APHC010578712009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.No CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 640/2009 Between: 1. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR 1. KANDULA PITCHAIAH, S/O. RAMULU, VANASAMRAKSHANASAMITHI, CHAIRPERSON, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 2. KANDULA RAMA RAO, S/O. PITCHAIAH, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 3. CHAMATA BHUSHI CHEVUTI BHUSHI, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, CHAKKALAPALLI VILLAGE. KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4. ALURU VIJAYA PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O. SOWRI, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, MUSUNURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT. 5. BATTU SUBBA RAO, S/O. MUSALAYYA, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, MUSUNURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT. RESPON THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.A.NO.640 OF 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 In/and CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 640/2009 THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...AP AND KANDULA PITCHAIAH, S/O. RAMULU, VANASAMRAKSHANASAMITHI, CHAIRPERSON, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, KRISHNA DISTRICT. RAO, S/O. PITCHAIAH, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, CHAMATA BHUSHI CHEVUTI BHUSHI, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, CHAKKALAPALLI VILLAGE. KRISHNA DISTRICT. ALURU VIJAYA PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O. SOWRI, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, MUSUNURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA BATTU SUBBA RAO, S/O. MUSALAYYA, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, MUSUNURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT. RESPONDENT NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN CRL.A.NO.640 OF 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3369] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO HIGH COURT OF A.P., HYDERABAD. ...APPELLANT KANDULA PITCHAIAH, S/O. RAMULU, VANASAMRAKSHANASAMITHI, CHAIRPERSON, CHEKKAPALLI RAO, S/O. PITCHAIAH, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, CHAMATA BHUSHI CHEVUTI BHUSHI, S/O. VENKATESWARA RAO, ALURU VIJAYA PRABHAKARA RAO, S/O. SOWRI, AGED 50 YEARS, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, MUSUNURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA BATTU SUBBA RAO, S/O. MUSALAYYA, AGED 50 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. HARIJANAWADA, CHEKKAPALLI VILLAGE, MUSUNURU MANDAL, ELURU DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DENT NOS. 4 AND 5 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER THE COURT'S ORDER DATED 26.09.2025 IN I.A.NO.1 OF 2025 IN 2 ...RESPODENT(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 Judgment CC.No.121/2001 on the file of the JFCM, Spl. Mobile Court, Machilipatnam dated the 2nd day of November, 2002 IA NO: 1 OF 2009(CRLAMP 323 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1973 days in presenting the appeal against the order of acquittal of the accused/ respondents CC.No.121/2001 on the file of the JFCM, Spl. Mobile Court, Machilipatnam dated the 2nd day of November, 2002 IA NO: 2 OF 2009(CRLAMP 860 OF 2009 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 25 days in representing the above appeal Sr.No.3415/2003 presented against the Judgment in CC.No.121/2001 on the file of the JFCM, Spl. Mobile Court, Machilipatnam dated the 2nd day of November, 2002 IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to permit the implead petitioners to be impleaded as parties/proposed respondents 4 & 5 to the Criminal Appeal No. 640 of 2009 and also pending interlocutory applications therein, in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to accord permission to the petitioners and respondents 2 to 4 compound the case and consequently record compromise in Criminal Appeal in CrI.A.No.640 of 2009 thereby by close the appeal, since arising out of acquittal Judgment Dt. 02.11.2002 passed in CC No.121 of 2001 on the file of the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam and pass 3 IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to record the compromise and consequently close the Criminal appeal in CrI.A.No.640 of 2009 arising out of acquittal Judgment, dated 02.11.2002 passed in C.C.No.121 of 2001 on the file of the court of Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam and pass Counsel for the Appellant: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. SIVA SANKARA RAO BORRA 2. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI The Court made the following COMMON JUDGMENT: 1. I.A.No.2 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners (PWs.1 and 2), who are the respondents 4 and 5 in the Criminal Appeal, seeking permission to compound the case with respondents 2 to 4 and to record the compromise in the Appeal. The 1st Respondent is the Appellant/State, and the respondents 2 to 4/A.1 to A.3 are the respondents 1 to 3 in the Appeal. 2. I.A.No.3 of 2025 has been filed by the petitioners / PWs.1 and 2, who are the respondents 4 and 5 in the Criminal Appeal, seeking disposal of the present Revision Case in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise. 3. For convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the present Criminal Appeal. 4. The prosecution alleges that A.1, Chairperson of the Vanasamrakshana Samithi, Chekkapalli village, was coordinating with Forest Department officials to develop forest land using government funds. LW.1, a committee member, suspected A.1 of misusing funds and demanded to review the accounts. A.1 refused, stating that records would be reviewed either by authorities or in a full 4 committee meeting. LW.1 approached LW.6 (a forest official) to convene a meeting to elect a new chairperson. LW.6 scheduled the meeting for 02.05.2001 at 9:00 AM. A.1 held the meeting at his residence at 10:00 AM, attended by committee members and forest officials (LWs.6 and 7). LW.1 did not attend initially, and the meeting concluded by 12:00 PM with a resolution recorded. At around 12:30 PM, LW.1 arrived, demanded a change in leadership, and asked to review the accounts. LW.6 advised LW.1 to call for a separate meeting, as the current one had ended. LWs.6 and 7 then left the venue. When LW.1 questioned why the meeting was held without proper notice (e.g., via tom-tom), A.1 became aggressive, verbally abused LWs.1 and 2 with caste-based slurs, and, along with A.2 and A.3, physically assaulted them. PW.1’s shirt was torn in the scuffle. LW.3 intervened and stopped the altercation. The accused then fled the scene. LWs.1 and 2 reported the incident at Musunuru P.S. on 03.05.2001. The case was registered by LW.8, and investigated by LW.9. On 08.09.2001, at 5:15 hours, the accused were arrested and remanded. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed. 5. After considering the material and evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam, (hereinafter referred to as "the Trial Court"), by Judgment dated 02.11.2002 in C.C.No.121 of 2001, acquitted A.1 to A.3 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act (for short, ‘P.C.R. Act’). Aggrieved by the said Judgment, dated 02.11.2002 in C.C.No.121 of 2001 passed by the Trial Court, the Appellant/State filed the present Crl.A.No.640 of 2009. 6. I have heard both sides and perused the material on record. 7. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the respondents 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 and respondents 4 and 5/PWs.1 and 2, appeared in person before this Court. Respondents 1 to 5 were identified by their respective 5 counsel. The terms and conditions of the compromise, as set forth in the affidavit, were read out to the parties, who acknowledged the same to be true and correct. 8. As previously noted, the present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, wherein A.1 to A.3 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under sections 323 r/w 34 of the IPC and section 7(1)(d) of P.C.R Act. Since the offence under section 323 r/w 34 of IPC is compoundable in nature, this Court permitted the compounding of the said offence. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the Trial Court for the offence under section 323 r/w 34 of IPC is hereby confirmed and accordingly, A.1 to A.3 are acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Cr.P.C., in light of the terms and conditions of the compromise. 9. With regard to Section 7(1)(d) of the P.C.R. Act, the Trial Court observed that the prosecution was required to establish the intention of the accused (A.1 to A.3) in using obscene and abusive language that referenced the caste of the Mala or Madiga communities on the ground of untouchability. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Trial Court observed that PWs.1 to 4 did not testify to any such intention on the part of the accused in allegedly abusing PWs.1 and 2 by referring to their caste in a derogatory manner. Furthermore, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 lacked cogency and corroboration with respect to the alleged caste-based utterances by the accused. Consequently, Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients required to sustain a charge under Section 7(1)(d) of the P.C.R. Act. Having meticulously examined the record, the Trial Court concluded that there was no substantive evidence to attract the provisions of Section 7(1)(d) of the P.C.R. Act. In light of the above, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court. 6 10. Upon being satisfied with the terms and conditions of the compromise and in view of the amicable settlement between the respondents 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 and the respondents 4 and 5/PWs.1 and 2, I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 are allowed. 11. Consequently, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed by confirming the Judgment dated 02.11.2002 in C.C.No.121 of 2001 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Krishna, Machilipatnam. A.1 to A.3 are acquitted under Section 320(8) of Cr.P.C., for the offence under section 323 r/w 34 of IPC, in view of the compromise. Regarding the offence under Section 7(1)(d) of the P.C.R. Act, the acquittal of A.1 to A.3 as recorded by the Trial Court is affirmed. Interim orders, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated, and all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date: 14.08.2025 SAK 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T MALLIKARJUNA RAO I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2025 In/and Criminal Appeal No.640 OF 2009 DATE: 14.08.2025 SAK