Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 702 (AP)

Desu Srinivasulu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh

2020-11-09

A.V.SESHA SAI

body2020
JUDGMENT A.V.Sesha Sai, J. - Sole accused in Sessions Case No.3 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Prakasam Division at Ongole, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). The learned Special Judge, by way of the judgment dated 25.05.2009, convicted the appellant herein/accused of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act, 1989') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is that P.W.1, Eri Balachandra Mohan, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, lodged Ex.P1-report dated 15.05.2007 with C.S.Puram police station alleging that on 15.05.2007 at about 12.50 noon, he went to Syndicate Bank, Ambavaram for a loan to establish a brick kiln industry, and the appellant herein/ accused was the Branch Manager of the Bank, who demanded Rs.30,000/- as commission, but P.W.1 agreed for Rs.10,000/-; that in that connection, a quarrel took place and the appellant herein/accused abused P.W.1 in vulgar language touching his case and had thrown papers on his face; that on that P.W.1 went to the police station and lodged Ex.P1-report on 17.5.2007, basing on which police registered crime No.25 of 2007 for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989, and after conclusion of investigation, laid the charge sheet. 3. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and exhibited Exs.P1 to P14. On defence side, no oral evidence is adduced, but Exs.D1 and D2-relevant portions of Section 161 (3) Cr.P.C. statements of P.Ws.3 and 4 were filed. 4. The learned Special Judge, by way of the impugned judgment, convicted the appellant herein/accused of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 and sentenced him in the manner indicated supra. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal. 5. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the appellant herein/accused and Sri K.Srinivasa Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, apart from perusing the evidence available on record. 6. Hence, the present Criminal Appeal. 5. Heard Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the appellant herein/accused and Sri K.Srinivasa Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the State, apart from perusing the evidence available on record. 6. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the appellant herein/accused contends that the questioned judgment is highly erroneous, contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant herein/accused had knowledge of the caste of P.W.1 prior to occurrence of the alleged incident; that in view of the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the learned Special Judge grossly erred in convicting the appellant herein/accused; that the learned Special Judge grossly failed in noticing variations in the statements of P.W.1 at various stages; that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1, as such, the learned Special Judge ought not to have convicted the appellant herein/accused; that the delay in lodging Ex.P1-report by P.W.1 and the false story concocted for the said purpose, are fatal to the case of prosecution; that Branch Manager has no jurisdiction to grant loan of Rs.3,00,000/- and the motive could not be established by the prosecution; that the prosecution failed to produce documents allegedly submitted by P.W.1 for granting the loan, as such, the story concocted by the complainant cannot be believed. 7. On the contrary, it is strenuously contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is no error, nor there exists any infirmity, in the impugned judgment, and in the absence of the same, the impugned judgment is not amenable for any correction under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C.; that there are no contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent, as such, the learned Special Judge is perfectly justified in convicting the appellant herein/accused; that the delay of 2 days in lodging Ex.P1-report cannot be said to be unreasonable delay in lodging the report and the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, having regard to the explanation offered by P.W.1. It is further submitted that in the absence of any contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the judgment impugned in the appeal cannot be faulted. 8. It is further submitted that in the absence of any contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the judgment impugned in the appeal cannot be faulted. 8. Now, the point that arises for determination in the present appeal is- 'whether the prosecution is able to establish its case against the appellant herein/accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 beyond reasonable doubt and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment ?' 9. Apart from the evidence of P.W.1, in order to establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. According to P.W.1, he applied for a loan and the earlier Branch Manager promised him that the loan would be sanctioned within 5 or 6 months; that subsequently, the appellant herein/accused came as Manager in or about 2006; that when he approached the appellant herein/accused, he demanded Rs.30,000/- and P.W.1 agreed for Rs.10,000/-. He further deposed in the chief-examination that when he handed over loan papers to the appellant herein/accused, the appellant herein/accused abused him in vulgar language touching his caste. A perusal of Ex.P1 and examination-in-chief of P.W.1 shows that there is variation in the language said to have been used by the appellant herein/accused. Apart from the same, as per examination-in-chief of P.W.1, on the same day of the incident, during night, he drafted the report and went to police station, but the Sub Inspector was not there, as such, he did not give report to the Constables. He further deposed that he went to the police station on the next day also and he was told that the Sub Inspector was on camp, as such, he gave Ex.P1-report during night of 17.05.2007. This version of P.W.1 runs counter to the evidence of P.W.7, Sub Inspector of Police, who registered Ex.P1-report as crime No.25 of 2007. According to P.W.7, he was on duty and in-charge of police station on 15th, 16th and 17th May, 2007. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said aspect is undoubtedly fatal to the case of the prosecution. P.W.1, during cross-examination, also stated that the Branch Manager has no power to grant loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. He further deposed that he never stated before police about passing of the information to third parties about the demand. He deposed contrary to the same in examination-in-chief. 10. P.W.1, during cross-examination, also stated that the Branch Manager has no power to grant loan of Rs.3,00,000/-. He further deposed that he never stated before police about passing of the information to third parties about the demand. He deposed contrary to the same in examination-in-chief. 10. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, who is none other than brother-in-law of P.W.1, he categorically deposed that the auto which he was driving belongs to P.W.1, and P.W.1 used to pay Rs.70/- to Rs.80/- per day depending on the collection. He also deposed that he did not state anything with regard to presence of P.W.1 near the Bank when the statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. His evidence also discloses that he was also having loan and he discharged the same one month prior to the date of his examination on 26.2.2009 and the alleged incident took place on 15.05.2007. He also categorically deposed that he availed loan of Rs.45,000/- from Syndicate Bank, Ambavaram branch for running a kirana shop and his wife was a guarantor for the said loan. He also stated that his wife was a guarantor for the loan availed by one Sri Loordhu, who had to pay a sum of Rs.80,533/- to the Bank. A suggestion was also given to P.W.2 that since there was insistence for payment of the loan, he was aggrieved against the appellant herein/accused and deposing falsely. 11. Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who were allegedly present at the scene of occurrence, Exs.D1 and D2- contradictions clearly disclose that they were not present at the scene of occurrence. A perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that the learned Special Judge categorically observed that by examining P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, usage of abusive words by the appellant herein/accused could not be proved by the prosecution. The learned Special Judge also found that there is no document to show about pendency of the loan application of P.W.1 with the Bank. But, the learned Special Judge believed the version of P.Ws.2 to 4 and held in favour of the presence of P.W.1 on the alleged date of the incident. The learned Special Judge also found that there is no document to show about pendency of the loan application of P.W.1 with the Bank. But, the learned Special Judge believed the version of P.Ws.2 to 4 and held in favour of the presence of P.W.1 on the alleged date of the incident. It is significant to note that having observed categorically about the statement of P.W.7 that he was in-charge of the police from 15.5.2007 to 17.5.2007, the learned Special Judge grossly erred in arriving at the conclusion that the explanation offered by P.W.1 about the delay in lodging the report is sufficient. Obviously, the learned Special Judge, by relying on the sole testimony of P.W.1, without there being any corroboration to the same, convicted the appellant herein/ accused. In view of the various inconsistencies in the version of P.W.1 in Exs.P1 and the chief and cross-examinations and having regard to Exs.D1 and D2- contradictions, in the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of P.W.1 is not trustworthy and it is not safe to convict the appellant herein/accused on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 in the absence of any corroboration. The prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, 1989 beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and the appellant herein/accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, and the finding recorded contra by the learned Special Judge is neither sustainable not tenable the eye of law. 12. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Prakasam Division at Ongole, in the judgment dated 25.05.2009 in Sessions Case No.3 of 2008, against the appellant herein/accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are set aside. The appellant herein/accused is found not guilty of the said charge and he is accordingly acquitted of the same. Fine amount, if any, paid by appellant herein/accused shall be refunded to him. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed.