Telangana High Court
Ryalapeta Narsimha , Pardha Sarathi And ... vs The State Of A.P., Through S.D.P.O., ... on 7 June, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.658 OF 2012
J U D G M E N T:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellants- accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short 'Cr.P.C.,) aggrieved by the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 19.06.2012 (impugned Judgment) passed in S.C.No.77 of 2011 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short 'learned trial Court').
02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred as per their array before the learned trial Court.
03. The brief facts of the case are as under:
Complainant belongs to Madiga caste and accused belongs to non-schedule caste. It is alleged that accused are cultivating the lands adjacent to the lands 2 of PW1. On 11.10.2010 at about 03:00 PM., while complainant's bulls are grazing grass, they got frightened on seeing the wild boar and bulls ran helter-
skelter and they fell into the fields of accused.
Complainant also ran into the fields of accused for catching the bulls, for which accused abused complainant in filthy language touching the name of his caste alleging that he allowed the bulls to graze in accused fields and beat him with sticks on his back and when the complainant pleaded for mercy, both accused kicked him with legs causing injuries. Thereby, accused committed offences punishable under Sections 324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act').
04. The learned trial Court framed charges for the offences under Sections 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and they denied the said charges. During the course of trial, to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2, prosecution 3 examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 and MOs1 and 2. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of accused. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of accused.
05. After considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record and on hearing both sides, the learned trial Court by way of impugned Judgment dated 19.06.2012 convicted both accused for the charged offences and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 324 of IPC. Further, sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and directed to run both sentences concurrently. 4
06. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment, accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this Criminal Appeal.
07. Heard Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned counsel for appellants-accused and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent. Perused the record.
08. Learned counsel for appellants-accused submitted that the impugned Judgment is against law, weight of evidence and based on surmises and presumptions; that prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and they have political enmity to speak against accused; that wound certificate was not proved by examining the Medical Officer; that the learned trial Judge ought to have seen that accused are not in occupation of fields and that learned trial Court failed to consider the evidence of PW8; that the material objects- sticks are not subjected to scientific test to ascertain that the said sticks are used by accused for commission 5 of offence. Hence, he prayed to allow this Criminal Appeal by setting aside the impugned Judgment.
09. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-respondent submitted that the learned trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has rightly convicted and sentenced accused Nos.1 and 2, for which no interference of this Court is needed and prayed to dismiss this Criminal Appeal.
10. Now, the point for determination is:
Whether the impugned Judgment passed by the learned trial Court, liable to be set aside?
P O I N T:
11. PW1 is complainant. PW2 is eyewitness. PW3 is circumstantial witness. PW4 is brother of PW1 and circumstantial witness. PW5 is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and seizure report. PW6 and PW7 are Tahsildars. PW8 is circumstantial witness. PW9 is Investigating Officer.
12. PW1 who is complainant deposed that at about 1 ½ years ago at about 03:00 PM., while 6 complainant's bulls are grazing grass, they got frightened on seeing the wild boar and ran helter-skelter and they fell into the fields of accused. Complainant also ran into the fields of accused for catching the bulls, for which accused abused complainant in filthy language touching the name of his caste stating 'madiga lanjakoduka' and that he allowed the bulls to graze in the fields belonging to accused and beat him with stick on his back and when the complainant pleaded for mercy by touching accused feet, both accused beat him with sticks on his back and caused bleeding injuries. In the meanwhile, PW1's uncle by name Buchappa came and on seeing him accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away. Thereafter, he lodged Ex.P1-complaint. During the course of cross-examination, PW1 voluntarily stated accused have cultivating land on lease, belonging to PW8.
13. PW2 who is eyewitness to the incident deposed that he does not know anything about the case and even he does not know accused and PW1. PW2 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. 7
14. PW3 who is circumstantial witness deposed that accused is his nephew and that he know both accused. He narrated the incident in the same lines of PW1. During the course of cross-examination, he stated that he did not state before Police as in Ex.D1. He further stated that he had lands adjacent to PW1 and accused. He denied other suggestions.
15. PW4 is the brother of PW1 deposed that he knows both accused and that he found injuries over the body of PW1 on his back and shoulder and that on enquiry PW1 narrated entire incident to PW4. During the course of cross-examination, he voluntarily stated that accused are cultivating the lands of PW8. He denied other suggestions.
16. PW5 is panch witness for scene of offence panchanama and seizure report who deposed about preparation of scene observation panchanama and rough sketch and that he signed on the said panchanama marked under Ex.P3. During the course 8 of cross-examination, PW5 stated that PW1 is not related to him but he belongs to the same caste.
17. PW6 and PW7 are Tahsildars who deposed that PW1 belongs to backward caste vide Ex.P4-report and that accused belongs to Madiga caste vide Ex.P5- report. Cross-examination of these witnesses is recorded as nil.
18. PW8 is another circumstantial witness who deposed that he knows both accused and that he got land to an extent of Ac.05-00 guntas in Sy.No.243/AA at Kodangal Village and that he did not give his land on lease for accused. PW8 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
19. PW9 is the Investigating Officer who deposed that on Ex.P1-complaint lodged by PW1, he registered a crime and issued Ex.P8-FIR and proceeded to scene of offence and prepared scene observation panchanama vide Ex.P2. During the course of investigation, he seized sticks at the scene of offence and they are marked as MOs.1 and 2. Thereafter, he recorded the 9 statement of witnesses, obtained caste certificates of PW1 and accused and then effected the arrest of accused. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet after collecting would certificate marked under Ex.P9. During the course of cross-examination, PW9 admitted that he did not collect any document from PW8. PW9 stated that PW3 gave Ex.D1-statement before him that PW3 enquired PW1 as to what happened while PW1 was rushing by repeatedly beating the bulls. PW9 denied a suggestion that a false case was foisted against accused due to political influence.
20. This Court perused entire material available on record.
21. It is the case of prosecution according to Ex.P1-complaint is that on 11.10.2010 at about 03:00 PM., while PW1's bulls are grazing grass, they got frightened on seeing the wild boar and ran into the fields of accused. PW1 also ran along with bulls for catching them, for which accused caught him and abused in filthy language stating 'Madiga Lanza Koduka' 10 as to why he allowed the bulls to graze in their fields and beat him with stick on his back and both accused kicked him.
22. To prove the above incident, PW2 was examined as eyewitness, who stated that he does not know anything about this case and he even does not know accused and PW1. PW2-eyewitness turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Hence, there is no eyewitness for the alleged incident. PW3 who is maternal uncle of PW1 deposed that on the date of incident both accused ran away from scene of offence on his arrival. He brought PW1 to house and thereafter, PW1 went to Police Station and lodged complaint. Further, PW3 denied that he stated as in Ex.D1- statement before Police that he enquired PW1 as to what happened while PW1 was rushing by repeatedly beating the bulls. The name of PW3 is Mutyappa. It is pertinent to state that PW1 during the course of chief examination stated that one Buchappa came to scene of offence and accused ran away by seeing the said Buchappa. By way of examining PW2 and PW3, 11 prosecution tried to establish the occurrence of incident. But in view of the above inconsistent evidence of PW2 and PW3, prosecution failed to prove the same.
23. On 11.10.2010 PW1 was examined by Medical Officer vide Ex.P9-wound certificate. It is evident from Ex.P9 that PW1 sustained three simple injuries i.e., swelling, contusion and abrasion and the kind of weapon is mentioned as 'blunt weapon' and that PW1 was treated as outpatient. PW1 stated in the cross-examination that he was admitted for two days in hospital for taking treatment. This statement of PW1 is contrary to Ex.P9-wound certificate, which shows that PW1 was treated as outpatient. To clarify this aspect, even though the Medical Officer, who treated PW1 was shown as LW8 in the charge sheet, he was not examined by prosecution before the learned trial Court, to prove the injuries of PW1 in the alleged incident vide Ex.P9-wound certificate, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution.
12
24. PW9-Investigating officer deposed about seizure of MOs.1 and 2-sticks from scene of offence in the presence of PW5. It is pertinent to state that PW5, who was panch witness for scene observation panchanama and for preparation of rough sketch, in his evidence before the trial Court, has not whispered about the presence or seizure of MOs.1 and 2-sticks at scene of offence. It is also remained unexplained from prosecution as to why MOs.1 and 2-sticks are not sent for Forensic Scientific Laboratory to ascertain presence of any blood stains or any fingerprints of accused on MOs.1 and 2. It is also to be seen that PW9 conducted scene observation panchanama on 16.10.2010 and seized MOs.1 and 2-sticks in the presence of PW5. PW1 in his evidence deposed that he was beaten by accused with 'stick' but not 'sticks'. Even though the evidence of PW5 remained silent with regard to seizure of MOs.1 and 2-sticks, PW5 was not declared as hostile and no cross-examination was forthcoming on this crucial aspect. Investigating Officer also did not take any proper steps to ascertain whether those sticks are used 13 by accused for commission of offence. Therefore, the usage of MOs.1 and 2-sticks by accused in the commission of offence is highly doubtful.
25. PW1, PW3 and PW4 in similar lines stated that the incident took place in the fields of accused. But in the cross examination, PW4 voluntarily stated that accused are cultivating the lands of PW8 on lease. As seen from the evidence of PW8, he categorically deposed that he never let his land to accused on lease. Here it is also pertinent to state that the incident allegedly took place on 11.10.2010 at about 03:30 PM., and PW1 took treatment as outpatient on the same day. PW4 categorically stated that PW1 came to house at about 06:00 PM. As seen from Ex.P1-compaint, it was dated 12.10.2010. Hence, there is no explanation from PW1 as to what prevented him not to file complaint on the same day itself. There is no explanation for not lodging the complaint on the date of alleged incident either from PW1. Therefore, after careful scrutiny of entire evidence available on record, there is no consistency in the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and 14 PW8 with regard to scene of offence and that there is no sufficient material on record to show that MOs.1 and 2- sticks were used by accused in commission of offence.
26. In that view of the matter, there is any amount of doubt about involvement and presence of accused at the scene of offence on the fateful day. Overall, there are material contradictions in the prosecution evidence with regard to scene of offence and seizure of material objects-sticks from scene of offence and there is delay in lodging complaint by PW1. The said contradictions cast a shadow upon the prosecution story and render the same unreliable and not trustworthy in the eyes of law.
27. In S. Govidaraju v. State of Karnataka 1 the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that:
"It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not effect the core of the case of the 1 (2013) 15 SCC 315 15 prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."
28. In the above authority, the Honourable Supreme Court of India has made it clear that while appreciating the evidence, Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions-omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. The learned trial Court after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the learned 16 Appellate Court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the Court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitness, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
29. In Hitesh Verma v The State Of Uttarakhand 2 the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that:
2
AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5584 17 "14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under:
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public 18 place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
30. In the above authority, the Honourable Supreme Court of India made it clear that if the offence is committed outside the building i.e., in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the 'public view'. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the 'public view'. There shall not be any confusion between the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. A public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or an instrumentality of the State and not by private persons or private bodies.
19
31. In the present case on hand, the incident alleged to have been committed in the agricultural fields of accused. It is not the case of prosecution that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time and place of alleged incident. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. There is no independent or direct witness in this matter to speak about the alleged incident. Even if the evidence of PW3 is accepted, the same cannot be relied upon as PW3 is close relative of PW1.
32. To prove the offence under the Act, the prosecution shall prove that the offence had been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and that there is an intention on the part of accused persons to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In this matter, prosecution failed to prove the main ingredient that accused know the caste of PW1 prior to the incident. Moreover, almost all 20 the witnesses are interested witnesses and as stated supra, the incident alleged to have happened in a private place and there is no presence of public member. Furthermore, on close scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, it is evident that there are number of contradictions and omissions in the prosecution evidence, which would be fatal to the case of prosecution and that there is nothing on record pointing out the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and erred in convicting and sentencing appellants-accused.
33. In view of the above discussion coupled with settled principles of law laid down by Honourable Supreme Court of India and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offences under Section 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and the impugned 21 Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.
34. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 19.06.2012 passed in S.C.No.77 of 2011 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Consequently, both accused are acquitted. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications in this matter, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Dated: 07-JUN-2024 KHRM