Allowed

Menga Shyamulu, v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC15 Dec 2021CRLA/493/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal against conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 2015 for insulting an SC/ST woman. Court found material contradictions in witness versions regarding allegations, delay in FIR, and police presence. Conviction set aside.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act set aside; fine returned; bail bonds cancelled.

Menga Shyamulu, Vs The State of Telangana — Caste Atrocities | Telangana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶2

AT HYDERABAD

¶3

WEDNESDAY ,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 493 OF 2018

¶7

Crl.Appeal Under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment in Special S.C. No. 28 ot 2016 on the file of the Court of the Special Judge Under SC, ST(POA) Act - cum- Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Menga Shyamulu S/o. M. Ramulu aged 35 years, Occ. Film Editing, R/o. H.No. 8-1-339110122, B.J.R. Nagar, Film Nagar, Hyderabad.

¶10

...APELLANT/ Accused

¶11

AND

¶12

The State of Telangana, The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banjara Hills Division, Hyderabad, The State of Telangana, rep. by State of Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for The State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

¶13

.. Complainant / RESPODENT

¶14

lA NO: 1 OF 2018

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the sentence daled 29-01-2018 passed in Spl. Sessions Case No.28 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judge under SC, ST (PoA) Act- cum-Vl Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, at Secunderabad by granting bail to the Petitioner/Appellant during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal before this Hon'ble Court on the same terms and conditions that are being imposed by the Hon'ble Trail Court while enlarging the Petitioner/Appellant on bail.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI B. CHINNAPA REDDY

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent: THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (TG)

¶18

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶19

THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTTCE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶20

APPEAL No.493 of 2()l8

¶21

JUDGMENT:.

¶22

This criminal appeal under Section 3Za{2) of Code of Criminall Procedure, 1973 (for short^,Cr.p.C.) is filed against the convictiori and sentence uide judgment dated 29.Ol.2OlA in SpI. Sessions Case No.28 of 2016 on the file of the Speciai Judge for trial of offences under SC ST (pOA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad.

¶23

The appellant. is convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1O,0O0/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the olfence under Secrion 3 ( 1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short'SC ST (POA) Act").

¶24

3, The case of the prosecution is that on 2O.Og.2OlS at about 1 l.00 p.m. when the children of locality sitting at temporary Ganesh Mandap erected in BJR Nagar Localigr, Filmnagar, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderbad, the accused who was also resident of same locality, abused the children in drunken state and when P.W. 1 Y.Malleswari questioned the accused about the same, he abused P.W. 1 by saying " meetu endi nannu adiged.i, meeru euaru SC/ST kulala uaant nannu adugutunnant" and also beat her and when the locality people resisted him, the accused also abused P.W.l and others by saying "meeru entha mee brathulslu entha indlallo pani chesukune mundalu, nenlt na diuer ki iccLrc jeetham antha kadu mee brathukulu". Later, basing on the report given by

¶25

¶26

P.W. 1, the Sub Inspector of Police (LW12) registered^case in^Crime No.1043 of 20i5 under Section 3^{(1) (x)} of SC ST^{(POA) Act.} Thereafter after completion of investigation, charge sheet^{is filed.}

¶27

4.^. Lealned XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad has taken the case on file under the above Section^of law against the appellant and numbered as PRC^No. 1 of 2016.^On appearance of the appellant copies of documents^{were furnishedto} him as required under Section 2O7 Cr.P.C. and as the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the^casewas committed to the Sessions Court, Chittoor,^{whichwasnumbered} as Spl. S.C.No.28 of 2016 and made over to the Special^{Judge for} trial of offences under SC ST^(POA) Act-cum-Vl^Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at SecundJrabad. On appearance^of the appellant, charge was framed under Section 3^{(1) (x)} of^{SC ST} (POA) Act, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶28

In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. I to 6 and got marked Exs.P- 1 to P-6. After completion of^the prosecution evidence, the appellant was examined under section 3 13 Cr.P.C. and he denied the incriminating material appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence.

¶29

On a thorough analysis of the evidence available on record, the Special Sessions Court convicted the appellant as indicated above. Assailing the same, the appellant is before this Court.

¶30

¶31

Heard Sri B.Chinnappa Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent.

¶32

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the trial Court failed to ; consider the contradictions and omissions marked through the evidence of P.W.6 and the trial Court is swayed by the chief examination evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3, u,ho are interested rvitnesses. He submits that the trial Court failed to consider that P.W.1 does not belong to SC Community, but belongs to BC (C) community as she is a Christian and the caste certificate issued by P.W.S is not in accordance with law. He submits that the trial Court failed to consider the delay coupled with the evidence of P.W.2 with regard to tearing of first complaint by respondent-police , on the night of the incident. He submits that the evidence on record clearly suggests that appellant is falsely implicated in this case. It is submitted that without properly analyzing the evidence and even though the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused, still the Court below has convicted the accused.

¶33

Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submits that prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence on record, has convicted the accused. The contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are minor and not material contradictions. The^judgment of the Court below is a well considered one and no grounds are made out to interfere with conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

¶34

¶35

The Court below convicted the appellant by observing that no motive can be attributed to P.W. 1 for implicating the accused. As per the evidence on record, P.W. 1 came to scene of offence after P.W.3 asked the accused to support the play of children at Ganesh Pandal and when the accused was scolding the children, and on hearing the same P.W. 1 came to the place of offence and no motive can be attributed for the same. With regard to delay in lodging Ex.P-l report, the Court below observed that there is no much delay and it is only 20 hours. The incident occurred at 11.00 p.m. on 20.09.2015 and the report was lodged on 2L.O9.2015 at 7.30 p.m. and since it was dark night P.W. 1 must have restrained herself to go to police station to lodge a complaint against the accused and on the next day she wont to police station alter finishing her daily works, so it cannot be said that there was a delay in lodging report. Further, it was observed that according to P.W. 1, accused placed his hands on her chest and pushed her. P.W.2 also stated that the accused placed his hand on the chest of P.W.1. According to P.W.3, accused pushed P.W. 1. P.W.4 did not speak about the said act of accused. Even as per Ex.P-l also, the same is not clear. Hence, it cannot be said that accused touched the chest of P.W. 1 with an intention to outrage her modest5r. The Court below has come to a conclusion that accused insulted P.W. I and intimidated with an intention to humiliate her in the name of caste within public view and therefore, all the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of SC ST Act are proved and the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶36

Having heard the learned counsel on either side, perused the entire material on record.

¶37

¶38

The case of prosecution is that the incident had taken^place on 20.09.2015 and complaint was^given on 22.09.2015. ln lhe complaint, it was stated that accused abused her saying that " meeru^{endi nannu adigedi,meenteuantSC/ ST kulalouaaru nannu} adugutunnaru" and also abused by saying " meeru entha mee brathulaiu entha indlallo^pani chesukune mundalu, nenu na driuer ki icche^jeetham antha kadu mee brathukulu". Even in 161 Cr.P.C statement also the same is reiterated. But for the first time in her evidence P.W.1 stated that accused abused her saying that^" mala madigo mundalu, lanjafu", placed hands on her chest and^pushed her. She a-lso stated that in this^process, accused also fell down and lost his chain. Her mother is subscriber in the chit run by accused in the year 2012. ln her statemrent, she has not stated anything with regard to the delay in lodging the complaint, but she only stated that on the next day she went to^police station^and gave report to police against the accused.

¶39

Coming to the evidence of P.W.2,^{she stated thataccused} abused P.W. 1 saying lhat "meeru andaru^{lanjalu and malaand} madogi cannot reside in that area", wlnich is contrary to^the evidence of P.W. I and in addition to the statement^{of P.W. 1. P.W.2} also stated that^poiice were not there^{near the Pandalon the date} of incident and only one constable^{is movingnear the Pandal. She} stated that police constable used to visit^{Pandaland weregoing} away. After P.W.1 was^pushed aside,^{accusedhit againstan object} on ground and fell on the^{ground and whenthe watchman found} the gold chain on the next day, P.W.2^{asked him to returnthe} same. A suggestion put to^P.W.2 that^{Mastan and others} assaulted the accused,^{was deniedby her. She stated that in the}

¶40

¶41

night itseif some of the locality people went to the police station on that night and gave report to the police and police tore the report and on the next day they gave report to police.

¶42

Whereas P.W.3 who is an auto driver is also eye witness and he stated that accused abused P.W. 1 saying that " mala madiga lanjalara meetu endhi nanu adigedhf'. He stated that P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to police station on.the night of the incident and the control room police came on that night and suggested to P.Ws.l and 2 to go to police station a,nd report the matter. He also stated that Pandal police security will be present with two police constables from 7.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. and the constable visited the Pandal and went away and they did not return. P.W.4 Shaik Mastan deposed that police did not visit Pandal'on that day and he also does not know whether P.Ws.1 and 2 u,ent to police station.

¶43

As per the evidence of P.W.6, who is the investigating officer, as per the police standing instructions, the mike raised by the Pandals is to be closed by 10.O0 p.m. and he has not deputed any constables at Pandals situa ted at BJR Nagar, Filmnagar. It is suggested to him that two constables were deputed at Pandai, but he denied the same. He stated that if any police constable came to know about the incident, he will report the matter to police station and they have not received any complaint from police,

¶44

The accused in his 313 Cr.P.C examination has stated that Ganesh idol is on the way to his house and when he asked them to give way, all of them attacked him. When he went to police station, they sent him to Osmania Hospital. At the behest of one Chakradhar, who is retired D.S.P, this case was foisted. After

complaint was given by him, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were ca11ed, but because of D.S.P, case was not registered against them.

¶50

The Court below while convicting the accused has failed to take into consideration the material contradictions in the evidence of witnesses. All the prosecution witnesses have given different versions about the words used by the accused while abusing the complainant and other in the name of caste. The version of the witnesses during the evidence, in the complaint and in 161 Cr.p.C statements is altogethe.r different. The Court below has lost sight of this aspect and failed to appreciate the same while convicting the accused. The Court below having observed that in Ex.p-l report as well in 161 Cr.P.C statement, the allegation with regard to accused pushing P.W.l by piacing ha'.rds. on her chest is not believable, ought to have applied the same reasoning with regard to allegations under the provisions of SC ST (POA) Act. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 2 are subscribers of chit run by accused. The case of the accused is that he was beaten up by P.W.1 and others, he lost his gold chain, which aspect was spoken by the other witnesses. There is no proper appreciation of evidence as to how the accused also sustained injuries. Even the evidence of lvitnesses is also doubtful with regard to presence of police constables at the Pandals, as al1 the witnesses have taken different stand and very interestingly the version of investigating officer is altogether different, who stated that he has not deputed any constable at the Pandals. With regard to delay in lodging the report, P.W.1 deposed that on the next day evening, she gave report to police at about 6.30 or 7.00 p.m. P.W.2 also deposed that on the next day of incident P.W.l gave report to police. P.W.6 investigating officer

¶51

¶52

deposed that incident took place on 20.O9.2O15 at 11.OO p.m. and whereas the complaint was lodged on 21.09.2015 at 7.30 p.m. But there is no explanation from the prosecution witnesses about the delay in lodging the report, which throws a considerable doubt on the case of prosecution about occurrence of incident. The delay in lodging the report is aiso fatal to the prosecution case.

¶53

While convicting the accused, the Court must be satisfied that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, whgreas basing on the discrepancies pointed out supra the Court below has convicted the accused stating that they are minor contradictions, this Court without any hesitation comes to conclusion that the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all realonable doubt. Hence, ttre conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below deserves to be set aside.

¶54

Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence uide judgment dated 29.Ol .2018 in Spl. Sessions Case No.28 of 2016 on the file of the Special Judge lor trial of offences under SC ST (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Secunderabad is set aside. The fine amount paid by the appellant/accused shall be returned to him after expiry of appeal time. Bail bonds of appellant/accused, if any, shall stand cancelled.

¶55

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶56

¶57

Sd/-CH,VENKATESHWARU^LU DEPUTY REGISTMR \-// //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

¶58

¶59

¶60

The Special Judge Under^{SC ST (POA)Act} -^{cum'Vl Additional} Metropolitan Seisions Judge,^{at Secunderabad..(withreco.rds)} 2. The lli Additional Chief^{MetiopolitanMagistrate, Hyderabad.} 3. The Station House Officer.^{BanjarahillsPoliceStation'Hvderabad'}

¶61

a:6"'t-

¶62

/ /

¶63

Two CCs to^pubtic prosecutor, High Court at Hyderabadfor the State of Telangana (OUT)

¶64

One CC ro SRt. B. CHI NNAPA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCJ

¶65

Two CD Copies 7. One Spare Copy

HIGH COURT

DATED:1511212021

ORDER

CRLA.No.493 of 2018

i
)
1r)t S14
k
:aa
0,?tr,:ii W
7

¶71

ALLOWING THE CRL. APPEAL.

¶72

01 w

Menga Shyamulu, v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Menga Shyamulu, v. The State of Telangana

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

Amit Sanghi Vs The State of Telangana

Chendati Rama Krishna Vs State of Telengana

Manchireddy Prashanth Reddy Vs The State of Telangana And Another

The State of Telangana Vs Macherla Satyam

The State of Telangana Vs Yadallapalli Viswanadham , Azad

The State of Telangana Vs Yadailapalli Viswanadham , Azad