CRLA/1947/2005 of Gangapatnam Venkata Subba Reddy, Vs The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, on 28 December 2012

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.11.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge for trial ofoffences under SCs and STs (POA) Act, Nellore, in S.C.No.92 of2003.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that P.W.1-defacto complainant belongs to scheduled caste community and wasa Sarpanch of Varagali Grama Panchayat at the time of incident,whereas the accused belongs to higher caste community. On15.11.2002, a general body meeting was conducted by the wardmembers and passed a resolution to clear the gober heaps andrubbish in the streets. Accordingly, on 16.11.2002, announced bybeat of tom-tom in the village asking the villagers to clear thegober heaps in the streets before 23.11.2002. During canvas,P.W.1 and others found a gober heap in front of the house ofaccused and when they asked him to remove the same, herefused to do so and abused them in obscene language. On30.11.2002, P.W.1 and others went to the house of the accusedand tried to serve a notice personally and as he refused to receivethe same, they pasted the same on the door of his house, therebythe accused having bore grudge against P.W.1 and P.W.2-UpaSarpanch armed with a knife and went to the house of P.W.1 onthe same day at about 7.00 PM, abused her as ‘Yanadhi Lanja Munda’ and intimidated her that he would kill her with knife.Thereafter, he also went to the house of P.W.2 and shouted loudlycalling him out of his house as ‘Mala Nakodaka’ and alsointimidated him. On a report given by P.W.1, a case in Cr.No.132of 2002 under Sections 506, 290 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) ofthe Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), was registered againstthe accused. After recording the statements of witnessesconcerned and after completion of investigation, the police filedcharge sheet against the accused.

3. During trial, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P6were marked on behalf of the prosecution. No evidence wasadduced on behalf of the defence, but Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.

4. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, thetrial Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Section506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and therebyconvicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for sixmonths and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-in default to suffer simpleimprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 506IPC; and further convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorousimprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/-in defaultto suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offenceunder Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, thepetitioner/accused filed the present appeal.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

6. P.Ws.1 and 2 are victims, P.Ws.3 and 4 are relations ofP.W.1, P.Ws.5 and 6 are eyewitnesses, P.Ws.7 to 10 areindependent witnesses, P.W.11 is a mediator and P.Ws.12 and 13are Investigating Officers. Admittedly, the occurrence took placeon 30.11.2002 at 7.00 to 8.00 PM initially in front of the house ofP.W.1 and later, in front of the house of P.W.2, whereas thecomplaint was lodged by P.W.1 on 02.12.2002 i.e., two days afterthe incident. With regard to the delay in lodging the complaint,P.Ws.1 and 2 have stated in their evidence that as the accusedthreatened them with dire consequences, they were afraid ofcoming out from the house and they sent the report through thevillage servant after three days of the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2being the panchayat members of the village cannot take such aplea of afraid in lodging the complaint immediately after theincident or else they might have taken steps to inform the incidentthrough any mode either by messenger or phone and therefore,this Court is of the view that no proper explanation for the delay inlodging the complaint has come-forth from their evidence as suchthe unexplained delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution.

7. P.W.1 though stated in her evidence about the abusivelanguage used by the accused in front of her house, she was silentabout the incident occurred in front of the house of P.W.2. So also,P.W.2 also did not state about the incident that took place in frontof the house of P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the husband andfather-in-law of P.W.1, have stated in their evidence that theaccused threatened P.W.1 to do way with her life as she hadaffixed notice on the door of his house. P.Ws.5 and 6-neighbours of P.W.1 have stated that when they came out of the house, theaccused did not abuse P.Ws.1 and 2 in the name of their caste.The independent witnesses-P.Ws.7 to 10 have stated in theirevidence that the accused refused to remove the cattle dung heapand garbage in front of his house and therefore, they affixed anotice on the door. Therefore, except the evidence of P.Ws.1 and2 and their relations, there is no evidence with regard to theabusive language used by the accused in the name of their casteby threatening them with dire consequences in front of theirrespective houses. In the absence of any acceptable evidence,this Court is of the view that the conviction and sentence imposedagainst the accused for the offences under Section 506 IPC andunder Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is not sustainable.

8. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the viewthat the petitioner/accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed against thepetitioner/accused by the trial Court for the offences underSections 506 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are setaside and consequently, the accused is acquitted of the saidcharges. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties aredischarged. The fine amount, if any, paid, shall be refunded to thepetitioner.

9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting asidethe judgment impugned. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,shall stand closed.

_______________

RAJA ELANGO, J

28[th] December, 2012sj