SANKURATHRI VENKATESWARA RAO Vs. STATE OF A. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 10.02.2009, passed in Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Sessions Case No.5 of 2005 by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, West Godavari, Eluru (for short, 'the learned Special Judge') convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989') and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month.

(2.) Prosecution case against the appellant is to the effect that the appellant had taken a tank on lease from one Thotaramudi Rama Rao for rearing catfish. He had thrown beef and other animal parts into the tank as food for catfish, which resulted in bad odour in the locality. Villagers complained to Grampanchayat and District Officials; thereupon, Grampanchayat officials including the complainant i.e., Thavikidi Satyanarayana (PW.1), removed the catfish from the pond. As a result the appellant bore grudge against the complainant and threatened the latter with dire consequences. On 25.10.2002, while the complainant along with one Sayyed Mohammad Alisha (PW.2) were returning to Mulaparru village from Penugonda in a scooter, they were accosted by the appellant at Nakkala canal and the appellant physically assaulted the complainant (PW.1) by pulling his shirt and abused him by taking his caste name in presence of others. PWs.3 and 4 witnessed the incident. Immediately thereafter PW.1 went to Penugonda Police Station but the Police refused to lodge a case. Subsequently, the complainant lodged a complaint with SDPO, Narsapur, and on the basis of his endorsement, Crime No.102 of 2002 under Sections 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 was registered for investigation. Pursuant to investigation, a final report, Ex.D-4, as false was filed. Rebutting the final report, a private complaint was filed before the Magistrate, who took cognizance of the offences, examined witnesses and issued process against the appellant. Charges were framed under Sections 3(1)(iii) and 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC against the appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

(3.) Prosecution examined four (4) witnesses and exhibited number of documents. Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication. Appellant examined DW.1, the then SDPO Narsapur and exhibited four documents i.e., Exs.D-1 to D-4 to prove his defence.