Dismissed

Gunja Chinna Yellaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Telangana HC13 Mar 2024CRLA/915/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) SCs/STs (POA) Act for sexual assault with caste abuse. Conviction upheld; sentence reduced to period already undergone, fine raised to Rs.10,000/-, Rs.8,000 payable to complainant as compensation.

What did the court decide?

Sentence reduced to period already undergone; fine increased to Rs.10,000, of which Rs.8,000 to be paid to de facto complainant as compensation.

Gunja Chinna Yellaiah, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[32es ]

¶2

BAIL SLIP: The Petitioner/ Accused^{was directed to be released on bail by the} order of the High Court dated 10-08-2011^{in Crl.A.M.P.No.1326of 20'1 1 in Crl.A.No.} 915 of 201 1 .

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH^DAY OF^MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{E.V.VENUGOPAL}

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL No: 915 of²⁰¹¹

¶8

Criminal Appeal Under Section 374(2) of^{Cr.P.C againstthe JudgmentDated} 04-05-2011 in S.C.No.39 of 2009 on^{the file of the Courtof the SpecialSessions} Judge for Trial of SCsiSTs^{(POA) Act Casesat Nalgonda.}

¶9

Between:

¶10

Gunja Chinna Yellaiah, S/o Bixamaiah @^{Bixam, Age:30 years, Occ:Labour,Rl/o} Alw,l Village, Anumula Mandal,^{NalgondaDistrict.}

¶11

...AppellanUAccused

¶12

AND

¶13

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.^{by its Public Prosecutor'HighCourt of A.P.,} at Hyderabad.

¶14

...RespondenUComplainant

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant:^{M/s.S. ANNAPURNA}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent:^{SRI KHA.TA VIZARATH ALl,} ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

¶17

The Court delivered the following:^JUDGMENT

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUGOPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL No.915 of 2O7l

¶19

ORDER:

¶20

The present criminal Appeal is filed aggrieved by the Judgment,^{conviction and sentence} imposed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act Cases at Nalgonda, in S.C.No.39 of 2009, dated 04.05.2011.

¶21

The specific case of the prosecution is that one Reddymalla Pullamma (hereafter Pullamma) daughter of Bixam is the de facto complainant. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. Pullamma married and got a son, but due to disputes she has been staying away from five years and has been living with her mother at Alwal. The accused is also resident of Alwal village and married about four years back and have two children and as his wife left him, he has been residing with his grandmother at Alwal. From past six months to the incident in question the accused has been sexually harassing the de facto complainant viz., Pullamma and therefore she left for I Koth[pally village, where her sister has been resicling. On 13.03.2009 at 07.00 PM, while the de facto complainant was

¶22

¶23

retuming home from agricultural^{works, the accusedcaughthold} her hands and dragged the^{de facto complainant,forcing her to} participate in sexual intercourse abusing^{in the name of her caste as} "Mala Lanjadhana Vasthava Rava". On Seeing the brother-in-law^of de facto complainant arriving,^{the accused fled away'}

¶24

On 14.03.2009 de facto complainant^{gave a complaintin the} police station and basing on the^{said complaint,the police} registered a case in Cr.No.50^{of 2009 under Section 354 of IPC and} Section 3(1)(xi) SCs/STs (POA)^{Act, 1989. Investigationofficer after} examining victim, eyewikress,^{and several circumstantialwitnesses} and conducting scene of^{offence and seizure panchanama in the} presence of mediators viz., Burugu^{Muthyalu and Burugu} Edukondalu (Lws.8 and 9^{respectively) and after completion of} investigation, laid charge sheet^{alleging that the accusedis liable for} punishment for the^{offence underSection354 of Indian Penal Code} and Section 3(1)(xi)^{of SCs/STs (POA) Act,1989.}

¶25

¶26

l.earned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda after complying with statutory requirements, vide separate order, committed case to the Sessions Court for trial and disposal.

¶27

During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.Pl to P6.

¶28

5 After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned District Judge has passed the order in S.C.No.39 of 2009, which reads as under:

¶29

"Wrcn accused is questioned uith regard to the quantum of sentence, inspite of repented questioning remained silent. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that he has no say about tlrc quantum of sentence. Taking into consideration of their representation and in oieu of the nature and graaity of the prooed offence under Section 3(il@t of SCs/STs )(POA) Act, 1.989, it is not a fit case to take a lenient aieu. Biut, in the circumstances pleaded by the accused, it just nnd reasonable to conaict accused under Section 2SS (1) Cr.P.C and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for hoo years arul to pay a fine of I<s.5000/- or in default of payment of fne, acarced shall uydergo S.I. for truo months. The remand peiod, if any slall be set oflunder Section 428 Cr.P.C."

¶30

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/ accused has preferred the

¶31

present criminal appeal

¶32

i') .

¶33

¶34

5 Heard and perused the record.

¶35

The leamed counsel for the appellant/accused did^{not place} any material before this Court, which^{would discreditthe evidence.} Therefore, no interference is^warranted as^{far as convictionis} concemed, but with regard to^{the sentence, it may be mentioned} that the offence took place in the^{year2009 and this revisionwas} fited in the year 2011 and almost^{13 years havepassedand during} this period, the revision petitioner/accused^{must have repented for} what he did. In these circumstances^{and in the interest of justice, it} is expedient to modily the sentence^{of imprisonmentto the} Period already undergone by the^{revisionpetitioner/accused.In these} circumstances and in the^{interest of justice, it is expedient to} increase the fine amount from Rs.5000/-^{to Rs.10,000/-andthe}

¶36

same shall be paid by the accused^{within two months fromthe date}

¶37

of f udgment.

¶38

¶39

The Criminal^{Appeal is dismissed.Out of the fine amount of} Rs.10,000/-,^{an amountof Rs.8,000/- shall be paid to the de facto} complainant^{within two monthsfrom today. In the event of the} accused paying^{fine amountof Rs.8,000/-within two monthsfrom} today the concerned^{Court shall causeaPpearance of complainant} and pay the^{said amount to her towards compensation'Failure to} pay the fine^{amount of Rs.8,000/- to de facto complainant,the} appellant shall^{sufferthe conviction and fine imposedby the trial} Court vide Judgment^{dated04'05.2011in S.C.No'39 of 2009'}

¶40

Pending miscellaneous^{applications, Ifany, shall stand}

¶41

closed. Sd/. T.^SRINIVAS

¶42

DEPU^TY TRAR

¶43

//TRUE^COPY// SEC FFICER

¶44

To, 1. The^{SPecial SessionsJudgefor Trial of SCs/STs (POA)Act Casesat} Nalgonda.

¶45

1. The^{Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Miryalaguda' Nalgonda District'} 3. The^{Superintendent' District Jail' Nalgonda'}

¶46

4.TheStationHouseofficer,HaliyaPoliceStation,Miryalguda. 5. Two^{CCs to the PublicProsecutor' High Court for the Stateof Telangana} at HYderabad^(OUT)

¶47

One^{CC to M/s S ANNAPURNA Advocate IOPUCI} 7. Two^{CD CoPies}

Kam/ghV

t I

HIGH COURT

DATED:1310312024

1 BE SIA r€ -..<br>'.;.I.,
o:
c 3 ',t t'lAY 2[21 Ct
I,l
t
Df :,^p e

¶53

JUDGMENT

¶54

CRLA.No.915 of 2011

¶55

THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IS DISMISSED

¶56

\b "$tt v!-

¶57

Gunja Chinna Yellaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gunja Chinna Yellaiah, v. the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

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

Kohilakonda Satish Kumar Vs the State of Ap.

Gugulothu Reddy, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Gutala Raju and 4 Others Vs the State of A.P. Rep., by Its Pp

Smt.Pratapagiri Padmalatha, Karimnagar and Anr., Vs State of Ap., Rep. Pp and Anr.

Gandikota Pedda Narsimulu, Vs the State of Ap Rep by Its Pp Hyd.

Murali Lohia, Vs Ameenaiah Valluru, and Another