Telangana High Court
Jampula Venkataiah, And 4 Others, vs The State Of Ap Rep By Its Pp Hyd., on 6 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.372 OF 2012
JUDMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellants, aggrieved by the
Judgment passed in S.C.No.42 of 2011, dated 12.04.2012, on
the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under
S.C's & S.T's (P.O.A.) - cum - VII Additional District &
Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar. The appellants are
questioning conviction under section 3(1) (X) of SC ST Act and
under section 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard. Perused the record.
3. Briefly the case of prosecution is that appellant No.5
called PW1 to his house, when he went there A1 to A5 were
also present. On seeing PW1, A1 to A5 abused him in filthy
language as "Madiga Lanjakodukaa, Pendlani denga".
Thereafter all the accused beat him with hands. He escaped
from them and ran towards his house, but all the accused
chased him to his house and again beat him. PW2 is the
brother, PW3 is wife of PW1, who were also witnesses to the
said incident. On the basis of the evidence of PW's 1 to 3 and
also independent witnesses PW's 4 and 5, the learned Sessions
Judge found that A1 to A5 were responsible for assaulting the
PW1 and abusing him. Accordingly A1 to A5 were convicted.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
there is any amount of discrepancy in between the version of
witnesses in Court and early version stated in the complaint.
According to the complaint, all the five accused went to the
house of PW1 and abused him on the ground that he jumped
into Telugu Desham Political Party. Accordingly, all five of
them abused him and also beat him. When PW's 2 and 3
intervened, they were also assaulted. The said version is
totally contrary to what was stated before the Court. The
counsel further argued that since the version in Court
contradicts with the earliest version, there arises an amount of
doubt regarding the truth of witnesses. In fact, PW1 admitted
that he belongs to one political party and thereafter jumped
into another political party and on account of political rivalry a
false complaint was filed.
5. On the other hand, learned APP submits that the
evidence of PW1 is consistent with regard to abuses hurled in
the name of caste. There is no reason why the independent
witnesses PW's 4 and 5 would speak against the accused for
the reason of abusing in the name of caste. Learned Sessions
Judge has rightly convicted the appellants.
6. Having gone through the record, the scene of offence
according to the complaint was in the house of PW1. However
in the complaint and in the statement made before the Court,
PW1 stated that he was called to the house of A5, who had
abused and from there when he started running to his house,
all the accused followed. There is total variation in what PW1
has narrated in his complaint Ex.P1 with the version stated in
Court.
7. However, the allegation of assault by the accused on
PW1 is consistent, according to PW's 1 to 5. As seen from the
evidence, no where it is stated that the abuses were hurled on
the ground that the PW1 belongs to either SC or ST caste. It is
not even mentioned in the complaint or in the statement that
the accused had knowledge about PW1 belonging to SC or ST
Caste and for the said reason he was abused. The offence
under section 3(1) (X) of SC ST Act would attract only if the
insult is intentional on the ground of person belonging to
either SC or ST Act.
8. Further the abuses as allegedly uttered by accused and
stated by PW's 1 and 2 differ from the complaint. It is highly
improbable that all the 5 accused in chorus would have
uttered such words. It appears that there was political rivalry
between PW1 and accused and the complaint is result of such
rivalry.
9. It is not the case of the prosecution that PW1 was either
taken to a doctor. In the absence of any evidence to show that
A1 to A5 have assaulted PW1, the offence under section 323 of
IPC is also not made out. Accordingly, the appellants succeed
and the conviction under section 3(1) (X) of SC, ST Act and
section 323 of IPC is set aside.
10. Criminal appeal is allowed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 06.09.2024
BV
