IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. Ravindra Babu, J.
Varupula Venkata Ramana @ Ramana – Appellant
Versus
The State Of A.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.87 of 2009
Decided On : 27-03-2023
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2), 235(2), 161, 388 - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 324 - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons - Appeal against conviction - Criminal Appeal is filed by appellant questioning judgment - Held, evidence before the Court below categorically proves the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Court below imposed minimum sentence of six months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act. The injuries received by PW.1 are simple in nature and the offence took place on a spur of moment on account of the act of PW.1 in questioning the accused as to why they indulged in cutting the green grass in the land of his landlord without obtaining his permission. The Court below imposed the punishment of one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC - I am of the considered view that the ends of Justice will meet if the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of one year imposed against the accused under Section 324 IPC is reduced to six months - Appeal is allowed in part.
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 SCs & STs Sessions Case No.61 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), questioning the judgment therein, dated 19.01.2009, where under the learned Special Judge found the appellant herein guilty of the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SCs & STs Act’) and Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), 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 six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs STs Act and further sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for two months for the offence under Section 324 IPC.
2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court, for the sake of convenience.
3. SC ST Sessions Case No.61 of 2008 before the learned Special Sessions Judge, arose out of committal order in PRC No.10 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Prathipadu (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’), relating to Crime No.175 of 2006 of Yeleswaram Police Station.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the contents of the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram, Sub-Division in Crime No.175 of 2006 of Yeleswaram Police Station, is that the accused is resident of Lingamparthi Village in Yeleswaram Mandal. He belonged to Kapu caste. Accused is a farmer. LW.1 – Sadey Krishna is the injured. LW.2 – Sadey Venkatesulu is father of the injured. LW.3 – Yadagiri Veera Babu, co-farmer servant of LW.1, and LW.4 – Chellala Seshayamma are the witnesses to the occurrence. LW.5 – Sivakoti Donga Babu and LW.6 – Yeddu Srinu are the neighbourers to LW.1. LW.7 – K. Veera Babu is the landlord under whom LW.1 used to work as farmer servant for annual consideration of Rs.12,000/- since three years.
5. On 24.10.2006, at 04:00 p.m. LW.1 went to the sugarcane crop of his landlord. He found the accused and his minor son – Naga Raju @ Nagu cutting green cross in the land of his landlord. LW.1 asked them not to cut the green gross in the land without the permission of his owner. Then, the accused abused LW.1 as ‘Mala Lanja Kodaka’ and uttered that they need not take any permission of his landlord. He asked them to quit the land of his owner. Then the accused grew wild, picked up a stick from the land and beat on the right side head of LW.1 with stick and caused bleeding injury. Son of the accused beat all over the person of LW.1 with a stick indiscriminately and caused contusions. LWs.3 and 4, on seeing the occurrence, rushed to the land of LW.7 and then the accused and his son went away from the land along with the green gross cut by them. The injured was taken to the house of LW.7 and later to his house. After that he was taken to the Police Station. Injured was sent to Community Health Centre, Yeleswaram for treatment. Basing on the statement of LW.1, LW.12 – Station House Officer registered the FIR under the provisions of Section 324 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act on 24.10.2006 at 05:30 p.m. During investigation, LW.13 – SDPO, examined the witnesses, inspected the scene of offence, got drafted observation report and prepared rough sketch. He arrested the accused and his minor son on 27.10.2006 and send the accused to remand. As the son of the accused was a juvenile,
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....
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 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....
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....
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.