K. Hanumanth Reddy, Shapur Nagar ... vs The State Of A.P., Rep. By P.P., ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3939 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1638 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Section

3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine

of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for

one month, vide judgment in S.C.No.156 of 2008 dated

20.10.2009 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for SCs &

STs (POA) Act, 1989. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is

filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 purchased

house from the accused on 15.02.2006 under notary sale

agreement. The appellant sought three months time for

vacating the house, as he failed to do so, there was a

panchayat held, during which, the appellant abused P.W.1 in

the name of his case and left the place. Then P.W.1 went to

SC and ST Commission and gave written report. On

16.11.2006, Ex.P1 was given to police. In proof of the

transaction, P.W.1 filed Ex.P2, which is the photocopy of

agreement of sale entered into between P.W.1 and the

appellant and also receipt of the appellant receiving the

amount was also filed.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, having found that the

appellant had abused P.W.1 in Telugu, which is deposed by

him in his chief examination, as follows:

" MADIGA MALLA LANJAKODAKA, NA INTINE NEEKU

APPACHEPALA EVARIKI CHEPUKNONTA CHEPUKO".

4. The defence of the appellant is that the complaint is

falsely made with an intention to intimidate the appellant to

vacate the premises even before the agreed date. Two

witnesses P.Ws.2 and 3 are interested witnesses, who have

spoken false in support of P.W.1. It is further case that Crime

No.617 of 2006 on the file of P.S.Jeedimetla was also made by

P.W.1 against appellant, which was closed by the

respondent/complainant.

5. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, the

utterances made are different. P.W.3 deposed as follows:

"MALA MADIGA LANJAKODUKA ANTE INTEOKE

RANIYANU, NENU ILLE IVANU YEMICHESUKUNTAVO

CHESUKO PO".

In Ex.P1, P.W.1 stated as follows:

"Malla Madiga Lanja Koduka".

6. The utterances made by the appellant are different

according to P.Ws.1 and 3 in the back ground of the disputes

regarding the handing over of the property, it canot be ruled

out that a false complaint is made by P.W.1. In the back

ground of similar allegation made against the appellant by

P.W.1 before the Jeedimetla Police, the same was closed.

7. In the said circumstances, when there is a motive for

P.W.1 for falsely implicating the appellant herein, this Court is

of the considered opinion that benefit of doubt has to be

extended to the appellant.

8. In the result, the conviction and sentence recorded

against the appellant vide judgment in S.C.No.156 of 2008

dated 20.10.2009 by the trial Court is set aside. Since the

appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.

9. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. As a sequel

thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands

closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date:28.07.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1638 OF 2009

Date:28.07.2022.

kvs