The High Court · 2025

Sri MAKMUkheed Counsel for the ResPondent No 1 Counsel for the Respondent No 2 to 13 Sri M Vivekananda ReddY Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri Veluri Ravi Kumar Amicus Curiae The Court delivered the following Judgment : 7 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.344 OF 2OL2 JUDGMENT: The appellalt is the defacto complainant, questioning the acquittal of the respondents 2 to 13/A1 to 412.

2. According to the defacto complainant, she belongs to Scheduled Caste and resident of Tekumatla Village. The accused belong to 'Gouda' caste ald are resident of the same village. The village is located on the bank of Musi river and sand used to be transported from the village through tractors. One Sanjeev Reddy, who was the husband of the Tekumatla village, and his followers used to collect Rs.20 /- from each tractor, which was transporting sand. T\vo months prior to lodging of the complaint, one Rambabu and his caste people asked Sanjeev Reddy to donate Rs.50,00O/- for erecting Ambedkar statue near tlie bus stop of Tekurnatla village. Sanjeev Reddy gave Rs.25,000/- for erecting the statue. On LO.O7.2OO7, accused No.l and some of his caste people questioned Sanjeev Reddy about donating Rs.25,0OO/- for erection of Ambedkar statue and asked him to donate Rs.25,000/- for construction of Mahankalamma temple. Differences arose between the 'Mala' caste t A people and 'Gor.Lda' caste people in the villa$e. On 12.07 .2007 at

7.00 p.m., Ranbabu and his caste people, keeping the dilferences in mind, beat one Dasari Dasaiah (not examined), rvho belongs to Gouda caste, and a separate crime was registered fr rr the said incident. Agair on 13.07 .2OO7 , the current motor of Ac:cused No.4 was found in t.h,: agricultural well. A11 the accused hereil'r suspected that it was done by Suresh, who is the son irt-lalt' ,rf the said Rambabu and l,alitha (appellant). With a pre-plern, all 1he accused trespassed into the house of Lalitha-appellant on l4.O'" .2OO7 ' and abused her in the name of caste and thrr:atened with dire consequences, il she did not handover her son-in 1ar.l'Suresh. A2 caught hold of her hair and A5 pulled her saree. A'l beat with a stick on the right arn and A1 stabbed with knife on the left side of the stomach of the rppellant. On account of the assarrlt by A1, 42, 1.4, and A5, she fe[1 unconscious. One of the accused snatctred her gold chain u.eighing 1l Tuias and stolen Rs.10,OOO/ ca.sh frorrr her house. All the accuse<l abused her in filthy language rele rring to. her caste and threatened that they would kill the complainar Lt ald her husband. The appellant was then taken to the hospital, alter she lost consclousnes s. 3

3. The. complaint was filed on 18.07.2007. Tlne appellant-pW. I explained that the delay of four days in lodging complaint was on account of the intervention by the elders of the village, however, since the issue was not settled, the complaint was filed.

4. The learned Sessions Judge, having considered the evidence on record, acquitted the accused on the following grounds. i) PWs. I to 5, PWs. 12 and 13 are close relatives of the complainant, who supported the prosecution case. PWs.6 to 1 1, pWs. 14 and 15 were all declared hostile to the prosecution case and did not depose anything against the accused. ii) The incident took place on 14.07.2OO7 at 7.00 A.M., in the house of PW. 1. The incident is a result of the earlier two incidents that have taken place on 10.07.20O7 and 12.07.2OO7. iii) There is no explanation for not lodging complaints for the incidents dated 1O.O7.2OO7 and 12.O7.2OO7; and the present complaint was f ed on 18.07.20O7, with a delay of 4 days., iv) In Ex.Pl, no explanation is given rega-rding the delay that has occurred in lodging the complaint, and the unexplained delay is fatal to the prosecution case. / 4 v) PW. 1 in the complaint stated that the reason for incider:t was sand transport, howr:i'er, she later chalged her versior:L statirrg that the dispute was du,: to sarpanch donation. vi) The husbal,l of appellant belongs to TRS party, whereas A1 and others belong to Congress pa-rty and there are political differences in the village. vii) During PW. 1 s deposition, she stated that she gave cc,mplaint on

12.07.2OO7 at 7 00 p.m., scribed by her, however, she stated that Ex.P1 u.as not n her handwriting and scribed by sorreone e1se, which creates s -t ;picion. viiil PW. 1 state,l that she lost consciousness and u,as tzrken to the hospital in the ,\mbulance, after she was beaten with sticks and stabbed with a l<nife in the stomach. However, nrt reqursition was given by the, Invr:stigating Officer-PW. 18 to the doctor. Tl-rough, the complaint was llled on 18.07.2007, the doctor-Pw. 16 stared that he examined PW. 1 on 14.O7.2OO7.

5. Learned Co:nsel appearing for the appellant u.ould submit that the whole appr,rach of the learned Sessions Judge in drviding the witnesses as inte:ested and dis-interested is incorrect. p\&.1 testified 5 that a,ll tlre accused attacked her in the house and she was treated in the hospital after the accused inflicted injuries on her with sticks ald knives. The acquittal was recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on minor contradictions, which happen in a criminal trial.

6. Having gone through the record, there is no explanation given in Ex.Pl regarding the delay camsed in lodging the FIR. During her evidence before the Court, PW. 1 did not speak about the presence of any other person apart from the accused. The prosecution has projected PWs.2 to 5 as eye-witnesses to the incident. However, as already stated, their presence was not deposed by PW. 1 during her exarnination in the Court. There were admittedly differences in between two rival political groups. Though, the initial complaint was regarding the sand transport, however, the version was changed to one of donations of 'sarpanch'. The prosecution has come up with a tainted version by suppressing actual incident, which is evident from the contradictory statements of the witnesses. Fr.rrther, no seizures were effected by the police, though PW. 1 alleged that one gold chain and cash were missing. Further, neither any stick, nor knife or zrny objects were recovered during the course of investigation to place before the Court 6 a In Rawi Sharrna v. State (Government of NCT of Delhil and 7. another', the F{on'ble Supreme Court held that vvhile dealing with al appea-l against acquittal, the appellate court has tc consirler whether the trial Cor.rrt's view cal be termed as a possibk: one, particularly t when evidence on record has been analysed. The reasotl is that an order of acquitlzLl adds up to the presumption of irLnocen,:e in favour of the accused lhus, the appellate court has to bt: relatl vely slow in reversing the orrler of the trial court rendering acqr'rittal

8. In Ghureg Lal u. State o;f (Ittar Pradesh,' t.he Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to several Judgments re garding the settled princip,l,:s of law and the powers of appellal e Court in reversing the orrler of acquittal, held at para 70, as follos,r;: "7(). In the light of tlLe aboue, the High Coua anC other appellate Courls shou,ta follotu the tuell-settled principles crystaltLzed bg ,rumber of Judgments if it is going to ouenule ctr othenuise distu.rb the tnal court's acquitta)': ). Th.e oppellate court moA onlg ouerrule or othenuise dtisturb the tial court's a,quittal if it lrus "uery substantial and cornpellin!; reasons" for doing so. A numb ?r of instonces aise in uhich the appetlate a.:trt uould haue "uery substantial and compelling reasons" to discard tlle tial court's d.ecisicn. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" eist uhen: i) Tlrc t,ial court's conclusion uith regard to the facts r palpablg wrong: 1(2022) 8 supreme coLrrt cases 535 '120081 10 Srp.erne cc,u t cases 450 7 la u.t; of iustice": ii) The tnal courl,s decision uds ba,sed on an etroneous uieu of iii) The trial court's iudqment is tikelA to result in ograue misconiage iu) The entire approach of the tiaL court in dealing uLith ttrc eui.dence u) The tial court's judgment u)as manifes g unjust and. ui) The tial court hos ignored the euid.ence or misread the mdteiat like dAing eyilence. o! has ignored mateial aoori"rt, - :-- dedarations/ report of*rc ballistic Ex.pert, etc. u,r as p atentlg illeg al ; unreasonable; The appellate court uii)Thi-s li-st is intended to be illustratiue, not exhausttue. - must alu..ngs giue prope, weight and .2-. considerotion o the ftndings of the tiot coui. 3. If ttuo reasonable uieus can be reached_ one that leads to aquitta| tLLe other to cr:nuiction _the High Courts/ippellate aurts must rule in fauour of the acansed.."

9. There are no grounds and compelling reasons to reverse the well reasoned Judgment of the trial Court.

10. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is dismissed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. B. SATYAVATHI DEP TY REGISTRAR s CTION OFFICER To, 'l The Soecial Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum- nOaitiSnaf Oistrict Judge, Nalgonda. (with records, if any)

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

3. One CC to Sri M A K Mukheed; Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Veluri Ravi Kumar, Amicus Curiae [OUT] 5. Two CD CoPies Vfushw HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.344 of 2012 ( f€ .llTt{r1. i 14 t'ir.P, iozi , L,T .! pl1 DISMISSING THE CRLA g,rPd W 6[t=\'{ l I