In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand ort, akothert the Hon'ble Supreme court held that where the

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. Public Prosecutor Counsel for the Respondents: Sri C Buchi Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TIJ L,ANGANA ATHYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENI /AS RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1036 OF 201' 27th November 2025 Between: The State ofTelangana rep. by The Public Prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabad l. Pasula Hareesh @ Desham Hareesh Reddy, and six others AND ...Pel,ioner/Appellant ...Respond r rts/Respondents JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the State, r g,grieved by the judgment passed by the leamed Special Sessions Judge i r Trial oI Cases under S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Actcum-Vli Addltion rl District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnar, in S.C.No.43 of 2013, cz rcd 19.05.2014, whereunder respondents/accused were acquitted lcr the offences punishable under Sections 448, 324 read with Section : 4 of I.P.C. and Section 3(l)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 (hereinafter, fbrred as -'POA Act" for brevity").

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that on 24.10..(tl2 evening at about 5 P.M, PW.l along with his villagers Dokku lhasker, PW.2, 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 on25.lo.20l2 at9.00 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(l)(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 201 3 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. Leamed 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 rezrsons, disbe lieved the evidence J of PW.l who specifically deposed about using abusive srords uttered against him in the name of his caste and also sustaini r 5 injuries' He further submitted that PW.2 to PW.6 had also stated in thei evidence that the accused persons abused PW.l in the name of his ;aste. [n such circumstances, the trial Court ought to have convicted the i ccused for the offences levelted against them, on the other hand, the triat ( burt acquitted them, and therefore, the judgment passed by the leamed S: s,ions Judge is liable to be set aside, and the respondents/accused ai liable to be convicted for the offences levelled against them.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on respondents/accused vehemently contended that, even a: rehalf of the xrrding to the prosecution, the alleged incident was occurred on 24-14- :012. Neither PW. I nor any other person lodged any complaint on that <[r 1'. On the next day i.e., on 25.10.20 12, PW.l lodged a complaint wittLr ut giving any reasons for the said de [ay. He further submitted that tho a.ccused never abused PW- I in the name of his caste. The prosecution ha:' 'elied upon the evidcnce ol PW.2 to PW,6 and PW.9, who are none other han the family members of PW. I and their evidence cannot be taken into t rnsideration in the absence of any independent witness to attract the ins 'edients of the offence under the provisions of the POA Act. PW.8, whc s a Pujari, has also not specifically stated that the accused persons abu:t d PW.l in the q ' ,,,, ./" 4 name of his caste. PW.7 did not suppoft the prosecution and turned hostile. The leamed Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the respondents/accused by giving cogent reasons, and there are no grounds to interfere with the well-considered judgment passed by the trial Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the State is liable to be dismissed.

6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and upon perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court, it is revealed that, based on the complaint - Ex.p l, dated

25.10.2012lodged byPW.1, Crime No.149 of 2012 was registered againsr the accused and Investigation Officer after conducting the investigation fited final report before trial court in S.C. No.43 of 20 13. On behalf of the prosecution, PW.l to PW.12 were examined and Exs.P I to P9 were marked. On behalf of the defence, Exs.Dl to D3 were marked.

7. Even according to the prosecution, PWs.2, i, 4, 5, 6. and 9 are close relatives of PW.1 and their evidence is also inconsistent. The evidence of PW. I does not corroborate with the evidence ol PWs.2 to 6 and 9. Further, the evidence of PW.7 and PW.8, have also not supported the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. ,t 5

8. In Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand ort, akothert , the Hon'ble Supreme court held that where the alleged abr* ive words were uttered inside a private premises with no public present the mandatory requirement of "public view" is not satisfied, and furtlt r observed that allegations arising out ofa property or possession dispute Liready pending before civil courts do not, by themselves, athact the provi ions of the Act unless the abuse is shown to be solely on the ground of cu s .c. Similarly, in Pradnya Pradeep Kenkare and another v. State of Mt,oroshtra2, the Bombay High Court hetd that an offence under Sectior :l(l)(x) of the sc/sr (PoA) Acr is nor made out where the FIR does n. allege that the purported insult occurred "within public view," and cla ified that this ingredient requires both a place accessible to the public zr d the presence of members ot' the public who could see or her the alleged act.

9. ln Ramesh Chondra Vaishya v. State of tlfrar prade :h3 supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Courr held rhat for an offence under Sec ion 3(l)(x) of the SC/ST Act to be made out, the alleged insult must br: caste-specific, intentional, and nrade in a prace within pubric view. Si, r: the alleged abuse occurred in a private setting without reference to c rite or public '(2olo)ro scc 7lo t 2005 (j) SCC Online Bomba_r 571 ' (2021) t 7 scc 6l j r,. ,-:. ,i, ' ,'.-l' 6 presence, the essential ingredients of the offence were missing. Finding no credible evidence even for th€ IPC charges under Sections 323 and,504, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings as an abuse ofprocess.

10. The above mentioned principles are squarely applicable to the present case, as the complaint does not disclose that the alleged caste-based insults on 09.06.2022 were made in any place ',within public view" and the essential ingredient is not made out to attract the provisions of the Act. I l. Hence, this Court is ofthe considered view that the learned Sessions Judge had rightly came to a conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the offences levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them of the said offences. Insolar as the olfence under Section 324 IPC is concemed, the prosecution faited to examine the doctor, who heated pW.l and pW.9 and failed to prove Exs.PS and P9.

12. Even according to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer did not seize any weapon or stick allegedly used by the accused persons rvhile committing the offence. The prosecution also miserably failed to establish that the accused trespassed into the house of pW.l, as no independent witness or even any neighbour of the victim was examined to prove the said offence. 7

13. Hence this Court is of rhe considered view that th,: learned Sessions Judge had rightly come to the conclusion that the pros x:ution failed to prove the offence under Section 448 IpC and right y. acquitted the accused.

14. In cases of acquittal, the Hon,ble Supreme Court i, Ravi Sharma v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and anothera. held that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appelli: t Court has to consider whether the trial court's vlew can be termed zLr rl possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analyze <. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption rf innocence in favour of the accused- Thus, the appellate court has to be r ,latively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.

15. rn Ghurey Lal v. stote of utttr pradeshs the Hon'bre Supreme court after referring to several Judgments regarding the settled p:incipres of law and the powers ol appetlate Court in reversing the order r . acquittal, held at paraTO, as follows: "70. [n rhe light of the above, the High Cour,, md other appellate Courts should follow the well_s<t,led principles cn'stallized by number of Judgments iJ' t is ' lZOZZl t Supreme Court Cases 536 '(2008) l0 Suprernc Clourr Cases .15 --1:3.s:...:- , 8 going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal. " l. The appellate court may only oyerrule or otherwise disturb the trial court,s acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing .to. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's "Very substantial and compelling reasons" decision. exist when i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong: ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law; iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in " grave miscarriage ofjustice " ; it,) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing wilh the et'idence was patently illegal; v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust ond unreasonable; vi) The trial court has ignordd the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/report of the ballis tic expert, etc. vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive. 9

2. The appellate court must always give proper t,eight and consideration o thefindings of the trial cour,..

3. If two reasonable views can be reached on. that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction the lligh Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour tf the accused. "

16. For the foregoing reasons as well as the principler; taid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra, the earned Sessions Judge had rightly acquitted the accused for the offence runishable under Sections 448, 324 read with Secrion 34 of I.p.C. and ii r:tion 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Hence, this Court does not firrr any grounds to interfere with the well considered Judgment of the learnec sessions court.

17. Accordingly, the criminal appeal filed by the liate fails and is hereby dismissed. _ Miscellaneous Petitions. pending if any, shail stand clc ed. s : sd/-N. HANDRA SEKHAR PUTY REGISTRAR a I //TRUE COPY// L-,' SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Unde' SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, fu i habubnagar. 2. The Station House Officer, Kalwakurthy Police Station, \ ahabubnagar. 3. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High court for the stitl ) of Telangana, at 4. One CC to SRl. C Buchi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad [OUT] Pr/DL YY HIGH COURT DATED: 2711112025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1036 of 2017 'i ri T4 (( t () 1I l[8 lllfi z C)x * 1t'n^.' * f\ DISMISSING THE CRL.APPEAL ,t@a F't*