HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2010
Date: 28.09.2021
Between:
The State of A.P., rep.by the
Public Prosecutor,
High Court of A.P., Hyderabad.
.....Appellant/Petitioner
And
1) Ummagoni Suguna, w/o. Ramaswamy,
51 years
2) Ummagoni Karunakar, s/o. Ramaswamy,
31 years,
Both are Gouda by caste and r/o.Rampoor,
Karimnagar district.
.....Respondents/accused
The Court made the following:
PNR,J
Crl.A.No.362 of 2010
2
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2010
ORDER:
Heard Mr. C.Prathap Reddy, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. M.Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/accused.
2. This appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 08.12.2008 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008 passed by learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under SCs & STS (POA) Act at Karimnagar, acquitting the respondents-accused of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 (Act, 1989).
3. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.4-Manda Lalita is the sister-in-law of Accused No.1. Both the accused and P.W.4 are residents of Rampur village and they belong to Gouda community. P.W.1-Boddu Mogili belongs to Madiga community and is a resident of Ragapoor village. P.W.5-Illadula Naga Raju and P.W.6- Thoudu Sampath also belong to Madiga community and they hail from Rampoor and Rangapur villages, respectively. On 03.04.2007 at 6.00 p.m., Accused Nos.1 and 2 were abusing and beating P.W.4-Manda Lalita with sticks and at that time P.W.1 was returning home and on seeing the above incident, in which A1 and A2 caused head injury to P.W.4, P.Ws.1, 2, 5 and 6 intervened and shifted P.W.4 to Government Hospital, Huzurabad, whereupon both the accused abused P.W.1 saying 'Madiga Lanjakoduka - Maa inti Samasyalu Neekendukura', but he did not respond and shifted P.W.4 to the hospital. On his way to work in Huzurabad on 08.04.2007 at 8.00 a.m., P.w.1 stopped at the kirana shop run by PNR,J Crl.A.No.362 of 2010 3 P.W.2 to purchase cigarettes. Both the accused were present at the shop. They abused him stating 'Maa Goundla Moddaku Puttinanavara - Maadiga Lanjakoduka, Nuvvenduku Maa Panchayathi lo Kalpinchukuntavura'. This incident was witnessed by P.Ws.2 and 3. On the complaint of P.W.1, the Police Huzurabad registered a case in Crime No.52 of 2007 under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Karimnagar, investigated into the crime, examined the witnesses, effected arrest of the accused and filed charge sheet.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Huzurabad before whom the charge sheet was filed had complied the provisions under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and committed the case to the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, at Karimnagar.
5. On appearance of the accused, charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 was framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the victim as P.W.1; the alleged eye witnesses to the incident as P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 6; the persons whom both the accused attacked on 3.4.2007 as P.w.7; the Tahsildars who issued caste certificates as P.Ws 7 and 8; the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Karimnagar, who investigated into the crime as P.W.9; and the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the crime as P.W.10; and marked Exs.P1 to P9.
PNR,J Crl.A.No.362 of 2010 4
7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 10. Accused did not choose to adduce evidence on their behalf.
8. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and acquitted the accused.
9. The basis of charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 was the allegation of complainant that accused abused the P.W.1 using vulgar language and on caste lines on 08.04.2007. The background to the alleged incident of abuse on 08.04.2007 was the altercation that took place on 03.04.2007 between the accused and P.W.4, in which incident P.W.4 stated to have been injured, where P.W.1 intervened and shifted P.W.4 to the hospital. During the intervention and shifting P.W.4, the accused alleged to have used abusive language on caste lines. However, on analyzing the evidence on record, the trial Court noticed that P.W.4 in her complaint about the alleged incident on 03.04.2007 did not mention about abuses hurled by A1 against P.W.1 during the incident on 03.04.2007. P.W.1 did not lodge complaint on the alleged abuses stated to have been hurled at him on 03.04.2007. The trial Court, therefore, held that motive to indulge in abuses on 08.04.2007 referring to the incident occurred on 03.04.2007, as alleged by the Prosecution, is not established.
10. On thorough analysis of evidence, learned trial Judge held that the Ex.P3-complaint, which was the basis to initiate PNR,J Crl.A.No.362 of 2010 5 prosecution and the charge, was foisted. Trial Court noticed that there was delay of 33 hours from the time of incident in filing the complaint and the same was not satisfactorily explained. The trial Court disbelieved the statement that as Sub-Inspector of Police was not available in the Police Station and Constable on duty did not accept the complaint holding that in the same premises, Office of Inspector of Police is also located. The trial Court also noticed correction about date of offence and adding time of incident.
11. P.Ws.2 and 3 are supporting the version of P.W.1 on the alleged incident on 08.04.2007. P.W.2 was the shop owner where the abuses were alleged to have been hurled. P.W.3 is brother of P.W.2. On going through the depositions of P.Ws.2 and 3, the trial Court noticed that P.W.3 and A1 were having disputes and were not in talking terms. The trial Court concluded that P.Ws.2 and 3 are ill disposed towards A1, due to past animosity, they extended helping hand to P.W.1 and their evidence cannot be believed.
12. Having regard to categorical assertion of P.W.4 and having regard to the fact that P.W.4 did not state anything on alleged vulgar abuses made by accused on 03.04.2007 in his complaint, the trial Court discarded the evidence of P.W.6.
13. In the complaint lodged by P.w.1, he has stated that " ే ి 8.4.07 ో న 8.00 గ|| ేను ా ి రవ్హణ గూ ిచ్ హు ాబాద్ కు వచుచ్చుండ ా ం ి ర్ ాస్ కి ాణం ాపులో న ే ు ిగ ేటు సుకోనుచుండ ా మ ల్ ఉమమ్ ొ సుగుణ మ య ి ు కరుణాకర్ లు వ చ్ మా ౌండల్ ా డడ్ కు పుటిట్న ార మా ిగ లంజకొడుక ను ెవ్ందుకు మా పం ాయ క ప్ంచుకుంటావు ా అ కులం ేరు ో టుట్చుండ ా ం ి సుదరశ్న్ s/o. ంగయయ్, ం ి ర్ ాస్ s/o. ంగయయ్ ారలు ాన్రు."
PNR,J Crl.A.No.362 of 2010 6
14. From this extracted portion of the complaint, which is the basis to launch prosecution against the accused, it is seen that the complaint is vague. It is not stated as to which accused hurled the said abuse. It is also not the allegation that both have used same words. It cannot be said that both accused together spoken to same abusive terms at the same time like a chorus. In the final report filed by the Police also this fact was not explained. P.Ws.1 to 3 also have not deposed as to which accused used the abusive words stated in the complaint. The deposition of P.W.9- Investigating Officer is also silent on this aspect. It is also not explained how Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 is attracted.
15. The scope of consideration of appeal against acquittal is within a narrow bandwidth. It is not in every case this court should reverse the decision of Court below granting acquittal. This is all the more so, even when two views are possible. Interference is not warranted even when acquittal is found to be wrong. An order of acquittal can be interfered with only when there are compelling and substantial reasons, such as 'clearly unreasonable', Court below 'ignored the evidence or has ignored material documents', bordering on perversity. (Mrinal Das vs. State of Tripura = (2011) 9 SCC 479; Maloth Somaraju Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh = (2011) 8 SCC 635).
16. In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court delineated the principles that emerged from plethora of decisions as under:
"42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate 1 2007 (4) SCC 415 PNR,J Crl.A.No.362 of 2010 7 court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court."
(emphasis supplied)
17. It is a well considered decision of the trial Court. Learned Public Prosecutor is not able to persuade the Court on attracting any of these ingredients and persuade this Court to reverse the decision of acquittal granted by the trial Court. Having anxiously considered the submissions of learned Public Prosecutor, on going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution and judgment rendered by the trial Court carefully, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or perversity in the findings of trial Court warranting reversing the said decision.
18. The Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment dated 08.12.2008 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2008 passed by learned PNR,J Crl.A.No.362 of 2010 8 Special Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act at Karimnagar. Pending miscellaneous petitions if any shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO Date: 28.09.2021 Kkm PNR,J Crl.A.No.362 of 2010 9 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2010 Date: 28.09.2021 kkm