Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V.Ravindra Babu, J.
Penugonda Venkata Rama Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 793 of 2009
Decided On : 28-12-2023
Conviction - SCs and STs Act - Sec. 3(1)(xi) - 1989 Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SCs and STs Act) and the evidence presented to prove the charge. The court analyzed the delay in filing the FIR, the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, and the discrepancies in the evidence. The judgment highlighted the importance of proving charges beyond reasonable doubt and the need for proper appreciation of evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the accused were charged with abusing and assaulting the victim based on his caste. The prosecution alleged that the accused had committed various offenses, including outraging the modesty of the victim's wife. The trial court found the accused not guilty of some charges but convicted A-1 under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SCs and STs Act for outraging the modesty of the victim's wife.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge against A-1 under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SCs and STs Act beyond reasonable doubt. It highlighted the discrepancies in the evidence, the delay in filing the FIR, and the lack of proper justification for the conviction. The court emphasized the importance of extending the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant due to the unsafe nature of the conviction.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 outraged the modesty of the victim's wife as alleged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of credible evidence, discrepancies in the prosecution's case, and the delay in filing the FIR. It emphasized the need to extend the benefit of doubt in favor of the appellant due to the unsafe nature of the conviction.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/A-1 for the charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the SCs and STs Act. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/A-1 was ordered to be refunded.
JUDGMENT
1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dtd. 1/7/2009, in Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, Kadapa (for short, 'the learned Special Judge') where under the learned Special Sessions Judge found Accused No.1 (A-1) guilty of the charge under Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the SCs and STs Act') and convicted him under Sec. 235(2) Cr.P.C. and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500.00 in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 15 days.
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 Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2008 arose out of the committal order in PRC No.35 of 2007 on the file of the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, L.R. Palli pertaining to Crime No.65 of 2007 of Galiveedu Police Station registered for the offences under Ss. 323 and 355 IPC R/w. Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, according to the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Pulivendula is that LW.1 - Mude Parvathamma is the complainant. She is resident of Pasala Manda Thanda, Hamlet of Danam Reddigaripalli. LW.2 - Mude Sree Ramulu Naik is her son. On 11/5/2007, LW.2 found a ram missing from his herd of sheep. He suspected that it might have strayed into the herd of sheep of Penugonda Dharma Reddy, uterine brother of Penugonda Sudhakar Reddy (A-2). He asked Penugonda Dharma Reddy as to whether his ram has strayed into the herd of him, for which he replied that he may search his herd for the missing ram. Then, LW.2 searched the herd of sheep of Dharma Reddy accordingly. Penugonda Venkata Rama Reddy (A-1) and A-2 on account of the act of LW.2 felt offended. In the evening A-1 and A-2 went to the forest to keep watch over their grazing sheep. LW.2 and LW.3 - Mude Renuka, wife of LW.2, also went to the forest and they were returning to home at 04:00 p.m. when they reached the harvested paddy fields of Penugonda Dharma Reddy, A-1 and A-2 picked up a quarrel with LW.2 and abused him in the name of his caste by beating him with hands, chappals and legs before LW.3 and thereby humiliated him in public view.
(i) On 17/7/2007 at 02:30 p.m. LW.1 went to Galiveedu Police Station and lodged a complaint alleging in substance that A-1 to A-6 (as per the FIR) forcibly stolen away 2 rams from the herd of sheep of complainant and when LW.2 and her husband returned home and came to know about the incident, A-1 to A-6 abused them touching their caste, stripped them half naked, tethered them in their cattle shed and beat them. On 15/7/2007 Penugonda Venkata Ramana Reddy (A-6) raped LW.3, the wife of LW.2.
(ii) LW.5 - Bala Guravaiah, Head Constable, Galiveedu Police Station registered the complaint of LW.1 as a case in Crime No.65 of 2007 for the aforesaid offences and sent express FIRs to all the concerned. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa appointed LW.7 - SDPO, Pulivendula as the Investigation Officer, who registered the FIR and his investigation discloses that all the allegations in the FIR are false. However, it disclosed that on 11/5/2007 (mistaken date) at 04:00 p.m. A-1 and A-2 abused LW.2 by his caste and beat him with hands in the presence of LW.3. Hence, the charge sheet.
5. The learned jurisdictional Magistrate took cognizance of the case for the offences under Ss. 323 and 355 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs Act and numbered it as PRC No.35 of 2007 and, after completing the formalities under Sec. 207 Cr.P.C, committed the case to the Special Sessions Court and thereupon it was numbered as Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2008.
6. On appearance of the accused Nos.1 and 2 before the learned Special Judge, a charge under Sec. 3(1)
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.
![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 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....
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 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 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....
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
