THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 896 of 2004 Date: 24th June, 2011 Between: Jada Parvatheesam and 3 others … Accused 1 to 4 / Appellants And: Durga Vara Prasad and another … Complainant / Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 896 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed in S.C.No.61/S/2003 on the file of Special Sessions Judge, Guntur for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.Cs & S.Ts (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the Act), on 31.03.2004. The appellants herein are A1 to A4. A1, A3 and A4 were convicted for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. A1 and A2 were convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. A1, A3 and A4 were convicted under Section 324 read with 34 IPC sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default for simple imprisonment for one month. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed. The incidents pertaining to this case alleged to have occurred on 26.02.2003 at 7.30 P.M. at Donka Road center, at Ramalayam and near railway track of Guntur town. Originally the complaint was filed by PW1, who is the victim, on 13.03.2003 alleging that on 26.02.2003 at 7.30 P.M. while himself and his friend Nakka Sreenu-PW5 went to Donka Road center for receiving the payment of wages of his friend. There, Jada Parvateesam-A1 and his sons A2 to A4 met them and asked them come for drinking alcohol and while saying so, they forcibly got him into auto and that his friend Nakka Sreenu tried to avert it. The accused abused him by their caste stating that they made them to vacate the house and A2 to A4 have slapped on the face of Sreenu and fisted on his face and when Nakka Sreenu interfered, he also got injured and ran away due to fear. Thereafter, A1 forcibly pulled him into the auto. A2 to A4 also got into the auto and drove him into the lane situated near Ramalayam and made him to get down from the auto and beat him indiscriminately with sticks and rods with an intention to kill him, and again got him into the auto and took him to the railway track and laid him on the rails, when he cried loudly they again beat him with sticks and rods indiscriminately. Then Manikya Rao who was coming on that way identified him and tried to avert them and some other persons also came there and on seeing them, the accused left that place. He became unconscious and on information furnished by Manikya Rao, his family members came there and shifted him to Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment. It is also alleged that next day morning i.e. on 27.02.2003, his mother, sister and brother in law and his elder brother went to the shop of A2 to enquire why they have attacked on him. They abused his mother and sister by their caste name and also alleged that they made them to vacate the house, and an altercation took place and Veluri Nageswara Rao came there and got them separated and pacified the matter. ASI, Arundelpet Law & Order Police Station has registered the case in Crime No.47 of 2003 under Section 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The police after conducting investigation issued a notice to PW1 stating that the complaint made by him is false. Thereafter, the complainant has filed a private complaint under Sections 190 and 200 of Cr.P.C. before the Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Guntur, with the same allegations as mentioned in the earlier complaint and the said Magistrate after due enquiry registered it as P.R.C.No.10 of 2003 and committed the same to Court of Sessions. The learned Sessions Judge has framed charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and under Section 324 read with 34 IPC against A1, A3 and A4 and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against A1 and A2. All the accused pleaded not guilty for the said charges. The prosecution, in order to establish the said charges, examined PW.1 to PW.8 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and marked Exs.X1 to X5 and no defence witness was examined on behalf of the accused, but Ex.D1 to Ex.D5 were marked. The learned Sessions Judge, by taking into consideration the said documents, found A1 to A4 guilty of the offences and convicted A1, A3 and A4 for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and under Section 324 read with 34 IPC; and A1, A2 for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Now the point that arise for consideration is whether the prosecution could establish the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Sri. Balreddy, learned senior counsel, has argued that the evidence of PW.1 is contrary to the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 and it is also contrary to the complaint given by him to the police under Ex.P2 and the private complaint under Ex.P4. It is also pleaded that the prosecution did not establish that the injuries alleged to have sustained by him through medical evidence, and he also pleaded that for the alleged incident that occurred on 27.02.2003 PW.1 was not present, PW.3 and those who were present have not given any complaint with police. The learned senior counsel also pleaded that there is delay in lodging the complaint and said complaint was filed only as a counter blast to the C.C.No.167 of 2003 pending on the file of Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur against PW.1 and others on the complaint lodged by A2. The respondent No.1 on the other hand pleaded that the evidence of PW.1, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 establishes that the alleged incident has occurred on 26.02.2003 at 7.30 P.M. and the accused abusing PW.1 in his caste name and receiving of injuries is supported by medical evidence. With regard to the incident that occurred on 27.02.2003, the same was established from the evidence of PW.3 and PW.5 and they could not lodge the complaint immediately as PW.1 was admitted in the hospital and took treatment up to 08.03.2003; and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted all the accused for the above said offences. As per Ex.P1 and Ex.P4, the incident has taken place at three places; initially at Donka Road and thereafter in a street near Ramalayam and subsequently near Railway track. PW.1 states that on 26.02.2003, himself and his friend PW.5 were going to Vasantha Rayapuram for collecting daily wages and when they reached near Donka Road, all the accused came there and A1 forced them to consume alcohol, and A3 beat PW.5 with his hands on his cheek, and PW.5 ran away from that place. A1 to A4 forced him to get into auto and took him to Ramalayam temple street and made him to get down there and beat with hands on his head, right hand and left leg; and thereafter they took him to railway track and beat him with rods and sticks on his head, right hand and legs and while he was crying loudly, PW.4 and others who were passing on the road came near him and on seeing them, the accused left that place. But PW.5 who accompanied PW.1 has stated that when they were proceeding towards Ramalayam temple after crossing Arundalpet second lane, A1, A3, A4 and A2 came and stopped PW.1 and the eldest son of A1 and A2 abused PW.1 touch his caste and while so abusing tried to push him into the auto and when he intervened A3, slapped on his check. Then, out of fear, he ran away. Therefore, according to PW.5 the accused abused PW.1 by their caste name at Donka Road and thereafter pushed him into an auto and took him away but the same was not spoken by PW.1 and according to him he was asked to consume alcohol and, on his refusal, they forced him to get into auto and took him to Ramalayam temple. According to R1’s counsel, PW.4 arrived at the incident, on hearing cries of PW.1, and on seeing him the accused left that place. But whereas PW.4 has stated that he heard the cries of PW.1 with abuses by the accused by his caste name; and he also found that the accused beat him with sticks and rods and out of fear he raised hue and cry. The passengers returning from the railway station and rickshaw pullers also gathered. On seeing the gathering, the accused ran away. Therefore, PW.4 even though not an eye-witness, has stated that he is an eye witness to the incident and narrated the facts about the accused beating PW.1 at railway track. According to PW.1 he was beaten by the accused with sticks and also rods on his head, right hand and legs. Whereas the Doctor-PW.8 who is Casualty Medical Officer, Government General Hospital, Guntur has stated that on 26.02.2003 at 9.20 P.M., he examined PW.1 and found an abrasion of 2 cm x 1 cm with contusion of 2 x 1 cm on left side of forehead; and X-ray skull-A.P.Lateral view and he admitted the patient in Neuro Surgery ward and discharged on 08.03.2003, and the injuries were simple in nature; and he marked Ex.X4-wound certificate and therefore according to him he sustained an abrasion of 2 x ½ cm and contusion of 2 x 1 cm on left side forehead. Dr. K.S.Varaprasad-PW2, professor of neurology, stated that PW.1 was admitted for head injury in the neuro surgery ward. At the time of admission he was irritable. He found one external injury on the left side of forehead and 1 x 2 cm abrasion with contusion. Therefore, he prescribed X-ray to the skull and CT scan and the CT scan of the brain shows normal and X-ray shows no bone injury and in the cross examination he admitted that the drowsiness and irritableness is possible in a drunken person but there is no such mention as per Ex.X1-OP Chit. Dr.V Ram Tarak Nath-PW.7, Professor of Neurology stated that PW.1 was admitted for difficulty in walking, speaking and shaking of his right hand and he was admitted under impression for extra pyramidal syndrome, probably ‘Parkinsons Disease’ and the investigation revealed that he is having parkinsons disease and he took treatment for 20 days in the said hospital; but whereas according to PW.1 he was beaten with rods and sticks on his forehead and legs and right hand, but no injuries were found in the legs or right hand and moreover the injuries sustained by him is only simple in nature. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 with regard to sustaining injuries is not supported by the medical evidence. With regard to abusing of his caste, PW.1 has stated that the accused abused him by touching his caste at railway track, while beating him. PW.4 is not an eye witness to the said incident and he came to the spot only on hearing the cries of PW.1. Therefore, there is no evidence apart from the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the above accused abusing him by his caste. Regarding accused abusing PW.3, who is the mother of PW.1, she has stated that herself and her daughter went to the accused house about questioning the high-handed behavior of the accused and the accused abused them by caste and PW.6 was also present at that time along with PW.3. But, they did not lodge any complaint with the police immediately and no reasons were stated why they waited without lodging any complaint. PW.6 has admitted that her husband has figured as A3 in C.C.No.167 of 2003 on the file of V-Additional Munsif Magistrate Court, Guntur. PW.1 has admitted about registering of the case by the police on the complaint given by A2 and the same was numbered as C.C.No.167 of 2003 on the file of V-Additional Munisf Magistrate Court, Guntur. As per the charge sheet filed in C.C.No.167 of 2003, the crime was registered against them on the complaint of A2 in Crime No.36 of 2003 on 27.02.2003 at 6.15 P.M. Therefore, the said complaint was registered prior to lodging of complaint by PW.1. Therefore, from the above it is evident that the present complaint by PW.1 was filed as a counter blast to the above said Crime registered against them at the instance of A2 in the Arundalpet L & O Police Station. Moreover, the complainant could not explain the delay in lodging the complaint even though the incident occurred on 26.02.2003. Even admitting the explanation given by PW.1 that he was admitted in the hospital for treatment and discharged on 8.3.2003, still there is a delay from 8.3.2003 to 13.3.2003, but the same was not explained by the complainant. In view of the prior registering of the complaint against PW.1 and others at the instance of A2 in C.C.No.167 of 2003, it has to be presumed that the present complaint is filed only as a counterblast to the said case. Thus, the prosecution could not establish the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and sentences and convictions are liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the convictions and sentences passed in S.C.No.61/S/2003 on the file of Special Sessions Judge, Guntur for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act on 31.03.2004, is hereby set aside and all the appellants are hereby acquitted of the charges under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act and Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD 24th June, 2011 KSM