Dismissed

The State of Andhra Pradesh, v. Yennam Srinivas Reddy, (a-1)

Telangana HC7 Jul 2023CRLA/1090/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the state's criminal appeal against the acquittal of respondents accused of caste-based assault under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The court upheld the Special Sessions Judge's finding that injuries were consistent with an attack by the accused rather than the victims falling, dismissing the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal dismissed; pending miscellaneous applications stood closed.

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs Yennam Srinivas Reddy… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3251 ]

¶2

IN HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

t'RIDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THR}E

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO : 1090 0F 2010

¶7

Criminat Appeat Under Section 378(1) & (3) of Crl.p.C against the Judgment Dated 12-02-2009 in S.C. No. 161 t ZOOTon the fite of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for SCi STs (pOA) Act, Nalgonda. Between:

¶8

I?:"::?tTtotdhra^{Pradesh,rep bv the Public Prosecu-lor, Hish} court of A.p., AND ...APELLANT/PETITIoNER'

¶9

Yennam Srinivas Redd.y, .S/o l)/a.]]a Reddy, Agricutture, R/o Ragibavi, H/o panakabanda Viilage, Nitgond, osirili", """""',

¶10

' A:x',xJfil["$i]';Jt'il,3Jl.tJtsl"1;X,i'0,^{Asricurture,R/oRasibavi,} H/o

¶11

Pulagam Damodar Re.ddy,{A_ ), S/oNarsi Reddy, Agricutture, Ryo Ragibavi, H/o^panakabanda Vilasd, rilats6nojoiiia-i,i '"-"r'^.

¶12

Jakkula^yadaiah. (A_S),,S/o Gang_aiah, Coolie, R/o Ragibavi, H/o panakabanda Viitdge, Natgonda tjstiitt. -"""' ' "" ,'

¶13

... RESPODENTS/ACCUSED'

¶14

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. pUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents :SRt C. SHARAN REDDY

¶16

The Court made the following:

¶17

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶19

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1O9O of 201O

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Thc State is aggrrevqd by the order of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ STs (POA) Act at Nalgonda acquitting the respondents - accused for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and 324, 323 rlu, 34 ol lndian Penal Code (for short "IPC")

¶22

Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.,Vs.2 and 3 u,cre attacked by the respondents - accused while they u,ere going on a bike bearing No.AP. ll.F .7 129 in the village on 17 .OA.2006. Thev were returning from penkapabanda to Ragibavi village and when they reached Kasthala banda locality, accused came on the way and stopped. Accused abused them in filthy language in the name of caste and beat them. The accused - A-1 tried to hack with the back portion of the axe on the head of P.W.2 and P.W.2 received injury on the head and shoulder. A-2, A-4 and A 5 beat PW.2 with

¶23

¶24

=__ffi\ ..r-11
. ''az)

¶25

stick all over^{the body. A-3 also beat P W'2 indiscriminatel'v} rvith a stick all^{over the bod1" Another injured P-W 3 also} stated that^A I^{to A5 beat PW'2 ancl thereafter' A 1 lhrerv} away the^{axc. A- 1 to A-5 beat with sticks and kickedwitl]} their legs indiscriminately^{A complaint was t'egisteredand} P.Ws.2 and^{3were sent for meclicalexaminationAfter} con<lucting^{investigation into the matter'the policefiled} charge sheet.^{The Courttook cognizance for the c'ffences} under Sectio^{ns 324 IPC and Sectior.r3(1)(x) of SC/STs(POA)} Act, 1989.

¶26

Learned Assistant^{Public Prosecutor would submit that} the finding^{of the learned SpecialSessionsJudge is contrary} to both oral^{and documentary evidence placedon record'} P.W.2 received^{injuries on the body on account of the assault} by the accused.^{P.W.3 also received injuryThe learned} Special^{SessionsJudgeconcludedthat the said injuries were} on account^{of P.W'2 andP W'3 falting from the bike'The} said hndings^{are contraryto record'}

I I i I I

On thc other hand, Icarned counsel appezrring for the accuse n s istencies in the cviclcrrce of the u,itnesses regarding tl,rc incident. P.W.2 narratccl that A- 1 attacked rvith axe and others beat him inclisc:'irn inareh- witlt sticks. Further, p.W.ll rvas also bcaten b-1,' acr:r,rsed indiscrrminately rvith hands and legs. TI.re said versror r cannot be itelieved in viern, of t he r,l,ound certificates. s,l-rich are marked as E.xs-p-3 and p 4 Admittedh . I lierc u,ere rivalries between the accusr:d zrncl the complainanrs. The learned counsel reliecl on thc juclgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court lRajesh prasad. V. State of Bihar

¶32

(B.V.Nagarathna, J). Where under, the Hon,bkr Supreme Court at para 29 held as under:

¶33

" After rt:fering to a cateno of judgments, this court culled out the follotuing general principles regarding the pouters of the appeLLate court tuhile dealing with an oppeal against an ord.er of acquittal in the Jollowing tuords:

¶34

(Chctttdrappa case, SCC p. 432, para 42)

' lzozz;:^scc azr

I I

\r{?1

"Front. th.e aboue decisions, in our consrdered uiew, the follotui.ng^{genero.l pinciplesregarding pou)ersof the appellate} cortrt uthiLe deaLing with an ctppeal aqainst an ord.er of acquittal emerge:

¶40

(1) Art a.ppellate court has Jull pouer to reuieu.), reappreciate and reconsider the euidatce upon whicll the order of acquittal is founded.

¶41

(2)The CnminaL Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restiction or condition on exercise of su.ch power cLnd an appellate court on the euidence be.lbre it mag reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of lanu

¶42

(3) Various expressions, such o,s, " sub stantial and compelling reasons", "good and suff.cient grounds" , "uerg strong circumstances", "distorted concLusions", "gLaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to cutlail extensiue poLuers of an appellate court in an appeal

¶43

against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "Jlourishes of language" to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the pou)er of the court to reuieu the euidence and to come to its otun conclusion.

¶44

¶45

(41 An appetlctl.e^{(rurt, houeuer,must bear in mht'd that in} case oJ acclurllal,^{there is double presumptionin} fauour

¶46

o-.f lhc r.iccr.st'rl^{Firsttg,the presumptk>rtof tmctcence} is a ouailablt' to^{hint underthe} fundatnental^pinciple of cimirtctl .jruispntdence^{that euerypersotl shall be} presurn.ed b bc innocent^{unless he is prouedguiltybg} a co/npe(ettl court of^{lanu. Secondly, the accused} houitg se:t'trrttcl his^{acquittal, the presumption of his} innocenr:e is Jurlher^{reinforced, reaffinn'ed' and} strengthenetl^{Itpl the tial court}

¶47

(51 If ttuo rectsctnable^{counclusionsare possibleon the} basis of tltr; auidence^{on record-, the appellatecourt} shott[ri rtot clisturb^the ftruding^{of acquittalrecordedbg}

¶48

the tial cctur1".

¶49

The learncd Special^{Sessions Judge found that, it was} highly improbablc fol^{P.W.2 to receive injuries only on the} right side of his borlr.

¶50

Taking into consideration^{the evidences of P Ws 2 and} P.W.3, the learned^{Jr-rdge held that A-1 was carrying axe and} other accusecl^{rvere carrying sticks and they bet P'Ws'2 and3} indiscrirninatelv.^{The fincling of the learned Special Sessions} Judge cannot be said to^{be unreasonable. ltis for the}

prosecution to prove as to how,^{onlysimpleinjurics were} receir.ecl on the right^{side of his body, ifP.W.2 was beaten} incl iscnminately by five^{(05)persons, Ex' P-3/u'ouncl} certificzrte shou,s that four^{(04) simpleinjuries \rrere received} by P.W.2 on the right^{side of his body. Since, the possibility} of PW.2 receiving injuries^{by fallingfrom the rnotor bike} cai.rnoL be ruled or-t,^{it cannot be said that the finding of the} learnccl Special Sessions^{Judge is unreasonableorany} glaiing mistake has been committed.^{The Hon'bleSupreme} Court held that is tr.vo^{reasonable conclusionsare possible} based on the evidence^{of record, the one favorable to accused} has to be considered. I^{do not frnd any infirmity in the} impugned order^{passedby the learned Special Sessions} J urlgc.