CRLA/1443/2006 of Boya Krishan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, on 30 December 2013

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants/accusedagainst the Judgment dated 09.10.2006 passed in SC ST SC No.45 of2006, by the Court of Special Judge for Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kurnool.

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

That on 11.09.2004 at about 6.00 p.m., when P.W.1 along withP.Ws.2 to 4 were moving in Jathara, they found A.2, who became duesome amounts to P.W.1 towards auto fare and on seeing him, P.W.1questioned A.2 about the payment of auto charges for transportingfertilizers to his field. On that, A.1 abused P.W.1 by touching upon hiscaste as ‘Madiga Lanja Kodaka’ and also asked his propriety in askingthe money in a public place. Then immediately A.1 beat P.W.1 withcart peg on his head and caused him bleeding injury and when P.W.2intervened A.2 and A.3 chastised him as ‘Thannule MadigaNakodukulaki’ and A.3 beat P.W.2 with sticks and hands and causedinjuries to his jaw and back. P.Ws.3 and 4 took P.Ws.1 and 2 to theGovernment Hospital, Aluru for treatment. Basing on the complaint ofP.W.1, a case was registered against the accused. After completion ofthe investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused for theoffences under Sections 324, 326 read with Section 34 IPC, andSection 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, during the course oftrial, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were marked.

No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of theaccused.

P.W.1, who is the alleged victim, deposed regarding the saidoccurrence. He deposed that when he along with P.Ws.2 to 4 weremoving in Jathara, they found A.2, who is due some amount, and thatP.W.1 asked him to repay the amount, then A.1 abused him bytouching upon his caste and beat him with cart peg on his headcausing bleeding injury. He also deposed that A.2 also beat him andA.3 beat P.W.2. P.W.2, who is also injured, deposed regarding theoccurrence. P.Ws.3 and 4, who claims to be eye witnesses to the saidoccurrence also supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.5, who isresident of the same village, turned hostile and has not supported thecase of the prosecution. P.W.6, who is the Medical Officer,Government Hospital, Aluru, issued wound certificates to P.Ws.1 and2. P.W.7, who is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Aspari PoliceStation, registered the case basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1.P.W.8, who is the tutor in Radiology of the Kurnool Medical College,examined the x-ray films of P.W.2. P.W.9 is the then Sub DivisionalPolice Officer, who investigated the case and filed charge sheet.

On appreciation of the above evidence, the trial Court found theappellants/accused guilty and accordingly convicted and sentencedthem as follows.

(a) A.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. A.1 is alsosentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay afine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only), in default, to suffer simpleimprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 326 readwith Section 34 IPC. A.1 is further sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of theSCs and STs (PoA) Act.

(b) A.2 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six

months for the offence punishable under Section 324 read withSection 34 IPC. A.2 is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only),in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offenceunder Section 326 IPC. A.2 is further sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of theSCs and STs (PoA) Act.

(c) A.3 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths for the offence punishable under Section 324 read withSection 34 IPC. A.3 is also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only),in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offenceunder Section 326 IPC. A.3 is further sentenced to suffer rigorousimprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of theSCs and STs (PoA) Act.

Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by theappellants/accused.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learnedPublic Prosecutor and perused the entire material available on record.

After perusing the entire record and on hearing the arguments,this Court is of the view that the appellants/accused has not committedany offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act. Toattract an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (PoA) Act,there should be specific evidence that the accused are aware that thevictims belong to either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. In thepresent case, even according to the witnesses, they are living in adifferent village and some of the witnesses are even not known to theappellants/accused herein. Thus, this Court is of the view that it ishighly unbelievable that the appellants/accused abused thevictims/witnesses touching upon their caste, because when theappellants/accused do not know the victims/witnesses, the question of abusing them by touching upon their caste does not arise. Hence, theconviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against theappellants/accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCsand STs (PoA) Act is liable to be set aside and is accordingly setaside.

Insofar as the offences under Sections 324 IPC and 326 IPCare concerned, when this Court expresses its opinion that there are nomerits in the appeal with reference to the said offences, the learnedcounsel for the appellants/accused restricted his arguments to thequantum of sentence, and prayed that as the accused are eking outtheir livelihood by doing agriculture and they are the onlybreadwinners in their respective families, leniency may be shownwhile imposing sentence.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and thesubmissions of the learned counsel for the appellants/accused, thisCourt is inclined to reduce the sentence of imprisonment imposed bythe trial Court against the appellants/accused for the offences underSections 324 IPC and 326 IPC is modified to that of the period, whichthe appellants/accused have already undergone. This Court is also ofthe view that an additional fine of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousandand five hundred only) may be imposed against each of theappellants/accused for each of the offences under Sections 324 IPCand 326 IPC.

Conclusion

In the result, the conviction recorded by the learned trial Judgeagainst the appellants/accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) ofthe SCs and STs (PoA) Act is set aside. However, the convictionrecorded by the learned trial Judge against the appellants/accused forthe offences under Sections 324 IPC and 326 IPC are confirmed.However, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned trialJudge under that above heads is reduced to that of the period, whichthe appellants/accused have already undergone. Further, the appellants/accused are directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupeesfive thousand only) each for the offence under Section 324 IPC and topay an additional fine of Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and fivehundred only) each for the offence under Section 326 IPC, on or before10[th] May, 2014, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for threemonths for each of the offences.

It is made clear that if the additional fine amounts are paid afterthe stipulated period and while undergoing default sentence, theappellants/accused shall be released.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending in thisappeal, shall stand closed.

30.12.2013pln

_____________________

JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO