RAMBALA SURYANARAYANA @ SURIBABU Vs. STATE OF A.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, West Godavari District at Eluru, tried the appellant as the sole accused in S.Cs. & S.Ts.Sessions Case No.31 of 2008. The accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (2)(v) of the SCs. & STs. (POA) Act (for short the Act).

(2.) THE case presented before the trial Court by the prosecution was as under: - PW.1, her daughter Rama Seetha, PW.2, PW.3 and about 50 others are working under one Varre Someswara Rao, PW.6, a contractor -cum -mason. On 28 -06 -2007, Rama Seetha, PWs.2 and 3 and the accused were said to have been engaged to work for construction of a building of PW.5, at Kovvur. PW.1 submitted a complaint at 6.30 p.m., on 28 -06 -2007 stating that when she was at her house, PW.2 and V.Annavaram came to her at about 03.30 p.m., and informed that Rama Seetha is found dead at the place of work and the accused, who was also working at the site, had absconded. PW.1 is said to have reached the site immediately and found her daughter - Rama Seetha dead, inside the building. A black mark around the neck of the deceased is said to have been noticed. She stated that the assailant may have tied something around the neck and murdered Rama Seetha. She made a request to the S.I. of Police, Kovvur, to take action against the person who is responsible for the offence. The Station House Officer registered Crime No.99/2007, proceeded to the site, conducted scene of offence panchanama, and caused inquest and post -mortem. As the investigation was in progress, it was noticed that the deceased belongs to Schedule Caste Community, and accordingly, the provisions of the Act were also invoked. The investigation was handed over to the Sub - Divisional Police Officer (PW.13). A Charge -sheet was filed by PW.13 alleging that PWs.2, 3, the deceased and accused were engaged for construction of building. On 28 -06 -2007, PWs.2 and 3 went for lunch, whereas the accused and deceased took their lunch in the premises itself, and when PWs.2 and 3 did not find the deceased and accused, even after lapse of half -an -hour, after the work has resumed, PW.3 went in search of them and found the deceased in the bath room of a bed room, under construction. He is said to have informed the same to PW.2 and both of them, in turn, have furnished the information initially to PW.4, a welder in the building and thereafter to the owner of the premises PW.5. The information about this is said to have been passed on to PW.6 by PW.5. The accused is said to have fled away from the place, on the bicycle of PW.3.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel the accused submits that there is no comparison between what is mentioned in Ex.P.1 and what is stated in the evidence of PW.1. She submits that the evidence of PW.1 is not only substantial improvement upon , but also contrary to, Ex.P.1. She submits that in Ex.P.1, PW.1 stated that she received the information about the death of her daughter at 03.30 p.m., through PW.2 and one Annavaram; whereas in her deposition, PW.1 stated that she received the information about the death of her daughter when she was in a village by name Ballipadu, 25 KMs., away from the occurrence. Learned Counsel further submits that though the prosecution relied entirely upon the alleged recovery of M.O.14 (cycle) at the instance of the accused, the said item was not identified by its owner i.e., PW.3. She submits that the suspicion, if at all, ought to have been against the other person i.e., Annavaram, who was found to be absconding, even according to PW.6, but the accused, a poor labourer eking out livelihood by travelling all the way from his village, was implicated. She contends that the scribe of Ex.P.1, a pastor, was not examined and the role of that person remained unexplained.