The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs Jabari Sonaiah
2022 Latest Caselaw 3969 Tel

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

           CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1898 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State questioning

the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable

under Sections 290, 323 of Indian Penal code and Section

3(1)(xi) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989, by the learned Special

Judge under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Adilabad in

Spl.S.C.No.13/2008,dt.27.08.2008.

2. The Special Judge after trial acquitted the

respondent/accused for the offences punishable under

Sections 290, 323 of IPC.

3. The Case of the prosecution is that PW1 on

02.12.2006 around 2.00 p.m. boarded a sharing Auto in

which others were present along with the

respondent/accused. When PW1 boarded the Auto and sat

beside the respondent, he stated "Maala lanja koduka, Naa

pakkana koochuntava" and kicked PW1 in his stomach, for

which reason, two days thereafter, PW1 went to the police

station and filed Ex.P1-complaint. On the basis of the

complaint filed, the Asifabad Police of Adilabad District

have investigated the complaint and filed charge sheet

against the respondent for the offences under Sections

290, 323 of Indian Penal code and Section 3(1)(xi) of

SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that when it is

specifically mentioned by PWs.1 to 4 that the accused

abused in the name of caste and thereafter kicked PW1 in

the stomach, the learned Special Judge erred in acquitting

the accused on the basis of some minor contradictions

which crept in the evidence. He further submits that once

it is stated that having knowledge about his caste and for

the reasons of a person belonging to SC community was

abused in the name of his caste, it amounts to offence

under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act and also

is liable for punishment for the offence under Section 323

of IPC for causing heart. In the said circumstances, the

Judgment of the Special Judge is liable to be reversed.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent/accused submits

that the reasons given by the learned Special Judge

regarding acquittal cannot be said to be unreasonable, as

such, there cannot be any interference unless acquittal is

recorded on untenable grounds.

6. Learned Special Judge acquitted the

respondent/accused on the following grounds;

i) There is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint

ii) The very story narrated by PW1 is highly improbable

as no witness stated as to how the leg of PW1

touched the accused.

iii) When specifically the witnesses have stated that the

accused kicked in the stomach, there is no

narration as to which part of the body of PW1

touched the accused resulting in the altercation.

iv) There are discrepancies regarding hurling of abuses

by the witnesses PWs.1 to 4. Each gives different

utterances allegedly made by respondent which

cannot give raise to doubt of the prosecution case.

8. As seen from the findings of the learned Special

Judge, the delay of 2 days has not been explained by the

prosecution. It is a specific case of the defence that there is

a civil dispute in the village, for which reason the

'Sarpanch' has implicated the respondent/accused with

the help of PW1 and others.

9. The Prosecution has not sent PW1 to any doctor to

ascertain regarding any assault by the respondent. The

finding of the Special Judge regarding the unexplained

delay and also regarding utterances being different from

the other, the prosecution case becomes doubtful. Further

in the background of the disputes in the village, the false

implication cannot be ruled out.

10. In the said circumstances, when the finding of the

learned Special Judge are based on logical conclusions and

no ground is made out to show any kind of unreasonable

approach or any illegality in the findings, the same cannot

be interfered with in case of acquittals.

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Radhakrishna Nagesh v. State of Andhra Pradesh1 held that

under the Indian criminal jurisprudence, the accused has

two fundamental protections available to him in a criminal

trial or investigation. Firstly, he is presumed to be innocent

till proved guilty and secondly that he is entitled to a fair

trial and investigation. Both these facets attain even

greater significance where the accused has a judgment of

acquittal in his favour. A judgment of acquittal enhances

the presumption of innocence of the accused and in some

cases, it may even indicate a false implication. But then,

this has to be established on record of the Court.

12. Following the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in appreciating the evidence in cases of

acquittal, though this Court has powers to re-assess the

entire evidence, there are no grounds to interfere with the

findings of the Learned Special Judge.

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

13. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State is

dismissed.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if

any, shall stand closed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 29.07.2022 tk

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

Crl.A.No.1898 of 2009

Dated:29.07.2022

tk