Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. 1. The Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, West Godavari District at Eluru, tried the appellant as the sole accused in S.Cs. & S.Ts. Sessions Case No.31 of 2008. The accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SCs. & STs. (POA) Act (for short ‘the Act’). 2. The case presented before the trial Court by the prosecution was as under:- PW.1, her daughter Rama Seetha, PW.2, PW.3 and about 50 others are working under one Varre Someswara Rao, PW.6, a contractor-cum-mason. On 28-06-2007, Rama Seetha, PWs.2 and 3 and the accused were said to have been engaged to work for construction of a building of PW.5, at Kovvur. PW.1 submitted a complaint at 6.30 p.m., on 28-06-2007 stating that when she was at her house, PW.2 and V.Annavaram came to her at about 03.30 p.m., and informed that Rama Seetha is found dead at the place of work and the accused, who was also working at the site, had absconded. PW.1 is said to have reached the site immediately and found her daughter - Rama Seetha dead, inside the building. A black mark around the neck of the deceased is said to have been noticed. She stated that the assailant may have tied something around the neck and murdered Rama Seetha. She made a request to the S.I. of Police, Kovvur, to take action against the person who is responsible for the offence. The Station House Officer registered Crime No.99/2007, proceeded to the site, conducted scene of offence panchanama, and caused inquest and post-mortem. As the investigation was in progress, it was noticed that the deceased belongs to Schedule Caste Community, and accordingly, the provisions of the Act were also invoked. The investigation was handed over to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (PW.13). A Charge-sheet was filed by PW.13 alleging that PWs.2, 3, the deceased and accused were engaged for construction of building. As the investigation was in progress, it was noticed that the deceased belongs to Schedule Caste Community, and accordingly, the provisions of the Act were also invoked. The investigation was handed over to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (PW.13). A Charge-sheet was filed by PW.13 alleging that PWs.2, 3, the deceased and accused were engaged for construction of building. On 28-06-2007, PWs.2 and 3 went for lunch, whereas the accused and deceased took their lunch in the premises itself, and when PWs.2 and 3 did not find the deceased and accused, even after lapse of half-an-hour, after the work has resumed, PW.3 went in search of them and found the deceased in the bath room of a bed room, under construction. He is said to have informed the same to PW.2 and both of them, in turn, have furnished the information initially to PW.4, a welder in the building and thereafter to the owner of the premises – PW.5. The information about this is said to have been passed on to PW.6 by PW.5. The accused is said to have fled away from the place, on the bicycle of PW.3. 3. The trial Court framed necessary charges, referable to the provisions of I.P.C. and the Act. The accused pleaded not guilty. In the trial that ensued, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, filed Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14; and M.Os.1 to 14 were taken on record. Through its Judgment, dated 15-10-2009, the trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, but convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of three months. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned Counsel the accused submits that there is no comparison between what is mentioned in Ex.P.1 and what is stated in the evidence of PW.1. She submits that the evidence of PW.1 is not only substantial improvement upon, but also contrary to, Ex.P.1. She submits that in Ex.P.1, PW.1 stated that she received the information about the death of her daughter at 03.30 p.m., through PW.2 and one Annavaram; whereas in her deposition, PW.1 stated that she received the information about the death of her daughter when she was in a village by name Ballipadu, 25 KMs., away from the occurrence. She submits that in Ex.P.1, PW.1 stated that she received the information about the death of her daughter at 03.30 p.m., through PW.2 and one Annavaram; whereas in her deposition, PW.1 stated that she received the information about the death of her daughter when she was in a village by name Ballipadu, 25 KMs., away from the occurrence. Learned Counsel further submits that though the prosecution relied entirely upon the alleged recovery of M.O.14 (cycle) at the instance of the accused, the said item was not identified by its owner i.e., PW.3. She submits that the suspicion, if at all, ought to have been against the other person i.e., Annavaram, who was found to be absconding, even according to PW.6, but the accused, a poor labourer eking out livelihood by travelling all the way from his village, was implicated. She contends that the scribe of Ex.P.1, a pastor, was not examined and the role of that person remained unexplained. 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the discrepancy between Ex.P.1 and the deposition of PW.1 is on certain aspects, which are not so material. She contends that on important aspects, such as the occurrence of the death, the fact that the accused and the deceased worked together, and that the accused disappeared from the place soon after the death of the deceased are the circumstances, strong enough, to connect the accused to the offence. 6. Though the crime was registered initially under Section 302 of I.P.C., on receipt of Ex.P.1., the provision of law in the F.I.R. was altered later and the investigation was handed over to PW.16, in view of the allegation, as to the commission of the offence under the provisions of the Act. The first informant of the incident is PW.1, who is none other than the mother of the deceased. The information is said to have been received by her at 03.30 p.m., and three hours thereafter Ex.P.1 was submitted. It is not a statement recorded by the police, but a written complaint submitted by PW.1. The context of the complaint is brief, and it reads as under: “I got four children out of which three female children out which Bangaru Ramasita aged about 14 years she is my second daughter. On 28.06.2007 at about 8.00 a.m. one Varri Someswararao, Contract Maistry instructed to engage in Tapi work. The context of the complaint is brief, and it reads as under: “I got four children out of which three female children out which Bangaru Ramasita aged about 14 years she is my second daughter. On 28.06.2007 at about 8.00 a.m. one Varri Someswararao, Contract Maistry instructed to engage in Tapi work. She is also attended tapi work along with Tirumala Veera Bhadrarao, Garbham Prasad, Rambala Suribabu (Accused) and also Naveen Photo Studio owner, we are all attending new building (Anjaneyaswamy temple street) doing the work. At about 3.30 p.m. T. Veerabhadrarao, V. Annavaram came to my house and informed me my daughter where she is working is died and also not found Kambala Suribabu and left away while they suspected the above said person and informed the same to me. Immediately left my house and reached the new house while I was found my daughter Ramasitha died in right side room found dead. I found that black mark around the neck. It seems to be somebody tied the neck and forcibly murdered. Hence I request you to conduct enquiry for the causing death of my daughter and take necessary action against those persons who participated in the above incident as per law.” 7. What can be discerned from this is that - (a) PW.1 was at her house at 03.30 p.m; (b) PW.2 and one Mr. Annavaram came to her and informed about the death of her daughter; and (c) She suspected that somebody is responsible for the commission of the offence. 8. However, in her deposition in the Court, PW.1 came forward with an improved version. According to her, the accused came to her about three months prior to the incident and told her that he loved Rama Seetha and wanted the consent of PW.1 to marry that girl, and that PW.1 has rejected the proposal. Another improvement over Ex.P.1 is that PW.6 is said to have sent PW.1 and her another daughter Archana to work at Ballipadu village, 24 KMs., away from their residence. 9. Another improvement over Ex.P.1 is that PW.6 is said to have sent PW.1 and her another daughter Archana to work at Ballipadu village, 24 KMs., away from their residence. 9. The manner in which she received the information about the death of her daughter is stated in her chief-examination, as under:- “On that day at about 4 p.m. while I was in the Ballipadu, I received a message from Someswara Rao stating that my daughter Rama Seeta was killed through some male person and the dead body of my daughter was there in the house where she was working on that day. I was also told that one co-worker by name Suri Babu killed my daughter.” In the cross-examination it was elicited that Ex.P.1-complaint was scribed by one Mr. Ananda Rao, a pastor. There is no mention in the entire evidence of PW.1 about PW.2 or Annavaram, the two persons named in Ex.P.1. A clear contradiction is thus evident. 10. PW.2 stated that himself, PW.3, the deceased and accused attended the work of construction of the house of PW.5 on that particular day, and that himself and PW.3 went to their houses, for lunch. He stated that the work was resumed at 02.15 p.m., but the accused and the deceased, who were supposed to supply material, did not turn up even after half-an-hour and when PW.3 went and verified, it emerged that Rama Seetha was lying dead in the bath room of a bed room in the house. He stated that himself and PW.3 gave information of this, initially to PW.4, a Welder and thereafter to the owner of the house (PW.5) and the latter, in turn, said to have telephoned to PW.6, the contractor. Nowhere in his evidence, PW.2 stated that he went to the house of PW.1 or that he has given information about the incident to her. On the same lines is the evidence of PW.3. Neither of them have seen the accused interacting with the deceased, immediately before her death. PW.6 did not make any mention about his passing on the information about the death of the deceased to PW.1 or his engaging PW.1 and her elder daughter to work at Ballipadu village. 11. Even if the entire evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is taken as true, there is nothing which makes the needle of suspicion to point towards the accused. 11. Even if the entire evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is taken as true, there is nothing which makes the needle of suspicion to point towards the accused. It was elicited from PW.6 that Annavaram, his nephew, was also working with them but he was absconding since quite for sometime. The statement in Ex.P.1 that Annavaram went to the house of PW.1, together with PW.2, and passed on the information, turned out to be a white lie. Further, the allegation of PW.1, made for the first time in her chief-examination that the accused proposed to marry the deceased was not supported by any other evidence. Added to that, the statement of PW.1 was recorded by the police two days after the occurrence. 12. The sole basis for the prosecution to allege that the accused committed the crime was, the alleged confession, leading to recovery of the bicycle. It is stated that the accused took away the bicycle of PW.3 about five minutes after lunch, but did not return, and during the course of investigation, the accused was arrested on 01-07-2007 and at his instance, the incriminating material i.e., the cycle (M.O.14) and a rope were recovered. However, a close analysis of the evidence discloses that the cycle- M.O.No.14 was recovered in a cycle-stand, being run by PW.7, and the same was not identified by PW.3. Another aspect is that PWs.2 and 3 stated consistently that the accused used to come from his native village to Kovvur on a bicycle everyday and he used to bring a lunch box. If that was to be so, the occasion for the accused to take the bicycle of PW.3 does not arise. 13. As regards the recovery of the rope (M.O.9), there are conflicting versions. A rope was found existing at the scene of offence and part of it tied around the dead body. Hence, the question of the police recovering M.O.9, that too at the instance of the accused, at a different place, does not arise. 14. From the answers that are elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1, there is every likelihood of the scribe of Ex.P.1 knitting a story to propagate his importance among the persons whom he was introducing to his religion or to implicate an innocent person, to cover up the real culprit. Unfortunately this is not the only such case. 14. From the answers that are elicited in the cross-examination of PW.1, there is every likelihood of the scribe of Ex.P.1 knitting a story to propagate his importance among the persons whom he was introducing to his religion or to implicate an innocent person, to cover up the real culprit. Unfortunately this is not the only such case. We find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused committed the crime alleged against him. We, therefore, allow the appeal. 15. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.Cs. & S.Ts. Sessions Case No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs & STs (POA) Act, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 15-10-2009, against the appellant – accused are set aside. The appellant - accused shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is needed in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant - accused shall be refunded to him. The material objects, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.