Telangana High Court
Royyala Swamy vs State Of Ap.Rep By Its P.P on 26 July, 2022
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
CRL.A.NO.656 OF 2011
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.06.2011 passed by the court of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act - cum - VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar in S.C.No.19 of 2008 in finding the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 342, 323, 506 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), and convicting him, and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Sections 342 and 323 of IPC for each offences; further sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 506 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine for the offences under Sections 343, 323 and 506 IPC, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each; and also in sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, and in default of payment of fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months, and in making all the sentences to run concurrently; the accused filed the present appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.6.2007 at 16.00 hours, the de facto complainant Mr. Barla Ramulu s/o Kotiah came to Police Station, Bijinepally and lodged written complaint in Telugu stating that at the time of the construction of his house, he got shifted one load of bricks and four trips of morum, and two trips of sand with the tractor of the accused, for which he paid Rs.1,500/-, and was due an amount of Rs.750/- towards hire charges to the accused.
2
(i) That on 3.6.2007 at about 10.00 a.m., he took labour and went to the village tank to move some earth to his fields, as the work was sanctioned under Upadi Hami Pathakam.
(ii) That in the meanwhile, the accused went there and picked up a quarrel over the amount that is due to him, and beat him with hands on his face and abused him in filthy language. The witnesses L.Ws.3 and 4 -
Kommu Kotaiah and Gaddameedi Kurmaiah intervened and sent away the accused.
(iii) That on the same day, after completion of work, while the complainant and his wife were returning home, on reaching near the house of accused at 6.00 p.m., the accused again picked up quarrel with him abused him in the name of his mala caste, and asked him to pay the due amount, and tied his both hands to a stone pillar in front of his house, slapped him with hands.
(iv) That when his wife (L.W.2) requested to pardon, and promised to pay the amount, the accused abused her in the name of mala caste and also tied her hands to a stone pillar and beat her with chappal, and threatened them with dire consequences of killing, if they do not pay the amount. That one Golla Maddelleti came and rescued them.
(v) Thus the accused committed the offence punishable under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.
3. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nagarkurnool has taken the case on file in PRC. No.49 of 2007 under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and ordered summons to the accused.
3
4. On appearance of the accused, learned Magistrate followed the procedure under Section 207 IPC, and committed the case to the trial court, as it is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.
5. The trial court has taken the case on file as S.C.No.19 of 2008 under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, and issues summons, and on appearance of the accused, framed charge under Sections 342, 323, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said charge were read-over and explained to the accused, and he pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the case of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-15 were marked.
7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses was explained to the accused, and he denied the same, and he did not choose to lead any evidence.
8. The trial court, appreciating the entire evidence, found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him, as noted above. Assailing the same, the present appeal is filed by the accused with various grounds.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that the trial court has relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 to find the accused guilty. He submits that their evidence is contrary to the report Ex.P-1, and there are improvements in the evidence of P.W.1., and in fact she did not depose about the incident, and she was declared hostile. Moreover as per the admission of P.W.1, she is not an eye witness to the incident, and further all the other witnesses turned hostile. But the trial court without appreciating 4 the same, and only on the ground that P.W.1 is a rustic villager, and illiterate women, convicted the accused, and the same cannot be sustained. Therefore, he sought to set aside the impugned judgment.
10. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, supporting the impugned judgment, sought to dismiss the appeal.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and the submissions of the learned counsel, the issues that arises for consideration are (1) whether the prosecution could prove the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and (2) whether the impugned judgment requires to be interfered with?
12. In the present case the de facto complainant -Barla Ramulu s/o Kotaiah, died subsequent to lodging of the report Ex.P-1.
13. P.W.1 is the wife of the de facto complainant. She deposed that she is the resident of Khanapur village and live by agriculture; that she belongs to mala caste; that the de facto complainant is her husband and belong to mala caste; that her husband died eight months back; that the offence took place at about three years back about 10 or 11 a.m. near the village tank; that on the date of the incident, accused was ploughing the land with tractor, with the labour, contracted by her husband; that on seeing the same, her husband went to the accused and quested him for taking the labour contracted by him; on that the accused beat him; that, at that time, she (P.W.1) was present in the village, gathering labour; that in the meanwhile L.W.3 (P.W.2) came to her, and informed her that the accused and her husband were quarreling in her land; that immediately she rushed to the filed; that she found her husband was bleeding in his mouth; that when she asked her husband, he informed her that when he went to the 5 accused and questioned for taking their labour contracted by him, accused abused him and beat him; that there-after her husband went to police station and lodged a complaint; that police recorded her statement; that on the same day at about 6.00 p.m. herself and her husband were present in the house; that her husband went to get their cattle and while going on the way, when he reached house of the accused, the accused caught her husband, and tied him to a stone pillar with a rope and beat him due to the previous incident; that she rushed to him, and questioned him, and requested to release him; that the accused caught her saree and pulled, and twisted her hands to her back, and tied her hands with rope and beat her, due to which her saree was pulled down; that the accused kicked her with his knees in her abdomen; that nobody tried to intervene; that one Midde Yadaiah (L.W.6) came and rescued, and released them; thereafter herself and her husband went to Police Station, and her husband lodged a complaint; that police sent her, and her husband to the Government Hospital for treatment, and that the police recorded her statement.
14. At this stage, the learned Special Public Prosecutor sought the court to declare her as hostile, and accordingly the court declared her as hostile witness.
15. In the cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, P.W.1 deposed that prior to the incident there were no disputes between them and the accused; that they got constructed a house; that it is true that they got a tractor load of sand with the tractor of accused; that she did not state to the police that her husband was bleeding in the mouth; that she did not state to the police that when she went to the house to rescue her husband, the accused caught her saree, and twisted her hands and; that she did not state 6 to the police that the accused kicked her on stomach. She denied the suggestion that the accused never abused them, and that he never beat them and that her husband filed a false complaint, when accused demanded for hire charges of the tractor; she also denied that she is deposing falsehood at the instance of Madiga Dhandora Leaders.
16. P.W.2 is alleged to be an eye witness to the incident. He deposed that he is the resident of Khanapur village and live by agriculture, and that he know the complainant Ramulu and P.W.1 and the accused; that about four years back at about 1.00 p.m., he along with several villagers were working in the village tank under Rural Employment Scheme; that he found the accused and the complainant quarreling; that he intervened and sent the complainant to his house; that thereafter he do not know the facts of the case, and the police recorded his statement. This witness was declared hostile.
17. P.W.3, 4,5 and 6 who are alleged to be eye witnesses, also turned hostile.
18. P.Ws.7 and 8 are alleged to be punch witnesses to scene of offence panchanama Ex.P-14. They turned hostile.
19. P.W.9 is the Tahsildar, who issued caste certificate to the de facto complainant stating that he belongs to 'mala', a scheduled caste community. He also issued caste certificate to the accused stating that he belongs to back ward class community, which is Ex.P-9.
20. P.W.10 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon at Government Area Hospital, Nagarkurnool. He deposed that on 4.6.2007 at 10.00 p.m., he has examined Barla Chennamma (P.W.1) and noticed no external injuries, except 7 pain and tenderness over the scalp and; that Ex.P-10 is the wound certificate issued by him to P.W.1.
21. In the cross-examination he deposed that the pain and tenderness can be caused due to fall on sand and bricks.
22. P.W.11 is the Inspector of Police, who issued FIR. He deposed that on 4.6.2007 at about 16.00 hours, L.W.1 Barla Ramulu came to police station and presented a written report; that Ex.P-11 is the written report received by him; that based on the contents of Ex.P-11, he registered a case in Cr.No.48/2007 under Sections 342, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and issued FIR; that Ex.P-12 is FIR sent to court; that he sent L.W.2 Varla Chennamma (P.W.1) to Government Hospital Nagar kurnool, for examination and report and she sustained injuries; that he handed over C.D. file to SDPO Nagar kurnool for further examination.
23. In the cross-examination he deposed that except L.W.1 Barla Ramulu, no other person accompanied him to police station; that L.W.1 Barla Ramulu got written Ex.P-11 outside the police station and brought written complaint to him; that the distance between Khanapur village on Bijinapally P.S. is 8 kms; that it is true that in Ex.P-11, complaint it is mentioned specifically as 10.00 a.m. He denied the suggestion that with the help of Dandora people L.W.1 Barla Ramulu gave Ex.P-11 complaint with false allegations.
24. P.W.12 is the Investigating Officer, who took further investigation from P.W.11. He deposed that on 5.6.2007 he visited Khanapur village and secured the presence of P.Ws.1 to 6 and the complainant L.W.6, recorded their statements; that thereafter he visited the scene of offence situated in front of the house of the accused; that he secured the presence of P.Ws.7 8 and 8, and prepared scene observation panchanama; that it is Ex.P-14; that he addressed letter to the Tahsildar, Bijinapally to furnish the caste particulars of complainant and P.W.1 and the accused; that as per caste certificate issued by him, the complainant and P.W.1 belongs to 'mala'; that he sent P.W.1 to Government Hospital for treatment; that on 09.06.2007, the SI Bijinapally produced the accused before him and effected the arrest; that on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused; that P.Ws.2 to 6 stated to him as in Exs.P-2 to P-6 and; that Ex.P-15 is the statement recorded by him.
25. In the cross-examination he deposed that no specific reasons were mentioned in the complaint regarding the delay; that P.W.1 did not state to him that her husband had bleeding in his mouth due to injury; that the complaint was lodged at 4 p.m.; that P.W.1 did not state to him that accused kicked her on her abdomen and; that P.W.1 did not state to him that the accused had pulled her saree. He further denied the suggestion that he did not record the statements of P.Ws.1 to 6 and that he did not conduct panchanama in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7.
26. Thus from the above evidence it is necessary to examine whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
27. The case of the prosecution, at the cost of repetition, is that on 3.6.2007 at about 10 .00 am., when the de facto complainant took labour and went to the village tank to move some earth to his fields, as the work was sanctioned under Upadi Hami Pathakam, meanwhile, the accused went there and picked up a quarrel over the amount due to him, and beat the de facto complainant on his face and abused him in filthy language, and that 9 Kommu Kotaiah (P.W.2) and Gaddameedi Kurmiah (L.W.3) intervened and sent away the accused.
28. Kommu Kotaiah, P.W.2 who is alleged to have witnessed the incident only deposed that he found accused and the complainant quarreling, and that he sent away the complainant to his house and that thereafter he do not know anything.
29. As per the case of the prosecution, accused is alleged to have beat the de facto complainant on his face and abused him in filthy language. To support this version of the prosecution, there is no independent evidence, except the statement of the de facto complainant in Ex.P-11 complaint.
30. P.W.1 in her evidence deposed quite contrary to the above version. She deposed that on the same day at about 6.00 p.m., while herself and her husband were present in the house, and that when her husband went to get their cattle and while on the way, when he reached house of accused, the accused caught her husband and tied him to a stone pillar with a rope and beat him due to the previous incident, and that she rushed, and when questioned him and requested to release him, the accused caught her saree and pulled and twisted her hands to back, and tried her hand with a rope, and beat her due to which, her saree was pulled down, and that the accused kicked her with his knees in her abdomen, and that one Midde Yadaiah came and rescued.
31. Further in her evidence she has not deposed that the accused abused her in the name of caste. This is contrary to the version of the prosecution. Further as per her evidence, one Midde Yadaiah came and rescued them. This Midde Yadaiah (L.W.6) was not examined before the court. As per the case of the prosecution, one Golla Maddeleti (P.W.4) came 10 and rescued them. But P.W.4 did not support the case of the prosecution and he turned hostile.
32. Apart from the above, P.W.1 in her chief examination deposed that at the time of incident she was present in the village gathering labour and in the meanwhile L.W.3 came and informed her that the accused and her husband were quarreling in her land and that immediately she rushed to the field and found her husband was having bleeding in his mouth. But in her cross-examination she deposed that she did not state to the police that her husband was bleeding in mouth, and in her cross-examination she has given contrary version. After completion of chief examination, the prosecution sought the court to declare her as hostile witness and accordingly she was declared hostile.
33. P.W.12 is the investigating officer, who recorded the statement of P.W.1. In his cross-examination he deposed that P.W.1 did not state to him that her husband had bleeding in his mouth due to injury. He also deposed that P.W.1 did not state to him that the accused kicked her husband on his abdomen and that P.W.1 also did not state to him that the accused had pulled her saree.
34. Further it is to be noticed that the incident is alleged to have happened on 3.6.2007 at about 10.00 am. and also again at 6.00 p.m. on the same day. As per the evidence of P.W.11, the Investigating Officer, who issued FIR, the distance between Khanapur village to Bijinapally Police station is about 8 k.m., but the complaint was lodged on 4.6.2007 at about 4.00 p.m. The reason for the delay was not explained.
35. In view of the above discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1, and due to her omissions to state material facts in her statement made to the 11 police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it can be said that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. But the trial court held that P.W.1 is an illiterate village rustic woman and she cannot be expected to have pictographic memory to speak exactly about the incident, and what was stated to police. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. But in the present case, there is no legally admissible evidence on record to hold the accused guilty of the offence charged. Therefore, this court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and he is liable to be acquitted of the charges and the trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and hence the impugned judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside, and the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The issues framed are answered accordingly.
36. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appeal is accordingly allowed.
37. The bail bonds executed by the accused stands cancelled.
38. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
-------------------------------------
M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J DATE:26--07--2022 AVS