ORDER : 1. The Judgment, dated 30.10.2009 in Sessions Case No.14 of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Prakasam Division, Ongole (“Special Judge” for short), is under challenge in the present Appeal. 2. The Accused faced trial before the learned Special Judge under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) and further Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989 and on conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge, found the accused not guilty of the charges under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C., but, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989 and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused, filed the present Appeal. 3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Court below for the sake of convenience. 4. The Sessions Case No.14 of 2008 arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.7 of 2008, on the file Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole Sub-Division, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.72 of 2007 of Jarugumalli Police Station, alleging the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989. 5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set-out in the charge sheet is as follows: (i) The accused is native of Pydipadu village and resident of K. Biragunta village fields in a shed. The offence took place in tobacco nurseries of K. Biragunta village of Jarugumalli Mandal. L.W.1-Jogi Samuel is the defacto-complainant. L.W.2- Lingareddy Sesha Reddy is his partner cultivating tobacco nurseries. L.W.3-Gaddala Koteswari, L.W.4-Nallagatla Supraja, L.W.5-Ithadi Roja, L.W.6-Ithadi Koteswari, L.W.7-Gaddala Salomi, L.W.8-Inkollu Rajyam, L.W.9-Ethmukkala Mariyamma, L.W.10-Bellamkonda Nagendram, L.W.11-Kunchala Thirupathamma, L.W.12-Mogili Lakshmi and L.W.13-Inkollu Ravi are the coolies working in the tobacco nurseries of L.W.1 and L.W.2. The accused abused L.W.1 touching his caste name. Even he abused L.W.2 also. L.W.1 was cultivating tobacco nursery along with L.W.2. Previously, he worked under the accused, who is resident of Pydipadu village, cultivating tobacco nursery. The accused involved in SCs. & STs. The accused abused L.W.1 touching his caste name. Even he abused L.W.2 also. L.W.1 was cultivating tobacco nursery along with L.W.2. Previously, he worked under the accused, who is resident of Pydipadu village, cultivating tobacco nursery. The accused involved in SCs. & STs. Atrocities Act case vide Crime No.61 of 2005 of Jarugumalli Police Station and left the village 1 ½ years back and staying at the outskirts of K. Bitragunta Village in a shed purchased from one Kunda Krishna Reddy. Due to ill-feelings, L.W.1 stopped working under the accused since last season. L.W.1 developed friendship with L.W.2 and raised tobacco nurseries in the land of L.W.2 besides taking lands from L.W.17-Bommireddy Krishna Reddy and L.W.19-Kunda Anji Reddy. In fact, previously the accused took the lands of the above said persons. L.W.1 invested Rs.2,00,000/- with regard to the nursery cultivated along with L.W.2. L.W.21-Kalluri Srinu and L.W.22-Chinthapalli Narayana visited the tobacco plantation of the accused with a view to purchase tobacco sapling. But, after seeing the tobacco saplings of L.W.1 and L.W.2, they found that they are qualitative than the accused and bargained with L.W.1 and L.W.2 and left the place saying that they would come later. So, this developed eyesore to the accused. (ii) The accused with a malafide intention, in the intervening night of 04/05-11-2007 along with some others trespassed into the tobacco nursery of L.W.1 and L.W.2 and sprinkled urea and caused loss to a tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. After completion of this, while the accused was coming through the tobacco plantation of L.W.1 and L.W.2, they woke up on hearing dog barking sound and found the accused. When they questioned the presence of the accused during night at their tobacco nursery, he gave some reasons and went away. As usual, on 05.11.2007 the coolies came to the tobacco nursery and found the presence of urea lumps in the tobacco nursery. They intimated the same to L.W.1 and L.W.2. Then they visited the nursery and found the urea lumps and also damage of tobacco leaves. (iii) Suspecting the presence of the accused in their tobacco nursery in the early hours of 04/05-11-2007, they immediately along with L.W.3 to L.W.13 went to the accused who was present in the tobacco plantation and asked him as to why he damaged the crop by sprinkling urea. (iii) Suspecting the presence of the accused in their tobacco nursery in the early hours of 04/05-11-2007, they immediately along with L.W.3 to L.W.13 went to the accused who was present in the tobacco plantation and asked him as to why he damaged the crop by sprinkling urea. Then the accused grew wild against L.W.1 and abused him by touching his caste name as “MALA NAA KODAKA INTHAKALAM NAA DAGGARA PANI CHESI NAAMEEDE NINDALU VESTHAVA, KULAM THAKKUVA NAA KODUKULAKU VYAVASAYAM NERPISTHE ITLAGE UNTUNDI”. He threatened him that how dare he asks him about his involvement. He also used filthy language against L.W.2. (iv) Basing on the report given by L.W.1, a case in Crime No.72 of 2007 under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989 was registered by L.W.26-S. Anthony Raj, Sub Inspector of Police, Jarugumalli Police Station and he sent the copy of F.I.R. to L.W.27-M.Konda Reddy, the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole Sub-Division, Ongole for investigation. The S.D.P.O. having got authorization from the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, took up investigation. During investigation, he examined L.W.1 and L.W.2. He examined the coolies worked in the fields of L.W.1 and L.W.2, who gave their statements against the accused. Investigation reveals the commission of offence under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused. The rough sketch was also prepared at the scene of offence in the presence of mahazar witnesses. The damaged tobacco saplings were also seized. L.W.25-Sistla Pitchaiah Sastry, Tahsildar, Jarugumalli Mandal, issued caste certificate of L.W.1 that he is Hindu Mala (Scheduled Caste) Community and the accused is Hindu Kummari, Backward Classes Community. (v) The S.D.P.O. arrested the accused on 05.12.2007 at 10-45 a.m., at his residence and sent him to remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet. 6. The learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukuru, took cognizance of the case as above. After completion of formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), P.R.C.7 of 2008 was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereupon, it was numbered as Sessions Case and was made over to the learned Special Judge. 7. On appearance of the accused before the learned Special Judge, charges under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. 7. On appearance of the accused before the learned Special Judge, charges under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989 were framed and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. To bring home the guilt against the accused before the learned Special Judge, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.9 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 and during the cross examination of P.W.11 and P.W.12, Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 were marked respectively and further M.O.1 was marked. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same. He did not let in any defence evidence. 9. The learned Special Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the accused not guilty of the charges under Section 447 and 427 of I.P.C., but found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989. After questioning the accused about the quantum of sentence, the leaned Special Judge sentenced him as above. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused filed the present appeal. 10. The judgment of the learned Special Judge in exonerating the accused of the charges under Section 447 and 427 of I.P.C. is not under challenge in this Court. Therefore, the scope of the appeal is confined to the conviction made under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989. 11. Now in deciding this appeal, the points for determination are as follows: (1) Whether the prosecution before the learned Special Judge proved that the accused intimidated and humiliated P.W.1 within the public view on 05.11.2007 in his fields as alleged by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt? (2) Whether the judgment, dated 30.10.2009 in S.C.No.14 of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Prakasam Division, Ongole, is sustainable under law and facts? Point Nos.1 and 2:- 12. P.W.1 is the complainant and his evidence, in brief, is that he used to attend the agriculture works of the accused for five years prior to 2006. Point Nos.1 and 2:- 12. P.W.1 is the complainant and his evidence, in brief, is that he used to attend the agriculture works of the accused for five years prior to 2006. Thereafter, he stopped to attend the work on the ground that he was being paid with Rs.2,400/- meager salary per month. When he requested the accused to raise coolie, the accused stated that he cannot pay more. So, he stopped working under him. He along with L.W.2 took an extent of Ac.2-50 cents of land on lease and raised tobacco nursery jointly and both of them have half share. In the year, 2006 the accused took the land of L.W.19 on lease for an extent of Ac.2-50 cents. As there were misunderstandings between the accused and L.W.19, L.W.19 leased out the land to him (P.W.1). Hence, the accused bore grudge against him. Ultimately, they raised tobacco nursery and it was ripe for separation (plantation). He further deposed that on 04.11.2007 three persons, who came to the nursery of accused to purchase saplings, also visited his nursery (P.W.1’s nursery) and they assured to come to purchase his saplings. On 04.11.2007 he and L.W.2 slept in their tobacco nursery. At 4-00 a.m. in the said night, they heard the barking sound of the dogs. They woke up and found a person in their fields and that the said person is the accused. They questioned him as to why he is present. He went away without any reply. Thereafter, they slept together. In the next day morning labour came to the fields to remove waste plants and then he and L.W.2 were also present and found urea in a round shape. The coolies found the same and showed the urea to them. They found the urea in an extent of Ac.0-40 cents as well as Ac.1-50 cents out of Ac.2-50 cents. On account of over dose of urea, nursery became weak and fallen towards down to some extent. With the help of labour, they sprinkled the water to dissolve the urea and to save the nursery. The accused came to his fields. Then he and L.W.2 asked the accused that he was present in their fields last night at 4-00 a.m. and that he is the person who poured urea in their nursery. With the help of labour, they sprinkled the water to dissolve the urea and to save the nursery. The accused came to his fields. Then he and L.W.2 asked the accused that he was present in their fields last night at 4-00 a.m. and that he is the person who poured urea in their nursery. Then the accused abused him as “MALA NAA KODAKA – INTHAKALAM NA DAGGARA KULIPANI CHESI NAPAI NINDALU MOPUTHAVA – KULAM THAKUVANAKODUKKI VYAVASAYAM NERPISTHE ITLAGE VUNTADI”. So, the accused abused him in filthy language and insulted him. He also abused L.W.2. At that time, the surrounding ryots were also present. The agriculture coolies in his land were also present. As usual they are irrigating water to their fields with an intention to save the nursery. On 06.11.2007 he gave complaint to the police which is Ex.P.1. On account of pouring excess dose of urea, he sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. 13. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, he also deposed similarly on the lines of the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the cultivation of the nursery jointly by taking lands on lease from somebody. Insofar as the incident in question is concerned, his evidence is that at about 4-00 a.m., during the night of 04.11.2007 they heard the barking sound of dogs. They woke up and witnessed the presence of one person and he identified him as accused. They questioned his (accused) presence and he went away without any reply on motorbike. Thereafter, they did not sleep and woke up. In the early hours, they brought the coolies at 8-30 a.m. Coolies attended to remove waste plants. The coolies showed the urea in the nursery. They verified the same and found urea in an extent of Ac.1-50 cents. On account of spreading of urea, nursery fallen to some extent towards down. They sprinkled the water with the help of coolies. Towards east of their fields, the fields of the accused is situated and he was present there. Then he and P.W.1 reached the accused to question him about the presence of urea on the ground that he was present at early hours on the day with suspicion. When they questioned the accused about his presence, he abused P.W.1 as “MALA NA KODAKA INNI ROJULU NA DAGGARE PANI CHESI NA MEEDA NINDALU VESTUNNAVA – KULAM THAKKUVA NA KODUKULAKU PANI NERPETHE IDHE JARIGEDHI”. When they questioned the accused about his presence, he abused P.W.1 as “MALA NA KODAKA INNI ROJULU NA DAGGARE PANI CHESI NA MEEDA NINDALU VESTUNNAVA – KULAM THAKKUVA NA KODUKULAKU PANI NERPETHE IDHE JARIGEDHI”. The accused also abused him in filthy language. L.W.3, L.W.4, L.W.5, L.W.7, L.W.8, L.W.9, L.W.11, L.W.12, L.W.13 and some others also came to them at the time of incident. On account of pouring of urea, they sustained loss of Rs.1,50,000/-. 14. The evidence of P.W.3, the so-called coolie in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2, is that she and other labour attended for sprinkling of water in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 since 10- 00 a.m. They found urea. She informed the presence of urea to P.W.1 and P.W.2. At that time the accused was present in his fields. P.W.1 and P.W.2 asked him as to why he poured urea in the nursery. Then the accused abused P.W.1 as “MALA NAA KODAKA 5 SAMVASTSARAMULU NAAKADA BATHIKAVU – NAATHO MATLADATHAVA”. The accused also abused P.W.2. 15. P.W.4 is also an agricultural coolie and her evidence is that at 10-00 a.m., they attended the tobacco nursery of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and they started pouring water. The coolies who attended to remove the waste plants informed that urea was present. They informed the same to P.W.3. In turn P.W.3 intimated the same to P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the accused, who was present in the fields by the side of fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and asked about the presence of urea. The accused abused P.W.1 by touching his caste as “MALODIVI NAA DAGGARA PANICHESI – NANNE ANTUNNAVA”. The accused also abused P.W.2. 16. According to the evidence of P.W.5, she attended the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to work in the tobacco nursery. Along with P.W.4 they were pouring water. They found presence of urea in the nursery. P.W.3 informed the same to P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.1 and P.W.2 came and observed the presence of urea. They questioned about the presence of urea in their nursery and by then the accused was in his fields. At that time, the accused abused P.W.1 touching his caste as “MALA NAYALA INNALLU NAA DAGGARA PANICHESI NAA MEEDA NINDALU VESTHAVA – KULAMU THAKKUVA VADIKI PANI NERPITHE INTHENU”. 17. P.W.6 did not support the case of the prosecution. They questioned about the presence of urea in their nursery and by then the accused was in his fields. At that time, the accused abused P.W.1 touching his caste as “MALA NAYALA INNALLU NAA DAGGARA PANICHESI NAA MEEDA NINDALU VESTHAVA – KULAMU THAKKUVA VADIKI PANI NERPITHE INTHENU”. 17. P.W.6 did not support the case of the prosecution. During cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied that he stated as in Ex.P.2. 18. The evidence of P.W.7 is that she is also a coolie and they went to the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 for coolie work and they found urea and it was informed to P.W.1 and P.W.2 by P.W.3. The accused had fields by the side of fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. When P.W.1 and P.W.2 questioned the accused about the presence of urea, the accused abused P.W.1 as “MALANAKODAKA KULAMUTHAKKUVA NAA KODUKKI VYAVASAYAM NERPITHE ILAGE UNTUNDI”. 19. The evidence of P.W.8 is also similar to the effect that they worked in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and coolies found urea and intimated to P.W.1 and P.W.2 and P.W.1 and P.W.2 questioned the accused that he sprinkled urea in the said tobacco nursery for that the accused abused P.W.1 by touching his caste as “MALA NAAKODAKA THAKKUVAKULAMVARIKI VYAVASAYAM NERPITHE ILLAGE VUNTUNDI, 5 SAVATSARAMULU PANI NERPHITE NAA PINA NINDALU VESTHAVA”. 20. P.W.9 deposed that he worked in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with others and P.W.1 and P.W.2 raised tobacco. About 2 years ago at 7-00 a.m., he went to his fields and again he came to his house and had a meal and visited his fields at about 10-00 a.m. He found that nursery of P.W.1 and P.W.2 fallen to down. He heard that somebody sprinkled urea. P.W.9 did not support the case of the prosecution further. During the cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied that he stated as in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. 21. P.W.10 is the Photographer, who took photos of the scene of offence and Ex.P.5 is the CD and 10 positive photographs and he handed over the same to police. 22. The evidence of P.W.11 is that he visited the nursery fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and observed nursery fallen towards down and heard that somebody sprinkled urea in the nursery and he also found the urea. Except that, he does not know other facts. 23. 22. The evidence of P.W.11 is that he visited the nursery fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and observed nursery fallen towards down and heard that somebody sprinkled urea in the nursery and he also found the urea. Except that, he does not know other facts. 23. P.W.12 did not support the case of the prosecution and during cross examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied that he stated as in Ex.P.6. 24. P.W.13 also did not support the case of the prosecution and during the cross examination, he denied that he stated as in Ex.P.7. 25. P.W.14 turned hostile and during the cross examination by learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he denied that he stated as in Ex.P.8. 26. P.W.15 is the mahazar witness, who supported the case of the prosecution. Ex.P.9 is the observation report. He was present at the time of observation of the scene of offence by the Dy.S.P., Ongole. 27. P.W.16, the Mandal Revenue Officer, testified that he issued caste certificate of P.W.1 mentioning as “Mala” by caste which is Ex.P.10. He also issued caste certificate of the accused mentioning as “Kummari” a Backward Class which is Ex.P.11. 28. P.W.17 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R. under Ex.P.12 and sent the copies to all concerned. 29. P.W.18, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, testified about his investigation to the effect that he took up investigation in the subject matter on 07.11.2007 under Ex.P.13 authorization proceedings. On 08.11.2007 he visited the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and examined them. He secured the presence of P.W.15 and L.W.24 and observed the scene of offence. He prepared Ex.P.9 observation report. He prepared rough sketch which is Ex.P.14. He seized dry tobacco nursery which is M.O.1. He secured P.W.3, P.W.4, L.W.5, L.W.6, P.W.5, P.W.7, L.W.9, P.W.8, L.W.11, L.W.12, P.W.6 and P.W.10 and examined them. On 05.12.2007 he arrested the accused and forwarded for remand. He obtained caste certificates of P.W.1 and the accused during the course of investigation. P.W.6 stated before him as in Ex.P.2. His successor conducted further investigation. 30. P.W.19, the successor of P.W.18, deposed that after completion of investigation, his predecessor submitted draft charge sheet for approval and after approval he filed a charge sheet. 31. He obtained caste certificates of P.W.1 and the accused during the course of investigation. P.W.6 stated before him as in Ex.P.2. His successor conducted further investigation. 30. P.W.19, the successor of P.W.18, deposed that after completion of investigation, his predecessor submitted draft charge sheet for approval and after approval he filed a charge sheet. 31. Sri Koti Reddy Idamakanti, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that according to the report lodged by P.W.1, the defacto-complainant, the date of offence must have been during early hours of 05.11.2007 and thereafter. It depicts two incidents. One is that during early hours of 05.11.2007, P.W.1 and P.W.2 spotted the accused in their fields and when they questioned him as to why he was there, he went away without informing anything. Later, after the coolies of P.W.1 and P.W.2 resumed work in tobacco saplings, they found congregation of urea and then only P.W.1 and P.W.2 entertained a suspicion that the accused keeping in view the early disputes poured and spread over urea in their fields. The second incident is that when the accused was in his fields, P.W.1 and P.W.2 rushed towards the accused and questioned him as to why he spoiled the tobacco samplings by pouring urea and that the accused abused P.W.1 especially by stating that how dare he has to blame him and called him as “Mala naa kudaka” and further uttered a word that if low caste people are trained with regard to the cultivation, the situation will be like this. The Court below disbelieved the allegations against the accused with reference to the charges under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C., but, erroneously believed the evidence of prosecution witnesses with reference to the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989. The Court below disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the accused trespassed into the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and damaged tobacco saplings by spreading urea. Hence, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 had no basis to suspect the role of the accused, even their act in going into the fields of the accused when he was there and questioning him that he spoiled the saplings is nothing but blame against the accused. So, the natural reaction of the accused would have been that as to how without basis they raised such serious allegations. So, the natural reaction of the accused would have been that as to how without basis they raised such serious allegations. The evidence of P.W.1 in cross examination goes to reveal that the verbal quarrel took place for about half an hour in the fields of the accused. Therefore, it all goes to show that when P.W.1 and P.W.2 thrown blame against the accused without any basis, he cannot be found fault in questioning P.W.1 and P.W.2 how they raised such blame. The accused never abused P.W.1 in the name of his caste. There was delay of more than one day in lodging Ex.P.1. The prosecution alleged that the proposed purchasers who visited the tobacco saplings of the accused also visited the samplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and decided to purchase the same from P.W.1 and P.W.2, as such, the accused bore grudge. The accused contended before the learned Special Judge that he did not raise any tobacco saplings. It is admitted by P.W.2 in cross examination. Therefore, the prosecution did not prove that as the proposed purchasers wanted to purchase the tobacco saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2, the accused bore grudge against P.W.1 and P.W.2. This was not proved by the prosecution. According to the evidence let in, it is P.W.1 and P.W.2, who high handedly went into the lands of the accused and raised a baseless allegation for which the accused questioned them how they will raise such allegation. Except that, the accused did not utter any words. The investigating officer did not deliberately examine the coolies who were working in the fields of the accused. On the other hand, the investigating officer only examined the coolies alleged to be in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and some of them deposed false and some of them turned hostile. The evidence let in by the prosecution is not at all convincing. The Court below without there being any evidence observed that the delay was properly explained because P.W.1 and P.W.2 engaged in their agricultural work and later lodged report. Though there was no whisper from P.W.1 and P.W.2 to explain the delay, the Court below on its own with assumptions and presumptions held that the delay was properly explained. At any rate, it is a case where the accused ought to have been extended benefit of doubt, as such, appeal is liable to be allowed. 32. Though there was no whisper from P.W.1 and P.W.2 to explain the delay, the Court below on its own with assumptions and presumptions held that the delay was properly explained. At any rate, it is a case where the accused ought to have been extended benefit of doubt, as such, appeal is liable to be allowed. 32. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would seek to support the judgment of the learned Special Judge on the ground that P.W.1 and P.W.2 consistently deposed the utterances made by the accused against P.W.1. Further the prosecution examined P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8, who supported the case of the prosecution. Though P.W.9, P.W.10, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.14 did not support the case of the prosecution, but the evidence of other witnesses is believable. The act alleged against the accused would prove that the accused intimidated and humiliated P.W.1 in the public view, as such, the judgment of the learned Special Judge is sustainable under law and facts and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 33. Admittedly, according to Ex.P.1, the prosecution placed certain facts to prove that the accused bore grudge against P.W.1 and P.W.2. One allegation is that previously the accused took the land on lease from Anjireddy and later Anjireddy refused to lease out the land to the accused and leased out the land to P.W.1 and P.W.2, as such, the accused developed grudge against them. Another allegation is that when three persons visited the tobacco saplings of the accused to purchase, they also visited the saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and decided to purchase the saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and this was another reason for the accused to bore grudge. According to Ex.P.1, the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. was during the early hours of 05.11.2007. It alleges that when P.W.1 and P.W.2 heard the barking of dogs, they went into the land and spotted the accused and when they questioned the accused why he was there, he went away without giving any reply. After the coolies resumed work only, they could notice that the accused spread over the urea into the saplings to cause damage to the crop. After the coolies resumed work only, they could notice that the accused spread over the urea into the saplings to cause damage to the crop. It further alleges that when the accused was in the fields, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went there and questioned the accused as to why he spread over the urea for which the accused asked them how they blame him and abused the defacto-complainant that if the low caste people are trained with regard to the cultivation, the situated will be like this. This is the substance of the allegations in Ex.P.1. 34. It is a fact that the Court below disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as regards the allegations that the accused trespassed into the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and damaged the tobacco saplings by spreading over the urea. Now, it is pertinent to look into the cross examination part of P.W.1 and P.W.2. During cross examination, P.W.1 denied that since one week prior to the incident, there was raining. During nursery period, they did not use urea. The accused might have utilized and poured the same in the above said extent of nursery. They did not witness the presence of urea gunny bag or basket. It requires half an hour to spread urea for the above extent of nursery. At about 9-00 a.m. on 05.11.2007 when the accused came to his fields, they asked about the presence of urea in their nursery filed. He deposed in cross examination that when the accused and they raised voice, the labour came to them and were standing. The incident took place about half an hour. He denied that the accused did not raise tobacco nursery, but raised chili crop. He himself drafted Ex.P.1 and it was drafted when he visited the police station. Jarugumalli police station is situated at a distance of 6 KMs. away. National Highway is situated at a distance of 400 feet away from his fields. He denied that as the accused belongs to another village and as he purchased land in their village and in order to send him away, he joined hands with P.W.2 and filed a false case. He further denied that as he learnt that compensation would be received from the Government, if he filed this type of case, he filed a false case. 35. He further denied that as he learnt that compensation would be received from the Government, if he filed this type of case, he filed a false case. 35. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2 according to his chief examination, the accused went away on his motorcycle after they questioned him as to why he was standing in their fields. During cross examination, he deposed that one year prior to the incident, the accused raised tobacco nursery in his fields in their village accounts. The accused raised chili crop only to an extent of Ac.0-10 cents. The accused did not raise tobacco nursery in his own land. Except working under the accused prior to the incident, he has no work. They did not witness the presence of gunny bag or basket at the said nursery. Somebody reached the scene of offence when the galata was going on and somebody came after the incident. He denied that he is supporter of Congress party and the accused is supporter of Telugudesam party and to grab the land of the accused, he foisted false case. He denied that he and P.W.1 did not raise tobacco nursery nor invested jointly some amount. 36. It is to be noticed that according to the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, they took land of Ac.2-50 cents for lease from K. Anjireddy and raised tobacco nursery. The alleged incident pertaining to the trespass and causing mischief of the property was during the early hours of 05.11.2007 according to the evidence let in. According to P.W.1, they spotted the accused at 4-00 a.m. on hearing the barking sound of the dogs. Even according to him, one cannot spread over the urea to an extent of Ac.2-50 cents single handedly and minimum time of 30 minutes is required. According to P.W.2, the accused went away on his motorcycle. The offences under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. were alleged during the early hours of 04.11.2007. The Court below disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and held that their evidence is not believable with regard to the presence of the accused and the act alleged against him under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the learned Special Judge recorded an order of acquittal in favour of the accused. The judgment of the Court below is not under challenge. 37. The judgment of the Court below is not under challenge. 37. Therefore, the alleged incident raised against the accused as if he uttered a word against P.W.1 in the name of his caste and intimidated and humiliated P.W.1 in public view was during the day of 05.11.2007 when the accused was working in his fields. The Court below could found falsity in the case of the prosecution with regard to the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C., but, the Court below could believe the prosecution theory with regard to the offence alleged under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989. Now, it is a matter of appreciation as to whether the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other evidence is believable in the given situation. 38. As evident from the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.P.1 and the admissions made by P.W.1 during the cross examination, the place where the accused was alleged to have intimidated and humiliated P.W.1 within the public view was in the fields of the accused. Hence, the place of offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989 was no other than the fields of the accused. Even according to P.W.1, during cross examination when the accused came to his fields at 9-00 a.m., he and P.W.2 asked about the presence of urea in their fields. According to P.W.2 in chief examination, he and P.W.1 reached the accused when the accused was in his fields and questioned him as to why he spoiled the saplings in the lands of P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.3 who was a coolie in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 though testified in the chief examination that the accused was present in his fields and P.W.1 and P.W.2 asked him as to why he poured urea in the nursery, but in cross examination, she deposed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 asked the accused about the presence of urea by standing in their field. This part of evidence of P.W.3 cannot nullify the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they went to the fields of the accused and then only they questioned the accused as to why he poured urea in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. This part of evidence of P.W.3 cannot nullify the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they went to the fields of the accused and then only they questioned the accused as to why he poured urea in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In my considered view, P.W.3 giving a goby to the answers in chief examination for obvious reasons probably to strengthen the case of the prosecution deposed as if P.W.1 and P.W.2 questioned the act of the accused just by standing in their field. But, the evidence of P.W.4 means that P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the accused, who was present in his fields, near the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and questioned the act of the accused. She admitted in cross examination that the accused was present in his fields along with the coolies. P.W.4 deposed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 came into the fields of the accused and questioned him. P.W.5 in cross examination stated that P.W.1 and P.W.2 questioned the accused after reaching near to his fields and at that time they were present in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence, it is clear that according to P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5, P.W.1 and P.W.2 proceeded to the lands of accused and questioned the so-called act of him in spreading over the urea in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. So, it goes to mean that the alleged place of incident was in the fields of the accused. It is a fact that P.W.9, P.W.11, P.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.14 did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.10 was a Photographer. Therefore, what is criteria is whether the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.7 and P.W.8 who supported the case of the prosecution, is believable and if so, whether it made out an offence against the accused. 39. It is to be noticed that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that they spotted the accused in the early hours of 05.11.2007 with suspicious circumstances and the accused without giving proper reply went away was disbelieved by the Court below. So, admittedly, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 suffered with some falsity. The learned Special Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in this regard. 40. Now, it is a matter of appreciation as to whether the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 is believable. So, admittedly, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 suffered with some falsity. The learned Special Judge disbelieved the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in this regard. 40. Now, it is a matter of appreciation as to whether the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 is believable. Therefore, the place of the so-called utterances made by the accused towards P.W.1 intimidating and humiliating within the view of public was no other than the fields of the accused. It is a case even according to the case of the prosecution, P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to the accused when he was working in his fields along with the coolies. 41. According to the contents of Ex.P.1 as well as tenor of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, one of the utterances made by the accused is that how P.W.1 blamed the accused that he spoiled the saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2. There is no dispute that P.W.1 and P.W.2 entered into the fields of the accused even according to them and raised an allegation that the accused spoiled their tobacco saplings. So, the natural reaction of the accused when he met with an allegation that he spoiled the saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would be to question them as to why they raised such an allegation. The answers of P.W.1 during cross examination means that there was a verbal exchange of quarrel for about half an hour even according to him in cross examination. He deposed in cross examination that the incident took place half an hour. Five minutes after the commencement of the quarrel, the accused abused him touching his caste. When they are witnessing the presence of urea in the nursery, the surrounding ryots came there. 42. It is to be noticed that P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 were said to be working in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. According to the answers spoken by P.W.3, just they witnessed the occurrence by standing in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. At the outset, it is really doubtful as to whether when the alleged utterances were made by the accused in his land, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 went towards the accused as to whether such utterances were audible to P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8, who were working in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. At the outset, it is really doubtful as to whether when the alleged utterances were made by the accused in his land, when P.W.1 and P.W.2 went towards the accused as to whether such utterances were audible to P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8, who were working in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Apart from this, even according to the case of the prosecution and even according to the judgment of the learned Special Judge, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 raising a suspicion against the accused as if he spoiled the saplings of the tobacco of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was not believable. Therefore, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were supposed to have a reasonable basis to entertain a suspicion against the accused. When they without any reasonable basis claimed to have entered into the land of the accused and raised blame against him, reaction of the accused would be to question the authority of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to raise such an allegation without any basis. So, insofar as this aspect is concerned, the verbal quarrel ensued between the accused at one hand and P.W.1 and P.W.2 at another hand. Hence, the reaction of the accused by questioning the authority of P.W.1 and P.W.2 to raise such allegation cannot be ruled out. 43. But, insofar as the utterances against P.W.1 alleged to be made by the accused in the name of his caste is concerned, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is to be scrutinized with care and caution. The tenor of evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is such that the proposed purchasers, who visited the lands of the accused to purchase tobacco saplings, decided to purchase the saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2. In the previous night and on the next day, the accused spoiled the saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2. As pointed out the prosecution did not prove the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. The accused agitated before P.W.1 that he never raised tobacco saplings. Even according to P.W.2, about one year ago prior to the incident, the accused raised tobacco saplings. In cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that the accused did not raise tobacco nursery in his own land, but, he raised chili crop only to an extent of Ac.0-10 cents. Even according to P.W.2, about one year ago prior to the incident, the accused raised tobacco saplings. In cross examination, P.W.1 deposed that the accused did not raise tobacco nursery in his own land, but, he raised chili crop only to an extent of Ac.0-10 cents. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is really doubtful as to how the proposed purchasers visited the saplings of the accused to purchase when he did not raise tobacco saplings and that they have decided to purchase the saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Therefore, the own theory projected in Ex.P.1 as spoken to by P.W.1 and P.W.2 in this regard is negatived by virtue of the answers of P.W.2 in cross examination. 44. The prosecution examined P.W.9, who deposed that previously, the accused raised tobacco in his leased land (land of P.W.9) and subsequently P.W.1 and P.W.2 took the land on lease in which the accused cultivated. Except that, he did not support the case of the prosecution in other aspects. Therefore, the fact that previously, the accused cultivated the lands of P.W.9 and in the subsequent year P.W.1 and P.W.2 took the land of P.W.9 cannot be a factor to say that the accused developed grudge against P.W.1 and P.W.2. The prosecution further failed to prove that the accused bore grudge against P.W.1 and P.W.2, as the proposed purchasers decided to purchase the saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2 alone, but, not from the accused. In the light of the admissions made by P.W.2 that the accused did not raise tobacco saplings, the motive attributed by the prosecution must fail. Even otherwise, without looking into this motive aspect, the Court below disbelieved the theory of the prosecution as regards the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. 45. Now, the fact remained is that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 has to be scrutinized with care and caution. It is a case where without there being any reasonable basis, they entered into the lands of the accused high handedly and raised an allegation that he spoiled the saplings of them by spreading over urea. The natural reaction of the accused would be to question them as to how P.W.1 and P.W.2 made such allegation. As pointed, as per P.W.1 in cross examination, a verbal quarrel in this regard ensued for half an hour. 46. The natural reaction of the accused would be to question them as to how P.W.1 and P.W.2 made such allegation. As pointed, as per P.W.1 in cross examination, a verbal quarrel in this regard ensued for half an hour. 46. It is to be noticed that as admitted by P.W.4 in cross examination in the fields of the accused, there were coolies working. The place of offence was in the fields of the accused. The investigating officer did not examine the coolies working in the fields of the accused, but, examined only the coolies working in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The offence alleged under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989, was not in the lands of P.W.1 and P.W.2 where P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8 were working. Therefore, it is very clear that the prosecution did not put forth any reason as to why the investigating officer did not examine the coolies working in the fields of the accused where the alleged offence took place. 47. Apart from this, when the incident in question was happened at 9-00 a.m. on 05.11.2007, Ex.P.1 came to be lodged on the next day at about 4-30 p.m. Even assuming for a moment, that P.W.1 and P.W.2 working in their fields till the evening of 05.11.2007, there was no reason as to why they could not lodge report in the evening of 05.11.2007 or in the morning of 06.11.2007. So, admittedly, there was unexplained delay. The Court below without there being any basis in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 gave a finding that probably P.W.1 and P.W.2 was there in the fields without lodging any report till evening. It is not the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that as they were working in the fields till the evening of 05.11.2007, they could not lodge a report. Even as this Court already pointed out in this contingency also, nothing prevented them to lodge a report either evening of 05.11.2007 or in the morning of 06.11.2007. Therefore, there was abnormal delay in lodging Ex.P.1. There was a falsity in the case of the prosecution by P.W.1 and P.W.2 raising serious allegations against the accused under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. which was disbelieved by the Court below. Therefore, there was abnormal delay in lodging Ex.P.1. There was a falsity in the case of the prosecution by P.W.1 and P.W.2 raising serious allegations against the accused under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. which was disbelieved by the Court below. Though the prosecution has alleged that one of the reasons for the accused to commit the offence under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. was that the proposed purchasers decided to purchase the saplings of P.W.1 and P.W.2 instead of the accused, but, the prosecution failed to prove that the accused raised any tobacco saplings in view of the admissions made by P.W.2 in cross examination. Therefore, undoubtedly, when the case of the prosecution was suffering with falsity, the unexplained delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Even according to the prosecution, there were ill-feelings between P.W.1 and accused. On account of the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 and when P.W.1 and P.W.2 had no reasonable basis to blame the accused as if he committed criminal trespass and mischief and in view of the verbal exchange that ensued between P.W.1 and the accused, the possibility for due deliberations and concoctions cannot be ruled out. In my considered view, the Court below ought to have acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. The evidence on record warrants this Court to come to a conclusion that it is totally unsafe to believe the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.5, P.W.6, P.W.7 and P.W.8. 48. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution before the Court below failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intimidated and humiliated P.W.1 in the public view. Unexplained delay in lodging Ex.P.1 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In my considered view, the learned Special Judge did not discuss the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He did not look into the aspect that P.W.1 and P.W.2 went into the lands of the accused high handedly without there being any basis and raised serious allegations against the accused. He did not look into the fact that the place of incident was in the fields of the accused where some agricultural coolies were working and investigating officer failed to examine them, but only cited the agricultural coolies in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He did not look into the fact that the place of incident was in the fields of the accused where some agricultural coolies were working and investigating officer failed to examine them, but only cited the agricultural coolies in the fields of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence properly with regard to the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 report by P.W.1. 49. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989 beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Special Judge on erroneous appreciation of evidence on record believed the case of the prosecution. Hence, I am of the considered view that the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 50. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment, dated 30.10.2009 in Sessions Case No.14 of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for trial of Offences under SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, Prakasam Division, Ongole, as such, the accused shall stands acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.