Dismissed

Vetti Sivaiah v. Malle Raja Reddy , Bombay Raja

Telangana HC2 Jul 2012CRLA/269/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal challenged the acquittal of three accused allegedly for caste-based insults and causing hurt to the appellant. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding the trial Court's decision to acquittal correct due to lack of corroborative evidence, admissibility issues, and delay in lodging the F.I.R.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed and the judgment of the trial Court upholding acquittal left unaltered.

Vetti Sivaiah Vs Malle Raja Reddy , Bombay Raja — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO

¶2

Crl.A. No. 269 of 2012

¶3

DATED: 02.07.2012

¶4

Between: V. Sivaiah .. Appellant And

¶5

M. Raja Reddy and three others .. Respondents

¶6

JUDGMENT:-

¶7

This Criminal Appeal is filed against the judgment dated 24.09.2011 delivered in Special S.C. No. 62 of 2010 by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of S.Cs. & STs. Cases-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapur, whereby the accused - respondent Nos.1 to 3, were acquitted of the charges framed against them.

¶8

The appellant herein is the de facto complainant in Spl.S.C.No. 62 of 2010.

¶9

The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that A1 intentionally insulted PW1 by abusing him touching his caste and A2 and A3 voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by pushing him down and beat him with hands and legs. Before the trial Court, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P8. The trial Court, disbelieved the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P3 - wound certificate, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against them. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.09.2011, the present Criminal Appeal is filed.

¶10

Now, the point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment dated 24.09.2011 of the trial Court is sustainable?

¶11

It is the evidence of PW1 that about 1½ years ago at about 2.30 p.m., while he was standing at peepal tree pial in their village with his motorcycle, A1 went there and said “madiga lanja kodaka pakkakira nenu kurchovala” and sat on the pial. A2 came and questioned him saying “madiga lanja kodaka neevu Bombai Raja meeda

¶12

thiragabadathava lanja kodaka” and beat him with a stick on his left shoulder. A3 also came there and beat him with a chappal all over his body. PWs.2 and 5 witnessed the incident, intervened and separated him from the accused. He further stated that while he was going to other villages to work, A1 called him to attend to the works in his lands. He did not go to the works of A1. For that reason, A1 abused him. He went to his house and informed PW6 about the incident. He was taken to Government Hospital, Tadipatri. The police came and recorded his statement – Ex.P1, and he signed in that statement.

¶13

According to the evidence of PW1, PWs.2 and 5 are the direct witnesses, but they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The only evidence remained on record is the evidence of PW1. The medical evidence shows that PW1 received only simple injuries. The trial Court also found that there is delay in lodging F.I.R. It is also the finding of the trial Court that the injured, after the alleged incident, went to hospital, but on the next day, he gave report to the police through phone. Based on the evidence of PW1, the trial Court held that F.I.R. cannot be said to be prompt in this case and there is delay in lodging F.I.R. and the same is not explained by the prosecution which is fatal. The trial Court also observed the conduct of PW1 in the 9^th paragraph of the impugned judgment.

¶14

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no corroborative evidence to the evidence of PW1 and even the medical evidence is not corroborative to the injury sustained by PW1 and there is delay in lodging the F.I.R., the trial Court correctly acquitted the accused.

¶15

Hence, I see no grounds to interfere with the judgment under appeal, and accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

K.S. APPA RAO,

02.07.2012

bcj

Vetti Sivaiah v. Malle Raja Reddy , Bombay Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vetti Sivaiah v. Malle Raja Reddy , Bombay Raja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mirza Wasil Baig, Minor. Vs Mirza Ismjail Baig

Ravuri Venkateswarlu, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Alla Venkata Sanath Baji Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

V.Krishna Mohan Vs The Project Director

Metri Gangonda(A-3) Vs State of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Public Prosecutor

Manjunathan Srinivas Vs The State of a.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor