Telangana High Court
Gooduru Laxmamma Anr vs State Of A.P. Rep. By P.P., H.C., Hyd. on 11 November, 2022
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 505 OF 2012
JUDGMENT:
The appellants are the accused Nos. 1 & 2. Challenging the judgment dated 13.06.2012 made in Sessions Case No. 16 of 2010 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, they filed the present appeal before this Court. By the impugned judgment, both the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months each.
2. The gist of the prosecution case leading to the conviction of the appellants-accused, in brief, is as follows:-
A.1 is the mother of A.2. Ms. K. Bharathi, a member of Scheduled Tribe, was working as Police Constable at Women Police Station, Nalgonda. Previously, a case was registered against the accused and another at Women Police Station, Nalgonda on 07.01.2006 2 vide Crime No. 1 of 2006 for the offence under Section 498-A, 506 IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act on the complaint made by the wife of A.2. In connection with the said case, both the accused filed a private case against the investigating officer and other women constables of Women Police Station, Nalgonda which is under trial. While so, on 26.08.2008, when the complaint, P.W.1, Police Constable, during the course of her duty, attended the court work in connection with Crime No. 1 of 2006 which was registered against the accused at the instance of wife of A.2, and when she was coming out of the court, both the accused having grudge against her for running legal process against them, who were standing at the main gate steps of the court building, started abusing her in filthy language by taking her caste name and A.1 abused her stating that "Yende Lambadi Lanjadana, Neevu Cheyabatti Maaku Ee Gathi Pattindi" (you lambadi bitch, it is because of you, we got this fate). A.2 abused her saying 'Aa SI meeda case Pettinappudu Nee Peru Kooda Case Lo Irikinchi Vunte Bagundedi, Ippatikaina Private Case Lo Ninnu Irikinchi Nee Udyogam Theeyisthame" (at the time when we have instituted the case against that S.I., it would have been better, had we implicated you in that private case, still in that private case, we would implicate you and would get you removed from the service). Basing on the complaint lodged by P.W. 1 under Ex.P. 1 before the 3 JFCM, Nalgonda, and on forwarding the same to SHO, Nalgonda-I Town Police Station vide proceedings No. 1402 of 2008, for investigation and report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.6, registered a case in Crime No. 147 of 2008 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and dispatched FIR to all the concerned. As per the provisions of the Act, the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda, has appointed P.W.7, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nalgonda, as the investigation officer vide proceedings No. 271/C1/2008, dated 27.08.2008. During the course of investigation, P.W.7 examined P.W.1 and other witnesses, recorded their statements, arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, laid the charge sheet against the accused for the said charge. The appellants-accused adjured the guilt and entered into defence.
3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited 5 documents, Exs.P.1 to P.5 in support of its case. On behalf of the defence, none of the witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. The trial Court after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, by the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced both the appellants as aforementioned.
4
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants-accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the material available on record.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants-accused has contended that in the complaint in Ex.P. 1, the word 'lambada' was inserted subsequently and that the said word is in a different handwriting which indicates that P.W.1 has acted at some one's behalf with a view to harass the appellants by implicating them in the case. It is contended that the ingredients to constitute the said offence are not made out by any legal and reliable evidence. The learned trial Court has erred in placing reliance on the highly interested and discrepant testimony of P.Ws. 1 to 3. Since the evidence of P.W.1 is not inspiring confidence and as her evidence is full of improvements and exaggerated version, the trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused by extending benefit of doubt. Therefore, the learned counsel seeks to set aside the impugned conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court against the accused.
6. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor, while sustaining the impugned judgment, has contended that the trial Court rightly appreciated all the evidence and concluded that the accused have 5 committed the offence with which they are charged and there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. In view of the above rival submissions, the point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the appellants-accused for the offence with which they are charged beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the conviction, as recorded and the sentence awarded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside or modified?
8. P.W.1 is the victim who had lodged Ex.P. 1 complaint on the basis of which, the proceedings were instituted. There is no dispute that she is a member of Scheduled Tribe. At the time of incident, she was attending the court duty being the Police Constable. Her evidence before the Court is that on seeing her both the accused started abusing her referring to her caste as lambadidana. When she questioned them about their abusing her, the accused stated that because of her (P.W.1), they are facing troubles and scolded her in filthy language referring to her caste as lambadi lanjadana. She further deposed that A.2 exhorted her saying why she was staring at him and said that he would have implicated her in the case filed against SI of Police. At this juncture, it is curious to note that the very same P.W.1 in her 6 earlier version in Ex.P.1 complaint, has stated that both the accused abused her stating that the government gave jobs to lesser caste persons. There is an earlier private case against Nirmala and had they impleaded P.W.1 also in that case, it would have been better and she would have lost job and roam on the roads. Thus, there is vast improvement in the subsequent version of P.W.1 when she has given her evidence before the Court. In Ex.P.1 there are no specific abusive words that were allegedly used by the accused and there is common accusation against both the accused. Whereas while deposing before the Court, P.W.1 has improved her version giving specific abusive words being uttered by the accused and has stated specific abusive acts against each of the accused which was not stated in the earlier complaint. Thus, her evidence suffers from significant improvements. That apart, in the original complaint in Ex.P. 1, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the word 'lambada' was separately inserted that too with a different handwriting, which would give lot of suspicion that will go to the route of the case. Further, in the complaint, except stating that there were several persons present, she had not given any specific names, but while deposing before the Court, she has stated that P.W.2, P.W.3 and another had witnessed the incident. She further ventured to depose that the attempts made by P.W.2 to pacify the accused were in vain. The said fact is not 7 mentioned in Ex.P. 1, complaint. Thus, her evidence suffers from lot of improvements and omissions.
9. Coming to the evidence of P.W.2, practicing advocate at Nalgonda Courts, alleged eyewitness to the incident, he deposed that "A.1 was abusing PW-1 saying that she is responsible for the accused to face the troubles. A-1 further abused PW-1 in the name of caste as ninnukuda kesulo pedithe bagundunu, lambadi lanjadana. Thereafter, A-2 also abused PW-1 questioning why she is staring at her. A-2 also abused PW-1 referring to caste as lambadi lanjadana." Again, there is material contradiction in the evidence of P.W.2 from the version of P.W.1. While P.W.1 deposed that A.1 abused her referring to her caste as lambadi lanjadana; P.W.2 deposed that A.1 abused P.W.1 stating that ninnukuda kesulo pedithe bagundunu, lambadi lanjadana. In fact, P.W. 1 deposed that it is A.2 who uttered that he would have implicated her in the case filed against SI of Police. There remains the evidence of P.W.3, another eyewitness to the incident. It is curious enough to note that the version of P.W.3 is completely different than that of P.W.1 and P.W.2. He deposed that "I noticed one lady was abusing PW-1 and coming towards the entrance side. I heard abusing PW-1 in the name of caste as lambadi lanjadana neevu chebatte naaku itla iyyindi, nee anthu chustanu". That 8 is not at all the case of either by victim-P.W.1 or by P.W.2, witness. Thus, his version is completely different and therefore, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. P.Ws.4 & 5 speak about their issuance of caste certificates under Exs.P.2 and P.3. P.W.6, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, speaks about his receiving Ex.P.1 compliant, registering the case against the accused and issuing FIR under Ex.P. 4. P.W.7, is the investigating officer, who speaks about his conducting investigation on the strength of Ex.P. 5 proceedings, examining and recording the statements of witnesses, arrest of accused and his laying the charge sheet in the court. In his cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that in Ex.P.1, complaint, the word lambada appears to have been inserted. The said admission of P.W.7 lends support to the case of appellants- accused that the present case is foisted as a counterblast to the case in C.C. No. 357 of 2008 filed by A.1 against the woman S.I. and three constables of Mahila Police Station, Nalgonda.
10. Thus, as pointed out supra, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not consistent with each other, and also suffers from the inherent contradictions, omissions and improvements. The conviction of the appellants in the present case which is primarily based on the testimony of the solitary witness, the victim herself, whose evidence does not appear to be trustworthy in view of 9 material contradictions, improvements and omissions in her evidence which does not stand corroborated by any other eyewitness cannot be sustained. It is no longer res integra that while appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions, omissions, improvements, embellishments etc. had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, omissions or improvements on trivial matters without affecting the case of the prosecution, should not be made a ground for the Court to reject the evidence in its entirety. In the present case, as noted above, the complainant, P.W.1, in Ex.P. 1, complaint has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court and therefore, her version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded (Refer to Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Sait @ Krishnakumar, (2008) 15 SCC 440). The discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses, if found to be not minor in nature, may be a ground for disbelieving and discrediting their evidence. In such circumstances, witnesses may not inspire confidence and if their evidence is found to be in conflict and contradiction with other evidence or with the statement already recorded, in such a case it cannot be held that prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt (Refer to Mahendra Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 11 10 SCC 334). Therefore, as pointed out above, as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions, omissions and improvements, the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside by extending benefit of doubt to the appellants-accused.
11. In the result, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Special Sessions Judge-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda in S.C. No. 16 of 2010, dated 13.06.2012 and the appellants are acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The bail bonds shall stand cancelled and the sureties shall stand discharged and the accused shall be set at liberty forthwith. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them.
Miscellaneous pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 11th NOVEMBER, 2022 Tsr