Yerram Ramesh, Medak Dist. Ano. vs P.P., Hyd
2022 Latest Caselaw 4614 Tel

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                      CRL.A.No.3 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., is

directed against the judgment dated 21.12.2015 in S.C.No.55 of

2012, on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases

under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum-VII Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the appellants-

A-1 & A-2 were convicted for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x)

of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for the period of three years each and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo suffer simple imprisonment for

three months.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners-A-1 & A-2 and

learned counsel for the respondent-State. Perused the material on

record.

3. The prosecution case is that P.W.1 obtained loan of

Rs.12 lakhs from A-1 and promised to repay the same as early

as possible and, accordingly, executed an agreement of sale-cum-

GPA in favour of A-1 regarding his house property under a

registered document dated 29.06.2011. P.W.1 also executed a note

of undertaking on 30.03.2011 on non-judicial stamp paper stating

that as of now he obtained Rs.31 lakhs (instead of Rs.12 lakhs)

and would be repaid in 36 months and deposited title deeds of

his house. A-1 used to regularly visit the house of P.W.1 and

caused mental tension by abused them by taking their caste name

as "Lanjamunda, Dhongamunda, Malamunda, Malamunda

Kodullara, Meeru Maryadaga Maa Dabbulu Ivvandi, Lekapothe

Champestha". Later, P.W.1 came to know that A-1 executed sale

deed in favour of one Yerram Shankar vide registered document

dated 08.09.2011 and transferred the house and suppressing the

said fact, he was demanding payment of amounts and abused him

on 30.12.2011 and 02.01.2012. A-1 and A-2 abused P.W.1 and 2

by taking their caste name. On the complaint of P.W.1, P.W.5, the

then Inspector of Police, Jeedimetla registered a case in Cr.No.18

of 2012 against A-1, A-2 and another (A-3) for the offence under

Section 3(v) (x) of the Act and took up investigation. During the

course of investigation, the investigating officer examined P.W.1

and recorded his statement and collected his caste certificate. He

also examined P.Ws.2 to 6 and recorded their statements. After

due investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offence under

Section 3(v) (x) of the Act. The accused appeared before the trial

Court and denied the offence and pleaded not guilty to the charge

framed under Section 3(v) (x) of the Act.

4. In support of their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1

to 6 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-4. No oral evidence was adduced,

but Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked on behalf of the accused.

5. On a consideration of the material available on record,

the court below found the appellants-A-1 & A-2 guilty for the

offence punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act and sentenced

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of three

years each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo

suffer simple imprisonment for three months. Challenging the

same, the present appeal is preferred by appellants-A-1 & A-2.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants-A-1 & A-2 submits that

there are contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses

and the alleged incident has not taken place within the public view

and thereby the essential ingredient of the offence is not made out.

Therefore, the conviction of A-1 and A-2 for the offence under

Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing

for the respondent-State submits that the prosecution has proved

the alleged offence with cogent and convincing evidence and the

court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused.

8. Thus, after hearing the submissions of both the learned

counsel and after perusing the material on record, the point that

arises for consideration is - whether the evidence available on

record is sufficient to convict the appellants/A-1 & A-2 for the

offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act?

9. Before proceeding to examine the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, it would be useful to refer to Section 3(1) (x) of the Act,

which says that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste

or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent

to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe

in any place within public view shall be punishable with

imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months

but which may extend to five years and with fine.

10. The Tahsildar, Qutbullapur issued caste certificate Ex.P-4

stating that P.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste Mala community

and he migrated to Hyderabad from Prakasam District. The said

caste certificate is found to be genuine as per record. According to

prosecution, the accused belongs to forward community. There is

no denial on the part of the accused that P.Ws.1 and 2 does not

belong to SC Mala community. As such, the prosecution has

proved that the accused belong to forward caste and the victim

belongs to SC community and the essential two ingredients of the

offence stated above are proved by the prosecution. So far as the

ingredients of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act are

concerned, P.W.1 and 2 in their evidence stated that P.W.1

obtained a loan of Rs.1 lakh from A-1 on 04.01.2012 and he used

to pay interest and he was member of a chit worth Rs.2 lakhs,

being run by A-1. A-1 gave hand loans to labourers who are

working under him and he used to collect interest. Suddenly,

the labourers left Hyderabad without making payments. A-1

demanded P.W.1 to make payment for the loans taken by the

labourers and exerted pressure on P.W.1 for discharge of the loan

and threatened to kill him and his family. P.W.1 further stated

A-1 and A-2 came to their house and abused him as 'Mala

lanjakodaka' and demanded him to pay back the loan borrowed by

the labourers and forcibly took his house papers and they obtained

GPA and demanded him to pay Rs.1 lakh and then only he will

return his house papers. Similarly, P.W.2, who is wife of P.W.1,

also stated in her evidence that P.W.1 borrowed Rs.1 lakh from the

accused and he was also member of the chit for Rs.2 lakhs and

paid 11 months of chit. She also stated in her evidence that the

accused used to lend money to labourers who are working under

him and when they left Hyderabad without repaying the amount,

the accused demanded them to pay Rs.30 lakhs and abused them as

'Mala Lanja' and they took away their land papers and forcibly

obtained their signatures on white papers.

11. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are victims, categorically stated that the

incident of abuse took place at their house. P.W.2 has not given

any specific time and date of the alleged incident and also not

stated about the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 at the time of

occurrence. P.W.1 also has not stated about the presence of P.Ws.3

and 4 at the time when alleged incident of abuse took place.

12. The independent witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 in their evidence

stated that the accused abused P.Ws.1 and 2 and demanded them

money. Interestingly, P.W.3 did not state the date but she gave the

time that the accused went to the house of P.W.1 at about 06:00 am

on first occasion and 10:00 pm on second occasion. In fact, the

victims P.Ws.1 and 2 have not stated the time of the alleged

incident of abuse which took place at their house. P.W.4 also

stated that the accused abused P.W.1 on several occasions by

taking their caste name and he made an omnibus allegation as to

when, where and at what time the alleged incident of abuse by the

accused took place. In cross-examination, P.Ws.3 and 4 stated that

they do not know the transactions between the accused and P.W.1.

13. The evidence of material prosecution witnesses P.Ws.1

and 2 discloses that the alleged incident of abuse took place at the

house of accused. The presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 at the time of

alleged abuse is not stated even by P.Ws.1 and 2 and the evidence

of P.Ws.3 and 4 also did not inspire any confidence to accept their

evidence that in their presence, the accused abused P.Ws.1 and 2.

The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is lacking in material particulars and

a bald allegation is made in their evidence about the general

statement that A-1 and A-2 abused P.Ws.1 and 2. Therefore, when

the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is to the effect that the incident of

abuse took place at their house and the entire prosecution evidence

also categorically show that the alleged incident of abuse took

place at the house of P.Ws.1 and 2, it cannot be said that the

incident took place in any place within the public view, more so

when the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 does not say that they were

present at the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the time of alleged incident

and their evidence is not at all convincing and not believable.

Having regard to the above, I of the opinion that the prosecution

failed to prove the essential ingredient of the offence that the

alleged incident of abuse should have taken place in any place

within the public view and if at all the incident is accepted to have

happened, it is not a place within the public view, to accept the

evidence of prosecution.

14. The provision of law which is relevant for the purpose of

adjudication of the issue in this criminal appeal is under Section

3(1)(x) of the Act which stipulates that "whoever, not being a

member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe intentionally

insults or intimidates with intention to humiliate a member of

scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe in any place within public

view shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall

not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and

with fine. The above provision of law fell for consideration before

the Hon'ble Apex Court in GORIGE PENTAIAH v. STATE OF

ANDHRA PRADESH1 wherein it was held at para 6 of the

judgment as under:

"In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic

(2008) 12 SCC 531

ingredients of Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No.3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law".

15. In the instant case also, from a perusal evidence of P.Ws.1

and 2, it is clear that their version with regard to the manner in

which the incident happened and also the place where the incident

took place are inconsistent. P.Ws.3 and 4, who are independent

witnesses, also have also not specifically stated about the place

of incident and the date and time of incident and their presence is

also not supported by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The evidence

of prosecution witnesses convincingly establishes that there are

disputes between accused and P.W.1 with regard to payment of

money admittedly borrowed by P.W.1. Though the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly speaks about the accused abusing them

and demanding money, but the alleged incident of abuse took place

at the house of P.Ws.1 and 2, which is not a place within the public

view. It appears from the judgment of the court below that the

learned Sessions Judge had failed to appreciate the evidence about

the alleged incident of abuse taking place within the public view.

In the entire evidence, the said basic ingredient of offence

connecting the accused is missing and the same is very much

essential even according to the settled law of the Hon'ble Apex

Court stated above.

16. Hence, in the light of the above discussion, I am of the

considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case

beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court without considering the

material aspects and on improper appreciation of evidence,

convicted the accused and same is liable to be set aside.

17. Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed. The conviction

and sentence recorded by the court below against the appellants-

A-1 & A-2 for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Schedule

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

vide judgment dated 21.12.2015 in S.C.No.55 of 2012, are hereby

set aside. Consequently, the appellants-A-1 & A-2 are set at liberty

forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The fine

amount, if any, paid shall refunded to appellants-A-1 and A-2.

18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 14.09.2022 Lrkm