Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Akula Krishna Murthy, And Another – Appellants
Versus
The State, Rep. By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1541 of 2010
Decided on : 29-01-2024
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - [Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act] - The judgment discusses the delay in lodging the FIR, the credibility of witnesses, and the lack of proper explanation for the delay. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused were alleged to have insulted and humiliated the victim in the name of his caste. The prosecution presented a report 21 days after the incident, leading to questions about the delay and the credibility of the witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unexplained delay in lodging the report and the lack of proper explanation for the delay raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case. As a result, the court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of witnesses, the delay in lodging the report, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of proper explanation for the delay in lodging the report, which raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's case. The court also considered the interests of the witnesses and the nature of the incident in reaching its decision to acquit the accused.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused. The accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act.
JUDGMENT:
Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 07.12.2010, in Sessions Case No.31 of 2010, on the file of the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), where under the learned Special Judge found Appellants/Accused Nos.1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2) guilty of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SC & ST Act’), convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’) and, after questioning them about the quantum of sentenced, sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month each.
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 Sessions Case No.31 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Special Judge, Rajahmundry arose out of committal order in PRC No.45 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Amalapuram (for short, ‘the learned Magistrate’) pertaining to Crime No.100 of 2009 of Allavaram Police Station, East Godavari District registered for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the averments in the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Amalapuram, in the aforesaid Crime, is that Akula Krishna Murthy (A-1) and Akula Srinivasa Rao (A-2) are the father and son and residents of Kodurupadu Village, Allavaram Mandal belongs to Kapu caste as such belong to the category of Other Caste. LW.1 – Geddam Jivan Kumar is also resident of the same Village and belongs to the category of Scheduled Caste - Mala. He is correspondent of Gollapalli Suryarao College, Allavaram and an elder of Kodurupadu Village. A-1 and A-2 are also residents of same village. Long back one Nadipalli Ramabhadra Raju of Kodurupadu village gave his land to the landless poor people of Kodurupadu Village, who divided the said land into 24 house sites with three roads and some of them constructed thatched houses.
A-1 and A-2 are staying by constructing thatched houses on either side of the center road at its entrance, occupying the road without facilitating others to enter into their house sites. Hence, LW.2 to LW.7 namely Akula Venkateswara Rao, Akula Pulleswara Rao, Akula Chinna Krishna, Akula Anantha Lakshmi, Akula Gunavathi and Akula Venkateswara Rao and LW.8 – Khandavalli Rambabu represented the Tahsildar and elders for pacification of the issue. On 14.07.2009, LW.1 along with the Tahsildar (LW.10) and VRO (LW.11) visited the disputed place and enquired about the issue. They asked LW.8 and A-1 to leave 2 feet width place by each of them as a way for which LW.8 accepted the proposal and A-1 denied the same. So, the Tahsildar left the place by stating that he is going to conduct a survey for resolving the issue. A-1 grew wild on the decision taken by LW.1 and Revenue Officials and attacked LW.1 along with his son, behaved highhandedly against him about his involvement in the said issue and abused him in a filthy language raising his caste name. LW.11 – Tahsildar, Allavaram Mandal issued caste certificate of LW.1 and A-1 and A-2. LW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste Mala and accused belongs to Kapu Community. LW.12 – SI of Police, Allavaram received written report from LW.1 and registered the FIR in Crime No.100 of 2009 on 04.08.2009 at 10:00 p.m. LW.13 – SDPO, Amalapuram took up investigation being appointed by the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada vide proceedings C.No.7475/C3/2009, dated 05.08.2009. During course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch and examined the same. He examined all the witnesses and
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....
![Uppara Venkatesulu, S/o. Mulinti Anjinappa, Magecheruvu[V], Anantapur VS State Of A. P. , Rep. By P. P. - 2023 Supreme(AP) 1509](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Andhra_Pradesh_2.png)
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 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....
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....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
