Telangana High Court
Raghu Nageshwar Rao, Nalgonda Dt., vs The State Of Telangana, Rep Pp., on 26 October, 2022
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.2967 of 2016
ORDER:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner-accused No.1 against the order dated 01.09.2016 passed in Crl.M.P. No.144 of 2016 in SC No.50 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, Nalgonda.
2. The case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet filed by SDPO, Suryapet against the petitioner-A1 was that the State Government introduced a programme of paying pension to old aged, physically handicapped persons and widows through DRDA to the selected beneficiaries by a committee consisting of Village Sarpanch, MPTC, Mahila Society and Youth and some others as members. The Village Secretary was the convener. The programme was introduced with an intention to give them social security and moral support. The Committee would select the eligible candidates as beneficiaries as per the guidelines of the State Government to pay pensions. The pension amount would be remitted to the account of MPDO to disburse it to the eligible candidates according to the acquittance rolls ::2::
Dr.GRR,J crlrc_2967_2016 sent by DRDA authorities of Nalgonda. The Village Secretary of Akupamula village (A1) on the directions of the MPDO, Munagala (A2) used to disburse the amounts to the beneficiaries. If any beneficiary died, their pensions should be returned back to DRDA, Nalgonda and to be stopped from the next month. On 09.03.2009, the complainants - LWs.1 to 3 and LWs.4 to 12, 32, 33 and some others, who were all residents of Akupamula village staged a dharna in front of the MDO office, Munagala making allegations that the village Secretary of Akupamula Village (A1) and the MDO, Munagala Mandal (A2) were not sanctioning old age, physically handicapped and widow pensions to the eligible candidates of the Akupamula village. They contended that though they approached A1 and A2 several times and even though the local MLA represented, A1 and A2 were not responding. They further alleged that A1 and A2 were claiming the amounts on the names of different persons by forging their signatures. A1 and A2 came out from the MDO office and threatened the witnesses to see their end if they came to the office once again and also insulted them by abusing them in the name of their caste. Basing on the said report, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Munagala, registered a case in Crime No.133 of 2009 under Sections ::3::
Dr.GRR,J crlrc_2967_2016 161, 167, 384, 418, 420, 466 and 500 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC & ST Act'). During the course of investigation, the SI of Police also got recorded the statements of LWs. 3, 7 and 9 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.
3. The petitioner - A1 filed Crl.P.No.2916 of 2010 before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in FIR No.133 of 2009 of Munagala Police Station. The same was partly allowed on 14.09.2012 quashing the proceedings against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 161, 167, 384, 418, 420, 466 and 500 IPC. With regard to other offences i.e. under Sections 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of SC & ST Act, the SDPO, Suryapet filed charge sheet against A1 and A2. The petitioner - A1 filed a petition under Section 227 Cr.P.C. to discharge him for the offences leveled against him vide Crl.M.P. No.144 of 2016. The same was dismissed by the Special Sessions Judge on 01.09.2016 observing that:
"Without full-fledged trial, the court cannot come to a conclusion whether the accused abused the complainant by touching her caste name or not."
::4::
Dr.GRR,J crlrc_2967_2016
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner-A1 preferred this revision contending that the learned Judge failed to look into the charge sheet nor the material on record and passed the order without any application of mind. It was the duty of the Judge to see whether there was prima facie material to frame a charge and whether there were sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. The persons who were alleged to have been abused by the petitioner had not stated as such in their 164 Cr.P.C. statement, which would clearly indicate that on account of their frustration in not being granted pensions they filed a false complaint. The statements of the witnesses would disclose that a dharna took place under mis-conception that pensions were not being paid by the accused. The allegation that the petitioner misappropriated the pensions of the deceased persons was found to be not true. The complaint was filed without any foundation and under a wrong notion. He further contended that the court below failed to see that even taking the allegations as it is, the offences under Section 506 IPC or under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act were not applicable and prayed to set aside the impugned order and to discharge the petitioner.
::5::
Dr.GRR,J crlrc_2967_2016
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-A1 and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on a private complaint referred to the police, the police filed charge sheet against the petitioner-A1, who was the village Secretary of Akupamula village along with the MPDO of Munagala village (A2). It was only the witnesses LWs.3, 7, 9 and 32, who stated that the 1st petitioner and A2 abused them in the name of their caste and no other witnesses stated about the same. Out of these witnesses, LWs.7 and 9 died. A2 also died and that he filed a memo enclosing the death certificates of A2, LWs.7 and 9 on 05.09.2022. It was only the evidence of LWs.3 and 32 that was remaining on the record. There were inconsistencies in their evidence with regard to the date of the incident. While LW.3 stated that the incident occurred on 09.03.2009, LW.32 stated that the incident occurred on 06.03.2009. Hence, the same could not be the basis for framing charges against the petitioner and prayed to allow the petition.
7. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the quash petition filed by the petitioner-A1 was only partly allowed and that there was ::6::
Dr.GRR,J crlrc_2967_2016 prima facie case against the petitioner-A1 for the offences alleged against him under Sections 506 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the SC & ST Act, the charge sheet was filed by the SDPO, Suryapet. The truth of the allegations could be decided only after full fledged trial and prayed to dismiss the revision.
8. Section 227 Cr.P.C. contemplates the circumstances wherein there could be discharge of an accused at a stage anterior in point of time to framing of charge under Section 228. It would provide that upon consideration of the record of the case, the documents submitted with the police report and after hearing the accused and the prosecution, the court was expected, and bound to decide whether there was "sufficient ground" to proceed against the accused and as a consequence thereof either discharge the accused or proceed to frame charge against him. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagdish Joshi v. State of Maharashtra1, held that:
"16. It is trite that the words "not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused" appearing in the Section postulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the Judge to the facts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial has been made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing this fact, the Judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the 1 (2008) 10 SCC 394 ::7::
Dr.GRR,J crlrc_2967_2016 accused has been made out. The test to determine a prima facie case depends upon the facts of each case and in this regard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large, however, if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trial will end in conviction or not. The broad test to be applied is whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, makes a conviction reasonably possible. [See: State of Bihar Vs. Ramesh Singh and Prafulla Kumar Samal [(1979) 3 SCC 4]]."
9. Keeping these principles in mind, the statements of the witnesses need to be examined to see whether any prima facie case was made out against the petitioner - A1 or not. As LWs.3 and 32 alone are reported to be alive and their evidence alone is relevant to consider with regard to the allegations made against the petitioner-A1, their statements are perused. LW.3 -Tallapaka Chandramma, who belonged to Scheduled Caste community and who was reported to be abused by the petitioner-A1 stated in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement that on 07.03.2009, she along with other village people went to MDO office, Munagala for protesting for not giving pension, by sitting before the gate of the MDO office. At about 11.00 AM, police came to the location and made them to withdraw their protest. Sri Uttam Kumar, MLA, Peoples' Representative of Kodad constituency also gave a list ::8::
Dr.GRR,J crlrc_2967_2016 of 37 members to whom pension has to be approved under Old age, disabled and widow schemes. But, pension was not provided even to them. They requested the village Secretary (petitioner herein) to issue a list of candidates to whom pensions were approved, but he did not issue the same. She along with some other villagers went to MDO office, Munagala on 09.03.2009 to demand their righteous pension amounts to them. The MDO, Munagala, by name, Amba Bhai and their village Secretary Nageswara Rao (petitioner herein) came out and threatened them that they would see their end if they once again came to their office. The Village Secretary abused her and other villagers Tallapaka Yesu, Venkayya, Tallapaka Ramanaiah, Tallapaka Lachaiah on caste name and that they filed a case before the Kodad Court through their Advocate.
10. LW.32 Chintala Saidulu S/o. Ramaiah stated in his 161 Cr.P.C.
statement that on 06.03.2009, he along with Vallapureddy Buchamma, Devaram Sugunamma and some 40 other persons of their village went to MDO office, Munagala to get the information about their pension and enquired with MDO, Munagala. The MDO stated that pensions had not and would not come. They requested to show their files. But, ::9::
Dr.GRR,J crlrc_2967_2016 the MDO prolonged the same on some pretext or other. Later, they put up dharna before the MDO office. Then one Ajay Kumar resident of Ramasamudram came to them and spoke with them and spoke to MDO. The said Ajay Kumar called the village MPTC Ramprasad Reddy and after their MPTC came, both Ramprasad Reddy and Ajay Kumar spoke to each other. Ajay Kumar spoke to MDO and went away. MDO locked the office along with the Village Secretary (petitioner herein) and while leaving they abused them in the name of their caste and left from there. They went to meet the Circle Inspector, Kodad, but they were informed that he would return at 10.00 P.M. in night. Later they went home and they went on next day along with an Advocate and got filed a case before the Court.
11. Thus, these statements prima facie would disclose that the petitioner-A1 abused these witnesses in the name of their caste and also threatened them.
12. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that there were discrepancies in their statements with regard to the date of incident. This Court at the stage of discharge cannot minutely sift and weigh the material but, could only weigh the evidence for the limited ::10::
Dr.GRR,J crlrc_2967_2016 purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case was made out against the accused or not. As these statements disclosed a prima facie case against the petitioner - A1, that he abused the witnesses in the name of their caste and also threatened them, the trial court is justified in framing the charge and to proceed with the trial. Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order of the trial court in dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner-A1 for discharge.
13. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed confirming the order dated 01.09.2016 passed in Crl.M.P. No.144 of 2016 in SC No.50 of 2015 on the file of the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, Nalgonda.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J October 26, 2022 KTL