The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., vs Gopa Ganga Reddy, 19 Others,
2021 Latest Caselaw 3123 Tel

     HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

                CRIMINAL APPEAL No.482 of 2012
JUDGMENT:

1. Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment that is

rendered by the Court of the Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs/STs (POA) Act, Adilabad, in Spl.S.C.No.11 of 2010, dated

23.5.2011, the appellant is before this Court by way of appeal.

2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the

trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of

the case; that the learned judge of the trial Court ought to have seen

that the ingredients to constitute the offences punishable under

Sections 452, 436 read with Section 149 and 148 IPC and Section

3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, were made out by the prosecution; that the

learned judge ought to have seen that P.W-1 who is an eye-witness to

the incident clearly stated how his house was damaged by the

respondents-accused; that the learned judge has not considered the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses in correct perspective and thus,

the acquittal of the respondents-accused is unsustainable and as such,

the appeal has to be allowed.

3. Heard the submissions of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor. The respondents-accused failed to submit their

contentions.

4. Now the points that arise for determination are:

Dr.CSL , J

(1) Whether the prosecution established beyond all

reasonable doubt before the trial Court that having

made preparation for causing hurt or for assault or

for wrongly restraining any person or for putting

any person in fear of hurt or assault or wrongful

restraint, the respondents-accused committed house

trespass which is punishable under Section 452 IPC.

(2) Whether the prosecution established beyond all

reasonable doubt before the trial Court that the

respondent-accused committed the act of mischief

by fire punishable under Section 436 read with

Section 149 IPC.

(3) Whether the prosecution established beyond all

reasonable doubt before the trial Court that the

respondents-accused committed the offence of

rioting being armed with deadly weapons or

anything of that sort punishable under Section 148

I.P.C.

(4) Whether the prosecution established beyond all

reasonable doubt before the trial Court that the

respondents-accused not being members of

scheduled caste or scheduled tribe intentionally

insulted or intimidated with an intention to

humiliate P.Ws.1 and 2 and thereby, committed the

offence as laid down under Section 3(1)(x) of the Dr.CSL , J

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989

(5) Whether the prosecution established beyond all

reasonable doubt before the trial Court that the

respondents-accused not being members of

scheduled caste or scheduled tribe forced or caused

P.Ws.1 and 2 to leave their residential place and

thereby, committed the offence as laid down under

Section 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989.

(6) Whether there exists any infirmity in the

judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the

facts of the case or in applying the established

principles of law to the said facts, as contended by

the appellant, which in turn requires the interference

of this Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction.

5. Point Nos.1 to 5:-

Point Nos.1 to 5 are interrelated and needs common course of

discussion and hence, they are taken up together for discussion.

The crux of the case, which culminated from the charge sheet, is

that on 01.01.2010, the villagers of P.W-1 beat him and abused him

and further, his mother and his nephew were also abused in filthy

language and his spiritual books were set on fire and on that, he

lodged a complaint to Police and Police registered a case and sent Dr.CSL , J

P.W-1 to hospital and that, on 03.01.2010, at about 8 am., when he

reached his village, he found his household articles damaged by

setting fire and further, he found that the roof top of his house up-

roofed and it is the respondents-accused and one Bhumanna (minor)

who have committed the said offences.

6. Record discloses that the learned judge of the trial Court framed

charges against the respondents-accused for the offences punishable

under Section 452, 436 read with 149 and 148 I.P.C. and Sections

3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and as the respondents-accused

pleaded not guilty, the trial Court proceeded with the trial of the case.

7. As rightly urged in the grounds of appeal, when the evidence

produced by the appellant before the trial Court is looked into, this

Court finds that P.Ws.1 and 2 supported the case of the prosecution in

toto. However, the learned judge of the trial Court came to a

conclusion that the evidence is not inspiring and convincing.

8. The evidence of P.W-1 is that he is working as Panchayat

Secretary of Balapur and P.W-2 is his elder sister and her house is

located at the backside of his house and P.Ws.3 to 5 are his

neighbours, P.Ws.6 and 7 are the husbands of his other sisters and the

respondents-accused belong to his village. P.W-1 deposed that on

01.01.2010, all the accused and one Bhumanna abused him and beat

him and they also abused and beat his mother-Gangamma and his

nephew-Ravi and they burnt his religious books, for which he gave a

report to Police and Police sent him to hospital and all of them stayed Dr.CSL , J

at Adilabad on 02.01.2010, and only on 03.01.2010, when they

returned to their house, they found their house burnt to ashes, the

cooking utensils including the gas cylinder were found thrown into

the well, found the bamboo mats, rafters and wooden furniture, T.V. ,

plastic chairs and table fan burnt and he also found the office registers

and cheque books burnt and on his enquiry, his sister i.e., P.W-2

informed him that all the respondents-accused who abused and beat

P.W-1 on 01.01.2010 did those acts and she also informed him that the

articles were burnt at 9 pm on 02.01.2010 and in spite of her request

and touching their feet, the accused did so and further, she was abused

as "Madiga munda Ninnu kuda champesthamu" and was threatened

and on that, he went to Adilabad Police Station and gave report to

Police on 03.01.2010 and the same is Ex.P-1.

9. Coming to the evidence of P.W-2, she stated that she belongs to

Madiga caste and the respondents-accused belong to backward class

community, Scheduled Caste community and Scheduled Tribe

community and she was not present in the village on the day on which

her brother, her mother and her son- Ravi were abused and beat and

she returned to the village on the next day of the incident at about

6.30 pm and at 7 pm., she noticed all the respondents-accused and one

Bhumanna at her brother's house damaging the house and other

articles and on that, she rushed to the house of P.W-1 and the

respondents-accused informed her that as P.W-1 is practicing sorcery,

they beat him, his mother and her son on the previous day and sent

them out of the village and her brother gave complaint to Police and Dr.CSL , J

they all abused her in filthy language in the name of caste and due to

fear, she left the place and hid herself in some other's house and the

destruction was done in her presence and that P.Ws.6 and 7 witnessed

the incident.

10. P.W-2 during the course of cross-examination deposed that

there was no power supply in the village in that night and as it was

dark, she cannot give overt acts against the respondents-accused. She

admitted that Harijanawada people also gathered at the house of

P.W-1 and she was unable to see who was doing what. She further

stated that P.Ws.6 and 7 were amidst the gathering, but she did not see

them at the time of the incident, but on the next day, she came to know

that they came to their village and witnessed the incident.

11. P.W-2 also stated that P.Ws.6 and 7 reached the village prior to

her reaching the village. P.W-2 during the course of chief-examination

stated that she reached the village at about 6.30 pm. Now, let us see

what P.Ws.6 and 7 stated on this.

12. It is the evidence of P.W-6 that at about one year back, on one

day, he came to know that P.W-1, his mother and the son of P.W-2

were beaten and on that, himself and P.W-7 went to Landasangvi

village, but they could not find P.W-1, his mother and the son of

P.W-2 there and on that, they met P.W-2 at her house and in that

night, the villagers of Landasangvi burnt and damaged the house of

P.Ws.1 and 2 on the ground that P.W-1 was practicing sorcery, but he

cannot identify those persons as it was dark and as there was no Dr.CSL , J

power supply. He further stated that they abused P.W-2 in filthy

language as "munda-randa". Same is the evidence of P.W-7.

13. Surprisingly, it is not the version of P.W-2 herself that her

house was damaged by the villagers. Further, her statement is that on

the next day of the incident, she came to know that P.Ws.6 and 7 came

to Landasangvi village and witnessed the incident. But, P.W-6

deposed to the effect that himself and P.W-7 went to the house of

P.W-2 and met her and in that night, the incident occurred. As this is

not a case where the civil liability has to be decided, this Court cannot

say which of the said versions is true. The prosecution has to establish

its own version through the witnesses it has examined beyond all

reasonable doubt.

14. As rightly observed by the trial Court, by the evidence of

P.W-11, who was appointed as Special Officer to investigate this case,

it is clear that he was present at Landasangvi village on 02.01.2010

from 7.30 pm to 10.30 pm. If such is the case, no reasonable

explanation is given as to why the said incident lost sight of P.W-11.

His own statement is that the house of P.W-1 was set on fire on the

said date at 9.30 pm. Having been present there, when such a ghastly

incident has occurred, it is for the prosecution to explain why P.W-11

failed to take action immediately.

15. None of the prosecution witnesses gave convincing evidence to

pass a judgment of conviction by the trial Court.

16. P.Ws.3 to 5, who were projected as the ocular witnesses to the

incident, failed to support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution Dr.CSL , J

even failed to establish in cogent terms the exact time at which the

incident occurred on 02.01.2010. When P.W-1 says that the incident

occurred at 9 pm., P.W-2, who is shown as ocular witness, states that

it was at 7 pm, P.W-7 says that it was at 7.30 pm and P.W-11 says that

it was at 9.30 pm. By the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 6, it is clear that at

the time of occurrence of the incident on 02.01.2010, it was dark and

there was no power supply. In such a case, how P.W-2 identified the

respondents-accused in that darkness is not explained. The evidence of

P.Ws.6 and 7 cannot be believed and acted upon due to the fact that

they exaggerated their version and went on to state that even the house

of P.W-2 was damaged. It is not the case of the prosecution either. In

these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the prosecution

though attempted, failed in establishing the guilt of the respondents-

accused beyond all reasonable doubt before the trial Court for the

charges framed against them.

17. Point No.6: -

The judgment of the trial Court is well-reasoned. The learned

judge of the trial Court appreciated the facts that were discussed in the

above points and has come to a right conclusion. It is for the

prosecution to establish before the trial Court by cogent and

convincing evidence that the charges levelled against the respondents-

accused are sustainable and that, it has to produce such an evidence

that it inspires confidence for getting the respondents-accused

convicted. Such an evidence is lacking in this case. Therefore, the trial Dr.CSL , J

Court rightly acquitted the respondents-accused for the charges laid.

This Court does not find any grounds for interference.

18. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming

the judgment rendered by the Court of the Special Judge for trial of

cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Adilabad, in Spl.S.C.No.11 of 2010,

dated 23.5.2011.

19. Pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________________________ Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA 29.10.2021 dr