The State Of A.P. vs Govindu Musalaiah

           THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 70 of 2010

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment of the learned Special Sessions Judge, SCs & STs (POA) Act, Mahabubnagar, for enhancement of the sentence awarded in S.C.No.35 of 2001 dated 01.06.2004, whereby, the respondent/A-3 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 355 of I.P.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for ten days. He, along with other accused, were acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Briefly stated, the prosecution case is as follows: K.Mallaiah (P.W.1) belongs to Scheduled Caste community, whereas accused Nos.1 to 3 belong to Kurva Community. On 30.12.1998, P.W.1 visited M.R.O. Office at Kothur on official work and as the M.R.O. was not available, he was waiting outside, at that time, accused Nos.1 to 3 came there and on seeing P.W.1, A-1 took out his chappal with his hand and tried to beat P.W.1 and also abused him in filthy language by naming his caste and warned him not to enter the village and also threatened him with dire consequences. When P.W.1 objected for the same, A-2 also abused him in filthy language on his caste name and tried to assault him. 2 Again on 16.02.1999 at about 11.30 a.m., while P.W.1 was going to M.R.O. Office Kothur, on the road near M.R.O. Office, Kothur, A-3 came there and abused him in filthy language on his caste name and threatened him that he would see that the house plots which were allotted to P.W.1 and his relatives are to be cancelled and also threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences.

On appearance of the accused, charges under Sections 323 and 355 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

The trial Court, on appraisal of entire evidence both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 355 of I.P.C. against the respondent/A-3 and accordingly convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred this appeal for enhancement of sentence.

Heard and perused the record.

The State has not filed any appeal against the acquittal of respondent/A-3 for the offences punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. This appeal relates to the offence committed by the respondent/A3 under Section 355 of I.P.C., whereby the State seeks enhancement of punishment. It is contended that respondent/A-3 was left with punishment of fine only and he was not awarded any imprisonment, which is warranted in the nature of this case where the respondent/A-3 was also charged with an offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. As already stated, the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and no appeal was filed against this acquittal. Therefore, that offence cannot be taken into consideration while considering the offence under Section 355 of I.P.C. whereunder the State seeks enhancement of punishment. Ex.P1 discloses that on 30.12.1998 it is A-1, who took chappal with his hand and lifted it to beat P.W.1, but P.W.1 did not depose against A-1 about the incident on 30.12.1998. P.W.1 in his evidence stated that respondent/A-3 took out a chappal and assaulted him on his left shoulder, but according to Ex.P1 there is no such incident happened and that the evidence of P.W.1 is exaggerated. However, the respondent/A-3 abused 4 P.W.1 on sudden provocation. Therefore, in this view of the matter, the trial Court was right in imposing fine against the accused.

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed.

_____________________ JUSTICE G.SRI DEVI 23.02.2021 Gsn/gkv