JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. The challenge in this Criminal Appeal is made by the unsuccessful A.1 to A.3 to the judgment, dated 10.12.2009 in SC ST Sessions Case No. 9 of 2009, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, East Godavari at Rajahmundravaram (“Special Jude” for short). 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience. 3. The State, represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada, i/c. of Peddapuram, filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 134 of 2008 of Thondangi Police Station, alleging in substance that A.2 is the second wife of one late Palaparthi Ayyanna, who was murdered by Nagam Trimurthulu during night of 01.09.2008 in the fields of A.V. Nagaram village as the husband of A.2 threatened to kill him on a suspicion that he has illicit intimacy with A.2. To that effect, originally a case in Crime No. 96 of 2008 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) was initially registered. The defacto-complainant viz., Isumapati Nooka Rao, being the Sarpanch, acted as one of the inquest panchayatdars and opined that Nagam Trimurthulu was suspected to be responsible for the death of Palaparthi Ayyanna. Later, Section of law was altered into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short). As the case was initially registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., the accused used to abuse the complainant that he misleads the police. Keeping the same in view on 27.10.2008 at 5-00 p.m. when he was at Gram Panchayat office of Ravikampadu Village, the accused went there, abused him as Mala Lanjakodaka and alleged that he mislead the police relating to the death of husband of A.2. Then the complainant left the Panchayat office and went to the house of MPTC (L.W.8-Velnati Venkata Ramana). When he was narrating the behavior of the accused and their abuses to L.W.6-Velnati Putrayya, L.W.7-Sidda Golla Babu and L.W.8, again accused went there and abused him as Malavedava and challenged that they would see how he works as Sarpanch of the village. The persons there admonished the accused. Later, basing on the report lodged by the defacto-complainant, a case in Crime No. 134 of 2008 was registered under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act and investigated into. The persons there admonished the accused. Later, basing on the report lodged by the defacto-complainant, a case in Crime No. 134 of 2008 was registered under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act and investigated into. The Deputy Superintendent of Police-L.W.11 after registration of FIR by the concerned S.I. of Police, during investigation examined several witnesses, inspected the scene and prepared rough sketch. He arrested A.2 on 22.11.2008 and sent her for judicial custody. A.1 and A.3 surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni and they were remanded to judicial custody. L.W.9-Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal certified that L.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and Accused belongs to Forward Caste. Hence, the charge. 4. The above case was numbered as P.R.C.No. 24 of 2009, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni and after complying necessary formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Special Court and thereupon, it was numbered as SC ST Sessions Case No. 9 of 2008. On appearance of A.1 to A.3 before the learned Special Judge charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC&ST (POA) Act was framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to establish the guilt against A.1 to A.3 before the learned Special Judge, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same. A.2 filed a written statement stating that her husband was murdered on the intervening night of 1/2-09-2008 with active support of P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6 and others with police and created as if he died due to heart attack. On 02.09.2008 itself, she gave report before the police, but police did not take any action. Again on 03.10.2008, she gave complainant before central complaint cell. Again police failed to take any action. So, she filed private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni. In collusion with P.W.1, the alleged confession of Nagam Trimurthulu was pressed into service as if he alone killed Ayyanna and created Ex.P.1. 6. Again on 03.10.2008, she gave complainant before central complaint cell. Again police failed to take any action. So, she filed private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni. In collusion with P.W.1, the alleged confession of Nagam Trimurthulu was pressed into service as if he alone killed Ayyanna and created Ex.P.1. 6. The learned Special Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as the documentary evidence, found A.1 to A.3 guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of S.C & ST (POA) Act, convicted them under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence and considering that A.1 being aged woman, A.2 being aged 40 years and a widow and A.3 being aged 38 years and elder of the family, took a lenient view and sentence them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. Felt aggrieved of the said judgment of the learned Special Judge, the unsuccessful A.1 to A.3 filed the present appeal. 7. During the course of pendency of the appeal, A.3 was expired, as such, appeal against A.3 is concerned, it was abated vide order, dated 16.02.2023. Now the scope of the appeal is confined to insofar as the appellants/A.1 and A.2 is concerned. 8. Now, the simple question that falls for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved that on 27.10.2008 A.1 and A.2 intentionally insulted or intimidated P.W.1 within the public view and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Special Judge? Point: 9. Sri K.B. Ramanna Dora, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would contend vehemently that though the offence in question was happened on 27.10.2008, the report could be lodged only on 30.10.2008 i.e., 4th day with the delay of 72 hours. There is no whisper in Ex.P.1 as to why such abnormal delay was occurred. The evidence was developed during the course of trial as if the abuses alleged to be made by the accused were referred to the elders and elders promised to get apology from the accused and as they failed to get the apology, they advised P.W.1 to lodge a report. This thing was not mentioned in Ex.P.1 report. The evidence was developed during the course of trial as if the abuses alleged to be made by the accused were referred to the elders and elders promised to get apology from the accused and as they failed to get the apology, they advised P.W.1 to lodge a report. This thing was not mentioned in Ex.P.1 report. Apart from this, P.W.2 was a close associate of P.W.5 at whose instance he deposed false. P.W.2 claimed to have witnessed the occurrence. The prosecution alleged two incidents. One on 27.10.2008 at about 5-00 p.m, and another is thereafter. P.W.3 spoke of one incident. P.W.4 is a hearsay witness and P.W.5 spoke that on 27.10.2008 at 5-00 p.m., while they were under a tree in front of the house, they came to know about the occurrence from P.W.1. He did not speak of second episode which is alleged to be happened before his presence. However, the prosecution got declared him as hostile and he admitted that he stated before S.D.P.O. that A.1 to A.3 abused P.W.1 at his house also. Learned counsel would vehemently contend that though the husband of A.2 was brutally murdered, it was originally registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. Police did not investigate the case properly and that simply shown one Nagaram Trimurthulu as accused. Not satisfied with the act of the police, A.2 made several representations to the police and ultimately she was constrained to file a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni. According to the order of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, Crime No. 176 of 2008 was registered by the police. In the above said private complaint filed by A.2, the present P.W.1 was shown as A.5. Apart from this, according to the admissions made by S.D.P.O. (P.W.8), A.2 herein filed private complaint relating to the death of her husband which was forwarded for investigation on 13.10.2008 in which P.W.1, brother of P.W.3 and P.W.5 and others were shown as accused. He would contend that after the orders on the private complaint for investigation only, the S.D.P.O. could arrest Nagam Trimurthulu by showing P.W.1 as one of the mediators. The act of A.2 in filing private complaint against several persons including P.W.1, brother of P.W.3 and P.W.5 as responsible for the death of her husband was on 13.10.2008. The incident in this case was alleged on 27.10.2008. The act of A.2 in filing private complaint against several persons including P.W.1, brother of P.W.3 and P.W.5 as responsible for the death of her husband was on 13.10.2008. The incident in this case was alleged on 27.10.2008. P.W.1, P.W.5 and others had got knowledge of the act of A.2 in filing private complaint. On that count, the prosecution fabricated a version. The prosecution did not explain the delay properly. As they were serious ill feelings between the prosecution party and the accused party, which is also admitted by P.W.8 during the course of cross examination, unexplained delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The learned Special Judge though all these facts were borne out by record, simply believed the evidence without proper reasons and he did not look into the fact that the delay was not properly explained. With the above submissions, the learned counsel would contend that it is unsafe to believe the evidence adduced by the prosecution, as such, appeal is liable to the allowed. 10. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 were the direct witnesses to the occurrence. There is consistency between the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5. The prosecution explained the delay in lodging the report. The delay in lodging the report was on account of the assurance given by the elders to P.W.1 to get the apology from the accused. P.W.5 was one of the elders who advised P.W.1 not to lodge report immediately because he would look into the issue. P.W.5 supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence on record warrants the conviction and that the learned Special Judge rightly convicted, as such, there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the learned Special Judge. 11. As evident from Ex.P.1 report lodged by P.W.1 the substance of the allegations were that A.1 to A.3 suspecting that the defacto-complainant was responsible for initial registration of FIR relating to the death of the husband of A.2 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. i.e., suspected death, they abused P.W.1 as “Mala Lajakodaka” and when he went to P.W.5 to narrate the incident, they went there and also abused him. This is the sum and substance of the allegations in Ex.P.1 report. 12. This is the sum and substance of the allegations in Ex.P.1 report. 12. Now coming to the evidence of P.W.1, he deposed that one Ayyanna was the husband of A.2. The said Ayyanna and one Trimurthulu are close friends. They used to kill the cocks of others in order to see that their cocks will win in the cock fights. They both were in the habit of playing cock fights. On 02.09.2008, he came to know that the dead body of Ayyanna was found lying in the fields of A.V. Nagaram. As per the instructions of police, he went there and acted as inquest panchayathdar. On 27.10.2008 at 5-00 p.m., when he and L.W.2-Gorgapudi Suresh, L.W.3-Adam Rama Krishna, L.W.4-Sainam Sathi Babu, L.W.5-Kakada Appa Rao and L.W.6-Velnati Putrayya were at the culvert, A.1 to A.3 came there and abused him as Mala Lanjakodaka and Mala Vedhava and further uttered that he was responsible for falsely registering the case by police under suspicious death of husband of A.2. A.1 is elder sister of the deceased. A.3 is the son of A.1. Then he went to L.W.8 (P.W.5) to report the issue. A.1 to A.3 came to L.W.8 and again abused him as Mala Lanjakodaka and Mala vedhava. When he expressed his intention to lodge police report, L.W.8 and other village elders stated that they will see that the accused will offer apology to him and advised not to file police case. Later, the village elders called for A.1 to A.3 and waited for two days, but, they did not turn up. Hence, he lodged written report on 30.10.2008. 13. The evidence of P.W.2 is such that on 27.10.2008 at about 5-00 p.m., when he and P.W.1 and others were sitting in the culvert near Panchayat Office, A.1 to A.3 came there and abused P.W.1 as Mala Lanjakodaka and uttered that he was responsible for falsely registering the case by police as suspicious death of husband of A.2. Then, he and P.W.1 went to the house of L.W.8 by which time A.1 to A.3 came there and also abused P.W.1 as Mala Lanjakodaka. 14. Then, he and P.W.1 went to the house of L.W.8 by which time A.1 to A.3 came there and also abused P.W.1 as Mala Lanjakodaka. 14. Coming to the evidence of P.W.3 on 27.10.2008 at 5-00 p.m., while he, P.W.1, P.W.2 and L.W.4 were sitting at the culvert, near Panchayat Office, A.1 to A.3 came there and abused P.W.1 as Mala Lanjakodaka on the ground that why he gave wrong information to police for registration of FIR which is as suspicious death. P.W.1 and P.W.2 left the culvert. 15. P.W.4, according to him, is a hearsay witness. He came to know that on 27.10.2008 at 5-00 p.m., when he and others were at the house of P.W.5, P.W.1 and P.W.2 came there and narrated that A.1 to A.3 abused P.W.1 as Mala Vedhava. Later he left the house of L.W.8. The evidence of P.W.5 is also that on 27.10.2008 at 5-00 p.m, when he and P.W.4 and others were under a tree in front of his house, P.W.1 came and informed him that A.1 to A.3 abused him as Mala Vedhava. He asked him to wait for some time and though he waited for accused for three days, they did not turn up. Hence, he advised P.W.1 to lodge report. As P.W.5 did not speak the second episode of alleged abuses made by A.1 to A.3 at his house, prosecution cross examined him and he deposed that he stated before D.S.P. that accused abused P.W.1 as Mala President Vedhava at his house. 16. As evident from the cross examination of P.W.1, it is clear that firstly with regard to the death of husband of A.2, FIR in Crime No. 96 of 2008 was registered. P.W.1 deposed that he does not know whether A.1 filed any private complaint against him along with other accused for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC for the death of her husband. He denied that he did not mention in Ex.P.1 and did not state before D.S.P. that L.W.8 and village elders asked him not to lodge any complaint immediately as they wanted to settle the issue. He deposed that he does not know that L.W.8 is shown as accused in private complaint lodged by A.2. 17. Accused suggested to P.W.2 that being nephew of L.W.8, he is deposing false. He deposed that he does not know that L.W.8 is shown as accused in private complaint lodged by A.2. 17. Accused suggested to P.W.2 that being nephew of L.W.8, he is deposing false. According to P.W.3 in cross examination Adam Babji is his younger brother but he does not know whether A.2 filed private complaint against his brother, L.W.8 and P.W.1 and others. Coming to the evidence of P.W.5 in cross examination he does not know whether he is one of the accused in private complaint lodged by A.2 for the death of her husband. 18. It is to be noted that there is evidence of P.W.8, the D.S.P. which reveals that originally relating to the death of husband of A.2, Crime No. 96 of 2008 was registered and in that connection one Nagam Trimurthulu was arrested in the presence of P.W.1 as a mediator. He admitted in cross examination on behalf of the accused that A.2 filed private complaint relating to the murder of her husband on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, which was forwarded to police for investigation on 13.10.2008 in which P.W.1, brother of P.W.3, P.W.5 and others are shown as accused. He denied that after lodging of private complaint on 13.10.2008 only, he hastily arrested Nagam Trimurthulu on 14.10.2008 by showing P.W.1 as one of the mediators. He denied that due to political pressure and in view of Crime No. 96 of 2008, though he knows that the present case is false, he investigated and laid charge sheet with false allegations. 19. Now the admitted facts are that relating to the death of the husband of A.2, originally Crime No. 96 of 2008 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., in which ultimately, police arrested one Nagam Trimurthulu. As there was delay on the part of police in conducting investigation and felt aggrieved of the inaction of the police, A.2 filed private complaint before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni, which was ordered to be investigated on 13.10.2008 in which P.W.1 younger brother of P.W.3 and P.W.4 were figured as accused. These are admitted facts which are not in dispute. In that background, the evidence is to be appreciated. There is no dispute that P.W.2 is the nephew of P.W.5. These are admitted facts which are not in dispute. In that background, the evidence is to be appreciated. There is no dispute that P.W.2 is the nephew of P.W.5. There is also no dispute that one Adam Babji said to be the brother of P.W.3 was also figured as accused in private complaint filed by A.2. Though there is literal corroboration to the evidence of P.W.1 from that of evidence of P.W.2 relating to two incidents and further from the evidence of P.W.3 relating to the first incident that is not sufficient to believe the case of the prosecution. The veracity or otherwise of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 is to be tested to judge the guilt of the accused. 20. It is to be noted that the serious contention raised by the accused even before the learned Special Judge is that there was every possibility for deliberations and concoctions on account of the delay in lodging report after 72 hours i.e., after three full days. The learned Special Judge made a finding that P.W.1 explained that the delay was as the elders assured to do justice and the reasons set forth by P.W.1 was supported by P.W.5. It is to be noted that the learned Special Judge did not took into the consideration of the fact that Ex.P.1 did not disclose that the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 was on account of assurance given by the elders to do justice to P.W.1. The judgment of the learned Special Judge reflects the fact that in Crime No. 96 of 2008 Nagam Trimurthulu was the sole accused, but in Crime No. 136 of 2008 there are as many as 12 accused, out of which P.W.1-Isukapati Nooka Raju is A.5 and P.W.5-Velnati Venkata Ramana is A.6 and further the evidence of P.W.3 discloses that his younger brother is one Adam Babji who is A.3 in Crime No. 136 of 2008. Though the learned Special Judge made a finding that P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5 pleaded ignorance about their accusation but even according to the case of the prosecution as projected in Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1, he has got every knowledge that A.2 was not satisfied with the investigation done and laid a private complaint. So, the knowledge of the factum of filing of private complaint by A.2 against P.W.1 brother of P.W.3 and P.W.5 cannot be ruled out. So, the knowledge of the factum of filing of private complaint by A.2 against P.W.1 brother of P.W.3 and P.W.5 cannot be ruled out. It is a case where A.2 directly alleged the role of P.W.1, P.W.5 and the brother of P.W.3 in so-called murder of her husband. The delay in lodging report is to be appreciated in the background of the aforesaid circumstances. As this Court already pointed out though there is no whisper in Ex.P.1 that the delay was on account of the elders intervention, the learned Special Judge did not take into consideration this aspect. Further the learned Special Judge simply believed the evidence of P.W.5. In my considered view, on account of the delay in lodging the report, there was every possibility for due deliberations and concoctions because of enmity between the prosecution party and the accused family and as already A.2 lodged private complaint in showing P.W.1, brother of P.W.3 and P.W.5 as accused. The evidence on record discloses that the reasons set forth by P.W.1 for the delay is not at all convincing. Even according to the case of the prosecution, A.1 to A.3 developed angry against P.W.1 for his alleged misleading of the police for getting registration of FIR simply under suspicious death under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. When that was scenario, it was quite improbable to assume that elders expected a positive response from the accused to give any apology to the defacto-complainant. The very explanation offered by P.W.1 for the delay without there being any basis in Ex.P.1 is not at all believable. No reliance can be placed upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 with regard to the explanation for delay. On account of the delay in view of enmity between the accused family and the prosecution party, especially, as A.2 suspected the role of P.W.1, brother of P.W.3 and P.W.5 as to the alleged murder of her husband due deliberations and concoctions on the part of P.W.1 to rope A.1 to A.3 in the case cannot be ruled out. The learned Special Judge made an erroneous finding that the prosecution has explained the delay properly. The learned Special Judge did not look into consideration, the existing enmity between the prosecution party and accused family on account of so-called murder of husband of A.2. The learned Special Judge made an erroneous finding that the prosecution has explained the delay properly. The learned Special Judge did not look into consideration, the existing enmity between the prosecution party and accused family on account of so-called murder of husband of A.2. In my considered view, when the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.5 is tested on the touch stone of credibility, their evidence cannot stand to the test of scrutiny. As the prosecution failed to explain the delay properly, it is unsafe to believe the evidence adduced by the prosecution. In my considered view, the evidence in this case warrants this Court to extend the benefit of doubt. It is unsafe to believe that A.1 and A.2 committed the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act. Hence, the judgment of the learned Special Judge is liable to be interfered with. 21. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting aside the judgment, dated 10.12.2009 in SC ST Sessions Case No. 9 of 2009, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, East Godavari at Rajahmundravaram and thereby appellants/A.1 and A.2 shall stand acquitted of the charge leveled against them. The fine amount, if paid by A.1 and A.2 shall be refunded to them after appeal time is over. 22. The Registry is directed to forward copy of the judgment along with record to the trial Court on or before 22.12.2023. 23. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.