Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 206 (AP)

Kandula Annapuranamma v. State of A. P.

2020-03-06

C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

body2020
JUDGMENT : 1. The Accused No. 1 and 3 in Special Sessions Case No. 14 of 2007 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for SCs & STs (POA) Act, Kadapa, preferred the present Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. 2. Originally, Accused No. 1 to 3 was tried on five Charges. The First Charge was for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act against all the accused. However, the Trial Court convicted only A1 and A3 under the said charge and A1 was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and A3 was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each, in default, A1 and A3 to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month respectively. Second and Third charges were for the offence punishable under Section 324 against Accused No. 2 and 3 for causing injuries to PW1 and PW2. Both of them were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and were directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/-each. Fourth and Fifth charges were directed against A1 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 324 r/w. 34 IPC. He was acquitted of the said charge. The substance of the charge against the accused is that, on 18.10.2006 at 6.00 AM, near the house of accused at Housing Board Colony, Proddatur, the accused were alleged to have abused PW1 to PW3 touching their caste and that A2 and A3 beat them with sticks causing injuries on left hand. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: (i). PW1 is a resident of Proddatur town and belongs to Madiga Community, which is a sub-caste of Scheduled Caste. She knows PW2 and PW3 as well as accused. According to her, on the date of incident at about 6.30 AM, she along with some others including PW2 and PW3 were collecting waste papers and plastic waste. They proceeded towards Housing Board Colony and Bhagath Singh Colony and while they were proceeding infront of the house of A1, all the accused rushed to their compound wall gate of their house, abused PW1, PW2 and PW3 touching their caste as “You Mala Madiga Bastards. You watch the house on the pretext of rag pickers and in the night times, you commit theft in the house”. You watch the house on the pretext of rag pickers and in the night times, you commit theft in the house”. Immediately, thereafter, A2 armed with a stick gave a blow on the left wrist of PW1, which lead to a swelling over her wrist, PW1 fell down and sustained scratches on her right thigh. When, A3 was tried to hack PW2 with a hunting sickle, she warded off that blow by raising her right hand, which resulted in a bleeding injury to her right hand. Meanwhile, A1 pushed PW3 and kicked her on her breast. On seeing the incident, the neighbours interfered and chastised the accused. (ii). At about 8.30 AM, while PW8-ASI of Proddatur II Town Police Station was in police station, he received a written report from PW1 and PW2. Basing on which, he registered a case in Crime No. 169/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act. Ex.P7 is the FIR. Thereafter, he sent PW1 and PW2 to Government Hospital, Proddatur, where, PW5Civil Assistant Surgeon examined both of them at 9.15 AM and issued wound certificates Ex.P2 and Ex.P3 respectively. (iii). At this stage, it is also to be noted that, A1 also lodged a report against PW1, PW3 and others before the same police station, which came to be registered as a case in Crime No. 170/2006 of Proddatur II Town Police. In the said report, she refers to an incident of PW1 to PW3 and others attacking her on 18.10.2006 at 6.30 AM. The said crime was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 448 r/w 34 IPC. (iv). PW7 took up investigation as per the Orders of the Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, on 23.10.2006, visited Sanjeeva Nagar, secured PW1 to PW3 and recorded their statements. He also visited the scene of offence, which is located in the Housing Board Colony, Proddatur and prepared a rough sketch, which is placed on record as Ex.P8. During the course of investigation, he collected the caste certificates from PW6-MRO, which came to be marked as Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. After collecting all the documents, a charge-sheet was filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur. During the course of investigation, he collected the caste certificates from PW6-MRO, which came to be marked as Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. After collecting all the documents, a charge-sheet was filed, which was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur. On appearance, copies of documents as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Special Court under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Basing on the material available on record, charges as referred to above came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which, they denied, but did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of their plea. 5. Relying upon the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and the evidence of the Doctor, the learned Judge, convicted the accused as referred to above. Challenging the same, A1 and A3 preferred the present appeal. 6. Sri. P. Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that, the present case came to be initiated at the instance of political rivalries in the village, which is evident from the report given by A1 against PW1 to PW3 and others. He further pleads that, though the report given by A1 was earlier in point of time, but for reasons best known, the same came to be registered after the report of PW1. It is his case that, the allegations made are general in nature and it is very difficult to believe that all the three accused in a chorus would have abused PW1 to PW3 using the same words and in the same language. Having regard to the fact that, two crimes came to be registered one after the other and since the accused in one case are witnesses in another case, pleads that the incident must have happened in a wholly different circumstances. 7. Having regard to the fact that, two crimes came to be registered one after the other and since the accused in one case are witnesses in another case, pleads that the incident must have happened in a wholly different circumstances. 7. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that, when the evidence of PW1 to PW3 cogently establishes the presence and participation of A1 to A3 in abusing PW1 to PW3 by touching their caste, there is no justification for interference in the appeal. He further pleads that, the very fact that two crimes came to be registered in respect of one incident, establishes the presence of the accused at the scene, and as such, one need not doubt the involvement of the appellants in the case. 8. The point that arises for consideration is “whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 9. Before dealing with the evidence, it would be useful to refer to the contents of the FIR. 10. PW1 is said to have set the law into motion by lodging the report on 18.10.2006 at 8.30 AM. In the said report, it was stated that, on the date of incident, at about 6.00 AM, she along with PW2 and PW3 and others went to the Housing Board, Bhagath Singh Colony, Proddatur, for collecting plastic and waste paper. Seeing them, all the accused came towards the compound wall of their house and started abusing them as “YOU MALA MADIGA BASTARD. ON WHAT WORK YOU HAVE, SEEING DAY TIME, COMMITTING THEFTS DURING NIGHTS, TO WHICH HOUSE YOU WANT TO ROB, BASTARD”. It is further said that, A2 and A3 beat PW1 and PW2 causing bleeding injuries. It is further said that the while they were leaving the place, the accused abused them by touching their caste. 11. A reading of the FIR report shows that, in respect of a incident that took place at 6.00 AM, a report came to be lodged at 9.00 AM at II Town Police Station, Proddatur, and in the said report, no specific allegations are made against any of the witnesses. On the other hand, the accused in one voice are said to have abused PW1 to PW3 touching their caste by using same words. This, in my view, appears to be doubtful, more so, for the reasons which will be discussed later. 12. On the other hand, the accused in one voice are said to have abused PW1 to PW3 touching their caste by using same words. This, in my view, appears to be doubtful, more so, for the reasons which will be discussed later. 12. Coming to the evidence of PW1, it is to be noted that her version now is an improvement over what she has stated in FIR. While, all of them were proceeded to collect waste paper and plastic waste and when they were infront of the house of accused, all the accused rushed to their compound wall gate of their house, abused PW1, PW2 and PW3 touching their caste. It is said that, A1 abused PW1 as “You Mala Madiga Bastards. You watch the house on the pretext of rag picking and in the night time, you commit theft in the house”. Thereafter, A2 armed with a stick gave a blow on the left wrist of PW1 causing a swelling injury over her wrist and as a result of which, PW1 is said to have fallen down and sustained scratches on her right thigh. PW1 also deposed about A2 and A3 causing injuries with a sickle. PW1 also speaks about abusing in caste while they were leaving and also receiving a threat of dire consequences. All the suggestions given to the witnesses in the cross-examination were denied, but, however, PW1 failed to state in her eerier statement that she sustained injury on a fall after receiving the blow from A2. She admits that, she lives by rag picking and her house is situated in the 7th ward of Proddatur. She admits, she had no political party affiliations. She also admits that, she does not know to which party Proddatur MLA belongs to. She admits that, she filed a case under SC & ST (POA) Act against one Mallela Lingareddy, who contested on behalf of the Telugu Desam party. Various suggestions were given with regard to lodging of report, drafting of the report etc., but, all the suggestions were denied. However, she admits that, police registered a crime against them and it was registered after they gave their report and that the crime registered at their instance was earlier in point of time. PW1 voluntarily admits that the accused gave a report against them so as to counter the case registered against them. 13. However, she admits that, police registered a crime against them and it was registered after they gave their report and that the crime registered at their instance was earlier in point of time. PW1 voluntarily admits that the accused gave a report against them so as to counter the case registered against them. 13. From the evidence of this witness, what emerges out is that, she tried to give a version different what has been stated in Ex.P1 by giving specific role to A1 only. There is no reference to A2 abusing PW1 by touching their caste. Even insofar as A3 is concerned, it is stated by her that, while they were leaving from the said place, A3 shouted as “Oh Mala Madiga Bastards, if I see you again in this street, I will kill you and even if you say this to anybody, then also I will kill you”. This version of PW1 [relating to A2] does not find place in the FIR. 14. Coming to the evidence of PW2. She also speaks about going to said place for rag picking and collecting waste paper. According to her, when they reached in-front of the house of accused, A1 is said to have abused them by saying “Oh Mala Madiga Bastards, you have come for watching the houses during day time so as to commit theft in the houses in the night time, bastards”. Thereafter, A2 armed with a stick dealt a blow on the left wrist of PW1 causing injury. Then A3 tried to hack her with a hunting sickle but she warded off the same by putting her right hand, consequently she received an injury. Meanwhile, A1 pushed PW3 down and kicked on her breasts and while they were leaving the place, A3 is said to have abused them by touching their caste. 15. From the above, it is evident that the abuses said to have been made against PWs.1 to 3 by the accused touching the caste were not directed particularly against any of the witnesses. A1 is said to have generally stated that the people belonging to Mala and Madiga caste do rag-picking in the morning and commit theft in the night. From the above, it is evident that the abuses said to have been made against PWs.1 to 3 by the accused touching the caste were not directed particularly against any of the witnesses. A1 is said to have generally stated that the people belonging to Mala and Madiga caste do rag-picking in the morning and commit theft in the night. In fact, the said words used by A1 and A3 clearly indicate that they were not even aware whether these people belong to Mala or Madiga caste and these words were neither directed against any particular witness nor against PWs.1 to 3. 16. Moreover, even while leaving the place, A3 is said to have used some words apart from threatening them with dire consequence if they come to the said area again. Even these abuses prima facie do not indicate that they were specifically made against PWs.1 to 3 or against any particular person. Apart from that it has been now brought to the notice of this Court that the counter case said to have been filed by A1 ended in acquittal of PWs.1 to 3. Further, the alleged abuses made were on a presumption that PWs.1 to 3 belong to scheduled caste as they were doing rag-picking. Even from the alleged abuses, it is found that the accused were not aware whether these persons belong to the caste of Mala or Madiga. Therefore, it cannot be said that the alleged abuses were made with an intention to insult them. 17. Before dealing with the same, it is to be noted here that A1 also lodged a report which came to be registered as a case in Crime No. 170/2006 of Proddatur II Town Police Station against six unknown ladies and six unknown male persons for the offence punishable under Sections 323 & 448 r/w. 34 IPC. A perusal of the FIR, which is placed on record as Ex.P9 show that the incident in respect of this crime occurred on 18.10.2006 at about 6.30 AM and the information was reached to the Police Station on the same day at 9.00 AM and a GD entry was made at 9.30 AM. A perusal of the FIR, which is placed on record as Ex.P9 show that the incident in respect of this crime occurred on 18.10.2006 at about 6.30 AM and the information was reached to the Police Station on the same day at 9.00 AM and a GD entry was made at 9.30 AM. The report which is subject matter of present case shows that, the incident also took place in the said crime on 18.10.2006 and the same reached the Police Station at 8.30 AM and a GD entry was also made at 8.30 AM. In both the cases, police investigated into the matter and filed charge-sheet. In Crime No. 170/2006, PW1 to PW3 were shown as A1 to A3. The evidence of Investigation Officer who was examined as PW8 and PW9 show registering of two crimes and filing of charge-sheet. 18. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of PW8, the investigating officer, who is said to have investigated both the crimes. His evidence discloses that, A1 and A2 belong to Telugu Desam Political Party, but, however, pleads ignorance that father of A2 was MLA of Proddatur at some point of time. He also admits that, E.V. Sudhakar Reddy is a leader of Congress Political Party. He does not know the rivalry between E.V. Sudhakar Reddy and the accused. He further admits that wife of E.V. Sudhakar Reddy continued for some time as Municipal Chairman of Proddatur. There appears to be involvement of some political parties behind the rag-pickers in lodging the report against their rivals. 19. Viewed from any angle, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 does not make out a case for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act. 20. In view of the above, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act and accordingly, she is acquitted. However, the conviction and sentence imposed against A2 & A3 for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC stands confirmed. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is disposed off. 22. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.