Allowed

Kumure Anjaneyulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC22 Nov 2012CRLA/1727/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged a Sessions Court conviction under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The High Court acquittal the appellant because the prosecution failed to produce caste certificates to prove the victim belonged to an SC/ST community and the appellant did not belong to a non-SC/ST community, rendering the essential ingredients of the offence unproven.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act set aside; appellant acquitted.

Kumure Anjaneyulu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO CRIMINAL APPEAL No:1727 OF 2005

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

Aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.10.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.15 of 2004 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of Cases under SC & ST (POA) Act, Mahabubnagar, the present appeal is preferred.

¶4

It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.7.2003 at about 6.30 p.m., while the husband of the village Sarpanch viz., Badru Naik, his brother Rajavardhan Reddy, Karre Hanmanna were chitchatting in front of maternity hospital, the appellant went there and assaulted Bhadru Naik with a paper cutter on the neck, as a result of which, he sustained bleeding injury and fell down on the ground. Noticing the same, the complainant’s brother intervened. Then, the appellant beat him and caused injuries. On receipt of the complaint, the police registered a case and investigated into. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed for the offence punishable under Sections 324 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act (for short ‘the Act’).

¶5

In order to substantiate, the prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 10 and got Exs.P1 to P9 and M.O.1 marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused.

¶6

Pending trial, the appellant and the injured entered into compromise and filed application before the trial Court to compound the offence. The trial Court recorded the compromise and acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC, which is compoundable. On the basis of the evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, which is non-compoundable in nature and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default, to suffer S.I. for one month. Hence, the petitioner filed the above appeal.

¶7

Heard and perused the material available on record.

¶8

Even though the witnesses deposed before the Court below against the appellant, it is the prime duty of the investigating agency to produce the caste certificate to establish the fact that the victim belongs to SC/ST community and it is also the duty of the prosecution to establish the fact that the appellant-accused belongs to non-SC/ST community. But the prosecution failed to establish the said fact. In the absence of such material, the conviction recorded by the trial Court against the appellant is not sustainable under law.

¶9

In the above circumstances and taking into consideration the intention of the injured to enter into compromise with the appellant, the conviction and the

¶10

sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act are set aside and the appellant is acquitted for the said offence.

¶11

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, stand closed.

¶12

____________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Dated: 22.11.2012 Nn

¶13

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

¶14

CRIMINAL APPEAL No:1727 OF 2005

¶15

22.11.2012

¶16

Nn.

Kumure Anjaneyulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumure Anjaneyulu, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puruluri Prasad, (a 2) Vs State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Mohd. Yousuf, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Sunkara Venkata Bulli Sudhir, Vs M.Srinivasa Rao

Boya Venkappa, (a 1) Vs State of a.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor

Ramesh Kumar Asawa Vs M/S Chandra Bhusha Designers

C.R.Sridhar, Vs The State rep.by its S.I., of Police, Yadamari P.S.,Chittoor