Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Varupula Venkata Ramana Ramana vs The State Of A.P. on 27 March, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.87 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'the Cr.P.C'), is filed by the appellant, who was the accused in SCs & STs Sessions Case No.61 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, 'the learned Special Judge'), questioning the judgment therein, dated 19.01.2009, where under the learned Special Judge found the appellant herein guilty of the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SCs & STs Act') and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'the IPC'), convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs STs Act and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple 2 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 324 IPC.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. SC ST Sessions Case No.61 of 2008 before the learned Special Sessions Judge, arose out of committal order in PRC No.10 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu (for short, 'the learned Magistrate'), relating to Crime No.175 of 2006 of Yeleswaram Police Station.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the contents of the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram, Sub-Division in Crime No.175 of 2006 of Yeleswaram Police Station, is that the accused is resident of Lingamparthi Village in Yeleswaram Mandal. He belonged to Kapu caste. Accused is a farmer. LW.1 - Sadey Krishna is the injured. LW.2 - Sadey Venkatesulu is father of the injured. LW.3 - Yadagiri Veera Babu, co-farmer servant of LW.1, and LW.4 - Chellala Seshayamma are the witnesses to the occurrence. LW.5 - Sivakoti Donga Babu and LW.6 - Yeddu Srinu are the neighbourers to 3 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 LW.1. LW.7 - K. Veera Babu is the landlord under whom LW.1 used to work as farmer servant for annual consideration of Rs.12,000/- since three years.
5. On 24.10.2006, at 04:00 p.m. LW.1 went to the sugarcane crop of his landlord. He found the accused and his minor son - Naga Raju @ Nagu cutting green cross in the land of his landlord. LW.1 asked them not to cut the green gross in the land without the permission of his owner. Then, the accused abused LW.1 as 'Mala Lanja Kodaka' and uttered that they need not take any permission of his landlord. He asked them to quit the land of his owner. Then the accused grew wild, picked up a stick from the land and beat on the right side head of LW.1 with stick and caused bleeding injury. Son of the accused beat all over the person of LW.1 with a stick indiscriminately and caused contusions. LWs.3 and 4, on seeing the occurrence, rushed to the land of LW.7 and then the accused and his son went away from the land along with the green gross cut by them. The injured was taken to the house of LW.7 and later to his house. After that he was taken to the Police Station. Injured was sent to Community Health Centre, Yeleswaram for treatment. Basing on the statement of LW.1, LW.12 - Station House Officer registered the FIR under the 4 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 provisions of Section 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act on 24.10.2006 at 05:30 p.m. During investigation, LW.13 - SDPO, examined the witnesses, inspected the scene of offence, got drafted observation report and prepared rough sketch. He arrested the accused and his minor son on 27.10.2006 and send the accused to remand. As the son of the accused was a juvenile, he was forwarded to the Court of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate (Juveniles Court), Rajahmundry. LW.10 - Medical Officer examined the injured and opined that the injuries are simple in nature. LW.11 - MRO, Yeleswaram, certified that LW-1 belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala) and the accused belonged to Kapu caste. Hence, the charge sheet.
6. The jurisdictional Magistrate took the case on file under the above provisions of law. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, the learned Magistrate exercised the powers under Section 209 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the Court of learned Special Judge as such it was numbered as SC ST Sessions Case No.61 of 2008.
7. On appearance of the accused before the learned Special Judge, charges under Section 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the 5 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 SCs STs Act were framed and explained to the accused in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution before the learned Special Judge, PWs.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 and further MOs.1 and 2 were marked. During the course of cross-examination of PW.1, Ex.D-1 was marked.
9. The learned Special Judge, on hearing both sides and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced him as above.
10. Aggrieved by the same, the unsuccessful accused in the SC ST Sessions Case No.61 of 2008, filed the present Criminal Appeal.
11. Now, in deciding this Criminal Appeal, the points that arise for consideration are as follows:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved before the Court below that on 24.10.2006 at 04:00 p.m. the accused intentionally insulted and humiliated LW.1 in the name of his caste, within the public view? 6
AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009
2. Whether the prosecution proved before the Court below that accused caused injuries to LW.1 - injured with a stick?
3. Whether the prosecution before the Court below has proved the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt?
12. POINT Nos.1 to 3: According to the case of prosecution, PW.1 is injured. PW.2 is father of the injured and PW.4, the neighbour to the house of PW.1, came to know about the occurrence and visited PW.1 in the village. Prosecution cited LW.3
- Yadagiri Veera Babu and PW.2 as direct witness to the occurrence. PW.6 is the person under whom PW.1 was said to have worked as farm servant. PW.5 is the Medical Officer, who examined the injured and issued wound certificate. PW.7 was witness to the observation of the scene of offence. PW.8 was the SHO of Yeleswaram PS, who recorded statement of PW.1. PW.9 was the Investigating Officer. Prosecution exhibited Ex.P-7 to prove that accused belonged to Kapu caste and victim belonged to scheduled caste (Mala).
13. Turning to the evidence of PW.1, his evidence with regard to the material aspects is that he was working as farm servant under 7 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 LW.7 as on the date of offence. Accused belonged to Kapu Caste. He (PW.1) belonged to Scheduled Caste (Mala). About two years ago at 04:00 p.m. accused and his minor son were found cutting the green gross in the land of his landlord - LW.7. He warned them for cutting gross without the permission of LW.7. Then, LWs.3 and 4 came there and in their presence accused abused him as stated above as to why he questioned their act. Accused beat him with stick on his head and he sustained bleeding injury. His son also beat him with stick. LW.3 tied a towel to the bleeding injury and took him to the house of LW.7 and he informed the incident to LW.7. His father, LW.5 and LW.6 came to the house of LW.7, on coming to know the incident. They took him to Yeleswaram Police Station. SHO recorded his statement. He affixed his thumb impression, which is Ex.P-1. Later, he was referred to Government Hospital, Kakinada. On the next day, he was examined by the Police. He handed over the bloodstained towel to DSP. MO.1 is the towel. MO.2 is the two sticks which were used in the offence.
14. Coming to the evidence of PW.3, direct witness to the occurrence, her evidence is that two years ago at 04:00 p.m. while she and one Yadagari (LW.3) were grazing the cattle near the bund 8 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 of land of LW.7, there was an altercation between the accused and son of PW.2. As accused and his son were cutting the gross in the land of LW.7, PW.1 objected the accused not to cut the gross. She went there. Accused beat PW.1 on the head with a stick by abusing him in the name of his caste. Son of the accused also beat the accused with stick on his back. PW.1 sustained bleeding injury. She tied towel to the bleeding injury of PW.1. She sent PW.1 to the house of LW.7 and accompanied him. They sent a word to PW.2. PW.2 along with LW.5 came to the house of LW.7. PW.1 was taken to Yeleswaram Police Station. She can identify the towel and sticks and she identified MOs.1 and 2.
15. PW.2, father of PW.1, testified that about two years ago at 04:00 p.m. while he was in his house, came to know that accused beat his son in the land of LW.7 and that PW.1 along with LWs.3 and 4 were at the house of LW.7. Then, he and LW.5 together went to the house of LW.7 and on enquiry, PW.1 narrated the incident and that accused abused his son in the name of his caste. He found head injury on his son. They picked him to Yeleswaram Police Station. SHO recorded the statement of PW.1 and sent him to Yeleswaram Government Hospital.
9
AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009
16. PW.4 testified that about two years ago while he was in the village at 05:00 p.m. came to know about the incident and along with PW.2 and LW.6 he went to the house of LW.7 and found bleeding injury on the head of PW.1. On enquiry PW.1 narrated that the accused beat him with stick on head and abused in the name of his caste. He, PW.2 and LW.6 took PW.1 to Yeleswaram Police station.
17. PW.6, the landlord under whom PW.1 used to work deposed that he knows PW.1, who belonged to scheduled caste (Mala). He knows accused, who belonged to Kapu caste. PW.1 worked under him as farm servant for two years i.e., from 2005 to 2007. On 24.10.2006 at about 06:00 p.m. while he was in the house, PWs.1 to 3 and LW.3 came to him. PW.1 sustained head injury. On enquiry, he told him that accused beat him when he objected to cut the grass and that accused beat him with a stick. He asked them to go to the police station. Police examined him.
18. PW.5, the Medical Officer, deposed that he examined PW.1 on 24.10.2006 at 05:30 p.m. and found a laceration of 6 x ½ cm over right side of middle of scalp and hematoma of 6 c.m. radius over right side of head (scalp). X-ray did not reveal any bone 10 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 injury. Injuries are simple in nature and Ex.P-2 is the wound certificate.
19. PW.7 is person who was present at the time of scene of offence observation report, Ex.P-3.
20. PW.8 is the SHO, Yeleswaram Police Station, who recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered it as FIR.
21. PW.9 is the Investigating Officer.
22. Sri K. Rajasekhar, learned counsel, representing learned counsel for the appellant, would contend that the prosecution before the Court below failed to prove the essential ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act to the effect that the accused humiliated and insulted PW.1 in the view of public. The prosecution failed to prove both the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The place of offence was said to be the agricultural land of PW.6 and it cannot be taken as within the public view. The name of PW.3 was not mentioned in Ex.P-1 but she was cited as a direct witness to the occurrence. The learned Special Judge did not consider the evidence in proper perspective. At any rate, the conviction and sentence imposed against the 11 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 accused is not sustainable as such Appeal is liable to be allowed. The sentence imposed against the appellant is also severe.
23. Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao, learned counsel, representing learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent-State, would contend that PW.3 supported the evidence of PW.1. In fact, PW.3 and LW.3 brought the injured to the house of LW.7 and as whereabouts of LW.3 were not known, prosecution could not examine him. The owner of the land, under whom PW.1 worked, supported the case of the prosecution in all aspects. The learned Special Judge having considered the evidence on record rightly convicted and sentenced the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment of learned Special Judge. He would further contend that the evidence of PW.1 has corroboration from the medical evidence also. There was no reason for false implication of the accused as such Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
24. Firstly, I would like to deal with the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act. The prosecution alleged that the place of offence was the agricultural land of PW.6. According to the case of prosecution, when PW.1 found accused and his minor son cutting grass in the land of his landlord, questioned their act in 12 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 cutting the gross without the permission of the landlord and then accused grew wild and attacked PW.1 and beat him with a stick on his head and caused bleeding injury and also abused him in the name of his caste. So, according to the case of the prosecution, the place of offence was the agricultural land of PW.6. The gist of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act is the intentional insult or humiliation to the victim within the public view. So, whether the place of offence i.e., the agricultural land of PW.6 can be taken as a place within the public view is a matter for consideration basing on the evidence available on record.
25. Now, coming to the evidence of PW.1 in cross-examination, he deposed that around the scene of offence sugarcane crop was raised in the land. There is main road leading to Lingamarthi to Konda Thimmapuram by the side of the land of his landlord. On the east of the land of his landlord there is land of one Kappala Pandu. On west, there is land of Konda Pedda Kapau. On the other side of the road, there are lands of Pentakota Peddabbai and Yenumarthi Rambabu. In general, by 04:00 p.m. farmers will be working in the neighbouring lands. LWs.3 and 4 came to the scene while he and accused were altercating.
13
AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009
26. In view of the above answers in cross-examination, it is not a case where the place of offence was encircled with any compound. Though the place of offence is the private land of PW.6 but, on either side of the place of offence there were agricultural lands and further there was also a road adjacent to the agricultural land of PW.6. So, the agricultural land of PW.6 was open to public view. Apart from this, in the agricultural lands, farmers used to work up to 04:00 p.m. in view of the answer elicited by the accused during the course of cross-examination of PW.1. Apart from this, PW.3 testified that she was a witness to the occurrence. All this goes to show that the agricultural land of PW.6 is open land and it is within the public view. So, it can be safely held that the place of offence is within the public view, as contemplated under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act.
27. It is contended before the Court below that PW.3 was a planted witness. The contention of the accused before the Court below is that according to Ex.P-1, the name of one Yadagiri Veera Babu, S/o. Atcha Rao was mentioned as a person who brought the injured to the village and the prosecution did not examine him and planted PW.3.
14
AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009
28. The prosecution did not examine the so called Y. Veera Babu on the ground that his whereabouts were not known. In fact, the prosecution duly cited Y. Veera Babu as a witness. Now, according to the evidence of PW.1 on seeing the incident, LW.3 - Y. Veera Babu and LW.4 - Chellala Seshayamma (examined as PW.3) rushed to there. Simply because there was no mention in Ex.P-1 about the presence of PW.3, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. FIR cannot be taken as an encyclopedia to contain each and every detail of the witnesses who witnessed the occurrence. In fact, accused got marked Ex.D-1 confining his contention to the name of PW.3. In fact as per his 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 both PW.3 and LW.3 - Y.Veera Babu took him to the village. According to the evidence of PW.9, PW.1 stated before him as in Ex.D-1. Ex.D-1 cannot be taken as a material contradiction. Hence, basing on the fact that the name of PW.3 was not mentioned in Ex.P-1, the case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved.
29. To appreciate the contentions of the prosecution and the defence it is pertinent to look into the cross-examination part of PW.1. According to the defence of the accused, during the course of cross-examination, due to altercation between him (evidence 15 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 was recorded as myself) and PW.1, he fell down and sustained injuries on his head and accused did not beat him. His evidence is that due to some altercation, PW.1 fell down and received injuries. When PW.3 testified that when PW.1 intervened to the act of the accused in cutting the green gross from the land of his landlord, without his permission, accused attacked PW.1 and caused injury and abused him in the name of his caste, nothing was suggested to PW.3 in cross-examination that on account of some altercation, PW.1 fell down and received injuries. Absolutely, PW.3 had no enmity whatsoever with the accused. There are no doubtful circumstances elicited in the cross-examination of PW.3. The presence of accused at the scene of offence is not in dispute. PW.6, owner of the land, testified that PW.1 used to work as farm servant under him. He further testified that after the incident LW.3 - Y. Veera Babu and PW.3 brought the injured to his residence. He further testified that on coming to know about the incident, PW.2 - father of the injured along with others came to his residence. It is also spoken by PW.2. Under the circumstances, the ocular evidence of PW.1 has corroboration from Ex.P-1. Apart from this, the evidence of PW.3 corroborates the evidence of PW.1. There are no reasons probabilized for false implication. Accused agitated before PW.1 that since long there are disputes between the 16 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 Scheduled Caste people and Kapu caste people in their village. PW.1 denied the same. The above said defence of the accused was not probabilized in any way. Under the circumstances, the evidence adduced by the prosecution before the Court below is convincing.
30. There is corroboration to the evidence of PW.1 from medical evidence. The evidence of PW.5 coupled with Ex.P-2 supports the oral testimony of PW.1 with regard to the manner in which he received injuries. There is no dispute that accused belonged to Kapu caste and PW.1 belonged to Scheduled Caste. Prosecution exhibited their caste certificate, which is not in dispute.
31. PW.8, SHO, Yeleswaram Police Station, testified that at 05:30 p.m. PW.1 with injuries came to the Police Station along with his father. He recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered it as FIR. PW.9, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, has spoken about the investigation part. According to him, after receipt of copy of FIR, he intimated the facts of the case to Superintendent of Police, Kakinada and obtained proceedings under Ex.P-5, appointing him as an Investigating Officer. On 25.10.2006, at 09:00 p.m, he visited the house of PW.1, recorded his statement. He took over MO.1 - blood stained towel from PW.1. He examined 17 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 PW.2 and recorded his statement. He has spoken about the observation of the scene of offence in the presence of the mediators under Ex.P-3 and seizure of MO.2. He has further spoken about examination of LWS.3 and 6, PWs.3 and 4 and PW.6. He prepared Ex.P-6 rough sketch. He has spoken about the arrest of the accused on 27.10.2006. He obtained Ex.P-7, caste certificate of PW.1. There remained nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve his testimony.
32. In the light of the above, I am of the considered view that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is convincing. The evidence before the Court below categorically proves the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Special Judge, in my considered view, rightly found the accused guilty of the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and Section 324 IPC.
33. Turning to the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the sentence imposed against the appellant was severe, I would like to make it clear that the Court below imposed minimum sentence of six months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act. The injuries received by PW.1 are simple in nature and the offence took place on a spur of moment 18 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 on account of the act of PW.1 in questioning the accused as to why they indulged in cutting the green grass in the land of his landlord without obtaining his permission. The Court below imposed the punishment of one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC.
34. Having regard to the above, I am of the considered view that the ends of Justice will meet if the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of one year imposed against the accused under Section 324 IPC is reduced to six months. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is liable to be allowed in part so as to reduce the imprisonment under Section 324 IPC to that of six months instead of one year while maintaining the fine imposed.
35. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part modifying the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of one year imposed against the appellant under Section 324 IPC to that of six months and the rest of the judgment of the trial Court in SC ST Sessions Case No.61 of 2008, dated 19.01.2009, stands confirmed in all other aspects.
,
36. The Registry is directed to take steps immediately under Section 388 Cr.P.C. to certify the judgment of this Court to the 19 AVRB,J Crl.A. No.87/2009 Court below and on such certification, the trial Court shall take necessary steps to carry out the sentence imposed against the appellant/accused in SC ST Sessions Case No.61 of 2008, dated 19.01.2009, and to report compliance to this Court. Registry is directed to dispatch a copy of this judgment along with the lower Court record, if any, to the Court below on or before 03.04.2023. A copy of this judgment be placed before the Registrar (Judicial), forthwith, for giving necessary instructions to the concerned Officers in the Registry.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE A.V.RAVINDRA BABU Date: 27.03.2023 DSH