JUDGMENT: Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 07.12.2010, in Sessions Case No.31 of 2010, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), where under the learned Special Judge found Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2) guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC & ST Act’), convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) and, after questioning them about the quantum of sentenced, sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month each. 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 Sessions Case No.31 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Rajahmundry arose out of committal order in PRC No.45 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’) pertaining to Crime No.100 of 2009 of Allavaram Police Station, East Godavari District registered for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Amalapuram, in the aforesaid Crime, is that Akula Krishna Murthy (A-1) and Akula Srinivasa Rao (A-2) are the father and son and residents of Kodurupadu Village, Allavaram Mandal belongs to Kapu caste as such belong to the category of Other Caste. LW.1 – Geddam Jivan Kumar is also resident of the same Village and belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste - Mala. He is correspondent of Gollapalli Suryarao College, Allavaram and an elder of Kodurupadu Village. A-1 and A-2 are also residents of same village. Long back one Nadipalli Ramabhadra Raju of Kodurupadu village gave his land to the landless poor people of Kodurupadu Village, who divided the said land into 24 house sites with three roads and some of them constructed thatched houses. A-1 and A-2 are also residents of same village. Long back one Nadipalli Ramabhadra Raju of Kodurupadu village gave his land to the landless poor people of Kodurupadu Village, who divided the said land into 24 house sites with three roads and some of them constructed thatched houses. A-1 and A-2 are staying by constructing thatched houses on either side of the center road at its entrance, occupying the road without facilitating others to enter into their house sites. Hence, LW.2 to LW.7 namely Akula Venkateswara Rao, Akula Pulleswara Rao, Akula Chinna Krishna, Akula Anantha Lakshmi, Akula Gunavathi and Akula Venkateswara Rao and LW.8 – Khandavalli Rambabu represented the Tahsildar and elders for pacification of the issue. On 14.07.2009, LW.1 along with the Tahsildar (LW.10) and VRO (LW.11) visited the disputed place and enquired about the issue. They asked LW.8 and A-1 to leave 2 feet width place by each of them as a way for which LW.8 accepted the proposal and A-1 denied the same. So, the Tahsildar left the place by stating that he is going to conduct a survey for resolving the issue. A-1 grew wild on the decision taken by LW.1 and Revenue Officials and attacked LW.1 along with his son, behaved highhandedly against him about his involvement in the said issue and abused him in a filthy language raising his caste name. LW.11 – Tahsildar, Allavaram Mandal issued caste certificate of LW.1 and A-1 and A-2. LW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste Mala and accused belongs to Kapu Community. LW.12 – SI of Police, Allavaram received written report from LW.1 and registered the FIR in Crime No.100 of 2009 on 04.08.2009 at 10:00 p.m. LW.13 – SDPO, Amalapuram took up investigation being appointed by the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada vide proceedings C.No.7475/C3/2009, dated 05.08.2009. During course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the same. He examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements. LW.13 arrested the accused on 22.08.2009 and sent them for remand. Hence, the charge sheet. 5. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet and numbered it as PRC No.45 of 2009. After appearance of the accused and after completing the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, PRC No.45 of 2009 was committed to the Special Sessions Court, Rajahmundry and thereafter it was numbered as Sessions Case No.31 of 2010. 6. 5. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet and numbered it as PRC No.45 of 2009. After appearance of the accused and after completing the necessary formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, PRC No.45 of 2009 was committed to the Special Sessions Court, Rajahmundry and thereafter it was numbered as Sessions Case No.31 of 2010. 6. After appearance of the accused before the learned Special Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry, charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act was framed and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 7. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution before the learned Special Judge, examined PWs.1 to PW.11 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7 and further the defence counsel got marked Exs.D-1 to D-4 during the course of cross-examination of PW.1 and PW.8 and further the Investigating Officer as the case may be. 8. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, both the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in for which they denied the incriminating circumstances and stated that they have no defence witnesses. 9. The learned Special Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as above 10. Felt aggrieved of the conviction and sentence, the unsuccessful accused therein filed the present Criminal Appeal. 11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the prosecution before the learned Special Sessions Judge, Rajahmundry proved that on 14.07.2009 both A-1 and A-2 intentionally insulted and humiliated PW.1 in the name of his caste within the public view as alleged? 2) Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 3) Whether the impugned judgment is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT Nos.1 to 3: 12. 2) Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 3) Whether the impugned judgment is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are any grounds to interfere with the same? POINT Nos.1 to 3: 12. Sri K. Prithvi Raj, learned counsel, representing Sri K.Chidambaram, learned counsel for the Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2, would contend that PWs.2 to PW.6 are the interested witnesses because some how or the other they developed some sort of dissatisfaction and grouse against A-1 for allegedly occupying some extent of the lane and in fact A-1 and A-2 never occupied any lane meant for them. When PW.7, PW.1 and others highhandedly asked A-1 to spare two feet width on the ground that he encroached, he denied the same. So, the Tahsildar left the place so as to conduct a survey. Except that nothing was happened. Though the alleged incident was happened on 14.07.2009, report came to be lodged on 04.08.2009, after about 21 days after due deliberations, concoctions and embellishments. PW.1 disowned his case by saying that on 14.07.2009 itself he lodged a report and that the date of Ex.P-1 was tampered and that further he did not make any mention in Ex.P-1 that the delay was happened on the account of the fact that the matter was referred to elders. Though PW.1 presented Ex.P-1 report on 04.08.2009 but he does not know the contents of Ex.P-1 with regard to delay and alleged tampering of it. The SI of Police testified that on 04.08.2009 only Ex.P-1 was presented. The SDPO commenced the investigation after getting an order and he examined PW.1 on 11.08.2009. PW.1 stated before SDPO as in Ex.D-1 as if as the matter was referred to elders, the report could not be lodged immediately. Even according to Ex.D-2, which was marked through the examination of PW.8 - MPTC and proved through IO the matter was alleged to be referred to elders. So, when the prosecution did not explain the delay properly, the learned Special Judge, without there being any basis against the SI of Police, gave a finding that the SI of Police had kept Ex.P-1 without registration of FIR though he received it on 14.07.2009 till 04.08.2009. The prosecution did not challenge the testimony of SI of Police and SDPO. So, when the prosecution did not explain the delay properly, the learned Special Judge, without there being any basis against the SI of Police, gave a finding that the SI of Police had kept Ex.P-1 without registration of FIR though he received it on 14.07.2009 till 04.08.2009. The prosecution did not challenge the testimony of SI of Police and SDPO. So, the observations made by the learned Special Judge are contrary to the evidence and without giving any opportunity to SI of Police to hear his version. So, if the finding of the learned Special Judge that SI of Police suppressed registration of the FIR for about 21 days is disbelieved, PW.1 has to explain the delay but he did not explain the delay. Somehow or other PWs.2 to PW.6 are interested in the case of prosecution. On account of the abnormal delay, deliberations and concoctions cannot be ruled out. PWs.1 to PW.5 high handedly came upon the house of accused to demolish it and A-1 felt heart attack and was admitted in the hospital and when he brought the facts to the notice of the Police they did not take any action and ultimately anticipating action from the Police PW.1 lodged report belatedly on 04.08.2009. So, the prosecution did not explain the delay and on account of the delay, possibility of deliberations cannot be ruled out. In support of his contention, he would rely upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1972 (3) SCC 393 as regards the delay. He would contend that accused are entitled for acquittal. 13. Sri N. Sravan Kumar, learned Special Assistant, representing learned Public Prosecutor, would submit that though PW.1 presented a report on 04.08.2009, according to the evidence available on record, but the findings of the learned Special Judge are different that the SI of Police withheld Ex.P-1 without registration of FIR. Even if there was any delay, there was no possibility for deliberations and concoctions. PWs.1 to PW.6 have no reason to depose false against the accused. PWs.2 to PW.5 belongs to the community of the accused and they have no reason to grouse against the accused. The learned Special Judge, on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted the accused as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. PWs.1 to PW.6 have no reason to depose false against the accused. PWs.2 to PW.5 belongs to the community of the accused and they have no reason to grouse against the accused. The learned Special Judge, on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted the accused as such the Appeal is liable to be dismissed. He would submit that PWs.2 to PW.6 fully supported the evidence of PW.1. 14. Firstly, this Court would like to deal with the date of offence i.e., the date of offence was alleged on 14.07.2009. As seen from Ex.P-1, there was an endorsement by PW.10 - SI of Police itself that on 04.08.2009 at 10:00 p.m. he registered the FIR as a case in Crime No.100 of 2009 under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act. If Ex.P-1 is taken into consideration with reference to investigation of SI of Police, coupled the date as 04.08.2009, it means that it was presented on 04.08.2009. Of course there was a correction in the date column. It is not known who made such correction when its presentation was on 04.08.2009. PW.1 gave a contra version that on the date of offence itself by 12:00 noon he presented the written report to Allavaram PS, which is Ex.P-1. He states that last sentence ‘peddalalo pettutavalana aalasyam ayinadi’ (the issue was placed before the elders hence delayed) was not written by him. So, PW.1 wanted to say that it was presented on 14.07.2009 and the reason for delay was not written by him because there was no delay and there was also a correction as if the date of presentation was on 04.08.2009. 15. During the course of cross-examination, he stated that Police did not give any receipt to him when he presented Ex.P-1 and even he did not demand for such receipt. He gave the report i.e., Ex.P-1 to the Head Constable and the Head Constable stated that after arrival of the SI to the Police Station, they would come to his village. After presenting Ex.P-1, he took the phone number of SI of Police from the Head Constable and informed him by phone about the incident. SI came to his house two days after presenting Ex.P-1. 16. After presenting Ex.P-1, he took the phone number of SI of Police from the Head Constable and informed him by phone about the incident. SI came to his house two days after presenting Ex.P-1. 16. It is to be noted that according the evidence of PW.10 on 04.08.2009 at about 10:00 p.m. he received report from PW.1 and registered it as a case in Crime No.100 of 2009 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act and informed to the SDPO. During cross-examination, PW.10 testified that PW.1 personally presented the report i.e., Ex.P-1. The last sentence in Ex.P-1 was there by the time PW.1 presented it. He denied that A-1 reported to him on 14.07.2009 that PWs.1 to PW.3 and PWs.5 and PW.6 and LW.4 came upon his house and tried to assault him. It is to be noted that the evidence of PW.1 that he presented Ex.P-1 to the Head Constable on 14.07.2009 had no support from PW.10. Prosecution did not examine the so called Head Constable before whom PW.1 was alleged to have presented Ex.P-1. As seen from the evidence of PW.11 – Investigating Officer on the date of registration of FIR i.e., on 04.08.2009, he obtained the permission from Superintendent of Police and he received permission on 05.08.2009. As seen from Ex.P-6 - proceedings, it reads that the FIR was registered on 04.08.2009. The prosecution did not elicit anything from PW.11 as to whether PW.1 presented the report before the Head Constable on 14.07.2009. It is no doubt true that there was a correction in the date column underneath Ex.P-1 and it reads with correction as 04.08.2009 and the explanation for delay i.e., ‘peddalalo pettutavalana aalaysam ainadi’ was in small letters. According to PW.10, it was there when it was presented. 17. It is to be noted that the learned Special Judge did not pose any questions to PW.10 – SI of Police. However, the learned Special Judge in the judgment made observations that for obvious reasons PW.10 – SI of Police did not register FIR and kept Ex.P-1 with him and ultimately registered FIR on 04.08.2009 with delay. It is very difficult to accept the findings of the learned Special Judge. However, the learned Special Judge in the judgment made observations that for obvious reasons PW.10 – SI of Police did not register FIR and kept Ex.P-1 with him and ultimately registered FIR on 04.08.2009 with delay. It is very difficult to accept the findings of the learned Special Judge. Though there was a statutory duty on the part of the Police to issue a copy of FIR to the de-facto complainant but here the conduct of PW.1 is such that he did not wait for arrival of the so called SI when Head Constable was present on 14.07.2009, though he presented Ex.P-1. He would not have kept quiet for a period of 22 days, if really, FIR was not registered. PW.1 was not an illiterate. He was a literate and was working as a Correspondent of a Private College. It is not a case where the learned Special Judge posed any questions before PW.10 or the SDPO as to why adverse comments cannot be made against PW.10. In my considered view, without there being any opportunity to PW.10, the learned Special Judge made adverse comments without any support that PW.10 without registering FIR kept Ex.P-1 with him and that it is nothing but a deliberate act of PW.10 in registering a Crime 21 days after the incident. So, without there being any basis and without posing any questions to PW.10 and the SDPO concerned, such findings were given by the learned Special Judge. 18. It is to be noted that the case of the prosecution is that PW.1 presented Ex.P-1 on 04.08.2009. Prosecution did not elicit anything from PW.10 and SDPO concerned for explaining anything contra that it was presented on 14.07.2009. So, in my considered view, the very findings given by the learned Special Judge as if PW.10 deliberately registered the FIR after 21 days, though PW.1 presented the same on the date of offence cannot stand to any reason. Such findings could not have been arrived at by the learned Special Judge without giving any opportunity to PW.10 as to why adverse comments cannot be made against him. The very conduct of PW.1 in keeping quiet though he presented Ex.P-1 on 14.07.2009 warranted this Court to assume that the genesis of the occurrence was suppressed. Such findings could not have been arrived at by the learned Special Judge without giving any opportunity to PW.10 as to why adverse comments cannot be made against him. The very conduct of PW.1 in keeping quiet though he presented Ex.P-1 on 14.07.2009 warranted this Court to assume that the genesis of the occurrence was suppressed. Accused contended that under the cover of Exs.D-3 and D-4, they sent representations to the SP and anticipating action, a false report was presented on 04.08.2009. Irrespective of the merit of these contentions, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution failed to explain the delay in lodging Ex.P-1 after about 21 days. According to PW.1, there was no delay at all but according to the evidence on record, there was abnormal delay. It is to be noted that the learned Special Judge did not comment anything about the investigation conducted by the SDPO. He categorically deposed that PW.1 stated before him as in Ex.D-1. Ex.D-1 falsifies the version of PW.1 that he presented Ex.P-1 on 14.07.2009. Apart from this, as seen from Ex.D-2 marked through PW.8, PW.1 told him that accused came and abused him and then he advised them to sort out the issue by mediation. As seen from the evidence of PW.7 – Tahsildar, he deposed as A-1 did not agree to leave any site and picked up a quarrel, he left that place stating that he would send a surveyor and get the land measured. According to the evidence of PW.10, after the Tahsildar left out, he heard some galata and he did not observe but PW.1 stated that accused were abusing him. As seen from Ex.D-2 marked through PW.8 accused stated to him that while he was leaving the place accused abused him. Exs.D-1 and D-2 probabilizes a theory that there was a proposal for settling the issue with regard to verbal quarrel. So, PW.8 – MPTC of Allavaram and further PW.9 – VRO deposed that PW.1 intimated to them that accused were abusing them and they advised them for an amicable settlement. So, it all goes to show there appears to be a petty quarrel at the site. So, the mention in Ex.P-1 that the delay was happened when the matter was referred to elders was not spoken to by PW.1. So, it all goes to show there appears to be a petty quarrel at the site. So, the mention in Ex.P-1 that the delay was happened when the matter was referred to elders was not spoken to by PW.1. If the issue was serious enough, there would not have been any advice to PW.1 to go for any settlement before the elders. In my considered view, though there was abnormal delay of 21 days in lodging Ex.P-1, it is evident from the report, PW.1 denied the same as such prosecution miserably failed to explain the delay properly. If really, there was an abuse in the name of caste of de-facto complainant (PW.1), certainly, there would not have been any occasion to refer the issue to the mediators. The evidence of PW.8 and PW.9 means that PW.1 did not disclose them about the alleged abuses in the name of the caste. So, the thing is that prosecution did not explain the delay properly. 19. Now, this Court has to see whether the un-explained delay in lodging Ex.P-1 is fatal to the case of prosecution. As evident from the evidence of PW.1, the de-facto complainant and PW.2 to PW.6, it is a fact that they supported the case of prosecution by deposing that A-1 and A-2 abused PW.1 in filthy language in the name of his caste. The contention of the prosecution is that PW.2 to PW.5 belonged to the caste of accused and if really the incident is not true, they would not have supported the case of prosecution. It is very difficult to assume that simply because PWs.2 to PW.5 belonged to the caste of the accused, they would not depose false against the accused. There is no dispute that one Nadipalli Ramabhadra Raju gifted Ac.0.80 cents of the land to Kodurupadu village and they divided the same into 24 house sites with three lanes. It was alleged that A-1 and LW.8 encroached some place pertaining to a lane thereby blocking its access to other people. According to the prosecution, PW.1 is an elder mediated the issue and when he mediated the issue along with the Tahsildar, A-1 and A-2 grew wild and abused him in filthy language. This is the substance of the allegations. 20. According to the prosecution, PW.1 is an elder mediated the issue and when he mediated the issue along with the Tahsildar, A-1 and A-2 grew wild and abused him in filthy language. This is the substance of the allegations. 20. As evident from the evidence of PWs.2 to PW.5 some how or the other they are quietly interested in the lane alleged to be encroached by A-1 and LW.8. In that view of the matter, they have got any amount of interest in the lane. Apart from this, PW.6 deposed that at the advice of Tahsildar, he agreed to leave 2 feet width of his site but when such proposal was made to accused by Tahsildar, they stated that they would consume poison if they are forced to leave any site. So, by virtue of above, it appears that A-1 and A-2 had their grievance when they were asking to leave 2 feet width space for a passage on the ground that they did not encroach anything. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 in cross-examination, he did not conduct any survey and only on seeing he felt that A-1 occupied the site of the lane. On seeing the formation of three lines, he could understand that accused occupied the lane portion. PW.1 being the elder was supposed to mediate the issue and he could not have come to a conclusion that A-1 occupied the site of the lane by just visiting the disputed site. In the circumstances, Tahsildar acted wisely when A-1 declined to leave 2 feet width space by stating that he would get the site surveyed through a Surveyor. So, the proper course for resolving the issue is only to make a survey with the help of a Surveyor but contrary to that the Revenue Officials and PW.1 wanted to enforce the obligation on A-1 and A-2 to leave some space and it appears that as such proposal irked A-1 and A-2, there ensued a verbal quarrel. According to PW.8 and PW.9 they did not reveal that PW.1 told them that accused abused them in the name of the caste. Therefore, if PW.1 had told them about abuses in the name of his caste, they would not have advised PW.1 to refer the matter to the elders. So, all this goes to show that the quarrel at the disputed site was something petty in nature. Therefore, if PW.1 had told them about abuses in the name of his caste, they would not have advised PW.1 to refer the matter to the elders. So, all this goes to show that the quarrel at the disputed site was something petty in nature. When PWs.2 to PW.5 had interest in the disputed land and PW.6 had also an interest and when the quarrel appears to be a petty one, according to the evidence of PW.8 – MPTC and PW.9 – VRO due deliberations and embellishments so as to magnify the case on account of delay cannot be ruled out. The un-explained abnormal delay of 21 days in lodging Ex.P-1 and further the denial made by PW.1 that there was no delay is fatal to the case of prosecution, in my considered view. Without there being any proper basis, the learned Special Judge simply believed the version of PW.1 that on 14.07.2009 he presented Ex.P-1 and made adverse comments against the SI of Police. 21. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that it is very un-safe to sustain a conviction when report came to be lodged after about 21 days without there being proper explanation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Thulia Kali (1st supra) insisted for the prompt lodging of report to the Police to avoid any embellishments and afterthoughts. In Thulia Kali (1st supra), there was delay of 20 hours in lodging the FIR which was held to be suspicious. In the present case on hand, there was delay of 21 days in lodging Ex.P-1. PW.1 did not admit that there was delay but the evidence shows that there was a delay. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the facts and circumstances are such that there was every probability and possibility for due deliberations and concoctions on account of the delay. Hence, it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as such accused are entitled for acquittal. 22. Hence, it is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Hence, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove the charge framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as such accused are entitled for acquittal. 22. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.31 of 2010, dated 07.12.2010, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, East Godavari at Rajahmundry. Accordingly, the Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 stand acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to them after Appeal time is over. 23. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court including the trial Court record, if any, to the trial Court. 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.