Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Puli Dinesh Babu vs The State Of Telangana Rep. By Its Public ... on 3 June, 2015
Author: U. Durga Prasad Rao
Bench: U. Durga Prasad Rao
THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO Criminal Petition No.14605 of 2014 03-06-2015 Puli Dinesh Babu..... Petitioner The State of Telangana Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, Telangana, High Court, Hyderabad and others.. Respondents Counsel for Petitioner : Party-in-person Counsel for Respondent No.1 : Public Prosecutor <Gist: >Head Note: ?Cases referred: 1) 2005 (2) ALD (Crl.) 751 HONBLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO CRIMINAL PETITION No.14605 of 2014 ORDER:
In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner/accused seeks to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1167 of 2012 on the file of X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad.
2) On the report given by defacto complainant, the police of Gandhinagar P.S registered a case in Cr.No.263 of 2012 and after investigation laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 3 and 4(1) of A.P. Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 (for short A.P Ragging Act) and Section 509 IPC. The prosecution case briefly is that the defacto complainant M.Sreedevi was a final year student of Bachelor of Theology (B.Th.) in Andhra Christian Theological College, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad. The accused was pursuing 3rd year Bachelor Divinity (BD) course in the same college and he was ragging her since last two years in different manner and also other students.
3 a) Denying the allegations the petitioner/accused who appeared in person, firstly argued that the 3rd respondent/complainant was not a student of Andhra Christian Theological College (ACT College) in the sense that in the said college, Christians alone will be admitted in different courses but though the complainant was not a Christian, she got admitted into College illegally and hence, she cannot be considered as student of ACT College and the provisions of A.P. Ragging Act have no application to her.
b) Secondly, he argued that when the definition of student given in Section 2(f) of A.P. Ragging Act is perused, it would disclose that the emphasis is on fresher or a junior student who is subjected to ragging but not a senior student and therefore, even if the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet are uncontroverted, the provisions of A.P. Ragging Act will have no application to the present case since the complainant on her own admission was a student of B.Th. final year.
c) Thirdly, he argued that the petitioner was an intelligent and innocent student. While he was pursuing 3rd year B.D. Course he used to point out certain illegalities of the college management and therefore, the college authorities set up the third respondent/complainant to give a false complaint. On the above pleas the petitioner sought for quashment of proceedings.
4) In oppugnation, learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the statements of complainant and other students would clearly show the vigorous ragging activities conducted by the petitioner and in view of strong material placed against him by the prosecution, his petition may be dismissed.
5) In the light of above rival arguments, the point for determination is:
Whether there are merits in this petition to allow?
6) POINT: The admitted facts are that during the relevant period the petitioner/accused was pursuing 3rd year B.D. Course in ACT College. The accusation against him is that he ragged the complainant and other students in the said college and tried to outrage their modesty. The first argument of the petitioner is that Senate of Serampore College (University) would offer Theology degrees to Christians alone and the complainant was not a Christian but illegally got admitted into ACT College and therefore, she cannot be termed as student within the meaning of A.P. Ragging Act.
a) In this context, when the copy of Admission Form for 20092010 issued by ACT College, Gandhinagar, Hyderabad filed by the petitioner is perused, one of the admission requirements therein reads thus:
(c) He/she seeking admission into B.D. Five Years/B.D. Four years must be a Christian as per the academic records. In case of the candidates coming from adult Baptism practicing churches they should secure a declaration that they are Christians from concerned MRO (Mandal Revenue Officer) and a copy of the same should be sent along with application.
So, basing on this requirement, perhaps the petitioner argued that student who seeks admission must be Christian. His contention is that complainant is not a Christian and she was admitted into college illegally. In this context, a perusal of marks list issued by Senate of Serampore College (University) relating to the students of ACT College, Hyderabad for the Examination Paper Registration, 2013 shows the particulars of complainant as follows:
Student ID Roll No. Name Medium Papers completed BTH/6765/10 14397 Sreedevi Mamidala Telugu Total 7 + 11 Therefore, as per the record produced by the accused the complainant was a student of ACT College during the relevant period. For the purpose of A.P. Ragging Act, student as defined under Section 2(f) means a person who is admitted to an educational institution and whose name is lawfully borne on the attendance register thereof. So long as the college authorities or a competent Court of law has not declared that the complainant got admission illegally, she must be held to be a student of that college. Therefore, the first argument of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.
b) The second argument of the petitioner is that as per the definition of student, the emphasis is on fresher or a junior student who is subjected to ragging but not a senior student, and in view of the fact that complainant is a final year B.Th. student, the provisions of the Act have no application to her.
This argument, it must be said, is farfetching and ridiculous. The object of A.P. Ragging Act is to prohibit ragging in educational institutions in the State of Andhra Pradesh. In this Act, the definitions of ragging and student are given in Section 2 (e) and (f) as follows:
(e) ragging means doing an act which causes or is likely to cause insult or annoyance of fear or apprehension or threat or intimidation or outrage of modesty or injury to a student; (f) student means a person who is admitted to an educational institution and whose name is lawfully borne on the attendance register thereof;
(f) student means a person who is admitted to an educational institution and whose name is lawfully borne on the attendance register thereof.
When the above two provisions are conjunctly studied, one can understand that ragging is an act which is aimed at a student to cause or likely to cause insult or annoyance of fear or apprehension or threat or intimidation or outrage of modesty or injury. So, if the acts of offender-student produce any of the above results against the victim student the offender-student can be held liable for ragging. Then the definition of student would show that he/she is a person who is admitted to an educational institution and whose name is lawfully borne on the attendance register. The phrase admitted to educational institution does not necessarily confine to fresh or junior student alone to hold that she/he, if subjected to ragging only, the provisions of the Act are applicable. Such a narrow interpretation as propounded by the petitioner will defeat the avowed object of the Act. When the history of ragging is perused, it is true that in yesteryears in educational institutions there was a practice of senior students gently ragging the junior students or freshers to dispel their inhibitions and to freely mingle with seniors and seek their good advice in the course of pursuing studies. Over the years this practice of healthy ragging slowly metamorphosised into unhealthy practice of teasing, taunting, harassing and persecuting the freshers or junior students of educational institutions by the seniors. Now days, we frequently come across the news of even the fresh and junior students committing acts of ragging against senior students more particularly, against the girl students. As already stated supra, the object of A.P. Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1997 is to prohibit ragging in educational institutions in respect of all categories of students but not in respect of junior students alone. If that were the intendment of Legislators, the term student perhaps would have been defined as a person who is newly/freshly admitted into educational institution and whose name is lawfully borne on the attender register thereof. Since such is not the case, it is difficult to accept the argument of the petitioner.
7) In the sensational ragging case reported in Yelchuri Manohar v. State of A.P. the facts were that the deceased girlSri Lakshmi was a final year MCA student in Sharada PG college, Vijayawada and on 21.06.2004 when she was preparing for viva-voce examination sitting on the bench of the class room, the accusedY.Manohar who was her classmate went behind her and brutally hacked her to death on the ground that she did not accept his love. Apart from convicting and sentencing him for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge convicted him also for the offences under Section 4(ii) of AP Prohibition of Ragging Act, Section 27(3) of Arms Act and Section 201 IPC but no punishment was awarded for the said offences as he was ordered to suffer extreme penalty of capital punishment. In the appeal, the High Court converted the death sentence imposed by the trial Court into life imprisonment. Thus, it is clear that irrespective of the fact that both deceased and accused were of the final year students, the accused was charged for the offence under Section 4 of A.P. Ragging Act. Hence, having regard to the precedential jurisprudence, the argument of petitioner cannot be accepted.
8) Thirdly, it was argued by the petitioner that he is an intelligent and innocent student and since he questioned the illegalities of the management, he was falsely implicated in this case. It must be noted that this is an aspect which has to be decided after a full-fledged trial. As of now, apart from the 161 Cr.P.C statement of the complainant, the statements of LW.3M.Deepa Rani, student of B.D IV year, LW.4P.Anil Paul Chakravarthy, student of Final year, LW.5P.Mahesh Babu, student of B.D Final year, LW.7 D.Vamshidar, student of B.D Final Year etc., would clearly depict the virulent form of ragging activities. Thus the material placed by prosecution show the prima-facie case against the petitioner. So, at the outset, none of the points raised by the petitioner are sufficient to quash the proceedings. Hence, he has to face the trial and prove his innocence, if any.
9) In the result, this Criminal Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J Date: 03.06.2015