Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Jani Basha vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 18 December, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
****
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1704 OF 2009
Between:
1.Uppara Venkateswarlu,
S/o Mulinti Anjinappa, aged 25 years.
2. Uppara Venkatamma,
W/o Nagappa, aged 60 years.
(Both are R/o Magecheruvu Village,
Somandepalli Mandal, Andantapur District.)
... Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
... Respondent/Complainant.
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 18.12.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copy of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to see the
Fair copy of the judgment? Yes/No
___________________________
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J
2
AVRB,J
Crl.A.No.1704/2009
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
+ CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1704 OF 2009
% 18.12.2023
# Between:
1.Uppara Venkateswarlu,
S/o Mulinti Anjinappa, aged 25 years.
2. Uppara Venkatamma,
W/o Nagappa, aged 60 years.
(Both are R/o Magecheruvu Village,
Somandepalli Mandal, Andantapur District.)
... Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2.
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by the
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.
... Respondent/Complainant.
! Counsel for the Appellant : Sri P.Nagendra Reddy.
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Public Prosecutor
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
This Court made the following:
3
AVRB,J
Crl.A.No.1704/2009
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1704 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 24.11.2009 in S.C.No.271 of 2009 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for S.C./S.T Cases, Anantapur (for short, „the learned Special Judge‟), where under the learned Special Judge found the appellants A.1 and A.2 guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, „the SCs & STs Act‟), convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, „the Cr.P.C.‟) and after questioning about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two (2) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months and four (4) months respectively. The learned Special Judge in the said judgment exonerated A.3 of the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and further exonerated A.1 to A.3 for the charge under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, „the IPC‟).
4
AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge, for the sake of convenience.
3. (i) The S.C.No.271 of 2009 arose out of committal order in P.R.C.No.20 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Penukonda pertaining to Crime No. 55 of 2008 of S.H.O., Somandepalli Police Station. The State represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Penukonda filed the charge sheet alleging the offence under Section 352 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act in the aforesaid crime number.
(ii) The case of the prosecution in brief is that. A.1 to A.3 are the residents of Mage Chervu Village of Somandepalli Mandal. They belonged to Uppara Caste which is upper caste. The de-facto complainant i.e., LW.1-Harijana Ademma and LW.2-M.Narasimhulu her son, belonged to Schedule Caste. LW.6-M.Peddakka is the daughter-in-law of the LW.1.
4. (i) On 06.09.2008, LW.2-M.Narasimhulu went to his field for grazing his cow. On the same day, at 04.00 PM, the cow of him went into the fields of A.3 for grazing. By then LW.2 was at little distance without chappals. A.3 came there questioned him as to why he left the cow in to his ground nut field. He (LW.2) replied that he will bring the cow from the field. A.3 did not hear the 5 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 words of him, grew wild and caught hold of the clothes of him. There was wordly quarrel between A.3 and LW.2. A.3 torned the banian of LW.2. Clothes of A.3 were also torned when LW.2 caught hold the clothes of A.3. The persons who gathered there pacified the matter. LW.2 informed the incident to his mother i.e., LW.1. He went to Somandepalli Police station to report the matter to police. A.3 also intimated the incident to his family members.
(ii) On 06.09.2008 at 06.30 PM, when LW.1 was returning to her house from the field and when she reached near the house of LW.4-Harijana Nagappa, A.1 and A.2 at the instigation of A.3, scolded her and abused her as „Yea Madiga Lanja‟ by referring her caste and questioned her how her son is dare enough to give a report to Police against accused. A.1 and A.2 scolded her in filthy words in the street.
LW.3-Harijana Chaduvvu Kadirappa, LW.4-Harijana Nagappa and LW.-Harijana Eerappagari Kollappa witnessed the offence and questioned high handedness of A.1 and A.2 and A.3. The SC Colony people also questioned the behavior of A.1 and A.2. However, they continued to abuse the victim. Due to fear of A.1 and A.2, she went to her house. Later her husband and sons returned to her house. She informed the incident to them. Lw.8-G.Sreeramulu, LW.2 and brothers of LW.2 met Village elders 6 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 who promised them they will settle the issue by arranging panchayath but in vain. Though LW.1 and 2 and her family members waited for the answer of Village elders, It did not yield any result. Therefore on 14.09.2008 at 07.00 PM, she preferred a report before LW.9-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Samandepalli Police Station. He registered the F.I.R. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur authorized LW.10-Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Penukonda to investigate the case. During the investigation, he arrested A.1 to A.3 and sent them for remand. He collected caste certificates of victim from Thahasildar, of Somandepalli Mandal. The offence on LW.1 is a sequel to the earlier dispute between A.3 and LW.2. Hence, the charge sheet.
5. Learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Penukonda took cognizance of the offence/charge sheet and after complying the necessary formalities, committed the case to the learned Special Judge and accordingly, it was numbered as Sessions Case.
6. On appearance of the accused before the learned Special Judge, charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and further charge under Sections 352 of the IPC against A.1 to A.3 were framed and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7
AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009
7. In order to establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9.
8. After the closure of the evidence of the prosecution, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in for which they denied the incriminating circumstances and they did not adduce any defence evidence.
9. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the evidence on record, found A.1 to A.3 not guilty of the charge under Section 352 of the IPC and A.3 not found guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act, convicted them and sentenced them as above. Felt aggrieved of the said conviction and sentence, the un successful A.1 and A.2 filed the present appeal.
10. Now in deciding the present criminal appeal, the points that fall for consideration are as follows:
"1. Whether the prosecution before the learned Special Judge proved that on 06.09.2009 at 06.30 PM, near the house of LW.4-Harijana Nagappa, A.1 and A.2 intentionally insulted and humiliated PW.1-Harijana 8 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 Ademma within the public view by abusing her in indecent language referring her caste in the manner as alleged?
2. Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act against A.1 and A.2 beyond reasonable doubt?
3. Whether the judgment, dated 24.11.2009 in S.C.No.271 of 2009 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for S.C./S.T Cases, Anantapur as against the appellants is sustainable under law and facts and whether there are grounds to interfere of the same?"
11. Point Nos. 1 to 3:
(i) As seen from the Ex.P1 which is the report lodged by PW.1, it runs in brief to the fact that, one Narasimhulu is her son.
One Uppara Hanumanthu, S/o Mulinti Anjinappa and her son Narasimhulu quarreled at the field with regard to cow and they went to the police station. Taking advantage of it, on the instigation of Hanumanthu (A.3) his younger brother Venkateswarlu (A.1) and elder sister of Hanumanthu Venkatamma (A.2), when she was at Nagappa‟s house, abused her "Yea Madiga Lanja‟ how your son made complaint against them and they abused her badly in the street and Nagappa, Kadirappa and others 9 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 interfered and pacified the issue. This is the sum and substance of the allegations. According to Ex.P1, the offence took place on 06.09.2008 at 06.30 PM.
(ii) Now turning to the evidence of PW.1-the victim. She deposed that the incident took place about eleven (11) months ago at 06.30 PM, near the house of Nagappa on the road situated in SC colony. She was returning from the field by then. When she reached the house of Nagappa, A.1 and A.2 came and abused her as "Madiga Lanja" and questioned act of her son Narasimhulu in giving police complaint against them. This took place in the presence of Kadirapa and Nagappa. They chastised the accused and sent away A.1 and A.2. She returned to her house and she intimated the incident to her husband and sons who referred the matter to elders and elders called A.1 and A.2, chastised them but they did not make effort to settle the issue. Therefore, she gave report to Somandepalli Police. Ex.P1 is the report.
12. PW.2 is the son of PW.1 and he deposed that he and his father returned to the Village at about 08.30 PM and PW.1 narrated the incident and they approached the elders in the Village, Thimmappa and Allabakash who assured to do justice and mediation did not yield any result, as such, his mother presented Ex.P1. He further deposed that in the field at about 04.00 PM, on 10 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 that day, there was incident between him and A.3 and in that incident, A.3 caught hold of the banian and torned it.
13. According to the evidence of PW.3-Harijana C.Kadirappa, about a year ago, about06.30 PM, he was returning to his colony. He seen PW.1 and A.1 and A.2 quarrelling with each other. He did not try to separate. He left the place and went to his house.
14. According to PW.4, incident took place one year back at 06.00 PM. He was at his house at that time. He seen PW.1 and A.1 and A.2 quarrelling with each other. He went there. There A.2 abused PW.1 as „Madiga Lanja Ma meede piryadu chestava". On hearing words of A.2, he left the scene of offence. He do not know why A.2 abused PW.1.
15. PW.5 testified that he seen PW.1 and A.1 and A.2 quarrelling with each other at 06.30 PM. On observing the quarrel, he left the scene.
16. According to the evidence of PW.6, the daughter-in-law of PW.1, incident took place about one year ago at about 06.30 PM. She, PW.2 and father-in-law returned to house after attending agricultural works. A.1 and A.2 came to their house for creating galata. A.1 and A.2 abused PW.1 by saying "Madiga Lanja Ma Pyna Casu pedathara". She and PW.1 alone were present when galata took place.
11
AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009
17. PW.7 is the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Somandepalli, who testified that on 14.09.2008 at 07.00 PM, PW.1 and her son came to the Police Station. PW.1 presented Ex.P1. He registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2008 under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act read with 34 of the IPC. Ex.P2 is the original F.I.R. He apprised S.D.P.O., Penukonda about this fact.
18. PW.8 is the S.D.P.O., Penukonda, who was the investigating officer who spoke of the investigation. His evidence in substance is that he collected the caste certificates of A.1 to A.3 and PW.1 and examined the witnesses.
19. Mr.P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants would contend that when the date of alleged offence on 06.09.2008 at 06.30 PM, a report was lodged by PW.1 after eight (8) days to the occurrence. On the ninth day the report was lodged. According to Ex.P1 and the evidence of PW.1 and 2, the matter was referred to the elders. None of the elders were examined by the prosecution. According to the averments in the charge sheet, LW.8 is one of the person who met the village elder. But the prosecution given up G.Sreeramulu without any reason. Even according to the evidence of PW.1, the Village elders called A.1 and A.2 and chastised them. But the report came to be lodged at the ninth day. PW.1 is the interested witness. PW.2 is the son of 12 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 PW.1. PW.2 and A.3 were alleged to have used criminal force against each other at 04.00 PM in the fields. Even PW.2 indulged in torning of clothes of A.3. The prosecution alleged that at the instigation of A.3 at 06.30 PM, A.1 and A.2 abused PW.1 in the name of her caste. PW.2 admitted in the cross examination that he stated before the Investigating Officer that he and A.3 went to the Police station and waited in the Police station up to night and returned in the night with regard to the incident at 04.00 PM. So Ex.P1 was with falsity as if A.3 instigated A.1 and A.2. PW.3 and PW.5, the direct witnesses to the occurrence deposed that they seen PW.1 and A.1 and A.2 quarrelling with each other. Their evidence does not disclose that A.1 and A.2 abused PW.1 in the name of caste. PW.4 was an inmical witness who developed grouse against family of the accused and it is evident from his cross examination. PW.6 was no other than the family member of PW.1 i.e., daughter-in-law. According to her, the incident took place at her house in which she, PW.1 and PW.2 were living together. According to the case of the prosecution, the offence took place at the house of Harijana Nagappa. So, PW.6 shifted the scene of offence. No reliance can be placed upon her evidence. PW.8 the Investigating Officer categorically admitted that there were ill-feelings between the family of PW.1 and the accused. Even 13 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 it is evident from the answers spoken by PW.3 in cross examination. On account of the fact that A.3 and PW.2 were alleged to have indulged at the fields abusing with each other and using criminal force with each other and as they went to the police station to lodge reports and anticipation of action from police, the present incident was fabricated. Even otherwise, the defacto complainant kept quiet for about nine (9) days and as they were not able to settle scores with the accused, thought of to implicate the accused falsely. On account of the enmity between PW.1‟s family against the family of the accused and on account of the delay in lodging delay in Ex.P1, concoctions and deliberations cannot be ruled out. He would contend that, the learned Special Judge totally made erroneous appreciation of the evidence which is clear from the judgment and without there being any basis, the learned Special Judge made a finding that prosecution explained the delay in lodging Ex.P1 and termed PW.4 and PW.6 as independent witnesses and the learned Special Judge did not look into the answers spoken by the prosecution witnesses with regard to the existence of land dispute between PW.1 family and the accused, as such appeal is liable to be allowed.
20. Mr. Y.Jagadeeswara Rao, learned Special Assistant, representing learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the 14 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 respondent-State would contend that the evidence of PW.1 has support from the evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5 and 6. As the dispute was referred to elders, report could not be lodged immediately. The act of the accused would fall under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act. In a case of this nature, the delay is bound to be occured. The learned Special Judge on thorough appreciation of the evidence on record, recorded order of conviction, as such appeal is liable to be dismissed.
21. There is no dispute that PW.2 is no other than the son of PW.1. PW.6 is no other than the daughter-in-law of PW.1 being the wife of the elder brother of PW.2. There is a admission from PW.1 in cross examination that she, PW.2, PW.6 are living together in one house. So, PW.1, PW.2 and PW.6 were the family members, living under one roof. The prosecution examined PW.3 and PW.5. Admittedly, their evidence did not disclose that A.1 and A.2 abused PW.1 in the view of the public in the name of caste in an indecent language. On the other hand, their evidence is that PW.1 and A.1 and A.2 were quarrelling against each other. So, basing on the evidence of PW.3 and PW.5, it cannot be assumed that A.1 and A.2 abused PW.1 in the name of caste in an indecent language in the view of public.
15
AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009
22. PW.2 was not a witness to the occurrence, but he was a person who involved in the incident at 04.00 PM with A3 in the lands. Ex.P1 literally discloses that at the instigation of A.3, taking advantage of the incident at 04.00 PM, A.1 and A.2 indulged against PW.1 in making abusive and offensive language in a indecent manner in the name of the caste. As evident from the answers spoken by the PW.2 in cross examination, he admitted that he stated before the police that he and A.3 quarreled with each other and he torned the clothes of A.3. So, the quarrel that took place at the fields between A.3 and PW.2 was absolutely throwing some force against each other torning away the banians of each other.
23. There is no dispute that in so far as, as the said incident is concerned either PW.2 or A.3 did not lodge any report against each other. That was a separate incident. Apart from this there was also admission from PW.2 in cross examination that he stated before the police that, he and A.3 went to the police and waited in the police station up to night and returned in the night. This admission eliminates the presence of A.3 on 06.09.2008 at 06.30 PM at the time of so called incident. Though there was a whisper in Ex.P1 that at the instigation of A.3, A.1 and A.2 committed offence against PW.1, but in the chief examination, PW.1 did not 16 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 testify the presence of A.3 as instigated the offence. In view of the above, absolutely there appears to be falsity in the narration in Ex.P1, with regard to presence of A3 as instigated A.1 and A.2 to commit the offence against PW.1.
24. (i) Now it is a matter of appreciation to decide as to whether, still the evidence adduced by the prosecution is liable to be believed against A.1 and A.2. Though the prosecution cited PW.3 and PW.5 as independent witness to the occurrence and though they did not speak to the fact that A.1 and A.2 abused PW.1 in the name of caste, prosecution did not seek to cross examine them during course of trial. So, the so called independent witness did not depose against A.1 and A.2 with regard to the allegations under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act.
(ii) PW.4 and PW.6 testified that, A.1 and A.2 abused PW.1 as "Madiga Lanja Ma meede piryadu chestava". As seen from the evidence of PW.4 in cross examination, he deposed that one Mallikarjuna was sarpanch of their village during the period when he (PW.4) was school committee chairman. Mallikarjuna is own brother of A.1 and A.2. A2 is sister of Mallikarjuna. When he (PW.4) was school committee chairman, he did contract work of school building. On the complaint of villagers, J.E. of panchayat department directed him to stop work and handed over the further 17 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 construction of building to Mallikarjuna, brother of A.1 to A.3. His wife (PW.4‟s wife) Narayanamma contested for sarpanch post. One Bayamma contested opposite to Narayanamma. A.1 to A.3 supported Bayamma in the sarpanch elections. He denied that with regard to the dispute between PW.1 and the accused, along with S.I. of Police and others, he mediated the issue and he supported PW.1 and PW.2. As evident from the above answers, admittedly, there was a probability for PW.4 to develop some sort of grouse against A.1 to A.3. Looking in to the facts and circumstances, it is very difficult to brand him as a independent witness. Under the circumstances, his evidence is to be scrutinized with care and caution.
25. Coming to the evidence of PW.6, she was a family member of PW.1. She claimed that the incident took place at her house. But according to the case of the prosecution, the incident took place at the house of Harijana Nagappa. If the evidence of PW.6 is taken in to consideration, it is clear that, she shifted the scene of offence to her house from the house of PW.4-Harijana Nagappa. If the evidence of PW.6 is considered with the evidence of PW.1, PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5, it comes in conflict with their evidence. So, it is very clear that as she claimed that the offence took place at her house, absolutely she was not a witness to the alleged offence took 18 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 place at the house of Nagappa. Apart from this, admittedly, she was a interested witness.
26. Now it is a matter of appreciation to decide as to whether the evidence of PW.1, PW.4 and PW.6 is believable when the independent witnesses PW.3 and PW.5 did not depose that A.1 and A.2 committed the offence against PW.1.
27. There is no dispute, that Ex.P1 came to be lodged on the ninth (9) day. Admittedly, it is nothing but abnormal delay. According to the narration in Ex.P1, elders promised to do justice. So, according to PW.1 in Ex.P1, she did not think to lodge report on account of the assurance given by the elders. Even according to her evidence, elders called the accused and chastised them. If that be the case, there was no reason for PW.1 to lodge a report, especially when she did not lodge report immediately as the elders assured to do justice. Even, otherwise, none of the elders were examined by the prosecution in support of the contents Ex.P1 and in support of the evidence of PW.1. Charge sheet discloses that LW.8 namely G.Sreeramulu also taken initiative to refer the matter to the elders. But he was given up by the prosecution without any reason. Charge sheet averments did not disclose the names of elders who promised to settle the issue. Neither they were cited by the prosecution as a witness nor examined by the prosecution. So, 19 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 that elders promised to settle the issue is self serving, without there being any support. According to the defence of accused, PW.1 and PW.2 did not refer the matter to the elders at any time. So, in my considered view there is no convincing evidence to explain abnormal delay properly in lodging Ex.P1.
28. Now, this Court has to see as to whether un-explained abnormal delay properly in lodging Ex.P1 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. For obvious reasons, PW.1 and PW.2 did not admit to the defence of the accused that on account of the land disputes, they are deposing false. PW.3, the so called independent witness to the occurrence during cross examination deposed that, there are disputes between the accused and PW.1 regarding the bund between the lands of PW.1 and accused. PW.4 who had some reasons to develop grouse against accused, did not admit in cross examine about the land disputes between the PW.1 and accused. However, PW.8, the S.D.P.O who is the Investigating Officer during cross examination, deposed that to his knowledge, there were earlier ill-feelings between PW.1 and accused relating to bund. He deposed that he mentioned that existence of ill-feelings in charge sheet. With regard to the incident at 04.00 PM parties went to the 20 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 police station and S.I. of Police enquired the matter and sent away both the parties.
29. So, on account of the above, it is very clear that prior to the alleged occurrence, there were ill feelings between PW.1 and accused on account of the land dispute. So, on account of the land disputes and on account of the un-explained abnormal delay of eight (8) day in Ex.P1, there was every possibility of due deliberations and concoctions and embellishments. Apart from this, when so called independent witnesses i.e., PW.3 and PW.5 deposed that PW.1 and A.1 and A.2 were quarrelling against each other, it would not make out any offence against A.1 and A.2. Their evidence was not sought to be impeached by the prosecution. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances it is unsafe to believe the evidence of PW.1, PW.4 and PW.6, on account of the un-explained delay in lodging Ex.P1.
30. A perusal of the judgment of the learned Special Judge reveals that the accused raised serious contention about the delay in lodging Ex.P1, but the learned Special Judge negatived the contention of the accused. The learned Special Judge did not consider that the reasons set forth in Ex.P1 for delay in lodging the report are not at all substantiated by examining any elders who intervened in the issue. The learned Special Judge branded 21 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 the evidence of PW.4 and PW.6 as independent witnesses, which is not at all proper. The learned Special Judge did not look in to the admissions made by PW.4 in cross examination which reveals that he had reasons to grouse against accused family. Inspite of admissions from PW.3 and Investigating Officer, about existence of land dispute, the learned Special Judge made a finding that the accused failed to prove land dispute which is not at all tenable.
31. In a criminal case, the accused can succeed in the defence basing on preponderance of probabilities. Accused elicited during the course of cross examination of PW.3 and PW.8, about the existence of land disputes between PW.1 family and them. That is sufficient for the accused to probablise the defence. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the appreciation of evidence made by the learned Special Judge was not on sound lines. The evidence on the record, warrants the Court to extend the benefit of doubt against the appellants. Hence, I am of the considered view that prosecution failed to prove that A.1 and A.2 on 06.09.2008 at 06.30 PM, insulted and humiliated PW.1 in the name of the caste in view of the public, as such the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act must fail. The judgment dated 24.11.2009 in S.C.No.271 of 2009 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for S.C./S.T 22 AVRB,J Crl.A.No.1704/2009 Cases, Anantapur is not sustainable on facts and law against A.1 and A.2.
32. In the result, appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 24.11.2009 in S.C.No.271 of 2009 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for S.C./S.T Cases, Anantapur, against A.1 and A.2 as such they shall stand acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The fine amount if any paid by the accused shall be refunded to them after the appeal time is over.
33. The Registry is directed to forward copy of the judgment along with record to the trial Court on or before 26.12.2023.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 18.12.2023 Vnb