HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APP EAL NO: 1063 OF 2009 criminal Appeal under Section 378 (3) & (1) Crl.P.C against the Judgment dated 2gt11l2OO7 in SC No.49 ol 2OO7 on the file of the court of the special sessions Judge, for SC/ STs, Nalgonda. Between: The State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A P', Hyderabad' ...APELLANT/ PETITIONER AND 1. Bommishetti Narsaiah, Sio. Bala Kotaiah, Sarpanch 2. Polepally Lalaiah, S/o. Gopaiah Coolie - 3. PaiiJri V'enkataiah, S/o. Thirupathaiah Coolie +. Ko'ndeboina Shankaraiah, S/o. Suraiah Coolie infi i* nlo. Venugannagirdem vitlage, of Nidmanoor Mandal, Nalgon9-'^D-lPll9Jl .RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED For the Appellant : PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Forthe Respondents: SRI N.SREEDHAR REDDY, Advocate The Court delivered the following: JUDGt\/ENT This Criminat Appeat is fited under Section 378 (3) and (1) of Cr.P.C. by the State, challenging the judgment, dated 29.11.2007 passed in S.C.No.49 of ZOOT on the fite of the Speciat Sessions Judge for SC/STs (pOA) Act, Nalgonda, wherein the accused were acquitted for the offence punishabte under Section 324 read with Section 34 of l.p.C. and Section 3 (1) (x)of the SC/STs (pOA)Act, 1989. For the sake of convenience, the parties witt hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in S.C. ln brief, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2004 at about 10.00 P.M., the accused went to the house of the comptainant and abused him with reference his caste and atso beat him with stick on right cheek and waist and when his sister and his wife intervened, A-1 abused his sister as "Madiga Lanjadana" and beat her with stick on her teft thigh and A-4 beat his wife Ramana with stick on her right hand and in the mid night A-1 to A-4 came to the tocatity of the complainant in a tractor and moved around, uttering abuses and created terror and went away. HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1063 of 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This Court perused the entire impugned judgment and atso heard the arguments. ln view of the contradictory evidence of P'Ws'1 to 3 witheachotherandalsosincethecaseoftheprosecution suffers from tack of corroboration from independent evidence, the tearned triat Judge acquitted the accused persons. The reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge are wett in accordance with taw and the trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective' Further, in an appeal against acquittal, the scope of this Court is very timited and if there is any perversity or ittegatity appears on the face of the record, then only this Court can interfere with the finding of the lower Court' lt is wett settted that in an appeat against acquittat, the Appettate Court can interfere onty when there is possibitity of one view' which is pointing towards the guitt of the accused' When there is possibitity of two views and one view, which is in favour of the accused, is taken into account and the accused is acquitted by the competent Court, there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the trjal Court' Considering the above said proposition of [aw and after perusal of the record and the judgment of the Court betow' J this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge. Hence, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirmed the judgment passed in S.C.No.49 of 20078 on the fite of the SpeciatSessions Judge for SC/STs (POA)Act, Natgonda. Miscetlaneous petitions fited in this appeat, if any, shat[ stand ctosed. To Sd/-C.V. MALLIKARJUNA VARMA //TRUE COPY/I DEPUTY REG|STRAR [\-.'' SECTION OFFICER 1. The Special Sessions Judge for S_C/ STs (pOA) Act, Nalgonda. ' Iffi":.t;l',3tj'+ri Pros;it", (rG): iib-i,-b"'liitiihe siate or rerangana, 9. 9n" QQ !o Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, Advocate (OpUC) 4. Two CD Cooies Kj.r -4 HIGH COURT DATED:01/03/2021 :$ ORDER CRLA.No.1063 of 2009 DISMISSING THE CRL.A. 1t * o}' * ? iAr€ t: .( J 2021 APN 6 1 ry t