Dismissed

Ragi Reddy Bhaskar Reddy, Rr.Dt., v. R.Nageshwar Rao, Rr.Dt and 5 Otrs, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC5 Sept 2022CRLA/614/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal appeal, the High Court of Telangana dismissed the appeal filed against the acquittal of six accused persons. The court upheld the High Court's decision to acquit due to fundamental discrepancies in the date of occurrence, conflicting witness testimonies regarding the accused's involvement, and the inadmissibility of digital evidence under Section 65B of the Evidence Act.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal no. 614 of 2016 dismissed; benefit of doubt granted to accused; acquittal affirmed.

Ragi Reddy Bhaskar Reddy, Rr.Dt., Vs R.Nageshwar Rao… — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF SEPTETvIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 614 OF 2016

¶6

Criminal Appeal under Section 372(2) Crl.P .C Against the Judgment dated 5/5/2016 on the file of the Court of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge^- Cum XIV Additional Mekopolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar Prefened against the order dated 12-01-2015 in CC No. 183 of 2016 on the^file of the Special Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Hayatnagar.

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ragi Reddy Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Sudhakar Reddy, Age: 46^years, Occ. Govt. Employee, Rl/o. Plot No. 486/4, Prashanthnagar^{Vanasthalipuram,} Ranga Reddy District.

¶9

...AppellanUComplainant

¶10

AND

¶11

1 R. Nageshwar Rao, S/o.Pitchaiah, Aged 52^years, Occ.^{Tech. Asst- DRDL} R/o. Plot No.66, Prashanthnagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶12

R.Madhusudan Rao, S/o. Pitchaiah, Age:42^years Occ. Business , R/o. Plot No.485, Prashanthnagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶13

R.Venugopal Rao, S/o. Pitchaiah, Age'.47^years Occ. Govt. Employee^Ri/o. Plot No.741, Prashanthnagar, Vanasthalipuram, Ranga Reddy District.

¶14

Bokineti Ravi @ Chinna Bujli, S/o. Venkataiah Age:^{40 years} -Occ.^Business Rl/o. Plot No.75-3lA, Prashahthnagar, Vanasthalipuram,^{Ranga Reddy District.}

¶15

R.Malleshwar Rao @ Malli, S/o. Shivaiah,^{Age: 40 yearsOcc. Transport} Business R/o. Plot No.752, Prashanthnagar, Vanasthalipuram,^RangaReddy District.

¶16

...RespondenUAccused

¶17

The State of Telangana, Represented^{by its Public Prosecutor High Courtof} Judicature at Hyderabad.

¶18

...RespondenURespondent

¶19

¶20

Counsel for the Appe lant:^{SRI L.PRANATHI REDDY REPRESE:l^'lTlNG} SRI.VENUGOPAL JUI .AKANTI,^Advocate

¶21

Counsel for the Resp rndent^{no.S : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR(TGl}

¶22

Counsel for the Resp >ndent^{No. 1 to 4 : SRIU.SHARAVAN KlJlilAF"}

¶23

The Court made the f rllowing:^ORDER

¶24

¶25

¶26

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶27

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.614 of 2016

¶28

ORDER:

¶29

This appeal is directed against the^judgment of acquittal dated 05.O5.2016 in Crl.A.No.85 of 2016 whereby the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.O1.2O15 in C.C.No.183 of 2016 had been inversed.

¶30

The brief facts of the case are that, on 13.10.2014 at about B:30 A.M. on the ground that some dry neem leaves got into the house of the accused, the 1"t to 5th accused came out, quarreled, wrongfully restrained the complainant/victim/PW 1, beat with hands and threatened him with the dire consequences Thereupon, the police report was filed; eventually cognizance was taken for the offences under Sections 34 1, 323, 504 ald 506 of IPC

¶31

In the course of trial, the complainant/victim^lvas examined as PW1, his wife ald brother-in-lalr' as PW2 and^PW3, one neighbour/PW4, the doctor "vho treated^{PW 1,the} victim/PW5, the mediator/ PW6 and the Investigating OfficerlPWT were examineci^{anci got} markeci Exs.Pi to^{P'i* The} incriminating material, put to^{the accused} under^{Section313 of}

t---l

)

NT&J Crla 6la 2016

the Code of C ri:rinal Procedure^{(Cr.P.C)were dertl(:rd,hou'everno} defence evide tce was put up.

¶37

The tri rl Court on considering the eviden:e:,^{rtlcorded the} finding that I^st to sth accused are^gu ilty il:^{the offence} committed u rc:er Sections 323, 504 of IPC^{arLrl serntencedto} undergo rigor lus imprisonment for a^{period of si.< lrronths and to} palr fine of R s. 1,000/- in default, simple imprisronment^{for one} month under Section 323 of IPC and rigorous^{ir.1:rrisonment for} one vear an i to pa1' fine of Rs.5,000/- each^{inrlefault,six} months simp e impnsonment under Section 504^{c,l IPtl.}

¶38

Thc co r\ icts/accused preferred an appet.l ztgainst^the judgmenr of < onviction and sentence vide Crl.A.No 85 of 2016 on the file ol.the XIV Addl. District & Sessions Judgr:-,:urn-XIV^Addl. Metropolitan Sr:ssions Judge, Ranga Reddy Distr^<:l- at^L.B.Nagar.

¶39

The ap re llate Court by observing the discrspalcies in the testimonv ol h: PW I as to the date of occurrence anti that there rvas no propi r explalation for the delay of six <lays in lodging police report and the CCTV footages/Ex.P7 were no- proved as per Sectron 6'itl of the lndiarl Evidence Act and tLL,,: materials are

¶40

¶41

Y) NTR,J Crla 6la l0l6

¶42

¶43

not making out the ingredients of Section 5O4 of IpC, passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused.

¶44

In this appeal, the complain ant /victirn /pW I (hereinafter 'the appellant) would contend that the appellate Court failed to properly appreciate his testimony about the occurrence and also involvement of the accused. The Exs.p2 to p6 photographs and Ex.P7/Compact Disc (CD) recorded in the Closed Circuit (CC) camera f-rxed to his house are proving the occurrence as this material was collected by the investigating agency and played in the open Court. In addition, the direct evidence of the witnesses regarding occurrence is establishing the involvement of the accused in the incident. Thus pleaded that the judgmenr ol acquittal passed by the appellate Court is unsustainable and the judgment of trial Court deserves to be restored.

¶45

The appellalt placed reliance on the authoritv of the Honble Apex Court between "Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singht" to emphasise, the minor discrepancies are not to be given credence, until the omission or inconsistencv goes to the root of the matter.

'^{(2017) 1r scc195}

NTR.J ( rla 614 2016

On the c,lher hand, learned counsel for^[ "^respondent/ accused plea lc d that there is^variance in the^{de,t.r,:of oc<:urrence} stated b-r' t.h( r--omplainant/^PW 1 in his evidenco^{;:Incl beforethe} Medical Oftic :r/ t'W5 and that the reasons offert:rl to^explainthe delay in lodg ng ihe^police report has not been^{r; rrbst.antiatedby} the evide nce arid that the alleged digital evidence' i.e., CD /Ex.P7 has not becr Legall,r' proved as per the^guidelinr:s in^P.K.Anwar Vs. B.K.Bas hce12, thus the cliscrepancies a:-,: a'fecting^the foundatrons ol the prosecution case, as suclr, the^appellate Court had ri ih tl,r' acquitted the accused. Ther:t:1irre, no tenable ground is ma rlc out lor interference in this appeal.

¶50

1O. Learncr ,\ssistant Public Prosecutor suppor'-ed the^{case of} the complain rnt. Ho'"r'er.er, submitted that, the llrosecution^has not prelcrre d an-r :rppeal against the^judgment o: rrcquittal in the

¶51

appeal -

¶52

1 1. In this^'orrtext, the point that arises for dete rmieation is

¶53

Whcthcr tlrc prosecr-rtion is able to establish^t-t-re lluilt of the ;rccu;t <l undcr Sectior-rs 323 and 5O4 ol It)C beyond reasonal lt dor.tbt ?

¶54

(2Ol'l) 1O:r,^L

¶55

NTR.J I Crla 614 2016

¶56

¶57

¶58

To establish the guilt against the accused, the prosecution must prove the occurrence and involvement of the accused, as charged. The police report/Ex.Pl was lodged by the complainant/victim/PW1 on 19.1O.2014 at 7:3OP.M, regarding the occurrence dated 13.lO.2Ol4. The complajnart/ PW¹ justified the delay on the ground that there was hope for amicable settlement through mediation, and that he had fear of the accused who were moving in front of his house. The brotherin-law. of PW 1 as PW3 deposed that on next day itself the panchayat was held and that there was no possibility to make out settlement. Further, no other witness had referred to any move for further mediation. Therefore, by the next date o[ incident itself the efforts for cordial settlernent of the issue rvas over. Be that as it may, no explanation had been offered as to horv the fear factor from the accused had gone away. For these reasons the explanation for the delay in lodging the^police report/ Ex. P 1 is not inspiring confidence.

¶59

Regarding the incident proper, the PW1/complainant/ victim in the police report specilically referred the time and date of occurrence as 13.1O.2014 at 8:30 A.M., the PW2/wife of PW1, the PW3/brother-in-lau' of PW1^supported the^date, but did not

¶60

¶61

NTR,J.^\ ( rla 614 2016

¶62

¶63

8-,

¶64

specify the t Lnre of incident. The PW4/residenr-^,rf :his locaJity deposed tha t he saw the accused bearing tl:.e victim and observed sor re galata, but no date or time of l rappening was referred" In terestingly, the doctor/ PW5 s1.a'-ed that on 17 .lO.2Ol4, .he PW1 informed him that the or:r:-rrrence was on 17.1O.2014 z ni he found blunt injuries on chest ar.d abdomen which are sir rple in nature.

¶65

14 . The di. ergence regarding the date of in :irler t from the victim/PW1 errd as it is noi the prosec'utior cas;e that the occurrence v a:l on tu,o da)'s, the variance in 1,11,: date is giving rise to plausi r1,: incertitude about the occurrenct'

¶66

Further, rn regard to involr.ement of the ar:r: rsed, the PW1 had referred ls( ar'rd 3.d accused alld six others; whereas, the wife, PW2 s' at eci against on1,' A 1 and A2.^'['tr,: P\V3 vaguely referred to a-l the accused and the PW4 has not s pec,ilied any of the accused, hence there is discrepanc,y in the : vidence of the prosecution ritness even about the presence of acr:used.

¶67

The otl er material to prove the happenirl6l is the CCTV footage/Ex.P" placed on record in the lorm^,r Cotnpact Disc ald in secon {a r., form is admissible. The^{prc,secr.Ltion} at ag/ of

¶68

q Crla 61.1 NTR,J20 t6

¶69

¶70

,/'

¶71

point of time did not claim that the CD /Ex.pZ is the primar-y evidence or it was directly recorded by the device in the CD as self-generated or created without any intervention. Thus, the CD is a duplicated version, meaning thereby it should qualify the test of authenticity as contemplated in the Section 658(4) of the Evidence Act. In the dictum of Anvar PV Vs. P.K. Basheers the Hon'ble Apex Court in unequivocal terms held that, an electronic record by way ol secondar5r evidence, sha_ll not be admissible in evidence unless the requirements of Section 65-8 of the Indian Evidence Act are satisfied. This entail is to ensure that the output in the electronic record/CD is authentic, reliable and accurate and there was no possibility of tampering the evidence. No such evidence or certification is placed for consideration.

¶72

It is also pertinent to mention that there is no evidence on record to establish that the CCTV cameras were installed to the house of PWI and the device had been set up for recording the footage. In absence of any such evidence mere placing the CD /Ex.P7 and the plea that it is displaying the date and the presence of the complainant and the accused, is of no help to admit the evidence, much less to conclude aly fact.

r i2ot+; to scc +z:

NTR,J (--rla 611 2016

lD-

(

A cum: rlative reading^{of the aforesaid aspec:ts, (rspeciallyas} the evidenc<^()f the PW l/complainant/Victim^{is; givingrise to} uncertaintv rrL the foundational^{fact i.e., the clzltt: o occurrence} and inconch sjve material^{to provethe occrrrren':erand identityof} the accused ztre leading to^{the conclusionthal l.lle prosecution} had failed^r o establish charges^{be-vonddoubt,th erefore,the} accused are :rrtitled for the^{benefitof doubt.}

¶83

Regarc ing the charge under^{Section5'04 rfIPC, the} prosecution must prove that tirere is an intentic,rlal^{insult by the} accused kn:v'ingly provoking the^{complaina-rLt} ,'vi<:tim^{or any} other persot r, and such^{provocationrvill caus: thitt person to} break the p rL,1ic^peace or to commit anv^{otl-ret :lffence. At the} outset, as n rted above the^{ocrcurrence its,:llre lr ined doubtful.} Even if the r ersion of the PW I /complainan^{t/ Victi:rris taken as it} is, mere abr.s:ve words used b1- the^{accusedrr-ctrld not amount} to the offent e within the meaning^{ef $s6tion 5C4 of IPC, unless,} the material aspects of intention^{and provocationof lhe victim to} cause breac^-r to the public^{peaceis estal-'lishe} i.^{In absence of} any of sucl implications, the conviction^{uncle r Se:tion 504 of} f^{PC is legall1 r,rnsustainable.}

"==-=

''^-'

NTR.J Crla 6la 2016

l' li il

For the reasons afore staed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appellare Corrt had appreciated the facts and eviderice in right perspecrive ard arrived at just conclusions. In effect, in absence of merit, the rppeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶94

In the result, this appeals dismissed.

¶95

Miscellaneous petitions, lending if any, shall stand closed.

¶96

SD/. K. ONESIM DEPUW REGISTRAR

¶97

¶98

Note: As the Orderdated O5lOgl2O22 in Crl.A.No.614/2016 has been wronglydrafted as Appellant Advocate name as^"L.Prabhakar Reddy'' Advocate instead of "L.Pranathi Reddy", rep. by Sri J.Venugopal, Advocate is conected by order of Registrar Judicial daled 31212022 the eadier order which was dispatched on 101212023 shall be substituted in this order.

¶99

Sd/.MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //rRUE coPY// dD

¶100

SECTIOiI OFFICER

¶101

To,

¶102