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) 1625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.
Nandyala Ramananda Reddy – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2009
Decided On : 29-12-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : T. Diwakar Reddy

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 filing the FIR.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Indian Penal Code - Section 323 - Criminal Appeal challenging conviction for alleged caste-based violence and physical assault - The accused found guilty of both charges and sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and fines totaling Rs.1,000 with default imprisonment. The evidence of injured parties was consistent and corroborated by medical records. Delay in lodging the FIR explained adequately by lack of funds, and the testimonies of the injured were credible despite a prior family dispute. (Paras 10-30)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 235(2) - Analysis of evidence and pronouncement of judgment - The court is required to evaluate the prosecutions’ narrative and verify the corroborative evidence, which in this case, led to an affirmation of the lower court’s judgment based on the prosecution's presentation being cogent. (Paras 31-30)

Table of Content
1. facts of the case and charges (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. evidence presented in court (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 17 , 18)
3. testimony of injured parties (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. witnesses and their support (Para 19 , 20)
5. arguments presented by the defense and prosecution (Para 21 , 22)
6. court's evaluation of evidence (Para 28 , 29)
7. final judgment and orders (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)

JUDGMENT :

A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J.

1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is to the judgment, dated 16.07.2008 in Special Sessions Case No. 23 of 2008, on the file of Special Sessions Judge for S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, Kadapa (“Special Judge” for short), whereunder the learned Special Judge found the accused guilty of the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and Section 323 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (“IPC” for short), convicted him under Section 235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C” for short) and after questioning him about the quantum of sentence, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs & S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and further sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 323 of 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. The Special Sessions Case arose out of a committal order in P.R.C. No. 2 of 2008, on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Proddatur.

4. The State, represented by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Proddatur, filed charge sheet in Crime No. 135 of 2007 alleging as follows:

    (i) The accused is resident of Kamanur Village of Proddatur Mandal and he belonged to Kapu caste. LW-6-Nandyala Syamalamma is no other than the sister-in-law of the accused. The defacto-complainant (LW-1-Peddamunigalla Munaiah), LW-2-Musaligalla Bala Obaiah, LW-3-Bhujamgalla Yesaiah and LW-4-Bannegalla Sathyamaiah, are residents of Kamanur Harijanawada and injured persons. They belong to Mala and Madiga community which comes under the purview of Scheduled Caste. The said fact is very well known to the accused. LW-5-Adimulam Guru Mohan and LW-6 were witnesses to the occurrence. LW-6's husband and accused who are uterine brothers shared their ancestral property equally by leaving one old house and Ac. 5-00 cents of land to their mother. After death of their mother, they equally shared the said property. As mother-in-law of LW-6 was staying with the accused, he was enjoying Ac. 5-00 cents of land. LW-6's husband decided to take the old house into his possession towards his share.

    (ii) On 12.10.2007 LW-6 engaged LW-1 to LW-4 for demolition of old wall in order to construct a new wall. At her instructions, LW-1 to LW-4 started demolishing the wall. Around 12-00 noon when they were attending the said work, the accused went there and grew wild and abused LW-1 to LW-4 in the name of caste as “NEEYAMMA MADIGA GUDDANNI DENGA MADIGA LANJA KODAKALLARA.” So abusing, the accused picked up a spade stick and dealt a blow on the left rib of LW-1, resulting in swelling injury. He also beat LW-2 and LW-3 with a spade stick on their left shoulders and caused swelling injuries. He also beat LW-4 with a stone on his left palm and caused swelling injury. LW-5 and LW-6 witnessed the occurrence and intervened and sent the accused. Later, LW-1 to LW-4 went to Proddatur Rural Police Station and presented a report. LW-10-A.S.I. basing on the report registered FIR and referred LW-1 to LW-4 to Government Hospital, Proddatur. On the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Kadapa, dated 12.10.2007, LW-11-SDPO, Proddatur, took up investigation. He visited the scene of offence, observed the same and prepared rough sketch. LW-7- Dr. K. Annapurnamma, CAS, examined the injured persons and o

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