Allowed

Thuppudu Konda Reddy v. State of a.P., rep by Public Prosecutor

Telangana HC8 Feb 2012CRLA/1992/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the appeal against conviction for abusing a Scheduled Caste woman under the SC/ST (POA) Act. The court set aside the conviction because the lower court convicted based on evidence regarding a 7 PM incident at a house, despite the charge not specifying that time and place, and without independent corroboration. The accused were found not guilty.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act set aside; accused found not guilty; fine amount refunded.

Thuppudu Konda Reddy Vs State of a.P., rep by Public… — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRL.A.NO.1992 OF 2004

¶2

JUDGMENT:-

¶3

The accused in S.C.No.52 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Special Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs and S.Ts(POA) Act, Mahabubnagar, are the appellants herein, who were convicted for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 ( for short “the Act”) and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.

¶4

The case of the prosecution is that on 09-01-2001 a complaint was lodged by PW.1 to the effect that at about 3 P.M on that day when PW.2 went to get the paddy from her fields, the accused abused her by caste as she belongs to ‘Madiga community’ and beat her and thereafter PW.2 returned to her house and all the accused came and abused them in filthy language and beat PWs.1 to 5 and caused injuries.

¶5

The case was taken on file and after framing of necessary charges, the court below has found the accused not guilty of the offence under Sections 453, 324 read with 34 IPC, but, however, found them guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced them. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed.

¶6

Now the point that arises for consideration is:-

¶7

Whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is legal and sustainable?

¶8

POINT:-

¶9

In order to appreciate the contention of the accused, it is useful to refer to the charges as framed against the accused:-

¶10

“That you A-1 to A-5 on or about 9^th day of January 2001 at about 3.00 P.M in the fields of Ramulamma(LW.2 Victim) at Mandipally village intentionally abused and insulted Ramulamma,

¶11

a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste community in the name of her caste as “Madiga Biddalara” and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC&ST(POA) Act and within the cognizance of this Court:

¶12

Secondly:- You A-1 to A-5 on or about the aforesaid place, date and time mentioned in charge No.1 supra assaulted Kanakam Devamma and Kanakam Kistamma (LWs.4 and 6) by hands and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S.352 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.

¶13

Thirdly: That you A-1 to A-5 on or about the 9^th day of January 2001 at about 7.00 P.M at the house of Ramulamma at Mandipally village assaulted Male Devamma and Kankam Hanmamma (Lws.3 and 5) with hands and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.352 IPC and within the cognizance of this Court.”

¶14

As can be seen from the judgment of the lower court, the charges 2 and 3 are held not proved and, however, a specific finding has been given in para.18 holding that the evidence of PWs.1, 4 and PW.5 creates any amount of doubt about the occurrence of the second incident. But, however, the learned Judge accepted the same evidence and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act for abusing them near the house of PW.1 at about 7.00 P.M.

¶15

A reading of the judgment of the lower court, in para.20 it clearly goes to show that it was considering the charge with reference to time at about 7.00 P.M near the house of PW.1. The judgment of the lower court does not show that it has considered the evidence of PW.1 about the incident at 3.00 P.M near the fields which is said to be the cause of second incident. As stated above the charges for which the accused were found guilty does not disclose that the charge relates to the incident at 7 P.M infront of the house of PW.1. In fact, the evidence of PW.1 does not support the prosecution case that PW.2 came to her and informed about the abuses by caste. Her evidence is only that PW.2 plucking the plantations and at that time Accused No.2 caught hold of her daughter and at about 6.00 P.M she came and informed the same to her. Therefore, there is nothing on record to show that at about 3.00 P.M PW.2 complained to PW.1 about the abuses by caste. In fact, there is only solitary testimony of PW.2 on this aspect and the lower court also

¶16

did not consider this aspect. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when truthfulness of the material part of the prosecution case about the attack and beating infront of the house of PW.1 at about 7.00 P.M is disbelieved by the Court on the ground that it is suspicious and not being supported by independent evidence, convicting the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, at the alleged time basing on the same evidence without there being a charge with reference to time and place of occurrence, is not legal and, therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is liable to be set aside.

¶17

Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants/accused are set aside and the accused are found not guilty for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989. The fine amount paid by the appellants/accused shall be refunded to them.

¶18

___________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J

¶19

08-02-2012 TSNR

Thuppudu Konda Reddy v. State of a.P., rep by Public Prosecutor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thuppudu Konda Reddy v. State of a.P., rep by Public Prosecutor

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

Jajjavarapu Papa, Vs Bajjivarapu Vishnu Prasad

Indian Bank , Madras Vs Gazulapelluru Landless Labour

The Public Prosecutor, Vs Shaik Abdul Khayum

Monaraguthi Muni Swamy Vs The State of A.P. rep. by Public Prosecutor

T.Sharada, Vs Dr.v.v.L.N.Sastry

Mohd Naseemunnisa Vs Md.Murtaza