The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Ummagoni Suguna Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2811 Tel

           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

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

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

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

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

2007 (4) SCC 415 PNR,J Crl.A.No.362 of 2010

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

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

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.362 OF 2010

Date: 28.09.2021 kkm