JUDGMENT : Sole accused in Sessions Case No.39 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Prakasam division, Ongole, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal. 2. The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act"). 3. The substance of the charge is that, the accused, on 4 th day of February, 2007, at about 02.00 pm, at the bus stand centre of Podalakuntapalli village, intentionally insulted and abused the de facto complainant namely Kalva Nageswara Rao, Auto Driver, by touching his caste as “ARE MADIGA NA KODUKULAKU IKKADA YEMI PANIRA” and intimidated him with intent to humiliate him, within the public view, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 4. After completion of trial, learned Special Judge convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week. 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is Reddy by caste and PW.1, who is an Auto driver, is Madiga by caste, which comes under Scheduled Caste community. Both of them belong to Podalakuntapalli village. On 04.02.2007, at about 02.00 pm, when PW.1 was sitting in his auto at bus stand centre of Podalakuntapalli village, the accused is alleged to have gone there and abused PW.1 by touching his caste stating that in Panchayat elections, having received sarees, blouses and cash, they voted in favour of his opposite candidate and the accused spit on PW.1. Further, the accused is also alleged to have abused wife of PW.1 in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. The same was witnessed by PWs.2 and 3 and LW.4 – M. Siva Reddy. The further case of the prosecution is that, previously about one week prior to this incident, the accused abused PW.1 in the same manner at Racharla Gate Centre of Giddalur, which was witnessed by PW.4. The same was witnessed by PWs.2 and 3 and LW.4 – M. Siva Reddy. The further case of the prosecution is that, previously about one week prior to this incident, the accused abused PW.1 in the same manner at Racharla Gate Centre of Giddalur, which was witnessed by PW.4. Based on the Ex.P1 report given by PW.1, PW.6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Giddalur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2007, for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sent the copies of FIR to all concerned. Ex.P4 is the original FIR. PW.7 – the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Markapur, conducted investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined PWs.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P5. He obtained caste certificate of PW.1 under Ex.P3 and after completing investigation, he filed charge sheet. 6. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, after filing charge sheet, took cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and numbered the same as PRC No.16 of 2007. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session and later the same was numbered as SC No.39 of 2007 and made over the case to the Court of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989, Prakasam Division, at Ongole, for disposal. 7. On appearance of accused, charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was framed, contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. 9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied. 10. No witnesses were examined nor were any documents marked on behalf of the accused. 11. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, vide impugned judgment dated 11.12.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 12. Heard. Perused the entire material on record. 13. 11. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid, vide impugned judgment dated 11.12.2008. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 12. Heard. Perused the entire material on record. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the learned Special Judge, without considering the material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused only relying on the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 5. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 14. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the learned Special Judge, after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective, rightly convicted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 15. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence alleged beyond all reasonable doubt or not? 16. Admittedly, the accused belongs to Reddy caste and PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste (Madiga). The accused and PW.1 belong to the same village. PW.5 – Tahsildar deposed that, after conducting enquiry, he issued caste certificate Ex.P3 to PW.1 certifying that PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste (Madiga). 17. PW.1 is an Auto driver and he used to drive the auto to eke out his livelihood. PWs.1 and 2 stated that on the date of the incident, while they were sitting in their respective autos, the accused came there and abused PW.1 in filthy language touching his caste stating that, having received sarees and cash in the Panchayat elections, they exercised vote in favour of opposite candidate and then the accused spit on PW.1. Hence, the accused was aggrieved against PW.1 for not voting to their candidate. There is nothing on record to suggest that PW.1 has got any grudge against the accused or any ill-will to give false report against him. Nothing is suggested to PW.1 that he got any motive to file a case against the accused. On the other hand, the accused appears to have got grouse against PW.1 as PW.1 and his men have not voted for the candidate supported by the accused, having received cash, sarees etc. So, the accused has got some motive to abuse PW.1. 18. On the other hand, the accused appears to have got grouse against PW.1 as PW.1 and his men have not voted for the candidate supported by the accused, having received cash, sarees etc. So, the accused has got some motive to abuse PW.1. 18. PW.1 deposed that, about one week prior to the incident near Racherla Gate, the accused abused him in the same way by touching his caste, but to avoid confrontation he did not give police report at that time. He further deposed that, on the date of the incident, at about 02.00 PM, while he was sitting in the auto at bus stand centre of Podalakuntapalli village, the accused came there and tapped on the auto and abused him as “ORE MADIGA NA KODUKULAKI IKKADA YEMI PANIRA” and further the accused spit on him. PW.1 deposed that about 20 to 30 persons were present there at the time of the incident. So, the incident took place within the public view. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PW.2, who is none other than the nephew of PW.1 and who is present at the scene of offence. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2 to discredit their version. Their evidence is consistent and inspires confidence. Though PW.2 is relative of PW.1, still his evidence cannot be brushed aside and his evidence can be considered to corroborate the evidence of PW.1, as they have no motive against the accused to give false evidence. PW.1 gave Ex.P1 report to PW.6 immediately after the incident. Further, PW.4 deposed with regard to previous incident, which is spoken to, by PW.1. The evidence of PW.1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs.2, 4 and 6. By considering the above evidence, it is proved that on the date of the incident, while PWs.1 and 2 were in their autos in Podalakuntapalli village bus stand centre, the accused, who was going towards his house at the bus stand centre, saw PW.1 sitting in the auto and abused him by touching his caste. His intention is further proved by the act of spitting on PW.1. The accused further threatened PW.1 with dire consequences. So, the act of the accused in insulting PW.1 by touching his caste and by spitting on him when several people were watching would clearly attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 19. His intention is further proved by the act of spitting on PW.1. The accused further threatened PW.1 with dire consequences. So, the act of the accused in insulting PW.1 by touching his caste and by spitting on him when several people were watching would clearly attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 19. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge, on proper appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and taking all the above aspects into consideration, has rightly found the accused guilty of the charge leveled against him and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid and I see no reasons to interfere with the same. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment dated 11.12.2008 passed in SC No.39 of 2007 by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Prakasam Division, Ongole. The accused is directed to surrender before the trial Court to serve the remaining sentence, if any. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.