State Of A.P. Rep.By The Public ... vs Vangala Finance Linga Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 4960 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

               CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1269 of 2009
JUDGMENT:

1. The State is aggrieved by the judgment in SC No.114 of 2003

dated 29.12.2004 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge at

Karimnagar, whereby it was found that the respondent/accused not

guilty for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs/STs (POA) Act and

Section 324 of IPC, present appeal is filed.

2. The case of prosecution is that on 10.10.2002 P.W.1 filed

complaint stating that the accused abused him in the name of caste

and beaten indiscriminately with the stick for not paying the

amount due. The police, after investigation charge sheeted the

accused for the said offences.

3. P.W.1, who is the victim stated that he was a subscriber to

chit of Rs.10,000/- which was being run by the accused. Though

the installments were paid, the accused demanded more money and

beat him in the room of his finance office, for which reason, he

sustained injuries on his leg and shoulders.

4. PW1 lodged complaint Ex.P1 which is undated and Ex.P2

receipt was issued by the SHO on 04.10.2002. However, the

statement was recorded on 10.10.2002. P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 supported

the version of prosecution. However, P.Ws.4, 5 and 7 turned hostile

to the prosecution case.

5. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused on the

ground that Ex.P1 complaint does not bear any date, but it shows

that it was received on 10.10.2002. There is no mention about any

delay in lodging the complaint though it is alleged that the incident

happened on 04.10.2002.

5. The victim/P.W.1 was examined by the Doctor on 26.10.2002,

who found that the injuries were fresh in nature when examined.

Admittedly, P.W.1 was examined after a period of six days and the

question of injuries which were admittedly found to be fresh in

nature at the time of examination does not arise. Though the

witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 speak about their examination on

04.10.2002, however the crime was registered on 10.10.2002. The

prosecution has failed to give any cogent and convincing reasons for

the delay of nearly six days in registering the crime. The alleged

stick was also not recovered and injuries which are contusion left

forearm and tenderness of the left ankle could have been caused by

a fall on hard surface.

6. P.W.1 stated that he has received injuries on the hands by

unknown person during medical examination. The learned

Sessions Judge has found several discrepancies regarding the

evidence of prosecution witnesses. Further, the prosecution failed to

explain the delay of six days in lodging the complaint. Witnesses

themselves speak about examination on 04.10.2002. However,

subsequently state that they were examined after 10.10.2002 by

DSP. All the discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case

and makes the version of P.W.1 and prosecution unbelievable.

7. 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

(2013) 11 supreme court Cases 688

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.

8. Unless there are convincing and cogent reasons to interfere

with the judgment of acquittal, the appellate court while dealing

with the appeal against acquittal, cannot interfere to reverse the

finding of acquittal. For the aforesaid reasons, the State has not

made out any grounds to reverse the well reasoned judgment of the

trial Court.

9. For the aforementioned reasons, the Criminal Appeal is liable

to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 28.09.2022 kvs

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1269 OF 2009

Dated: 28.09.2022

kvs