Ryalapeta Narsimha , Pardha Sarathi And ... vs The State Of A.P., Through S.D.P.O., ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 2156 Tel

Telangana High Court

Ryalapeta Narsimha , Pardha Sarathi And ... vs The State Of A.P., Through S.D.P.O., ... on 7 June, 2024

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

            CRIMINAL APPEAL No.658 OF 2012

J U D G M E N T:

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by appellants-

accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 374(2) of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, (for short 'Cr.P.C.,) aggrieved by

the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated

19.06.2012 (impugned Judgment) passed in S.C.No.77

of 2011 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial

of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional

District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short

'learned trial Court').

02. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the

parties will be referred as per their array before the

learned trial Court.

03. The brief facts of the case are as under:

Complainant belongs to Madiga caste and accused

belongs to non-schedule caste. It is alleged that

accused are cultivating the lands adjacent to the lands

of PW1. On 11.10.2010 at about 03:00 PM., while

complainant's bulls are grazing grass, they got

frightened on seeing the wild boar and bulls ran helter-

skelter and they fell into the fields of accused.

Complainant also ran into the fields of accused for

catching the bulls, for which accused abused

complainant in filthy language touching the name of his

caste alleging that he allowed the bulls to graze in

accused fields and beat him with sticks on his back and

when the complainant pleaded for mercy, both accused

kicked him with legs causing injuries. Thereby,

accused committed offences punishable under Sections

324 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and

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

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for

short 'the Act').

04. The learned trial Court framed charges for

the offences under Sections 324 of IPC and Section

3(1)(x) of the Act against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and

they denied the said charges. During the course of trial,

to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2, prosecution

examined PW1 to PW9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9

and MOs1 and 2. Ex.D1 was marked on behalf of

accused. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of

accused.

05. After considering both oral and documentary

evidence available on record and on hearing both sides,

the learned trial Court by way of impugned Judgment

dated 19.06.2012 convicted both accused for the

charged offences and sentenced them to undergo

Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and

to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default of payment

of fine, they shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a

period of one month for the offence under Section 324 of

IPC. Further, sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine

of Rs.500/- each and in default of payment of fine, they

shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of one

month for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act

and directed to run both sentences concurrently.

06. Aggrieved by the impugned Judgment,

accused Nos.1 and 2 have preferred this Criminal

Appeal.

07. Heard Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned

counsel for appellants-accused and learned Additional

Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-respondent.

Perused the record.

08. Learned counsel for appellants-accused

submitted that the impugned Judgment is against law,

weight of evidence and based on surmises and

presumptions; that prosecution witnesses are interested

witnesses and they have political enmity to speak

against accused; that wound certificate was not proved

by examining the Medical Officer; that the learned trial

Judge ought to have seen that accused are not in

occupation of fields and that learned trial Court failed to

consider the evidence of PW8; that the material objects-

sticks are not subjected to scientific test to ascertain

that the said sticks are used by accused for commission

of offence. Hence, he prayed to allow this Criminal

Appeal by setting aside the impugned Judgment.

09. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

State-respondent submitted that the learned trial Court

after considering the oral and documentary evidence,

has rightly convicted and sentenced accused Nos.1 and

2, for which no interference of this Court is needed and

prayed to dismiss this Criminal Appeal.

10. Now, the point for determination is:

Whether the impugned Judgment passed by the learned trial Court, liable to be set aside?

P O I N T:

11. PW1 is complainant. PW2 is eyewitness.

PW3 is circumstantial witness. PW4 is brother of PW1

and circumstantial witness. PW5 is panch witness for

scene of offence panchanama and seizure report. PW6

and PW7 are Tahsildars. PW8 is circumstantial

witness. PW9 is Investigating Officer.

12. PW1 who is complainant deposed that at

about 1 ½ years ago at about 03:00 PM., while

complainant's bulls are grazing grass, they got

frightened on seeing the wild boar and ran helter-skelter

and they fell into the fields of accused. Complainant

also ran into the fields of accused for catching the bulls,

for which accused abused complainant in filthy

language touching the name of his caste stating 'madiga

lanjakoduka' and that he allowed the bulls to graze in

the fields belonging to accused and beat him with stick

on his back and when the complainant pleaded for

mercy by touching accused feet, both accused beat him

with sticks on his back and caused bleeding injuries. In

the meanwhile, PW1's uncle by name Buchappa came

and on seeing him accused Nos.1 and 2 ran away.

Thereafter, he lodged Ex.P1-complaint. During the

course of cross-examination, PW1 voluntarily stated

accused have cultivating land on lease, belonging to

PW8.

13. PW2 who is eyewitness to the incident

deposed that he does not know anything about the case

and even he does not know accused and PW1. PW2

turned hostile to the case of prosecution.

14. PW3 who is circumstantial witness deposed

that accused is his nephew and that he know both

accused. He narrated the incident in the same lines of

PW1. During the course of cross-examination, he stated

that he did not state before Police as in Ex.D1. He

further stated that he had lands adjacent to PW1 and

accused. He denied other suggestions.

15. PW4 is the brother of PW1 deposed that he

knows both accused and that he found injuries over the

body of PW1 on his back and shoulder and that on

enquiry PW1 narrated entire incident to PW4. During

the course of cross-examination, he voluntarily stated

that accused are cultivating the lands of PW8. He

denied other suggestions.

16. PW5 is panch witness for scene of offence

panchanama and seizure report who deposed about

preparation of scene observation panchanama and

rough sketch and that he signed on the said

panchanama marked under Ex.P3. During the course

of cross-examination, PW5 stated that PW1 is not

related to him but he belongs to the same caste.

17. PW6 and PW7 are Tahsildars who deposed

that PW1 belongs to backward caste vide Ex.P4-report

and that accused belongs to Madiga caste vide Ex.P5-

report. Cross-examination of these witnesses is

recorded as nil.

18. PW8 is another circumstantial witness who

deposed that he knows both accused and that he got

land to an extent of Ac.05-00 guntas in Sy.No.243/AA

at Kodangal Village and that he did not give his land on

lease for accused. PW8 turned hostile to the case of the

prosecution.

19. PW9 is the Investigating Officer who deposed

that on Ex.P1-complaint lodged by PW1, he registered a

crime and issued Ex.P8-FIR and proceeded to scene of

offence and prepared scene observation panchanama

vide Ex.P2. During the course of investigation, he

seized sticks at the scene of offence and they are

marked as MOs.1 and 2. Thereafter, he recorded the

statement of witnesses, obtained caste certificates of

PW1 and accused and then effected the arrest of

accused. On completion of investigation, he filed charge

sheet after collecting would certificate marked under

Ex.P9. During the course of cross-examination, PW9

admitted that he did not collect any document from

PW8. PW9 stated that PW3 gave Ex.D1-statement

before him that PW3 enquired PW1 as to what

happened while PW1 was rushing by repeatedly beating

the bulls. PW9 denied a suggestion that a false case

was foisted against accused due to political influence.

20. This Court perused entire material available

on record.

21. It is the case of prosecution according to

Ex.P1-complaint is that on 11.10.2010 at about 03:00

PM., while PW1's bulls are grazing grass, they got

frightened on seeing the wild boar and ran into the

fields of accused. PW1 also ran along with bulls for

catching them, for which accused caught him and

abused in filthy language stating 'Madiga Lanza Koduka'

as to why he allowed the bulls to graze in their fields

and beat him with stick on his back and both accused

kicked him.

22. To prove the above incident, PW2 was

examined as eyewitness, who stated that he does not

know anything about this case and he even does not

know accused and PW1. PW2-eyewitness turned hostile

to the case of prosecution. Hence, there is no

eyewitness for the alleged incident. PW3 who is

maternal uncle of PW1 deposed that on the date of

incident both accused ran away from scene of offence

on his arrival. He brought PW1 to house and thereafter,

PW1 went to Police Station and lodged complaint.

Further, PW3 denied that he stated as in Ex.D1-

statement before Police that he enquired PW1 as to

what happened while PW1 was rushing by repeatedly

beating the bulls. The name of PW3 is Mutyappa. It is

pertinent to state that PW1 during the course of chief

examination stated that one Buchappa came to scene of

offence and accused ran away by seeing the said

Buchappa. By way of examining PW2 and PW3,

prosecution tried to establish the occurrence of

incident. But in view of the above inconsistent evidence

of PW2 and PW3, prosecution failed to prove the same.

23. On 11.10.2010 PW1 was examined by

Medical Officer vide Ex.P9-wound certificate. It is

evident from Ex.P9 that PW1 sustained three simple

injuries i.e., swelling, contusion and abrasion and the

kind of weapon is mentioned as 'blunt weapon' and that

PW1 was treated as outpatient. PW1 stated in the

cross-examination that he was admitted for two days in

hospital for taking treatment. This statement of PW1 is

contrary to Ex.P9-wound certificate, which shows that

PW1 was treated as outpatient. To clarify this aspect,

even though the Medical Officer, who treated PW1 was

shown as LW8 in the charge sheet, he was not

examined by prosecution before the learned trial Court,

to prove the injuries of PW1 in the alleged incident vide

Ex.P9-wound certificate, which is fatal to the case of the

prosecution.

24. PW9-Investigating officer deposed about

seizure of MOs.1 and 2-sticks from scene of offence in

the presence of PW5. It is pertinent to state that PW5,

who was panch witness for scene observation

panchanama and for preparation of rough sketch, in his

evidence before the trial Court, has not whispered about

the presence or seizure of MOs.1 and 2-sticks at scene

of offence. It is also remained unexplained from

prosecution as to why MOs.1 and 2-sticks are not sent

for Forensic Scientific Laboratory to ascertain presence

of any blood stains or any fingerprints of accused on

MOs.1 and 2. It is also to be seen that PW9 conducted

scene observation panchanama on 16.10.2010 and

seized MOs.1 and 2-sticks in the presence of PW5. PW1

in his evidence deposed that he was beaten by accused

with 'stick' but not 'sticks'. Even though the evidence of

PW5 remained silent with regard to seizure of MOs.1

and 2-sticks, PW5 was not declared as hostile and no

cross-examination was forthcoming on this crucial

aspect. Investigating Officer also did not take any

proper steps to ascertain whether those sticks are used

by accused for commission of offence. Therefore, the

usage of MOs.1 and 2-sticks by accused in the

commission of offence is highly doubtful.

25. PW1, PW3 and PW4 in similar lines stated

that the incident took place in the fields of accused.

But in the cross examination, PW4 voluntarily stated

that accused are cultivating the lands of PW8 on lease.

As seen from the evidence of PW8, he categorically

deposed that he never let his land to accused on lease.

Here it is also pertinent to state that the incident

allegedly took place on 11.10.2010 at about 03:30 PM.,

and PW1 took treatment as outpatient on the same day.

PW4 categorically stated that PW1 came to house at

about 06:00 PM. As seen from Ex.P1-compaint, it was

dated 12.10.2010. Hence, there is no explanation from

PW1 as to what prevented him not to file complaint on

the same day itself. There is no explanation for not

lodging the complaint on the date of alleged incident

either from PW1. Therefore, after careful scrutiny of

entire evidence available on record, there is no

consistency in the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and

PW8 with regard to scene of offence and that there is no

sufficient material on record to show that MOs.1 and 2-

sticks were used by accused in commission of offence.

26. In that view of the matter, there is any

amount of doubt about involvement and presence of

accused at the scene of offence on the fateful day.

Overall, there are material contradictions in the

prosecution evidence with regard to scene of offence and

seizure of material objects-sticks from scene of offence

and there is delay in lodging complaint by PW1. The

said contradictions cast a shadow upon the prosecution

story and render the same unreliable and not

trustworthy in the eyes of law.

27. In S. Govidaraju v. State of Karnataka 1

the Honourable Supreme Court of India held that:

"It is well settled legal proposition that while appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements in relation to trivial matters, which do not effect the core of the case of the

(2013) 15 SCC 315

prosecution, must not be made a ground for rejection of evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence available, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses, and the appellate court in the normal course of action, would not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other witnesses also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found not to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence available or with a statement that has already been recorded, then in such a case, it cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt."

28. In the above authority, the Honourable

Supreme Court of India has made it clear that while

appreciating the evidence, Court has to take into

consideration whether the contradictions-omissions

were of such magnitude so as to materially affect the

trial. The learned trial Court after going through the

entire evidence available, must form an opinion about

the credibility of the witnesses and the learned

Appellate Court in the normal course of action, would

not be justified in reviewing the same, without providing

justifiable reasons for doing so. Where the omission(s)

amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt

regarding the truthfulness of a witness, and the other

witnesses also make material improvements before the

Court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it would

not be safe to rely upon such evidence. The

discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitness, if found not

to be minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving

and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances,

the witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their

evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction

with other evidence available or with a statement that

has already been recorded, then in such a case, it

cannot be held that the prosecution has proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt.

29. In Hitesh Verma v The State Of

Uttarakhand 2 the Honourable Supreme Court of India

held that:

AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5584

"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under:

"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public

place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."

30. In the above authority, the Honourable

Supreme Court of India made it clear that if the offence

is committed outside the building i.e., in a lawn outside

a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the

road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would

certainly be a place within the 'public view'. Also, even

if the remark is made inside a building, but some

members of the public are there (not merely relatives or

friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the

'public view'. There shall not be any confusion between

the expression "place within public view" with the

expression "public place". A place can be a private

place but yet within the public view. A public place

would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased

by the Government or the municipality (or other local

body) or an instrumentality of the State and not by

private persons or private bodies.

31. In the present case on hand, the incident

alleged to have been committed in the agricultural fields

of accused. It is not the case of prosecution that there

was any member of the public (not merely relatives or

friends) at the time and place of alleged incident.

Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were

uttered "in any place within public view" is not made

out. There is no independent or direct witness in this

matter to speak about the alleged incident. Even if the

evidence of PW3 is accepted, the same cannot be relied

upon as PW3 is close relative of PW1.

32. To prove the offence under the Act, the

prosecution shall prove that the offence had been

committed against the person on the ground that such

person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled

Tribe and that there is an intention on the part of

accused persons to humiliate a member of Scheduled

Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim

belongs to such caste. In this matter, prosecution failed

to prove the main ingredient that accused know the

caste of PW1 prior to the incident. Moreover, almost all

the witnesses are interested witnesses and as stated

supra, the incident alleged to have happened in a

private place and there is no presence of public

member. Furthermore, on close scrutiny of the entire

evidence available on record, it is evident that there are

number of contradictions and omissions in the

prosecution evidence, which would be fatal to the case

of prosecution and that there is nothing on record

pointing out the guilt of the accused for the offences

under Section 324 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the

evidence in proper perspective and erred in convicting

and sentencing appellants-accused.

33. In view of the above discussion coupled with

settled principles of law laid down by Honourable

Supreme Court of India and considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court is of the

considered opinion that prosecution failed to prove the

guilt of accused for the offences under Section 324 of

IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and the impugned

Judgment of Conviction and Sentence passed by the

learned trial Court is liable to be set aside.

34. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed

setting aside the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence

dated 19.06.2012 passed in S.C.No.77 of 2011 by the

learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VII Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. Consequently, both

accused are acquitted. There shall be no order as to

costs.

As a sequel, pending Miscellaneous Applications

in this matter, if any, shall stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Dated: 07-JUN-2024 KHRM