THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1010 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: A-1 to A-5 in S.C. No.51 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the learned Special Judge for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kurnool, were found guilty of the offences under Sections 148, 324, 342 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 3 (1) (iii) and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and they were accordingly convicted and sentenced as under: a) for the offence under Section 3(1) (iii) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each; b) for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each; c) for the offence under Section 324 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. d) for the offence under Section 342 read with Section 149 IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each; and e) for the offence under Section 148 IPC, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months each ; and directed all the sentences to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, A-1 to A-5 preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the following grounds: i) that the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective; ii) that the trial Court failed to see that PWs.1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 were interested witnesses; iii) that the trial Court ought to have seen that there was inordinate delay in preferring the police complaint and the same was not properly explained; iv) that the prosecution failed to establish the motive of the accused for the incident; v) that the trial Court ought to have seen that there was no corroboration between the evidence of PW-3 and other witnesses of the prosecution; vi) that the trial Court ought to have seen that the case was investigated by the police officers, who are not authorized by law; and vii) that the trial Court ought to have seen that the ingredients of Section 342 read with Section 149 IPC were not made out. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as under: a) PW.1 is the de facto complainant, PW.2 is the son of PW.1 and PW.8 – injured is the younger brother of PW.1. On Ugadi festival, there was a bull race in the village and PW.2 went to watch the same and while he was returning home at about 04:30 p.m., A-1 instructed him to send his uncle PW.8 to his house. Accordingly, on receipt of above information from PW.2, PW.8 went to the house of A-1, whereupon A-1 to A-5 attacked and assaulted him with sticks by tying him to an electrical pole. On witnessing the said incident, PW.3 came to PW.1 and informed him about the same. b) PW.1 along with PW.2 and others went to the house of A-1 and on finding A-1 to A-5 beating PW.8 with sticks, fell on their feet and prayed that he may be spared. Then all the accused abused him in the name of his caste, proclaimed that they would not supply rice and other essential commodities to PW.8 and others and threatened that if they file any criminal case, they would neck them out of the village. Due to fear, PW.8 could not go to the police station. PW.8 was admitted in Government Civil Hospital for treatment. However, on the following day, PW.8 ventured to reach Veldurthi Police Station and preferred complaint - Ex.P6, basing on which a case in Crime No.42 of 2002 was registered against A-1 to A-5 under Sections 147, 148 IPC and Section 3 (1) (iii) and under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. The motive behind the incident is said to be that on the date of incident, which is happened to be the day of “Ugadi” festival, PW-8 approached the village Sarpanch, who was said to be the follower of A-1, and asked her to provide power supply to the street lights and therefore, all the accused bore grudge against PW-8. 3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has got examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 on its behalf, whereas except marking Exs.D-1 and D-2, portions of the statement of PW-4 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused. 4. After considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record and after hearing both sides, the trial Court had found A-1 to A-5 guilty of the offences charged with and they are accordingly convicted and sentenced as has already been specified supra. Hence, A-1 to A-5 preferred this appeal. 5. It is the case of the appellants - accused that there was abnormal delay in preferring the police complaint and the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Though the offence is alleged to have been taken place on 13-4-2002 at 5.00 p.m., Ex.P-6 - police complaint was preferred on 30.4.2002 and thus there is an inordinate delay of 17 days. It is further the case of the accused that as per the evidence of PW.1, on the following day of the incident, PW.6, who is related to PW.1 through their caste, visited their house and got the injured PW.8 admitted in hospital at Dhone. PW.1 also visited Veldurthi Police Station on the following day of the incident and preferred Ex.P6 - complaint, wherein he has attributed the motive to the accused for the incident that since the injured PW.8 approached the Village Sarpanch Maddamma requesting her to provide power supply to the street lights on the day of the incident which was happened to be the day of Ugadi festival and as the said Maddamma was said to be the follower of A-1, all the accused bore grudge against the injured PW.8. However, the evidence of PW.10, who was the Station House Officer at the relevant time and registered the crime basing on Ex.P6 - complaint preferred by P.W.1, testified that the injured-PW.8 was arrested by him on 3.5.2002 in Crime No.41 of 2002 for the offence under Section 354 IPC basing on a complaint said to have been lodged by the village Sarpanch. Further, the evidence of P.W.9, who worked as Deputy Superintendent of Police at the relevant time and investigated the case, testified that his investigation revealed that the injured PW.8 had committed the offence under Section 354 IPC by outraging the modesty of the village Sarpanch. Therefore, it is contended that P.Ws.1 and 8 being brothers preferred the false complaint against the accused as an after thought and as a counter blast to the case against the injured P.W.8 in Crime No.41 of 2002 for the offence under Section 354 IPC that was registered at the instance of A-1 in this case by the victim as they were Upa Sarpanch and Sarpanch of the village respectively at the relevant time. It is also contended that since the deliberations took place for quite a long time to falsely implicate A-1 to A-5 in this case, the compliant could not be preferred earlier and If really the accused had assaulted PW.8 on 13.4.2002, they could have preferred a police compliant either on the same day or at the most on the following day, but the compliant that was preferred after a lapse of 17 days i.e., on 30.4.2002 falsifies the case of the prosecution. It is further contended that PW.8 himself has testified that on the following day of the incident, PW.6 took him to Ulindakonda, where he was given first aid by an R.M.P Doctor, and later he joined in Government General Hospital, Kurnool and that due to fear of accused, he stayed at Kurnool for two days and he did not prefer any police complaint either at Ulindakonda or at Kurnool, though he had sufficient time to do so and that the explanation given by him is that due to fear, he could not enter his own village for two days, which is only a lame excuse. Moreover, the motive attributed to the accused by PW.8 is also not correct since he has stated in his evidence that the accused bore grudge against him as he questioned them for not supplying the fair price goods properly and not put on the street lights in the village. It is further the case of the accused that PW.1 has stated in his evidence that he visited Veldurthi Police Station and preferred Ex.P6 – complaint on next day and that the said complaint bares his signature, whereas it is in the evidence of P.W.10 – the Station House Officer that P.W.1 had visited the Police Station on 30.4.2002 and preferred the complaint about the incident orally which he (PW.10) reduced into writing as Ex.P.6-complaint and obtained his (PW.1) thumb impression thereon. In this regard, it is contended that as per PWs.1 and 9, there are two complaints and the first of them bares the signature of PW.1 and the second one bares his thumb impression. Therefore, it is contended that out of these two complaints, which complaint was suppressed and which complaint was brought into light and basing on which complaint, the crime was registered is not known. Therefore, it is contended that it is probable that the complaint containing the signature of PW.1, which he alleged to have preferred on the next day of the incident, was suppressed and his complaint dated 30.4.2002 containing his thumb impression was brought into existence and pressed into service after due deliberations for implicating the accused. It is further the case of the accused that the evidence of P.W.7-medical witness also falsifies the case of the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW.7-medical witness, on 3.5.2002, on requisition of the Station House Officer, Veldurthi Police Station, he had examined PW.8 at 4.00 p.m., and found the injuries, (i) blunt injury on right shoulder, (ii) blunt injury on left leg, (iii) blunt injury on right thigh, and (iv) blunt injury on lower chest, present on his person as mentioned in Ex.P3- wound certificate and after examination, he opined that all the injuries were found to be simple in nature and the age of the said injuries were of 0 to 2 hours prior to his examination and the injuries were fresh. It is, in this regard, contended that as per the evidence of P.W.7-medical witness, PW.8 was examined on 3.5.2002, whereas the alleged offence has taken place on 13.4.2002, which means that P.W.7-medial witness had examined P.W.8 about 20 days after the incident. If that is so, how could the injuries be just two hours old prior to his examination and how could they still be fresh as per the evidence of PW.7. Therefore, it is contended that the alleged injuries as stated in Ex.P-3 are self-inflicted one and they were so self-inflicted in order to foist a case against the accused. 6. So far as the nature of injuries alleged to have been caused by the accused are concerned, the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 8 is that the accused have assaulted P.W.8 indiscriminately with male bamboo sticks. As per the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.8 suffered bleeding injuries. He also deposed that each of the accused must have given 5 or 6 blows. Even the injured PW.8 has testified that he suffered injuries all over his body. However, as per the evidence of PW.7-medical witness, the injured P.W.8 had suffered only four injuries as stated under Ex.P3-wound certificate and they were simple in nature. It is contended that if the evidence of the above witnesses is accepted to be true, there should be injuries all over the body of P.W.8 including a bleeding injury about which PW.1 has spoken to, however, the same are not present on his person. Therefore, it is contended that the prosecution case is nothing but a false case foisted against the accused which can be said to be planned and created as a counter blast to Crime No.41 of 2002 that was registered against the injured P.W.8 for the offence under Section 354 IPC in trying to outrage the modesty of the village Sarpanch. It is also pertinent to note that the case under Section 354 IPC is in Crime No.41 of 2002, whereas the case on hand was registered in Crime No.42 of 2002 i.e. subsequent to the case in Crime No.41 of 2002, and therefore, it is nothing but a counter case. It is also the case of the accused that it is only after PW.3 approaching and informing PW.1 about A1 to A5 beating P.W.8, he (PW.1) along with P.Ws.2 and 4 went to the house of A1. PW.1 has also testified in his evidence that except adding that after reaching the house of A1, he also noticed A1 to A5 beating his brother P.W.8 with sticks. Therefore, it is contended that the evidence of PW.1 cannot be believed so also the contents of Ex.P6-complaint since PW.3, who is alleged to have informed PW.1 about A1 to A5 beating P.W.8, has turned hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution. Moreover, there are two facets of beating; firstly, all the accused had taken P.W.8 to the Kallam of Venkatreddy, where he was subjected to beating, secondly, he was brought to the house of A1 and after removing his clothes, he was tied to an electrical pole and was assaulted by A1 to A5 with male bamboo sticks. Lastly, it is contended that the motive stated in Ex.P6-compliant for the alleged incident is that PW.8 tried to outrage the modestly of the village Sarpanch whereas, in the evidence part, the prosecution witnesses have attributed that since PW.8 demanded the village Sarpanch to provide power to the street lights, and since the village Sarpanch was the follower of A1, all the accused bore grudge against PW.8 and accordingly executed their plan by assaulting him. Therefore, it is contended that the shifting of motive is also indicative of the fact that the prosecution case is false and that the trial Court lost sight of the above facts and circumstances and blindly believing the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and 8, came to a perverse conclusion and convicted the accused, as such, the same is not tenable in law and it may be set aside by allowing the appeal. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction as passed by the trial court stating that the said impugned judgment was passed by the trial court considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material and the same does not warrant interference of this court since the said impugned judgment is neither perverse nor erroneous. 8. In view of the above, it has to be seen whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal. 9. The case of the prosecution is that A1 to A5 formed into an unlawful assembly and A1 sent for PW.8, who is younger brother of PW.1, through PW.2, who is son of PW.1, from his house and accordingly on that information by PW.2, PW.8 went to the house of A1, whereupon A1 to A5 caught hold of him and beat him with bomboo sticks in the hayrick yard of Venkata Reddy son of Peddareddy Venkatarami Reddy and again after removing his entire clothes, tied him to an electrical pole near the house of A1 and beat him with sticks indiscriminately. Then, on the above information of the incident by PW.3, PW.1 along with PW.2 and others went to the scene of offence and got him (PW.8) released. It is further the case of the prosecution that while getting release of PW.8, PW.8 touched the feet of A-1 and requested him to let him off, on that, A-1 abused him stating that “Nee Amma Madiga Pukune Denga” and A1 to A5 threatened him to neck them out of the village if he gives report about the incident to the Police, and on the assurance given by PW.8 including PWs 1 and 2 etc. they released PW.8. Thereafter, PW.8 was admitted in a hospital at Kurnool. 10. The evidence of PWs.1, 2 & 4 coupled with the evidence of PW.8- injured, and Ex.P-6 complaint shows that the incident has taken place on 13.04.2002, which was said to be the day of Ugadi festival, in the evening hours; on that day, A-1 to A-5 formed into an unlawful assembly, A-1 sent for PW.8, who is younger brother of PW.1, through PW.2, who is son of PW.1, from his house and on that information by PW.2, PW.8 went to the house of A-1, whereupon A-1 to A-5 attacked him and beat him with bomboo sticks in hayrick yard of Venkata Reddy and thereafter removed his entire clothes, tied him to an electrical pole near the house of A-1 and beat him indiscriminately with sticks and on that information from PW.3, PW.1 along with PW.2 and others went to the scene of offence and got PW.8 released. At that time, A-1 abused PW.8 stating that “nee amma madiga pukune denga” and A1 to A5 threatened him to neck him out of the village if he gives report about the incident to the police, and on the assurance given by PW.8 including PWs.1 and 2 etc., they released PW.8. 11. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants-accused is that the case is foisted against A1 to A5 as a counter blast to the case in Crime No.41 of 2002 which was registered against PW.8 for the offence under Section 354 IPC as he tried to outrage the modesty of the village Sarpanch. The further contention of the learned counsel is that according to PWs.1, 2, 4 and 8, the incident has taken place on 13.4.2002 and the complaint was given on the following day of the incident, whereas the evidence of PWs.9 and 10, who are the investigating officers and witnesses of the prosecution itself, shows that the complaint was given on 30.04.2002 about the incident in question that was alleged to have been taken place on 13.04.2002 and thus there is an inordinate delay of about 17 days in lodging Ex.P.6-complaint which is unexplained and creates a doubt about the trustworthiness of the prosecution case, and therefore, the impugned judgment is perverse and it requires interference of this Court for correcting the irregularities and infirmities committed by the trial Court. 12. Coming to the question of this case being a counter blast to the case in Crime No.41 of 2002 against PW.8, there is no material on record to show the same and even a copy of the FIR in Crime No.41 of 2002 is also not produced for consideration to know the contents of that case. The next contention is that the village Sarpanch, who also belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, is a follower of the accused and she gave a complaint against PW.8 for the offence under Section 354 IPC, as such, they are implicated in this case. Though the complainant in Crime No.41 of 2002 is a follower of the accused, PW.8 would get nothing by implicating the accused in a case of this nature since, if at all, PW.8 wants to foist a counter case, he would do the same against the kith and kin of the village Sarpanch, but not against these accused. Further, the said village Sarpanch and PW.8 belong to same community, whereas the accused belong to a different community. In the above circumstances, it cannot be said that it is a counter blast to the case against PW.8 in Crime No.41 of 2002, as such, the said contention cannot be accepted. 13. Coming to the question of delay, the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 4, who are the eye witnesses to the incident, corroborates with each other and their evidence coupled with the evidence of PW.8- injured, and Ex.P-6 complaint lodged by PW.1, proves the case of the prosecution in clear terms that A-1 sent for PW.8 through PW.2 and when PW.8 went to A1, all the accused attacked him, removed his entire clothes, beat him with bomboo sticks by tying to an electrical pole and on interference and request of PWs.1, 2, 4 and LWs.4 and 5 (Devamma and Venakatamma respectively), they let him off by abusing them in the name of their caste and threatening them not to give police report and on the assurance given by PWs 1,2,4,8 and LWs 4 and 5 that they would not report the matter to the police, they released PW.8. Further, the evidence of the above witnesses shows that due to fear they did not prefer complaint on the same day, and on the next day, PW.1 went to the police station and preferred a statement/complaint to the police. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 4, who are direct witnesses to the incident, corroborates with each other in all respects and with the evidence of PW.8 as well as the contents of the complaint under Ex.P.6. Even if there is any discrepancy with regard to the date of giving complaint in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, there is corroboration with regard to date of incident and the way in which the offence has taken place, as such, no significance can be attached to the date of giving complaint. Thus, as rightly observed by the trial court, it cannot be said that some other F.I.R. was suppressed by the Police. 14. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the evidence of PW.7-medical witness indicates that he examined PW.8 on 3.5.2002 at 4.00 p.m. and found four fresh injuries on his person and opined that they are simple in nature ageing 0-2 hours prior to his examination and he issued Ex.P.3- wound certificate, as such, the incident taking place on 13.04.2002 is false and unbelievable. However, in Ex.P.3-wound certificate issued by PW.7, the age of the injuries is not mentioned and they were not shown as fresh injuries also, as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the injuries on the person of PW.8 were fresh on 3.5.2002 and it creates doubtfulness about the prosecution case, cannot be accepted. 15. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused that since PW.8 is the injured himself, PWs 1 and 4 are brothers of PW.8 and PW.2 is son of PW.1, they are interested witnesses as such their evidence cannot be considered, also cannot be accepted as it is settled law that if the evidence of the interested witnesses is cogent and convincing, the same can be accepted. 16. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the prosecution failed to establish the motive of the accused for the incident, also cannot be accepted since PW.8, PW.1, PW.2, PW.4 and PW.6 have stated in one voice that as PW.8 has demanded the village Sarpanch to provide power supply to the street lights in the village on the eve of Ugadi festival and village Sarpanch was said to be the follower of the accused and out of them A-1 was said to be Upa- Sarpanch of village, they developed ill-feeling against PW.8 and in order to take revenge, they assaulted PW.8. 17. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused that the case is not investigated by the authorized/competent officers as such the case of the prosecution suffers from infirmities also cannot be accepted, since