Boya Ramudu vs The State Of A.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 5808 Tel

             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

             CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1365 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused

aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Sessions

Judge For Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-VII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, in

S.C.No.03 of 2008, dated 20.10.2010, convicting the

appellant/Accused for the offence punishable under Section 324

of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & STs (POA)

Act, 1989; and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of

six months and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section

324 of the IPC; and rigorous imprisonment of six months and a

fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC &

STs (POA) Act, 1989.

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that while PW1 to PW4

were sitting in the hotel, the appellant went inside for purchasing

Beedies. The hotel Manager refused to give Beedies to the

appellant without giving money, for which reason, the accused

abused them in filthy language in the name of caste questioning

as to why PWs.1 to 4 were sitting in the hotel when the owner

Janardhan refused to give Beedies on credit to him. In that

process the accused picked up a quarrel and beat PW1. The

evidence of PW1 is corroborated by PW2, PW3 and PW4 who were

all present in the hotel. On the basis of complaint Ex.P1, the

Police filed charge sheet of the said offence under Section 324 of

the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA)

Act, 1989, against the appellant.

4. The learned Sessions Judge having examined PW1 to PW11

and marked Exs.P1 to P6, found the appellant guilty of the

aforesaid offenses.

5. As seen from the evidence of PWs.1 to PW4, except making

vague statements that the appellant abused in the name of caste

as to why they were sitting in the hotel when Janardhan refused

to give Beedies, none of the witnesses mentioned about what were

the utterances or the words that were stated by this appellant. To

attract an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SCs & STs (POA)

Act, 1989, a person should have intentionally insulted or

intimidated a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe, for the reason of such person being a member of such caste

or tribe. Further it should have been in public view.

6. Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

"(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"

7. As seen from the incident, none of the witnesses stated that

for the reason of PW1 belonging to SC or ST, the said incident had

taken place. For the reason of Janardhan, who was the hotel

Manager who refused to give beedies to the appellant/accused, the

appellant allegedly grew angry and asked them to leave the hotel

and when the witnesses refused, the appellant/accused allegedly

hit PW1 with a stone on his head.

8. As seen from the evidence of the witnesses, the intention to

insult or intimidate PW1, for the reason of his being a member of

SC or ST cannot be inferred, the question of attracting Section

3(1)(x) does not arise. In view of the same, the conviction under

Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, is set aside.

9. As seen from the evidence of PW9-the doctor who stated that

the injuries received by PW1 were simple in nature and caused by

blunt object. The evidence regarding appellant entering into the

hotel and hitting PW1 is consistent. For the said reason the

conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal code is

maintained.

10. However, keeping in view the incident happened in the year

2007 and also the defacto complainant/PW1 receiving simple

injuries, the sentence of imprisonment under Section 324 of the

Indian penal Code is reduced to the period already undergone.

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the

sentence of imprisonment of the accused is reduced to the period

already undergone.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

dismissed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Dt.:08.11.2022 tk

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1365 OF 2010

Dt. 14.11.2022

tk