HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.965 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad, in Spl.S.C.No.1 of 2010, dated 28.07.2010, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.
2. Heard and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant-PW1 purchased Acs.11.18 guntas of land from one Abdul Salam Sharfan. There was a title dispute and PW1 came to know that the appellant was having GPA to the said land, so, PW1 approached him. PW1 and the accused entered into an oral understanding and accused had to cooperate for settlement of the said dispute. PW1 promised to pay Rs.50 lakhs. In the process of settlement, the appellant/accused and PW1 sold the entire land to one Janardhan Reddy for Rs.13 crores. There were 124 investors 2 in the transaction. PW1 was looking after all the issues as he was a major shareholder. The appellant/accused has created hurdles in the matter being resolved peacefully, for the said reason on 09.05.2008 at about 9.00 AM., PW1-defacto complainant along with others went to the house of the appellant. On seeking them the appellant was angry and PW1 asked some MRPS leaders (Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi) to go out and remaining persons who are PW3, PW4 and PW5, entered into hall of the appellant's house and sat there. On seeking them, the appellant/accused got angry and abused PW1 as 'Madiga Lanjakoda Rowdilini Theeskuntava, Ninu teesayadam Antha Panikadu'
4. The said evidence of PW1 was also corroborated by the other witnesses who are PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6.
5. The learned Sessions Judge found that the appellant/accused was guilty and convicted accordingly.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that even according to the prosecution case, the entire incident happened within the four walls of the front room of the appellant house and for the said reason when the premises is not within public view, the offence under Section 3 (i) (x) of the SCs & STs 3 (POA) Act, is not attracted. She further submits that on account of civil disputes, a false complaint is made to force settlement. She further submits that the appellant also filed a complaint for criminal trespass and criminal intimidation against PW1 and others, which was registered as Crime No.125 of 2008 as admitted by PW12. It is a case and counter case and a false case under the provisions of SCs & STs (POA) Act is made against the appellant/accused.
7. She relied upon the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another 1 and argued that the house where the alleged incident took place will not fall within the definition of public place.
8. She also relied upon another Judgment of this Court in Parsa Somaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another 2 wherein it is held that unless there is an element of Mens rea, the utterances made in the name of caste should not be held to be with an intention to humiliate in the name of caste. Further, if a quarrel ensues between two persons, mere using the name of caste would not automatically attract the offence under the provisions of SCs & STs (POA) Act, as such, the utterances 1 (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710 2 2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 143 4 made must be with an intention to humiliate or intimidate the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
9. On the other hand, Sri S.Sudershan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that even according to the appellant, four persons entered into his house which itself is sufficient to attract the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, since the utterances made by the accused would be within public view.
10. As seen from the utterances which were stated by the witnesses, all of them stated differently which would go to show that they are making false statement and their presence in the house is doubtful.
11. Having perused the record, it is evident that there were ongoing disputes regarding land and money to be shared amongst the appellant and others. It is admitted by PW1 that this appellant was not inclined to settle the issue and was demanding money in the sale transaction, for which reason the defacto complainant- PW1 went along with members of the organization of MRPS (Madiga Reservation Porata Samithi). The very act of PW1 in taking several persons from an Organization and others and trespassing into the house of the appellant would go to show that 5 the intent of PW1 was to either intimidate or settle the issue forcibly.
12. In the said circumstances, when somany members who accompanied PW1 trespassed into the house of the appellant, it cannot be said that the appellant had intentionally abused PW1, for the reason of his belonging to a Scheduled Caste. Further, the narration given by PW1 and the accompanying persons PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 by names Y.Venkatesh, D.Sekhar, T.Chandraiah and G.Sreenivasa Kumar @ Perannandlu, respectively, is contradictory regarding the utterances and also the sequence of the events transpired. Though it is alleged that the sons of the appellant were present and a quarrel ensued, there are no specific details as to what transpired in the said house of the appellant.
13. When there are differences and disputes amongst the parties, the Court has to be cautious in coming to a conclusion regarding the guilt of the appellant. It has to be clearly indicated in the evidence of the witnesses that the appellant with an intention to criminally intimidate or humiliate the person belonging to Scheduled Caste, the said utterances made. Going by the events on record, there was a quarrel in relation to civil disputes for which reason, the appellant had also filed a 6 complaint. For the said reason of pending civil disputes and the incident occurred in the house of the appellant wherein PW1 and others have trespassed, benefit of doubt can be extended to the appellant.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 3(i)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. Since the appellant/accused is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand dismissed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:07.11.2022 tk 7 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 965 OF 2010 Dt. 07.11.2022 tk