IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Manepalli Prabhakara Rao, S/o. Rama Kotayya - Appellant
Versus
The State of AP. Rep. by Public Prosecutor - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.192 of 2011
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2), 235(2), (1), 207, 313 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(v) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506 – Criminal intimidation - Failed to discharge due amount - Appeal against conviction - Appeal is filed by appellant questioning judgment - Held, There was no question of PW.1 keeping quiet without lodging any report when he was allegedly dispossessed four years ago prior to Ex.P-1 and he would have certainly obstructed PW.4 and PW.5 when they were cultivating land - Evidence on record, absolutely, did not prove allegation that accused dispossessed PW.1 wrongfully from land - Learned Special Judge, in court considered view, did not look into fact that what all evidence relating to allegations of prosecution was nothing but hearsay - Self-serving evidence of PW.1 is not liable to be believed as his conduct was not that of a man of reasonable prudence – Court is of considered view that it is a fit case where it can be held that prosecution miserably failed to prove charge under Section 506 IPC against accused beyond reasonable doubt - Learned Special Judge by erroneously appreciating evidence on record, recorded an order of conviction under Section 3(1)(v) of SCs & STs Act though evidence on record did not warrant same - Hence, judgment is liable to be interfered with - Appeal is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the appellant, who was the accused in Special Sessions Case No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act-cum-X Additional District Judge, Krishna, Machilipatnam (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), questioning the judgment therein, dated 17.02.2011, whereunder the learned Special Judge found the appellant herein guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SCs & STs Act’), convicted him under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for three months.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. Special Sessions Case No.19 of 2008 arose out of the committal order in PRC No.26 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate at Tiruvuru pertaining to Crime No.64 of 2008 of Gampalagudem Police Station. The State, represented by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nuzvid Sub-Division filed charge sheet pertaining to above said Crime for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs & STs Act alleging in substance that the accused is resident of Arlapadu Village and Gampalagudem Mandal. He belonged to forward caste. LW.1 – Madugula Peda Lakshmaiah, who is resident of the same Village and Mandal, belonged to Scheduled Caste. The scene of offence is in the land of LW.1 in R.S.No.127/1 to an extent of Ac.0.63 cents. The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued D-Form Patta in the name of one Madugula Peda Nagaiah, father of LW.1, in the year 1971 in S.No.127/1 to an extent of Ac.1.27 cents. The parents of LW.1 died. After that, LW.1 and his brother partitioned the said land and, in the said partition, LW.1 got Ac.0.63 cents towards his share. So, he was in possession and enjoyment thereof. Six years ago, he borrowed a sum of Rs.6,000/- from the accused to meet the medical expenses of his son and later he failed to discharge the due amount to the accused. Accused demanded LW.1 either to discharge his debt or handover his (LW.1) land document to him for which LW.1 requested time but, accused forcibly took away the D-Form Patta from LW.1 and occupied Ac.0.63 cents. Accused continuously cultivated the same. After four years, complainant (LW.1) approached the accused and asked him to handover the land to him since accused already collected lease amount from LW.4 – Inapanuri Devaiah and LW.5 – Madugula Venkateswara Rao as such the amount due by the accused was discharged but, accused denied to handover the land to LW.1. Therefore, he gave a report to LW.10 – Sk. Nagur Saheb, SI of Police, Gampalagudem Police Station, who registered the same as a case in Crime No.64 of 2008 for the aforesaid offence and intimated to LW.11 – G. Narayana Swamy, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Nuzvid. LW.11 obtained permission from the Superintendent of Police, Krishna and took up investigation. He visited the land of LW.1 and gave requisition to LW.9 – S. Bhaskara Rao, Mandal Tahsildar, to ascertain the legal possession over the land and also to know about the caste of LW.1. During the course, he seized lease agreement between LW.4, LW.5 and accused and also xerox copy of the D-Form Patta. He examined the witnesses during investigation. On 30.06.2008, he arrested the accused and sent him to judicial custody. He obtained caste certification and possession and enjoyment certificate from LW.9, the Tahsildar. Hence, the charge sheet.
4. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs & STs Act,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving lawful possession in cases of criminal trespass and theft, and the consideration of age in modifying sentences.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the court's duty to consider material contradictions in the e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of prompt lodging of reports to avoid embellishments and afterthoughts, as well as the need for a proper explanation for any delay i....
Burden of proof lies with the prosecution to provide evidence of abuse or trespass; mere possession and verbal disputes do not fulfill that burden.
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.