Allowed

Jetti Anasurya, Charla., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Telangana HC14 Feb 2025CRLA/752/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the High Court of Telangana set aside the appellant's conviction for cultivating caste hatred under the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The court held that the prosecution failed to explain a 10-day delay in filing the complaint amidst underlying disputes, warranting the benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

The conviction is set aside and the Criminal Appeal is allowed. No costs.

Jetti Anasurya, Charla., Vs State of Telangana, Rep Pp. — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132s11

¶2

,i&

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 752 OF 20,14

¶8

Appeal filed under Section 37 4(2) of Cr.P.C against the^judgment dated 30-06-2014 in S.C.No. 50 of 2013 on the file of the Special^{Sessions Judge for} trial of cases under SCs and STs.^(POA) Act-cum-Additional Sessions^{Judge at} Khammam.

¶9

Between:

¶10

re,-{,

¶11

Jetti Anasurya Wo. Durga Rao, aged about 36^{years, Occ: Coolie, R/o.} Gollakatta, Near Sridevi Theatre, Charla.

¶12

...APPELLANT(ACCUSED)

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, through SHO, Charla Police Station,^Khammam District. rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court,^Hyderabad.

¶15

...RESPONDENT(COMPLAINANT)

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Ravi Kumar^{Veluri, Legal Aid}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Vivekananda^Reddy,

¶18

Assistant Public Prosecutor

¶19

The Gourt delivered the following JUDGMENT:

¶20

¶21

THE HONOURABLE SRI JI,STICE K.SURENDER

¶22

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.752 OF 2014

¶23

JUDGMENT:

¶24

.r:

¶25

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section :\74(2\ of Cr.P.C., by tlht: appellant/accused aggrieved by the j'-rdgment dated 30.0€i .'.2OI4, in S.C.No.S0 of 2OL3, on the h.e of the Special Sess;ions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (PoA) Act-cr.rm-Additional Sessions Judge, Khrrmmam, convicting her for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989.

¶26

Heard Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri, learned legal aid counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri Vivekananda Reddy, learned Assis*rnt Public Prosecutor for respondent - State.

¶27

Pw.1/.M.Padmaja is the de facto cornplainant. She approached the police and filed Telugu written comp;laint on 17.O8.2O12. In the complaint, PW. 1 narrated that the appellaat is a member of Development of Women and Children in Rurra-l Areas' (DWCRA), and 10 days prior to the lodging of complaint, PW. 1 sent PW.2 to collect money from

the appellant. The appellant admonished^{PW.2 as to why she} ipproiched her, and abused PW.2 in front of^{PW.3. Then} PW.2 conveyed the conduct of the appellant^{to PW. 1 on} phone. Immediately, PW. 1 went to the house of the^appellant and on seeing PW. 1, the appellant abused in the^{name of her} caste saying that if anyone,^{whobelongs to Koyacommunity} comes to her, she would kill them.^{PW. 1} then^{wentto Po1ice} Station and filed a complaint/Ex.P1.

¶33

c.'f

¶34

On the basis of the complaint^{frled by PW.1, the police} investigated and frled charge-sheet.^{Learned Sessions Judge} examined the witnesses, who are^{PWs.1 to12 and also} marked Exs.Pl to P9 on behalf of^{the prosecution.On behalf} of the appellant, Exs.Dl and^{D2.were marked, during the} course of cross-examination of PWs.2 to^{5. The learned} Special Judge found that the^{appellalthad abused PW.l} within public view, and accordingly,^{convicted her.}

¶35

l,earned legal aid counsel^{appearingon belralf of the} appellant would submit that, frrstly,^{there was a delay of 10} days in lodging the complaint^{and the same was not} explained. Admittedly, there^{were disputes amongst DWCRA}

¶36

¶37

.i?

¶38

women, whir:h include appellant, PWs.1, and 2. The reason for the a11e51ec[ quarrel is that the appellant was a member of DWCRA and owed an amount of Rs.60,OOO/-. Therefore, PW. 1 directed PW.2 to collect the amount from the appellant, since the said. amount belongs to DWCRA, which l.Las to be deposited in the DWCRA account. The reason 5;iven for abnormal delay of 1O days is that, according to PI,tr/. 1, she lodged a cc,nrplaint on the very same day of the incident, however, the police did not register the complainr., saying that the case oan be compromised. Since the accuserl did not approach PW. t for compromise, PW. 1 filed complaint.

¶39

l,earned Assistant Public Prosecutor for respondent - State did not Ceny that PW. 1 neither approached ttre police station on thr: date of incident, i.e. , 07 .O8 .20 12 , nor any complaint w;rs filed on 07.O8.2O12. Further, ro such complaint dated 07.08.2072, was produced by pW. 1, during the course of trial. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the complaint. It is for the prosecution to explain ttre deiay convincingly" PW.2 and PW.3 did not speak about rloing to the Police St,ation, on the day of incident. There is norhing on record to rernotely suggest that pW. 1 went to the pclice on

&it.3

07.08.2012 except for her^{oral testimony,for the first time in} iourt,'- which is an omission^{from her earlier 161 Cr.P'C'} statement.

¶44

'' In the background of^{the disputes betweenPW'1, and} appellant, and also the unexplained^{delay of 1O days in} lodging the complaint, the^{benefit of doubt is extendedto the} appellant, setting aside^{the conviction.}

{-^-€

Accordingly, the Criminal^{Appeal is allowed' No costs'} Miscellaneous Petitions,^{pending ifany, shall stand}

¶49

closed

¶50

Sd/. K.^{SRINIVASA RAO} J T REGISTRAR /ITRUE^COPY// S CTION^OFFICER

¶51

To,

¶52

'Iffi^{9f.?";il;?:'J::t j:iX?lgl'fl #A:ni[1if''"::'3ysrs'(PoA)Act-}

¶53

The^{Judicial Magistrate of First Class' Bhadrachalam' Khammam District} 3. The^{Station House Officer' Charla PoliceStation' Bhadrachalam'Khamma} District.

¶54

4 Two CCs^{to the PublicProsecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at} HYderabad. [OUT]

¶55

One^{CC to Sri Ravi Kumar Veluri'Legal Aid [OUT]}

¶56

Two^{CD CoPies}

¶57

VFVgh

,}^''

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1410212025

.. '{

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.752 of 2014

1t'. E S TA] 6
<br>q
rj 0I APfl 1116 ,r.-1
oJ.t
...., t +
O5 SP,\1(l\i _tl

¶66

ALLOWING THE APPEAL

¶67

Jetti Anasurya, Charla., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jetti Anasurya, Charla., v. State of Telangana, Rep Pp.

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

P. Krishna Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Devarajam Vuppula Vs The State of Telangana

Badavath Vinod Kumar Naik Vs The State of Telangana

Banoth Ravi Vs State of Telangana, And Another

Bommu Srinivas Reddy Vs State of Telangana and anothers

Mohammed Jahangir Ali A2 And 4 Others Vs Smt. Asia Begum