1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI :: ELURU.
Present: Sri S. KAMALAKARA REDDY,
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-
VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge.
Thursday, on this the 20thday of October 2022.
SC. ST. SESSIONS CASE No.47/2019.
Name of the Accused1. Pasupuleti Rambabu s/o Venkateswararao, and particulars:37years,Kapu,PonguturuVilageof Koyyalagudem Mandal.
2. Maddukuri Satyanarayana s/o Bala Rama Murthy,40years,Kama,Kannaigudem Village of Koyyalagudem Mandal.
3. Choppavarapu Satish @ Satyanarayana s/o Ramakrishna,30years,Kapu, Jagannadhapuram Village of Gopalapuram Mandal.
Charge/s: U/s. 323, 354-B and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va)of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the judge:Found not guilty.
Sentence or Order: In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 323, 354-B and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above charges.The bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall remain in force for a period of six months and thereafter they shall stand cancelled as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property, if any shall be disposed off in accordance with Law.
Counselforthe: Additional Public Prosecutor, W.G. District, Eluru. prosecution Counsel for defence: Sri A.Vijaya Kumar and of Sri J.V.Ramana Rao, Counsel for Accused.
This case is coming on this the 20thday October, 2022 of for hearing
before me and, after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on
record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- 2
J U D G M E N T
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Jangareddigudem, filed the charge sheet against A.1 to A.3 for the offences punishable U/s. 323, 354-B and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)and3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015 in Crime No.161/2019 of Koyyalagudem P.S.
2.The prosecution case is as follows:- a.The defacto complainant Thota Savitri possessed Ac.1.50 cents of land in R.S.No.5 of Yadavole Village of Devarapalli Mandal. The
GovernmentacquiredAc.0.48 centsofland forthepurposeoflift irrigationcanal.TheremainingextentofAc.1.02centswasbeing cultivated by the complainant and her family members.
b.While so, about four months prior to 01.06.2019 during night hours the Accused 1 to 3 dig up earth from the land of the complainant with JC.Bs., transportedabout 500 tractorswithout the knowledge and prior permission of the complainant Savitri. Thereby, the Accused caused damage to her agricultural fields. The issue was placed before the elders by the complainant and her family members.The elders (L.Ws.7 to 10) summonedto the Accused, but the Accused did not give reply and paid deaf ear.
c.On 01.06.2019at about 12.00 Noon,the complainant and herdaughtervisitedthehouseofPasupuletiRambabu/A.1and questioned him as to why earth form her field was taken away. All the
Accused caught hold of her tuft of hair, pushed her down, pulled her Sari and blouse,assaulted her and abused her in filthy language, referring to her caste name and thereby insulted her. Her daughter rescued her.
d.On 13.06.2019 at about 5.15 P.M., on receipt of report given by the complainant,the S.I. of Police registered the case in Crime
No.161/2019for the offences U/s. 323, 354-B and 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
e.TheS.P.issuedproceedingsappointingtheSDPO,
Jangareddigudem to investigate into the offence and file report. The SDPO during the course of investigation, examined L.Ws1 to 3, recorded their 3 statements.Shevisitedthesceneofoffence,drawnroughsketch, examined L.Ws.1 to 10 and recorded their statements. She served Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice on all the Accused. They agreed to cooperate with the investigation and appear before the Court.
f.OntransferoftheSDPO/L.W.14,theS.P.issuedfresh proceedings appointing another SDPO/L.W.15, to further investigate into the offence and file the report. The SDPO obtained the caste certificates of the Accusedso also the complainant. After conclusion of investigation, the SDPO laid the charge sheet against the Accused 1 to 3 for the above said offences.
3.This Court took the cognizance of the offence punishable U/s.
323, 354-B and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of
SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
4.On receipt of summons,the Accused appeared before the
Court. Case documents as required U/s.207 Cr.P.C. furnished. They are examined under Section 228(2) of Cr.P.C., and charges punishable under
Sections 323, 354-B and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)and 3(2)(va)of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined
P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 documents.
6.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the Accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for the incriminating circumstances appearingintheevidenceofprosecutionwitnessesreadoverand explained to the Accused. They stated that it was a false case that they did not commit any offence. They reported no defence evidence.
7.I heard arguments on both sides.
8.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the material witnesses have supported the prosecution caseand that basing on their evidence, conviction may be awarded against the Accused 1 to 3.
4 9.On the other hand, the Counsel for the Accused would submit that the available evidence on record no way proved the chargeslevelled against the Accused that the evidence produced by the prosecution is not conclusive.He specifically argued that the provisions of SC & ST (POA)
Act do not attract to the present set of facts that there was no public view and thereby the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the Accused 1 to 3 and they were entitled for acquittal.
10.Now, the Point for determination before me is:-
Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 354-B and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, beyond all reasonable doubt or not?
P O I N T :- 11.The prosecution has to establish that all the Accused at the relevant point of date and time beat the complainant Savitri with hands, legs, caught hold of her tuft of hair, pushed her down that they disrobed her by tearing her Sari and blouse that they criminally intimidated and threatenedthe complainant that they would see her end.It has to further establish that the Accused intentionallyinsulted and intimidated the complainant who belongs to Schedule Caste with an intention to humiliate her within public view that they abused hertouching her caste name,therebyhumiliatedherinpublicviewthatalltheAccused committed scheduled offences shown in the SC & ST Act for which, punishment is more than what was prescribed under IPC provisions.
12.As stated above, the prosecution is relying upon the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.12 to substantiate its case.
13.The defacto complainant Savitri isP.W.1, her daughter
Ramalakshmi is P.W.2, and her son Bapuji is P.W.3.
P.W.4 to P.W.8 said to be the eyewitnesses and elders of the village who allegedly witnessed the incident and allegedly called for the Accused to settle the dispute. All these witnesses remained hostile and their 161
Cr.P.C. Statements are marked as Exs.P.2 to P.6.
5
P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the Tahsildars, P.W.11 is the S.I., whereas,
P.W.12 is the SDPO who conducted the material part of investigation in this case. The evidence of Tahsildar, S.I., and S.D.P.O., is purely technical in nature. Unless the eyewitnessessupported the prosecution version, the evidence of the officials cannot be held to be substantially proved.
14.Now,weseetheevidenceofthecomplainant/P.W.1.
According to her, three years prior to the case, without her permission and knowledge the Accused had removed the earth from her land by using
JCBs.Few days thereafter,her daughter and she went to the house of
Rambabu/A.1, questioned him as to why they removed the earth.The otherAccusedwerealsopresentthere.Rambabu/A.1abusedher touching her caste name, caught hold her tuft, pushedher down and beat her. She did not state any overt-acts against other two Accused. Her specific stand is that Rambabu/A.1 alone abused her touching her caste name.
15.P.W.1 further narratedthat she went to Koyyalagudem P.S., presented a reportbut the Police did not register any case. After some days, her son sent report and she affixed her thumb impressionin the said report Ex.P.1.
16.In the cross, P.W.1 stated that immediately after the earth was removed from her land,she informed the same tothe revenue officials so also Police officials.She was not admitted in the hospital and not taken any treatment for the alleged beatings caused by A.1.She did not mentionthe details of JCBsand its registration numbers.She denied that her son and she requested the Accused to level her fields as they were at different heights, not yielding good crops that the Accused by using their JCBS levelled their land and later they asked her to pay the
JCB charges that she and her son with the help of one Maddukuri Prasad got this case registered.She denied thatthe Accused did notbeat her that only to avoid payment of JCB charges, for levelling her fields, she got registered this case against the Accused.
17.P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1.According to her,three or four monthsafter removal of earth from her mother’s field, she and her 6 mother went to the house of A.1. The other two Accused were also present.
When her mother was at the house of A.1, she was standing at the gate.
Her mother asked A.1 as to why earth was removed, for that Rambabu abused her touching her caste name. All the Accused caught hold of her tuft and pushed her down.In that incident, the Sari of her mother was torn. In the meantime, sheentered into the house andbrought her mother back. She informed her brother as to what had happened.
18.When it comes to cross-examination,P.W.2 admitted that her mother’s landwas unevenand while the Accused wereremoving the earth by using the JCBs, transporting the earth with vehicles they had asked the Accused as to why they were removing earth, but the Accused did not respond and they went to Koyyalagudem Police Station and reported the matter.P.W.2denied that they did not immediately go to
P.S., and presented the report. She denied that only on their requestthe
Accused leveledher mother’s landwhich was uneven that when they asked for money for JCB charges a false case is foisted against them. She denied that they did not go to the house of Rambabu/A.1that she was deposing falsely.
19.P.W.3 is T.Bapuji son of the complainant. According to him, the Accusedhad taken away 500 to 600 Tractors load of earth and encashed amount. They did not take any permission for removal of earth.
The matter was placed before the elders. But, the elders did not respond and the Accused did not come. They went to P.S., and presented a report, but the Policedid not register any case.Later, on 01.06.2019her mother and her sister went to the house of A.1 questioned him about the removal of earth. The Accusedabused his mothertouching her caste name,challenged her to do whatever she wish to doand she was pushed down. Her mother’s Sari was torn. Her sister brought her mother back and informed him about the incident. 10 or 12 days later, he sent a report to the Police though Registered Post.
20.When it comes to cross-examination, P.W.3 stated that he did not know that the Accusedhad transported the earthfrom the land of her mother for a period of one month.He did not give any report to the revenue authorities. He denied that the Accused had levelled her mother’s land on her request and when asked for charges for the JCBs., this false 7 case is foisted against the Accused. He denied thatP.W.1 and P.W.2 did not go to thehouse of A.1 that the Accused never abused and never threatened her and never removed her Sari.
21.As stated above,P.W.4 to PW.8 are the neighbours to the house of A.1 and elders of the village. They remained hostile.
P.W.9is the Tahsildar who issued thecaste certificate ofP.W.1
Savitri vide Ex.P.7 , The case certificates of A.1 to A.3 are Ex.P.8 to P.10 22.P.W.11 is the S.I.According to him,on receipt of report through registered post,a case in Crime No.161/2019 vide Ex.P.11 FIR registeredand thereafter, investigation was taken up by the SDPO.He specifically stated that P.W.3 did not come to P.S., and did not give any written report and until he received Ex.P.1 report, no one came to P.S.
23.P.W.12 is the SDPO. He stated that on receipt of proceedings form the SP vide Ex.P.12,he visitedthe Koyyalagudem P.S., examined
P.Ws.1 to 3, and recorded their statements and thereafter, he visited the sceneof offence i.e., the house of A.1 examined it, drafted rough sketch vide Ex.P.13.He secured the presence ofL.W.4 to L.W.10, examined them and recorded their statements. He obtained the caste certificates of the complainant as well as the Accused.
24.P.W.12 served the Section 41-A Cr.P.C notice on the Accused and the Accused agreed to cooperate with the investigation. Subsequently, onhistransfer,anotherSDPO/L.W.15wasappointedunderthe proceedings of S.P. vide Ex.P.14 and she obtained the caste certificates and filed the charge sheet.
25.When it comes to cross-examination, P.W.12stated that
PW.1 did not giveany report either to the S.I.,or to him immediately after the earth was removed through the tractors.The date on which earth was removed was not mentioned. He further stated that P.W.2 did not state before him that three months after removal ofearth, they had gone to the house of the Accused that she was standing at the gate that her mother entered into the house of A.1. P.W.3 did not state before him thattheAccusedhadencashedtheamountsbysellingtheearth transported through tractors. P.W.12 denied thatthe complainant filed a 8 false case against the Accusedonly to avoid payment of charges for the
JCBs which were used forlevelling her land.
26.As stated above, the material witnesses in this case are P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the I.O.P.W.3 son of the complainant P.W.1 though sent a report to the Policed through post,he was not an eyewitness to the incident.It is the stand of P.W.1 and P.W.2 thatthree or four months prior to the incident,all the Accused by using JCBs removed the earth in 500 or 600 tractors. So, the removal of earth according to P.W.1 and
P.W.2 had taken place three or four months prior to the incident.
27.It is the stand of P.W.3 that by removing the earth,the
Accused had encashed the amounts. The removal of earth in 500 to 600
Tractors from the fields of complainant is not a small task. As per the evidence of PW.1 and P.W.2 the Accused had used JCBs and tractor and transportation had taken place for a continuous period of one month.
During all these days, none of the P.W.1 to P.W.3 raised any objection for removal of earth. Though P.W.1 stated that she raised objection, the same was notmentioned either in her report or in her 161 Cr.P.C. Statement.
They did not inform thatthe Accused had illegally and highhandedly taken away the earth from the fields of P.W.1 either to the Police or to the local officials.
28.P.W.1 to P.W.3 stated that the matter was placed before the elders of the village. Though the elders sent for the Accused, they did not care for the same.But, none of theelders supported the stand of the
P.W.1to P.W.3.They categorically and clearly stated that they did not know anything about the case.
29.So, the stand of P.W.1 to P.W.3 that all the Accusedhad taken away the earth by using the JCBsin 500to 600 Tractorsload without their knowledgeis far from truth.If at all such incident had taken place without their knowledge, they would have agitated their rights
before the Police or before the revenue officials. But, they kept quiteall
alongand now they cannot take a standthat without their knowledge the earth was removed.
9 30.It is the stand of the Accused that the land of the complainant
Savitri is in two parts. One is at some height and another one is at lower gradient that at the request of the complainant,they levelled her entire land to an extent of Ac.1.02 cents by using JCBsthat they asked P.W.1 for chargesof JCBs.,that the complainant instead of paying charges slapped this case on their face.Though it is the main allegation of the
Accused, there is no substantial material placed to believe this version.
But, at the same time, it is quite clear that by using JCBs some activity had taken place at the fields of the complainant Savitri.
31.Now, we see the main incident that had allegedly taken place on 01.06.2019. According to P.W.1, she her and daughter went to the house of A.1. It is the stand of the P.W.1 that Rambabu A.1 alone was present at the house. She did not speak anythingabout the presence of other Accused and their specific overt acts.What she stated was that
Rambabu/A.1 abusedher touching her caste name, caught hold of her tuft, pushed her down and beat her. When it comes to the evidence of
P.W.2, what she stated was thatall the Accused abusedher mother, caught hold of her tuft pushed her down, torn her Sari and blouse etc.
32.So, there is any amount ofcontradictions in the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 . As deposed by PW.1 she was standing at the gate of the house of A.1, whereas,hermother entered into the house. According to her mother P.W.1 Rambabu/A.1 alone abused and beat herbut when it comes to P.W.2,all the Accusedbeat her mother, abused her touching her caste name, pushed her down and torn herSari and blouse. The alleged torn sari and blouse were not seized.
33.P.W.1 was not referred to any government hospitaland she did not take any treatment for the alleged injuries. In fact, the report was sent to the Policeafter two weeks of the said alleged incident.P.W.1 to
P.W.3 did not go to P.S., and presented a report. Only after report was sent to the Police through Registered Post.,this case was registered against the Accused.The evidence of S.I., and SDPO shows that none of
P.W.1 to P.W.3 came to P.S.,or approached them prior to registration of this case in connection with the removal of earth or in connection with the incident that had allegedly taken placeon 01.06.2019. So, there is any amount of contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on this point.
10 34.Next we see whether there was any public view or not. As per
Section3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)and3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015the alleged humiliation should have taken placewithin the public view. The incidentnarratedby P.W.1 and P.W.2 had taken place within the four walls of the house of A.1 Rambabu. Pw-1 alone allegedly entered the house while Pw-2 was standing at the gate of the house. If any public had viewed the alleged incident, it can be said that the humiliationhad taken place within the public view. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of P.W.4 to P.w.8 who said to be the neighbours and elders who can speak about the public viewand the allegedpanchayat that had taken place. But these witnesses have clearly turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version.
35.In the facts and circumstances of the case, I rely upon the following decisions:
(i) In a decision held between Desu Srinivasulu Vs. State of A.P.,1
His Lordship held at para-11 as follows:
“11.Coming to the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, who were allegedly present at the scene of occurrence, Exs.D1 and D2- contradictions clearly disclose that they were not present at the scene of occurrence. A perusal oftheimpugnedjudgmentrevealsthatthelearnedSpecialJudge categorically observed that by examining P.Ws.2, 3 and 4, usage of abusive words by the appellant herein/accused could not be proved by the prosecution. The learned Special Judge also found that there is no document to show about pendency of the loan application of P.W.1 with the Bank. But, the learned Special Judge believed the version of P.Ws.2 to 4 and held in favour of the presence of P.W.1 on the alleged date of the incident. It is significant to note that having observed categorically about the statement of P.W.7 that he was in-charge of the police from15.5.2007 to 17.5.2007, the learned Special Judge grossly erred in arriving at the conclusion that the explanation offered by P.W.1 about the delay in lodging the report is sufficient. Obviously, the learned Special Judge, by relyingonthesoletestimonyofP.W.1,withouttherebeingany corroboration to the same, convicted the appellant herein/accused. In 12020 SCC Online AP 1260.
11 view of the various inconsistencies in the version of P.W.1 in Exs.P1and the chief and cross-examinations and having regardtoExs.D1 and D2- contradictions, in the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of
P.W.1 is not trustworthy and it is not safe to convict the appellant herein/accused on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 in the absence of any corroboration. The prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients constituting the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and the appellant herein/accuse disentitled to benefit of doubt, and the findingrecordedcontrabythelearnedSpecialJudgeisneither sustainable not tenable the eye of law.”
(ii) In another decision held between Pasupuleti Jaya Ramulu,
Chinna Ammapalem [V], Prakasam, Vs. State, Hyderabad2,His
Lordship held at para-15 as follows:
“15. It is clear from a perusal of the impugned judgment thatthelearnedSpecialJudgedisbelievedthecaseof prosecution to the extent of alleged offence punishable under
Section 323 IPC and categorically held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. But, the learned
Special Judge, on the ground that there is corroboration in the
evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and 10, held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt with regard to closure of the canal and ultimately found the appellant herein/accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989.
The learned Special Judge also found that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2. Having categorically foundthattheprosecutionutterlyfailedtoestablishthe occurrence of offence punishable under Section323 IPC and acquitted the appellant herein/accused accordingly for the said offence,thelearnedSpecialJudgewentwronginplacing relianceontheevidenceadducedbytheprosecutionin convictingtheappellantherein/accusedfortheoffence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989. As observed 22020 SCC Online AP 470 12 in the preceding paragraphs, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the evidence of P.W.2 is not trustworthy and it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3 and10to convict the appellantherein/accusedoftheoffencepunishableunder
Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989. Since the prosecution failed to provethenecessaryingredientsconstitutingtheoffence punishableunderSection 3(1)(x)oftheAct,1989 beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the appellant herein/accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, and the finding recorded contra by the learned Special Judge is neither sustainable not tenable the eye of law.” 2 2020 SCC
Online AP 4708. 12 29. As per the above decisions, it is
abundantly clear that when there were contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and when the
evidence placed by the prosecution, does not inspire any
confidence, the accused are entitled for acquittal. In the instantcasealso,theprosecutionfailedtoplacequality evidence and the evidence produced by it does not inspire any confidence.
(iii) In a decision held between Hitesh Verma Vs., State of
Uttarakhand and another3, their Lordships at Paras 11 to 13 held as follows:-
PARA 12: “The basic ingredients of the offence under
Section3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view”.
PARA 13: “The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act wouldindicatetheingredientofintentionalinsultand intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a
ScheduledCasteoraScheduledTribe.Allinsultsor intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object 3(2020) 10 SCC, 710.
13 of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when member of the vulnerable section of theSocietyissubjectedtoindignities,humiliationsand harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law.
Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. 3 (2020) 10 SCC, 710, 13 Such action is notforthereasonthatrespondentNo.2ismemberof
Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regardedas“placeinpublicview”hadcomeupfor consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as
Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel &
Ors.5.TheCourthaddrawndistinctionbetweenthe expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen 5 (2008) 8 SCC 435 by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under: “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house 14 is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.”
15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the
informant were within the four walls of her building. It is
not the case of the informant that there was any member
of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time
of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic
ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place
within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the fourwalls of the building.
Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran
Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
36. Going by the above decisions, it is pretty clear that when there was no public view and when the evidence of prosecution witnesses does not inspire any confidence in the mind of the Court, the Accused is entitled for acquittal 15 37.Next we see the delay aspect in giving report to the police.
As per the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3,all the Accused had taken away the earthfrom the fields of Savitri/P.W.1 by using the JCBs., and tractors. This continued for a period of one month. But, none of P.W.1 to
P.W.3gave any report the Police or to the revenue officials. There is absolutelyno materialplaced before the Courtthat the Accused had taken away the earth by using the JCBs and Tractors.But, the suggestion of the Accused would go to show that the Accused had leveled the land of the complainant/Savitriby using JCBsand in that connection, the said Savitri indebted some amounts to the Accused.
38.Next we come to the incident that allegedly taken place on 01.06.2019.If really, the incident had taken placeon 01.06.2019that the complainant Savitri was treated inhumanly by the Accused, no prudent man would kept quiet for two weeks. They would go to the Police
Station and present a report. But, none of P.W.1 to P.W.3made any efforts to give report immediatelyafter the incident that allegedly taken place on 01.06.2019. According to P.W.2three or four months from the date ofremoval of earth, herself and her mother went to the house of
Rambabu/A.1 and asked him as to why he removed the earth.The S.I.
and D.S.P. categorically stated that none of P.W.1 to P.W.3 approached them at any point of time prior to sending of Ex.P.1 report through
Registered Post.According to P.W.3 after lapse of almost two weeks the report was sent to Koyyalagudem P.S. through registered post.
39.The said delay in my view certainly go to the root of the case and create any amount of doubtover the prosecution version. There is every possibility of additions and deletionsin the report. P.W.1 deposed about the presence of A.1 Rambabu, whereas, P.W.2 added that the other two Accused were also present along with A.1. So, this kind of additions would certainlycreate any amount of doubt.Furthermore,the alleged victim Savitri was not examined by the doctorand her alleged torn Sari and blouse were not seized.
40.The Public viewhas not been establishedand the alleged eyewitnessesdid not support the prosecution version. The evidence of
Tahsildar, S.I., and SDPOs is purely technical in nature and unless the 16 material witnesses support the case, the evidence of all these technical witnesses cannot be taken into consideration.
41.The prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients that are required to prove the charges against the Accused. For the above said reasons, I am of the view that the prosecution fell short of proving the guilt of the Accused and consequently, I hold that the Accused 1 to 3 are entitle for acquittal.
Accordingly, the point is answered.
In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 323, 354-B and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above charges. The bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall remain in force for a period of six months and thereafter they shall stand cancelled as contemplated under Section 437-A
Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property, if any shall be disposed off in accordance with Law.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me
in the Open Court, this the 20 th day of October, 2022.
Sd/- S.Kamakalarareddy,
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:
P.W.1T.Savitri.
P.W.2K.Rama Laxmi. P.W.3T.Bapuji.
P.W.4N.Ramakrishna.
P.W.5C.Nageswararao.
P.W.6M.Krishna.
P.W.7N.Ravindranath.
P.W.8K.Ramakrishna.
17
P.W.9N.Nagaraju.
P.W.10G.Ratnamani.
P.W.11M.Jaya Babu.
P.W.12Ch.Murali Krishna.
FOR DEFENCE : - NONE -.
DOCUMETNS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.126.09.2022Report of P.W.1 given to Police.
Ex.P.227.09.2022161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.4.
Ex.P.327.09.2022161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.5.
Ex.P.428.09.2022161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.6.
Ex.P.528.09.2022161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.7.
Ex.P.628.09.2022161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.8.
Ex.P.729.09.2022Caste certificate of P.W.1.
Ex.P.829.09.2022Caste certificate of A.1.
Ex.P.929.09.2022Caste certificate of A.2.
Ex.P.1029.09.2022Caste certificate of A.3.
Ex.P.1130.09.2022FIR.
Ex.P.1230.09.2022Proceedings.
Ex.P.1330.09.2022Rough sketch.
Ex.P.1430.09.2022Proceedings.
FOR DEFENCE :-- N I L -
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-N I L -
Sd/- S.Kamakalarareddy,
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
Copies to:
1. The Registrar (Judicial) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, (through C.D)
2. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.
4. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.
5. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.
6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, West Godavari, Eluru.
18
TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN SC ST S.C.No.47/2019
ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs
(POA) ACT, 1989-CUM- VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
WEST GODAVARI, ELURU UNDER RULE 354 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF
PRACTICE.
1. Sessions Case No.:SC ST S.C.No. 47/2019.
2. Name of the Police: Koyyalagudem Police Station, Station and Crime No.Cr.No.161/2019.
3. Description of the:1. Pasupuleti Rambabu s/o Venkateswararao, Accused:37years,Kapu,PonguturuVilageof Koyyalagudem Mandal.
2. Maddukuri Satyanarayana s/o Bala Rama Murthy,40years,Kama,Kannaigudem Village of Koyyalagudem Mandal.
3. Choppavarapu Satish @ Satyanarayana s/o Ramakrishna,30years,Kapu, Jagannadhapuram Village of Gopalapuram Mandal.
4.Date of Offence: 01.06.2019. Complaint: 13.06.2019. Apprehension: -- Release on bail: -- Commitment: -- Commencement of: 27.09.2022. trial Close of Trial: 30.09.2022. Sentence or Order: 20.10.2022.
In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 323, 354-B and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the above charges.The bail bonds of A.1 to A.3 shall remain in force for a period of six months and thereafter they shall stand cancelled as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property, if any shall be disposed off in accordance with Law.
5. Explanation for the: No avoidable delay. delay
Sd/- S.Kamakalarareddy,
SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASESSPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIIICASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONSCUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU,SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,
Dt.20.10.2022.ELURU.