The State Of Andhra Pradesh, vs Kanatham Chinna Liga Reddy,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6099 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.188 of 2012


JUDGMENT:

State filed this appeal aggrieved by the judgment, dated

06.05.2010, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for

trial of SC/STs (POA) Act cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge,

Nalgonda, in S.C.No.33 of 2008, acquitting the sole accused,

respondent herein, for the offence punishable under Section

332 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, 'the Act').

2. Briefly stated, the case presented by the prosecution

before the trial Court, is as under:

P.W.1, the then Tahsildar of Kethapally Mandal, who belongs to

S.C. (Madiga) caste, lodged Ex.P.1-complaint with the Police,

alleging that on 24.01.2008, while he was in his chamber, the

accused came to his chamber, enquired about the application

submitted by him, for which, P.W.1 informed that the mutation

register was not traceable in the office and hence, a memo to

that effect was being prepared and asked him to wait about 10

minutes. On that, the accused abused him in the name of his

caste, slapped him on both cheeks and caught hold of his collar.

                                2                               MGP,J
                                                 Crl.A.No.188 of 2012

P.W.3 intervened, prevented the accused from the assault and

the attender, P.W.4 and himself took the accused out of his

chambers and it was witnessed by P.W.2, P.W.5, P.W.8 and

P.W.10. Basing on the said complaint, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Vemulapally Police Station registered a case in Crime No.

12 of 2008 for the offence under Section 332 IPC and Section

3(1)(x) of the Act, issued Ex.P.9 FIR and referred P.W.1 to the

Government Area Hospital, Miryalaguda. After obtaining

necessary proceedings from the Superintendent of Police,

Nalgonda under the cover of Ex.P.10, P.W. 12, the Sub

Divisional Police Officer, Miryalaguda, took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, P.W. 12 recorded the

statements of witnesses, arrested the accused and after receipt

of necessary reports, laid the charge sheet against the accused

for the said offences. Necessary charges under Section 332 IPC

and 3(1)(x) of the Act were framed, read over and explained to

the accused in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and

claimed to be tried.

3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution

conducted trial by examining as many as 13 witnesses and

marking Exs.P.1 to P.12 apart from M.O. 1. On behalf of the

defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

                                3                               MGP,J
                                                 Crl.A.No.188 of 2012

4. The learned Sessions Judge, on appreciation of oral and

documentary evidence, was of the view that the prosecution

failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences

punishable under Section 332 IPC and 3(1)(x) of the Act and

accordingly, acquitted him of the offence, through the impugned

judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the State filed this

appeal.

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that

there is ample evidence to prove the offences with which the

accused is charged, but the trial Court has acquitted the

accused without considering the available evidences in proper

perspective. It is contended that the trial Court has not given

any valid and convincing reasons in rejecting the evidence of

P.Ws. 1,2, 4 to 7 and 9 who are direct witnesses to the incident.

Their evidence leads to only one conclusion and inference that

the accused has committed the offences with which he is

charged.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent, accused

referred to the limitations on the powers of this Court while

entertaining an appeal against acquittal by submitting that the

Court is to interfere only when there are compelling and

substantial reasons for doing so. The trial Court has minutely 4 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012

considered the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses and

also took into consideration the defence raised by the accused

and then acquitted the respondent, accused which does not

suffer from any infirmity as such the appeal is meritless and is

liable to be dismissed.

7. The point for consideration in this case is, whether the

acquittal order passed by the trial Court is sustainable or not?

8. It is well settled by several decisions of this Court and the

Apex Court that, the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain an

appeal against the order of acquittal is very limited. Once the

trial Court acquitted the accused, the presumption of innocence

is strengthened. The Apex Court in Sampath Babso Kale v.

State of Maharashtra(2019) 4 SCC 739 and in Chandrappa v.

State of Karnataka(2007) 4 SCC 415 considered this point.

9. Bearing the above principle in mind, this matter has to be

considered. The trial Court after appreciating the entire oral

and documentary evidence came to the definite conclusion that

the accused is not guilty of the offences. After summing up the

evidence, the trial Court, at para Nos. 42 & 43, observed as

under:-

"42. Upon perusing the facts and circumstances, the

material available on record and for the reasons mentioned 5 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012

above, it shows two versions, if the prosecution version is taken

into consideration that there is a strong suspicion against the

accused that he vexed with the process adopted by the PW-1

office, he might have committed the offence. The evidence of the

prosecution witnesses is not sufficient and they all created

reasonable doubts as mentioned above with regard to the true

state of affairs, suspicion however grave has no place in the eye

of law unless the prosecution could establish the guilt of the

accused conclusively with cogent evidence. But there is no such

evidence before this Court. The second version shows that since

long time the accused adopted due process and approaching

various authorities and moving around with regard to the Title

and Pattadar Pass Book in respect of Ac.2.12 gts in Sy. No. 655

of Thopucherla Village, even after orders issued by the RDO in

Proceeding No. E1/4767/2007. In such a situation it creates

doubt about the allegation levelled against the accused as he

adopted the due process from beginning to ending but there was

no compliance with regard to the Title Deed and Pattadar Pass

Book. He approached the Revenue authorities, when there was

no response, he approached RDO and obtained orders and even

after that VRO prepared Pattadar Pass Book and Title Deed yet

they were not handed over to him, as such he adopted other

process to obtain certify copy of amendment might be with an 6 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012

intention to take further action against the concerned as they

have not supplied to him. Ultimately all these things worked

against the accused and reason to grow enmity. Hence, benefit

of doubt always will go in favour of the accused.

43. Upon perusing the facts and circumstances, material

available on record, I find that the prosecution failed to prove the

guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges

U/sec. 332 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/STs (POA) Act, 1989. ..."

10. The victim deposed before the Court as P.W.1 and

asserted the contents of Ex.P.1 compliant. According to him, on

the date of incident, while he was in his chamber, the accused

came to his chamber, asked about the application given by him

and when P.W.1 stated that the mutation register is not

traceable and a memo to that effect is being prepared, the

accused abused him in the name of his caste and slapped him

on both cheeks and caught hold of his collar. P.W.3, the M.P.P.

who was present in his chambers intervened, prevented the

accused from the assault and P.W.3 and P.W.4, the attender,

took the accused out of his chambers. However, in his cross-

examination, he admitted that RDO gave an order dated

01.03.2007 for restoration of title in respect of the land of the

accused and also admitted that the accused approached him for

restoration of title of the said land for which, he informed him to 7 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012

meet VRO. P.W.2 is Deputy Tahsildar, colleague of P.W.1, who

deposed that the accused was roaming around the office in

connection with the restoration of title of his land and stated

that on hearing the galata from the chamber of P.W.1, she

rushed there and found the accused caught hold of collar of

P.W.1 and abusing P.W.1 in the name of his caste. P.W.3, an

Advocate, who was present in the office of P.W.1 and who

allegedly prevented the accused from the assault, has not

supported the version of the prosecution and therefore, he was

declared hostile. P.W.4, attender in the office of P.W.1, was in

fact, not an eyewitness to the incident and he deposed that on

hearing the galata, he entered into the chamber and saw the

accused standing in a corner and P.W.3 questioning the

accused why he is abusing P.W.1 in the name of his caste and

beating him. P.W.5, who is VRO of Itikayala Village and P.W.6,

who is VRO of Agamothkur Village, supported the evidence of

P.W.1. However, P.W.7 is panch witness to Ex.P.3. P.W.8,

independent eyewitness, was declared hostile as he did not

support the case of the prosecution. P.W.9 is the doctor who

examined P.W.1 and issued Ex.P.6, wound certificate, observing

that small contusion on the left temporal region which was

caused by blunt weapon and the injury is simple in nature.

P.W.10, the then Additional R.I. in Tahsildar Office, Vemulapally 8 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012

Village is only hearsay witness. P.W.11, Tahsildar, deposed as

to the application filed by the accused for which P.W.1 gave a

reply stating that the record is not available. P.W.12 is the

investigating officer and P.W.13 is the Tahsildar, who issued

Ex.P.11, caste certificate, certifying that P.W.1 is member of

Scheduled Caste.

11. The version of the accused was that RDO gave

proceedings sanctioning pattadar pass book and title deed in

his favour in respect of Ac.2.12 guntas situated at Thopucherla

Village in Sy. No. 655 but as P.W.1 did not grant title deed in

his favour even after completing all the formalities, he had

lodged a complaint against P.W. 1 in the office of District

Collector for non-issuance of patadar pass book and title deed

in his favour in spite of VRO prepared necessary documents and

handed over to P.W.1. The said factum of orders passed by

RDO in favour of accused was also admitted by P.W.1 in his

cross-examination. Furthermore, out of the above evidence

adduced by the prosecution, except P.W.1 and his colleagues,

the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the

prosecution. Even the prosecution witnesses evidence discloses

that the accused was made to roam around the office of P.W.1

on the pretext that the necessary record for restoration of title

and pattadar pass books in respect of his land was not available 9 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012

in the office. Even the evidence of prosecution witnesses

discloses that the place of occurrence took place in the chamber

of complainant, P.W.1, which cannot strictly be strictly

interpreted as the abuse is in the 'public view'. When doubt

arises in the mind of the court and when clouds of doubt arise,

in criminal justice delivery system, that benefit of doubt shall

accrue on the accused alone. Accordingly, benefit of doubt has

been accrued in this case on the part of the accused and Trial

Court has rendered an acquittal judgment by assigning sound

reasons relating to failure of the prosecution to establish the

guilt against the accused to secure conviction. At a cursory

glance of the grounds urged in this appeal preferred by the

State and even re-appreciating the evidence on the part of the

prosecution, that too vital evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 inclusive

of the evidence of PW-4 to 7, no worthwhile evidence has been

elicited by the prosecution. Consequently, as regards the

cardinal principles of the criminal justice delivery system and so

also to prove the facts, it is the domain vested with the Trial

Court and the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion

and held that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the

guilt of the accused. Consequently, the Trial Court has

acquitted the accused by extending the benefit of doubt mainly

on the ground that the possibility of the accused having 10 MGP,J Crl.A.No.188 of 2012

committed the offences as narrated in the theory put forth by

the prosecution founds doubtful. Therefore, in this appeal, this

Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed

to prove the guilt against the accused and more so, the Trial

Court has rightly come to the conclusion by rendering an

acquittal judgment. Consequently, the appeal does not have any

bone of contention to re-visit the impugned judgment of

acquittal and also to re-appreciate the evidence as sought for.

Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the appeal

deserves to be rejected as being devoid of merits.

12. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the

order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Sessions

Judge for trial of SC/STs (POA) Act cases-cum-Additional

Sessions Judge, Nalgonda, in S.C.No.33 of 2008, dated

06.05.2010 in acquitting the accused of the charges under

Section 332 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

_______________________ M.G. PRIYADARSINI, J

23rd November, 2022