Telangana High Court
Peddi Mallaiah And 2 Others, vs The State Of A.P., Rep By Pp., on 15 July, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1185 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellants 1 to 3/A1 to A3 are convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months each for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs &
STs (POA) Act and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to
suffer simple imprisonment for one month and also sentenced
to undergo RI for six months under Section 323 of IPC and
also to pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default, to under SI for
one month each vide judgment in S.C.No.152 of 2007 dated
16.09.2009 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of
Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, Khammam (for short
'learned Sessions Judge').
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellants (herein
after referred to as 'A1 to A3') and P.W.1 belong to the same
locality. A1 to A3 used to place cattle dung near the house of
P.W.1. Aggrieved by the said act of the accused, P.W.1 filed
complaint with Kusumanchi Police Station on 06.11.2006.
The police advised that the cattle dung should be removed and
accordingly, it was removed by A1 to A3. On the next day i.e.,
07.11.2006, around 6.00 a.m, A1 to A3 went to the house of
P.W.1 and A3 beat P.W.1 and A.2 beat P.W.2 with broom stick.
A2 caught hold of the hair of P.W.2 and threw her on the
ground. A1 to A3 abused PWs.1 and 2 in the name of their
caste. P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1, P.Ws.3 and 4 also stated
that there was a galata in between P.Ws.1 and 2 which they
have seen. P.W.5 is also from the same locality and deposed
on same lines. P.Ws.6 and 7, who are witnesses to the scene
of offence panchanama turned hostile to the prosecution case.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that
the entire case of the prosecution cannot be believed for the
reason of false implication. As seen from the complaint Ex.P1,
one Nallamothu Seshagiri had led these appellants to the
house and beat the son of P.W.1. However, the said
Nallamothu Seshagiri was deleted from the array of accused
by the police. P.W.10, who is the investigating officer admitted
that the name of Nallamothu Seshagiri was removed from the
charge sheet as his name was mentioned due to political
grudge.
4. As seen from the facts of the case, there was complaint
filed by P.Ws.1 and 2 regarding cattle dung being dumped by
the side of house of P.W.1. However, P.W.10, investigating
officer admits that there was existing dung site on the western
side of one Nallamothu Seshagiri, whose name was deleted
from the array of accused in the charge sheet.
5. The case of the prosecution at the initial stage itself is
that it was the site of said Nallamothu Seshagiri, who had
gone to the scene and abused P.Ws.1 and 2 with the help of
accused herein. There is any amount of discrepancy with
regard to the words uttered as stated by the witnesses P.Ws.1,
2 and 3.
6. The reasons for deleting the name of the said Nallamothu
Seshagiri was that due to political reasons and investigating
officer in fact admitted during cross-examination that he
belongs to a political party.
7. In the back ground of the police not arraying the
principal accused named in the FIR and according to the
complaint at whose instance, the entire incident took place, it
casts a doubt against the genesis of the case being correct.
For the said reasons, the benefit of doubt has to be given to
the accused herein.
8. The conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in
S.C.No.152 of 2007 dated 16.09.2009 is set aside.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel
thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 15.07.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1185 OF 2009
Date: 15.07.2022.
kvs
