Allowed

V.Digamber Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Telangana HC9 Feb 2011CRLA/293/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge criminal appeal setting aside a conviction under the SC/ST Act for casteist abuse. The High Court acquitted the appellant, finding the prosecution case was based on family disputes regarding waste disposal mistakenly attributed to caste, lacking independent corroboration and containing contradictory witness testimony.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

V.Digamber Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 293 of 2006

¶3

DATED: 09.02.2011

¶4

BETWEEEN:

¶5

V.Digamber Reddy, S/o.Narayan Reddy

¶6

… Appellant

¶7

AND

¶8

State of A.P through State Public Prosecutor

¶9

… Respondent

¶10

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶11

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.293 of 2006

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

The first accused filed this appeal against Judgment dated 03.03.2006 passed by the Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) in SC/ST S.C.No.44 of 2005 by which he was convicted for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.5,000/-.

¶14

2. As per evidence of PW-9, who is Mandal Revenue Officer, Ramachandrapuram who gave Exs.P2 and P10 caste

¶15

certificates of PW-1 and A1 respectively, it is proved that PW-1 belongs to Lambada caste which is a Scheduled Tribe and A1 belongs to Reddy caste, which is a forward caste and which is neither a Scheduled Caste nor a Scheduled Tribe. It is alleged that A1 abused PWs-1 to 3 in the name of their Lambada Caste, thereby attracting criminal liability under section 3(1)(x) of the Act. PWs 1 and 2 are husband and wife. PW3 is their minor son. He was aged four years by the date of incident on 16.08.2005 and was aged five years by the time he was examined in the lower court. According to the prosecution case, A1 abused PW3 initially when he was cycling in front of their quarters block and when PW-2, who observed the same from balcony of her quarters, questioned him, again A1 abused PW-2 in the name of caste and when PW-1 returned from office and when PW-2 reported the incidents to PW-1, PW-1 along with his family members went to quarter of A1, when A1 abused PW-1 also in the name of caste and tried to beat him with his chappals. Plea of A1 is one of total denial. At this stage, it may be noted that PW-1 and A1 were occupying BHEL (Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited) quarters in one and the same block. A1 was occupying the quarter in the ground floor and PW-1 was occupying the quarter in the upstairs. According to the accused, PW1’s family members were throwing waste from the upstairs on the ground and when it was pointed out by A1 and his family

¶16

members, PW1 and his family members became enraged and gave false report.

¶17

3. PW-10 is brother of PW-2 and he was residing along with PWs-1 to 3 in the same quarter. Though PW-10 spoke about A1 abusing PW-2 in the name of caste in his examination–in-chief, PW.10 stated in cross-examination that he was not present by the time when A1 abused his sister PW-2. In cross-examination, PW-10 further says that A1 abused his brother-in-law-PW-1, at about 5:50 to 6:00 PM. PW-10 did not state that A1 abused PW-1 in the name of caste. PW-4 is a neighbour occupying another quarter in the same block. PW-4 did not support the prosecution case. He says that he does not know what happened and that when he returned to his quarter, he came to know that there was a dispute between PWs 1 and 2 and A1 and A2. Thus, there is no independent evidence in support of the prosecution case, except that of PWs 1 to 3, who belong to one family. At this stage itself, it can be noted that PW3, who is a boy aged five years, admitted in cross-examination that his parents PWs1 and 2 tutored him. So, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of PW3 who is a child witness.

¶18

4. Ex.P1 is the report given by PW-1 to the Police on 17.08.2005. PW-11, who was the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, received the same from

¶19

PW-1 at 6:00 PM on 17.08.2005 and registered the same as case in crime No.284 of 2005 and issued Ex.P-13 FIR. Ex.P1 contains three aspects; firstly, the incident on 16.08.2005 and secondly, the incident on 17.08.2005 and thirdly, general allegations of A1 bringing Lambada girls from several thandas in Warangal District and employing them in his house and illtreating them and also supplying Lambada girls to others for doing works in their houses. On total reading of Ex.P1 report, it suggests that PW-1 was more concerned with regard to the activity of A1 bringing young girls from Lambada thandas in Warangal District and employing them in his house and abusing them in the name of their caste and harassing them. PW-1 goes to the extent of alleging disappearance of two or three Lambada girls who were employed by A1 in his house. It appears to be the main purpose for which Ex.P1 was given by PW-1 to the Police. Ultimately, the Investigating Officer, PW-12 could not investigate into that aspect of A1 bringing Lambada girls from several thandas in Warangal District because PW-1 himself did not know from which thanda, those girls were brought and details of those girls. So ultimately, the case was confined to the incidents which are stated to have taken place on 16.08.2005 and 17.08.2005 as alleged in Ex.P1.

¶20

5. Not only in Ex.P1 it was stated, but also PWs 1 and 2 stated that PW-1 gave first report to the Police on the same

¶21

evening of 16.08.2005. But, PW-1 identified Ex.P1 as the first report and only report given by him to the Police on the evening of 16.08.2005. But Ex.P1 is not that report which was given on 16.08.2005, because Ex.P1 refers to the subsequent incident on 17.08.2005 also. PWs-11 and 12 deposed that PW-1 did not give any report other than Ex.P1. It is contended by the Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that, the first report dated 16.08.2005 was suppressed in this case. Except denying having given any other report than Ex.P1, there is no explanation for the prosecution for non-production of the first report dated 16.08.2005 before the lower court. It is a circumstance which throws certain amount of doubt on the prosecution case.

¶22

6. Both PW1 and A1 have been working as Engineers in BHEL and were occupying the quarters in the same block. After the incident and by the time, the case went for trial in the lower court, A1 had vacated the quarter and went away, perhaps to have peace for himself and for his family members. PW-1 and A1 were occupying the quarters at the scene of offence for more than one year prior to the dates of the incidents. PW-1 in crossexamination admits that his wife and children generally used to attend poojas in the house of the accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused were making any discrimination against PW-1 and his family members on the ground that they belong to Scheduled Tribe. They were living amicably till then without any

¶23

allegation of discrimination on the basis of caste.

¶24

7. But, trouble arouse between the two families when the accused objected PW1’s family throwing waste from the upstairs and when PW1’s younger daughter passed urine from the upstairs. At this stage, a reference took in Ex.D1, would become appropriate. PW-1 sent a telegram to the High Court complaining against inaction of the Police on his report and the said telegram was registered as W.P.No. 20184 of 2005. PW-12 filed Ex.D1 counter in that writ petition registered by the High Court on the telegram issued by PW1. PW5 stated in Ex.D1 counter affidavit that he did not arrest the accused in this case because, no other witnesses, except PW-2, who is the complainant’s wife supported the report. He further stated in Ex.D1 that there is a dispute between the complainant and the accused who have been residing in the same block when the complainant started throwing waste material and water on the ground floor and in front of the house of the accused. Thus, genesis for the report Ex.P1, is the dispute regarding throwing of waste material by PW1’s family members from the upstairs into the ground floor and passing of water/urine from the upstairs. If the entire circumstances are read together, it can be safely inferred that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 with regard to A1 abusing them in the name of Lambada caste and Ex.P1 report are

¶25

motivated without there being any truth. In my opinion, the lower court did not appreciate the material on record in the right perspective and landed in erroneous conclusion in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, I find that the appellant/A1 is not guilty of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

¶26

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside conviction and sentence passed by the lower court against appellant/A1 and acquitting him.

¶27

_____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J

¶28

Dated: 09.02.2011 ysk

¶29

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶30

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.293 of 2006

¶31

DATED: 09.02.2011

¶32

ysk

V.Digamber Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Digamber Reddy, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Penta Sasibhushan Rao Vs The State of A.P

M.Suryanarayana Gupta Vs The State of A.P

Sri Vysya Raju Ramesh Raju, Vs The State of A.P.

Rangu Gangamma Vs Rangu Jaya

K. Malleswaramma Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

Sri J.J.David, A-2 Vs The Sho., Mahabubnagar II Town P.S.