M. NARAYANA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS Judgment, according to law, arises out of a Criminal Appeal, filed by appellants no. l to 44, against the sole respondent-State, under sub-section (2) of Section 374, Cr. P. C, 1973, questioning the, validity and legality, of the adjudications made by, and set forth in para 2, infra. ( 2 ) JUDGMENT, dated 1-4-1997, of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge under scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Guntur (Trial Court), made in S. C. No. 16/94, of its file. ( 3 ) PERUSED the material papers of the record. ( 4 ) ARGUMENTS were heard of the learned counsel for the appellants, and the learned addl. Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent-State, as the case may be, for and against the foregoing points. ( 5 ) APPELLANTS 1 to 5 correspond, respectively, to A-1 to A-5 in the said s. C. No. 16/94. Appellants 6 to 11 corresp ond, respectively, to A-7 to A-12, in that Sessions case. Appellants 12 to 16 correspond, respectively, to A-14 to A-18 therein. Appellants 17 to 43 herein correspond, respectively, to A-20 to A-46 therein. Appellant No. 44 herein corresponds to A-48 therein. The sole respondent in this Criminal appeal corresponds to the sole complainant in the said Sessions Case, being, the State represented by the Inspector of Police, macherla. ( 6 ) THE parties are, hereinafter, referred to, with reference to their respective descriptions before the said Trial Court, in that S. C. No. l6/94, unless, otherwise, so specified. ( 7 ) THE said Sessions Case pertains to Crime no. 3/92, of the Police Station, Veldurthi, guntur District, registered under the penal provisions, set forth in sub-para (z) of para 9, supra. ( 8 ) IN total, the crime was registered against 48 accused. Also, charge-sheet was filed, originally, against 48 accused, as A-1 to A-48. However, after registration thereof, as the said S. C. No. 16/94, in the said Trial Court, a-6 died, and hence, the case against him was recorded, as abated. Also, the cases against A-13, A-19 and A-47 therein was separated. So therefore, A-1 to A-5; A-7 to a-12; A-14 to A-18; A-20 to A-46; and A-48, only faced trial before the said Trial Court. Also, the cases against A-13, A-19 and A-47 therein was separated. So therefore, A-1 to A-5; A-7 to a-12; A-14 to A-18; A-20 to A-46; and A-48, only faced trial before the said Trial Court. ( 9 ) THE material part of the case of the prosecution, as set forth in its charge-sheet, filed before the said Trial Court, in the said s. C. No. 16/94, is set forth, in brief, as under:- (A) All the accused are residents of kandlakunta village. (B) L. Ws. l to 17 of the charge-sheet, some of whom were examined as witnesses in the case and ten others are residents of Gudipadu Cheruvu, hamlet of kandlakunta village of Guntur district. (C) The said L. Ws. l to 17 and others are chenchus and Sugalies, who belong to Scheduled Tribes. (D) All the accused belonged to upper caste. (E) About 30 years prior to the charge- sheet, the Government distributed ac. 300 of dry land, amongst Chenchus and others, who are residing in chenchugudem village, giving ac. 2. 50 cents, per head. (F) However, the said Chenchus never cultivated the said lands. (G) While so, about five years prior to the charge-sheet, the said Chenchus and sugalies pledged the pattas of their lands to Kundlakunta Reddys, from whom they have taken money and foodgrains. (H) About one year thereafter, knowing about the same, the revenue authorities came to the said kandlakunta village, and enquired into the matter, and settled the issues, and took back the pattas form the said reddys, and un-officially distributed 50% of the lands to those Reddys, and the remaining 50% of those lands, to chenchus. (I) However, those Reddys of kandlakunta village never allowed chenchus to cultivate their lands. (J) Hence, the mater was again represented to the District Collector, guntur, Police, as well as well as, the revenue authorities, who, in turn, warned those Reddys, but, in vain. (K) Prior to 1-8-1991, the Chenchus of gundipadu cheruvu, under the leadership of the said L. W. 2, beat ryots of Kandlakunta village, who are working in the fields, which were allotted to Chenchus, and also, destroyed the standing crop. The report, in respect thereof, was registered as Crime No. 41/91, of the police Station, Veldurthi. (L) While so, in the meantime, the accused went to Civil Court, and obtained injunction Orders. The report, in respect thereof, was registered as Crime No. 41/91, of the police Station, Veldurthi. (L) While so, in the meantime, the accused went to Civil Court, and obtained injunction Orders. (M) The Chenchus started common cultivation in Gundipadu cheruvu tank, and raised Paddy, Jowar, and variga crops, in an extent of Ac. 25. 00 cents, of land. This became an eye sore to the accused, and hence, bore grudge against the Chenchus, and hatched a plan to drive them away, and, later, to grab their lands (N) On 17-1-1992, around 1. 00 p. m. , all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with the common object of doing away the Chenchus, by destroying their properties. The accused were armed with sticks, spears, axes, and bombs. (O) In pursuance of the said plan, all the accused hurled bombs into the said land, in which P. Ws. 1,2 and 10 to 17, and others were harvesting and working, to scare away Chenchus. Thereupon, the Chenchus, afraid of the accused, ran way, and climbed the tank bund, and witnessed the destruction of standing crops, by the accused, by driving their cattle into the lands, as well as, by setting fire to their paddy heaps. (P) Because, the accused chased the chenchus, they ran away into the forest, out of fear of the accused. (Q) Thereafter, all the accused proceeded to the Chenchugudem, and abused the womenfolk, and caused mischief, by damaging the houses and household articles of P. Ws. 1 to 13, and others. (R) The accused also set fire to the residential huts of P. W. 13, and three others, and reduced them into ashes. (S) A-13 abused P. W. 13 in filthy language, and beat him with a stick on his head, due to which, he fell down unconscious. (T) P. W. 19 went to the M. R. O. , Veldurthi, on 18-1-1992, around 7. 00 a. m. , and gave a written report, which was registered by the Police Station, as crime No. 3/92, and issued F. I. Rs. , to all the concerned, and was investigated into. (T) P. W. 19 went to the M. R. O. , Veldurthi, on 18-1-1992, around 7. 00 a. m. , and gave a written report, which was registered by the Police Station, as crime No. 3/92, and issued F. I. Rs. , to all the concerned, and was investigated into. (U) In the process of investigation into the said crime, the Inspector of Police, gurijala (P. W. 14), visited the scene of offence in the presence of panch witnesses, and prepared a panchanama of the scene of offence, and also seized broken tile pieces, wooden and iron parts, etc. He also seized burnt aluminium vessel, brass plate, tiffin box etc. , under a panchanama before the mediators. (V) In the process of investigation, the accused were arrested and sent for remand. (W) The Director, Forensic Science laboratory, Hyderabad, who examined the seized bombs, opinioned, that, the same contained potassium Chlorate, Sulphide, sulphur, which will endanger the lives on explosion. (X) P. W. 22, the Medical Officer, opined, that, the injuries sustained by P. W. 23 are simple in nature. (Y) The Collector and District Magistrate, guntur, accorded permission, to prosecute all the accused, under sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive substances Act, by his proceedings, dated 15-7-1993. (Z) The investigation revealed, that all the accused, thereby, committed the offences, punishable under Sees. 147; 148; 324; 447; 435, and 436,1. P. C. , read with Section 149, thereof, as well as under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive substances Act, as also, Section 3 (1) (iv) (v); (xv), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989. (AA) Hence, all the accused are liable for punishment under the foregoing penal provisions, and hence, charge-sheet is filed against them, for punishing them, accordingly, thereunder. (AA) Hence, all the accused are liable for punishment under the foregoing penal provisions, and hence, charge-sheet is filed against them, for punishing them, accordingly, thereunder. ( 10 ) THE said Special Sessions Judge took the case, on file, under the foregoing penal provisions, and, later, after appearance of the accused before that Court, and hearing the learned Special Pubic Prosecutor, and the learned Counsel for the accused, framed 10 common charges, against A-1 to A-5; a-7 to A-12; A-14 to A-18; A-20 to A-46; and a-48, in respect of the offences, punishable under Sections 148; 447;435; I. P. C. , read with section 149, thereof; Section 436,i. P. C, read with Section 149, thereof; Section 3 of the explosive Substances Act; Section 3 (1) (iv); section 3 (1) (v); Sec. 3 (1) (x); Section 3 (1) (xv); and Section 3 (2) (iii) of the said Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989. ( 11 ) BECAUSE, before the said Trial Court, all the foregoing accused pleaded not guilty in respect of the foregoing charges, set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph, and claimed to be tried, the said Trial Court tried the said S. C. No. 16/94, following the procedure prescribed in Chapter xviii, cr. P. C. ,1973, for trial of Sessions Cases, in the process whereof, it recorded the oral evidence of P. Ws. l to 25, and, exhibited the documentary evidence, by way of Exs. P-1 to p-10, and Exs. D-1 to D-4 and, later, after due arguments there-into, finally, adjudicated thereupon, by its now impugned Judgment, dated 1-4-1997, set forth in para 2, supra, as under:- (I) Finding A-1 to A-5; A-7 to A-12; A-14 to A-18; A-20 to A-46; and A-48, guilty of all the offences, and common charges, set forth in the immediately, but preceding paragraphs, except the common charge, framed under section 148, I. P. C. , in respect whereof only, they were acquitted; (II) Consequently, convicted the foregoing accused, under sub-section (2) of section 235, Cr. P. C, in respect of all the offences and common charges, in respects whereof, they were found guilty, as set forth in sub-para (I), supra, and, hence sentenced each of them, thereunder, as under:- (1) Under Section 447, I. P. C. , each of them, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year, as well as, to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo Simple imprisonment for four months, each; (2) Under Section 435, I. P. C. read with Section 149, thereof, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years, each as well as, to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, each; (3) Under Section 436, I. P. C. , read with Section 149, thereof, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years, each, as also, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months, each; (4) Under Section 3 of the Explosive substances Act, to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for ten years, each, as well as, to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months, each; (5) Undersection3 (1) (iv) of the said sc / ST Act, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months, each, as well as, to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/ -. each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo simple Imprisonment for two months, each; (6) Under Section 3 (1) (v) of the said sc/st Act, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months, each, as well as, to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo simple Imprisonment for two months, each; (7) Under Section 3 (1) (x) of the said sc/st Act, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment of Six months, each, as also, to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo simple Imprisonment for two months, each; (8) Under Section 3 (1) (xv) of the said SC/st Act, to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six month, each, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo Simple imprisonment for two months, each; and (9) Undersection3 (2) (iii)ofthesaid sc/st Act, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, each, and to pay a fine of rs. 1,000/-, each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo simple Imprisonment for two months, each. The foregoing substantive sentences of imprisonment, imposed un all the respective foregoing accused, was directed to run, concurrently. 1,000/-, each, and, in default of payment thereof, to undergo simple Imprisonment for two months, each. The foregoing substantive sentences of imprisonment, imposed un all the respective foregoing accused, was directed to run, concurrently. ( 12 ) AGGRIEVED thereby, and, questioning the, validity and legality, thereof, the foregoing convict-accused filed the present criminal Appeal, as set forth in para 1, supra, read with para 2, supra. ( 13 ) IN the foregoing facts and circumstances of the case, the point, that arises for consideration and adjudication thereupon, by this Appeallate Court, in this criminal Appeal, will be, as under:-"whether the impugned Judgment, dated 1-4-1997, of the said Trial Court, made in S. C. No. 16/94, of its file, as well as, the repective findings of guilt, convictions and sentences imposed thereby, upon the accused-convict- appellants in this Criminal Appeal, as set forth in clauses 1 to 9 of sub-para II, as also, sub-para 1, of para 11, supra, are all unsustainable, either, at fact, or, Law, and hence, are liable to be set aside, in toto, or, modified, or, interfered with, in any manner?" ( 14 ) NO additional, oral or documentary, evidence, is sought to be adduced by any of the parties, in this Criminal Appeal. ( 15 ) ARGUMENTS were heard, in extenso, of the learned Counsel for the appellants, and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the sole respondent-State, as the case may be, for and against the foregoing point. ( 16 ) POINT: The brief, material, required, facts and circumstances of the case, are all set forth in the foregoing paragraphs. ( 17 ) P. WS. L to 17 are all residents of veldurthi village. Out of them, P. Ws. l to 11 and 13 belonged to the caste of Chenchu. P. W. 12 belongs to the caste of Sugalie. P. Ws. 14 to 17 are Reddys by caste. They are all age groups in between 25 years to 50 years. They are all coolies by profession, except, P. W. I, who is a Cook in the government Hospital. They are all examined as eye-witnesses to prove the foregoing offences and charges, against the accused. P. Ws. 14 to 17 are Reddys by caste. They are all age groups in between 25 years to 50 years. They are all coolies by profession, except, P. W. I, who is a Cook in the government Hospital. They are all examined as eye-witnesses to prove the foregoing offences and charges, against the accused. ( 18 ) THE said P. W. 1, inter alia, deposed, that on the date of the offences, all the accused and some sixty other persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with axes, bombs, spears, approached them, with intention to attack them, and that, by seeing them, they shattered, and ran away into the forest area/and that, thereupon, all the accused drove their cattle into the crops, to spoil crops, and also, set fire to the heaps. Even in his chief-examination, he deposed, that, he witnesses the incident, from a distance of 2 KMs. , and also, deposed, that, in one witnesses the incident, from a distance of 1 KM. , he can t identify the physical features of the individuals. He also deposed, that, later, all the accused went to their houses, and abused womenfolk, and accused mischief, by damaging sewing machines, 26 in number, which belonged to their individual families, and that, the accused also damaged the huts of Chenchu community, and beat P. W. 23, causing bleeding injury to him. He deposed, that, the value of the damaged property is Rs. 10 lacs. ( 19 ) IN his cross-examination, P. W. I denied, as having stated, as in Ex. D-1, which is the contradictory portion in his Police statement, recorded under sub-section (3) of section 161, Cr. P. C, 1973. It was later, duly, provedby the Investigating Officer (P. W. 24 ). Ex. D-1 reads, that, inter alia, as that, there were disputes in between Chenchus and kandulakunta Reddys, in respect of lands. In his cross-examination, he also deposed, that, Reddy communtiy persons obtained injunction Orders from the Gurijala Court, in respect of the land assigned to Chenchus. He also admitted, that he heard, that, his father sold away the assigned land, to Reddy persons. He further deposed, that, other chenchu persons also sold away their assigned lands, to Reddy community persons. He furthermore deposed, in his cross-examination, that, he witnessed all the accused, from a distance of K. M. , and that, none of the accused hurled bombs. He further deposed, that, other chenchu persons also sold away their assigned lands, to Reddy community persons. He furthermore deposed, in his cross-examination, that, he witnessed all the accused, from a distance of K. M. , and that, none of the accused hurled bombs. He denied the suggestion, that, he has not stated before the Police, that, only, 100 persons of reddy caste came to attack, but that, he did not indicate their names. He deposed, that, he gave the names of the accused, on the information given by his wife, and that, he accordingly stated to the Police. He denied the suggestion,, that, he omitted to mention before the Police, about the accused beating soma Naik (P. W. 23), and caused bleeding injury. He denied the suggestion, that, the value of the property damaged will not be rs. 10 lacs, and that, in fact, no damage was caused, at all. He denied the suggestion, that, false case is foisted against the accused, who belonged to Reddy caste, to force them to vacate the disputed land, in order to deliver the same to the Chenchus. He denied the suggestion, as having stated as in Ex. D-2, which is another contradicted portion in his foregoing Police Statement, wherein he purported to have stated, that, more than 100 persons, holding in their hands, sticks, spears, and axes, were seen, etc. ( 20 ) P. W. 2, inter alia, deposed, that, there were disputes between them, and the accused, and that, thereafter when they started common cultivation, all the accused attack them with bombs, spears, sticks, and damaged the variga crop, and that P. Ws. , ran away into the forest. In his cross- examination, he deposed, that, he did not observe all the accused, or, identified, due to bombs smoke, which were hurled. He deposed, that, he was in the forest, for three days after the incident. He deposed, that he heard the explosive sound of the bomb, from a distance of 1 K. M. , and after seeing the accused, all the inmates, including, the wives and children, fled away into the forest, except, the old aged people. He admitted, that, the accxised obtained injunction Orders against them. He deposed, that he heard the explosive sound of the bomb, from a distance of 1 K. M. , and after seeing the accused, all the inmates, including, the wives and children, fled away into the forest, except, the old aged people. He admitted, that, the accxised obtained injunction Orders against them. He admitted, that he cannot say the particulars, as to, which accused committed, which offence, on that day, and that, he did not tell, anything, before the Police, but, the police themselves wrote it. ( 21 ) P. W. 3, inter alia, deposed, that, while they were cultivating their lands, the accused became wild, and hurled bombs, due to which they ran away into forest, except, the old aged people. In his chief-examination, itself, he deposed, that, in the smoke of the bombs, he could not identify any of the accused, and that, after he returned back to the village, he found, that, their huts were burnt into ashes, and crops damaged, etc. He was not cross- examination for the accused. ( 22 ) P. W. 4 deposed, that, all the accused came, armed with bombs and axes, and that, therefore, out of fear, they ran into the forest, including, the children except old people. He further deposed, that, the accused set fire to the heap of the crops, and their huts. In his cross-examination, he deposed, that, he saw the accused from a distance of about 1 K. M. , and ran away on seeing them. ( 23 ) P. W. 5 deposed, that, the accused hurled bombs, which emitted smoke, and that, the accused damaged the huts, belonging to Chenchus, as well as, their sewing machines. He deposed, that, on seeing the accused he ran away into the forest, out of fear from them. He deposed, that, he heard the explosion of the. bomb, from a distance of one furlong, and the entire area was covered with smoke. In his cross-examination, the contradictory portion, in his Police statement, under Section 161 (3), Cr. P. C, 1973, was exhibited as Ex. D-3. Therein, he purported to have stated, that, when Chenchus came back to the village, he saw the tiles and beams of the houses broken. ( 24 ) P. W. 6, inter alia, deposed, that, all the accused came running towards thrashing fields of P. Ws. P. C, 1973, was exhibited as Ex. D-3. Therein, he purported to have stated, that, when Chenchus came back to the village, he saw the tiles and beams of the houses broken. ( 24 ) P. W. 6, inter alia, deposed, that, all the accused came running towards thrashing fields of P. Ws. 1 to 4, and that, the accused were armed with spears, axes, and bombs, and hurled them. He deposed, that, on seeing the accused, he ran away into the forest. In his cross-examination, he deposed, that, he saw the accused from a distance of 1 K. M. , and that, on seeing them, he ran away, from there, out of fear. He also deposed, that, the accused came running in the shape of a mob, and that, there were 100 persons in that mob. ( 25 ) P. W. 7, inter alia, deposed, that, all the accused came towards the fields, while hurling bombs, and that, on seeing them, he and others ran away into the forest, and came back to the village, only, after three days. ( 26 ) P. W. 8 turned hostile to the prosecution, and did not depose, anything, incriminating, in respect of its case against the accused. Hence, he was cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor, with the permission of the Trial Court, in the process whereof, his Police statement was exhibited as Ex. p-1, which will not have the factual, or, legal, effect, of evidence, on Oath, before a court of Law, and hence, of no significance. ( 27 ) P. W. 9, inter alia, deposed, that, all the accused came towards the fields, and damaged the crop, and demolished the houses, and burnt the same, and that, on seeing them, they left into the forest. ( 28 ) P. W. 10, inter alia, deposed, that, while they were harvesting variga crop, all the accused came, and hurled bombs, whereupon they went into the forest, and that, only after three days, they (Chenchus), returned back to the village. ( 28 ) P. W. 10, inter alia, deposed, that, while they were harvesting variga crop, all the accused came, and hurled bombs, whereupon they went into the forest, and that, only after three days, they (Chenchus), returned back to the village. ( 29 ) P. W. 11, inter alia, deposed, that, all the accused came running into their fields, while hurling bombs, and that, he witnessed the same, from a distance of 1 K. M. He deposed, that, he, and other Chenchus, ran into the forest, out of fear, and that, on the second day, they returned back to the village, and saw the damaged, and burnt huts, sewing machines, etc. In his cross-examination, he deposed, that, on seeing the accused, at a distance of 1 K. M. , he ran away. ( 30 ) P. W. 12, inter alia, deposed, that, all the accused came hurling bombs, and that, on seeing them, the Chenchus ran away into the forest, and that, again, on the second day, they came back to the village, and found the damaged variga crop, sewing machines, and burnt huts, etc. In his cross-examination, he deposed, that, he saw the accused, at a distance of 1 K. M. , and on seeing them, he ran away into the forest. ( 31 ) P. W. 13, inter alia, deposed, that while they were harvesting variga crop, the accused came upon them, whereupon, they (Chenchus) ran away into the forest, and that, the accused set fire to the crop. He deposed, that, he saw the accused, at a distance of 1 K. M. He admitted, that, he did not tell the Police, that all the accused came, and hurled bombs, and set fire to the houses and crops, and that, for the first time, in the trial Court, he was so deposing, like that. ( 32 ) P. W. 14, inter, alia, deposed, that, all the accused came along with bulls, and hurled bombs, from, 1 K. M. , away from them, and that, due to fear, the Chenchus ran away, helter-skelter, into the forest, and that, subsequently, when they returned form the forest, they found their household articles and houses damaged. In his cross- examination, he deposed, that, on seeing the accused, he ran away into forest, out of fear. In his cross- examination, he deposed, that, on seeing the accused, he ran away into forest, out of fear. He admitted, that, he has not stated before the Police, that, he witnessed the incident, while the accused were coming to the fields, hurling bombs. He denied the suggestion, as having stated before the Police, as in Ex. D-4, which is the contradictory portion in his police statement, under Section 161 (3), cr. P. C, 1973. ( 33 ) P. W. 15 turned hostile to the prosecution, and did not depose, anything, incriminating, in respect of the case of the prosecution, and hence, he was cross- examined by the learned Special Public prosecutor, with the permission of the Trial court, in the process whereof, his Police statement was exhibited as Ex. P-2, which will not have the factual, or, legal, effect, of substantive evidence, on Oath, before a Court of Law. ( 34 ) P. W. 16, inter alia, deposed, that, all the accused came, hurling bombs, and that, on seeing them, they ran away into the forest, and that, on the next day, they returned, and found their houses damaged, and the crop burnt away etc. ( 35 ) P. W. 17 turned hostile to the State, and hence, did not depose, anything, incriminating, in respect of the case of the prosecution, and, hence, he was cross- examined for the State, with the permission of the Trial Court, in the process whereof, his police statement was exhibited as Ex. P-3, which will be of the same effect as is set forth in respect of Exs. P-1 and P-2, in paras 26 and 33, supra. ( 36 ) SO, therefore, as can be seen from the foregoing extracts of the respective evidences of the foregoing P. Ws. l to 17, in respect of the actual alleged offences committed by the accused, and the accused themselves, out of total number of 17 witnesses, cited and examined as P. Ws. l to 17, three of them, being, P. Ws. 8,15 and 17, turned hostile to the prosecution, and did not tell, anything, incriminating, against any of the accused, and to support the case of the prosecution. l to 17, three of them, being, P. Ws. 8,15 and 17, turned hostile to the prosecution, and did not tell, anything, incriminating, against any of the accused, and to support the case of the prosecution. ( 37 ) THEN, there remains 14 witnesses, whose respective evidences, as can be seen from the foregoing paragraphs, will disclose, as the case may be, as that, soon after they saw the accused hurled bombs, they ran away into the forest, and returned back 1 or 2 or 3, days later, as the case may be. So, therefore, they could not have witnessed, or, identified the accused, properly, as, even according to them, out of fear, they ran away into the forest. ( 38 ) EVEN otherwise, most of the foregoing p. Ws. l to 7,9 to 14 and 16, almost, categorically, deposed, that, they witnessed the accused and the incidents, from a distance of, on the average, of, about 1 K. M. , approximately. Some of the witnesses deposed, that, from such distance, the accused cannot be identified. ( 39 ) EVEN otherwise, it is common knowledge, and the Court can take Judicial cognizance, that, from a distance of 1 K. M. , one cannot, ordinarily, identify the culprits, and the overtacts done by them, etc. It will be occularly not possible, and so to say, impossible. Even if details are given, it cannot be believed, and may lead to mis-identity. ( 40 ) EVEN otherwise, the evidence of the foregoing P. Ws. 1 to 7,9 to 14 and 16, is very vague, shabby and unconvincing, as to the alleged overt acts done by all, or, some, or, specified, accused, and the details thereof. Some of them deposed, that, the accused came armed with sticks, spears, axes, and the like. Some deposed, only, aboutbombs being hurled. But, out of the total number of 48 accused, who of them hurled, bombs is not known, and also, the identity of such accused. ( 41 ) IN fact, the evidence of most of the witnesses disclose, that not only A-1 to A-48 present before the Trial Court, but also, 50 to 100, other persons also, of Reddy caste, or, some other caste, carne. ( 41 ) IN fact, the evidence of most of the witnesses disclose, that not only A-1 to A-48 present before the Trial Court, but also, 50 to 100, other persons also, of Reddy caste, or, some other caste, carne. So, therefore, it is not known, who, actually, hurled bombs, or, did, or, commit, the alleged overt acts of destroying the crops, or, setting fire to the huts, or, spoiling the sewing machines, etc. Hence, the evidence of these witnesses, in respects thereof is vague, shabby, and unconvincing. ( 42 ) THE evidence, of general nature, that, all the accused did so, cannot did so, cannot be accepted, or, acted upon. In respect of not even of one accused, is there specific identification, or, overt acts, and the mode of commission by him, of any specific offence, or, offences. ( 43 ) AS already observed, the evidence of all those witnesses disclose, that, as soon as, the accused came and hurled bombs, they ran away into the forest, and therefore, they could not be witnesses, much less, direct or, eye-witnesses to the specific acts by any of the accused, or, the identity of any of them, in respect of any of the foregoing charges framed against them and the offences covered thereby. ( 44 ) AS already set forth, supra, the evidence. of all the witnesses is general, as that, all the accused present before the Trial court came in a mob hurled bombs, etc. ( 45 ) IN respect of the distances, from where the witnesses claimed to have identified the accused, the learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon 1988 Cr. L. J. ,1086. ( 46 ) IN respect of the offence and charge, punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive substances Act, sanction is required from the Government, or, the Collector, and district Magistrate, of the concerned District. However, any such sanction made for prosecution of all, or, any, of the foregoing accused, in respejct of the offence, punishable under Section 3 of the said Explosive substances Act, has not been exhibited, as such. Mere mention, that, in some proceedings, sanction was given, will not, ipso facto, do, or, meet the requirement of law in respect thereof. Section 7 of that Act prescribes prior consent of the Central government. Mere mention, that, in some proceedings, sanction was given, will not, ipso facto, do, or, meet the requirement of law in respect thereof. Section 7 of that Act prescribes prior consent of the Central government. ( 47 ) THERE is no evidence, much less, specific, or, categorical, to the effect, that, all, or, any, of the accused, know, that, the victims, or, some of the foregoing P. Ws. , belong to scheduled Castes, or, Scheduled Tribes, the proof whereof, is required, in order to punish any of the accused, in respect of any of the offence punishable under the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989. ( 48 ) ALSO, there is no averment in the charge-sheet, much less, evidence, to that effect. It is a legal requirement, that, there should be evidence, at least, in that regard, and, so to say, also, there should be averment. The accused and the victims, and some of the p. Ws. , belonged to different villages. ( 49 ) IN the circumstances, i t has to be found, that, it is not proved by the prosecution, that, all, or, any of the accused, are having knowledge, that, all the alleged victims, or, some of the witnesses, belonged to Scheduled caste, or, Scheduled Tribe. No inference, in respect thereof, can be drawn, ipso facto, on the basis of the circumstances, if any, in a criminal trial. Even otherwise, the circumstances are also very vague. ( 50 ) HENCE, a finding has to be recorded, that, the prosecution could not prove one of the sine quanon, or, indispensable ingredient, that, the accused know, that, the alleged victims, or, some of the P. Ws. , belong to scheduled Castes, or, Scheduled Tribes, so as to warrant recording of proof of any of the offences being committed under the said enactment, provided, the other ingredients, of the concerned offences, are also proved. ( 51 ) ALSO, as already found, in the foregoing paragraphs, the material placed, on Record, as to the offences under the Indian Penal code, are also very vague, and shabby, and unconvincing. ( 51 ) ALSO, as already found, in the foregoing paragraphs, the material placed, on Record, as to the offences under the Indian Penal code, are also very vague, and shabby, and unconvincing. ( 52 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants relied upon (Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra) delivered, inter alia, interpreting Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 304 Part II, i. P. C. , inter alia, postulating, that, the condition for applicability of the said penal provision, under the said SC/st Act, is, that, the offence should be committed, on the basis, that, the victim is a member of scheduled Castes, or, Scheduled Tribe. ( 53 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants also relied upon (Masumsha hasanasha Musalman v. State of Maharashtra) delivered, inter alia, interpreting Sec. 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and postulating, that, when there is no evidence, on Record, that, the accused committed the alleged offence of causing death of deceased on the ground, that, the deceased belongs to scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, then, the accused will not be liable to be convicted under the said Section 3 (2) (v ). ( 54 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants also relied upon (R. P. Jaiswal v. Gurbax Singh), delivered, inter alia, interpreting Section 3 of the said SC/st Act, and Section 323 of the indian Penal Code, inter alia, postulating, that, because, the accused persons therein were not aware of the fact, that, the complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste, when they used the words mochi , or, chamar , while addressing him with intent to insult, or, intimidate, or, to humiliate, him the legal ingredients of Sections (1) (x) of that act were not made out, and, hence, the proceedings against the petitioner, in that case, were quashed. So, according to this ruling, it should be proved, that, the accused have knowledge, that, the victims belonged to Scheduled Castes, or, Scheduled Tribes. ( 55 ) SOME of the P. Ws. , as set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, admitted, that, Reddy caste people obtained temporary injunction against, them from a Civil Court. So, according to this ruling, it should be proved, that, the accused have knowledge, that, the victims belonged to Scheduled Castes, or, Scheduled Tribes. ( 55 ) SOME of the P. Ws. , as set forth in the foregoing paragraphs, admitted, that, Reddy caste people obtained temporary injunction against, them from a Civil Court. Hence, the learned Counsel for the appellants, vehemently, urged, that, because, there is already admission by those material witnesses, then the disputed property, under law, should be construed as in actual possession of those Reddys (accused), and that, therefore, they can defend their possession, against the trespassers, including some of the P. Ws. , and some others. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State disputed this version, inter alia, observing, that, a copy of the injunction Orders are not filed. While so, the learned Counsel for the appellants urged, that, when there are admissions, on Oath, then, it is not indispensable to file a copy of the actual ordersof the Civil Court, granting injunction. ( 56 ) THE evidence of the panch witness, examined as P. W. 20, and the panchanamas of the scene of offence, prepared in that context, and, exhibited as Exs. P-9 and P-10, negatives, and, so to say, exposes to serious doubt, the evidence uf the foregoing P. Ws. , as to destruction of huts, sewing machines, etc. , as deposed by them. Inter alia, because, as already found, they are not eye witnesses. Even otherwise, the value of the damaged property is claimed by some of the witnesses as Rs. 10,00,000/ -. However, the contents of exs. P-9 and P-10, disclose very little damage. So, there is gross, too very gross, exaggerations and artificialities. ( 57 ) EVEN otherwise, none of the damaged properties, or, even traces thereof, either like sewing machines, or, ashes of the burnt huts, and the like, are placed, on Record, as Material objects evidence. ( 58 ) P. W. 18 is the then M. R. O. of Veldurthi mandal. Inter alia, he deposed about receipt of a complaint from P. W. 19, the Village servant, and, on that basis, his (P. W. 18) giving a report to the Police, exhibited as Ex. P-4. ( 58 ) P. W. 18 is the then M. R. O. of Veldurthi mandal. Inter alia, he deposed about receipt of a complaint from P. W. 19, the Village servant, and, on that basis, his (P. W. 18) giving a report to the Police, exhibited as Ex. P-4. P. W. 18 admitted, that, the complaint given by P. W. 19 is there in his Office of the M. R. O. , and that, he did not give it to the Police. However, P. W. 18 denied the suggestion, that, in the complaint given by P. W. 19, he (P. W. 18) mentioned the words "reddies", in Ex. P-4, in bracket, in his report to the Police, after due deliberations. ( 59 ) P. W. 19 is the Village Servant of kandlakunta village, who deposed about giving report to P. W. 18, and imforming him, only, orally, about the facts. ( 60 ) THE said P. W. 20, the panch witness, referred to, in para 56, supra, inter alia, deposed, that, at the scene of offence, they found heap of Variga crops lying there, and not burnt, and that, the houses of Chenchu people were also intact. He further deposed, that, the Police seized two tins of country bombs, under cover of panchanama, exhibited as Ex. P-5, and that, those two bomb tins were intact, and that, they did not observe, in the surroundings of the scene of offence, as to, whether, any bomb exploded. This witness was not got declared as hostile to the State, much less, cross-examined for the State, by the learned Special Public prosecutor. Hence, this evidence will be binding on the prosecution. This witness is an independent witness, aged about 63 years. He has no reason to tender false evidence. ( 61 ) HIS (P. W. 20) evidence, therefore, is satisfactorily, which, therefore, negatives the alleged exaggerated versions given by the foregoing P. Ws. , who were cited and examined as eye-witnesses, and victims of the offence. This evidence of P. W 20, and ex. P-5, runs counter, or, contra, to their evidence. ( 62 ) P. W. 21 is the then Head Constable of the Police Station, Veldurthi. He deposed about registration of Ex. , who were cited and examined as eye-witnesses, and victims of the offence. This evidence of P. W 20, and ex. P-5, runs counter, or, contra, to their evidence. ( 62 ) P. W. 21 is the then Head Constable of the Police Station, Veldurthi. He deposed about registration of Ex. P-4, by P. W. 18, as crime No. 3/92, of that Police Station, under sections 147, 148, 425, 426 and 435, I. P. C. , read with Section 149, thereof, as well as, sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances act, and exhibited the original F. I. R. , issued in pursuance thereof, as Ex. P-6. He was not cross-examined for the accused. ( 63 ) P. W. 22 was the then Civil Assistant surgeon, Government Hospital, Macherla. Inter alia, she deposed, that, she examined one, by name, Somaiah (P. W. 23), and found one simple injury, and exhibited the Wound certificate, as Ex. P-7. ( 64 ) HOWEVER, that P. W. 23, who is a chenchu, and one of the alleged victims, turned hostile to the prosecution, and did not depose, any thing, incriminating, and hence, was cross-examined for the State, with the permission of the Court, in the process whereof, his Police statement, under section 161 (3), Cr. P. C, 1973, was exhibited as Ex. P-8, which will have the same, factual and legal, effect, as Exs. P-1 to P-3 does, and set forth in paras 26,33 and 35, supra. ( 65 ) HENCE, the evidence of P. Ws. 22 and 23, read with Ex. P-7, is of no, factual, actual, use, to the prosecution, to substantiate, that, p. W. 23 was attacked and injured by the accused. Again, the evidence of P. W. 23 doesn t disclose which of the specific accused caused that injury. In fact, it can t be There as, he became hostile. It can t be said, that, he does not known the specific accused, if any, who inflicted that injury, as he (P. W. 23) is the direct sufferer of the same, from such specific accused. ( 66 ) P. W. 24 is the then Inspector of Police, gurazala. In fact, it can t be There as, he became hostile. It can t be said, that, he does not known the specific accused, if any, who inflicted that injury, as he (P. W. 23) is the direct sufferer of the same, from such specific accused. ( 66 ) P. W. 24 is the then Inspector of Police, gurazala. Inter alia, he deposed, in detail, about the investigation made by him, into the crime, inter alia, by way of inspection of scene of offence, and preparation of panchanamas, in respects thereof, recording of the statements of different witnesses, sending P. W. 23, for medical examination, and, later, arresting of accused etc. He was cross-examined for the accused. He deposed about seizure of burnt ash, one brass plate, one aluminium tiffin box, under Ex. P-10. However, these objects were not placed, on record, as Object Evidence, for the prosecution. So to say, he deposed, that, broken sewing machines and broken tiles were seized under Ex. P-9, observation report. They were also not placed, on Record, as object Evidence, in this case. ( 67 ) P. W. 25 is the Successor Inspector of police of P. W. 24. He deposed, that after receipt of proceedings from the District collector and Magistrate, Guntur, in its no. l294/c6, dated 15-7-1993, to prosecute the accused, under Sections 3 and 5 of the explosive Substances Act, and after completion of the Investigation, he filed charge-sheet in the case. ( 68 ) HOWEVER, as already observed, in para 47, supra, without the document, or, actual proceedings, being placed, on Record, as to the Sanction of prosecution, the bare oral evidence of a given witness, official, or, non-official, cannot, ipso facto, be acted upon, as proof of sanction to prosecute a given accused, in any specific case, in respect of those offences. ( 69 ) PERMISSION of sanction to prosecute, is mandatory and indispensable, for prosecution in respect of the offences under sections 3 and of the said Explosive substances Act, in the absence of proof whereof, it has to recorded, that, one of the sine qua non legal ingredient is not made out, and, hence, ipso facto, warranting acquittal of the concerned accused, and, in this case, all the accused, in respects of those offences. ( 70 ) AFTER examining the entire oral and documentary evidence, placed by both the parties, on Record, and considered, as was done in the foregoing paragraphs, I am of the opinion, that, the prosecution, could not, and, so to say, failed to prove, much less, substantiate, much less, prove, beyond all reasonable doubts, any of the 9 charges framed against the foregoing appellants- accused, in respect of the respective offecnes covered thereby, and set forth in para 11, supra. ( 71 ) EVEN the combined, consolidated, and, cumulative, effect of the foregoing oral and documentary evidence, in my opinion, do not, at all, warrant, even remotely, recording finding of guilt of any of the foregoing accused-appellants, in respect of any of the foregoing charges, and the respective offences, thereby, much less, warranting their, or, any of them, being, punished, or, sentences there-under. Because, as already found, the material is very vague and shabby. ( 72 ) HOWEVER, the Trial Court, erroneously, and, so to say, wrongly convicted and sentenced all the present appellants-accused, and imposed heavy, to very heavy, sentences upon them, as set forth in sub-para II of para 11, supra. ( 73 ) I, therefore, record findings of no guilt of all the appellant-accused, in respect of the 9 foregoing charges, and the respective offences, punishable there-under. ( 74 ) HENCE, the impugned Judgment, dated 1-4-1997, of the Trial Court, set forth in para 2, supra, as also, the respective convictions and sentences imposed thereby, upon all the present appellant-accused, as set forth in sub-para II of paran,. . upra, are liable to be set aside, in toto, and all those accused are liable to be acquitted, and set at liberty, in respects thereof. ( 75 ) I, therefore, record my finding on point framed, supra, accordingly, and, as is being done, hereunder. ( 76 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Criminal Appeal, under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 386, cr. ( 75 ) I, therefore, record my finding on point framed, supra, accordingly, and, as is being done, hereunder. ( 76 ) HENCE, the High Court doth hereby adjudicate upon the Criminal Appeal, under sub-clause (i) of clause (b) of Section 386, cr. P. C, 1973, as under:- (I) Set aside, in toto, the Judgment, dated 1-4-1997, of the Special Sessions judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities), Act, 1989, Guntur, made in S. C. No. 16/94, of its file, and the respective findings of guilt, convictions and sentences, imposed thereby, upon all the appellant- accused, and set forth in sub-paras I and II of para 11, supra; (II) Consequently, find, all the appellants- accused 1 to 44 in this Criminal Appeal, not guilty, of the 9 charges, set forth in sub-para II of para 11, supra, and the respective offenes covered thereby, and, hence, acquit all of them, in respects thereof and, hence direct, that, they be set at liberty, forthwith; and (III) The fine amounts, if any, deposited by any of the 44 appellant-accused, in this criminal Appeal, shall be refunded to them, after the time, if any, prescribed to question this Judgment, expires.