Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sankurathri Venkateswara Rao ... vs The State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2021
Author: Joymalya Bagchi
Bench: Joymalya Bagchi
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.211 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 10.02.2009, passed in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Sessions Case No.5 of 2005 by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, West Godavari, Eluru (for short, 'the learned Special Judge') convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month.
2. Prosecution case against the appellant is to the effect that the appellant had taken a tank on lease from one Thotaramudi Rama Rao for rearing catfish. He had thrown beef and other animal parts into the tank as food for catfish, which resulted in bad odour in the locality. Villagers complained to Grampanchayat and District Officials; thereupon, Grampanchayat officials including the complainant i.e., Thavikidi Satyanarayana (PW.1), removed the catfish from the pond. As a result the appellant bore grudge against the complainant and threatened the latter with dire consequences. On 25.10.2002, while the complainant along with one Sayyed Mohammad Alisha (PW.2) were returning to Mulaparru village from Penugonda in a scooter, they were accosted by the appellant at Nakkala canal and the appellant physically assaulted the complainant (PW.1) by pulling his shirt and abused him by taking his caste name in presence of others. PWs.3 and 4 witnessed the incident. Immediately JB,J 2 Crl.A.No.211 of 2009 thereafter PW.1 went to Penugonda Police Station but the Police refused to lodge a case. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint with SDPO, Narsapur, and on the basis of his endorsement, Crime No.102 of 2002 under Sections 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 was registered for investigation. Pursuant to investigation, a final report, Ex.D-4, as false was filed. Rebutting the final report, a private complaint was filed before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences, examined witnesses and issued process against the appellant. Charges were framed under Sections 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. Prosecution examined four (4) witnesses and exhibited number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. Appellant examined DW.1, the then SDPO Narsapur and exhibited four documents i.e., Exs.D-1 to D-4 to prove his defence.
4. In conclusion of trial, the trial Judge by judgment and order, dated 10.02.2009, while acquitting the appellant of the charges under Section 3(1)(iii) of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989, as stated hereinabove.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that there was delay in lodging the criminal case. Initial investigation by the then SDPO Narsapur resulted in filing of Police report as false. PWs.3 and 4 are inimical to the appellant as civil litigation was pending between them against the appellant. Hence, they set PW.1 to lodge a false criminal case against the appellant. PW.2 has not supported the prosecution case. Accordingly, the Appeal ought to be allowed.
JB,J 3 Crl.A.No.211 of 2009
6. Learned Public Prosecutor rebutting the aforesaid submissions argued that the version of PW.1 is corroborated by PWs.3 and 4 and their evidence proves the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989. Hence, the impugned judgment does not call for interference.
7. PW.1 is a member of a Scheduled caste i.e., madiga community. This was within the knowledge of appellant. Evidence has come on record with regard to dispute between them over throwing beef and other animal products as food to rear catfish in the village. Over such issue on 25.10.2002, appellant accosted PW.1 while he travelling in a scooter and abused him by taking his caste name.
8. It is argued that there is delay in lodging the First Information Report. While the incident occurred on 25.10.2002, report was filed with SDPO Narsapur on 29.10.2002. In view of the fact that PW.1 is a member of a Scheduled caste, and in the light of the nature of the offence, I am of the opinion that delay in filing complaint is not an inordinate one so as to render the prosecution case improbable. More so, explanation for delay has been offered by PW.1 himself. He deposed immediately after the incident he had gone to Penugonda Police Station and submitted a complaint, which however was not registered as FIR. Subsequently he lodged complaint with SDPO, Narsapur. It is argued no documentary evidence to corroborate the oral version of PW.1 is placed on record. PW.1 claimed that he handed over the complaint to Police who did not act thereupon. Hence, it is improbable that he would have an endorsed copy of the complaint with himself. When the Police authorities failed or neglected to act on the complaint of PW.1, it would be absurd to expect they would preserve a copy of such complaint in their records. Hence, delay in lodging case has been properly explained.
JB,J 4 Crl.A.No.211 of 2009
9. Further, it is argued that the version of PW.1 is not supported by PW.2, his companion. PWs.3 and 4 are interested witnesses. Further, investigation by DW.1, SDPO, Narsapur resulted in submission of final report as false. There are omissions and contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses when compared with the earlier statements recorded by DW.1 during investigation.
10. None of these submissions impress me to discard the otherwise probable and consistent version of PW.1 with regard to the abuse hurled by the appellant taking his caste name in a public place. Gist of such accusation is clearly stated in the complaint lodged by him with the then SDPO, Narsapur. Thus, such accusation cannot be said to be an after thought. Furthermore, it appears the said Police officer did not conduct investigation in a fair and proper manner. Hence, so called omission or contradiction in the deposition of PW.1 and other witnesses in Court vis-à- vis statements recorded by the said Police Officer in the course of perfunctory investigation cannot be a ground to throw out their deposition, more so, when the initial complaint lodged with the Police contains the accusation of abuse by taking caste name against the appellant. When judged from this perspective, plea of embellishment or improvement of the prosecution case pales into insignificance. It is also relevant to note that the civil suit filed against PW.3 has been dismissed and it would be too tenuous to come to the conclusion that PW.1 would make a false accusation merely on the score that a civil proceeding was pending between the appellant and other witnesses, wherein he was not a party.
11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that the evidence of PW.1 with regard to the abuse made by the appellant taking his caste name is corroborated by other evidence on record and delay in JB,J 5 Crl.A.No.211 of 2009 filing the complaint has been duly explained. Prosecution case is thus proved beyond doubt. Conviction and sentence of the appellant is accordingly upheld. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds furnished by the appellant are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the trial Court within a month and serve out the sentence and pay the fine forthwith, failing which steps shall be taken for execution of the sentence, in accordance with law.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Appeal shall stand closed.
________________________ JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J Date: 19-01-2021.
Dsh