THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.63 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellant/accused was convicted by the Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act), Mahabubnagar, in S.C.No.14 of 2005 by judgment dated 9-1-2006 for offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.500/-, for offence under Section 354 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.500/- and for offence under Section 323 IPC and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs.500/-. The victims PWs.1 and 2 are wife and husband. According to their evidence, as well as, as per Ex.P8 certificate issued by Mandal Revenue Officer, Gopalpet Mandal dated 30-11-2003, they belong to Yerukali caste, which is a scheduled tribe. It is alleged that on 3-9-2003 at bout 3-30 P.M when PW1 was washing clothes in a tank in Chakalpally village, the accused caught hold of her and invited her for sexual intercourse and offered to pay Rs.10,000/- to her and that when Pw1 raised cries, PW2, who was getting his pigs grazed near the tank, came there and that PW2 was informed about the incident by PW1 and that when Pw2 questioned the accused about his behaviour, the accused beat PW2 with a stone on left leg. Plea of the accused is one of total denial. According to suggestion given by the defense counsel to the prosecution witnesses, false case was foisted against the accused when PW2’s pigs spoiled crop of the accused in his land and when he questioned PW2 about the same and demanded compensation therefor. The prosecution witnesses denied the said suggestion of the defense counsel in their cross examination. The only eye witness, who is an independent witness and who belongs to vaddera caste, turned hostile to the prosecution as PW4. PW3 is mother of PW2. PW5 is brother of PW2. They were not at the scene when the alleged incident took place at tank. They were in their houses. Subsequent to going to the house, PW1 is stated to have informed the incident to them. So evidence of PWs 3 and 5 may not be of utmost importance. The entire case rests on appreciation of evidence of PWs 1 and 2. In so far as PW2 receiving injury to the leg from the accused is concerned, there is lot of discrepancy. According to PW1, the accused beat her husband with a stone on his left leg. In Ex.P1 report given by PW1 to the police, she did not mention about the accused using a stone to beat PW2. According to the version of PW1 in Ex.P1, the accused slapped her and her husband and also kicked with legs. PW1 did not state in Ex.P1 about the accused beating Pw2 with a stone on his leg much less left leg. But, PW2 says that the accused beat him on right leg with a stone. Evidence of PW2 is not corroborated by medical evidence of PW8, Government Hospital, who issued Ex.P8 would certificate after examination of PW2. As per Ex.P8 and as per evidence of PW8, PW2 was having scratch and bite marks on left side of throat, abrasion on lower part of sternum (xiphi sternum), and contusion/swelling of whole of left thigh. There was no injury to right leg of PW2. Therefore, conviction of the accused by the lower Court for offence under Section 323 IPC is baseless. With regard to the alleged outraging of modesty of PW1, there is evidence of PW1 alone. There is no other witness to speak to the same. PW2 came to know about the same when PW1 informed to him about it. Version given by PW1 in her evidence before the lower Court is entirely different from the version, she narrated in Ex.P1. It is the evidence of PW1 that the accused came behind her and caught hold and invited her for sexual intercourse offering to pay Rs.10,000/- to her. Whereas in Ex.P1, PW1 gave an atrocious version against the accused. As per allegations in Ex.P1, when she was washing clothes in the tank, the accused came from back side, lifted her by placing hands under her arms and that when she saw, the accused took out his penis from his lungi and came towards her saying that he would have sexual intercourse with her. Pw1 did not speak to this version in his evidence before the lower Court, in spite of the lower Court conducting the trial in camera. Pw1 changes her version from stage to stage. According to PW2, he went to the tank on hearing his wife’s weeping and his wife informed that the accused came behind her and caught hold of her and invited her for sexual intercourse offering Rs.10,000/- to her. According to PW2, he found the accused near the tank. If really, the incident as alleged happened, the accused would not have remained at the tank when PW1 came out of the tank while weeping and reached her husband. The accused would have run away from the scene seeing husband of PW1 and on seeing PW1 narrating the incident to her husband. Presence of the accused at that time at that place even after the alleged offence is highly improbable. On a reading of evidence of PWs1 and 2 , their evidence does not inspire confidence in mind of this Court. They were giving highly inconsistent versions for reasons best known to them. In my opinion, the lower Court did not assess evidence of PWs 1 and 2 properly and came to erroneous conclusion in favour of the prosecution. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and sentences passed by the lower Court against the accused/appellant and acquitting him. _________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Rkk Dated:24-01-2011