Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
3 vs The State Of A.P. on 30 January, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:-
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 20.10.2009 in Special Sessions Case No.9 of 2008, on the file of Special Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, Kadapa ("Special Sessions Judge" for short), where under the learned Special Sessions Judge found the present appellant/A.1 guilty of the charges under Section 3(1)(xi) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short), convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C." for short) 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/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act and further sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and that both the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned Special Sessions Judge by virtue of the said judgment, found A.1 not guilty of the charges under Section under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act and Section 509 of IPC and further A.2 2 found not guilty of the charge under Section 323 of IPC and accordingly acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the Special Sessions Court for the sake of convenience.
3) The Special Sessions Case No.9 of 2008 arose out of a committal order in PRC No.16 of 2007, on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu.
4) The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jammalamadugu, alleging the offences under Sections 323, 324, 509 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989, is as follows:
(i) The de facto complainant-Gunagalla Sivaiah (L.W.1) is resident of Peddapasupala Village, Peddamudiam Mandal and he belonged to Madiga caste which comes under the category of scheduled caste. L.W.1 is eking his livelihood by doing coolie work.
(ii) On 28.01.2007 at 9-30 p.m., he learnt that watchmen, who were appointed by the village elders, confined two cows and one calf in the cattle pound as the cattle grazed the fields.
Without knowing the same, L.W.2-G. Obulamma, mother of L.W.1, searched for the cattle. Later, she learnt about the 3 confinement of cattle and paid Rs.90/- as penalty. While taking the cattle, L.W.2 questioned the act of the accused even for not providing water to the cattle. Then the accused scolded L.W.2 in the name of caste as "YEME MADIGA LANJAA NEEVU NANNU ADIGE DANIVA NEEKU PETTUTHANU RAVE" and insulted her modesty and humiliated her in the public. By abusing so, the accused assaulted L.W.2 in the public view by dragging her. L.W.1 intervened and when questioned about the act of accused, A.1 voluntarily caused simple hurt to him by beating with a stout stick on the left side of the forehead. L.W.1 sustained severe bleeding injury. A.2 fisted L.W.1 on his face, as a result, he sustained swelling injury. L.W.6-G. Mallikarjuna, L.W.7-Y. Veeraiah and L.W.8-M. Bala Sanjamma witnessed the occurrence. L.W.1 and L.W.2 escaped from the clutches of accused. When L.W.3-G. Nadipi Mallanna came to the house of L.W.1 and L.W.2, they informed the same to him. Later, L.W.1 to L.W.3 accompanied by L.W.4-C.M. Darganna and L.W.5-Y.C. Chinnaiah, went to Peddamudiam Police Station and presented a report. L.W.12-B. Rama Krishna, Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case and investigated into. L.W.1 was referred to Government Hospital, Jammalamadugu.
(iii) The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, issued proceedings appointing L.W.13-K. Narasimhulu, Sub Divisional 4 Police Officer, Jammalamadugu, as investigating officer. L.W.13 visited the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared rough sketch. During investigation, on 02.02.2007 he arrested the accused and sent them for remand. He obtained caste certificate of L.W.1 from L.W.9-Naga Mallaiah, Mandal Revenue Officer. L.W.10-Dr. David Silvan Raju, Medical Officer, examined L.W.1 and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. L.W.11- G.P. Sanjay, who radiologically examined L.W.1 and opined that the CT scan of brain is normal. Hence, the charge sheet.
5) The learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jammalamadugu, took cognizance of the case under the aforesaid provisions of law and after complying necessary formalities, committed the case to the learned Special Sessions Judge and it was numbered as Special Sessions Case No.9 of 2008.
6) On appearance of the accused before the learned Special Sessions Judge, charges under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 against A.1; Section 323 of IPC against A.2; Section 324 of IPC under two counts against A.1; Section 354 and 509 of IPC against A.1 and further as per the order, dated 18.08.2009 in Crl.MP.No.320 of 2009, a charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 against A.1, 5 were framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7) In order to establish the guilt against A.1 and A.2, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, 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 and stated that they have no defence witnesses.
8) The learned Special Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found A.1 not guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and further A.2 not guilty of the charge under Section 323 of IPC and found A.1 guilty of the charges under Section 3(1)(xi) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 324 of IPC and did not answer the charge under Section 354 of IPC as the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 is held to be proved and accordingly, convicted A.1 and sentenced him as above. The learned Special Sessions Judge exonerated A.1 under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and further A.2 under Section 323 of IPC. Felt aggrieved of the aforesaid conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(xi) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 6 1989 and Section 324 of IPC, the unsuccessful A.1 filed the present Criminal Appeal.
9) Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for determination are as follows:
(1) Whether the prosecution proved that P.W.1 and P.W.2 belonged to Scheduled Caste Community?
(2) Whether the prosecution proved that A.1 assaulted or used criminal force on L.W.2-G. Obulamma, who belonged to Scheduled Caste, with an intention to dishonour her or outrage her modesty by holding her tuft?
(3) Whether the prosecution proved that A.1 caused simply hurt to P.W.1 by dangerous weapon?
(4) Whether the prosecution proved the aforesaid charges beyond reasonable doubt?
POINT NO.1:-
10) The fact that A.1 belonged to other than Scheduled Caste and P.W.1 and P.W.2 belonged to Scheduled Caste is not at all in dispute. According to the evidence of P.W.5, he is a retired Tahsildar and previously worked as Mandal Revenue Officer, Pedamudiam. He issued Caste Certificate of P.W.1 certifying that he is Madiga by caste, a sub caste of Scheduled Caste which is marked as Ex.P.2. There is no dispute that P.W.1 is no other than son of P.W.2. So, by virtue of the above, the prosecution before the learned Special Sessions Judge proved 7 the fact that P.W.1, the de facto complainant, belonged to Scheduled Caste and P.W.2, mother of P.W.1, also belonged to Scheduled Caste.
POINT NOs.2 AND 3:
11) Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that the learned Special Sessions Judge found falsity in the case of the prosecution with regard to the so-called abuses alleged to be made by A.1, humiliating P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the name of caste in the public view. Further the learned Special Sessions Judge found falsity and disbelieved the case of the prosecution as regards the attack as alleged against A.2, the brother of A.1. The learned Special Sessions Judge looked into Ex.P.1 report and considered the evidence and held that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the accused also abused them in the name of caste was disbelieved. In fact, though there was also an improvement in the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 that A.1 abused P.W.2 in the name of caste and caught hold of her tuft, the learned Special Sessions Judge for obvious reasons did not refer the improvement in the evidence. He would contend that even according to the case of the prosecution, there was a petty quarrel with regard to not providing water to the cattle in the confinement cattle shed when they grazed into others fields. The alleged incident was 8 preceded by a verbal quarrel. When the learned counsel for the accused relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, the learned Special Sessions Court did not consider it properly.
Absolutely, A.1 had no intention at all to outrage the modesty of P.W.2. Their defence was denial simplicitor. Even otherwise, A.1 had no intention to outrage the modesty and alleged incident was during spur of moment. Having extended an order of acquittal in favour of A.2, the learned Special Sessions Judge ought to have extended an order of acquittal in favour of A.1 by giving benefit of doubt. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is interested. P.W.4 followed the footsteps of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and improved evidence, as such, he was also interested witness. There was delay in lodging report.
12) The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the decisions in (1) The State of Maharashtra vs. Mohammad Isaq Mlohammad Ansari1, (2) Sasidharan vs. State of Kerala2 and (3) Raju Pandurang Mahale vs. State of Maharashtra and another 3 . He would contend that the appellant is entitled for acquittal of the charges.
13) Sri N. Sravan Kumar, learned counsel, representing the learned Public Prosecutor, would contend that P.W.1 and 1 MANU/MH/0226/2020 2 2005 SCC OnLine Ker 235 3 (2004) 4 Supreme Court Cases 371 9 P.W.2 were the natural witnesses, who gone to the cattle confined shed of accused, because the cattle of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were confined in the shed on the ground that they grazed into fields of others and they paid fine amount to A.1 and when P.W.2 questioned A.2 as to why even he did not provide water to the cattle, he abused in the name of caste and caught hold the tuft of P.W.2 and attacked P.W.1 and further A.2, the brother of A.1, also attacked them. However, the learned Special Sessions Judge extended an order of acquittal in favour of A.2. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 had corroboration from Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.4, an independent witness. The learned Special Sessions Judge on considering the evidence in proper perspective recorded conviction, as such, appeal is liable to be dismissed.
14) P.W.1 was de facto complainant. P.W.2 was mother of P.W.1. P.W.3 was husband of P.W.2 and father of P.W.1, who came to know about the occurrence. P.W.4 was cited as a direct witness to the occurrence. P.W.5 was the revenue official, who issued caste certificate of P.W.1. P.W.6 was medical officer, who examined P.W.1 and issued wound certificate. P.W.7 was Sub Inspector of Police, who registered FIR. P.W.8 was Sub Divisional Police Officer, who is the investigating officer. 10
15) The substance of the case of the prosecution is that in the village there was a Sangham which employed some servants so as to drive the unguarded cattle into the cattle shed in case the unguarded cattle grazed into fields of others. P.W.1 had two cows and one calf. The case of the prosecution is that the so-called servants confined the cattle and calf of P.W.1 when they grazed into fields of others.
16) The evidence of P.W.1 in material aspects is that on the date of incident when his mother and he were searching for two cows and a calf in the village, L.W.8-Bala Sanjamma informed them that their cows and calf were kept in cattle shed (Bandela Doddi) in the afternoon. Then he and his mother went to the pound maintained by the accused. They got their cows and calf freed from the pound by paying Rs.90/- as penalty to the accused. While taking those cattle from the pound, his mother asked A.1 as to why he did not provide even water to the cattle. On hearing the same, A.1 caught hold the tuft of his mother and abused her touching their caste as "MADIGADANAA NEEKU PEDATHARAA NEELUU" (you Madiga come I provide water to you). When he questioned the high handedness of A.1, he beat him (P.W.1) with a stick on his head. A.2 also abused him touching his caste as "CHAMPU MADIGA NAA KODUKUNU"
(kill this son of Madiga) and A.2 fisted on his mouth. Having 11 afraid, they came to home and informed to his father and some elders. After that they rushed to the Peddamudiam Police Station and he lodged Ex.P.1.
17) According to P.W.2, they found two cows and one calf missing. L.W.8-Bala Sanjamma informed her that they were kept in cattle pound. Then she along with P.W.1, Bala Sanjamma, L.W.6 and L.W.7 proceeded to the cattle pound maintained by the accused. They paid Rs.90/- as penalty for getting their cattle free. While taking cattle, she asked A.1 as to why he did not provide even water to the cattle to which A.1 caught hold of her tuft abusing as "MADIGA LANJA NUVVU NANNU ADIGEDANIVA" (you bitch of Madiga, how dare you to put such a question to me). Then P.W.1 questioned the high handedness of A.1, he beat him (P.W.1) with a stick on his left forehead. A.2 abused P.W.1 touching their caste as "NEE MADIGA PELLANNIDENGA INNI CHAMPURAA ANI" (you Madiga fuck your wife, further said kill him) and also fisted P.W.1 on his mouth. Having felt afraid, they have come to home. They informed to L.W.3 and after that they went to police station.
P.W.1 was sent to the hospital.
18) P.W.3, father of P.W.1 and husband of P.W.2, testified that P.W.1 and P.W.2 returned to home and he found 12 his son with bleeding injury and he came to know about the incident and P.W.1 reported the matter.
19) Coming to the evidence of P.W.4, the direct witness, she deposed that when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were searching for two cows and one calf, she informed them at about 8-00 p.m. that their cattle were tethered in the cattle pound located next to the house of accused. At 9-00 p.m., P.W.1, P.W.2, L.W.6, L.W.7 and she went to the pound located at the house of accused. P.W.2 paid Rs.90/- to A.1 as penalty to get the cattle free. While taking her cattle out from the pound, P.W.2 asked A.1 as to why he did not provide even water to the cattle. Then A.1 shouted at P.W.2 abusing as "MADIGA LANJA VATIKEMI POSTHA NEEKU POSTHA RAA" (you bitch of Madiga, what should I give to them, come, I pour to you) by holding her tuft. When P.W.1 questioned the high handedness of A.1, he beat him (P.W.1) with a stick on his left forehead. A.2 abused P.W.1 touching his caste as "NEE MADIGA PELLANNI DENGA" (you, fuck your Madiga wife). Saying so, he fisted him on his mouth. On seeing the same they rescued P.W.1 and P.W.2.
20) According to P.W.5, the Tahsildar, he issued Ex.P.2- caste certificate of P.W.1 certifying that he is Madiga by caste, a sub caste of scheduled caste.
13
21) According to P.W.6-the medical officer, he issued wound certificate of P.W.1, to whom he examined at 3-00 a.m., on 29.01.2007. He found a lacerated injury over the left side of forehead. The size of injury is 4 x ½ cm of scalp deep injury and complains of pain over right thigh. He opined that the injuries are simple in nature and they are aged about 0 to 12 hours prior to his examination. Ex.P.3 is the wound certificate issued by him. Those injuries could have been caused by a blunt object like stick.
22) P.W.7-the Sub Inspector of Police testified that on the intervening night of 28/29.01.2007 at 1-30 a.m., P.W.1 to P.W.3, L.W.4-Dhargaiah and L.W.5-Chinnaiah came to police station. He recorded Ex.P.1-statement from P.W.1 and registered it as a case in Crime No.8 of 2007 under Sections 324 and 509 r/w 34 of IPC. Ex.P.4 is the FIR. He recorded the statements of P.W.2, P.W.3, L.W.4 and L.W.5. He sent P.W.1 to the hospital. He visited the scene of offence. Later he came to know that accused belonged to Kapu caste. Having came to know as the accused know the caste of the victims, he filed a memo before Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jammalamadugu, for altering section of law into 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs (POA) Act. Ex.P.5 is the memo. Then he informed to his superiors. 14 Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Police Officer took up investigation.
23) P.W.8 is the Sub Divisional Police Officer, who spoke of his investigation.
24) For better appreciation, it is pertinent to look into the statement of P.W.1, marked as Ex.P.1, on the basis of which criminal law was set in motion. The substance of the allegations is that on 28.01.2007 at about 9-30 p.m., they found their calf missing. They came to know that at 9-30 p.m., the servants, who were employed by the elders of Sangham, in the afternoon took away their cows as they grazed into fields and confined the same in the cattle shed (Bandela Doddi). His mother was searching for the same without knowing this fact. Bala Sanjamma intimated to them that their cattle were confined in the shed. So they went there and paid Rs.90/- as penalty. His mother questioned A.1 as to why he did not provide water to the cattle. A.1 told that he will provide water to her and while saying caught hold of her tuft. Then he questioned the act of A.1. A.1 with a stick beat him on his head and caused bleeding injury. Brother of A.1 i.e., A.2 fisted him on his face. This is the substance of the allegations.
25) As seen from the judgment of the learned Special Sessions Judge, the learned Special Sessions Judge disbelieved 15 the case of the prosecution with regard to the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act on the ground that evidence was improved during the course of trial without there being any whisper in the report that the accused abused P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the name of caste. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that both accused abused them in the name of caste in the public view was disbelieved by the learned Special Sessions Judge on the ground the abuse in the name of caste was not there in Ex.P.1.
26) It is to be noted that Ex.P.1 did not disclose that A.1 by saying to P.W.2 that „I will provide water to you and come to me‟, abused P.W.2 in the name of caste as "Madiga Langa" or so. Thus, what is evident and what is apparent is that Ex.P.1 did not whisper anything that both the accused or the appellant of made abusive and offensive language as against P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the name of their caste. So, it goes without saying that now what all the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that A.1 attacked P.W.2 by abusing her in the name of caste is nothing but a fact which has no basis in Ex.P.1. It is to be further noted that though there was such improvement in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that A.1 attacked P.W.2 by abusing her in offensive language in the name of caste, the learned Special Sessions Judge considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 as if they 16 deposed that A.1 attacked P.W.1 and P.W.2 by saying that he will provide water to her. When the learned Special Sessions Judge extended an order of acquittal in favour of A.1 and A.2 with regard to the allegations under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act and Section 323 of IPC on the ground that the evidence was improved during the course of trial, but the learned Special Sessions Judge omitted to refer the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and further P.W.4, but considered the evidence as if there was attack made by A.1 on P.W.2 by saying that he will provide water to P.W.2. Whatever the reason may be for not referring the improved part of evidence in the judgment of the learned Special Sessions Judge, the fact remained is that when Ex.P.1 did not disclose that A.1 made an attack on P.W.2 by referring her caste.
27) It is to be noted that if the evidence spoken by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 is in accordance with Ex.P.1 report appreciation of the evidence would have been otherwise. The learned Special Sessions Judge extended an order of acquittal in favour of both the accused on account of improvements with regard to charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, but the learned Special Sessions Judge did not refer about the improvements in the evidence even with regard to the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act. 17
28) As seen from the judgment, the learned defence counsel cited a decision in Pedda Geliche Divasekhar Reddy and others vs. State of Pradesh4 and contended that mere assault on a woman does not amount to outraging the modesty of a woman, unless it is accompanied by an intention for outraging her modesty. The learned Special Sessions Judge held that the above said decision cannot be made applicable. As seen from the above referred decision, the facts were that there was a quarrel between the accused and victims wife and husband. When the accused resisted the victims passing through the land of the accused, the wordy altercation cropped up in between them ultimately led attack by the accused over the wife and husband with sticks.
29) In my considered view, coming to the present case on hand, it is a case where there was a verbal quarrel admittedly from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 as P.W.2 questioned A.1 as to why water was not provided to the confined cattle. If there was no such question from P.W.2, there would not have been any occasion for any verbal quarrel. The evidence on record reveals that P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 deliberately improved evidence against accused as if A.1 attacked P.W.2 by abusive and offensive language in the name 4 2000(1) ALD (CRI) 716 (A.P.) 18 of caste and it was not there in Ex.P.1. It was nothing but an improvement on material aspects which amounts to contradiction.
30) As seen from the judgment cited by the learned defence counsel i.e., Mohammad Isaq Mohammad Ansari's cases (1 supra), the High Court of Bombay when dealing with a charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, considered the earlier decisions and was of the opinion that there has to be evidence to show that accused used criminal force on the prosecutrix to outrage her modesty only because she belonged to a particular caste or community. It also referred the decision of Delhi High Court to the effect that to sustain a charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, the prosecution should prove that assaulting or using force must be with knowledge that the woman against whom force was being used to belonged to SC/ST and there should be an intention to outrage the modesty.
31) Coming to the decision in Sasidharan's case (2 supra) also dealing with an act of outraging the modesty, it was held that intention of the accused is the criteria.
32) In Raju Pandurang Mahale's case (3 supra) also there should be knowledge that modesty is likely to be outraged so as to constitute an offence under outrage the modesty. 19
33) Coming to the case on hand, as the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act is held to be proved, learned Special Sessions Judge did not answer the charge under Section 354 of IPC.
34) It is to be noted that as this Court already pointed out that there was a deliberate improvement during the course of trial that A.1 caught hold the tuft of P.W.2 by abusing her in offensive language in the name of caste. The so-called act of A.1 abusing P.W.2 in the offensive language is nothing but improvement but material aspect which cannot be believed. If that is excluded from consideration, the remaining allegation in Ex.P.1 is that A.1 caught hold the tuft of P.W.2 by saying that he will provide water to her. It is to be noted that it is not proved by the prosecution as to who were actually maintaining the so- called cattle shed by collecting fine, etc. However, there is no dispute from the side of accused that P.W.2 paid the penalty of Rs.90/- so as to get the cattle freed. Thus, the subsequent act of P.W.2 in questioning the accused as to why he did not provide water to the cattle was root cause for verbal altercation. As the incident alleged was happened during a verbal altercation, ultimately leading an attack by A.1 on P.W.1 with a stick, it is very difficult to say that whether A.1 had any intention to outrage the modesty of P.W.2. Apart from this, as the 20 prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 were not fair enough to stick on to the version of Ex.P.1 without improving the case, it is unsafe to believe the case of the prosecution with regard to attack attributed against A.1, as against P.W.2. However, there is no dispute that the overt act mentioned in Ex.P.1 against A.1 having caused a bleeding injury to P.W.1 does not suffer with any contradictions, omissions or improvements. The evidence of P.W.1 has corroboration from Ex.P.1 with regard to the manner of attack and further from the evidence of medical officer coupled with wound certificate.
35) Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that it can safely be held that A.1 caused hurt to P.W.1 with a stick which can be a dangerous weapon, as such, the prosecution squarely proved the charge under Section 324 of IPC. As the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 suffers with any amount of improvement and as the incident in question by A.1 as against P.W.2 was alleged to be in a spur of moment, it is very difficult to say that he had any intention to outrage the modesty, as such, insofar as the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act is concerned, he is entitled for acquittal by giving benefit of doubt.
36) In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the prosecution proved the charge under Section 324 21 of IPC alone against A.1 beyond reasonable doubt and A.1 is entitled for an acquittal by extending benefit of doubt with regard to the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act.
37) It is also a contention of the appellant that the sentence imposed against him is harsh.
38) As seen from the judgment of the learned Special Sessions Judge, the punishment imposed against A.1 under Section 324 of IPC is for six months rigorous imprisonment. The incident in question was happened in a spur of moment. Hence, I am of the considered view that the ends of justice will be met, if the rigorous imprisonment was reduced to three months. With the said modification, appeal is to be allowed in part.
39) In the result, the appeal is allowed in part setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against appellant/A.1 under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act and the appeal insofar as Section 324 of IPC is concerned, is allowed in part by modifying rigorous imprisonment of six months under Section 324 of IPC as that of three months. The fine amount if any paid by A.1 under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, shall be refunded to him after appeal time is over.
40) The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court 22 to the trial Court on or before 06.02.2024 and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the modified sentence imposed against the appellant and to report compliance to this Court.
41) The Registry is directed to forward the record along with copy of the judgment to the Court below on or before 06.02.2024.
Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Dt. 30.01.2024 PGR 23 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. RAVINDRA BABU Note:-
Registry to circulate a copy of this judgment to the Court below on or before 06.02.2024.
CRL. APPEAL NO.1453 OF 2009 Date: 30.01.2024 PGR