APHC010289342009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1005 OF 2009 Between: 1. THE STATE OF A.P,, REP BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF A.P, HYDERABAD ...APPELLANT AND 1. HARIJANA SANNAK JAYARAM, S/O BALAIAH, PEDDAHARIJANAGERI, ADONI 2. PAGATURU NAVEEN S/O NARASIMHA, D.NO.2/614, SREENIVASA NAGAR, POSTAL COLONY , ADONI 3. KAMMA BALAJI, S/O KAMMA VENKATESWARLU D.NO.2/671, TEACHER COLONY, ADONI ...RESPONDENT(S): Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C praying that the High Court may be pleased to present this memorandum of Criminal Appeal against the order ot the acquital of the accused/respondent in SC.ST.SC No.106 of 2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Special Judge for Trail under SC & ST(PoA) Act, Kurnool, dated:03.08.2007 and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused/(Respondents) for the offence with which they were charged. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. A CHANDRAIH NAIDU 2 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 03.08.2007 passed in SC ST SC No.106 of 2006 by the learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the respondents herein/A1 to A3 were found not guilty of the charges levelled against them and were acquitted of the said charges. 2. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. i) The de facto complainant (PW.1) was working as a Salesman in Royal Wine Shop, Adoni town on the date of occurrence. He belongs to Scheduled Caste community. On 05.01.2005, at about 10.30 PM, while PW.1 was about to leave the wine shop, the accused approached him, demanded to open the wine shop and sell the liquor to them. But, PW.1 refused to open the shop and left for home by walk. PWs.2 and 3 joined PW.1 enroute. At about 11.30 PM, the accused came out from Siddartha Bar, saw PW.1 going on the road by walk, abused PW.1 and threatened him with dire consequences, as he refused to sell liquor to them. PWs.2 and 3 intervened and rescued PW.1 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 from their hands. Then, all of them proceeded to MM Colony via Nirmal Talkies. At about 12.00 midnight, PW.1, along with PWs.2 and 3, reached the Pan Shop of PW.4. In the meanwhile, the accused also reached there and attacked PW.1. The accused abused PW.1 by touching his caste. A1 and A3 caught hold of PW.1 and kicked him with legs. A2 beat him with a hard brick on his head. Then, PW.1 fell down on the road and became unconscious. Later, PWs.2 and 3 took PW.1 to his house and laid him on a cot. On the next day morning, as PW.1 did not wake up, PWs.5 and 6, the wife and brother of PW.1, took him to Cherkuri Nursing Home, where PW.1 was given first aid by PW.7 and sent to the Government Area Hospital, Adoni. PW.8 – the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Adoni, who treated PW.1, issued wound certificate Ex.P3 opining that the injury sustained by PW.1 is grievous in nature and as PW.1 was unconscious, he referred him to the Government General Hospital, Kurnool. ii) On receipt of medical intimation, PW.11 - the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Adoni II Town Police Station visited the Government Area Hospital and recorded the statement of PW.2 under Ex.P7, as PW.1 was in unconscious stage, and registered the same as a 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 case in Crime No.1 of 2005 of Adoni II Town Police Station and issued FIR Ex.P8. He visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P9 and recorded the statements of PWs.4 to 7. He also recorded the statement of PW.1 on 31.01.2005. PW.12 – the SDPO, Adoni took up further investigation and examined the witnesses PWs.5, 8 and 10. After completion of investigation, PW.12 filed charge sheet against the accused. iii) Having not satisfied with the charge sheet filed by the police, the defacto complainant filed a private complaint. On 21.05.2005, PW.13 – the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Adoni II Town Police Station, received the private complaint filed by PW.1 with the endorsement of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni and registered the same as a case in Crime No.60 of 2005 under the SC and ST (PoA) Act and issued copies of FIR Ex.P11 to all concerned. PW.14 the SDPO, Adoni, took up investigation and examined the witnesses PWs.1 to 4, 6 and 7 and recorded their statements. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offences 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 punishable under Sections 323, 326 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and registered the case in PRC No.7 of 2006. As the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is exclusively triable by the Special Court, the learned Magistrate, after complying with the due procedure prescribed under law, committed the said PRC No.7 of 2006 to the Court of Session. The said case was numbered as SC ST SC No.106 of 2006 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the Special Judge for trial of cases under the SC and ST (PoA) Act, Kurnool, for disposal according to law. 4. On appearance of the accused, charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against A3; under Section 326 IPC against A2 and under Sections 323, 326 read with 34 IPC against A1 and A3 were framed, contents of the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 14 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 were got marked. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. 7. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined except marking Ex.D1. 8. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the accused not guilty of the charges levelled against them, and accordingly, acquitted them of the said charges, vide impugned judgment dated 03.08.2007 on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the learned Special Judge, the State preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 9. Heard. Perused the record. 10. This is an appeal against an Order of acquittal. There is a presumption available under law that an accused is presumed to be innocent unless contrary is proved. That presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. In dealing with the appeals against acquittal, though this Court has full power to re-appreciate the evidence, at the same time, it would be slow in interfering with the order of acquittal because presumption available under law is further 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 strengthened by the order of acquittal. Unless there are substantial or compelling reasons, this Court will not ordinarily disturb the findings of the trial Court. If the trial Court has given any perverse finding, then it can be a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. Similarly, if admissible evidence has not been taken into consideration or inadmissible evidence has been looked into for the purpose of arriving at a particular finding, then also it can be said to be a compelling reason to interfere with the same. 11. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision in Harbans Singh & another v. the State of Punjab1, wherein it was held as follows: (para 8) “The question as regards the correct principles to be applied by a Court hearing an appeal against acquittal of a person has engaged the attention of this Court from the very beginning. In many cases, especially the earlier ones, the Court has in laying down such principles emphasized the necessity of interference with an order of acquittal being based only on „compelling and substantial reasons‟ and has expressed the view that unless such reasons are present in an Appeal, Court should not interfere with an order of acquittal (Vide Suraj Pal Singh v. The State, 1952 SCR 193: (AIR 1952 SC 52); Ajmer Singh v. State of Punjab, 1953 SCR 418: (AIR 1953 SC 459). The use of the words, „compelling reasons‟ embarrassed some of the High Courts in exercising their jurisdiction in appeals against acquittals and difficulties occasionally 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 8 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 arose as to what this Court had, meant by the words „compelling reasons‟. In later years the Court has often avoided emphasis on „compelling reasons‟ but nonetheless adhered to the view expressed earlier that before interfering in appeal with an order of acquittal a Court must examine not only questions of law and fact in all their aspects but must also closely and carefully examine the reasons which impelled the lower courts to acquit the accused and should interfere only if satisfied, after such examination that the conclusion reached by the lower court that the guilt of the person has not been proved is unreasonable.” 12. Coming to the case on hand, case of the prosecution is that PW.1 sustained head injury. As can be seen from the evidence of PWs.7 and 8, there are no external injuries on PW.1. However, according to PW.7, who was working as Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, Chekuru Nursing Home, Adoni, there was a small fracture to the parietal region of the skull, and as per the report received from the Neuro Surgery Department also, there was an extra dural haemorrhage in the brain. This injury is classified by PW.8, who worked as Civil Assistant Surgeon, Governement Hospital, Adoni, as grievous injury. Even otherwise, as per the evidence of the Doctor who gave first aid to PW.1, he noticed a small fracture to the skull bone while the injury was examined in the x-ray film. During the cross-examination, no suggestion was given to PWs.7 and 8 to the effect that the opinion with regard to the nature of injury is false. Moreover, the defence of the 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 accused is that PW.1 might have fallen in a drunken condition and might have sustained head injury. Therefore, the head injury sustained by PW.1 is established by the prosecution. 13. Now, it has to be seen whether A2 caused the said injury, if so, whether A1 and A3 shared common intention with A2. 14. PW.1 is the injured. He deposed that on 05.01.2005, at about 11.00 PM, they closed the Royal Wine shop and when he came by walk up to Nirmal theatre, the three accused came behind him in a drunken condition and A1 and A3 caught hold of him, then A2 uttered words as “Mala Madiga Naa Kodaka, Mandu Adigithe Bandu Chesinanu Ani Mandu Ivvava” and saying so, A2 beat him with a brick on his left side of the head, and on that, he sustained bleeding injury and fell down unconscious. He further stated that five months after the incident, slowly he regained his memory and filed a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Adoni. Ex.P1 is the private complaint filed by him. He further stated that PWs.2 and 3 witnessed the incident, and on the date of incident when he refused to open the wine shop and give liquor to them, the accused bore grudge against him. PWs.2 and 3 supported the evidence of PW.1. PW.4 is the Pan Shop owner and according to the prosecution, 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 the incident was occurred in front of his Pan Shop, but he did not support the prosecution case and he was treated as hostile by the prosecution. 15. PWs.5 and 6 are the wife and brother of PW.1. According to PW.5, about 2 ½ years ago, on one day at about 01.00 AM in the midnight, PWs.2 and 3 brought PW.1 to the house and made him lay down on the cot. Whereas, the version of PW.6, who is the brother of PW.1, is that about two years ago, at about 01.00 AM midnight, as someone knocked at their door, he opened the door of their house and found PW.1 and liquor smell was coming from him. PW.1 came and slept on his cot. It is the evidence of PWs.5 and 6 that on the next day morning, when they tried to wake up PW.1, PW.1 remained in unconscious condition. Then, they took PW.1 to a private hospital, from where he was referred to the Government Hospital, Kurnool. 16. It is pertinent to note that the place of incident is at a distance of 100 meters from the Government Area Hospital, Adoni. Further, Adoni II Town Police Station, Police Control Room and Traffic Police Station are situated within 100 meters from the place of the incident, as admitted by PW.1. If really, there was an assault committed on PW.1, which would have made him 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 unconscious at the scene of offence itself and if PWs.2 and 3 were present there, the natural course of conduct would be to shift PW.1 to the hospital, which is only at a distance of 100 meters from the scene of offence. On the other hand, PWs.2 and 3 have not even informed the police, though the Police Station is situated at a distance of only 100 meters from the place of incident. PWs.2 and 3 are said to have taken PW.1 to his house, which is at a distance of more than ½ KM from the place of the incident. If really PW.1 was in unconscious condition soon after the incident, it is not possible for PWs.2 and 3 to take PW.1 to his house by walk. A man in unconscious condition with severe head injury cannot walk ½ KM at midnight. Moreover, as per the evidence of PW.6, who is the brother of PW.1, PW.1 alone came to the house at about 01.00 AM and as someone knocked their door he opened the door of their house and found PW.1 and liquor smell was coming from him. PW.1 came on his own and slept on the cot. If really, PW.1 was unconscious due to assault and PWs.2 and 3 brought him to his house, they would have informed PW.6 about assault on PW.1. On the other hand, as per the evidence of PW.6, PW.1 alone was found outside the house and PW.1 on his own walked into the house and fell on the cot. If 12 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 a person, who is in drunken condition falls on a cot, there is a possibility of hitting the edge of the cot, which may cause grievous injury. There was a possibility of such injury that is why on the next day morning PW.1 was found to be in unconscious condition. Moreover, according to PW.6, they were under the impression that while going to the house in drunken condition, PW.1 might have fallen down elsewhere and sustained head injury. According to PWs.2 and 3, they informed the wife and brother of PW.1 about the assault only on the next day morning after PW.1 was admitted in the hospital. It is not known as to why PWs.2 and 3 did not inform the police about the incident or at least to PWs.5 and 6 when they brought PW.1 to his house after the occurrence. 17. According to PW.11, who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, on 06.01.2005 he received a medical intimation from the Government Area Hospital, Adoni and thereafter he visited the Government Hospital and found PW.1 in unconscious condition, and so he recorded the statement of PW.2. Ex.P7 is the statement given by PW.2 to him, upon which he registered a case in Crime No.1 of 2025. But, PW.2 did not speak anything about Ex.P7 statement, which was said to have been recorded by 13 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 PW.11. PW.2 did not state anywhere that he gave statement to the police either at the Government Hospital, Adoni or at the police station. PW.2 did not identify his signature on Ex.P7. On the other hand, as per the evidence of PW.2, the police examined him five or six months after the incident. As per the evidence of PW.3, PW.2 and himself went to II Town Police Station, Adoni on the next day after the incident, where PW.2 gave a report to the police. The report said to have been given by PW.2, as stated by PW.3, has not seen the light of the day. In the instant case, though PW.1 was conscious and able to walk more than ½ KM to reach his house after the incident, he could not approach the police though the police station is situated within 100 meters from the scene of offence. According to PW.1, he regained conscious at the Government Hospital, Kurnool, and he was discharged from the hospital on 22.01.2005. Even then, the police did not record his statement and his statement was recorded by the police only on 31.01.2005. The doctors who were examined as PWs.7 and 8 did not speak anything as to what had happened to PW.1 and about the consciousness and whether he was duly fit to give a statement. So, there is no evidence on record to show that till 31.01.2005 PW.1 was unconscious and not able to give 14 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 statement. Moreover, as can be seen from the private complaint filed by the defacto complainant, even on the date of filing of the complaint i.e. on 11.05.2005, PW.1 could not regain full memory power and 50% of his memory power was lost and he was not in a position to speak voluntarily. When a person who had lost memory power of 50% and not even able to speak voluntarily cannot be said to be a competent witness to speak as to what had happened as on the date of incident. 18. As can be seen from the evidence led by the prosecution, there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Even then, the author of the FIR did not speak anything about giving report to the police, and the earliest report, said to have been given by PW.2 to the police about the occurrence, has not seen the light of the day and the conduct of PWs.2 and 3 in not approaching the police soon after the occurrence, though the police station is situated within 100 meters away from the scene of offence, creates a doubt on the reliability of their evidence. 19. In view of the aforementioned infirmities, there is any amount of ambiguity whether the alleged incident as suggested by the prosecution is said to have taken place or not. Therefore, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. 15 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment passed by the learned Special Judge is on correct lines and there are no compelling or substantial reasons to interfere with the Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 03.08.2007 passed in SC ST SC No.106 of 2006 by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the SC and ST (PoA) Act, Kurnool. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Criminal Appeal, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Date:26.06.2025. Nsr 16 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1005 of 2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.1005 of 2009 Date:26.06.2025 Nsr