HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.813 of 2010
ORDER:
1. The appellants/A2 and A3 are convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months vide judgment in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2009, dated 28.06.2010 passed by the Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1 gave one tula of gold to A1 for preparing ornaments for his daughter in the month of January, 2008. However, A1 failed to deliver the said ornament within the stipulated time. On 22.06.2008 in the morning hours, P.W.1 went to the house of A1 and asked about the gold ornament. At that time, A2 was present in the house, who stated that his father and another brother, who is A3 went to Eye Hospital at Darulshifa for check up. Accordingly, P.W.1 accompanied A2 to the said hospital. On 2 seeing P.W.1, A1 and A3 started abusing P.W.1 in the name of his caste and A1 to A3 beat P.W.1 in front of the hospital. A private complaint was lodged on the next day i.e. on 23.06.2008 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The said complaint was referred to police for the purpose of investigation. On receiving the said complaint, the police registered complaint on 30.06.2008 for the offence under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. The police, having completed investigation, filed charge sheet for the said offences.
3. Learned Special Judge, having examined the witnesses P.Ws.1 to 9 and marking Exs.P1 to P6 found the appellants guilty as aforementioned.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no evidence to suggest that there was entrustment of gold to A1 for preparing ornaments. In the absence of such proof or seizure of gold by the police, which was allegedly given to A1, the very basis for complaint becomes false. Further, the 3 incident allegedly occurred at Hospital. The date on which the alleged incident took place is on 22.06.2008 which was a Sunday and according to Ex.D1, the said hospital was closed on Sunday. In the said circumstances, the question of appellants going to the hospital does not arise. For the said reasons, the finding of conviction has to be reversed.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that PWs.1, 3 and 4 have clearly stated that P.W.1 was assaulted in front of the hospital, which is in public view, as such, the conviction cannot be interfered with.
6. The complaint was directly made before the Magistrate on the very next day of the incident. The incident occurred on 22.06.2008 at about 10.30 a.m. However, according to P.W.3, who is press reporter of Urdu daily, has stated that there was an altercation that took place in between the appellants and the P.W.1 and he followed P.W.1 to the police station. However, no complaint was given to the police. In the complaint Ex.P1 filed before the Court on the very next day, P.W.1 stated that he had given written complaint but the same 4 was refused by the police. The said written complaint was not enclosed to the complaint filed in Court.
7. In accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure, if the concerned Station House Officer does not take a complaint, it is for the complainant to approach the superior officer, who would be the Superintendent of Police with his grievance. However, no such steps were taken.
8. Though, A1 was shown as absconding in the charge sheet filed, no steps were taken to proceed against A1 to whom the alleged gold was handed over. According to P.W.1, the police Mirchowk failed to acknowledge that P.W.1 had appeared before the police on the alleged date of incident, which is 22.06.2008. Though it is alleged that P.W.1 was beaten by the appellants herein and he fell on the road, according to P.Ws.1 and 3, there is no treatment of injuries by any Doctor. Even in the complaint Ex.P1, there is no mention that what were the injuries sustained by P.W.1.
9. The witnesses P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 in the complaint were examined after a period of three months by the Investigating 5 Officer. Admittedly, P.Ws.3 and 4 were strangers to P.W.1. It is not known as to how P.Ws.3 and 4, who were strangers, were identified by the police after a period of three months. The complaint does not reflect the address of any of the witnesses. The very version of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 regarding the alleged incident and subsequent complaint in the court on the very next day casts doubt regarding the incident and the version given by the witnesses. For the said reasons, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants when the very basis for the complaint is found to be false.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, the conviction recorded against the appellants vide judgment in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2009 dated 28.06.2010 is set aside. Since the appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 13.10.2022 kvs 6 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.813 of 2010 Date: 13.10.2022.
kvs 7