APHC010626202009 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 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1154 OF 2009 Between: 1. The State of AP., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP., Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND 1. Telugu Yatham Chinna Linganna, S/o Telugu Yatham Kante Macherla, Aged 50 years, Alamuru village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. Telugu Yatham Lingamma, S/o Telugu Yatham Kante Linganna, aged 45 years, Alamuru village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool District. ...RESPODENTS Appeal under Section 372/374(2)/378(4) of Cr.P.C against the order of the acquittal of the accused / respondents in SC.ST.SC.NO. 59 of 2007 on the file of the Hon'ble Spl. Judge for SCs & STs (POA) Act cum VI Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool, dated 07-01-2008 and prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order of acquittal and convict the accused /(Respondents) for the offences with which they were charged. Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondents: 1. KARRI MURALI KRISHNA 2 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the State against the Judgment dated 07.01.2008 passed in SC ST Sessions Case No.59 of 2007 by the learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, whereby and whereunder the respondents herein/A1 and A2 were found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short „the Act‟) and respondent/A1 was found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, accordingly, they were acquitted of the said charges. 2. Case of the prosecution, briefly, is as follows. The de facto complainant (PW.1) is a member of Scheduled Caste community. He borrowed an amount of Rs.6,000/- from A1 by executing a bond. In discharge of the said liability, he paid Rs.1500/- on one occasion and Rs.2000/- on another occasion, and he gave three sheep towards full satisfaction of the amount due. Having accepted the amount and sheep, A1 did not return the bond paper executed by the de facto complainant. On 15.05.2006, at about 3 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 08.00 PM, while A1 was going near the Panchayat Office, the de facto complainant approached him and asked to handover the bond paper, as he had already cleared the debt. On that, A1 scolded the de facto complainant as “Neevu Inka Baaki Undaavura Madiga Naa Kodaka”. So scolding, A1 beat the de facto complainant on the back of neck with his fist. One Sirolla Narasimhudu and Guntanala Palukuru, who witnessed the incident, came to rescue the de facto complainant. In that sequel, with an intention to get back the bond paper from A1, the de facto complainant and his wife Subbamma (PW.2) went to the house of A1 and demanded A1 for return of the bond paper. Then, A2, who is the wife of A1, grew wild and abused PW.2 in filthy language as “Madiga Lanja” and slapped on her cheek. Harijana Chinna Nagamma, Harijana Narasimhudu and H. Guntanala Palukur, who witnessed the incident, came to the rescue of the de facto complainant and his wife. On 21.06.2006, at about 06.00 PM, the defacto complainant lodged Ex.P1-report in Rudravaram Police Station, upon which PW.4 – the Head Constable registered as a case in Crime No.90 of 2006 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 323 IPC and issued FIR Ex.P2. PW.5 – the Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram issued caste 4 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 certificate of PW.1, which is marked as Ex.P3. PW.6 - the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Allagadda took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene under Ex.P5 and examined the witnesses. After completion of investigation and after obtaining necessary permission from the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool, under Ex.P4, he filed charge sheet against the accused. 3. Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Allagadda took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Section 323 IPC and registered the case in PRC No.85 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.85 of 2006 to the Court of Session. The said case was numbered as SC ST Sessions Case No.59 of 2007 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, charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act against A1 and A2, and a charge under Section 5 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 323 IPC against A1, were framed, and 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 6 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were got marked. 6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. 7. On behalf of the defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. 8. The learned Special Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found A1 and A2 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and also found A1 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, accordingly, acquitted them of the said charges, vide impugned judgment dated 07.01.2008 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. 6 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 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 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. 7 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 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 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, admittedly, PWs.1 and 2 belong to Madiga caste, which is a Scheduled Caste community. Case of the prosecution is that the accused abused PWs.1 and 2 1 AIR 1962 SC 439 8 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 by touching their caste, thereby insulted them. On this aspect, the prosecution projected two incidents one at Government Office and another at the house of A1. With regard to the first incident, PW.1 stated that about 1 ½ years ago, he met A1 at Government Office in the village and demanded him for return of the bond paper executed by him, as the entire debt was discharged. On that, A1 is alleged to have abused PW.1 by touching his caste and fisted PW.1 on his neck. With regard to the second incident, PW.1 stated that he, along with his wife (PW.2) and his sister-in- law namely Chakali Nagamma, went to the house of A1, where A2 beat PW.2 and abused by touching her caste. 13. PW.2, who is the wife of PW.1, stated that herself, PW.1, one Chinna Nagamma and Narasimhudu went to the Government Office in their village, where A1 beat PW.1 with his fist on his back. Later, A1 took them to his house with a promise to return the bond. After they reached the house of A1, A2 abused her by touching her caste and slapped her. 14. PW.3, who claims to be an eye witness to the incident, stated that he along with PWs.1 and 2 went to the Panchayat Office. At that time, A1 came and abused PW.1 by touching his caste and fisted him on his back. The accused asked PWs.1 and 9 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 2 to come to his house and he would return the bond paper to them. Later, he learnt that the accused beat PWs.1 and 2 at their house. 15. PW.1 is the victim who was said to have been insulted by A1. According to him, when he demanded A1 for return of the bond paper, A1 is alleged to have abused him by touching his caste. At that time, his son and PW.3 were present and lifted him when he fell down due to the blow given by A1. Even in the FIR, it was stated that Chinna Muneiah, his son and PW.3 intervened and separated him from the accused after the assault. So, according to PW.1, his son and PW.3 are the persons who were said to be present and witnessed the occurrence. He did not speak about the presence of PW.2 at the time of first incident. PW.3 also did not speak about the presence of PW.2 at the time of first incident. But, according to PW.2, she was also present at the time of the first incident. In the statement given to the police, PW.2 did not state that she also witnessed the incident occurred at the Government Office. For the first time, PW.2 deposed in her evidence that she was present at the time when A1 abused PW.1 near the Government Office. Presence of P.W.2 at the time of the first incident is not mentioned either in FIR or in the statements 10 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 given by PWs.1 and 3, the evidence of PW.2 with regard to first incident is nothing but an exaggeration. 16. PW.3 is a resident of Palukur village, whereas the incident occurred at Alumur village. Even accepting the evidence of PW.3 that he came to Alumur village to see ailing PW.1, he has no business to go to Panchayat Office at 7.30 PM along with PW.1. At one stretch, PW.3 admitted that PW.1 is related to him as uncle and at another stretch, he stated that PW.1 is only his caste man. When PW.3 has no relationship or friendship with PW.1, he has no reason to come all the way from Palukur to Alumur to see ailing PW.1. So, as per the evidence of PW.3, admittedly he is closely related to PW.1. On the other hand, the prosecution failed to give any satisfactory explanation about the presence of PW.3 at the time and place of incident. Further, there was delay of 36 days in lodging the police report. Therefore, possibility of PW.1 showng P.W.3 as an eye witness, taking advantage of PW.3‟s relationship with him, after due deliberations, cannot be ruled out. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and in view of the abnormal delay in lodging the report with the police, the presence of PW.3 at the time of incident is highly doubtful. 11 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 17. With regard to the second incident also, case of the prosecution is not satisfactory. According to the FIR, PW.1, along with his wife PW.2, went to the house of A1 to get back his bond paper, where A2, the wife of A1, abused PW.2 touching her caste and slapped her. FIR does not show whether any other public viewed the incident. In the evidence of PW.1, he changed his version to some extent and deposed that after the incident at Government Office, A1 asked him to come to his house and he would return the bond paper. So, he, along with his wife (PW.2) and his sister-in-law namely Chinna Nagamma, went to the house of A1 and there A2 beat PW.2 by abusing her touching her caste. 18. According to PW.2, after the incident at first instance at Government Office, A1 took them to his house with a promise to return the bond. After they reached the house of A1, A2 abused her by touching her caste and slapped her. Except PWs.1 and 2, no independent witness was examined with regard to the second incident which was said to have occurred at the house of A1. The incident did not occur at any public place nor was it occurred within the view of the public. Moreover, as stated supra, the evidence of PW.2 is not reliable, as she has given highly exaggerated version with regard to the first incident and stated 12 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 that she was present and witnessed the first incident. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is not at all reliable and does not inspire confidence, with regard to the second incident also. 19. Even assuming for a moment that the accused abused PWs.1 and 2 by touching their caste, that itself is not an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act. To attract the said offence, the prosecution must show that the insult was perpetrated on the victims within public view. As no one from the public is examined to establish that the incident was occurred in their presence, the essential ingredient for the charge under the said Act is not established. The prosecution failed to establish the very essential ingredient that is required to charge the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 20. So far as the offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, as observed supra, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 does not reposing confidence. Moreover, there was unexplained abnormal delay of more than 36 days in setting the criminal law into motion. The evidence of PW.1 is not corroborated either by the medical evidence or any other independent witness. PWs.1 to 3 are related to each other and they are interested witnesses. There is also a dispute between the accused and the defacto complainant 13 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 with regard to money transaction. According to PWs.1 and 2, on the next day of the incident, they approached the police and submitted a report. The incident is said to have occurred on 15.05.2006 and, as per PW.1, he gave report to the police on 16.05.2006. But, as per Ex.P1 report, PW.1 gave report to the police on 21.06.2006 i.e. more than 35 days after the alleged incident. The said abnormal delay in giving report is not explained. Taking into consideration the interestedness of the prosecution witnesses and lack of corroboration from independent medical evidence and unexplained abnormal delay in lodging the FIR, the prosecution failed to establish the charge under Section 323 IPC against A1. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is any amount of ambiguity whether the alleged incident as suggested by the prosecution is said to have taken place or not and 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. 14 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 The Criminal Appeal is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the Judgment dated 07.01.2008 passed in SC ST Sessions Case No.59 of 2007 by the learned Special Judge for trial of cases under the SC and ST (PoA) Act-cum-VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, 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 15 SRK, J Crl.A.No.1154 of 2009 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.1154 of 2009 Date:26.06.2025 Nsr