Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Devineni Uma Maheswara Rao vs State Of Ap on 4 August, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE 'PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 4324 OF 2021 Between: Devineni Uma Maheswara Rao, S/o Srimanarayana, aged 59 years, R/o. 23-7/1 , Saipuram Colony, Gollapudi, Vijayawada Rural, Krishna District. .. Petitioner/A1 AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, (G Konduru Police Station, Krishna District) Rep by its public Prosecutor High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi. .. Respondent/Complainant Petition under Sections 437 & 439 of Cr.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the memorandum of grounds filed in Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased to enlarge the petitioner/A1 on bail in connection with Crime No 375/2021 of G Konduru Police Station, Krishna District. The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the memorandum of grounds filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Venkateswarlu Posani, Advocate for the Petitioner and the Public Prosecutor for the Respondent, the Court made the following; ORDER:
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI CRIMINAL PETITION No.4324 of 2021 ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 439 of Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') seeking regular bail to the petitioner/A-1 in connection with Crime No.375 of 2021 on the file of G.Konduru Police Station, Krishna District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 188 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 120-B, 109, 307, 427, 506, 353, 332 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 {for short SIPC") and Section 3 of ED Act and Section 3{1}{r}, 3(1}{(s}, S(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities} Amendment Act, 2015 (for short "SC ST Act').
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant is working as car driver of one Paladugu Durga Prasad Rao, who is the leader of YSR Congress Party. On 27.07.2021 at 3.40 p.m. when the defacto complainant, his owner and some others were going to Tella Devarapadu village and when they reached Munagapadu village, the petitioner and 17 named persons in five cars were coming in opposite direction. It is stated that the petitioners and others, stopped the vehicle and pulled the defacto complainant from the car, enquired about him and on knowing from him that he is resident of Ambedkar Colony, Guntupailli village, the petitioner intimidated and abused the complainant in the name of his caste. It is also stated that at the instigation of petitioner, the other persons attacked the complainant and athers with sticks and iron rods and caused injuries. Thereafter when the complainant went to police | station, the petitioners and his Shay followers who were already present there, threatened the defacto complainant for coming to police station for giving report. Basing on the complaint given by the complainant, the above crime was registered.
3. Heard Sri Posani Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State and Sri O.Kailashnadh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basing on political reasons the petitioner has been implicated in this case and even if all the allegations in the complaint are taken on its face value, they do not attract the offences alleged, particularly Section 307 of IPC and the offences under SC ST Act. He submits that even as per the case of the defacto complainant, there is no prior acquaintance between complainant and petitioner, as such the question of abusing him in the name of his caste does not arise. He submits that all the offences except Section 307 of IPC are punishable with imprisonment below seven years and only to by- ~ pass Section 41-A of Cr.P.C the above sections were included. He submits that though the petitioner was taken into custody at 5.00 p.m. on 27.07.2021, his arrest was shown on 28.07.9021 at 3.00 a.m. "3, Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 307 of IPC has no application to this case, as neither the petitioner stepped down from his car nor instigated the others to attack on the defacto complainant. In fact petitioner's car was damaged and his followers were attacked, which was widely reported in print and electronic media and along with criminal petition, he also fled the paper clippings, wherein it was reported that petitioner was sitting in the car and in the attack, car was damaged. He submits that when the petitioner does not know the caste and when there is no previous acquaintance with the defacto complainant, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC ST Act is not attracted, as knowledge is pre-requisite to attract the said offence. He further submits that in fact the persons who belong to party in power and who are associated with illegal mining resorted to attack, but the petitioner was made a scapegoat. He submits that even as per the complaint, the complainant and others have not sustained grievous injuries. It is submitted that the petitioner is aged about 59 years. He further submits that taking into consideration the pandemic situation, the Apex Court as well as this Court issued guidelines and the same may be taken into consideration. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:
1} Hari Singh Vs. Sukhbir Singh!,
2) Tukaram Gundu Naik Vs. State of Maharastra'.
3} Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.1 of 2020 of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
4) Proceedings of the High Power Committee dated 12.05.2021 of High Court of A.P., Amaravathi.
6, On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor submits that at the behest of the petitioner, all the accused assaulted the defacto complainant and others and to the facts of the case Section 307 of IPC clearly attracts. Further, there are specific overt acts against the petitioner attracting the offences under the SC ST Act.
' (1988) 4 SCC 55].
* (1994) 1 SCC 465.
Han OA RRP ARN ELAR He submits that the prosecution has filed custody petition before the Court below and the same is coming up for hearing tomorrow and at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled for bail. He submits that to conduct speedy investigation and to arrest the other accused, the custody of the petitioner is necessary. He submits that whether the petitioner has knowledge about the caste of complainant or not, cannot be inferred at this stage and on the face of it, petitioner has abused the complainant, as he belongs to a particular caste and at his instigation, other accused assaulted them. He submits that to attract the offence under Section 307 of IPC, whether the complainant sustained injuries is not the criteria and he urged to dismiss the petition.
7, Sri O.Kaillashnadh Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant submits that the petitioner is influential person and there is threat to the life of the complainant, if the petitioner is released on bail. He submits that the petitioner will hamper the investigation process and the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, are not applicable to the facts of the case. In the referred cases, after a full-fledged trial the accused was acquitted and in the appeal against acquittal, those findings were given by the Apex Court and in the present case, at this stage, those aspects cannot be looked into. He submits that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is very much necessary and when the custody petition is pending before the Court below, petitioner is not entitled for bail.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel appearing on eee we or behalf of the defacto complainant and perused the material on record.
2, Before going into merits of the case, it is appropriate to look at the object and reasons for enactment of SC ST Act.
: Despite various measures to improve the socioeconomic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to Various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons.
Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread of education, etc., they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the ; others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat inedible , substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to eee check these crimes. A special Legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary."
10. Now, it is appropriate to look at Section 3(1){r), 3(1)(s), 3(2}(v) eee of SC ST Act, which reads thus:
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities ~ (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe --
(r} intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humihate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
{s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;
(2} Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe ~
(v) commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code {45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property {knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member}, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.
ll, To attract the offence under Section 3{2}(v) of SC ST Act, firstly a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or a ~ Schedule Tribe, must have committed the offence under the provisions of IPC, it is against the person or property and is punishable for a term of ten years or more. Secondly, the offences must have been committed on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is pertinent to observe that Section 3(2}(v) of SC ST Act was amended with effect from 26.01.2016 and the words "on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member is substituted with words ¥ ae "
"knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member'.
12. Section 8 of SC ST Act deals with presumption as to offences, which reads thus:
8. Presumption as to offences:-- In a prosecution for an offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that --
{a} the accused rendered any financial assistance to a person accused of, or reasonably suspected of committing, an offence under this Chapter, the Special Court shall presume, unless the contrary is proved, that such person had abetted the offence (b} a group of persons committed an offence under this Chapter and if it is proved that the offence committed was a sequel to any existing dispute regarding land or any other matter, it shall be presumed that the offence was committed in furtherance of the cormmon intention or in prosecution of the common object.
{c} the accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved.
After amendment to Section 3(2)(v}) of SC ST Act, Clause (c} to Section 8 of SC ST Act was inserted by Act 1 of 2016.
13. A bare reading of the above provisions, it 1s clear that to attract the offences either under Section 3(1)(r) of S{2}{v) of SC ST Act, there should be intention and knowledge.
i4. Coming to the facts of the case, as per the complaint there is no previous acquaintance between the petitioner and defacto complainant. [In the complaint, it is stated that the petitioner Bes Pay asked him, "who are you", for that he replied that he is resident of Ambedkar Colony and immediately, the petitioner started abusing him in the name of his caste. The statement of the defacto complainant appears to be very improbable for the reason that without any previous acquaintance and knowledge, just because he stated that he is resident of Ambedkar Colony, it cannot be presumed that the petitioner is aware of the caste of the defacto complainant and with knowledge and intention he has abused him. Further, to attract the offence under Section 3{2}{v) of SC ST Act, an offence under the provisions of IPC must have been committed, because the complainant belongs to SC caste. It is nobody's case that the attack was on that ground. As per the remand report and complaint, it is the rift between two political groups and their followers. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has no knowledge about the caste of the defacto complainant.
15. Coming to the allegations attracting Section 307 of IPC, it is appropriate to look at Section 307 of IPC, which reads thus:
307. Attempt to murder-- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty or murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description fer a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be lable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Court in Hari Kishan vs. Sukhbir Singh and Ors', wherein it was held thus:
Co 31988) 4 SCC 55] yi "7 On the first question as to acquittal of the accused under Section 307/149 IPC, some significant aspects may be borne in mind. Under Section 307 IPC what the Court has to see 1S, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in that section. The intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary constitute murder. Without this ingredient being established, there can be no offence of "attempt to murder". Under Section 307 the intention precedes the act attributed to accused. Therefore, the intention is to be gathered from all circumstances, and not merely from the consequences that ensue. The nature of the weapon used, manner in which it is used, motive for the crime, severity of the blow, the part of the body where the injury is inflicted are some of the factors that may be taken into consideration to determine the intention. In this case, two parties in the course of a fight inflicted on each other injuries both serious and . minor. The accused though armed with ballam never used the sharp edge of it. They used only the blunt side of it despite they being attacked by the other side. They suffered injuries but not provoked or tempted to use the cutting edge of the weapon. It is very significant. It seems to us that they had no intention to commit murder. They had no motive either. The fight as the High Court has observed, might have been a sudden flare up. Where the fight is accidental owing to a sudden quarrel, the conviction under Section 307 is generally not called for. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the acquittal of accused under Section 307 TPC."
17. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the offence must have been committed with intention and knowledge, as is necessary to constitute the offence of murder. In the case on hand, as per the complaint, the petitioner has not inflicted any injuries and according to thécamplainant, it is the other accused 10 who beat him and others. As per the remand report, the motive attributed is, earlier a case was registered against the followers of the petitioner vide Crime No.108 of 2021. But admittedly, petitioner is not the accused in that case.
18. The contention of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel appearing on behalf of defacto complainant is that custody of the petitioner is required to find out the whereabouts of other accused, because the petitioner concealed and hidden the other accused. In the newspapers it was reported that two grounds indulged in fight and stones were pelted on the car of the petitioner, due to. which petitioner's car was damaged. In the fight, leaving the other group, the petitioner's followers were beaten up by the police. As per the police, petitioner was sitting in the car after the incident and created law and order problem. In the entire remand report, it is nowhere stated about the car of the petitioner being damaged and whether any case is registered against the persons, who pelted stones on the car of the petitioner. Further, it is not the case of the complainant that he has sustained any grievous injury.
19. In Emperor Vs. H.L. Hutchinson', it was held thus:
"11. On general principles and on principles on which Sections 496 and 497 (as amended in 1923) are framed the grant of a bail should be the rule and refusal of bail should be the exception. In the cases of a bailable offence, the law expressly says that if the accused person applies for bail he shall be released (Section 496}, Section 497 applies to cases of non-badlable offences and there it is said that the accused * 193} SCC Online Allahabad 14 = AIR 193] Allahabad 356 ae \ L1 person shall be released on bail except where there appears to be a reasonable ground for believing that ha has been guilty of a very heinous offence, viz, ene which may be punished by either death or by transportation for life: Section 497 (1). Again it is laid down that, where at any stage of the investigation or trial, there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused person has committed a non-bailable offence, but there are sufficient grounds for further enquiry into his guilt, the accused shall be released on bail: Section 497 {2}."
90. While granting bail, the Courts have to strike balance between the interests of society and sanctity of individual liberty. Further, the Courts have to look into nature of offence, gravity of accusation, role of accused, antecedents of accused, possibility of accused fleeing away from the justice, likelihood of repeating the similar or other offence, tampering with evidence, influencing and threatening the witnesses. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, where prima facie, it appears that because of political rivalry between two groups, the incident has occurred and no grievous injuries were sustained by the defacto complainant. ~ Further, this Court is of the view that it is not a case, where custodial interrogation is warranted. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to grant bail to the petitioner.
21. In the result, the criminal petition is allowed and the petitioner/A-1 shall be enlarged on bail in connection with Crime No.375 af 2021 on the file of G.Konduru Police Station, Krishna District, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only} each with two sureties each for a hkesum to the satisfaction of X Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-
Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs and 8.Ts (POA) oy, 12 Act, Machilipatnam. On such release, the petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
Lm Sd/-K.TataRao i"
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR enh?
SES SEE Uae TRUE COPY! SECTION OFFICER were Oe A We Ae Ae seeaa ee EET To, ;
The X Addl. District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of cases under §.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, Machilipatnam, Krishna District.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ea Krishna Distict.
The Superintendent, Central Prison, ajamalhendravaram, East Godavari District The Station House Officer, G Konduru Police 'Station, Krishna District.
One CC to Sri. Venkateswarlu Pasani, Advocate [OPUC} Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court of AP [OUT] One spare copy.
sk w mia wh tag HIGH COURT LK J DATED:04/08/2021 ORDER CRLP.No.4324 of 2021 ALLOWED