Telangana High Court
T. Srinivas, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 13 October, 2022
Bench: K.Surender
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.813 of 2010
ORDER:
1. The appellants/A2 and A3 are convicted for the offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of
six months vide judgment in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2009, dated
28.06.2010 passed by the Special Judge for trial of offences
under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Secunderabad. Aggrieved by the same,
present appeal is filed.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW.1 gave one tula of
gold to A1 for preparing ornaments for his daughter in the
month of January, 2008. However, A1 failed to deliver the said
ornament within the stipulated time. On 22.06.2008 in the
morning hours, P.W.1 went to the house of A1 and asked
about the gold ornament. At that time, A2 was present in the
house, who stated that his father and another brother, who is
A3 went to Eye Hospital at Darulshifa for check up.
Accordingly, P.W.1 accompanied A2 to the said hospital. On
seeing P.W.1, A1 and A3 started abusing P.W.1 in the name of
his caste and A1 to A3 beat P.W.1 in front of the hospital. A
private complaint was lodged on the next day i.e. on
23.06.2008 before the XIII Additional Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate at Hyderabad. The said complaint was referred to
police for the purpose of investigation. On receiving the said
complaint, the police registered complaint on 30.06.2008 for
the offence under Sections 323, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and also
under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. The police, having
completed investigation, filed charge sheet for the said
offences.
3. Learned Special Judge, having examined the witnesses
P.Ws.1 to 9 and marking Exs.P1 to P6 found the appellants
guilty as aforementioned.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is
no evidence to suggest that there was entrustment of gold to
A1 for preparing ornaments. In the absence of such proof or
seizure of gold by the police, which was allegedly given to A1,
the very basis for complaint becomes false. Further, the
incident allegedly occurred at Hospital. The date on which the
alleged incident took place is on 22.06.2008 which was a
Sunday and according to Ex.D1, the said hospital was closed
on Sunday. In the said circumstances, the question of
appellants going to the hospital does not arise. For the said
reasons, the finding of conviction has to be reversed.
5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits
that PWs.1, 3 and 4 have clearly stated that P.W.1 was
assaulted in front of the hospital, which is in public view, as
such, the conviction cannot be interfered with.
6. The complaint was directly made before the Magistrate
on the very next day of the incident. The incident occurred on
22.06.2008 at about 10.30 a.m. However, according to P.W.3,
who is press reporter of Urdu daily, has stated that there was
an altercation that took place in between the appellants and
the P.W.1 and he followed P.W.1 to the police station.
However, no complaint was given to the police. In the
complaint Ex.P1 filed before the Court on the very next day,
P.W.1 stated that he had given written complaint but the same
was refused by the police. The said written complaint was not
enclosed to the complaint filed in Court.
7. In accordance with Code of Criminal Procedure, if the
concerned Station House Officer does not take a complaint, it
is for the complainant to approach the superior officer, who
would be the Superintendent of Police with his grievance.
However, no such steps were taken.
8. Though, A1 was shown as absconding in the charge
sheet filed, no steps were taken to proceed against A1 to whom
the alleged gold was handed over. According to P.W.1, the
police Mirchowk failed to acknowledge that P.W.1 had
appeared before the police on the alleged date of incident,
which is 22.06.2008. Though it is alleged that P.W.1 was
beaten by the appellants herein and he fell on the road,
according to P.Ws.1 and 3, there is no treatment of injuries by
any Doctor. Even in the complaint Ex.P1, there is no mention
that what were the injuries sustained by P.W.1.
9. The witnesses P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 in the complaint were
examined after a period of three months by the Investigating
Officer. Admittedly, P.Ws.3 and 4 were strangers to P.W.1. It
is not known as to how P.Ws.3 and 4, who were strangers,
were identified by the police after a period of three months.
The complaint does not reflect the address of any of the
witnesses. The very version of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 regarding the
alleged incident and subsequent complaint in the court on the
very next day casts doubt regarding the incident and the
version given by the witnesses. For the said reasons, benefit
of doubt is extended to the appellants when the very basis for
the complaint is found to be false.
10. For the aforementioned reasons, the conviction recorded
against the appellants vide judgment in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2009
dated 28.06.2010 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: 13.10.2022
kvs
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.813 of 2010
Date: 13.10.2022.
kvs
