The importance of prompt lodging of FIR in criminal cases and the need for evidence to establish the presence of the public at the time of the offense to satisfy the criteria of 'public view' under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. The judgment, dated 06.11.2009, in SCs & STs Sessions Case No. 04 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, West Godavari, Eluru (for short “the learned Special Judge”) is under challenge in the Criminal Appeal filed by the unsuccessful accused.

2. The appellant as accused faced trial in the aforesaid Sessions Case for the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the SCs and STs Act”). The learned Special Judge on conclusion of trial found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act and convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one (1) month.

3. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.

4. The SCs & STs Sessions Case No. 04 of 2008 arose out of the committal order in PRC No. 22 of 2007 on the file of the Court of I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Eluru. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Eluru Sub-Division, Eluru in Crime No. 158 of 2006 of Pedavegi Police Station is as follows:

LW.1 – Yerra Chinna Dharma Rao S/o Nagayya is a resident of Dibbagudem, Lakshmipuram Village, Pedavegi Mandal and belonged to Madiga community, which is a Scheduled Caste. Accused is resident of Lakshmipuram Village and he belonged to Yadava community which is not a scheduled caste and it is a Backward Caste. Both the accused and LW.1 are the agriculturists. On 14.10.2006 at about 08:30 a.m. while LW.1 was attending agriculture works in his fields in RS No. 624/5, he found the accused – Vemuri Nagaraju, picking thorny bushes from the fields of one Maganti Lakshmi Narasayya and laying the same on the pathway and thereby closing the pathway. Then, LW.1 went to the accused and questioned him as to why he is picking the thorny bushes from other fields and closing the pathway. Then, the accused abused the complainant in a filthy language by touching his caste (The words are omitted by this Court. The words alleged to have been used by the accused is a sexual abusive word referring to the caste of de-facto complainant). At that time, LW.2 – Vemuri Kondayya and LW.3 – Vemuri Venkanna came to the spot and asked as to why he abused LW.1 in such a filthy language. The accused even abused them also. Then LW.1 informed the acts of accused to LW.6 – Kakarla Satya Sri Hari Lakshmana Rao and LW.7 – Maganti Lakshmi Narasimha Rao. They all together informed the incident to the village elders i.e., LW.4 – Chellagolla Venkata Suresh and LW.5 – Bulusu Satyanarayana. When the village elders asked the accused as to why he abused the complainant in such a filthy language touching his caste name, the accused gave arrogant replies and went away. On the advice of village elders, LW.1 presented a report on 17.10.2006 at 09:30 p.m. with delay. Basing on the strength of the report given by LW.1, LW.12 – P.R. Anjaneyulu, HC-865 of Pedavegi Police Station registered the same as a case in Crime No. 158 of 2006 for the aforesaid offence on 17.10.2006 at 09:30 p.m. in the temporary absence of SI of Police and sent FIRs to all concerned. LW.13 – Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Eluru took up personal investigation into the case on 17.10.2006, visited the scene of offence, examined it, prepared the observation report and photographed it. He also prepared the rough sketch of the scene of offence, examined as many as eight (8) witnesses and recorded their statements. LW.2 and LW.3 are the direct witnesses to the occurrence who gave statements against