IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Davuluri Subba Rao, S/o Kotaiah and ors. – Appellants
Versus
The State, rep. by the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1194 of 2009
Decided On : 12-05-2023
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341 and 323 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 235(1), 207, 313 – Offence of wrongful restraint - Voluntarily causing hurt - Appeal against conviction - Appeal is filed challenging judgment questioning about quantum of sentence – Held, Learned Special Judge did not look into cross examination part of witnesses - Crucial admissions made by P.W.1 were not looked into - Learned Special Judge did not look into fact that prosecution deliberately shifted scene of offence so as to bring same within definition of public view - A look at judgment goes to reveal that without proper analysation of evidence on record, learned Special Judge found guilty of appellant under Section 323 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act - Evidence was not cleared as to whether which of accused beat P.W.1 and P.W.2, he exonerated accused of charge under Section 323 of I.P.C - There is no appeal filed by prosecution regarding acquittal of A.1 to A.3 under Section 323 of I.P.C – Court is of considered view that learned Special Judge for Trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Prakasam Division at Ongole, did not analyze evidence on record properly and erroneously convicted present appellant, as such, judgment is liable to be interfered with - Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant Nos.1 and 2 originally, who were the A.1 and A.2 in Sessions Case No.10 of 2008, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of the offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Prakasam Division at Ongole (“Special Judge” for short), challenging the judgment, dated 17.09.2009, whereunder the learned Special Judge found A.1 and A.2 guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and further A.1 under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short) and after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced A.1 and A.2 to undergo simple imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days each for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and further sentenced A.1 to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C.. By virtue of the said judgment, the learned Special Judge found A.3 not guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and further found A.2 and A.3 not guilty of the charge under Section 323 of I.P.C. and acquitted them under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short).
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3. The Sessions Case No.10 of 2008 arose out a committal order passed in P.R.C.No.51 of 2007, on the file of III Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ongole, pertaining to Crime No.110 of 2007 of Chimakurthy Police Station.
4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Ongole Sub-Division, Ongole, filed a charge sheet under Sections 341 and 323 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.
5. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet is as follows:
(ii) As usual, L.W.2 attended for morning tuition at the premises of Z.P. High School. On noticing that the tuition master went on Ongole for his personal work, all the students started playing. While so, one Kavita, student of 7th class, picked up a quarrel with L.W.2 alleging that some dust fell on her and held L.W.2 as responsible for the same. Then, L.W.2 who is in the company of L.W.7 and L.W.8 attended to clear the dust and then Kavitha gave a slap on his face for which L.W.2 retaliated with a slap. Then, Kavitha went home and brought her father (A.1) to the school premises, where A.1 without asking reasons, beat L.W.2 with hands on his back in the presence of L.W.7 and L.W.8 and other students. L.W.2 felt ashamed of it, went to palle and narrated the incident to his brother, L.W.1. Then, both L.W.1 and L.W.2 came to the house of A.1 at 8.30 a.m. L.W.1 asked A.1 about the incident. Then, A.1 to A.3 came out from the house in aggressive nature and A.1 and A.2 abused them in filthy language by touching their caste and further A.1 to A.3 beat L.W.1 with hands. L.W.3 and L.W.4 witnessed the occurrence.
(iii) Basing on the report of L.W.1, a case in Crime No.110 of 2007 under Section 323 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs. & STs. (POA) Act was registered by L.W.13-Sub-Inspector of Police. On 19.07.2007 L.W.14-Sub-Divisional Police Officer, took up investigation as per the orders of the Superintendent of Police, Prakasam District, dated 19
Swaran Singh and others vs. State through Standing Counsel and others
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 ....
Prosecution must prove charges under the SCs & STs Act beyond reasonable doubt; unexplained delay in lodging FIR can undermine case credibility.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for credible and timely evidence in cases of alleged intimidation and humiliation, as well as the importance of examining all relev....
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 prosecution must prove each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, including the nature of injuries and adherence to procedural requirements in cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
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....
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.