IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1036 OF 2017

27^th November 2025

Between:

The State of Telangana rep. by

The Public Prosecutor,

High Court at Hyderabad

...Petitioner/Appellant

AND

1. Pasula Hareesh @ Desham Hareesh Reddy,

and six others

...Respondents/Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, aggrieved by the

judgment passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act-cum-VIi Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnar, in S.C.No.43 of 2013, dated 19.05.2014, whereunder respondents/accused were acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as “POA

Act” for brevity").

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 24.10.2012 evening at about 5 P.M, PW.1 along with his villagers Dokku Bhasker, PW.2,

C.Bangaraiah PW.3 and others belonging to Ambedkar colony went to attend Jemmi puja at ZPHS Macherla village and that the accused persons A.1 to A.7 abused them in their caste name and assaulted them and that on the following day on 25.10.2012 at 9.00 hours, when he and his sister and brother were in their house, all the accused came to their house, abused them in their caste name and assaulted them. Based on the said complaint, Crime No.149 of 2012 was registered for the offences under Sections 448, 324 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. After conclusion of investigation, the investigating officer has filed a final report which is numbered as S.C.No.43 of 2013 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar. 3. Heard Mr.M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and Mr.L.Arvind Reddy, learned counsel for respondents/accused.

4. Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court, without properly considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, erroneously acquitted the respondents/accused. He further submitted that prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and that the respondents/accused have committed the offences despite of same, trial Court without any reasons, disbelieved the evidence of PW.1 who specifically deposed about using abusive words uttered against him in the name of his caste and also sustaining injuries. He further submitted that PW.2 to PW.6 had also stated in their evidence that the accused persons abused PW.1 in the name of his caste. In such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused for the offences levelled against them, on the other hand, the trial Court acquitted them, and therefore, the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside, and the respondents/accused are liable to be convicted for the offences levelled against them.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused vehemently contended that, even according to the prosecution, the alleged incident was occurred on 24.10.2012. Neither PW.1 nor any other person lodged any complaint on that day. On the next day i.e., on 25.10.2012, PW.1 lodged a complaint without giving any reasons for the said delay. He further submitted that the accused never abused PW.1 in the name of his caste. The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.2 to PW.6 and PW.9, who are none other than the family members of PW.1 and their evidence cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of any independent witness to attract the ingredients of the offence under the provisions of the POA Act. PW.8, who is a Pujari, has also not specifically stated that the accused persons abused PW.1 in the name of his caste. PW.7 did not support the prosecution and turned hostile. The learned Sessions Judge r