High Court allowed criminal appeal against conviction under SC/ST (PoA) Act for cheating and insult based on caste. Court found lack of ingredients in evidence regarding caste insult and domination, noting witness inconsistencies and acquittal on cheating.
Criminal Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; appellant acquitted; bail bonds cancelled.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Note: The Accused was released on bail vide Court Order dated. 10.03.2009 in Crl.A.MP. No.749 of 2009 in Crt.A.No.289 of 2009
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THURSDAY ,THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL N O: 289 OF 2009
Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal procedure Code against the Order dated 06.03.2009 in S.C No.'l of 2OO7, on the file of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge, for Trial of Cases under SCiST (pA) Act at Khammam
Between:
Anumakonda Shashidar, S/o A.V.Chandramouli, Advocate R/o No.7, Basthi, Ramaaram, Khammam District.
...ApellanUAccused.
AND
The State of A.P., Rep, by the Pubtic Prosecutor, High Court of A.p Hyderabad.
... Respodent
Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY NARRA
Counsel for the Respondent: PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)
The Court made the following: ORDER
I
,THE :IONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.ST}lENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 289,JF 2rl('19
JUDGMEN!]:
This '-'r nrrral ,Appi':rl is liled br tl-rc ap;tr:llantr/accttsed aggrier ec1 r t rc r:orrvic lir>n rccorded bv tlrc ll >ec ial Sessions Judge iur tri, I oi r:;rsc:; Lrnrle'r SC/ST (PC,{) r.t I(hamn'ram in S.C.No. 1 of .. .)t)7 dzrtc'<l rr.03.2009, for th : r>ffr,-:es punishable under Se,ctior s 3 (l)(.x) and 3 (1) (xii) of rhe s(, /S'l (POA) Act, 1989, ancl se: rrc'rrcr:rl to Rigorous Imprisorrnren. ft)r a period of three rears irt d to par',r l-nte ol Rs.2,OO0/- for th:' o.Tence under Section :l(l ) (x) of SLI/ST (POA) Act ard alsc s3ntenced to Rigorous Impr sorLmenl foi- a period of thre e verL':.; and to pay a fine of Rr;.2 O, 'C l- for r)-re offence under S( ctror ] (t)(xii) of the SC/ST (Pt)At .1 r:r
2
\'as lnvestigated and ctrarge sheet u,as iiled lor the offences under Section 417 ol the lndian Penal Code ancl Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (l)(xii)of the SC/ST (poA) Act, 1989.
i) under Section 417 of the Indianpenal Code for developing intimacv vvith her and maintaining such intimacy, keeping her under the impression that the appellant would marry her.
ii) under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SC/ST (poA) Act, for intentionally insulting and intimidating pW1 with intent to humiliate for being a member of SC/ST communiry.
iii) under Section 3 (l)(xii) of the SC/ST (poA) Act for the reason of the appeilant being in position to dominate the will of PWI since he was a practicing advocate a't Kothagudem and used that position for exploiting her sexually and later declined to marry her.
3
Juclqe ac-rLrrLL,,:l tirc :rppt lrrrrr 1or tlte offencr' rrncr St,ction 1),7 of the Inclial Pr.r c:rrlt
4
the evidence ol PWI. ln vieu of tl-re same. the conviction can bese t asrde since the findings of the learned Sessions Judgeare contrar]
to the evidence on record
B. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied on thc Judgment of this Court in Mallela Peda Venkateswara Reddyv. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukurul.
'2oo5( 1) ALT (cRL)245
hB-
that rl ltc liut'lj eLnoiht't,,</sup> r)ntiut. Itc uor-tlcl qe. a co\n ol Rs.l S lakhs.()11 t.l( l,asis o1'tlrc sairi c.ornl;lainr lilt.r: ort 16.0_2.200 1. InVe sillg.ilion \' Lq conc]tt( 1cd ltncl r.harge sht,ct rr: ., frlccl lbr the said .lfcrt.cs it trler- Scctio.s -l 1 7 r>l the l,clrarr I,: tal Coclc and also rrncler th: 1 rovrsions ol SCt/S'f (poA) Act
1 l. Dlrrir.rq 1-, :ourse of trial. pW I narrerte-l thel th( appellant trie d Lo CCntitr:-ler u hcn shc $.ats i.isiting tire r_tcul.t. Several cvents \'er(, na: ated iu ttre contltl: r-rt *.ith rrqarcl r rreeti,g the appellant cn sr: 'eral occasions trncl also thar t],rc .rpp,rllant had taken her t. z, t rrrple a,d informcd that he I ked : r,r. Ihe entire narration i I lltr chief-ex:rm inertion is an orl issjo:- both in the complaint etnri s .atement recordcd under Section 1r:, 1 cf Cr.p.C PW1 also state I several Llttcranccs that r: ere n.ad: bv the appellant rc ga'c[ 'g her castt . Er..en rhe saicl ].rttera lt,tes were not part of stateme: t recordecl uncler Section 16 t of P.C. or the complaint
,':,:{ ;:
5
a complaint agarnsr one Vcnkat sa-viug that he \,as teasing her u,hile she vgas staf ing u ith her uncle D.Srinivas.
7
f I
fI
per-solr [r Li:. h:r'c intenti.nrilir insullc,] ()r inr rric.l.rlecl to hurnililrlr ir :) rson belonging ro SC/ST ci1:rt(, lt rLrl lic r.icrl. No .such .lllcrtitli(t s macle eitht'r irr the r:om1tl: in L, r t rc appellant had inte.ti.r'i ll, lr-rsulte'd p\r l .rtl'rcr- ,r . purrlir. rllr,.c or *,ithin public r,it vi. l: ncr' the ..tir.r, Llttcra.ces btrn11 r,:r rssrons in her cariier con.rplr I ., the finding of gurilt ur-rder Ser,:ti ;r. 3 (l )(x) ol the SC/ST (Pt,A) il, t. cannot be meriprainecl.
8
complaints against persons for chcating. Even in the statemcnt made before the Court on oatll in the case filed undcr Section 498-4 against her husband, she made a specific allegation that the appellant was trving to outrage her modest_v q.hich is not at all the .case in the present complaint.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal appeal, shall stand closed.
Sd/. K.SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// tu SECTION OFFICER
#?
ii I I
I t
a t
HIGH COLIR T
DATED:08 t0ii2023
JUDGMENT
CRLA.No.28 I of 2009
-.:
u.
., I
l,
) 11 l]l 2$Il
- i;
', / //
t'
ALLOWING I HIE CRIMINAL APPEAL.
c1
11
rlt'-
7
^\ 'rt(
3 issues framed by the court
Whether conviction under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act can be upheld given lack of specific allegations regarding caste-based insult or domination in charge sheet and evidence.
Whether evidence of material discrepancies and contradictory statements in prosecution witness testimony warrants acquittal.
Whether a practicing advocate was in a position to dominate the will of the victim to exploit her sexually as alleged.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mallela Peda Venkateswara Reddy v. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukurul. 2005 (1) ALT (CRL) 245Referred¶38
Anumakonda Shashidar
State of A.P.
K. Surender
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
