Bandakindi Shigaraiah, Salwapur ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3972 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1699 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellants 1 to 4 are convicted and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine

of Rs.500/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for

15 days for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (POA) Act,

1989 vide judgment in S.C.No.82 of 2007 dated 03.11.2009.

Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that A1 and P.W.1 are

having adjacent lands. While digging bore-well, A1

complained, as such, MRO advised PW1 not to dig bore-well

without any permission. Thereafter a borewell was dug with

permission. P.W.1 went to his fields and found that the

appellants 1 to 4 were present there and damaged their bore-

well. When questioned, they abused P.W.1 in the name of his

caste. Due to fear, P.w.1 ran from the field. On the next day

morning, when P.W.1 went to field, he observed that the

accused/appellants filled up the bore-well with stones and

appellants also abused his son. The elders of the village tried

to intervene in the dispute, however the appellants did not

listen to them as such after two days, P.W.1 went to the Police

Station and filed complaint.

3. Learned Special Judge having examined P.Ws.1 to 11

and marking Exs.P1 to P7 found that the appellants herein are

responsible for abusing P.W.1 and his son in the name of their

caste and accordingly convicted them.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the land

which was claimed by P.W.1 in fact belongs to A1 and his

brother, who was examined as P.W.9. As seen from the

evidence of P.W.9, though it was the joint family property,

without informing A1, the said land was sold to P.W.1, for the

said reason, there were disputes regarding sale of land.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the evidence

of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 is consistent to speak about the accused

entering into the land of P.W.1 and abusing P.W.1 and his

son, P.W.1 in the name of caste.

6. As seen from the record, the land claimed by P.W.1 was

purchased from PW.9, who is the brother of A1. Even

according to P.W.9, he has sold the said land without the

consent of A1. P.W.1, purchased the said land, which is joint

family property, without the consent of A1, though he knew

that it was joint family property. A1 was trying to protect his

land and P.W.1 having purchased the same from P.W.9 was

also trying to protect his property. In the said circumstances,

to keep A1 away from his land, false implication by P.W.1

cannot be ruled out. Even according to P.W.1, except the

accused and himself, no one were present when they were

allegedly abused in the name of their caste in the field.

Further on the next day, when P.W.2 went to the fields, he was

also abused by the accused. The only corroborating evidence

is that of P.W.3, who is an interested witness.

7. In the said circumstances false implication for the reason

of property being claimed by P.W.1 of A1 cannot be ruled out.

As such, the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants and

the conviction recorded under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST

(POA )Act vide impugned judgment dated 03.11.2009 is set

aside and the appellants are acquitted. Since the

accused/appellants are on bail, their bail bonds stand

cancelled.

8. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel

thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:29.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1699 OF 2009

Date:29.07.2022.

kvs