Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Papatla John Veeranna vs State Of A.P., Rep. By The Public ... on 21 January, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2003(1)ALD(CRI)470, 2003(2)ALT(CRI)474, 2003CRILJ2204
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
ORDER L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner is the de-facto complainant in Crime No. 62 of 1998 and the same was tried as S.C. No. 36 of 2000. On the basis of complaint submitted by the petitioner and the subsequent investigation, charges were framed under Sections 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 506 of IPC., against the accused.
2. On behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and documents Exs.P.1 to P3 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the accused. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence before it, the trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused and accordingly, through its judgment dated 21.6.2002 acquitted the sole accused-the 2nd respondent herein of the charges framed against him. The petitioner challenges the judgment of the trial Court.
3. Sri Nandigam Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the view taken by the trial Court as regards the social status of the petitioner or the delay in submission of the complaint or the improvements in the deposition before the Court by the petitioner cannot be sustained either on facts or in law. According to him, the investigating authorities were satisfied that the petitioner belongs to the community of Scheduled Caste and it was not necessary for the prosecuting agency to furnish any further evidence to establish that the petitioner belongs to S.C. community.
4. As regards the delay in submission of the complaint, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a Village Servant, whereas the 2nd respondent was functioning as Village Administrative Officer and in view of the social disparities as well as the fear complex in the petitioner, he could not submit the complaint immediately. So far as the improvements are concerned, he submits that the so-called improvements are nothing but elaboration of what is contained in the original complaint.
5. Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that the trial Court had appreciated the matter in its proper perspective and the judgment does not call for any interference.
6. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the "Act") has been enacted to protect the social dignity of the persons belonging to the said communities as well as to protect them from the atrocities against them by the persons belonging to other communities. With that object in view, the Act had provided drastic punishments for commission of the offences. Special Courts are constituted.
7. Inasmuch as special procedure is prescribed and severe punishments are provided, the provisions of the Act need to be interpreted strictly. Section-3 of the Act prescribes the punishment for various offences of atrocities. As many as 15 offences are stipulated under Section 3. For every item of offence, the victim must invariably be a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, to invoke the provisions of Section-3, the first and foremost pre-requisite is to establish that the victim of the said offence is a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. It is only thereafter that other things need to be examined. The Act does not provide for any presumption to be drawn in favour of, or against any person in this regard. Having regard to the gravity of the punishment provided for, the prosecution has to establish the social status of the complainant beyond any doubt, particularly, when the accused disputes the same. In this case, the 2nd respondent disputed the social status of the petitioner. It was his specific case that the petitioner belongs to Christian community.
8. The petitioner herein deposed before the trial Court as P.W.1. It was elicited through him in the cross-examination that his son-in-law is one Mr. John Babu and the marriage between the said John Babu and the daughter of the petitioner was performed in accordance with Christian customs. The petitioner has admitted that his father by name Anandam was a Christian. Except denying the suggestion that he is not a Hindu, the petitioner did not explain as to how he is not a Christian, when both his father and daughter were Christians. The trial Court recorded a finding that the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Caste community and on the other hand, he belongs to Christian community. Even otherwise, the name of the petitioner indicates that he is a Christian and he owed an explanation as to how he continued to be Hindu even with that name. No exception can be taken to the finding recorded by the trial Court. Therefore, the very initiation of proceedings under Section-3 of the Act was without any basis.
9. Even if it can be said that the prosecution under Section-3 of the Act was unsustainable, the charge against the 2nd respondent under Section-506 remained. The social status of the petitioner is irrelevant for that charge. However, it needs to be observed that the alleged incident was said to have taken place on 8.2.1998, whereas the complaint was submitted on 6.3.1998. The delay of one month was hardly explained. The time between the alleged date of occurrence and submission of complaint is so vast that it is possible to meditate or invent anything. When delays of two days are held to be fatal by the Supreme Court, it is just impossible to prosecute a person on the basis of a complaint submitted almost one month after the alleged date of commission of offence.
10. Therefore, I do not see any ground to admit the Criminal Revision Case and hence the same is liable to be dismissed.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed at the stage of admission.