Allowed

Pesaragayala Rajender Reddy (A-1), Tallapalliguda[v],Andanr. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Telangana HC23 Jun 2023CRLA/1473/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Appeal against conviction under SC/ST (POA) Act was allowed. The High Court acquitted the appellants due to contradictory witness versions, vague evidence, and a three-day delay in filing the police complaint, deeming the prosecution case unsafe for conviction.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted of charges; bail bonds cancelled; pending miscellaneous applications closed.

Pesaragayala Rajender Reddy (A-1)… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3251 ]

¶2

BAIL SLIP : The Petitioner/ Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order of the High Court dated 06.1'l .2009 in Crl.A.M.P.No. 2603 of 2009 in Crl.A.No. 1473 of 2009

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1473 OF 2009

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) o'f Cr.P.C. against the Judgment dated 21.1O.2009 passed in S.C.No. 151 of 2008 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶9

Betwden:

¶10

Pesaragayala Rajender Reddy (A-1), S/o. Yadagiri Reddy, Age: 35 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Tallapalliguda Village, Manchali Mandal.

¶11

Pesaragayala Yadagiri Reddy (A-2), S/o. Chandra Reddy Age: 55 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Tallapalliguda Village, Manchali Mandal.

¶12

...PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS/ACCUSED No.1 & 2

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of A.P., Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court, Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPON DENT/COMPLAINANT

¶16

Counsel for the Appellants : Sri V. RAGHUNATH

¶17

Counsel forthe Respondent : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶18

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

complaint. The said delay gains significance in the background of contradictory statements being made by the witnesses regarding the incident that occurred. P.Ws.3 and 4 say that the appellants tried to assault, however, the said statements were not made by other witnesses. There is no mention rvith regard to physical assault or any attempt made by P.W.1 or aryone else. There are different versions of the witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 5 who were at the very same meeting where the alleged altercation took place. In view of the same, regarding the incident and dilferent utterances/ words used by appellants as stated, this Court does not consider it safe to convict the appellants herein on the basis oi said contradictory and vague evidence which was adduced on behalf of the prosecution through P.Ws.1 to 3. Prosecution evidence has to inspire confidence of the Court. Different versions by u,itnesses gave rise to an,y amount of doubt in the prosecution case. Furthermore, there is al un-explained delay of three (03) days in filing the complaint. In the said circumstances, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants and they are acquitted of the charges.

¶20

¶21

Accordingiy, the Criminal Appeal is a.llowed. The bail

¶22

bonds shall stand cancelled. IViiscellaneous applications

¶23

pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶24

¶25

Sd/- M. VIJAYABHASKAR JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// @

¶26

SECTION OFFICER

¶27

To,

¶28

The Special Sessions Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act, Ranga Reddy District at .^L.B.Nagar.

¶29

The Station House Officer, Machal Police Station, Cyberabad.

¶30

One CC to Sri V. RAGHUNATH, Advocate [OPUC]

¶31

.Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of lTelangana at Hyderabad (OUT)

¶32

Two CD Copies

Njb $Y'-

HIGH COURT

DATED:2310612023

)

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.1473 of 2009

1tr E STA r€
t
v
?
,f, i,'il
>f
$? [u$ NB
*'.i/
o.
,r,r''t/'i'
_--r-

¶40

ALLOWING THE CRLA.

¶41

Pesaragayala Rajender Reddy (A-1), Tallapalliguda[v],Andanr. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pesaragayala Rajender Reddy (A-1), Tallapalliguda[v],Andanr. v. the State of a.P., Rep. by P.P., Hyderabad.

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

Boggarapu Lingaiah Vs Chittipolu Laxminarasimha

Dasari Boomaiah Vs the State of Telanagana

Mohammed Aleemuddin Khan Vs the State of Telangana

The State of a.P, Vs Manthri Sailoo

K. Vijay Kumar Goud , Vijay, Secunderabad Vs the State of a.P., Hyderabad

Naman Baldawa Vs the State of Telangana