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) 1509

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
A V Ravindra Babu, J.
Uppara Venkatesulu, S/o. Mulinti Anjinappa, Magecheruvu[V], Anantapur, & Anr. - Petitioners
Versus
The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No: 1704 OF 2009
Decided On : 18-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: P Nagendra Reddy
For the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)

Prosecution must prove charges under the SCs & STs Act beyond reasonable doubt; unexplained delay in lodging FIR can undermine case credibility.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 235(2) - Conviction of accused under SCs & STs Act set aside due to lack of evidence proving intentional insult or humiliation based on caste in public view - Delay in lodging FIR unexplained, raising doubts about credibility of witnesses. (Paras 10, 31)

(B) Delay in lodging FIR - Delay of nine days in filing report without credible explanation considered fatal to prosecution case. (Paras 27, 31)

(C) Evidence of witnesses - Testimony of independent witnesses did not support prosecution case, raising doubts about reliability of prosecution's claims. (Paras 21, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under the SCs & STs Act for allegedly insulting the complainant based on caste after a dispute regarding a cow. The complainant delayed reporting the incident to police by nine days. The learned Special Judge convicted the accused, which was challenged in appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.

Issues: The main issues were whether the appellants insulted the complainant in public view and whether the prosecution proved the charges under the SCs & STs Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence and explain the delay in lodging the FIR warranted the acquittal of the appellants.

Result: Appeal allowed, and the judgment of the Special Judge set aside.

JUDGMENT :

A.V.RAVINDRA BABU

Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 24.11.2009 in S.C.No.271 of 2009 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for S.C./S.T Cases, Anantapur (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), where under the learned Special Judge found the appellants 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 SCs & STs Act’), convicted them under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) and after questioning about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two (2) years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for six (6) months and four (4) months respectively. The learned Special Judge in the said judgment exonerated A.3 of the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act and further exonerated A.1 to A.3 for the charge under Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).

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. (i) The S.C.No.271 of 2009 arose out of committal order in P.R.C.No.20 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of I Class at Penukonda pertaining to Crime No. 55 of 2008 of S.H.O., Somandepalli Police Station. The State represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Penukonda filed the charge sheet alleging the offence under Section 352 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act in the aforesaid crime number.

(ii) The case of the prosecution in brief is that. A.1 to A.3 are the residents of Mage Chervu Village of Somandepalli Mandal. They belonged to Uppara Caste which is upper caste. The de-facto complainant i.e., LW.1-Harijana Ademma and LW.2-M.Narasimhulu her son, belonged to Schedule Caste. LW.6-M.Peddakka is the daughter-in-law of the LW.1.

4. (i) On 06.09.2008, LW.2-M.Narasimhulu went to his field for grazing his cow. On the same day, at 04.00 PM, the cow of him went into the fields of A.3 for grazing. By then LW.2 was at little distance without chappals. A.3 came there questioned him as to why he left the cow in to his ground nut field. He (LW.2) replied that he will bring the cow from the field. A.3 did not hear the words of him, grew wild and caught hold of the clothes of him. There was wordly quarrel between A.3 and LW.2. A.3 torned the banian of LW.2. Clothes of A.3 were also torned when LW.2 caught hold the clothes of A.3. The persons who gathered there pacified the matter. LW.2 informed the incident to his mother i.e., LW.1. He went to Somandepalli Police station to report the matter to police. A.3 also intimated the incident to his family members.

(ii) On 06.09.2008 at 06.30 PM, when LW.1 was returning to her house from the field and when she reached near the house of LW.4-Harijana Nagappa, A.1 and A.2 at the instigation of A.3, scolded her and abused her as ‘Yea Madiga Lanja’ by referring her caste and questioned her how her son is dare enough to give a report to Police against accused. A.1 and A.2 scolded her in filthy words in the street. LW.3-Harijana Chaduvvu Kadirappa, LW.4-Harijana Nagappa and LW.-Harijana Eerappagari Kollappa witnessed the offence and questioned high handedness of A.1 and A.2 and A.3. The SC Colony people also questioned the behavior of A.1 and A.2. However, they continued to abuse the victim. Due to fear of A.1 and A.2, she went to her house. Later her husband and sons returned to her house. She informed the incident to them. Lw.8-G.Sreeramulu, LW.2 and brothers of LW.2 met Village elders who promised them they will settle the issue by arranging panchayath but in vain. Though LW.1 and 2 and her family members waited for the answer of Village elders, It did not yield any result. Therefore on 14.09.2008 at 07.00 PM, she preferred a report before LW.9-Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Samandepalli Pol

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