Telangana High Court
Lingam Olla. Lingaiah vs The State Of A.P. on 10 September, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.30 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and sections 324 and 332 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that while PW.1 (complainant) was attending to her duties in the Mandal Parishad Development Office, the appellant, who is the resident of Kothapally village, picked up quarrel with PW.4 who was the A.E.E. in the office and beat with a ruler (M.O.1-stick) on the head of PW.4 causing bleeding injury and also abused him in filthy language in the name of caste.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, the Police registered case against the appellant for the aforesaid offences and PW.4 was sent for the purpose of medical examination. Having concluded investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the aforementioned offences.
4. Learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 of whom PW.4 is the injured, to come to the conclusion that the appellant abused PW.4 in the name of his caste and also 2 assaulted him with ruler (M.O.1). Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant was falsely implicated by the witnesses PWs.1 to 4. In fact, the incident never happened and falsely implicated by PWs.1, 2 and 4 who were responsible for mis-appropriating money in the name of a fictitious person-Ramulu and the appellant had complained against such acts of mis-appropriation. Learned Counsel further argued that in fact, none of the witnesses PWs.1 to 4 had spoken about any kind of abuse touching upon the caste of PW.4. In the said circumstances, the offence under Section SC & ST (PoA) Act, is not attracted.
6. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgments of this Court in
i) P.Bhaskar Raju v. State of Telangana 1, wherein this Court held that the intention to insult in the name of caste has to be inferred from the circumstances.
ii) In G.Sivarama Krishna and another v. T.Prasad and another 2, this Court held that mere abuse in a language, however filthy or derogatory, will not attract the provision of SC & 1 2015(2) ALD (Crl.) 150 2 2007 (1) ALD (Crl.) 606 (AP) 3 STs (PoA) Act, unless intent must be proved that it was to humiliate a person belonging to SC/ST caste.
7. Learned Counsel also relied on the Judgments of Honourable Supreme Court in iii) Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another 3; iv) Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another 4; v) Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala and another 5 and argued that unless the abuses were heard or acts were done on the ground that the person belongs to SC or ST caste, the provisions of SC & STs (Poa) Act, will not apply.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor representing the State and also PW.4-victim, argued that there is no necessity for PWs.1 to 4 to falsely implicate the appellant, unless the incident had taken place. In fact, it was specifically stated by the witnesses that the appellant attacked PW.4 with a ruler (M.O.1) resulting in injury. The said injury was treated by the Doctor- PW.8. It is a clear case against the appellant.
9. Having gone through the record, in the complaint-Ex.P1, dated 04.05.2004, it is stated by Mandal Parishad Development 3 (2020) 10 SCC 710 4 2023 SCC OnLine SC 668 5 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2249 4 Officer-PW.1 that around 2.30 in the evening, the accused had assaulted PW.4 and also abused him in the name of caste. In the complaint it is mentioned that SC caste people have gathered in the office. However, in the statement made by PW.4, he stated that the appellant abused him as 'Bastard'. Admittedly, for the first time, the abuse uttered by the appellant was stated by PW.4 during trial. It is an omission in the previous statement made before the Police.
10. In the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Shajan Skaria case (supra 5), the Honourable Supreme Court held that the intent of the person abusing, has to be looked into and the act of either abusing or assault must be on the ground that the person belongs to SC or ST community.
11. In the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, none of the witnesses stated about the utterances of the appellant or regarding the caste of PW.4. As already stated PW.4 stated that accused called him as 'Bastard', which was not mentioned in the complaint or in his earlier 161 Cr.P.C. statement. Placing reliance on the observations of the Honourable Supreme Court, since the prosecution had failed to prove that any abuses were hurled on the ground that 5 PW.4 belongs to SC community, the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, is set aside.
12. However, the prosecution is able to prove the offence under Section 332 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code as against the appellant.
13. Having gone through the record, it appears that there were differences in between PWs.1 to 4 and the appellant. Further, simple injury was received by PW.4. In the said circumstances, while maintaining the conviction under Sections 332 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. However, the fine component is maintained.
14. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 10.09.2024 tk