The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and timely evidence in cases of alleged intimidation and humiliation, as well as the importance of examining all relevant witnesses to establish the veracity of the prosecution's case.

ORDER :

1. The Judgment, dated 30.10.2009 in Sessions Case No.14 of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Prakasam Division, Ongole (“Special Judge” for short), is under challenge in the present Appeal.

2. The Accused faced trial before the learned Special Judge under Sections 447 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) and further Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989 and on conclusion of trial, the learned Special Judge, found the accused not guilty of the charges under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C., but, found the accused guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989 and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful accused, filed the present Appeal.

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

4. The Sessions Case No.14 of 2008 arose out of a committal order in P.R.C.No.7 of 2008, on the file Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kandukur. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole Sub-Division, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.72 of 2007 of Jarugumalli Police Station, alleging the offences under Sections 447 and 427 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act, 1989.

5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set-out in the charge sheet is as follows:

(i) The accused is native of Pydipadu village and resident of K. Biragunta village fields in a shed. The offence took place in tobacco nurseries of K. Biragunta village of Jarugumalli Mandal. L.W.1-Jogi Samuel is the defacto-complainant. L.W.2- Lingareddy Sesha Reddy is his partner cultivating tobacco nurseries. L.W.3-Gaddala Koteswari, L.W.4-Nallagatla Supraja, L.W.5-Ithadi Roja, L.W.6-Ithadi Koteswari, L.W.7-Gaddala Salomi, L.W.8-Inkollu Rajyam, L.W.9-Ethmukkala Mariyamma, L.W.10-Bellamkonda Nagendram, L.W.11-Kunchala Thirupathamma, L.W.12-Mogili Lakshmi and L.W.13-Inkollu Ravi are the coolies working in the tobacco nurseries of L.W.1 and L.W.2. The accused abused L.W.1 touching his caste name. Even he abused L.W.2 also. L.W.1 was cultivating tobacco nursery along with L.W.2. Previously, he worked under the accused, who is resident of Pydipadu village, cultivating tobacco nursery. The accused involved in SCs. & STs. Atrocities Act case vide Crime No.61 of 2005 of Jarugumalli Police Station and left the village 1 ½ years back and staying at the outskirts of K. Bitragunta Village in a shed purchased from one Kunda Krishna Reddy. Due to ill-feelings, L.W.1 stopped working under the accused since last season. L.W.1 developed friendship with L.W.2 and raised tobacco nurseries in the land of L.W.2 besides taking lands from L.W.17-Bommireddy Krishna Reddy and L.W.19-Kunda Anji Reddy. In fact, previously the accused took the lands of the above said persons. L.W.1 invested Rs.2,00,000/- with regard to the nursery cultivated along with L.W.2. L.W.21-Kalluri Srinu and L.W.22-Chinthapalli Narayana visited the tobacco plantation of the accused with a view to purchase tobacco sapling. But, after seeing the tobacco saplings of L.W.1 and L.W.2, they found that they are qualitative than the accused and bargained with L.W.1 and L.W.2 and left the place saying that they would come later. So, this developed eyesore to the accused.

(ii) The accused with a malafide intention, in the intervening night of 04/05-11-2007 along with some others trespassed into the tobacco nursery of L.W.1 and L.W.2 and sprinkled urea and caused loss to a tune of Rs.1,20,000/-. After completion of this, while the accused was coming through the tobacco plantation of L.W.1 and L.W.2, they woke up on hearing dog barking sound and found the accused. When they questioned the presence of the accused during night at their to