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) 1537

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
A.V.RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Thota Lakshumaiah, S/o.Gangulaiah – Appellant
Versus
The State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1454 of 2009
Decided on : 16-02-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Sri Ch. Chaitanya Bhargava
For the Respondent: Sri Y. Jagadeeswara Rao,

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(4) - Criminal conviction and sentencing overturned - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to unexplained delay in filing the report and insufficient evidence from interested parties (Paras 1, 10, 45, 49).

(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must satisfactorily explain any delay in lodging the FIR, and failure to do so significantly undermines the evidential credibility of the case (Paras 40, 44).

(C) Acquittal and benefit of doubt - When evidence is not believable and the prosecution has not met its burden, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt (Paras 49).

Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted under the SCs STs Act for allegedly intimidating complainants from the scheduled caste after demolishing their school and property. The appellants argued that the prosecution’s delay in reporting the incident and conflicting testimonies undermined the case.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the prosecution did not satisfactorily explain the delay in filing the FIR and that the evidence was unreliable.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved that the appellants insulted or intimidated the complainants in public view? 2. Whether the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt?

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court concluded that, due to the unsatisfactory evidence and unexplained delay by the prosecution, the conviction was not sustainable and the appellants deserved the benefit of doubt.

Result: Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeal process and parties. (Para 1 , 2)
2. facts regarding the allegations and background. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 8)
3. arguments presented by both sides. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. analysis of delay in filing complaint. (Para 34 , 42)
5. ruling on the credibility of evidence leading to acquittal. (Para 44 , 49 , 50)

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal, under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), is filed by the appellants, who are the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Special Sessions Case No.17 of 2008 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Kadapa (for short, ‘the learned Special Judge’), questioning the judgment therein, dated 14.10.2009, where under the learned Special Judge found the appellants herein guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the SCs STs Act’) and accordingly convicted them under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and, further after questioning them about the quantum of sentence, sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month each. Further, the learned Special Judge found the appellants not guilty of the charges under Section 3(1)(v) of the SCs and STs Act and Section 427 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’), and accordingly acquitted them of the said charges. Aggrieved by the said judgment in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs STs Act, the appellants preferred the present Appeal.

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 case of the prosecution, in brief, as stated in the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Rajampet pertaining to Crime No.54 of 2006 of Rajampet Police Station, Kadapa District for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs STs Act and Section 427 IPC, is as follows:

A-1 and A-2 are originally natives of Sirivaram village of Penagalur Mandal and they are residing in Journalist Colony of Ramanjaneyapuram village of Kadapa Mandal. They belonged to Balija caste. The de-facto complainant M. Ramanaiah (LW.1) is a public servant working as Supervisor in Telecommunications Department. He used to reside at Balijapalli Harijanawada of Rajampet. LW.2 – Rampa Anjanna is also a public servant and he is working as Teacher and used to reside at Thummachetla palli village, Chitvel Mandal. Both LW.1 and LW.2 belonged to Mala caste and as such they come under the scheduled caste. A-1 purchased Ac.0.09½ cents of land in Survey No.1021/1 of Rajampet village from one G. Ranganna on 18.06.1986 for a valid consideration of Rs.45,000/- and got registered it in his name. So, he has title and possession over the same. On 17.11.1989, A-1 sold Ac.0.06½ cents of land in the aforesaid survey number to LW.1 by executing a sale agreement in his favour with a condition that he received Rs.8,000/- at the rate of Rs.5,300/- per cent and that the balance sale consideration should be paid before 17.12.1990. Later, on 08.10.1990, LW.1 paid balance amount to A-1 and A-1 received it with a condition to register as and when required LW.1 and A-1 put LW.1 in possession of the land. On the same day, A-1 executed another sale agreement in favour of LW.2 for the remaining extent of Ac.0.03 cents in the aforesaid survey number at the rate of Rs.5,300/- per cent. He received advance amount of Rs.3,000/- with condition that LW.2 should pay balance sale consideration before 17.12.1990. Subsequently, on 08.10.1990, A-1 received the balance sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- from LW.2 and handed over possession of land to LW.2. He agreed to execute and register the land as and when deman

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