Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 753 (TS)

Ranga Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh

2022-11-24

K.SURENDER

body2022
JUDGMENT K.SURENDER, J. - This Criminal Revision Case is filed questioning the correctness of the judgment of the III Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar at Gadwal in Crl.A.No.118 of 2001 dtd. 27/9/2007, wherein the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class in CC No.403 of 2000, dtd. 18/8/2001 whereby, the petitioners/accused were convicted and sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment each for the offence under Sec. 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955(for short, 'the Act of 1955'). 2. The case of the prosecution is that when P.Ws.1 was waiting at Cherlagarlapad bus stage for boarding the bus, both the accused went there on motor bike and picked up quarrel over a dispute regarding electric transformer of their village and abused him in the name of his caste and beat him. P.W.2 was also present and witnessed the altercation and separated them. Ex.P1 complaint was filed on the very same day by PW1, which was registered for the offence under Ss. 323 and 504 of IPC and Sec. 7(1)(d) of the Act of 1955. 3. During the course of investigation, it was found that no offence was made out under Sec. 323 of IPC, for which reason, the said provision was deleted and charge sheet was filed under Sec. 504 IPC and Sec. 7(1)(d) of the Act. 4. Having framed charges under the said penal provisions, learned Magistrate examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P1 complaint. In defence, the accused marked Exs.D1 to D3. 5. Learned Magistrate concluded that as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, while they were standing at the bus stand, these petitioners came on a motor bike and abused as "Madiga Lanja Koduka" ("bastard") with regard to transformer dispute. For the said reason, learned Magistrate found the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was consistent regarding the usage of language attracting the offence, for which reason, conviction was recorded under Sec. 7(1)(d) of the Act of 1955. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that the acts of the accused amounted to the offence and dismissed the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate. 6. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge found that the acts of the accused amounted to the offence and dismissed the Criminal Appeal and confirmed the conviction recorded by the learned Magistrate. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that since P.W.1 was converted to Christianity and practicing Christian religion, he cannot be said to be belonging to either Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, for which reason, the provisions of the Act are not attracted. He further submits that a police case has been filed by accused for the reason of P.W.1 committing theft of the transformer, as such, a false case has been filed against accused. 7. The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 was enacted for the purpose of punishing any one who preaches and/or practices "Untouchability". Though "Untouchability" is not defined in the Act, as per Concise Oxford English Dictionary, it means "i)not able to be touched or affected; ii) unable to be matched or rivaled; iii) of or belonging to the lowest-caste Hindu group or the people outside the caste system; a member of the lowest-caste Hindu group, with whom contact is traditionally held to defile members of higher castes". 8. For the sake of convenience, Sec. 7(1)(d) of the Act of 1955 is extracted hereunder: "7.Punishment for other offences arising out of "untouchability". (1)(a).....(b).....(c)..... (d) insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of "untouchability", a member of a Scheduled Caste; [shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees]. Explanation 1].- A person shall be deemed to boycott another person who- refuses to let to such other person or refuses to permit such other person, to use or occupy any house or land or refuses to deal with, work for hire for, or do business with, such other person or to render to him or receive from him any customary service, or refuses to do any of the said things on the terms on Which such things would be commonly done in the ordinary course of business; or abstains from such social, professional or business relations as he would ordinarily maintain with such other person. Explanation II.- For the purpose of clause (c) a person shall be deemed to incite or encourage the practice of" untouchability"- (i) if he, directly or indirectly, preaches" untouchability" or its practice in any form; or (ii) if he justifies, whether on historical, philosophical or religious grounds or on the ground of any tradition of the caste system or on any other ground, the practice of" untouchability" in any form.] (1A) Whoever commits any offence against the person or property of any individual as a repraisal or revenge for his having exercised any right accruing to him by reason of the abolition of" untouchability" under article 17 of the Constitution, shall, where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than two years and also with fine.] 9. Admitting that the petitioners have entered into an altercation or abused P.W.1 as "Madiga Lanja Koduka" ("bastard"), it is not the case of the prosecution that in any manner, the petitioners have either preached or practiced 'untouchability'. Only in the event of making any remarks that contact with such people would defile such members of the upper caste or preventing such persons from either being part of any social gathering or stating that they coming into contact with them would defile a person, the provisions of the Act of 1955 would be attracted. No steps were taken by the prosecution to prosecute the petitioners for any of the offences under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. As found by both the Courts below, if P.W.1 was abused for the reason of his belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the provisions under which the accused can be prosecuted is under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and not under the Act of 1955. At the cost of repetition, no where either in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, complaint or in the evidence of the Investigating Officer it is stated that these petitioners have in any form preached or practiced 'Untouchability', for which reason, the conviction cannot be maintained under Sec. 7(1(d) of the Act. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.118 of 2001 dtd. 27/9/2007 and the petitioners are acquitted. 10. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Sessions Court in Crl.A.No.118 of 2001 dtd. 27/9/2007 and the petitioners are acquitted. Since the petitioners are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 11. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending, shall stands closed.