APHC010073682009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3327] THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.230 OF 2009 Between: G. Pulla Reddy and others ...APPELLANTS AND The State of AP., Rep. by its Public Prosecutor ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: 1. A HARIPRASAD REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following JUDGMENT: This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 against the judgment dated 19.02.2009 passed in Sessions Case No.726 of 2005 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Anantapur. 2. Originally, A1 to A11 were tried for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 2 Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, „the Act‟) and Sections 147, 323, 355, 354, 326 read with 149 and 506(2) IPC. 3. During the course of trial, case against A7 was abated, as he died. 4. By his judgment dated 19.02.2009, the learned Special Sessions Judge found A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Act and 147 IPC; found A.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 355, 324 read with 149 IPC and found A.2 to A.6 and A.8 to A.11 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, and accordingly, convicted them of the respective offences, and sentenced A.1 to A.6 and A.8 to A.11 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two (2) years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each, for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 were further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC. A2 to A6 and A8 to A11 were further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 3 default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. A1 was further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. A1 was further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 355 IPC. A1 was further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 149 IPC. 5. However, learned Special Sessions Judge found A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 not guilty of the offences under Sections 354, 326, 326 read with 149 IPC and A11 not guilty of the offence under Section 506(2) IPC, accordingly, acquitted them of the said charges. 6. The substance of the charge is that on 14.09.2004, at about 11.15 AM, the accused were drying „Kusumulu‟ and at that time while the de facto complainant namely P. Madhu Naik and his wife Parvathi Bai were on the way to Pampanur Thanda, it is alleged that the accused abused them in filthy language as SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 4 “Thanda Lanjakodaka” and “Thanda Lanjamunda” within the public view. In the course of same transaction, A1 is alleged to have voluntarily caused hurt to P. Madhu Naik by beating him with a chappal intending thereby to dishonor him on grave or sudden provocation. In the course of same transaction, A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 and another formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and insulted Parvathi Bai and abused her as “Thanda Lanja” in a public place and all of them are alleged to have dragged her and beat her with chappal and broom sticks, thereby caused grievous hurt to Parvathi Bai. In the course of same transaction, A11 is alleged to have threatened Parvathi Bai. 7. Case of the prosecution, as culled out from the evidence adduced by it, is as under. i) The de facto complainant (PW.1) and his wife (PW.2) are residents of Pampanur Thanda village of Atmakur Mandal and they are members of Scheduled Tribe. PWs.3 and 4 are the villagers of Pampanur village. All the accused are related to each other. On 12.09.2004, PWs.1 and 2 went to their relatives‟ house at Anantapur from Pampanur Thanda. On 14.09.2004 during morning hours, PW.1‟s relative telephoned from Pampanur Thanda and informed him that his brother‟s son died. Then SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 5 PWs.1 and 2 started at Anantapur and reached Pampanur in a RTC bus. PW.1‟s brother namely Venkatesh (not examined) already kept two wheeler at bus stand. PW.1 took the said two wheeler and started from Pampanur to go to Thanda on the said two wheeler. While PWs.1 and 2 were proceeding towards Pampanur road, A1, who was drying „Kusumulu‟ on the road, obstructed them and abused them in filthy language as “Thanda Lanja Kodaka” and “Thanda Lanja Munda”. Thereafter, A1 beat PW.1 with a chappal on his right shoulder. When PW.2 intervened, A2 to A11 joined A1 and abused PW.2 as “Thanda Lanja”, beat her with chappal and broom sticks. When PW.2 fell down, A1 to A11 dragged PW.2 towards the house of A1, torned her blouse and caused bleeding injuries on her body and that A11 beat her with chappal on her back by threatening her to resign fair price shop dealership. When all the villagers gathered there, the accused left the place. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 went to Police Station and presented a report Ex.P1. ii) Basing on the report of the de facto complainant marked as Ex.P1, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Atmakur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.56 of 2004 of Atmakur Police Station, under Sections 324, 354, 506 read with 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and issued FIR, which is marked as SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 6 EX.P7. PW.7 – the Sub-Divisional Police Officer took up investigation, examined the witnesses and prepared rough sketch of the scene Ex.P8. PW.5 –Civil Assistant Surgeon, who examined PW.2, issued wound certificate Ex.P2 opining that the injuries are simple in nature. PW.8 is the successor of PW.7, who, after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 8. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Anantapur, after filing charge sheet, took cognizance of the offences against A1 to A11 for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and 324, 326, 355, 354, 506 read with 34 IPC and numbered the same as PRC No.65 of 2005 and issued summons to the accused. 9. The Police, Atmakur filed report stating that A7-G. Venkata Swamy Reddy died. Therefore, proceedings against A7 were abated. 10. On appearance of A1 to A6 and A8 to A11, as the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is exclusively triable by the Special Court constituted under the said Act, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, Sessions SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 7 Division at Anantapur and later the same was numbered as SC No.726 of 2005 and made over the case to the Court of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Anantapur being the Special Court constituted under the Act, for disposal. 11. 11. On appearance of A1 to A6 and A8 to A11, charges under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and Sections 147, 354, 323, 355, 326 read with 149 and 506(2) IPC were framed against the accused as stated supra, read over the contents and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. Later, on constitution of the Court of the Special Sessions Judge for trial of offences under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989, Anantapur, the case was transferred to the said Court for disposal. 13. In support of its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10. 14. After closure of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A6, A8 to A11 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied. On behalf of the SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 8 accused, no oral evidence was adduced, except marking Exs.D1 to D3. 15. The learned Special Sessions Judge, on appreciation of entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 guilty, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. Against the said conviction and sentence, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred. 16. Sri A. Hari Prasad Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants/accused submits that there are number of discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and those discrepancies would go to the root of the case. He further submitted that in respect of the offences under the Indian Penal Code, the learned Special Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the accused to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, but the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act would not attract against the appellants/accused for the reason that the words that were hurled on PWs.1 and 2 would not in any way come within the purview of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. According to him, the word “Thanda” would not in any way come either under Scheduled Caste or under Scheduled Tribe. He further submitted that on a perusal of the evidence of PW.1, SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 9 there is absolutely no accusation as against A2 to A11 that they had hurled abuses on PWs.1 and 2, and according to PW.1, it is only A1 who abused PWs.1 and 2. He further submitted that according to PW.2, an omnibus accusation has been made against the accused that all of them are alleged to have hurled abuses on PW.2. He further contended that the aforesaid offences would not attract against the appellants herein/accused and they are falsely implicated in the present case. 17. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State submits that the aforesaid offences under IPC have been made out as against the appellants herein/accused. He further submitted that though there are discrepancies in the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, those discrepancies would not go to the root of the case, where the conviction cannot be altered to one under acquittal. He further submitted that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act would attract against the accused for the reason that though the word “Thanda” would not come within the purview of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, still the accused are well aware of the fact that the de facto complainant (PW.1) and his wife (PW.2) are members of the Scheduled Tribe community, and knowing pretty SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 10 well that they are members of the Scheduled Tribe community, the appellants herein/accused abused them in the public. 18. Heard. Perused the record. 19. Admittedly, the incident is said to have taken place on 14.09.2004 while PWs.1 and 2 were travelling on a two wheeler from Pampanur to Pampanur Thanda. Going by the evidence of PW.1, there are discrepancies in his evidence. According to PW.1, it is A1 who is alleged to have stopped the vehicle when PWs.1 and 2 were travelling to Pampanur Thanda and abused PW.1 touching his caste. Thereafter, it is alleged that A1 beat PW.1 with a chappal on his right shoulder. When PW.2 intervened, it is alleged that A1 to A11 dragged PW.2 and beat her with chappals and broom sticks and in the process the jacket of PW.2 was torn. PW.1 stated that A11 abused PW.2 asking to give up fair price shop dealership. Since all the villagers gathered there, the accused left the place. PW.1 stated that he is a B.Sc., graduate from Anantapur Arts College and at the same time he further stated that the complaint was scribed by an unknown person. It is not known as to why the complaint was scribed by an unknown person, when PW.1 himself is a graduate. PW.1 categorically stated that he does not know the name of the scribe. SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 11 In the cross-examination, PW.1 categorically admitted that a case in Crime No.53 of 2004 of Atmakur Police Station, under Section 324 IPC, was registered against his elder brothers. When a suggestion was made to PW.1 stating that his brothers attacked one Narasimha Reddy at his instance, the same was denied by PW.1. In the cross-examination of PW.1, it is further elicited that since the police did not register the case at first instance, PW.1 and others staged a dharna before the police station and thereafter the present case has been registered against the accused. 20. PW.2, who is the wife of PW.1, narrated the facts on par with PW.1. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 goes to show that when she intervened, A2 to A11 caught hold of her and beat her with chappals and broom sticks, and dragged her to certain distance. There is no accusation by PW.2 against A11 that he abused her, but on the contrary, PW.1 stated that A11 abused PW.2. PWs.3 and 4, who are residents of Pampanur village, too narrated the facts as that of PWs.1 and 2. A perusal of their evidence goes to show that they were examined by PW.7 two weeks after the incident. There is absolutely no explanation with regard to the said delay as to why both PWs.3 and 4 were SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 12 examined two weeks after the incident. PW.5, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who examined PW.2 and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate, categorically stated that the two injuries received by PW.2 are simple in nature. PW.6, the Consultant in Meda Nursing Home, Anantapur, deposed that he examined PW.2 on 12.10.2004 i.e. nearly after one month of the incident, and issued wound certificate marked as Ex.P4. According to PW.7, the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Anantapur, on 14.09.2004, at about 12.30 pm, while he was in the Camp Office at Anantapur, he came to know about the registration of case in Crime No.56 of 2004 of Atmakur Police Station. Ex.P7 is the FIR issued by LW.10 G. Ramanjineyulu, ASI of Police, Atmakur Police Station. PW.7 examined PWs.1 and 2 who were present in the police station and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P8. PW.8, who is the successor of PW.7, examined PWs.3 and 4 and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet. Ex.P10 is the caste certificate of PW.1. 21. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants /accused is that the present case has been foisted as a counter SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 13 blast to the case that was filed against the brothers of PW.1 and only with a view to implicate all the accused who are interrelated to each other. There is absolutely no suggestion to that extent that the present case has been foisted as a counter blast to the case which was filed against the brothers of PW.1. If that is the case, the entire prosecution case has to be thrown out on the said ground. Except raising the said contention by the learned counsel for the appellants in the present appeal, no suggestions were made either to PW.1 or to PW.2 in that regard. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that merely because a case was registered against the brothers of PW.1, the entire prosecution case cannot be thrown out on the said ground. At the same time, if there is no enmity between both the parties and without there being any motive for the accused, the question of stopping the vehicle of PW.1 and hurling abuses on PWs.1 and 2 would not arise. 22. On the date of the incident, while PWs.1 and 2 were going on a two wheeler to Pampanur Thanda, the alleged incident is said to have taken place. Thereafter, PWs.1 and 2 went to the police station and when the police refused to register the case, SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 14 PWs.1 and 2 and others staged a dharna with regard to non- registration of crime, which would by itself speak volumes. 23. In respect of the charges under IPC, the trial Court convicted the appellants herein/A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/- each respectively as aforesaid. Learned counsel for the appellants herein/accused did not attach much importance to the said conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants herein/accused for the charges under IPC and argues that no case has been made out for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. In view of the said reason, this Court is not inclined to go into the convictions and sentences recorded against the appellants herein/A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 for the charges under IPC and the same are hereby confirmed. 24. However, learned counsel for the appellants herein /accused strenuously contended that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act would not attract against the appellants herein/accused for the reason that the appellants/accused are alleged to have abused PWs.1 and 2 as “Thanda Lanja Kodaka” and “Thanda Lanja Munda”. He contended that the word “Thanda” would not in any way come within the purview of either SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 15 the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe. According to the learned counsel, the word “Thanda” only indicates a place, where PWs.1 and 2 and others are residing and they hail from that place. 25. Learned Special Sessions Judge categorically held that “Thanda” is not a Scheduled Tribe as per Scheduled Tribe list. When such is the case, the word “Thanda” can be eschewed from the abuses that were hurled on PWs.1 and 2 by the accused. In the circumstances, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act would not be made out against the accused. The words “Lanja Kodaka” and “Lanja Munda” would come within the purview of abuses which are general in nature. 26. At this juncture, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that mere non-mentioning of the caste does not mean that the accused are not aware of the fact that PWs.1 and 2 belong to Scheduled Tribe. According to him, the accused are well aware of the fact that PWs.1 and 2 are members of the Scheduled Tribe. 27. Going by the evidence, nowhere it is stated that the accused are well aware of the fact that PWs.1 and 2 are SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 16 members of the Scheduled Tribe. It is averred that case and counter cases were registered against both the parties. Merely because case and counter cases were registered, it cannot be inferred that the accused are aware of the fact that PWs.1 and 2 are members of the Scheduled Tribe. Irrespective of the said fact, even assuming, though not admitting, that PWs.1 and 2 are members of the Scheduled Tribe, it should be implicit on record that the accused abused PWs.1 and 2 by their caste. General abuses that have been made by the accused on PWs.1 and 2 would not attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The Act is a special enactment. Every word that has been uttered by the accused should come within the purview of the Act. In the absence of any such word mentioning the caste and in the absence of evidence that the accused were having knowledge that P.Ws.1 and 2 belonged to the Scheduled Tribe community, the provisions of the Act would not be attracted as against the accused. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act would not be made out against the accused, and the act of the appellants/ accused would squarely fall within the meaning of the offence under Section 506 IPC. SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 17 28. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants herein/A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 are found not guilty of the charge under Section 3 (1)(x) of the Act, and accordingly the conviction and sentence recorded against them by the learned Special Sessions Judge are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. Instead, the appellants herein/A1 to A6 and A8 to A11 are found guilty of the offence under Section 506 IPC and accordingly they are convicted of the said offence and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six (6) months each. 29. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in these Criminal Appeal shall stand closed. ________________________ K. SREENIVASA REDDY, J Date:24.04.2025 Nsr SRK, J Crl.Appeal No.230 of 2009 18 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY Criminal Appeal No.230 of 2009 Date:24.04.2025 Nsr