Telangana High Court
K.Venkata Reddy, R.R.Dt., vs State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 11 April, 2025
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.799 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is questioning the judgment dated
14.07.2014 in S.C.No.48 of 2011, on the file of Special Judge
for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum-VII
Additional District & Sessions Judge, R.R.District, at
L.B.Nagar. The offences alleged against the appellant are
under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, and under
Sections 498-A, 323, and 506 of IPC.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused
and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for
respondent-State.
3. According to the prosecution case, the marriage of the
appellant with P.W.1 was performed on 28.12.1998. The
appellant belongs to the Reddy community and P.W.1
belongs to the SC community. Both of them got married in
Arya Samaj situated at Sultan Bazar. They started living
together and had two children. Though the appellant and his
wife were living together, however, the appellant left P.W.1 to
her fate.
4. P.W.1 approached elders and a panchayat was held.
On the advise of the panchayat elders, the appellant accepted
to continue marital life with P.W.1. On 09.06.2010, the
brother of the appellant met with an electric shock and died.
When P.W.1 went to attend the funeral ceremony, she was
not allowed to take bath along with other family members.
The appellant prevented his wife and children from taking
part in the funeral ceremony of his brother. On 16.08.2010,
when the father of the appellant died, even at that time,
P.W.1 was prevented from taking bath along with the family
members and was asked to take bath in the adjacent well.
5. Learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved the
harassment narrated by P.W.1 and that the appellant had
threatened her. Accordingly, he had acquitted the appellant
under Sections 498-A, 323, and 506 of IPC.
6. Learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant mainly
on the ground that P.W.1 was asked to take ceremonial bath
in the adjacent well.
7. To attract an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs
(POA) Act, a person belonging to SC/ST must have been
insulted or intimidated intentionally, and the perpetrator
cannot be a member of the same SC/ST caste. The act must
also occur in a place within public view.
8. Even according to P.W.1, the appellant married her and
started living with her. P.W.1 gave birth to one son and one
daughter. On the date of the funeral of her father-in-law,
P.W.1 was asked to take bath in the adjacent well. According
to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was a funeral
ceremony and P.W.1 was asked to take bath in the adjacent
well since only the blood relatives of the deceased were
permitted to take bath together.
9. There is considerable force in the argument of the
counsel. According to the customs, since only blood relatives
were permitted to take bath together, asking P.W.1, who is
the wife of the appellant and not a blood relative of the
deceased, to take bath separately will not amount to
intentionally humiliating her, but rather reflects the
observance of certain customs during the funeral.
10. Since none of the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x)of SC/ST
(POA) Act are made out, the Appeal is liable to be allowed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting
aside the conviction against the petitioner under Section
3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 11.04.2025
dv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.799 OF 2014
Dt. 11.04.2025
dv
