STATE Vs. RAMAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.09.2010 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions (Atrocity) Judge, Raichur in Spl.A.C.(SC)No.20/2008, wherein the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent/accused Nos.1 to 10 of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 324, 326, 504 and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(x) & (xi) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case are that accused No.1 was the Chairman of Gram Panchayat, Accused Nos.2 to 10 are his followers. Accused No.1 wanted to have supremacy in the village. Except accused No.10, other accused are not the members of SC/ST. PW.1-Sotta Timmappa was an elderly and respectable person of the village. The villagers had chosen PW.1 as the elder person to collect contribution in order to perform the annual feast of a deity in the village. The same was not liked by accused No.1 and he developed enmity against PW.1. In this background, on 08.06.2008 at about 02:00 p.m., the accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with a common object to commit rioting and to take the life of PW.1-Sotta Timmappa and with such a common object, armed with sticks, proceeded to the spot where PW.1 was standing and on approaching him, accused No.1 questioned him for taking the leadership and abused him touching his caste within public view so as to humiliate him. The remaining accused also used abusive words and charged towards PW.1. When PW.1 started running, they chased him and held him near Gangannana Bavi(well) and having restrained him from proceeding further, accused No.3 assaulted him with stick on his left knee, accused No.1 assaulted with stick on the right side of his back.

(3.) Before the trial Court, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all examined 21 witnesses as PWs.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-33 and MOs.1 to 10. In addition to that, two documents are marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2. The defence got marked Ex.D1. The accused denied the incriminating evidence appeared against them and took a defence that false case was foisted against them due to political rivalry. The learned Sessions Judge considering the evidence and material on record acquitted the accused of the charged offences.