PAPATLA JOHN VEERANNA Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the de-facto complainant in Crime No.62 of 1998 and the same was tried as S.C.No.36 of 2000. On the basis of complaint submitted by the petitioner and the subsequent investigation, charges were framed under Sections 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 506 of IPC., against the accused.

(2.) On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P3 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence before it, the trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused and accordingly, through its judgment dated 21.6.2002 acquitted the sole accused-the 2nd respondent herein of the charges framed against him. The petitioner challenges the judgment of the trial Court.

(3.) Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the view taken by the trial Court as regards the social status of the petitioner or the delay in submission of the complaint or the improvements in the deposition before the Court by the petitioner cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. According to him, the investigating authorities were satisfied that the petitioner belongs to the community of Scheduled Caste and it was not necessary for the prosecuting agency to furnish any further evidence to establish that the petitioner belongs to S.C. community. As regards the delay in submission of the complaint, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Village Servant, whereas the 2nd respondent was functioning as Village Administrative Officer and in view of the social disparities as well as the fear complex in the petitioner, he could not submit the complaint immediately. So far as the improvements are concerned, he submits that the so-called improvements are nothing but elaboration of what is contained in the original complaint. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the trial Court had appreciated the matter in its proper perspective and the judgment does not call for any interference.