IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1294 OF 2006 Between: 1. Shaik Azeem (A-1) s/o Azeez, aged 22 years, Occ. Naina Opticals Manchriyal, Adilabad District. 2. Shaik Wasim (A2) s/o Azeez, aged 29 years, Occupation: Business, Manchriyal, Adilabad district. … Appellants-A1 & A2 V/s. The State of Andhra Pradesh Represented by its Public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad. … Respondent-Complainant Counsel for the Appellants : Sri C. Praveen Kumar Counsel for the Respondent : Addl. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1294 OF 2006 JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 15-9-2006 passed by the Special Judge under SCs/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge, Adilabad, in Special SC.No. 6 of 2005, convicting the appellants for the offences under section 3 (1) (x) of SCs/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 294 (b) IPC and sentencing them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under section 3 (1) (x) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989. They are further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each for the offence under section 294 (b) IPC. 2. Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State. 3. On 28-11-2003 at about 05:00 p.m., PW-1 Madhavi Prameela lodged a report with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manchriyal stating that on 27-1-2003 at about 11:00 a.m., she and her husband went to the Optical Centre belonging to the appellants and questioned them as to why they have dug foundation in their land. Thereafter, it is said that the appellants warned PW-1 that they would get her removed from the job and threatened her and abused her as “Gondadana” (woman of Gonda community). A-1 further threatened her that he would see as to how she would discharge her duties and also threatened her to book a case against her and sent her to jail. It is mentioned in the report that A-2 also abused in her case name and challenged her to do what she wanted to do. 4. Basing on the said report, PW-3 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Manchriyal Police Station registered a case in Crime No.318 of 2003, under section 294 IPC and section 3 (1) (x) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 and issued FIR. LW-5 Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy investigated into the offence and subsequently he expired. PW-4 his successor filed the charge sheet. 5. Before the learned Special Judge, the prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the appellants examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked Exs.P-1 and P-2. The appellants examined their mother as DW-1 and marked as Ex.D-1 sale deed under which DW-1 purchased 726 sq.yards of land from PW-2 and also filed Ex.D2 encumbrance certificate. 6. The entire case rested on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who are wife and husband. They further stated before the trial court that the appellants abused PW-1 in her caste name. The abusive words used by the appellants are neither mentioned in Ex.P-1 report nor stated in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. It is only stated in Ex.P-1 and also in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 that the appellants referred PW- 1 as “Gondadana” there is a mention about abusing in caste name but the actual abusive words are not stated in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2. Though the incident took place in a public place and even according to the prosecution several people were present at that time, no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. 7. The cause of the incident as could be seen from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is that there is a dispute with regard to a piece of land. The version of PWs 1 and 2 seems to be that after selling away the land to the mother of the appellants by PW-2 there remains some land and the appellants encroached upon the said land and were starting digging a foundation. But it is evident from Ex.D-1 sale deed that the land of PWs 1 and 2 is not shown as any of the boundaries to the land sold by PW-2 under Ex.D-1 sale deed. Therefore, absolutely there is no basis for the contention of PWs 1 and 2 that they got Ac:0-10 guntas of land, out of which they sold AC:0-06 guntas of land to the mother of A-1 and A-2 i.e., DW-1 and an extent of AC:0-04 guntas of land remained which was subsequently encroached upon by the appellants. 8. Further the incident according to PW-1 took place at 11:00 a.m. on 27-11-2003 but she lodged the report with the police at 05:00 p.m., on 28-11-2003. Thus, there is a delay of 36 hours in lodging the report with the police. In view of the civil dispute raised by PWs 1 and 2 there is every possibility for them to introduce a concocted and distorted version on account of delay in lodging the FIR. The delay becomes fatal because the evidence is that of PWs 1 and 2 who are interested witnesses and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution. In view of the civil dispute raised by PWs 1 and 2 there is also every scope for them to implicate the appellants in a false charge involving the offence punishable under SCs/STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The learned trial court, in my view, without properly appreciating the evidence, recorded conviction against the appellants mechanically basing on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, who are interested witnesses. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 in the circumstances above stated does not inspire any confidence and it is unsafe to convict them basing on such evidence. The learned trial court, in my view, ought to have acquitted the appellants for the offences alleged. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court against the appellants under section 3 (1) (x) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 and 294 (b) IPC are set aside and the criminal appeal is allowed. The fine amount paid by the appellants in the trial court shall be refunded to them. ________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO. 15-09-2011 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R .KANTHA RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1294 OF 2006 Circulation No. 33 Date:15-09-2011 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43