Dismissed

Amboji Buddaiah v. Yede Kamalakar Rao

Telangana HC6 Mar 2024CRLA/1016/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court entertained this criminal appeal filed by the victim against the Special Sessions Judge's acquittal of six accused under SC/ST Act and IPC for obstructing a government employee. The court examined if the acquittal could be set aside.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No.1016 of 2011 is dismissed. No interference with the trial court's acquittal of accused Nos.1 to 6.

Amboji Buddaiah Vs Yede Kamalakar Rao — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

t^32ee I

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUGOPAL

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 10't6 of 201 1

¶7

Criminal Appeal Under Section 372 of Cr.p.C against the Judgment dated 29-11-2o1o in s.c.No.67 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Special sessions Judge for Trial of cases Under SCs and STs (poA) Act-cum-Additional sessions Judge at Khammam.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Amboji .Buddaiah,^{S/o Amboli Saitu,Age:29years,R/o. TummalapalliVifiage,} Penuballi Mandat, Khammam District. ...AppellanUVicfinilFW.S^-'-'

¶10

ANO

¶11

Yede Kamalakar Rao, S/o_ Adbhutha Rao, Age:45 years,

¶12

Yede Padma, Wo. Kamalakar Rao, Age: 40 years,

¶13

Perika Ramalaxmi, Wo. Krishna, Age:2O years,

¶14

Shaik Basha, S/o. Vali Ahmed, Age:40 years

¶15

Anantha Venkata Narayana, S/o. Rangaiah, Age:40 years,

¶16

Shaik Sondu Saheb, S/o. Hussain, Age:4O years,

¶17

(All are residents of Thummatapa i Village, V.M.Banjara Mandal, Khammam District.) ...Respondeits/Accusei 1 to 6 respectively

¶18

The State of A.P. Rep. by^{public prosecutor,} High Court of A.p., Hyderabad.

¶19

"'"tndenucomplainant

¶20

counser for the Apperant: SRr E. sEsHAGrRr *oo

¶21

Counsel for the Respondent No.7: ASSTSTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶22

Counsel for the Respondents No.1,3,4 & 6: Mr. STMHACHALAM

¶23

BARAPAREDOY

¶24

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI WSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1016 of 2O11

¶26

JUDGMENT:

¶27

The present criminal appeal is Iiled under Section 372 of Cr.P.C seeking to set aside the judgment dated 29.11.2O1O passed in S.C.No.67 of 2OO9 on the Iile of the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Khammam (for short 'the trial Court').

¶28

No representation on behalf of the appellant/victim. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State and perused the record.

¶29

This Court is inclined to proceed with the matter on merits of the case as per the decision of the Honble Apex Court in "Bani Singh and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesht", wherein it was categorically held that the High Court cannot dismiss any appeal lor non,prosecution simpliciter without examining the merits

¶30

' 1tee61^{+ SupremeCourt Cases720}

¶31

¶32

The brief facts of the case are that on 2S.OZ.2OOg at 18:30 hours the de facto complatnant Kaka Mangathayaru, V.R.O. Thummalapa.lli village, resident of V.M.Banjara rrillage came to police station and lodged a written report stating that she is working as V.R,O., Balryannagudem village ald in-charge Thummalapalli village. previously Thummalapaili villagers made complaint to the M.R.O., penuballi over house sites. on receipt of information that M.R.o. penubalri is coming to enquiry on 25.OZ.2OOS, she also went to B.C. colony of Thummalapalli village at about 9:00 hours. At about 11:30 hours when she was enquiring with some persons, Thummalapalli villager by name yede Kamalakar Rao, his wife yede padma and his daughter perika Ramalakshmi obstructed her and abused her by taking her narn€ as "Koya La,ja Antha Neeve chesavu Neeku Karam Posthanu".. In the mean time Sk.Basha, A.Venkata Narayana, Sk.Sondu Saheb also abused her by taking her caste name in support of them saying .Koya Mundalaki Vudyugalu isthe ilane chestharu, Koya Lanjanu Thannandi, afuthreatened her t1gw.she would do job and snatched away

¶33

¶34

papers from her hand and pushed her. Anantha Venkata Narayana abused Amboji Buddaiah by taking his caste name i.e., Madiga Lalj a Kodaka who was present there. Hence requested to take necessary action. As per the contents of the above contents, LW.l 1 Sub Inspector of Police,^Police Station V.M.Banjara registered a case in Crime^{No.82 of} 2008 under Section 186 of IPC and Section 3^{(1) (x) of SCs} and STs (POA) Act, L989 r /w 34 IPC^and issued^FIR

¶35

The case was taken on lile for the offences under Section 353 and Section 3^{(1) (x)} of^{SCs and STs (POA)Act,} 1989 by the learned Additional Judicial^{Magistrateof First} Class, Sathupally in P.R.C.No.8 of^{2OO9(PRC.No.46ol 2008).} On appearance of the accused,^charges under^{Section 353} IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SCs and STs^{(POA)Act, 1989 are} framed against the accused, read over^{and explainedto} them, for which they^pleaded not^{guilby and claimed to be} tried.

¶36

¶37

Prosecution examined^PWs. I to^{9and got marked} Exs.Pl to P13. On beha-lf of^{the accused,no witnessesare} examined and no documents^{got marked'}

¶38

7 . After appreciating the oral and^{documentar5revidence} on record, the trial Court^{has observed that accused Nos'1to} 6 are found not guilty and^{they are acquittedunder Section} 235 (1) for the offences under^{Section353 of IPC and Section} 3 (1) (x) of SCs and^{STs(POA)Act, 1989-}

¶39

Aggrieved by the^{judgmentpassedby the trial Court,} the appellant/rrictim has^{preferred the present criminal} appeal.

¶40

g. Learned Assistant Public^{Prosecutorappearing for} respondent-State would^{submit that the learned trial Court} upon appreciating ttre oral^{and documentary evidenceon} record has passed tl-e^{judgment inS.C.No-67 of 2OO9.} Therefore, interference of this^{Court at this stage is} qnwarranted. Hencb- seeks to dismiss the^present criminal appeal'

¶41

.,-.,1

¶42

¶43

Recording the submissions made by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and upon perusing the entire material available on record, there are no grounds to interfere u,ith the well reasoned judgment dated 29.11.2010 passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.67 of 2OO9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present Crimina-l Appeal.

¶44

I 1. With the above observations, the present Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

¶45

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

¶46

closed

¶47

/ffRUE^COPY//

¶48

Sd/. K. SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTBAR v"'

¶49

SECTION^OFFICER

¶50

To, 1 The Special^{Sesstons Judge for Trialof Cases Under SCs and STs (POA)} Act-cum-Addrtional^{Sessions Judge at Khammam'}

¶51

2 TwoCCstothePublicProsecutor,HighCourtfortheStateofTelanganaat Hyderabad.^(OUT)

¶52

one CC^{to SRI E. SESHAGIRI RAO' Advocate [OPUC]}

¶53

3 4 ONC CC^{tOMT, SIIT'IHACHALAM BARAPAREDDY'AdVOCAICTOPUC]}

¶54

¶55

5 Two CD^CoPies

KarrVgh

HIGH COURT

DATED:0610312024

JUDGMENT

--i--j-_i::i:- ,a -rHi :'l ,-n.,,.\1, -
'q'<br>'! i ;,,_t yg2q

¶62

CRLA.No.1016 of 2011

¶63

DrsMrssrNG @ THE CRIMINAL APPEAL @^r.d q.t

Amboji Buddaiah v. Yede Kamalakar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amboji Buddaiah v. Yede Kamalakar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Pallati Narsimhulu Vs Smt. v. Aruna., I.A.S.

Jaspal Singh Sachdeva Vs Master Harbhajan Singh Sachdeva and 2 Others

K.Issac Vs a.Ashok Kumar

D.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

T.Gangadhar Vs the State of Ap., Rep by Pp and Another

Bh. Raja Skehar Prasad Vs the State of Ap., Rep.by Its P.P and Anothers