High Court · 2025

Counsel for the APPellant: SRI' Counsel for the Respondent: SRI E' GANESH' ASST' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The Court delivered the following Judgment : i i I THE HONONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.8O7 of 2OL4 JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal is frled under Secti on 324(2) of Cr.P.C. by the appellants/accused Nos. I and 2 aggrieved by the judgment dated t8.OZ.2Ot4 passed in S.C.No.25 of 2Ol3 on the frle ,cf the learned Special Sessions Judge for Tria1 of cases under SCs and srs (poA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam (for short, .the triai Court,).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred as arrayed in S.C.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 1g.06.2012 at 12:00 noon, padisala Krishna Kumari gave a compiaint in the Police Station, Thirumalayapalem stating that on 22.O5.2OI2 at 8:00 A.M, Dosapati Upender came to her house and informed that Makka_la Upender/accused No.I and Makkala Venkataramana/accused No.2 were abusing her husband Sudhakar in iilthy language at the house of Nallagattu Bixam. Then she rushed to the spot. On seeing her, the accused o abrrsed her also in a filthy languLage by taking her caste' Then accused No.2 caught hold of tuft of Krishna Kumari and slapped her. Immediately' they were rescued by neighbouring people. Hence, the comPlaint' 4. Basing on ttre said complaint' the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruma-Iayapalem registered a case against accused Nos. 1 and 2 in ctime No'85 of 2012 under Sections 29a $\ r /w 34ofIPCandSection3(1)(x)ofSCsandSTs(PoA)Act.After recording the statements of witnesses and collecting ttre documents charge sheet has been Iiled before the learned trial Court, which was taker cognizance as S'C'No'2S of 2013' 5. After hearing the parties on both sides and upon considering the evidence on record' the trial Court opined that accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sectio n 323 of IPC and accused Nos'l and 2 found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 294 (b) read with 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act and convicted accused Nos'l and 2 and' sentenced them to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to - I I I I I i ! t a pay a fino of Rs.1,OOO/_ each ald in default of payment, to suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Further accused Nos.1 and 2 are conyicted under Section 235(2) Cr.p.C for the offence punishable under Sectio n 29a@) IpC and sentenced to pay a fine rrf Rs.50O/_ each and in default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each. 6. Heard Sri R.Nageswara Rao, learned counsel for the appellalt and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent _ St.rte ald perused the record. 7' Learned counsel appearing for the appelant wourd submit that the husbald of pW. 1 was a Contractor. He was using the ser.vices of appellant No. 1. Appellant No. I belongs to Vaddera Caste. Because of differences between them in contract works a false case is foisted against them. There is undue deray in lodging complaint, which is not exptained. A false complajnt is lodged against the appellarts and that the appellants have never abused pWs.l and 2 in filthy larrguage touching their caste nor pW. 1 was beaten by appeltant No,2. 4 Leartrcd counsel further submitted that except PWs'S' 7 8. and 1O al1 other witnesses a-re relatives of PWs'l and 3' but PWs.3 and 8 who are said to be eld'ers did not support tLre version of the prosecution' but the Court below ignoring the evidence of PWs'3 and 8 convicted the appellants' The Court below erred in passing the judgment of conviction and imposed thesentencewithoutproperlyappreciatingthefactsand circumstalces and the material available on record' though the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence seeks indulgence of this Court' g.I,earnedAssistantPublicProsecutorappearingforthe respondent-State contended that the trial Court' upon appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, in right perspective' passed the judgment and interference of this court at this stage is unwarranted' Hence' seeks to dismiss the present Criminal Appeal'

10. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and upon perusing the material available on record this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has I I I I 5 \, miserably failed in placing cogent, convincing, reliable, trustworthy and unimpeachable eyidence so as to drive the Court to come to irresistible conclusions on the guilt of accused for the offences under Sectio ns 294 (b) r/w 34 of IpC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act arraigned against them beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court a_1so erred in placing reliance on the highly interested arrd discrepant testimony of pWs. 1, 2, 4 to Z, 9 and 10. There are no direr:t witnesses to that occurrence ald the case rests on the intet.ested evidence and the interested eyidence reiied upon by the prosecution is not proved. Hence, the appellants/accused Nos. I and 2 are fournd not guilty for the offences under Sectio ns 294 (b) r/w 34 of IpC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs eLnd STs (pOA) Act and accordingly, they were acquitted. The bail bonds if any shail stald calcelled. 1 1. Accordi:rgly, the criminal appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment dated 1B.OZ.2Ot4 passed in S.C.No.2S of 2Ol3 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of 6 ,i Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam ' MiscellaneousPetitions,pendingifany,shallalsostand dismissed. sd, - M. v!.1 AYA 33,1?[F[ ,,TRUE COPY/I S CTION OFFICER To, I 2 3 :5fi ."xsslft L::i335i;"'3:J3:"rifl fif 'x"'H.ilr:l"ls$:rs(PoA)Act. il=jil#;[**t'"t" "r;;; crass' speciar Mobne court ' Police Station' Khammam Khammam Thirumalayapalem RAO REPAKULA' Advocate tOPUCj The Station House Officer ' District. One CC to SRI NAGESWARA 4 5. Two CD CoPies wr?sr w. HIGH COURT DATED:06/08/2025 I ''a: ,\-'.\} ? 0 sEP zflfi JUDGMENT CRL.APPEAL No.807 of 2014 i i l I i I I I I i I i ! : I , I i i l I i I { ALLOWING THE CRL.APPEAL q ",