Partly allowed

Dudela Ramesh Goud, v. The State through the Asst. Commissioner of Police

Telangana HC15 Nov 2011CRLA/360/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appeals court dismissed the appeal against conviction under the SC/ST Act for demolishing a victim's house and caste-based abuse, finding prosecution evidence reliable despite minor FIR delays. The court enhanced the sentence, reducing the term from 3.5 years to one year, deeming the original sentence too harsh.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed, but sentence to 3 1/2 years reduced to one year rigorous imprisonment.

Dudela Ramesh Goud, Vs The State through the Asst… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU

¶2

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.360 of 2006

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The appellants 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3 were convicted by the lower Court under Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of two years and fine of Rs.100/each; were convicted under Section 3 (i) (v) of the Act and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3 ½ years and fine of Rs.100/- each; and also were convicted under Section 452 IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.100/- each. Questioning the same, A.1 to A.3 filed this appeal.

¶5

2. A.1 to A.3 are running toddy shop by the side of residential house of PW.1 at Thathanagar within the limits of Gandhi Nagar Police Station, Hyderabad. It is alleged that on 20.07.2004 at about 11.30 hours, A.1 to A.3 went to house of PW.1 who belongs to Madiga caste and asked him to vacate the place by abusing him as Madiga bastard and that A.1 to A.3 demolished house of PW.1 and kept all articles of PW.1’s family outside the demolished house. Plea of the accused is one of total

¶6

denial and not guilty. After trial, the lower Court found them guilty of the above charges. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that there is unexplained delay of 32 hours in giving report to the police and that there is no proper and legal evidence to prove caste of the de facto complainant as scheduled caste and that there are several contradictions in evidence of PWs.1 to 5 with regard to the offence proper and that therefore the lower Court should have acquitted the accused.

¶7

3. Insofar as caste of the de facto complainant/P.W.1 is concerned, in Ex.P.1 report as well as in his evidence before the lower Court, PW.1 stated that he belongs to Madiga caste. The said evidence of PW.1 is not challenged by the accused in his cross-examination. Through out the trial in the lower Court, PW.1’s caste as Madiga caste which is a scheduled caste, is not disputed muchless challenged. That apart, the prosecution examined PW.7 Mandal Revenue Officer of Himayatnagar, Hyderabad who gave Ex.P.5 letter to the effect that the accused belongs to scheduled caste. PW.7 says that he issued the said letter on the report given by the Revenue Inspector by name Srihari. Simply because report on the basis of which Ex.P.5 letter is given by PW.7 is not filed into Court, Ex.P.5 letter is not liable to be thrown out. When there is no dispute about PW.1

¶8

belonging to Madiga caste, the question of the prosecution further proving the same may not arise at all. The accused did not claim that they also belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Names of A.1 to A.3 undoubtedly indicate that they belong to Gowda caste which is a backward caste and not scheduled caste.

¶9

4. The offence took place as per PW.1’s evidence on 20.07.2004 at about 11.30 A.M. in his presence. Ex.P.1 report was given to PW.8 – Sub-Inspector of Police, Gandhinagar Police Station on 21.07.2004 at 18.30 hours. Neither in Ex.P.1, nor in the evidence of PW.1 there is any explanation offered for the delay. On the basis of Ex.P.1, PW.8 registered case and issued Ex.P.6 F.I.R. Even though PW.1 did not offer explanation and even though there was no cross-examination of PW.1 on the aspect of delay, the defence counsel in the lower Court elicited in cross-examination of PW.9/Investigating Officer to the effect that during investigation, PW.1 explained the delay by saying that he approached a Corporater and a Minister by complaining against the accused and as they failed to interfere in the matter, finally he approached the police on the next day. In any event, this is not a case where the prosecution is liable to be doubted or is liable to be thrown out on the ground of

¶10

delay in lodging F.I.R. This is not a case involving two factions in the village, in which event there is every likelihood of innocent persons being roped in after confabulations and consultations during the process of delay in lodging F.I.R. Therefore I find that delay of 31 hours in giving report to the police in this case is not fatal to the prosecution.

¶11

5. PW.1 is the victim. PW.2 is his sister-in-law, she being wife of PW.1’s brother. PWs.3 and 4 are residents of houses opposite to PW.1’s house and toddy shop of A.1 to A.3 separated by road. PW.3 is son-in-law of PW.4. PW.5 is a resident of Elchiguda Basti which is located just behind the properties of PW.1 and the accused. It is their evidence that on 20.07.2004 at about 11.30 a.m. A.1 to A.3 along with 50 to 60 persons came to PW.1’s house and began cutting ‘ravi’ tree which is by the side of PW.1’s house. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that cutting of ‘ravi’ tree was not disclosed in Ex.P.1 report given by PW.1 to the police. Ex.P.1 being F.I.R., need not contain each and every particulars of the case and details of evidence. Cutting of ‘ravi’ tree is not the subject matter herein, but demolition of PW.1’s house is the subject matter. PWs.1 to 5 referred the fact of cutting ‘ravi’ tree while narrating sequence of events and it has no bearing on ultimate finding of guilt or otherwise to

¶12

be recorded by the Court. PW.1 deposed that when he questioned the accused as to why they were cutting the tree, the accused informed him about they purchasing the said land and directing him to vacate his house and that when he informed the accused about he residing there for the last 30 years and therefore he cannot vacate, A.1 to A.3 abused him in filthy language with reference to his Madiga community as Madiga bastard and that the accused also stated to him to report wherever he desired and to pluck whatever he can pluck. It is consistent evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that the accused 1 to 3 demolished PW.1’s house and threw his luggage out of the house. PW.2 deposed that when she and PW.1 questioned the accused for cutting the tree, A.1 to A.3 abused her as Madiga bitch and asked her to do what she could do and that A.1 to A.3 also abused PW.1 as Madiga bastard. She says that the accused demolished two bath rooms and two rooms. PW.1’s house consisted of two rooms, one bath room and one latrine. It is evidence of PW.3 that the accused demolished house of PWs.1 and 2 and threw away their household articles and that they have also abused PW.1 as Madiga bastard asking him to report wherever he wants to do. PW.4 deposed that A.1 to A.3 along with some others came there and abused PW.1 as Madiga bastard and abused PW.2 as Madiga bitch and that the accused demolished house of PW.1.

¶13

PW.5 deposed that the accused demolished PW.1’s house and abused PW.1 by alleging that they belong to Madiga community. It is contended by the appellants’ counsel that the alleged utterances of A.1 to A.3 towards PW.1 are different from evidence of PWs.1 to 5. Though there are slight variations with regard to the other utterances, evidence of PWs.1 to 4 is consistent to the effect that A.1 to A.3 abused PW.1 as Madiga bastard. Even though PW.1 did not state about the accused abusing PW.2 also as Madiga bitch either in Ex.P.1 or in his evidence, other witnesses including PW.2 deposed to the same. In Ex.P.1 and in his evidence as PW.1, he concentrated on the abuse made towards him only. It is consistent evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that it was A.1 to A.3 who demolished house of PW.1.

¶14

6. PW.1 in cross-examination admitted suggestion of the defence counsel that since the time of his father, they are residing in the same site. He denied the suggestion that the site belongs to one Rajasekhar Babu under whom his father Komaraiah worked as Watchman and that his father executed a letter in favour of Rajasekhar Babu undertaking to vacate the site on 14.04.1996 and that after vacating the property in 1996, they again occupied the site through Habeeb Ahmed. He admits that there is civil dispute pending between Rajasekhar Babu and

¶15

Habeeb Ahmed in Civil Court with regard to the site. Inspite of there being civil dispute pending for the site in Civil Court and inspite of family of PWs.1 and 2 occupying site and constructing the house and living there since the time of PW.1’s father, the accused claimed to have purchased the said site and under the cover of the said purchase, went highhandedly and demolished house property of PW.1’s family and abused them in the name of caste. Even though 50 to 60 persons are said to have accompanied the accused to the suit property, no action was taken by the police against them as they appear to be only coolies under the accused. Failure to take action against those 50 to 60 persons who accompanied the accused, will not clothe the accused with any right to absolve themselves herein.

¶16

7. On considering the entire material on record and assessing the prosecution evidence, I am of the opinion that the lower Court rightly came to the conclusion in favour of the prosecution for the above said offences. But, I am of the opinion that sentences of imprisonment awarded by the lower Court are on higher side.

¶17

8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, but with an alteration of period of imprisonment from 3 ½ years to one year under Section 3(i) (v) of the Act.

¶18

SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J

¶19

Dt. 15^th November, 2011.

¶20

PNV

Dudela Ramesh Goud, v. The State through the Asst. Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dudela Ramesh Goud, v. The State through the Asst. Commissioner of Police

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

Puttam Chinna Gurava Reddy (A-1), Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor

Shaik Sardar, Vs The State of a.P., through Superintendent Central Prison

Vadlamudi Lakshminarayana, (A3) Vs The State of A.P.

Puvvadi Tirupathaiah, Vs Adusumilli Lakshmi Narasimha Rao

Jajjaila Anjaiah, Vs The State of A.P.

Eda Nagi Reddy and 2 Others Vs State of A.P. Rep by Pp. and Another