the incident that has taken place between him and Rangamma on that day at 7.00 a.m and according to him, he went to the water tank to fetch water. At that time Rangamma who is the wife of Marenna came there and pushed his pot aside and tried to fetch water for her. When he questioned she beat him with a chappal. Then he warded himself by raising his hand and on that she fell down on the ground. On seeing the incident, Pedda Marenna and Chinna Marenna came there and beat him with hands. His brother Ramanjaneyulu and his wife Indiramma requested them not to beat him and when there was a discussion between them, A-1 to A-7 came there and abused him by touching his caste name and also used vulgar language and then he rushed towards his house. Then A-1 beat him with a stick on his back. A-3 beat him on his knees. A-4 beat him on his chest with a stick. All the accused destroyed his cattle shed. When P.Ws.2 to 4 have tried to interfere and requested the accused, the accused also abused them by touching their caste and A.2, A.4, A.6 and A- 7 beat with sticks and caused injuries to him. According to him, four months prior to the incident, Gram Panchayat elections were held in which himself and his family members were supported Pratap Reddy. The accused are opponents to them in the Gram Panchayat elections. Thereafter, P.Ws.3 to 5 took him and his brother Ramanjaneyulu in a tractor to Dhone police station and one A.S.I Allabakash recorded his statement. Ex.P.1 is his statement. The P.W.2 is also supported the version of P.W.1 with regard to the incident that took place near the water tank between P.W.1 and M. Rangamma and also the accused attacking him and beating him with sticks and when he tried to rescue him they also beat him and he has specifically stated that A-1 beat the P.W.1 with stick on his head and when he questioned them, all the accused picked up with sticks from the cattle shed and A-2 beat him on his palm and caused cut injury to him. A-6 beat him on his back with a stick. A-3 beat him on his knees with stick. A-4 beat him on his chest with a stick. All the accused destroyed cattle shed of P.W.1. P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1 has also stated about the individual overt-acts of the accused in beating P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.2 also specifically stated about the overt-acts of the accused in beating the P.Ws.1 and 2. Both of them also stated about the quarrel that took place between P.Ws. 1 and Harijana Rangamma near the water tank. Therefore, it is the consistent evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that on the date of incident at about 7.00 a.m a quarrel took place between P.W.1 and Harijana Rangamma near the water tank. Admittedly the said Rangamma and her husband Marenna gone to the police station and lodged a complaint against the P.Ws.1 and P.W.2 prior to their lodging the complaint. According to the P.Ws.1 to 4 when there is a quarrel between P.W.1 and Rangamma, all the accused suddenly came and beat P.W.1 and when P.W.2 objected he was also beaten. But, P.Ws.1 and 2 have also admitted that at the time of beating them, the said Marenna and Rangamma were not present at the scene of offence. Therefore, there is no material placed by the prosecution with regard to accused attacking the P.W.1 when there was a quarrel between Rangamma and him. The learned counsel for the appellants has pleaded that since there is a political rivalry between the accused and P.Ws.1 to 4, they were falsely implicated in this case. With regard to the political rivalry, P.W.1 has stated that in the Panchayat elections held four months prior to the incident, himself and his family members supported Pratap Reddy and the accused supported the opponents. In the cross-examination he has stated that the accused supported the opposite candidate of their leader Pratap Reddy. He also admitted that there are misunderstandings between Pratap Reddy and the accused due to the elections. P.W.2 also in his cross-examination admitted that the accused bore grudge against them for casting votes in favour of Pratap Reddy. P.W.3 who is the wife of P.W.1 also stated in her chief- examination that four months prior to the incident, Gram Panchayat elections were conducted and in that elections they supported Pratap Reddy. The accused belongs to other group of Allabakash. Harijana Rangamma, Pedda Mrenna and Chinna Marenna supported the group of accused in that elections. Pratap Reddy won the elections. The accused bore grudge against them as their family members did not cast their votes in favour of accused group. P.W.4 who is the wife of P.W.2 has stated in chief-examination itself that in the Grampanchayat elections, they supported Pratap Reddy and accused supported Allabakash and in that election, Pratap Reddy won and the accused bore grudge against them due to the elections and they are not going to their houses to their work. Pedda Marenna and Chinna Marenna belongs to the group of accused. Therefore, from the above evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, it is evident that the accused has supported the opponents of Pratap Reddy in the Panchayat elections and the P.Ws.1 to 4 are the supporters of Pratap Reddy. The next point with regard to the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2, the Doctor, who is P.W.7 has stated that the P.W.1 was found with the following injuries: 1. Occipital bleeding injury 1 x 1 cm. 2. blunt injury on chest 3. blunt injury on the lower back He fond the following injuries on P.W.2 as follows: 1. Right hand contusion on Palm 2. Right and left knees abrasion 3. Chest blunt injury 4. Lower spine (Lumber) blunt injury According to P.W.7, the injuries are simple in nature. With regard to causing of the said injuries, P.W.1 has spoken about the specific overt-acts of the accused in beating him and his brother P.W.2 and he denied in the cross-examination that he has not stated before the police about the specific overt-acts against A-2 to A-4 and he did not state before the police that A-2, A-4, A-6 and A-7 beat his brother specifically. P.W.2 also specified the individual overt-acts of the accused in beating him and his brother P.W.1 and he denied in the cross-examination that he has not spoken about the individual overt-acts in his statement before the police. But, the investigating officer P.W.9 in his cross- examination has stated that the P.W.1 did not state before them about any specific overt-acts against A-2 to A-4, A-6 and A-7. P.W.2 did not state before him that he was abused by the accused by touching his caste specifically. P.W.2 did not state that he received any injury on palm and he also stated that P.W.2 did not state that A-2 beat him on his right palm, A-6 beat him on his back. A-3 beat him on knees and A-4 beat him on the chest. P.W.2 did not state before him that he was beaten by accused at his residence. Therefore, the specific overt-acts stated by P.Ws.1 an 2 were not stated by them when they were examined by the investigating officer P.W.9. As admitted by P.W.1 himself and his brother was taken on a tractor to Dhone police station and A.S.I has recorded the statement in Ex.P-1 . In Ex.P-1 also P.W.1 did not speak about the specific overt-acts of any of the accused and he only stated that the accused abused him by touching his caste and also beat him with a stick on his back of his head and received bleeding injuries and when his elder brother objected for it they also abused him touching his caste and made him to fell down and beat with sticks and both of them received injuries on their bodies. Therefore, the specific overt-acts stated by the P.W.1 were not specifically stated in the complaint Ex.P-1. Therefore, the said overt-acts stated by the P.Ws.1 and 2 are the improvements made by them during the course of evidence. To establish the offence, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4. As already stated above the P.Ws.1 and 2 are the brothers and P.W.3 is the wife of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the wife of P.W.2. Except the interested witnesses, no independent witnesses were examined by the police to speak about the incident, even though so many people were gathered and present at the time of incident. P.W.1 has stated that the incident has taken place when he was rushing back to his house from the water tank and P.W.2 has stated about nearly 30 persons witnessed the incident by gathering there but he did not state the names of them to the police as they do not support their case. P.W.4 has stated in her cross- examination that all the villagers witnessed the incident that the accused beating P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, even though the independent witnesses were present at the time of incident, none of them were examined by the prosecution. With regard to shifting of injured to the police station, P.W.1 has stated that after the incident himself and his brother were taken to the hospital on a tractor to Dhone police station but in the cross-examination he stated that he cannot say the particulars of the tractor. P.W.2 in his Chief-examination stated that himself and P.W.1 were taken to the Government Hospital for treatment in a tractor and in the cross-examination he stated that he does not know the particulars of the tractor in which they were taken to Dhone police station from their village but he admitted that in their village one Pratap Reddy alone is having a tractor. Therefore, P.W.2 was shifted to the police station on the tractor of Pratap Reddy as he is only is having a tractor in his village. Therefore, from the above evidence, it is evident that the P.Ws. 1 and 2 belongs to Pratap Reddy group and the accused belongs to other group and there were political rivalry in between the accused group and P.Ws.1 to 4’s group. When there is no specific reasons stated by P.Ws.1 to 4 why A-1 to A-7 attacked the P.Ws.1 and 2 after the incident had taken place between P.W.1 and Rangamma, it is probable that P.Ws.1 and 2 gone to the police station and lodged a false complaint against the accused at the instance of the Pratap Reddy who is their leader as by that time Marenna and his wife Rangamma gone to the police station and lodged a complaint against the P.Ws.1 and 2. In view of the above said rivalry between the two groups, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 who belongs to the same caste who are interested in prosecution. As there are no independent or corroborating evidence to speak about the incident of the accused attacking the P.Ws.1 and 2 on that day, it cannot be said that the accused attacked P.Ws.1 and 2 and caused the alleged injuries. When the occurrence of the alleged incident itself is doubtful, the question of the accused abusing by touching their caste name is also doubtful. According to the P.Ws.1 to 4 after beating P.W.1, the accused removed the stick from the cattle shed and beat them. With regard to the damage caused to the cattle shed, the prosecution has examined P.W.5 who is the Panch witness for the damage caused to the cattle shed and P.W.5 is the Panchayat Secretary of Yapadinne village of Dhone Mandal. Previously he worked as V.A.O of Devarabanda group till December, 2001. According to him on 25.9.2001 at 7.00 p.m himself and V.A.O Bhaskar Naidu of Kocheruvu village, Dy. S.P.Dhone along with his staff went to Harijanawada near Jagadurthy village. They all went to the hosue of complainant which is situated near by water tank which is to the South-West of the road, the houses of Buthcanna and Balanna are situated. There is a lane of 8 feet width adjacent to the house of Balanna. To the Est of the said house, there is a house of defacto-complainant P.W.1 facing towards East. They also noticed a cattle shed which was destroyed which is to the East of the house of P.W.1. Dy. S.P. examined the scene and written Panchanama Ex.P.2. In the cross-examination, he stated that Varapaku was erected with sticks and it was covered with ‘boda gaddi’. The entire varapaku rests on two sticks on which a length stick was placed and a bamboo sticks were placed on these sticks from a wall covering ‘boda gaddi’ on it. That varapaku was collapsed as one of the bamboo was removed. That entire material concerned to that varapaku was intact. With the same material that varapaku which was collapsed could be restored to normal position. Ex.P-2 is the observation Panchanama with regard to demolition of cattle shed of the complainant which is adjacent to his house towards East and it was attested by P.W.5. Therefore, the prosecution only established that the cattle shed was found demolished. Moreover according to the charge sheet after P.Ws.1 and 2 were beaten, the accused destroyed the cattle shed but whereas P.Ws.2 to P.W.4 have stated that the accused pulling the bamboo sticks from the cattle shed of the accused -- and beaten the P.Ws.1 and 2. Moreover when the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 was not relied upon, it cannot be said that the accused are responsible for demolishing the cattle shed of the complainant. Thus, the prosecution could not establish the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Sections 324, 506 and 497 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are entitled to be acquitted. In the result, the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentences passed by the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kurnool in SC ST SC No.16 of 2003 dated 28.09.2004 is hereby set aside and all the accused are acquitted. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:31.01.2011 Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2235 of 2004 Date:31.01.2011 Gk.