P. Jaipal Reddy, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd.,
2022 Latest Caselaw 5660 Tel

              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

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

(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

(2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 710

2015 (1) ALD (Crl.) 143

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

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

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

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 965 OF 2010

Dt. 07.11.2022

tk