D RAMALINGA REDDY ALIAS D BABU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as well as the Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 341 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The facts which lead to the prosecution of the appellant are that, one Smt. Mekala Rajamma who belongs to Yanadi caste reported that on 9-11-1993 at about 10.00 a.m. she collected cow dung in a basket and went towards the outskirts of the village to dump it on the manure heep, the heep was to the south of her house in her land. After dumping, she went to attend the calls of nature in the land of Nallapa Reddy Bhaskar Reddy. While returning the accused met her, after chit chatting for a while he caught hold of her hand, she admonished him, the accused gagged her mouth and said, "Hey Yanadi prostitute come, I want to fulfill my ardent desire". After saying these words he dragged her towards him. She also stated that, the accused dragged her to the land of Bhaskar Reddy in which crop had been raised. She struggled and in that process her blouse was torn. She also stated that, at that time one Venakataramana came to that side and on seeing him the accused ran away. While running away from the scene of offence the accused in fact asked her to forget about the incident. She further stated that when the accused dragged her, she should for help and one Ramana and Jayanna also came to the spot, she narrated the story to them. Then she went to her house, narrated the story to her husband. They went to the elders of the village, elders did not take any action and subsequently she filed a report after 24 hours.

(3.) More or less this story has been supported by the witnesses who were examined during the trial. PW2 who according to the victim (PW1) was the first to arrive at the scene became hostile. PW1 was categorize in her statement that on seeing PW2 the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Other PWs reached the spot after the occurrence. If one takes the statement of PW1, then it appears that all the witnesses reached the scene of occurrence after the accused had left the scene of occurrence.