The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Ramachander Rao Vemuganti Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Sri M Vivekananda Reddy, Assistant Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondent No.2 & 3 : Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy The Court delivered the following: Judgment ,^ I THE HOI{OURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.352 OF 2014 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/ de-facto complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.07.20 13 in Special Sessions.Case. No.2 I of 2O I l, on the file of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar, acquitting the respondents/ accused for the offences under Sections 447, 427 and 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & Sts (POA) Act, i989.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant / de-facto complainart and Sri M.Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assistant Pr-rblic Prosecutor for respondent-State. perused the record.

3. The case of P.W.l who is the de-facto complainant is that he lodged a complaint on 05.08.2010 alleging that he owns a land admeasuring Ac.2-00 in Sy.No.429 situdted near Nallagutta. On O2.08.201 0, the accused drove the tractor in the maize crop of the complainant resulting in damage of Rs. 1,000/-. When questioned as to why accused has done so, the accused abused P.W. 1 in filthy language,,Neeuu Euari ./ 2 Ch.enulo Nundi Pouaaro Arey Madiga.jathiki konchem bhumi unte dgarendukura", " Madiga Anakunte Dora Ani Antaraa Baga Matladuthunnauu Madiga Lanjekoduka". The accused also beat him with chappal.

4. On the basis of the complaint, charge sheet was filed against the accused/ respondents.

5. l,earned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused mainly on the following grounds:-

1. P.W.9/InvestigatingOfficeradmitted that no injuries were found on the body of P.W.1

2. No medical certificate was produced by P.W. 1 to show that he received injuries. 3 4 5 There is a delay of 2 days in iodging the complaint and no explanation was given. Nothing incriminating was recovered at the scene of offence. Investigating Officer admitted that P.W.1 demanded money in the.case and P.Ws.2 and 3 also supported. i I I -)

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de_facto complainant would submit tinat prima facie, a case has to be looked into and A-1 and A-2 abused appellant/complainant and also beat him with chappal.

7. In cases of acquittal, the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Raai Shq.rmq. u. Stqte (Gouernment of NCT of Delhi) and. anothey', held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, thc appellate court has to consider whether the trial Court's view can be termed as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively srow in reversins the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

8. In Ghureg Lal o. State o;f Uttar prad.esE the Hon,bie Supreme Cotrrt after referring to severa-l Judgments regarding the settled principles of lar.r, ald the powers of appellate Court in revcrsing the order of acquittal, held at para 70, as fo1lor.r,s: '. (2022) I Supremc Cou( Cases 536 '(2008) 10 Suprenre Court Cases 450 4 "70. In the light of the aboue, the High Court and. other appellate Courts should follow the uell-settled princtples crystallized bg number of Judgments if it i"s going to ouemtle or oth-erauise disturb tlte trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court maA onlA ouemtle or othentise disturb the tial court's acquittal if it hos "uery substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of in-stances aise in which the appellate court u-tould haue "uery substantial qnd compelling reason_s" to discard th,e trial court's decision. "Very substantiot and. compelling reasons" eist tuhen: palpablg urong: i) The tial court's conclusion uith regard to the facts is ii) The trial court's decision uas based on an errorLeous uieu of lauL; mis cariag e of justtce " ; iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in *graue iu) The entire approach of the tial court in dealing u-tith the euidence utas patentlg illegal; u) The tial court's judgment was manifestlg unjust and unrea,sonable; ui) The tial court hos ignored tlte euidence or misread the mateial euidence or has ignored mateial documents like dging declarations,/ report of the ballistic expert, etc. uii)This li^st is intended to be illustratiue, not exLnustiue. 2- The appeltate court nust alu.tags giue proper weight and consideration o the fi.ndings of the tial court. 3- IJ' ttoo reosonable uieu.ts can be reaclrcd_ one that leads to acquittal, the other to conuiction _the High Courts/ appellate courTs must n e in fauour of the accused."

9. P.W.1 has not explained the delay that was caused satisfactorily. According to him, he received injuries. However, neither the Doctor was examined nor certificate is produced. The Investigating Officer did not find any injuries on the complainant. The Court further found that P.W. L was in habit of filing false complaints to extract money. The I I I ) Investigating Officer admitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 were charge sheeted on the a-llegation of trying to extract money.

10. There are no compelling reasons to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, acquitting the accused. I 1. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEPUTY REGISTRAR a 1,.. gi $ecror,r oFFtcER To, I

1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trail of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act Cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge at Karimnagar

2. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

3. One CC to Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Pulimamidi Shashidhar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ADI(gh lP HIGH COURT DATED:07102i2025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.352 of 2014 L STA re 2 4 il[n 2[25 .! ) \ t OESrA'I' DISMISSING THE CRLA @ I \ t b