JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dtd. 1/7/2009, in Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, Kadapa (for short, 'the learned Special Judge') where under the learned Special Sessions Judge found Accused No.1 (A-1) guilty of the charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SCs and STs Act') and convicted him under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days. 2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2008 arose out of the committal order in PRC No.35 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, L.R. Palli pertaining to Crime No.65 of 2007 of Galiveedu Police Station registered for the offences under Ss. 323 and 355 IPC R/w. Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Pulivendula is that LW.1 - Mude Parvathamma is the complainant. She is resident of Pasala Manda Thanda, Hamlet of Danam Reddigaripalli. LW.2 - Mude Sree Ramulu Naik is her son. On 11/5/2007, LW.2 found a ram missing from his herd of sheep. He suspected that it might have strayed into the herd of sheep of Penugonda Dharma Reddy, uterine brother of Penugonda Sudhakar Reddy (A-2). He asked Penugonda Dharma Reddy as to whether his ram has strayed into the herd of him, for which he replied that he may search his herd for the missing ram. Then, LW.2 searched the herd of sheep of Dharma Reddy accordingly. Penugonda Venkata Rama Reddy (A-1) and A-2 on account of the act of LW.2 felt offended. In the evening A-1 and A-2 went to the forest to keep watch over their grazing sheep. Then, LW.2 searched the herd of sheep of Dharma Reddy accordingly. Penugonda Venkata Rama Reddy (A-1) and A-2 on account of the act of LW.2 felt offended. In the evening A-1 and A-2 went to the forest to keep watch over their grazing sheep. LW.2 and LW.3 - Mude Renuka, wife of LW.2, also went to the forest and they were returning to home at 04:00 p.m. when they reached the harvested paddy fields of Penugonda Dharma Reddy, A-1 and A-2 picked up a quarrel with LW.2 and abused him in the name of his caste by beating him with hands, chappals and legs before LW.3 and thereby humiliated him in public view. (i) On 17/7/2007 at 02:30 p.m. LW.1 went to Galiveedu Police Station and lodged a complaint alleging in substance that A-1 to A-6 (as per the FIR) forcibly stolen away 2 rams from the herd of sheep of complainant and when LW.2 and her husband returned home and came to know about the incident, A-1 to A-6 abused them touching their caste, stripped them half naked, tethered them in their cattle shed and beat them. On 15/7/2007 Penugonda Venkata Ramana Reddy (A-6) raped LW.3, the wife of LW.2. (ii) LW.5 - Bala Guravaiah, Head Constable, Galiveedu Police Station registered the complaint of LW.1 as a case in Crime No.65 of 2007 for the aforesaid offences and sent express FIRs to all the concerned. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa appointed LW.7 - SDPO, Pulivendula as the Investigation Officer, who registered the FIR and his investigation discloses that all the allegations in the FIR are false. However, it disclosed that on 11/5/2007 (mistaken date) at 04:00 p.m. A-1 and A-2 abused LW.2 by his caste and beat him with hands in the presence of LW.3. Hence, the charge sheet. 5. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the case for the offences under Ss. 323 and 355 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act and numbered it as PRC No.35 of 2007 and, after completing the formalities under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Special Sessions Court and thereupon it was numbered as Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2008. 6. 323 and 355 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act and numbered it as PRC No.35 of 2007 and, after completing the formalities under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Special Sessions Court and thereupon it was numbered as Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2008. 6. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Special Judge, a charge under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act was framed against A-1 and A-2 with regard to the incident happened on 11/5/2007; a charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SCs and STs Act was framed against A-1 with regard to the incident happened on 15/5/2007 and charges under Ss. 323 and 355 IPC were framed against A-1 and A-2, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution, during the course of trial, examined PWs.1 to PW.7 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-6 and during the course of cross-examination of PW.3 Ex.D-1 was marked. 8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution for which they denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that they have no defence evidence. 9. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found A-1 and A-2 not guilty of the charge under Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act and also found not guilty of them for the charges under Ss. 323 and 355 IPC and accordingly acquitted them under Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C. However, the learned Special Judge found A-1 guilty of the charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs Act for the alleged outraging modesty against PW.3 and convicted him under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him, as above. 10. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused (A-1) in the aforesaid Special Sessions Case, filed the present Criminal Appeal. 11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the sole point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 15/7/2007 at noon A-1 outraged the modesty of PW.3 in the manner as alleged? POINT: 12. 11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the sole point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution before the trial Court proved beyond reasonable doubt that on 15/7/2007 at noon A-1 outraged the modesty of PW.3 in the manner as alleged? POINT: 12. Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that by creating the incident dtd. 15/7/2007, the de-facto complainant wanted to prove several facts which were said to be happened one month prior to it, so as to bring the earlier incidents into picture. Even otherwise, when the Investigating Officer found that all the allegations in the FIR were false, there was no justification for finding A-1 guilty of the charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SCS and STs Act alleged to be happened on 15/7/2007. Even the statement of PW.1 could be recorded on 17/7/2007. The learned Special Judge found falsity in the case of prosecution with regard to other charges but found A-1 guilty of the charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SCs and STs Act. Prosecution did not explain the delay properly. The evidence on record reveals that there was every possibility for due deliberations and concoctions. When the Investigation Officer came to a conclusion that all the allegations in the FIR were false but the learned Special Judge even for such allegations framed charges and ultimately found that they were not proved. The very conviction and sentence of A-1 for the alleged incident happened on 15/7/2007 was nothing but erroneous as such Appeal is liable to be allowed. 13. Sri Naidana Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant, representing learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that the learned Special Judge after due consideration of the evidence on record found the appellant/A-1 guilty of the charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SCs and STs Act and in fact the delay was properly explained. The reason for delay was that the de-facto complainant approached the Superintendent of Police and presented a report, which was in turn forwarded to the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police as such the delay was occurred. He would submit that the learned Special Judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant/A-1 as such the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. PW.1 was the de-facto complainant and PW.2 was her son. PW.3 was the victim with regard to the alleged incident happened on 15/7/2007. He would submit that the learned Special Judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant/A-1 as such the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 14. PW.1 was the de-facto complainant and PW.2 was her son. PW.3 was the victim with regard to the alleged incident happened on 15/7/2007. PW.4 was the revenue official who issued the caste certificate of PW.1. PW.5 was the ASI, Thalamanchipatnam Police Station who recorded the statement of PW.1 under Ex.P-1 and registered the FIR. PW.6 was the SI of Police, who enquired about certain incidents happened prior to Ex.P-1. PW.7 was the SDPO concerned. 15. As evident from the judgment of the learned Special Judge, he did not believe the case of prosecution insofar as the Charge Nos.1, 3 and 4 are concerned and only with respect to Charge No.2, he believed the case of prosecution to the effect that A-1 on 15/7/2007 noon used criminal force on PW.3 when she was in the fields. 16. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3, they spoke of several things as alleged in Ex.P-1. There is no dispute that the learned Special Judge did not believe the allegations regarding the Charge Nos.1, 3 and 4 and he came to a conclusion that the offence relating to Charge No.2 was happened. However, there is no dispute that the learned Special Judge framed Charge Nos.1 to 4 in spite of findings of the Investigating Officer in the charge sheet. However, ultimately he exonerated A-1 of the Charge Nos.1, 3 and 4 17. Now the simple question that falls for consideration is whether the testimony of the prosecution witnesses with regard to Charge No.2 for which A-1 was found to be guilty is believable? 18. There is no dispute that when the offence in question was happened on 15/7/2007, the FIR came to be registered on the third day. Turning to the evidence of PWs.1 to PW.3, it is not necessary to refer their testimony with regard to the charge Nos.1, 3 and 4. So, this Court has to confine itself to the evidence relating to Charge No.2. 19. According to the evidence of PW.1, she was not a witness to the occurrence happened against PW.3. She did not speak of the date of incident. So, this Court has to confine itself to the evidence relating to Charge No.2. 19. According to the evidence of PW.1, she was not a witness to the occurrence happened against PW.3. She did not speak of the date of incident. Her evidence in this regard is that her daughterin-law one day before giving report to the SP went to hillock for tendering their sheep. When her daughter-in-law was rearing the sheep on the hillock, A-1 caught hold of her hand with an intention to commit rape but she pushed him away and rushed to home. So, this is the substance of the evidence of PW.1. 20. The evidence of PW.2, son of PW.1, is that when his wife went to hillock for rearing their sheep, A-1 caught hold of his wife's hand and when she was trying to rape her, she pushed him away and reported the matter. The SI of Police did not take their report. On the next day, they went to the Office of SP, Kadapa and reported their grievance, who endorsed the report to the SHO of Galiveedu Police Station. 21. According to PW.3, when she was on hillock grazing the herd, A-1 caught hold of her hand to commit rape against her but she escaped from his clutches and ran to home. She intimated the incident to her family members. Then, they proceeded to Police Station. Police did not take any action. On the next day, they approached the SP, who made an endorsement to the concerned SHO. 22. Turning to the evidence of PW.5, HC of Galiveedu Police Station, he deposed that on 17/7/2007 PW.1 along with her husband came to the Police Station, presented xerox copy of the report endorsed by the SP, Kadapa but he recorded Ex.P-1 statement of PW.1 and obtained her thumb impression and also the thumb impression of husband of PW.1. He registered it as a case in Crime No.65 of 2007 for the offences under Ss. 323, 342, 379 and 354 R/w.34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act and submitted FIR. During cross-examination, he deposed that he received xerox copy of the report of PW.1 with an endorsement of SP, Kadapa but he did not register the same as FIR. 323, 342, 379 and 354 R/w.34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act and submitted FIR. During cross-examination, he deposed that he received xerox copy of the report of PW.1 with an endorsement of SP, Kadapa but he did not register the same as FIR. So, the above facts reveal that when the alleged offence was happened on 15/7/2007, criminal law was set in motion on the third day. 23. It appears that while framing the charges the date of offence was mentioned as 15/5/2007 instead of 15/7/2007. It is to be noted that the prosecution did not produce the so called xerox copy of the complaint with an endorsement of concerned SP. Undoubtedly, when the incident was happened on 15/7/2007, FIR was registered on the third day. It is to be noted that the prosecution did not set forth any reason, whatsoever, as to why FIR was not registered basing on the report presented by PW.1 before the SP, which was forwarded to SI of Police with an endorsement. The xerox copy of the report did not see the light of the day. The reason set forth for explanation of delay was that PW.1 approached the SP and presented a report which was forwarded to the SI of Police with endorsement of SP. In my considered view, when PW.5 admitted that he received xerox copy of report with endorsement from SP, he ought to have enquired as to what happened to the original report and he ought to have contacted the Office of SP to get the original report so as to register the same as FIR. So, what were the contents in the report of PW.3 before the SP were not known to anybody. Admittedly, it is a case that the SDPO concerned found falsity in the case of prosecution by looking into Ex.P-1 statement. Even the learned Special Judge found falsity in the case of the prosecution by looking into the contents of Ex.P-1 as well as the evidence available on record. 24. The evidence of PW.6, SI of Police, reveals that with regard to the earlier incidents, he called the parties and advised them properly. What all the evidence of PW.6 was only relating to the incidents happened prior to Ex.P-1. Ex.P-1 alleges several things which were said to be happened one month prior to the occurrence. They alleged several serious allegations. The evidence of PW.6, SI of Police, reveals that with regard to the earlier incidents, he called the parties and advised them properly. What all the evidence of PW.6 was only relating to the incidents happened prior to Ex.P-1. Ex.P-1 alleges several things which were said to be happened one month prior to the occurrence. They alleged several serious allegations. All those allegations were found to be false by the Investigating Officer as well as by the learned Special Judge. When that was the situation, the evidence of PWs.1 to PW.3 has to be scrutinized with care and caution. PW.1 and PW.2 were not the witnesses to the episode on 15/7/2007. PW.3 had knowledge that with regard to the earlier episodes, Police summoned them and advised them properly. If the case of the prosecution that on the next date of incident, PW.3 went to SP Office and presented a report is accepted, the said report ought to have been registered as FIR. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as original report of PW.3 did not see the light of the day and on the other hand in that place Ex.P-1 was substituted, it is to be supposed that as the said report was not favourable to the case of prosecution, Ex.P-1 was substituted in its place. 25. Looking into the fact that bad blood was flowing between the de-facto complainant party and the accused party and looking into the falsity in Ex.P-1 as well as in the evidence it is quite un-safe to sustain the conviction basing on the solitary testimony of PW.3. Even according to the case of prosecution, accused had every knowledge about the previous bickering between them and the defacto complainant party and about counseling made by the Police. In such circumstances, it is rather un-safe to assume that A-1 indulged in the commission of offence against PW.3 on 15/7/2007. In my considered view, the evidence on record warrants this Court to extend benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant. Hence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the Appellant/A-1 under Sec. 3(1)(xi) SCs and STs Act beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 26. Hence, I am of the considered view that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against the Appellant/A-1 under Sec. 3(1)(xi) SCs and STs Act beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Special Judge did not appreciate the evidence on record in proper perspective. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed. 26. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/A-1 for the charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SCs and STs Act in Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2008, dtd. 1/7/2009, on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, Kadapa. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/A-1 shall be refunded to him after the Appeal time is over. 27. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Sec. 388 Cr.P.C to certify the judgment of this Court including the trial Court record, if any, to the trial Court on or before 9/1/2024. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.