Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Gummadi Satyam, vs Tenali Ramesh, on 18 June, 2025
Author: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K. Sreenivasa Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 904 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
The appellants herein are A.1 to A.3 and A.7
respectively, in Sessions Case No.10/S/2006 on the file of
the Special Judge for trial of Cases under the SCs and the
STs (PoA) Act, 1988, Guntur. They preferred the present
appeal challenging the Judgment dated 16.07.2008 passed
in the said Sessions Case whereunder and whereby- A.1
and A.2 were convicted of the offence punishable under
Section 326 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for a period of five years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each;
A.3 was convicted of the offence punishable under Section
324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, and
A.7 was convicted of the offence punishable under Section
323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a period of three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-.
In default of payment of fines, the accused were directed to
undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 15
days.
2
2. A private complaint was lodged by 1st respondent /
complainant against A.1 to A.7, alleging as follows.
A.1 to A.6 are residents of Nizampatnam village and
mandal. A.7 was working as a Police Constable in
Nizampatnam police station. A.1 to A.3 were doing
centering business (slab works). As the complainant was
also doing the same business and was getting more work,
A.1 to A.3 were in inimical terms with the complainant and
bore grudge against him. A.4 to A.6 are near and dear of
A.1 to A.3. While the complainant was arranging stars on
the Christmas eve, A.1 to A.3 asked him to stick their
names on the stars along with his name. But, he did not
agree therefor, as the same was being done with his own
expenditure. On that, A.1 to A.3 bore grudge and
threatened him that they would see his end if he did not
stick their names. On 17.6.2003 at about 7.30 PM, while
the complainant was going to house of Mehaboob Jani’s
daughter for collecting rent and centering material, A.1 to
A.3 attacked him with iron rods, sticks and knife. A.1 beat
him on mouth with stick which caused dislocation of two
teeth and bleeding blood injury; A.2 beat with iron rod on
3
right leg as a result of which his right leg was broken and
he fell down. A.3 rushed towards him with a knife to
attack him, but he escaped from the attack, but A.3 did
not leave him and stabbed him with knife on left leg, and
he was indiscriminately beaten by them. A.4 to A.6
instigated them saying that they would help financially and
provide help from police if they face any trouble. P.Ws.3
and 4 witnessed the incident.
It is further alleged that after the attack, A.1 to A.3
dragged the complainant towards house of A.3 and placed
him in front of house of A.3, and thereafter A.4 and A.5
fetched A.7, who kicked him with leg having shoe saying in
filthy language ‘levara naa kodaka, mala lanjakodaka, nee
natakalu ika chaalu’. Mean while, P.Ws.3, 4, 6, 7 and
another rushed there and questioned A.7. The
complainant was dragged towards police station. By that
time, wife of A.3 was present in police station. Police sent
him to G.G.H., Repalle in mid night and he was treated
there up to 12.7.2003. Thereafter also, he was suffering
from pain and bandage was tied to him, and so, he got
treated in a private hospital. The complainant sent a
4
report to police higher authorities against A.1 to A.7, but
no action was taken. Hence, the private complaint.
3. After recording sworn statements of the complainant
and other witnesses, the private complaint was taken on
file as P.R.C.No.39 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional
Junior Civil Judge, Repalle for the offences punishable
under Sections 307, 120B and 109 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the
SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1988, and the same was committed
to the Court of Session, which numbered the same as
S.C.No.10/A/2006.
4. The learned Special Judge framed charge for the
offence under Section 307 IPC against A.1 to A.3; under
Section 307 read with 109 IPC against A.4 to A.6; under
Section 324 IPC against A.7 and under Section 3 (1) (x) of
the SCs and the STs (PoA) Act, 1988 against A.7. The
plea of the accused is one of denial.
5. To substantiate his case, the complainant examined
P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P11. On behalf of
5
accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were got
marked.
6. After hearing both sides and appreciating the
evidence on record, the learned Special Judge found the
appellants guilty, accordingly convicted and sentenced
them, as stated supra, while acquitting them of the charges
under Sections 307 and 120B IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the SCs
and the STs (PoA) Act, 1989. Challenging the same, the
accused filed the present Criminal Appeal.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, the
learned counsel for 1st respondent/complainant and the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 2nd
respondent/State. Perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
admittedly, even as per the recitals in private complaint,
there are previous disputes between the complainant and
A.1 to A.3, and a case in S.C.No.262 of 2004 on the file of
the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali was filed by
wife of A.3 for the offence under Section 354 IPC against
6
the complainant wherein the complainant was found
convicted and the same was confirmed in the Criminal
Appeal, and so, as a counter blast to the same, the present
private complaint was lodged by the complainant. He
submits that there is abnormal delay of five months in
filing the present private complaint, and the private
complaint was filed without complying with the procedure
mandated under law. He submits that the evidence of
P.Ws.3 to 7 is interested and there is no independent
corroboration to the ocular testimony of P.W.2. He
submits that the medical evidence does not corroborate the
ocular testimony, and the learned Special Judge, having
extended the benefit of doubt to other accused in respect of
the said offences, ought to have extended the same benefit
of doubt to the appellants in respect of the said offences.
9. Learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent/
complainant submitted that there is clinching evidence
against the appellants with regard to the offences for which
they were convicted by the learned Special Judge. He
submits that mere delay in setting the criminal law into
7
motion, by itself, is not a ground to doubt the case of the
complainant, and the complainant explained the delay
satisfactorily. He submits that as police concerned did not
take appropriate action, the complainant approached the
Magistrate concerned by lodging the private complaint. He
submits that there are specific overt-acts against the
appellants, and considering these aspects, the learned
Special Judge rightly convicted and sentenced the
appellants and there are no grounds to interfere with the
impugned judgment.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing
for 2nd respondent-State too concurred with the
submissions of the learned counsel for 1st respondent/
complainant.
11. Now, the point for consideration is whether the
prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of appellants
with regard to the offences for which they were convicted
by the learned Special Judge, beyond all reasonable doubt,
and whether the judgment passed by the learned Special
Judge needs any interference by this Court?
8
12. It is a case registered based on a private complaint
lodged by 1st respondent/complainant (P.W.2). According
to the allegations in the private complaint, there were
differences between the complainant and A.1 to A.3, as
both parties were doing centering business and as the
complainant was getting more works than A.1 to A.3. The
other accused A.4 to A.6 are near and dear of A.1 to A.3.
It is further alleged that as the complainant did not agree
for sticking names of A.1 to A.3 on Christmas stars, a
scuffle arose between them. It is alleged that on 17.6.2003
at about 7.30 PM, while the complainant was going to
house of Mehaboob Jani’s daughter to collect money, A.1
came and beat on his face with a stock, as a result of
which one tooth was broken and the other teeth loosened.
A.2 beat him on his right leg with rod, due to which he
sustained fracture below his right knee. When A.3
attempted to stab P.W.2 on his stomach with knife, he
escaped from the said blow, but A.3 again stabbed on his
left leg ankle. A.4 to A.6 instigated A.1 to A.3 to attack
P.W.1. Thereafter, he was taken to house of A.3, where
A.7 came and abused him touching his caste name.
9
13. The learned Special Judge found the accused not
guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 307 IPC
and 307 read with 109 IPC, and also found A.7 not guilty
of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs
and the STs (PoA) Act, 1989. However, the learned Special
Judge found- A.1 and A.2 guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 326 IPC; A.3 guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 324 IPC and A.7 guilty of the offence
punishable under Section 323 IPC, accordingly convicted
and sentenced them.
14. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for
the appellants that in a case of this nature, where there is
abnormal delay in lodging the private complaint and where
there are strained relations between the parties, medical
evidence plays a pivotal role, but the ocular testimony is
not corroborated with the medical evidence. It is his
further contention that in view of the abnormal delay in
lodging the private complaint and in view of the admitted
differences and strained relationship between A.1 to A.3
and P.W.2, corroboration from independent witnesses is
10
required to the evidence of P.W.2, but P.Ws.3 to 7 are
interested witnesses, and in view of the same, conviction
cannot be based on the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses. He further submitted that on the same day of
the incident, wife of A.3 filed a case against the
complainant, which was registered as S.C.No.262 of 2004
on the file of the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenali
for the offence under Section 354 IPC wherein the
complainant was found convicted and the same was
confirmed in the Criminal Appeal, and so, as a counter
blast to the same, the present private complainant was
lodged by the complainant. In view of the aforesaid
chequered events, it has to be examined whether the
complainant is able to establish his case beyond
reasonable doubt or whether the appellants are entitled to
benefit of doubt.
15. In his evidence, P.W.2, the injured witness, reiterated
the allegations in the private complaint. P.W.1 worked as
Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Repalle. On
18.06.2003, he examined P.W.2 and found as many as 12
11
injuries. He issued Ex.P1-wound certificate and opined
that injury Nos. 1 and 5 are grievous in nature and all
other injuries are simple in nature. He admitted in cross-
examination that the aforesaid injuries can be caused by
fall. He further deposed that P.W.2 was treated by Dr.
Siva Prasad Sripati, Dentist of Government Hospital,
Repalle. Exs.P7 and P8 x-rays were marked through him.
In cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say to
whom the x-rays belong.
16. P.W.9 worked as Dental Assistant Surgeon,
Community Health Centre, Repalle at the relevant point of
time of the incident. He deposed that on 20.6.2003, P.W.1
referred P.W.2 to him and he treated P.W.2 and found two
dental injuries which are grievous in nature.
17. A perusal of the evidence on record goes to show that
there is variance between the oral evidence and medical
evidence. According to oral evidence of P.W.2, one overt-
act each is attributed against A.1 to A.3 that A.1 beat on
his face with a stick, due to which one tooth was broken;
A.2 beat him on right leg with a rod due to which he
12
sustained fracture below right knee, and A.3 stabbed on
his left leg ankle. But, as seen from the medical evidence,
as many as 12 injuries were noticed by the Doctor P.W.1,
who examined P.W.2 within 6 to 12 hours after the
incident. Therefore, there are no corresponding overt-acts
in the evidence of P.W.2 relating to the other injuries noted
in Ex.P1, and it is not explained as to how those injuries
were sustained by P.W.2. Further more, as pointed out by
the trial Court, the Radiologist concerned is not examined
to prove X-rays under Exs.P7 to P9. Therefore, the
complainant has not come forward with correct version of
the incident and the origin and genesis of the incident has
been suppressed.
18. Further more, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants that this case is foisted as a
counter blast to the case filed by wife of A.3 against P.W.2
i.e. S.C.No.262 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Assistant
Sessions Judge, Tenali for the offence under Section 354
IPC (relating to crime No.18 of 2003 of Repalle police
station), which ended in conviction, which was affirmed by
13
the appellate Court. P.W.2 admitted in his cross-
examination, the factum of filing the said case and his
conviction in the said case. It is stated by him that by the
time he was taken to the police station on the date of the
incident to present the report, wife of A.3 was already
there. It is suggested to P.W.2 that he sustained the
injuries due to his fall on the same date and time when he
outraged modesty of wife of A.3 while he was running from
back door, but the same is denied. From the aforesaid
evidence, it is clear that on the same day of the incident, a
case in crime No.18 of 2003 of Repalle police station, was
registered against the complainant at the instance of wife
of A.3 for the offence under Section 354 IPC.
19. Admittedly, P.W.2 lodged the private complaint after
lapse of about five months of the incident. The alleged
incident occurred on 17.06.2003 and the private complaint
was lodged on 05.11.2003. There is no satisfactory
explanation from P.W.2 for the abnormal delay of about five
months in lodging the report. He only stated that no police
approached him, and as such, he represented to the higher
14
police officials. Copy of the police report allegedly sent by
P.W.2 to police is not filed. No doubt, mere delay in
setting the criminal law into motion, by itself, is not a
ground to disbelieve the entire version of P.W.2. But, in
view of the strained relations between P.W.2 and the
accused and in view of the cases pending between P.W.3
and wife of A.3 for the offence under Section 354 IPC
relating to an offence that occurred on the same day of the
incident, the delay assumes significance. As stated supra,
there is no satisfactory explanation offered by P.W.2 for the
delay. In the circumstances, it can be inferred that the
private complaint appears to have been drafted after
discharge of P.W.2 to suit the injuries mentioned in Ex.P1.
Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, delay renders
the circumstances questionable. Time and again, the
object and importance of prompt lodging of the First
Information Report has been high-lighted. A delayed report
not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the
danger of introduction of coloured version, exaggerated
account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of
deliberations and consultations also creeps in, which casts
15
a serious doubt on its veracity. Delay in lodging the First
Information Report, more often than not, results in
embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creation of an
afterthought. The various aforesaid lapses cumulatively
affect the overall sanctity of the prosecution case, making it
fall short of the threshold of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Therefore, in the circumstances of the case, in view of the
strained relations between the parties and lodging of report
by wife of A.3 against P.W.2 for the offence under Section
354 IPC, which ended in conviction, the unexplained delay
in lodging the private complaint goes to the root of the
case. Further more, the weapons of offence are not
produced before the Court, and on the same evidence, the
trial Court acquitted A.4 to A.6 of the charges levelled
against them and also acquitted the appellants of the other
offences.
20. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court has no
hesitation to hold that there is no corroboration between
the medical evidence and the ocular testimony, and there
is unexplained delay in lodging the private complaint which
16
would go to the root of the case, particularly in the light of
the strained relations between the parties, and therefore an
implicit reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of
prosecution witnesses to base the conviction. Therefore,
this Court is of the opinion that the complainant failed to
establish the guilt of the appellants with regard to the
offences for which the trial Court convicted them, beyond
reasonable doubt, and the appellants are entitled to benefit
of doubt. The trial Court has not considered the evidence
on record in right perspective and erred in convicting and
sentencing the appellants. Hence, the impugned judgment
passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside.
21. In the result, both the Criminal Appeal is allowed,
setting aside the convictions and sentences recorded
against the appellants, in the judgment dated 16.07.2008
in Sessions Case No.10/S/2006 on the file of the Special
Judge for trial of Cases under the SCs and the STs (PoA)
Act, 1988, Guntur. The appellants are found not guilty of
the said charges and are accordingly acquitted of the said
17
charges and are set at liberty. Fine amounts, if any, paid
by them shall be refunded to them.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any,
pending in the Criminal Appeal shall stand closed.
_________________________
K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J
Date: 18.6.2025
DRK
18
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 904 OF 2008
Date: 18.6.2025
DRK