SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(AP) 1004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Allada Varahalu @ Talupulamma W/o Appa Rao – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3 of 2010
Decided On : 15-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: K.B. Ramanna Dora.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that unexplained delay and enmity between the parties can lead to the benefit of doubt for the accused, resulting in their acquittal.

Headnote:

ABUSE - Criminal Appeal - Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act - [Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act] - The court found A.1 to A.3 guilty of intentionally insulting or intimidating P.W.1 within public view. The judgment was based on the evidence of direct witnesses and the explanation for the delay in lodging the report. However, the court held that the evidence did not stand the test of scrutiny due to unexplained delay and enmity between the parties, leading to the benefit of doubt for A.1 and A.2, resulting in their acquittal.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the intentional insult or intimidation of P.W.1 by A.1 to A.3 within public view on 27.10.2008. The court analyzed the evidence and the delay in lodging the report, leading to the acquittal of A.1 and A.2.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the evidence did not stand the test of scrutiny due to unexplained delay and enmity between the parties, leading to the benefit of doubt for A.1 and A.2, resulting in their acquittal.

Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution proved that A.1 and A.2 intentionally insulted or intimidated P.W.1 within public view on 27.10.2008, and whether there were grounds to interfere with the judgment of the Special Judge.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence did not stand the test of scrutiny due to unexplained delay and enmity between the parties, leading to the benefit of doubt for A.1 and A.2, resulting in their acquittal.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the Special Judge, and A.1 and A.2 were acquitted of the charge. The fine amount, if paid by A.1 and A.2, was to be refunded to them after the appeal time was over.

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. The challenge in this Criminal Appeal is made by the unsuccessful A.1 to A.3 to the judgment, dated 10.12.2009 in SC ST Sessions Case No. 9 of 2009, on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, East Godavari at Rajahmundravaram (“Special Jude” for short).

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience.

3. The State, represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kakinada, i/c. of Peddapuram, filed a charge sheet in Crime No. 134 of 2008 of Thondangi Police Station, alleging in substance that A.2 is the second wife of one late Palaparthi Ayyanna, who was murdered by Nagam Trimurthulu during night of 01.09.2008 in the fields of A.V. Nagaram village as the husband of A.2 threatened to kill him on a suspicion that he has illicit intimacy with A.2. To that effect, originally a case in Crime No. 96 of 2008 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) was initially registered. The defacto-complainant viz., Isumapati Nooka Rao, being the Sarpanch, acted as one of the inquest panchayatdars and opined that Nagam Trimurthulu was suspected to be responsible for the death of Palaparthi Ayyanna. Later, Section of law was altered into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short). As the case was initially registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., the accused used to abuse the complainant that he misleads the police. Keeping the same in view on 27.10.2008 at 5-00 p.m. when he was at Gram Panchayat office of Ravikampadu Village, the accused went there, abused him as Mala Lanjakodaka and alleged that he mislead the police relating to the death of husband of A.2. Then the complainant left the Panchayat office and went to the house of MPTC (L.W.8-Velnati Venkata Ramana). When he was narrating the behavior of the accused and their abuses to L.W.6-Velnati Putrayya, L.W.7-Sidda Golla Babu and L.W.8, again accused went there and abused him as Malavedava and challenged that they would see how he works as Sarpanch of the village. The persons there admonished the accused. Later, basing on the report lodged by the defacto-complainant, a case in Crime No. 134 of 2008 was registered under Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act and investigated into. The Deputy Superintendent of Police-L.W.11 after registration of FIR by the concerned S.I. of Police, during investigation examined several witnesses, inspected the scene and prepared rough sketch. He arrested A.2 on 22.11.2008 and sent her for judicial custody. A.1 and A.3 surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni and they were remanded to judicial custody. L.W.9-Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal certified that L.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and Accused belongs to Forward Caste. Hence, the charge.

4. The above case was numbered as P.R.C.No. 24 of 2009, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tuni and after complying necessary formalities under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Special Court and thereupon, it was numbered as SC ST Sessions Case No. 9 of 2008. On appearance of A.1 to A.3 before the learned Special Judge charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC&ST (POA) Act was framed and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to establish the guilt against A.1 to A.3 before the learned Special Judge, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.10. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in by the prosecution, for which they denied the same. A.2 filed a written statement stating that her husband was murdered on the intervening night of 1/2-09-2008 with active support of P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.6 and others with police and created as if he died due to h

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top