Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Manepalli Prabhakara Rao, ... vs The State Of A.P.,Rep.By ... on 4 May, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.192 OF 2011
Between:
Manepalli Prabhakara Rao,
S/o.Rama Kotayya, Hindu,
38 years, Arlapadu Village,
Gampalagudem Mandal,
Krishna District. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of AP,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.
Amaravathi. .... Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 04.05.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
2. Whether His Lordship wish to see
The fair copy of the judgment? Yes/No
______________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No.192 OF 2011
% 04.05.2023
# Between:
Manepalli Prabhakara Rao,
S/o.Rama Kotayya, Hindu,
38 years, Arlapadu Village,
Gampalagudem Mandal,
Krishna District. .... Appellant
Versus
The State of AP,
Rep. by Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P.
Amaravathi. .... Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva,
Learned Counsel.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Sri Y. Jagadeeshwara Rao,
Learned Counsel, Rep.
Learned Public Prosecutor
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
This Court made the following:
3
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.192 OF 2011
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), is filed by the
appellant, who was the accused in Special Sessions Case No.19 of
2008 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities)
Act-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam (for
short, 'the learned Special Judge'), questioning the judgment
therein, dated 17.02.2011, whereunder the learned Special Judge
found the appellant herein guilty of the charge under Section
3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SCs & STs Act'), convicted
him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about
the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three
months.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be
referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of
convenience.
3. Special Sessions Case No.19 of 2008 arose out of the
committal order in PRC No.26 of 2008 on the file of the Court of
Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tiruvuru pertaining to Crime
No.64 of 2008 of Gampalagudem Police Station. The State,
represented by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nuzvid Sub-Division
filed charge sheet pertaining to above said Crime for the offence
under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs & STs Act alleging in substance
that the accused is resident of Arlapadu Village and
Gampalagudem Mandal. He belonged to forward caste. LW.1 -
Madugula Peda Lakshmaiah, who is resident of the same Village
and Mandal, belonged to Scheduled Caste. The scene of offence is
in the land of LW.1 in R.S.No.127/1 to an extent of Ac.0.63 cents.
The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued D-Form Patta in the
name of one Madugula Peda Nagaiah, father of LW.1, in the year
1971 in S.No.127/1 to an extent of Ac.1.27 cents. The parents of
LW.1 died. After that, LW.1 and his brother partitioned the said
land and, in the said partition, LW.1 got Ac.0.63 cents towards his
share. So, he was in possession and enjoyment thereof. Six years
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
ago, he borrowed a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the accused to meet
the medical expenses of his son and later he failed to discharge
the due amount to the accused. Accused demanded LW.1 either to
discharge his debt or handover his (LW.1) land document to him
for which LW.1 requested time but, accused forcibly took away the
D-Form Patta from LW.1 and occupied Ac.0.63 cents. Accused
continuously cultivated the same. After four years, complainant
(LW.1) approached the accused and asked him to handover the
land to him since accused already collected lease amount from
LW.4 - Inapanuri Devaiah and LW.5 - Madugula Venkateswara
Rao as such the amount due by the accused was discharged but,
accused denied to handover the land to LW.1. Therefore, he gave a
report to LW.10 - Sk. Nagur Saheb, SI of Police, Gampalagudem
Police Station, who registered the same as a case in Crime No.64
of 2008 for the aforesaid offence and intimated to LW.11 - G.
Narayana Swamy, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nuzvid. LW.11
obtained permission from the Superintendent of Police, Krishna
and took up investigation. He visited the land of LW.1 and gave
requisition to LW.9 - S. Bhaskara Rao, Mandal Tahsildar, to
ascertain the legal possession over the land and also to know
about the caste of LW.1. During the course, he seized lease
agreement between LW.4, LW.5 and accused and also xerox copy
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
of the D-Form Patta. He examined the witnesses during
investigation. On 30.06.2008, he arrested the accused and sent
him to judicial custody. He obtained caste certification and
possession and enjoyment certificate from LW.9, the Tahsildar.
Hence, the charge sheet.
4. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the
case for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs & STs Act,
numbered it as PRC No.26 of 2008 and after completing the
formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C committed the case to the
Special Sessions Court and thereupon it was numbered as Special
Sessions Case No.19 of 2008. On appearance of accused before
the Court below, the learned Special Judge framed charges under
Section 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs & STs Act and
explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
5. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution,
during the course of trial, examined PWs.1 to PW.11 and marked
Exs.P-1 to P-8 and further Exs.D-1 to D-3.
6. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused was
examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by
the prosecution for which he denied the same. He did not adduce
any defence evidence but, as evident from the judgment of the
Court below, the accused filed agreement, dated 04.08.2002 in
pursuance of his defence.
7. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found
the accused guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs &
STs Act and convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. and, after
questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him as
above.
8. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused in the
aforesaid Special Sessions Case, filed the present Criminal Appeal.
9. Before going to frame the points for determination, it is
appropriate to make a mention here that, according to the charge
sheet filed by the Police, the outcome of the investigation is that
the evidence collected discloses the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of
the SCs & STs Act. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took
cognizance for the same. However, the learned Special Judge
framed two charges i.e., one under 506 of IPC and the other under
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs & STs Act. The allegation under Section
506 IPC is that accused committed criminal intimidation by
snatching forcibly the patta relating to the land of LW.1 in an
extent of Ac.0.63 cents. But, as evident from the judgment, the
learned Special Judge in the body of the judgment observed that
the Court framed charge under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs & STs
Act. Even he did not give any finding as regards the charge under
Section 506 IPC. Under the circumstances, now as the judgment is
under challenge before this Court, this Court can as well look into
as to whether, apart from the charge under Section 3(1)(v) of the
SCs & STs Act, the prosecution before the Court below proved
charge under Section 506 IPC against the accused.
10. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise
for consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution before the Court below
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
committed criminal intimidation prior to 15.06.2008
against LW.1 - Madugula Peda Lakshmaiah by
snatching forcibly patta from his possession in the
manner as alleged?
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
2. Whether the prosecution before the Court below
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused
wrongfully dispossessed LW.1 - de-facto complainant
from his land to an extent of Ac.0.63 cents in R.S.
No.127/1 within the meaning of Section 3(1)(v) of the
SCs & STs Act?
3. Whether there are any grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment?
11. POINT Nos.1 to 3: Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned
counsel for the appellant, would contend that, absolutely, except
PW-1 - the de-facto complainant, none of the witnesses stated that
accused snatched away the patta of PW.1 from his possession. The
evidence of other prosecution witnesses is hearsay in nature. PW.1
did not lodge any police report when the accused allegedly
snatched away the patta. He kept quiet. Even when the accused
allegedly leased out the land to some others he did not question
PW.4 and PW.5, when they were cultivating the land under the
alleged lease. Apart from this, the defence of the accused is that,
on 04.08.2002, PW.1 delivered physical possession of the land to
him under possessory agreement of sale. So, accused claimed
lawful possession over the property. Though the accused filed copy
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
of the agreement in 313 Cr.P.C examination, the Court below,
without proper reasons failed to look into the same. Though the
accused denied the so called lease agreement between him and
PW.4 and PW.5, the trial Court held that it was proved by the
prosecution and the accused did not send the same to the
handwriting expert. With regard to the document filed by the
accused in 313 Cr.P.C examination, the trial Court applied a
different yardstick and disbelieved the case of the accused. Even
otherwise, if really, the accused dispossessed PW.1 wrongfully, he
would not have kept quiet for a period of four years. Accused can
probabilize his defence theory by relying upon the above
circumstances. The evidence on record would only disclose that
accused came into possession of the property with an
understanding with PW.1. Absolutely, there was no wrongful
dispossession of PW.1 and the learned Special Judge did not look
into the defence of the accused properly and made a conviction
erroneously and the Appeal is liable to be allowed.
12. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing
learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that by virtue of the
evidence adduced it is clear that PW.1 was out of possession of the
land for a period of four years or so and the reason was that the
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
accused took away the patta of PW.1 and occupied the land with
force as PW.1 failed to repay the debt borrowed by him i.e., a sum
of Rs.6,000/- from the accused and accused even indulged in
leasing out the land to PW.4 and PW.5. The evidence of PW.4 and
PW.5 would further support the case of the prosecution and the
evidence of PW.2 to PW.8 also supported the case of the
prosecution and the learned Special Judge rightly appreciated the
evidence on record as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
13. Coming to the evidence of PW.1, he is the de-facto
complainant. The sum and substance of his evidence is that in the
partition he got Ac.0.60 cents of land, which was given to his
father under D-Form Patta. He was in possession of Ac.0.60 cents
of land. When he borrowed Rs.6,000/- from the accused, for the
medical treatment of his son, who suffered with Cancer, he could
not discharge the debt. Five years ago, accused asked his D-Form
patta for the purpose of verification and took away the same and
occupied the land. Accused leased out the land to LW.4 and LW.5
for two years. LW.4 cultivated the land for one year and paid lease
amount of Rs.3,000/- p.a. to the accused. Subsequently, accused
leased out the said land to LW.5. He asked accused to surrender
his land but he expressed that still there was some due amount.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
When he informed the incident to the Sarpanch, he did not give
proper reply. So he reported the matter to the Police. Ex.P-1 is his
report.
14. Coming to the evidence of PW.2, who is relative of PW.1, he
deposed that PW.1 has Ac.0.60 cents of land in their village. He
borrowed Rs.6,000/- from the accused about five years ago and
did not discharge the said debt. Accused came and took away the
land document and cultivated the land of PW.1 for four years and
out of four years he gave the land to one Yadayya and also to one
Venkateswara Rao. PW.1 presented report on 15.06.2008.
15. PW.3 deposed about the so called amount of Rs.6,000/-
borrowed by PW.1 from the accused. Accused came and took away
D-Form Patta from PW.1. Accused started cultivation. PW.1 did
not obstruct the accused. Accused leased out the land to Yadayya
and Venkateswara Rao. When he asked PW.1 about the D-Form
Patta, he told him that the accused took away the said patta.
16. According to PW.4, Devaiah, he cultivated the land of PW.1
four years ago for two years taking the same from the accused on
a lease of Rs.2,750/- per annum. PW.1 asked the accused to
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
return the land but accused did not return as his debt was due.
So PW.1 gave report to Police.
17. According to PW.5, he took the land of PW.1 for lease from
the accused for two years in 2006. PW.1 told him that he borrowed
Rs.6,000/- from the accused and the accused took away his D-
Form Patta. PW.1 asked him not to take that land but he already
took the land after executing lease deed. Ex.P-2 is the lease
agreement executed by him. He handed over Ex.P-2 to Police. He
obtained lease agreement for a sum of Rs.2,750/- per annum.
When PW.1 asked the accused to return his land, accused
refused. So, PW.1 gave report.
18. According to PW.6, he was neighbourer to the south of
PW.1's land. In the year 2008, PW.3 and PW.5 cultivated the
same. He heard that accused leased out the same. He learnt that
PW.1 borrowed money from the accused and he leased out the
land to the accused and accused leased out the land to lessees. As
PW.1 did not repay the debt, accused occupied the land of PW.1.
19. According to PW.7, PW.3 acquired the land of PW.1 for two
years. PW.5 acquired the same for one year. As debt was due from
PW.1, accused took the land.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
20. According to the evidence of PW.8, two years ago PW.4 and
PW.5 cultivated the land of PW.1 for lease by taking from the
accused. As the debt was not repaid by PW.1, accused took the
land and leased out the same.
21. PW.9, the Tahsildar, deposed that he enquired about the
caste of PW.1 and issued Ex.P-3 caste certificate.
22. According to PW.10, SI of Police, he received report from
PW.1 and registered the same as case in Crime No.64 of 2008 and
issued original FIR. On instructions from DSP, he addressed a
letter to MRO and obtained caste certificate of PW.1 and forwarded
the same to the DSP.
23. The SDPO, PW.11, deposed that after receipt of copy of FIR,
he got an order from the Superintendent of Police, Krishna to
investigate the case. It is Ex.P-6. During investigation, he
examined PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.5, PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8 and got
a copy of lease agreement executed by the accused from PW.5.
He also obtained Ex.P-7, D-Form Patta. He obtained caste
certificate of PW.1. He arrested the accused on 30.06.2008 and
sent him to judicial custody. He obtained the land particulars from
the Mandal Revenue Officer also.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
24. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, during cross-
examination, he denied that he executed possessory agreement in
favour of the accused by selling his land for a sum of Rs.20,000/-
on 04.08.2002 and he signed in that agreement and that now he
changed his version. He cannot say the date, month and year
when the accused took away D-Form Patta. He did not give any
report to Police when the accused took away his D-Form Patta and
he gave report after four years. Even he did not give any complaint
to Police that accused occupied his land for a period of four years.
He did not mention in Ex.P-1 that accused leased out his land for
lease to others. He did not know what was written in Ex.P-1. He
denied that he sold the land to the accused under proper
agreement by receiving consideration and that he filed a false
report. He denied that accused did not occupy his land forcibly
and did not snatch away his patta forcibly.
25. PW.2 during cross-examination deposed that he was not
present when PW.1 borrowed Rs.6,000/- from the accused. He did
not know that PW.1 sold his land to the accused under possessory
agreement dated 04.08.2002. He was not present when the
accused took away the document of PW.1 relating to the land. By
virtue of the above, the evidence of PW.2 that the accused took
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
away the land document of PW.1 is nothing but hearsay. Even
according to the chief-examination of PW.3, his evidence is
hearsay in nature as regards taking of patta of PW.1 by the
accused. The evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 was not relating to the
act of the accused in taking away the document of PW.1 with
force. Their evidence is that they took the land from the accused in
the respective years and cultivated the same. According to the
evidence of PW.6, he did not speak that the accused with force
took away the land document of the PW.1. Even PW.7 and PW.8
did not speak that the accused took away the D-Form Patta of
PW.1 with force. So, the evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 is hearsay in
nature. Even PW.1 did not say as to the date, month and year
when the accused took away his D-Form Patta. So, there remained
self-serving evidence of PW.1 with regard to the allegation that the
accused came to his house and asked D-Form Patta of his land for
the purpose of verification and took away the same. He admitted
that he did not give any complaint to Police when the accused took
away his D-Form Patta but gave complaint after four years. It is
not a case where the Police recovered copy of D-Form Patta from
the accused. A man of reasonable prudence would not keep quiet
for a period of four years when the accused took away his D-Form
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
Patta. Under the circumstances, absolutely, the evidence on record
did not prove the charge under Section 506 IPC.
26. The gist of the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs & STs
Act is wrongfully dispossessing a member of Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises or interfering with the
enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water. Here the
allegation of the prosecution is that the accused having taken with
force the D-Form Patta of PW.1 occupied his land with force. The
prosecution failed to prove that the accused forcibly took away the
D-Form Patta of PW.1.
27. So, there remained another allegation that accused
wrongfully dispossessed PW.1 from the land. Now it is to be seen
whether the evidence on record would prove the same. PW.2 was
not a witness when the accused allegedly took away the document.
He deposed that he does not know whether PW.1 sold the land to
accused under possessory agreement on 04.08.2002. He deposed
that he did not state before Police as in Ex.D-1. As seen from the
evidence of the Investigating Officer, Ex.D-1 is proved by the
defence. According to Ex.D-1, he came to know that six years ago
PW.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the accused. PW.2
though he deposed in chief-examination that PW.1 borrowed a
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
sum of Rs.6,000/- from the accused but he deposed in cross-
examination that he was not present when PW.1 borrowed
Rs.6,000/- from the accused. So, Ex.D-1 is not material in the
circumstances of the case. PW.2 admitted that he was not present
when the accused leased out the land to Yadayya and
Venkateswara Rao. Under the circumstances, the evidence of PW.2
did not disclose the forcible dispossession of PW.1 from the land.
28. According to the evidence of PW.3, his evidence is hearsay in
nature with regard to D-Form Patta. His evidence is that accused
started cultivation and PW.1 did not obstruct the accused.
Accused leased out the land to Yadayayya and Venkateswara Rao.
He does not know whether PW.1 and his four sons sold the land to
the accused under possessory agreement. Even the evidence of
PW.3 did not disclose that he was present when the accused
allegedly occupied the land of PW.1 with force. The evidence of
PW.3 that accused started cultivation of the land of PW.1 does not
mean that accused wrongfully dispossessed PW.1 from his land.
29. It is no doubt true that according to the evidence of PW.4
and PW.5, they took the land from the accused and that the land
originally belonged to PW.1. Prosecution projected Ex.P-2, lease
agreement, in between PW.5 and accused. Though accused denied
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
his signature on Ex.P-2 the overall evidence of PW.4 and PW.5
that they cultivated the land as lessees is not under challenge. So,
what is evident from the evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 is that they
cultivated the land of PW.1 having taken the same from the
accused. This part of evidence of PW.4 and PW.5 would not further
prove the case of the prosecution with regard to the basic
allegation that accused dispossessed wrongfully PW.1 from his
land. PW.4 claimed that he came into possession of the property
through lease. He does not know that Madugala Venkateswara
Rao came into possession of the land under a lease agreement.
PW.5 testified about Ex.P-2. During cross-examination PW.4
deposed that he did not state before Police as in Ex.D-2, which is
proved by virtue of the evidence of the Investigating Officer. As
seen from Ex.D-1, which is the relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C.
statement of PW.2 to the effect that it is relating to the so called
amount borrowed by PW.1 from the accused. It is also not
material. PW.5 during cross-examination stated that PW.1 asked
him not to take the land under lease and he replied that he
already took the land. He deposed that he did not state before
Police as in Ex.D-3. Ex.D-3 is proved by virtue of the evidence of
Investigating Officer. As seen from Ex.D-3, which is relating to
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
letting out of the land to PW.4 and PW.5 and when the said fact is
not in dispute, Ex.D-3 assumes no importance.
30. According to the evidence of PW.6, he heard that as PW.1
borrowed money from the accused, he leased out the land to the
accused and accused in turn leased out the land to PW.3 and
PW.5. As PW.1 did not repay his debt to the accused, accused
occupied the land of PW.1. Even he did not know as to whether
PW.1 executed possessory agreement in favour of the accused.
According to him, PW.1 never objected the accused to cultivate his
land and to lease out the land to others.
31. PW.7, during cross-examination, admitted that PW.1 had
executed possessory agreement in favour of the accused towards
Rs.20,000/- and he never objected the lessees to cultivate the
land. The evidence of PW.7 is not challenged by the prosecution
before the Court below when he supported the defence theory.
Even PW.8 deposed in cross-examination that he got knowledge
that PW.1 sold his land to the accused for Rs.20,000/- under
possessory agreement.
32. As seen from the above, it is clear that none of the witnesses
especially PW.2 to PW.8 deposed that they were witnesses when
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
the accused occupied the land of PW.1 with force. On the other
hand, according to the evidence of PW.7 and PW.8, they know that
accused sold away the land to PW.1 under possessory agreement
of sale. It is not for this Court to decide the validity of the so called
possessory agreement of sale.
33. There is no dispute that when the accused filed copy of such
document during 313 Cr.P.C examination, the Court below did not
appreciate the defence of the accused on the ground that accused
failed to prove the same. The learned Special Judge did not look
into the admissions made by PW.7 and PW.8 during cross-
examination that PW.1 executed possessory agreement in favour of
the accused for Rs.20,000/- and that he never objected the lessees
to cultivate the land. So, as the prosecution did not challenge their
evidence, it probabilizes the defence theory with reference to the
document filed under 313 Cr.P.C examination and the learned
Special Judge did not look into these crucial aspects.
34. It is to be noticed that as to what is the criterion in proving
the charge in this regard is that the prosecution should prove that
accused wrongfully dispossessed PW.1 from the land.
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
35. So, the allegation relating to the charge is based upon
Ex.P-1 and now except the evidence of PW.1 there remained
nothing in support of such charge. Now, this Court has to look
into the conduct of PW.1. A man of reasonable prudence, when he
was wrongfully dispossessed from the land, would not keep quiet.
He did not choose to lodge any report with the Police when he was
allegedly dispossessed wrongfully from the land. On the other
hand, he did not object PW.4 and PW.5 when they were cultivating
the land. The admissions made by PW.4 and PW.5 mean that they
had some knowledge that the accused came into possession of the
land only with an understanding with PW.1. A perusal of the
judgment of the Court below reveals that the learned Special
Judge made an observation that PW.2 to PW.8 categorically
deposed that accused took away D-Form Patta and occupied the
land of PW.1. Absolutely, the evidence of PW.2 to PW.8, on
scrutiny, never disclosed that the accused took away the D-Form
Patta and occupied the land of PW.1.
36. The so called cultivation of the land of PW.1 by the accused
with an understanding and the alleged wrongful dispossession of
PW.1 by the accused are two different factors. The second factor
was proved by the prosecution and the first factor was to be
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
probabilized by the accused. In a criminal trial, the accused can
prove his defence basing on the preponderance of the probabilities.
Absolutely, in my considered view, the learned Special Judge did
not look into the facts and circumstances in proper perspective.
There was no question of PW.1 keeping quiet without lodging any
report when he was allegedly dispossessed four years ago prior to
Ex.P-1 and he would have certainly obstructed PW.4 and PW.5
when they were cultivating the land. Apart from this, the
admissions from PW.7 and PW.8 are probabilizing the defence
theory. Having regard to the above, the evidence on record,
absolutely, did not prove the allegation that accused dispossessed
PW.1 wrongfully from the land. The learned Special Judge, in my
considered view, did not look into the fact that what all the
evidence relating to the allegations of the prosecution was nothing
but hearsay. The self-serving evidence of PW.1 is not liable to be
believed as his conduct was not that of a man of reasonable
prudence. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view
that it is a fit case where it can be held that the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 506 IPC against
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Special Judge
by erroneously appreciating the evidence on record, recorded an
order of conviction under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs & STs Act
AVRB,J
Crl.A. No.192/2011
though the evidence on record did not warrant the same. Hence,
the judgment is liable to be interfered with.
37. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting-aside
the judgment in Special Sessions Case No.19 of 2008, dated
17.02.2011, on the file of the Court of Special Judge under the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities)
Act-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam as
such the accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the
charges under Section 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs &
STs Act.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
Date: 04.05.2023
DSH
