JAGAIAM Vs. K SATYAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the complainant against the acquittal of the accused in C.C. No. 168/1978 on the flie of the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Srikakulam.

(2.) The complainant is the owner of a sweetmeat shop. He belongs to Fisherman community. He is a resident of Lakshminarasupet village. A rumour was set afloat in the village by one Ammanna that the complainant was practising black-magic. The predominant community in the village is 'Golla' community. The Village Officers belong to that community. A1, a mid-wife, also belongs to that community. She remarked that unless the complainant had practised black-magic he would not have been unnecessarily accused. The complainant ceased inviting her for attending to the deliveries in his house. Consequently, it is stated that she bore grudge against him While so, on 21-8-1978 A1 went to Amadalavalasa and while returning in a bus, she started behaving curiously and saying that she was under the spell of black-magic practised by the complainant. It was witnessed by one Haragopalam and others and they informed the complainant about it. It appears that A1 went home and started behaving in the same manner at her house as if she was still under the spell of black magic. The Village Munsiff sent word to the complainant to see him immediately at his house, as there was a complaint to bim by Al. A1 also went there and accused the complainant that he had practised black-magic upon her. The complainant denied it. He came to know that A2 had also confirmed that the complainant was practising black-magic. On the next day morning A2 to A5, A7 and A8 came along with A6 to the house of the complainant. A6 was carrying a pot of fire with turmeric vermillion, cooked rice, leaves of drumstic plant and gingelly oil cake mixed with water. A2 started giving instructions to A3 to A8. A3 to A5, A7 and A8 were armed with sticks. They forcibly entered into the front portion of tha house of the complainant and A6 placed the mud pot in the porch, abusing the complainant in vulgar language. The complainant and his family members resisted. But A3 to A-5, A-7 and A-8 threatened to beat them with sticks if they interfered. Out of fear the complainant and his family members could not do anything. The accused started canvassing in the village not to have any contact with the family of the complainant. Consequently his family was boycotted and he had also sustained loss of his business and reputation. Hence he filed the complaint.

(3.) The complaint was taken on file under Sections 448, 504 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused. The plea of the accused was one of denial. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused on two grounds: (i) There was a compromise between the complainant and the accused as was evidenced by the compromise deed. Ex.P-4, dt. 21-9-1978, in the presence of the Police Commandant and (ii) The evidence adduced by the complainant was not trustworthy.