HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.188 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
State filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment, dated 06.05.2010, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of SC/STs (POA) Act cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No.33 of 2008, acquitting the sole accused, respondent herein, for the offence punishable under Section 332 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act').
2. Briefly stated, the case presented by the prosecution before the trial Court, is as under:
P.W.1, the then Tahsildar of Kethapally Mandal, who belongs to S.C. (Madiga) caste, lodged Ex.P.1-complaint with the Police, alleging that on 24.01.2008, while he was in his chamber, the accused came to his chamber, enquired about the application submitted by him, for which, P.W.1 informed that the mutation register was not traceable in the office and hence, a memo to that effect was being prepared and asked him to wait about 10 minutes. On that, the accused abused him in the name of his caste, slapped him on both cheeks and caught hold of his collar.
2 MGP,J
Crl.A.No.188 of 2012
P.W.3 intervened, prevented the accused from the assault and the attender, P.W.4 and himself took the accused out of his chambers and it was witnessed by P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.8 and P.W.10. Basing on the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemulapally Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 12 of 2008 for the offence under Section 332 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, issued Ex.P.9 FIR and referred P.W.1 to the Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda. After obtaining necessary proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda under the cover of Ex.P.10, P.W. 12, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Miryalaguda, took up investigation. During the course of investigation, P.W. 12 recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the accused and after receipt of necessary reports, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the said offences. Necessary charges under Section 332 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Act were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution conducted trial by examining as many as 13 witnesses and marking Exs.P.1 to P.12 apart from M.O. 1. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
3 MGP,J
Crl.A.No.188 of 2012
4. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, was of the view that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Section 332 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Act and accordingly, acquitted him of the offence, through the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the State filed this appeal.
5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that there is ample evidence to prove the offences with which the accused is charged, but the trial Court has acquitted the accused without considering the available evidences in proper perspective. It is contended that the trial Court has not given any valid and convincing reasons in rejecting the evidence of P.Ws. 1,2, 4 to 7 and 9 who are direct witnesses to the incident. Their evidence leads to only one conclusion and inference that the accused has committed the offences with which he is charged.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, accused referred to the limitations on the powers of this Court while entertaining an appeal against acquittal by submitting that the Court is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. The trial Court has minutely 4 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012 considered the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses and also took into consideration the defence raised by the accused and then acquitted the respondent, accused which does not suffer from any infirmity as such the appeal is meritless and is liable to be dismissed.
7. The point for consideration in this case is, whether the acquittal order passed by the trial Court is sustainable or not?
8. It is well settled by several decisions of this Court and the Apex Court that, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an appeal against the order of acquittal is very limited. Once the trial Court acquitted the accused, the presumption of innocence is strengthened. The Apex Court in Sampath Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra(2019) 4 SCC 739 and in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka(2007) 4 SCC 415 considered this point.
9. Bearing the above principle in mind, this matter has to be considered. The trial Court after appreciating the entire oral and documentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that the accused is not guilty of the offences. After summing up the evidence, the trial Court, at para Nos. 42 & 43, observed as under:-
"42. Upon perusing the facts and circumstances, the material available on record and for the reasons mentioned 5 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012 above, it shows two versions, if the prosecution version is taken into consideration that there is a strong suspicion against the accused that he vexed with the process adopted by the PW-1 office, he might have committed the offence. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not sufficient and they all created reasonable doubts as mentioned above with regard to the true state of affairs, suspicion however grave has no place in the eye of law unless the prosecution could establish the guilt of the accused conclusively with cogent evidence. But there is no such evidence before this Court. The second version shows that since long time the accused adopted due process and approaching various authorities and moving around with regard to the Title and Pattadar Pass Book in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy. No. 655 of Thopucherla Village, even after orders issued by the RDO in Proceeding No. E1/4767/2007. In such a situation it creates doubt about the allegation levelled against the accused as he adopted the due process from beginning to ending but there was no compliance with regard to the Title Deed and Pattadar Pass Book. He approached the Revenue authorities, when there was no response, he approached RDO and obtained orders and even after that VRO prepared Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed yet they were not handed over to him, as such he adopted other process to obtain certify copy of amendment might be with an 6 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012 intention to take further action against the concerned as they have not supplied to him. Ultimately all these things worked against the accused and reason to grow enmity. Hence, benefit of doubt always will go in favour of the accused.
43. Upon perusing the facts and circumstances, material available on record, I find that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges U/sec. 332 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989. ..."
10. The victim deposed before the Court as P.W.1 and asserted the contents of Ex.P.1 compliant. According to him, on the date of incident, while he was in his chamber, the accused came to his chamber, asked about the application given by him and when P.W.1 stated that the mutation register is not traceable and a memo to that effect is being prepared, the accused abused him in the name of his caste and slapped him on both cheeks and caught hold of his collar. P.W.3, the M.P.P. who was present in his chambers intervened, prevented the accused from the assault and P.W.3 and P.W.4, the attender, took the accused out of his chambers. However, in his cross- examination, he admitted that RDO gave an order dated 01.03.2007 for restoration of title in respect of the land of the accused and also admitted that the accused approached him for restoration of title of the said land for which, he informed him to 7 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012 meet VRO. P.W.2 is Deputy Tahsildar, colleague of P.W.1, who deposed that the accused was roaming around the office in connection with the restoration of title of his land and stated that on hearing the galata from the chamber of P.W.1, she rushed there and found the accused caught hold of collar of P.W.1 and abusing P.W.1 in the name of his caste. P.W.3, an Advocate, who was present in the office of P.W.1 and who allegedly prevented the accused from the assault, has not supported the version of the prosecution and therefore, he was declared hostile. P.W.4, attender in the office of P.W.1, was in fact, not an eyewitness to the incident and he deposed that on hearing the galata, he entered into the chamber and saw the accused standing in a corner and P.W.3 questioning the accused why he is abusing P.W.1 in the name of his caste and beating him. P.W.5, who is VRO of Itikayala Village and P.W.6, who is VRO of Agamothkur Village, supported the evidence of P.W.1. However, P.W.7 is panch witness to Ex.P.3. P.W.8, independent eyewitness, was declared hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.9 is the doctor who examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.6, wound certificate, observing that small contusion on the left temporal region which was caused by blunt weapon and the injury is simple in nature. P.W.10, the then Additional R.I. in Tahsildar Office, Vemulapally 8 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012 Village is only hearsay witness. P.W.11, Tahsildar, deposed as to the application filed by the accused for which P.W.1 gave a reply stating that the record is not available. P.W.12 is the investigating officer and P.W.13 is the Tahsildar, who issued Ex.P.11, caste certificate, certifying that P.W.1 is member of Scheduled Caste.
11. The version of the accused was that RDO gave proceedings sanctioning pattadar pass book and title deed in his favour in respect of Ac.2.12 guntas situated at Thopucherla Village in Sy. No. 655 but as P.W.1 did not grant title deed in his favour even after completing all the formalities, he had lodged a complaint against P.W. 1 in the office of District Collector for non-issuance of patadar pass book and title deed in his favour in spite of VRO prepared necessary documents and handed over to P.W.1. The said factum of orders passed by RDO in favour of accused was also admitted by P.W.1 in his cross-examination. Furthermore, out of the above evidence adduced by the prosecution, except P.W.1 and his colleagues, the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even the prosecution witnesses evidence discloses that the accused was made to roam around the office of P.W.1 on the pretext that the necessary record for restoration of title and pattadar pass books in respect of his land was not available 9 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012 in the office. Even the evidence of prosecution witnesses discloses that the place of occurrence took place in the chamber of complainant, P.W.1, which cannot strictly be strictly interpreted as the abuse is in the 'public view'. When doubt arises in the mind of the court and when clouds of doubt arise, in criminal justice delivery system, that benefit of doubt shall accrue on the accused alone. Accordingly, benefit of doubt has been accrued in this case on the part of the accused and Trial Court has rendered an acquittal judgment by assigning sound reasons relating to failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused to secure conviction. At a cursory glance of the grounds urged in this appeal preferred by the State and even re-appreciating the evidence on the part of the prosecution, that too vital evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 inclusive of the evidence of PW-4 to 7, no worthwhile evidence has been elicited by the prosecution. Consequently, as regards the cardinal principles of the criminal justice delivery system and so also to prove the facts, it is the domain vested with the Trial Court and the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion and held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt mainly on the ground that the possibility of the accused having 10 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012 committed the offences as narrated in the theory put forth by the prosecution founds doubtful. Therefore, in this appeal, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt against the accused and more so, the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion by rendering an acquittal judgment. Consequently, the appeal does not have any bone of contention to re-visit the impugned judgment of acquittal and also to re-appreciate the evidence as sought for. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal deserves to be rejected as being devoid of merits.
12. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of SC/STs (POA) Act cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No.33 of 2008, dated 06.05.2010 in acquitting the accused of the charges under Section 332 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________________ M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J 23rd November, 2022