Telangana High Court
Sripada Dayakar And Another, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., And ... on 4 August, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.389 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants are convicted for the offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to
undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment vide
judgment in SC No.21 of 2006, dated 23.03.2009 passed by
the Special Judge for SC/ST (POA) Cases at Warangal.
Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the
complainant/P.W.1 had taken the land on lease from one
Gajjela Bixpathy. On 20.03.2005 at about 1.00 p.m, while
P.W.1 was digging ash, the appellants went there and stated
as follows:
"Madigoda, Ikkadaninchi evaru matti teeyamannaru"
"Batti Digura, madiga lanjakoduka, pendlanni ...etc and
in the meanwhile, A2 also came there running and abused ....
Lanjakodukuni kindiki gunjandi, tannudamu nee madiga
pellanni denga..."
3. For the said reason of abusing in the name of caste,
complaint was lodged on 21.03.2005 under Ex.P1. P.W.2 is
also a labourer. P.W.3 is a tractor driver, who supported the
case of P.W.1. P.W.4 who was also present at the scene and
stated that no such incident took place, for which reason, she
was declared hostile to the prosecution case.
4. PW.6 also supported P.W.1's version regarding the
appellants abusing in the name of caste. P.Ws.9 and 10 who
are independent witnesses turned hostile to the prosecution
case. P.W.12 is the wife of P.W.1, who also stated that the
appellants abused in the name of caste.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there
were disputes regarding the land in between the owner of the
land Bixapathy from whom P.W.1 had allegedly taken the land
on lease and the appellants. For the said reason of there being
disputes regarding the land, the owner i.e., Bixpathy utilized
the services of P.W.1 to file a false complaint against the
appellants.
6. As seen from the evidence of witnesses, the land of the
appellants is adjoining the land of one Bixpathy and even
according to P.W.1, there were disputes regarding boundaries
of the land. The said Bixpathy is not examined for the reasons
best known to the prosecution to lend credibility to the version
of the prosecution version that his land was given on lease to
P.W.1 for running bricks factory.
7. All the witnesses say about the alleged words uttered by
appellants in the name of caste, however, there was never any
physical force used or try to put restraint on PW1. The very
case of the prosecution appears to be doubtful. In the event of
any disputed land and mud was taken from the disputed land
there is every possibility of the appellants physically stopping
from removing such mud from their land. However, standing
at a distance without trying to stop P.W.1 from taking mud
and only uttering in the name of caste appears to be
suspicious and not probable under normal circumstances of a
dispute regarding the land.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, when the land owner
Bixapathy who has given on lease to P.W.1 is not examined
and further there being no physical force used by the
appellants, though mud was being carried from the land of the
appellants, appears to be made up case at the instance of
said Bixapathy to put pressure on the appellants, regarding
the civil disputes.
9. In the said circumstances, the prosecution case being
highly doubtful, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants
and they are acquitted of the charges framed against them.
10. In the result, the impugned judgment in SC No.21 of
2006 dated 23.03.2009 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: 04.08.2022
kvs
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
Criminal Appeal No.389 of 2009
Date:04.08.2022
kvs
