Back
A. V. RAVINDRA BABU
V. Appanna – Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by P. P. , High Court of A. P. , Hyderabad – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
This is a Criminal Appeal filed on behalf of the Appellants/Accused Nos.4 to 6 in S.C.No.8 of 2008 (Old S.C.No.18 of 2007), on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, Srikakulam, questioning the judgment, dated 29.04.2009, where under the learned Special Judge for Trial of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, Srikakulam, found the present appellants guilty of the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC” for short) and sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
2. The present appellants faced trial in the said case for the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and Section 323 of IPC and the learned Special Judge acquitted the present appellants of the offences alleged under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, but convicted them under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced them as above.
3. The case of the prosecution before the trial Court according to the charge sheet filed by the State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Palaknonda in Crime No.9 of 2007 under Section 324 r/w 34
Intention to insult based on caste must be established for conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act; the absence of such intent results in acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the intention to outrage the modesty of a victim to sustain a charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Ac....
The conviction of the appellants for assault was upheld, while they were acquitted of charges under the SC & ST Act due to lack of proof of the victim's caste.
Court emphasized the need for consistent witness testimonies to sustain convictions under SC/ST Act and recognized the importance of specific attribution of actions to the accused in assault cases.
The court held that reliance on inconsistent and insufficient witness testimonies, alongside lack of medical evidence for grievous injuries, invalidates the conviction, necessitating acquittal.
![Uppara Venkatesulu, S/o. Mulinti Anjinappa, Magecheruvu[V], Anantapur VS State Of A. P. , Rep. By P. P. - 2023 Supreme(AP) 1509](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Andhra_Pradesh_2.png)
Prosecution must prove charges under the SCs & STs Act beyond reasonable doubt; unexplained delay in lodging FIR can undermine case credibility.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
