Heard Sri v. Raghava Reddy

The State of Telangana' rep by its rrri"'nriuIi"g;, Dist, p"resently Nagarkarnoot Ttre Public Prosecutor for TS State at Hon'ble High Court Bldg complex' At -SHO' Uppununthala (V) and (M)' Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS'COMPLAINANT lA NO: 1 OF 2018 petition under sectron 151 cpc praying, that. in the circumstances stated ti" p'irti""til' l':H:tiliiJ"BftT;t"ti in the affidavit rir'o 'n "p'ior-t'Ji fr1idill;*ffi..'JsB'r!r:!rd{:**ur'*tunxn:'* Counsel for the Appellant: Sri V' Raghava Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: Sri E' Ganesh' Assistant Public Prosecutor The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT TIIE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE E'V'VENUCaOPAL c AL APPEAL No.8270F 20L8 NT: JU 1. The Criminal appeal is filed by the appellant-accused questioning the Judgment dated l5'O2'2O18 in Spl'S'C' No.g8of2ol5passedbythelearnedSpecialsessions Judge-Cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar, wherein the accused was convicted for the offences punishable under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 186O (for short' 'the IPC') and Section 3(i)(x) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 (for short' 'the ActJ and sentenced to undergo three (03) months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs'SOO/ -' in default' to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (O1) week for the offence punishable under Section 186 of the IPC and also sentenced to undergo two (02) years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,OOO/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (O3) months for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act'

2. Heard Sri. V. Raghava Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri-E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecyl6r for the State-respondents' I 2 CrlAttrS2T;ff;{ .) The brief facts of the case are that on O6.02.2015, at about 1O:OO hours, the complainant,/p.W. 1 lodged a complaint before the Uppununthala police, stating that accused Nos. I and. 2 are accosting her from doing her legitimate duties by levelling false allegations against her. It is stated that accused No.I worked as contingent sweeper in Manda.l Resource centre, Uppununthala, from 2oo2 to 20O5. Later, accused No. I stopped working in MRC and started harassing tlle complainant/p.W. 1 by clemanding the sweeper job. On lZ.OI.2o]S,accused No.1 came to MRC and abused the complainarrt/p.W. i in the narne of her caste. By keeping previous grudges, accused No.2 also abused the complain ant/p.W. 1 in the name of, her caste and made false aregations against her. As a result, the complainant /p.W. I suffered mentai agony in discharging her legitimate duties.

4. l,earned Sessions Judge having examined the rvitnesses i.e., pWs.1 to g and also documents i.e., Exs.p. I to P.8, convicted the appellant/accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 1g6 of the IpC and Section 3(i)(xi )\ \ 3 EW,J Crl.A.No E27 of 2018 of the Act' Aggrieved' by the same' the present appeal is frled.

5. Learned counse that the aPPellant is 1 for the appellant Jtrstty submitted innocent and he is no waY concerned . He secondly submitted that though with alteged offences the appellant aPProached PW'l politelY and requested to PW.1 hled the Present consider his re-emPloYment' complalnt against the appellant with false and fabricated thirdlg submitted that there are allegations' He departmental enquiries against the PW'l and that PW'l develoPed grudge over the appeltant and falsely implicated the aPPellant' He fourthlg submitted that there is no corroborative evidence to prove the alleged offence agarnst the petitione r' He fifihJy submitted that though accused No.2 is having similar allegations' he was acquitted by the trial Court. He lastlg submitted that the allegations against the appellant are false and afterthought as there is a delay of 19 days in fling the FIR and prayed the Court to allow the Criminat APPeal.

6. On the Prosecutor for trial Court has the interference cr A N, s27;ffi other hand, learned Assistaat public the respondents submitted that the learned rightly passed the impugned Judgment and of this Court is unwarr€ulted. Therefore, he t to dismiss this Criminal Appeal. 7. For better appreciation of the facts of the case, it is relevant to extract Section lg6 of the IpC and Section 3(i)(x) of rhe sc/ST (poA) Act, which reads as follows: prayed the Cour "Section 186 of the II)C - Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions: Whoeuer uoluntarilu , s-eraant t;'\';' functions, e.ither aescripiion' i;|"i:" :nree months, or urith fineT,:"\ttn nunarea ruiei, lna pubtic 'n"it*t" iii!ff!1 ...o1 his pubtic with imprisonment or mag extend tL rili,Jult* mas extend b rtue fk":::,:cts- "r Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (pOA) Acr _ Punishments for offences atrocities: .not being a m.ember of a Scheduted Caste Whoeuer, ?:..: ,s:hedut?d Tribe intentionaLrC l;r;-r) tnnmtdotes uith intent to lutmiliate ;^"^b;;r;, Scheduted. caste or a scn"auiei ;;;;; i"i b" ;"ri";;i; il;"h t.mpnsonnent for a tem uthich sinlt ;; ;7;:; t.han six gears and with rtrue." publlc vlew; .months but .ti.h ^"i^;;;";r,F; .unthin "h"lt pta.ce I ( (Emphasis supplied) 5 Crt.A.No.827 EW,J of 2018

8. A piain reading of the above would abundantly make it clear that the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 186 of the lPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Act are applicable wtren a person voluntarily obstructs a public servant in the discharge of his or her duties by abusing the public servarlt in the name of caste' 1 PW proached PW'1 is case for in her In the Present case, it apPears that the aPpellant in Mandal Resource 2OO2 to 2OO5 g. worked as helPer 1n outsourclng Centre, Uppununthala village ' from the year Itisnoteworthythattlreappellantpolitelyap and requested her to consider h re-emplo5rment in the MRC' Uppununthala since there was no one to chief examination' dePosed that she ProPo sed the name of work in MRC, UPPununthala' PW.2 and sent the same to Project Officer' Rajeev Vidya Mission Mahabubnagar ' PW.2, in his chief exarninatlon' as in-charge of MEO' deposed that in MRC, he knows PW' 1 and he joined as messenger his chief in the Year 2Ol4' PW'3' in deposed that the appellant worked as outsourcing employee in MRC' Uppununthala' PW'3 further Uppr- nunthala Uppununthala exarnination, 6 EW,T t-rt.A.No.82Z of20t8 "*"-r"t *_*-.-s uf-(J, Nagarkunrool and he received representation ^- deposed that during his tenure as DEC FAc, Uppununthar, agajnst the pw. I allegin* *r.""' use of funds and abuse of power by her. PW.4, the then Talsildar, furnished the caste particulars of pW. 1 and the appellant under Ex.p.2. p E'x'r'z' PW'S and 6 turned hostile and did ,_r", ._,,-^__ll support the case of prosecutio n. PW.7, in his cross ation, elicited that there is a delay of 2O days in lodging the complaint by pW.l. pW.g, in his cross examination, denied that the appellaat is implicated in the case at the instigation of pW. 1 without proper investigation. Pertinently, seyeral paper clippings under Ex.p.g are published against pW. 1 accusing her misappropriation of MRC funds and none of those clippings under Ex.p.E disclose the name of the appellant. Admittedly, though it is stated by pw. i that the appe[ant obstructed her in discharging her duties by abusing in her caste name, there is no incriminating evidence to prove the same. Further, since the appellant courteously approached pW. 1 requesting her to consider his case of re_employment in the MRC, Uppununthala, the ingredients under section 186 0f the Ipc and Secton 3(i)(x) of the Act, do not attract the appeliant' \ L 7 EYV'J CrI.A.No 827 of 20lE Hence, considering the peculiar and facts of the case' this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and the criminal appeal is deserves to be allowed ' lO. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment dated 15'02'2o18 passed in Spl'S'C' No.98 of 2O15 by the learned' Special Sessions Judge-Cum-VII Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar' The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the said offences, are hereby set aside arrd he is found not guilty of the said offences and therefore, acquitted of the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be returned to him' Miscellaneous Petitions' pending if any' shall stand closed. sd/- M. RAr,nA-srtt?HXA 6 IITRUE COPY'I SECTION OFFICER To, I 1 2 3 The Special Sessions Judge-Cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mahabubnagar. The Station House Officer, Uppununthala Police Station' Mahabubnagar Dist' presently Nagarkarnool District' Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor' High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad.IOUT]

4. One CC to Sri V' Raghava Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies VIVPSL I l ( ( _-:a::::=::.-:: ,/.-./<,rt- ,t,-r,: , zl."a\\ o ?0 P? 5E D.....- ffi; ' ,,/ -/ .)/ HIGH COURT DATED: 2Z\OTtz\Zs ( t JUDGIVIENT GRLA.No.BZt ot 2018 ALLOWNG THE APPEAL q\r(