Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Anumula Raji Reddy vs State Of A.P., Rep. By Public Prosecutor on 30 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2005CRILJ220
JUDGMENT G. Yethirajulu, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred by the accused in SC ST SC No. 11 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act'), Medak at Sangareddy. He was convicted for the offence under Section 3(2) (v) of the Act read with Section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year through the judgment dated 03-09-1997. The appellant preferred this appeal questioning the judgment of the Sessions Court.
2. The factual matrix leading to the conviction of the appellant is as follows:
The victim (P.W.1) is a lady belonging to Schedule caste. On 28-9-1994 she went to her maize field situated at the outskirts of her village for getting green grass. The land of the accused is adjacent to the land of P.W.1. At about 9 AM, while P.W.1 was cutting grass, the accused reached her from backside, pulled her down and fell on her with an intention to rape. P.W.1 shouted for help of her husband (P.W.3). The accused prevented her from making hue and cry, gagged her mouth with a towel and raped her. During the struggle, the left hand bangles of P.W.1 were broken and the accused ran away on observing the arrival of P.W.3. On questioning P.W.1, she revealed the incident to him. He beat the victim with a stick and asked her to go to the house. She went to the house and informed about the incident to her sister P.W.4. P.W.3 traced the accused, brought him to the scene of offence and later to the village for punchayat. Since there was no response in the village, P.W.3 went along with P.W.1 to the Police Station on 29-9-1994. The police recorded Ex.P.1 complaint from P.W.1 and registered the same as Crime No. 82 of 1994 under Section 376 I.P.C. and Section 3(2) (v) of the Act.
3. During the course of investigation, P.W.13-Head Constable seized the petticoat and saree of the victim under a cover of panchanama and sent them to the chemical examiner for examination and report. P.W.14-Sub-Inspector of Police, conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized the broken bangle pieces of the victim on 30-9-1994. P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation on 01-10-1994, recorded the statements of the witnesses, and sent P.W.1 for medical examination. The investigating officer, after obtaining the medical opinion and receiving the chemical examiners report, concluded the investigation and laid the charge sheet. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence under Section 3(2) (v) of the Act read with Section 376 of I.P.C. against the accused.
4. The learned Sessions Judge framed the following charge against the appellant:
"1) That you being the non SC/ST and knowingly that the L.W.1 complainant Smt. Manne Shamela belong to Harijan caste of Schedule caste, that on or about the 28th day of September, 1994 at about 9 AM, committed rape on Smt. Manne Shamela while she was cutting the grass in the field. When she shouted for help of L.W.2, you prevented and gagged her with towel, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2) (v) of SCs. and STs. (POA) Act r/w Section 376 I.P.C. and within my cognizance.
5. The appellant denied the charge and claimed for trial. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the appellant, examined P.Ws.1 to 14 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminative material to him and he denied the same. He did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in defence.
6. The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence of the Prosecution witnesses, found the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 3 (2) (v) of the Act read with Section 376 of I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/, in default to suffer imprisonment for one year.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Special Judge committed an error in directly taking cognizance of the offence, immediately after the filing of the charge sheet without any committal, therefore, the trial gets vitiated and the accused is entitled for acquittal. He further submitted that there is no corroboration in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the offence proper, and the medical evidence did not support the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and as there was enmity between P.W.3 and the appellant regarding land dispute, a false case was foisted against him. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
8. In the light of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant, the following are the points for consideration by this Court:
1) Whether the trial of the case got vitiated on account of the Special Court taking cognizance of the offences against the appellant directly without there being any committal from the committal Court?
2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? And
3) Whether the judgment of the Special Court is liable to be set aside or modified?
POINT NO: 1 :
9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor placed strong reliance on the following judgments in support of his contention that the Special Court under SC/ST Act can directly take cognizance of the offences under SC/ST Act without committal by a Magistrate:
i) In Hareendran v. Sarada, 1996(1) ALT (Crl) 162 F.B Kerala, a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court while referring to Sections 3, 4 and 14 of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 held that the committal proceedings are not warranted in a case coming under the Act and triable by the Special Court. The Court further held that as the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case, the complaint ought to have been returned for presentation before the proper Court. As such the entire proceedings on the file of the judicial Magistrate of First Class are liable to be quashed and the Magistrate shall return the complaint for presentation before proper Court.
ii) In Bhura Lal and others v. State, 1999 Cri.L.J., 3552 F.B. Rajasthan a Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court while referring to Section 14 of the SC and ST (POA) Act and Section 193 Cr.P.C. held as under:
"Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application to trial of the offences under SC/ST Act by the Special Court and the Special Court under the SC/ST Act has jurisdiction to deal with the cases involving offences under SC/ST Act right from the initial stages in the same manner as a Magistrate can deal with them under the Code. The 'Special Court' envisaged by Section 14 is not another "Court of Session" but is distinct and separate from it. It has to deal with the cases before it not as a "Court of Session" but as a "Special Court" and is not necessary that it could deal with only those cases which would have been triable by a Court of Session if the Special Court had not been created. Therefore, it is not necessary that the cases have to be committed by a Magistrate to the Special Court. Section 193 of the Code, applies only to a 'Court of Session' and not to the Special Court specified under Section 14 of the SC/ST Act.
The Full Bench further observed that "Harmoniously construing the various provisions of the code as well as that of SC/ST Act and keeping in view the objects and purposes of SC/ST Act we are of the opinion that the cases involving offences under the SC/ST Act are exclusively triable by the Special Court. But we are also of the opinion that keeping in view the objects and purposes of the SC/ST Act to provide speedy justice to the victims of social prejudices at a cheaper cost and at a nearer and convenient places at the pre-trial stages i.e., at the "inquiry" stages such cases can be dealt with by both the special Court as well as the Courts of Magistrate empowered under Section 190 of the Code to deal with them and "in the result we answer the reference as under:
(1) The cases involving offences under SC/ST Act are exclusively triable by a Special Court created under Section 14 of the SC/ST Act.
(2) Section 193 of the Code has no application to trial of offences under the SC/ST Act by the Special Court and the Special Court under SC/ST Act has jurisdiction to deal with the cases involving offences under SC/ST Act right from the initial stages in the same manner as a Magistrate can deal with them under the Code.
(3) The Magistrates having jurisdiction over the area in which offences under SC/ST Act are alleged to be committed, empowered to deal with the cases under Section 190 of the Code will also have the jurisdiction to deal with cases during the "inquiry" i.e. pre-trial stages including exercise of power under Section 156(3) of the Code and thereafter he shall transmit all such cases to the special Court situated within that jurisdiction.
10. The Full Benches of Kerala and Rajasthan High Courts have laid down that Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no application to trial of offences under the SC/ST Act by the Special Court and the Special Court has jurisdiction to deal with cases right from the initial stages in the same manner as a Magistrate can deal with them under the Code.
11. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the lower Court being the Special Court under the S.C. & S.T. (P.O.A.) Act is the Sessions Court for all practical purposes and as a Court of Sessions, the lower Court is not supposed to take cognizance of the offence directly without any committal from the concerned Magistrate, therefore, the trial conducted by the lower Court stood vitiated by procedural irregularity and the accused is entitled for acquittal. He relied on certain judgments of A.P. High Court and the Supreme Court in support of his plea regarding the legality of the lower Court taking cognizance of the offence directly:
12. The A.P. High Court and the Supreme Court while dealing with Section 14 of the SC/ST Act and Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure considered the scope regarding the Sessions Judge taking cognizance of the offence without being the case committed by the Magistrate and its consequence.
i) In P. Venkata Reddy v. State of A.P., 1992(2) ALT (Crl) 467 AP the A.P. High Court held that the Court of Sessions has not acquired jurisdiction to try the offence under the SC/ST Act since the procedure prescribed under Sections 193 and 209 Cr.P.C. was not followed in the judgment rendered by it in such trial, which has no original jurisdiction, and the judgment is non est in law.
ii) This view of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Referring Officer, Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Srikakilam and others, 2000(1) ALT (Crl) 388 (DB) (A.P.) and the same reads as follows:
"The Sessions Court is not the Court of original criminal jurisdiction. The Sessions Court gets jurisdiction only after the committal order passed by the Magistrate under Section 193, Cr.P.C. and therefore, at whatever stage the case falling under SC & ST (PA) Act is pending before the Special Court, which has taken cognizance without committal order, becomes a case without jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and therefore, at whatever stage the case reached, the proceedings before the Special Court will be null and void. Under these circumstances, the Special Court has to return the papers to the Magistrate having territorial jurisdiction and he can try the cases afresh only after the order of committal passed by the Magistrate Court."
iii) In Degumati Hazarath Reddy and others V. State of A.P., 2001(2) ALT (Crl) 249 A.P. a Single Bench of this High Court while dealing with Section 14 of the SC/ST Act held:
"As per Section 14 of the Special Courts Act, the Special Court is constituted for the speedy trial of the offences under the Act, but the aforesaid section does not empower it to take cognizance of the offence under the Act as a Court of original jurisdiction. The original jurisdiction is vested with the Magistrate only and no Magistrate in this case has committed the case for trial by the Special Court of Sessions, therefore, taking cognizance by the Special Court directly is illegal."
iv) In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhooraji and others, 2001(2) ALD (Crl) 604 (SC), the Supreme Court while dealing with Section 14 of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 held that the Sessions Judge taking cognizance of the offence without the case being committed by the Magistrate is a procedural irregularity. The Supreme Court further observed:
"The expression "a Court of competent jurisdiction" envisaged in Section 465 Cr.P.C. is to denote a validly constituted Court conferred with jurisdiction to try the offence or offences. Such a Court will not get denuded of its competence to try the case on account of any procedural lapse and the competence would remain unaffected by the non-compliance of the procedural requirement. The inability to take cognizance of an offence without a committal order does not mean that a duly constituted Court became an incompetent Court for all purposes. If objection was raised in that Court at the earliest occasion on the ground that the case should have been committed by a Magistrate, the same specified Court has to exercise a jurisdiction either for sending the records to a Magistrate for adopting committal proceedings or return the police report to the Public Prosecutor or the police for presentation before the Magistrate. Even this could be done only because the Court has competence to deal with the case. Sometimes, that Court may have to hear arguments to decide that preliminary issue."
"The bar against taking cognizance of certain offences or by certain Courts cannot govern the question whether the Court concerned is a "a Court of competent jurisdiction". The condition precedent for taking cognizance is not a standard to determine whether the Court concerned is a Court of competent jurisdiction."
v) In Vidyadharan v. State of Kerala, 2003 (2) ALD (Crl) 1019 (SC), the Supreme Court while referring to Section 3(1) (xi) of S.C.& S.T. (P.O.A) Act and Section 193 of the Criminal Procedure Code held that a Special Court under the SC and ST (POA) Act is essentially a Court of Session and it can take cognizance of the offence when the case is committed to it by the Magistrate in accordance with the provisions of the Code. In other words, a complaint or a charge-sheet cannot straight away be laid down before the Special Court under the Act. The Sessions Court in the case at hand, undisputedly has acted as one of original jurisdiction and the requirements of Section 193 of the Code were not met.
The Supreme Court in the above decision further observed:
"The inevitable conclusion is that the learned Sessions Judge, as the undisputed factual position goes to show, could not have convicted the appellant for the offence relatable to Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act in the background of legal position noted supra. That is accordingly set aside. However, for the offence under Sections 354 and 448 I.P.C., custodial sentence for the period already undergone which as the records reveal is about three months, would meet the ends of justice considering the background facts and the special features of the case.
vi) In M.A. Kuttappan v. E. Krishnan Nayanar and another, 2004 Cri.L.J. 1770, the Supreme Court while considering the scope of Section 3(1) (x) and Section 14 of SC/ST Act and Section 193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code held:
"The Special Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint directly and to issue process after taking cognizance without the case being committed to it by a competent Magistrate. The question is no longer res intergra and, therefore, it must be held that the Special Judge in the instant case erred in entertaining a complaint filed before it alleging offence under the Act and in issuing process after taking cognizance without the case being committed to it for trial by a competent Magistrate."
vii) In Moly and another V. State of Kerala, 2004 Cri.l.J. 1812 SC (Kerala), the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Section 14 of the SC/ST Act and following Vidydharan (7 supra) and Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., , 2000 SCC (Cri) 488, held:
"The Act contemplates only the trial to be conducted by the Special Court. The added reason for specifying a Court of Session as a Special Court is to ensure speed for such trial. 'Special Court' is defined in the Act as 'a Court of Session specified as a Special Court in Section 14'. Thus the Court of Session is specified to conduct a trial and no other Court can conduct the trial of offences under the Act. In view of S.193 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, unless it is positively and specifically provided differently, no Court of Session can take cognizance of any offence directly, without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. Neither in the Code nor in the Act is there any provision whatsoever, nor given by implication, that the specified Court of Session (Special Court) can take cognizance of the offence under the Act as court of original jurisdiction without the case being committed to it by a Magistrate. If that be so, there is no reason to think that the charge-sheet or a complaint can straightway be filed before such Special Court for offences under the Act."
13. Though the Full Benches of Kerala and Rajasthan High Court held that the committal proceedings are not warranted in a case coming under the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court, as mentioned above, reiterated that a complaint or a charge sheet cannot be straight away laid before the Special Court under the Act. In the case on hand, the charge sheet was admittedly filed before the Special Court and the said Court took cognizance of the offence and after framing of the charges proceeded with the trial. In the light of the above legal position, I have no hesitation to hold that the Special Judge cannot take cognizance of the offence by way of taking the charge sheet straight away without committal of the case from the concerned Magistrate.
POINT NO: 2:
14. The victim girl, aged about 15 years as on the date of offence, was examined as P.W.1. She stated that about one year prior to the date of her evidence, on a Monday in the morning hours, she was asked by P.W.3 to go to field and bring green grass. He informed her that he would come to the land some time later and asked her to cut the grass. While she was cutting the grass, the appellant went to his field situated by the side of their field, kept his cycle in his land and came to her. He caught hold of her hand from backside. She asked him as to why he was catching hold of her hand, and informed him that she belongs to 'mala' caste. The appellant told her that there is no objection for him regarding her caste. When she told him that P.W.3 would come to the field, therefore, he should leave her, he replied that he is not afraid of her husband. While she was struggling to escape from him, the bangles of the left hand were broken in the struggle. When she threatened the appellant that she would call her brother-in-law, the appellant threatened that he would beat her brother-in-law with chappal. Later he gagged her mouth with a cloth and committed rape on her. While the accused was committing rape on her, P.W.3 came to the scene and on seeing him, the appellant ran away. She narrated the incident to P.W.3. He asked her to go to the house with green grass stating that he would bring the appellant to the village. P.W.3 went to the field of the appellant, caught hold of him and slapped him. In the meanwhile the villagers gathered there and they advised her and P.W.3 to settle the issue in the village. They went to the village and informed the elders about the incident. The elders traced the appellant and brought him to the village. By the time of the elders gathered, the appellant ran away. She further stated that on the advice of her caste people, she went to the police station and gave Ex.P-1 complaint. In the cross-examination she stated that the land of the appellant is situated towards West of their field. At the time of the incident, there were no persons available in the adjacent fields. P.W.3 came to the field and asked her as to who was with her, slapped her and also beat her with a stick insisting to reveal the name of the person who was with her. She did not raise any hue and cry when accused fell on her and did not resist the movements of the accused to prevent him from committing rape.
15. P.W.3, the husband of P.W.1 deposed that P.W.1 went to the field to cut grass at about 9 AM. About 11/2 hours later he left the house to go to the field. He found P.W.1 and accused scuffling. When he rushed to the land, the accused ran away on seeing him. He went in search of the accused. He questioned the appellant and beat him with a stick taken from one Rukmareddy. When he wanted to further beat, others came and took away the stick from him. They advised him to hold talks in the village. He brought the witnesses to the scene of offence and had shown them the broken bangles and the traces of trampling in the field and met the caste elders in the village. He beat the accused, since he committed rape on P.W.1. When the village elders gathered, the appellant ran away from the village. The appellant was again brought by him by night from Gollapally village and kept in the house of Ramachandra Reddy, but he again escaped from there and went away. On the next day P.W.1 and himself went to the police station along with caste people, and reported the matter to the police. Later the police sent PW.1 to the hospital for medical examination. In the cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that by the time he reached the field, P.W.1 alone was present. After asking P.W.1, he caught hold of the accused. He denied a suggestion that he beat his wife with a stick asking her to disclose the name of the person who was with him. He further stated that there was a land dispute between his family and the accused, and a panchayat was held in that connection. He denied a suggestion that the case was foisted against the appellant.
16. P.W.4, the sister of P.W.1, stated that about one year back, on the date of offence in the morning time, P.W.1 went to the land for green grass. She returned back to the house at 11-30 AM and wept. When she asked her as to why she was weeping, she informed her that the accused committed rape on her. P.Ws.1 and 3 narrated the incident to them. Since the appellant did not attend the panchayat, they went to the Police Station and reported the matter.
17. There are other witnesses to the prosecution to speak about the incident proper, except the version of P.W.1 regarding the commission of rape, there are no other eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.3 alleged to have reached the scene of offence, immediately after the occurrence. P.W.1 stated in the chief-examination that the appellant while committing rape gagged her mouth with a cloth. PW.3 came there and upon seeing P.W.3, the accused ran away. In the cross-examination, she stated that at the time of the incident, there were no persons available in the adjacent fields. Her husband came to the field and asked her by slapping as to who was with her. He picked up a stick from one Rukmareddy and beat her by insisting to reveal the name of the person who was with her. She did not raise any hue and cry when the accused fell on her and did not resist the movements of the accused by preventing him from committing rape.
18. The version of P.W.1 given in the cross-examination indicates that P.W.3 did not see the accused in the company of P.W.1 and he did not identify the person, who was allegedly with P.W.1. P.W.3 in the chief-examination stated that by the time he reached the field, he found P.W.1 scuffling with the accused, and the accused ran away on seeing him. He further stated in the chief-examination that he beat the accused for committing rape on P.W.1. P.W.1 stated that on ascertaining by P.W.3, she informed that the accused committed rape on her. In the cross-examination P.W.3 stated that by the time he went to the field, P.W.1 was alone present and after ascertaining from P.W.1, he went and caught hold of the accused. The version of P.W.3 is also indicating that he did not witness the accused committing rape on P.W.1 or his company with P.W.1 by the time he reached the scene. Since there is the solitary testimony of P.W.1 regarding the commission of rape, the evidence of the Doctor, who examined her assumed so much importance.
19. P.W.2, the Doctor who examined P.W.1 deposed as follows:
"I examined P.W.1 on 30-9-1994 at 4-30 PM and found the following:
On local examination pubic hair seen not matted. Vulva normal. Vagina Normal admitting two fingers. Hymen not intact. Fourchette normal. Porincum normal. Corrix normal. Two smears were taken from vagina and sent to the Forensic expert. Ex.P-2 is my certificate. I received report bearing 1784/S/94, dt.16-11-1994 from Forensic Laboratory. The result of the analysis shows blood is detected on item No. 3 and 4. Semen and Spermatozoa detected on item No. 3. Ex.P-3 is the FSL Report, dt.16-11-1994. Basing upon Ex.P-3, I opined that the above findings are suggestive of sexual intercourse."
20. Item No. 3 is the petticoat and Item No. 4 is the Saree of P.W.1. P.W.2 issued Ex.P-2 medical report mentioning that P.W.1 did not take bath after the offence. In the cross-examination P.W.2 stated that P.W.1 is a married girl and she is habituated for sexual intercourse. There are no marks of violence in or around the external genitals or any tenderness or redness around the external genitals. On internal examination she did not notice any bleeding in the vagina. The vaginal smears did not show any sperm. There are no injuries on thigh, legs, back, face, chest etc. On examination of P.W.1 she did not find any physical signs of rape and she cannot opine whether any intercourse took place over her.
21. There is no definite indication in the evidence of P.W.2 regarding the commission of rape by the accused. The solitary testimony of P.W.1 would have been sufficient, had it been supported by the medical evidence suggesting rape on her.
22. P.W.5, the Doctor, who examined the accused stated about the potency of the accused and did not mention whether there were any marks of nails etc., on any part of his body.
23. P.W.6 is a panch to the scene of offence. P.W.7 is another panch witness for the scene of occurrence. P.W.8 is a panch witness to the seizure of clothes of P.W.1. P.W.9 is a panch witness for the observation of the saree of P.W.1. All of them turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.
24. The investigating officer, who was examined as P.W.12 stated that he conducted scene of offence panchanama, seized the clothes of P.W.1, sent the victim for medical examination, sent the clothes and other material to the forensic science laboratory for test and report, got the statements of P.W.1 and 5 recorded by the Magistrate and sent the accused for remand after arrest.
25. P.W.12 did not explain as to why he could not deposit the broken bangle pieces, why he could not get them marked as material objects. Ex.P-5 scene of offence panchanama does not contain the particulars regarding the area of trampling on the ground. The investigating officer did not take care to mention in the observation report what was the age of the crop lying in the field, whether the persons moving in the field are visible to the persons working in other fields. He did not elicit from P.W.3 from what distance he had seen P.W.1 scuffling with another person. Had it been from a short distance, he would have identified the accused as the person in the company of P.W.1. But, since he did not see the said person from short distance, he grilled P.W.1 to disclose as to who was the person in her company. The absence of bloodstains or seminal stains in the vaginal swabs is creating a doubt whether there was any intercourse. It was not stated whether P.W.1 changed the clothes, which were used by her on the previous day, and whether there was any intercourse with her husband during the previous night. There is a doubt as to how the seminal stains and bloodstains were found on the petticoat and saree i.e., items 3 and 4 sent to F.S.L. when there was no blood or semen in the vaginal swabs. It was not elicited from P.W.1, the details regarding the sequence of events in the process of committing rape and whether there was any resistance from P.W.1 after the accused gagging her mouth and pushing her down. If the bloodstain found on item No. 3 was on account of the intercourse by the accused, there would have been definitely an injury to the vagina or any part of the body. Therefore, there is any amount of doubt whether the accused committed rape on P.W.1. The presence of seminal stain on item No. 4 saree is also not explained by the prosecution when there was no seminal stain either in the vagina , vaginal swabs or any part of the lower body. P.Ws.1 and 3 went to the Police Station on the next day of the date of offence. Since the solitary testimony of P.W.1 is not supported by the medical evidence and as there is no other evidence to corroborate the version of P.W.1 there is any amount of doubt in the version of the prosecution that the accused committed rape on P.W.1. In the light of the above circumstances, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt.
26. In the result the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction of the appellant in SC ST SC No. 11 of 1996 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge under the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Medak at Sangareddy under Section 3(2) (v) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with Section 376 I.P.C. is set aside, consequently the sentence of imprisonment of ten years and also fine of Rs.2,000/- imposed on the appellant are set aside. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant after the appeal time. The appellant shall set at liberty, if he is in jail. The bail bonds stand cancelled.