IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Thota Lakshumaiah, S/o.Gangulaiah and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
The State, Rep. By the Sub Divisional Police Officer - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1454 Of 2009
Decided On : 16-02-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 378(4), 235(2) , 207 and 313 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 427 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - De-facto complainant (LW.1) is a public servant working as Supervisor in Telecommunications Department. He used to reside. LW.2 is also a public servant and he is working as Teacher and used to reside at - Both LW.1 and LW.2 belonged to Mala caste and as such they come under the scheduled caste - Held, PW.1, PW.2, PW.4, PW.6 and PW.9 were not supposed to enter into property claimed by A-1 and A-2 in view of the injunction order - Prosecution miserably failed to prove delay in lodging Ex.P-1. On account of the delay in lodging FIR, Ex.P-1, improvements, embellishments and deliberations cannot be ruled out - PW.1 and PW.2 had knowledge that they cannot take any action against A-1 and A-2 for alleged demolition of property because they got an injunction to protect their property - Evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all believable - It is a fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the appellants - Appellants are not found guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT:
1. This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the appellants, who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Special Sessions Case No.17 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kadapa (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), questioning the judgment therein, dated 14.10.2009, where under the learned Special Judge found the appellants herein guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SCs STs Act’) and accordingly convicted them under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, further after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month each. Further, the learned Special Judge found the appellants not guilty of the charges under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs and STs Act and Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. Aggrieved by the said judgment in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs STs Act, the appellants preferred the present Appeal.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as stated in the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Rajampet pertaining to Crime No.54 of 2006 of Rajampet Police Station, Kadapa District for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs STs Act and Section 427 IPC, is as follows:
A-1 and A-2 are originally natives of Sirivaram village of Penagalur Mandal and they are residing in Journalist Colony of Ramanjaneyapuram village of Kadapa Mandal. They belonged to Balija caste. The de-facto complainant M. Ramanaiah (LW.1) is a public servant working as Supervisor in Telecommunications Department. He used to reside at Balijapalli Harijanawada of Rajampet. LW.2 – Rampa Anjanna is also a public servant and he is working as Teacher and used to reside at Thummachetla palli village, Chitvel Mandal. Both LW.1 and LW.2 belonged to Mala caste and as such they come under the scheduled caste. A-1 purchased Ac.0.09½ cents of land in Survey No.1021/1 of Rajampet village from one G. Ranganna on 18.06.1986 for a valid consideration of Rs.45,000/- and got registered it in his name. So, he has title and possession over the same. On 17.11.1989, A-1 sold Ac.0.06½ cents of land in the aforesaid survey number to LW.1 by executing a sale agreement in his favour with a condition that he received Rs.8,000/- at the rate of Rs.5,300/- per cent and that the balance sale consideration should be paid before 17.12.1990. Later, on 08.10.1990, LW.1 paid balance amount to A-1 and A-1 received it with a condition to register as and when required LW.1 and A-1 put LW.1 in possession of the land. On the same day, A-1 executed another sale agreement in favour of LW.2 for the remaining extent of Ac.0.03 cents in the aforesaid survey number at the rate of Rs.5,300/- per cent. He received advance amount of Rs.3,000/- with condition that LW.2 should pay balance sale consideration before 17.12.1990. Subsequently, on 08.10.1990, A-1 received the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- from LW.2 and handed over possession of land to LW.2. He agreed to execute and register the land as and when demanded by LW.2. Thereafter, LW.1 and LW.2 were not able to get the lands registered from A-1. However, LW.1 and LW.2 constructed a house in the above said land and they started to run a school in the name of Master Public School at Rajampet. They paid tax regularly to Rajampet Gram Panchayat from 1990 to 2006. Thereafter, A-1 intelligentl
Prosecution must prove charges under the SCs & STs Act beyond reasonable doubt; unexplained delay in lodging FIR can undermine case credibility.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible evidence to prove charges under the SCs & STs Act. The court emphasized the importance of considering factors such ....
The importance of prompt lodging of FIR in criminal cases and the need for evidence to establish the presence of the public at the time of the offense to satisfy the criteria of 'public view' under S....
The court confirmed the conviction under the SC/ST Act for caste-based assault, emphasizing the weight of corroborative evidence from the injured parties and proper explanation for the delay in filin....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and the importance of properly appreciating the evidence presented in a case.
Point of law : Murder /Attempt to Murder - Conviction set aside – Delay in filing FIR - unexplained delay in registering the F.I.R. and dispatching the same to the concerned Court, and suppressing tw....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.