The High Court · 2025

9. S.Laxma Reddy (A-9), S/o.Late Narayana Reddy R/o.Keshavaram '10. Smt.Poreli Narsamma (A-10), Wo.Narsa Reddy R/o.Kolthur ...Appellants/Accused Nos. 1 to 10 AND State Of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court Hyderabad. ...RespondenUComplainant Counsel for the Appellants : Sri. D. Sangeetha Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Sri M. Vivekananda Reddy Assistant Public Prosecutor I The Court delivered the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1239 0F 2012 This appeal is filed by the appellants/Al to A10 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Special. Sessions Judge-cum- Add'itional District & Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District, in S.C.No.127 of 2012, dated 10'12'2012' for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989' and further' A1O is also found guilty for the offence under Section 342 of the Indial Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a frne of Rs'500/- each; A10 is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs'1,000/- for the offence under Section 342 of lhe Indian Penal Code.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellalt and Sri M'Vivekananda Reddy,learnedAssistantPublicProsecutorfortherespondent-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that one Giripally Narsaiah (not examined) belongs to Madiga, a scheduled caste' and his brother' Sailu died long back. Giripatly Eshwaraiah (PW'l)' Giripally Sattaiah (PW.2), Giripally Narsimha (PW.4), and Giripally Ramesh (PW'5) are the sons of late Sailu. Giripally Narsiah had no issues and he I I 2 adopted PW.5. Smt.Giripally Lalitha (PW.3) is the wife of PW.5. There are two pieces of agriculture land admeasuring 24 guntas in Survey no.349 lA, held by Narsaiah and his brother Sailu. PW. I and Pw.2 are cultivating the 11 guntas of land inherited from their father. PW.S was looking after the agriculture work in the land of Narsaiah. In the said land, there is one agriculture bore well for u,hich electricity connection was taken from electric pole. PW.S also erected arl electrical wire fencing, using poor quality insulated electric wire. As there was no insulation to the wire, one buffalo and one person named Mallareddy, came in contact with the electrical wire fencing and died due to electrocution. On knowing about the electrocution, A1 to A10, who are the close relatives of the deceased Mallareddy, attacked Giripally Narasaiah, PW. I and other family members. A1 to A10 abused them in the name of their caste and alleged that they were responsible for the death of Mallareddy, and beat them with hand and fists. A10 tied PW.3 to a tree with her saree. Narsaiah and PW. 1 were forced to register their lald in the name of A9. Accused also forcibly got registered the land admeasuring 24 guntas 1n Sy.No.349/A belonging to Narsaia-h and 11 guntas of land in Survey No.349/AA belonging to Late Sailu, at Sub-Registrar's office, \ 3 Shameerpet. As per the medical certihcate, Narsaiah was not able to use left hip joint. Thus, accused are liable for punishment'

4.TheAssistantCommissionerofPolice,AlwalPoliceStation' frled charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 3(l)(v)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and under Section 323 of IPC.

5. The victims are PW. 1 and PW.2, whose property, according to the prosecution, was transferred in the name of A9' However' both PWs.1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution case' PWs'4' 6' 7 ' a' 9, and 1O also did not support the case of the prosecution and all of them were declared hostile to the prosecution case'

6. The only evidence is that of PW'3' who is a victim and according to her, she aIlixed her thumb impression in the proceedings that had taken place, where the buffalo and the deceased Mallareddy, were electrocuted and died' According to PW'3' pws.l and 2 transferred their lands in favour of A9. PW.3 further deposed that A1O tied her to a tree, stating that Pw'3 will not be let off, unless the property is transferred 4

7. Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act, reads as foilows: '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 u,ith intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;" B. The case of the prosecution is that PWs. 1 and 2 were wrongly dispossessed from their land and the appellants interfered with enjoyment of their rights in the land. PWs. 1 and 2 themselves turned hostile to the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellants on the basis of evidence of PW.3. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the appellants have wrongfi.rlly I disposse-ssed PWs. 1 and 2 from their property, the conviction of the appellants under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act cannot be sustained. PW.3's evidence that she was tied to a tree by A1O is consistent. However, PW.3's statement that A10 threatened her, was proved to be an omission. Though PW.3 has given an exaggerated version, however, tying PW.3 was not stated by her at the earliest 5 point of time. PW.3 did not state about any abusive language used by any of the appellants. g. In the said circumstances, the appellants are acquitted under Section 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of the SC/STs (PoA) Act. Insofar as conviction of Accused No.1O under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the sarne is confrrmed. However, keeping in view that A10 is a rvoman and the incident happened when the close relative of A10 died due to electrocution in the freids of PW'3's husband, i.e., PW.5, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside.

10. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Since the appellants/Al to A10 are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K, SRINIVASA RAO NT REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER To, District. l The speciar Sessions Judge-cum-Additionar District and sessions Judge, ^ at L B Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. (With records) 2. The Station House Officer, Shameerpet police Station, .Ranga Reddy 3. Two CCs to public prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana at 4. One CC to Srr. D Sangeetha Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 5. Two CD Copies Hyderabad (OUT) DL/gh 1/y I I HIGH COURT DATED:171O21202!; JUDGMENT CRLA.No.1239 of2012 r)* 1HE SLq 14: 2 4 liAr 2025 (4( : (.) J -(.,c'i.1,-.,. PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL APPEAL w-,iiria'