JUDGMENT
P.S. Narayana, J.
1. Heard Sri C. Praveen Kumar, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant aggrieved by the judgment dated 24-11-1997 in S.C. No. 8 of 1996 on the file of the Special Judge for Cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989-cum-First Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.
3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W1 is ‘Girijan’ by caste and she is working as Health Nurse in Sub-Health Centre in Viruvuru village since five months prior to 4-5-1993 and as she could not secure a convenient house in Viruvuru village, she was staying in Pamuru village and daily attending her duties at Viruvuru village. On 04-05-1993 at about 9.00 a.m., P.W.1 boarded a Van at Pamuru village to go to Viruvuru village. The accused, his wife and some others traveled in the same truck. All of them were sitting in the cabin. When the truck was stopped at Viruvuru village, the wife of the accused got down from the truck. While getting down from the truck, the accused put his leg on the thigh of P.W.1 and got down from the truck. P.W.1 found fault with him. The accused grew wild, abused her in filthy language, slapped on her left cheek. The accused with an intention to insult P.W.1 in public view and to outrage her modesty kicked on her chest and abused her as ‘Erukula Lanja Neeku Inta Pogara Nee anthu Chusthanu’ and threatened her with dire consequences. P.W.1 sustained simple injury. She was shocked and frightened to the incident. She returned to Pamuru village and then she reported the matter to the Police and hence, the investigation was taken up, in pursuance of Crime No. 15 of 1993, which was registered in Varikuntapadu Police Station. The accused was charged under Section 3 (1)(x), (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short ‘the Act’) and under Sections 354, 355, 323 and 506 IPC.
4. P.Ws. 1 to 9 and D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. P1 to P8 documents were marked.
5. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the accused was convicted for the charges punishable under Sections 323 and 355 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine amount to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 323 IPC and the accused is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period four months for the offence under Section 355 IPC. However, the accused was acquitted for the charges under Section 506 IPC, under Section 354 IPC and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the present criminal appeal is preferred.
6. P.W.1, no doubt, deposed the prosecution version. P.W.8 is Head Constable deposed that on 6-5-1993, at about 9.00 a.m. while he was in the Police Station, P.W.1 came to the Police Station and presented a report. P.W.8 registered the case as Crime No. 15 of 1993 as aforesaid and examined P.W.1, recorded her statement and then deputed the Police Constable to apprehend the accused. P.W.8 referred P.W.1 to the Government Hospital, Udayagiri through P.C.2020. P.W.8 examined P.W.1, P.W.3, and P.W.4 and recorded their statements. The remaining witnesses were examined by the Sub-Inspector of Police. Ex. P7 is the FIR sent to the Court and Ex. P8 is rough sketch, prepared by P.W.8. Though there is some evidence available on record, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined to show that P.W.1 was not attending on pregnant and she was not discharging her duties satisfactorily and the accused and others reported the matter to the superiors and that was the reason why this case was foisted.
7. No doubt submissions were made that the evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.3 and also the medical evidence and hence, the conviction and the sentence, which had been imposed, need not be disturbed.
8. It is, however, represented by the learned Counsel for the appellant-accused that there is no corroboration of medical evidence to the ocular evidence available on record. Not only that the evidence available on record is highly insufficient to sustain the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused but also the whole trial is vitiated for the reason that there is no committal of the case to the Special Judge in accordance with the provisions of Section 193 Cr.P.C.
9. It is no doubt true that in the present case the investigation was done by the Officers below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, but it is pertinent to note that the investigation in this case was done by the Investigating Agency, long prior to coming into force of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 (for short ‘the Rules’). In the absence of the said rule, it is needless to say that the ordinary investigating agency can proceed with the investigation in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the said ground may not be available in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. But, however, in view of the fact that there is no committal at all, the whole trial is vitiated and in view of the same, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused are hereby set aside.
10. The criminal appeal is accordingly, allowed. Bail bond shall stand cancelled.