The State Of A.P. vs Govindu Musalaiah
2021 Latest Caselaw 517 Tel

           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.

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

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