Telangana High Court
Anumakonda Shashidar vs The State Of A.P. on 8 June, 2023
1
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 289 OF 2009
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 SC/ST (POA) Act, Khammam in S.C.No.1 of 2007 dated 6.03.2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(x) and 3 (1) (xii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and also sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 3 (1)(xii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State and perused the record.
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that PW1 had filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had developed physical intimacy with her and promised to marry her. Thereafter he refused to marry her. On the basis of the said complaint, the case 2 was investigated and charge sheet was filed for the offences under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989.
4. Having considered the final report/charge sheet filed by the Police, the learned Sessions Judge framed the following charges;
i) under Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code for developing intimacy with her and maintaining such intimacy, keeping her under the impression that the appellant would marry her.
ii) under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, for intentionally insulting and intimidating PW1 with intent to humiliate for being a member of SC/ST community.
iii) under Section 3 (1)(xii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act for the reason of the appellant being in position to dominate the will of PW1 since he was a practicing advocate at Kothagudem and used that position for exploiting her sexually and later declined to marry her.
5. The learned Sessions Judge having examined PWs.1 to 11 and marking Exs.P1 to P8, found that the appellant is guilty of the offences as mentioned above. However, the learned Sessions 3 Judge acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 417 of the Indian Penal code.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that there is any amount of improvement from what was stated in the complaint-Ex.P1 to what was stated before the Police in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and further development was made in the Court giving a totally different version. He submits that PW1 was in the habit of lodging such complaints against other persons and also used to extract money after filing such complaints. The said fact is admitted in the cross- examination of PW1.
7. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that in order to attract an offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, one must have intentionally insulted or intimidated a person belonging to SC/ST community to humiliate such person in public place or in public view. Further to attract an offence under Section 3 (1) (xii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act a person should have been in a position to dominate the will of a woman belonging to SC/ST community and should have used his position to exploit her sexually. In the present facts and circumstances, none of the ingredients of both the provisions are made out even according to 4 the evidence of PW1. In view of the same, the conviction can be set aside since the findings of the learned Sessions Judge are contrary to the evidence on record.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant relied on the Judgment of this Court in Mallela Peda Venkateswara Reddy v. Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukuru1.
9. On the other hand learned Additional Public Prosecutor would support the findings of the trial Court. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submits that though an improvement is made in the chief-examination from what was stated earlier, that does not take away the criminality of the offence. Since the ingredients of the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act are made out, this Court shall not interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge in convicting the appellant.
10. As seen from the complaint, PW1 stated that the appellant was following her and also introduced her to his friends that she would be his wife in future. However, since there was some fight in the family, the appellant who was a lawyer has refused to marry her stating that he had no relation whatsoever with her and she can do whatever she wants. It is further stated in the complaint 1 2005 (1) ALT (CRL) 245 5 that if he marries another woman, he would get a dowry of Rs.15 lakhs. On the basis of the said complaint filed on 16.02.2001, investigation was conducted and charge sheet was filed for the said offences under Sections 417 of the Indian Penal Code and also under the provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
11. During the course of trial, PW1 narrated that the appellant tried to contact her when she was visiting the Court. Several events were narrated in the complaint with regard to meeting the appellant on several occasions and also that the appellant had taken her to a temple and informed that he liked her. The entire narration in the chief-examination is an omission both in the complaint and statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. PW1 also stated several utterances that were made by the appellant regarding her caste. Even the said utterances were not part of statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. or the complaint.
12. As seen from the cross-examination, she had filed complaints against one Satish who is an auto mechanic, in the year 2000, for teasing her. She further stated that she was married to one E.Sankar on 25.04.2002 and filed a case against him under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. PW1 also filed 6 a complaint against one Venkat saying that he was teasing her while she was staying with her uncle D.Srinivas.
13. During the cross-examination of PW1, the counsel had confronted the depositions of PW1, which she stated in her complaint registered under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. In the said deposition she admitted that she had filed a complaint against this appellant for outraging her modesty and this appellant had never promised to marry her.
14. The learned Sessions Judge did not find favour with the deposition of PW1 regarding the intimacy with the appellant and that the appellant was complicit in cheating PW1. Accordingly, acquitted him of the charge under Section 417/420 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. The State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal for cheating.
16. As seen from the complaint, PW1 never stated that she was either insulted or any such utterances were made for the reason of PW1 belonging to SC/ST caste. No such allegations were leveled either in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. To attract an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. A 7 person must have intentionally insulted or intimidated to humiliate a person belonging to SC/ST caste in public view. No such allegation is made either in the complaint that the appellant had intentionally insulted PW1 either in a public place or within public view. Since the entire utterances being omissions in her earlier complaint, the finding of guilt under Section 3 (1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, cannot be maintained.
17. The appellant was an Advocate and PW1 was visiting Court according to her to pursue cases filed by her. It is not the case that the appellant was engaged or looking after her cases or in any way related to any earlier cases filed. As such, the question of the appellant being in a position to dominate the will of PW1 and exploiting her sexually would not arise. Nowhere in the complaint, she has stated that at any point of time the appellant had exploited her sexually. It is not out of place to mention that the learned Sessions Judge had found that there was no element of cheating by the appellant herein.
18. In view of PW1 materially making contradictory statements in the complaint and subsequently before the Court, this Court does not deem it safe to convict a person on such evidence which is tainted. Further, PW1 apparently is in the habit of lodging 8 complaints against persons for cheating. Even in the statement made before the Court on oath in the case filed under Section 498-A against her husband, she made a specific allegation that the appellant was trying to outrage her modesty which is not at all the case in the present complaint.
19. Keeping in view of the aforesaid infirmities and since none of the ingredients being made out under Section 3 (1)(x) and 3 (1)
(xii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, this Court deems it appropriate to allow the appeal.
20. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction recorded by the Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Khammam in S.C.No.1 of 2007 dated 6.03.2009, for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1)(x) and 3 (1) (xii) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, is set aside and the appellant is acquitted. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this criminal appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 08.06.2023 tk 9 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 289 of 2009 Dt. 08.06.2023 tk