High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 89 OF 2Ol2 JUDGMENT: This appeal is hled by the appellant/Al aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special Judge for Tiial of Cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act-cum=VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad, in S.C.No.O1 of 2OI1, dated I8.OI.2OI2, for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989, Section 3(a) of Protection of Civit Rights Act, 1976 and under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. A2 and A3 were found not guilty for the said offences.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Asst.Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.

3. The case against the appellant is that on O6.O6.2010 at 9.30 A.M., PW. I along with his newly wedded wife and sisters went to the Yellamma temple. There, the appellant herein and two others abused him in ftlthy language by taking his caste name and uttered as follows: "Ore Takua Kulam Mala Munda Koduka Neelat Emi Arhatha Undira, Guditoki rauadaniki" (You, louter caste bastard, gou do not haue ang ight to enter the temple.) 2 Further, A1 stabbed PW.1 in the stomach ald kicked him with legs.

4. Complaint was lodged at 4.OO p.m. on the same day. Complaint-Ex.Pl was registered under Sections 324 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 (1) (x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act. The Police concluded investigation and filed charge sheet under the above provisions ald also under Section 3(a) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act.

5. PW. I narrated regarding the incident that PW.2 is the newly wedded wife'of PW. 1 and on 06.06.2010 at about 9.00 A.M., he along with his wife and two sisters went to Yellamma temple to perform pooja. There Al stopped them, abused them in the name of caste. PW.3-sister of PW. 1, is the eye-witness and corroborated the version of PWs. I and 2.

6. PW.4 is the scene of offence panchanama witness, who witnessed the seizure of the knife at the instance of A1.

7. PW.s issued FIR basing on the complaint and PW.6 conducted investigation. The successor of PW.6 namely Mohd.Zafer Javid filed charge sheet. if{ 3

8. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a delay of nearly 7 hours in lodging the complaint. The delay is not explained. Further, the counsel argued that one Zafer J avid filed charge sheet who was not authorized to investigate and pW.6 who is the SDPO (Sub-divisional Police Officer) without any authorization, handed over the investigation to the said Zafer Javid, as such, the investigation is void for not following rule-7 of the SC/STs (PoA) Rules, 1995.

9. Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, reads as follows: "3. Punishments for offences atrocities.-3 [(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;"

10. Section 3(a) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, reads as follows: "3 . Punishment for enforcing religious disabilities.- Whoever on the ground of "untouchabili!/ prevents any person- (a) from entering any place of public worship which is open to other persons professing the same religion or any section thereof, as such person;" 4 1 1. PW. t has narrated as to what transpired in the temple when he went there along with his newly wedded wife and two sisters. PW.3-sister of PW. 1 also corroborated the version of PWs.1 and 2. The argument of the learned Counsel that there is a delay in lodging the complaint has no relevance in the present facts of the case. The incident happened at 9.30 a.m., ald at 4.OO p.m., PW. 1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. The delay in present facts is of no consequence, since PW. 1 was newly wedded, he was humiliated when he went to the temple and also injured with the t<nife. pW. t then went to the doctor, got himself treated. Ex.P5 is the wound certificate. In the wound certificate it is mentioned that there is an incised wound on the abdomen, however, the injury was simple in nature.

12. l,earned Counsel relied on the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in Rajeeoan and q.nother o. Stdte of Keralat. The Honourable Supreme Court was dealing with a case of the High Court reversing acquittal order of the trial Court. In the facts of the said case, the Honourable Supreme Court found that the delay of 12 hours in lodging the complaint was not explained and fatal to the prosecution case. '1zoo3;3 supreme court cases 355 t I 5

13. The facts in the present facts differ. The other ground raised by the learned counsel is that under Rule-7 of the SC/STs (poA) Rules, 1995, only the SDPO (Sub-divisional police Officer) was authorized to investigate. As seen from the evidence of pW.6, he had taken up investigation, conducted scene of offence panchanama, examined witnesses and thereafter, the appellant and another were arrested. His successor namely Mohd.Zafer Javid arrested A.3 and thereafter concluded investigation. It is not in dispute that Mohd.Zafer Javid is also SDpO (Sub-divisional Police Officer) of the area. The charge sheet reflects that Mohd.Zafer Javid is also SDPO, Bodhan. SDpOs are authorized to investigate into the cases of offences under SC/ STs (poA) Act. Filing of charge sheet by Mohd.Zafer Javid is not in violation of Rule-7 of the SC/STs (PoA) Rules, 1995.

14. For the aforesaid reasons, there are no grounds to interfere with the findings of the learned Special Sessions Judge. However, the sentence of imprisonment under Section 3(l)(x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, is reduced to six months. The conviction and sentence under Section 324 of Indian penal Code and Section 3(a) of the Protection of Cirril Rights Act, are maintained. 6

15. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal IS partly allowed. Since appellant is on bail, the concerned Court below is directed to cause appearance of the appellant and send him to prison to serye out the remaining part of the sentence. I To //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR c ON OFFICER '1. The Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs Act Cum Vlll Additional 2 J 4 E District Judge, Nizamabad (With Records) The Judicial First Class Ma gistrate, Banswada, Nizamabad District The Station House Officer Birkur Police Station, Nizamabad Distri ct One CC to S ri D.Bhaskar Reddy , Advocate (oPUC) Two CCs to Public prosecu tor, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 6. Two CD Co Ks/PR (ouT) v / I HIGH COURT DATED:0710212025 JUDGMENT CRLA.No.89 of 2012 S: \\ Q. \,. 30 APB . 7t2 ]! a. ( cTA Partly allowing the Gr!.A. E/t I /