EDIGA RAMESH Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Saroornagar, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 33 of 1996, dated 27-2-1998, whereby the appellant/A1 was convicted of the offences punishable under Section 3(l)(x) of the S C. & S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') read with Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month A2 to A4 were also convicted of the offence under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that A-1 is the son, A-3 is the wife and A-4 is the sister of one Yellarah. A-2 is the mother of A-3. All the accused and the defacto-complainant, who was examined as P W. 1, are all residents of Peddemul village. Since P.W. 1 has got illegal intimacy with the father of A-1, the accused beat her with hands, legs and stones, on 3-4-1996 at about 8 a.m., when P.W.1 was proceeding to purchase some kirana articles in a shop in the village, and caused injuries on her right hand and they also abused her in filthy language as "OSSI MADIGA LANJA MAA ILLU APRINAVU NEE MADGI PUKULA MODDA NEE PUKU DEGUDUNU". Immediately after the incident, based on a report given by P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who was examined as P.W.5, registered a case m Crime No. 9 of 1996 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and also Section 324 read with Section 34, IPC. Thereafter, P.W.I was sent to Government Hospital, Tanduru, for treatment and there, one Dr. Kameswan, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who was examined as P.W.4, treated her and gave a Wound Certificate marked as Ex.P-4. Subsequently, the accused were arrested on 5-4-1996 and were remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by P.W.5.

(3.) The plea of the appellant/A1 is one of total denial. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 3(l)(x) of the Act read with Section 323, IPC against the appellant/A1 and accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A1 preferred this appeal