The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : SRt. K RAMA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : pUBLIC PROSECUTOR Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI y SUBHASH The Court delivered the following: JUOGMENT THD HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V.VENUC"OPAL CRIMINAL APPEAL t{o.339 oF 2()14 WDGMENT: The present criminal appeal is preferred by the appellant/ complainant aggrieved by the judgment dated 29 'Ol '2014 in Special SC No.Ol of 2Oll on the file of the learned Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-Vl Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad wherein and whereby the said Court u'hile acquitting the accused/ 2"d respondent for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act found him guilry for the offence punishable under Section 5O6 Part-I of IPC' convicted under Section 235(21 of Cr.P.C., and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.S,OOO/- and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six mon ths.

2. Heard Sri K'Rama Subba Rao learned counsel for the appellant, Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.l/State and Sri Y.Subhash, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on the evening of l3.ll.2oloataroundls.30hours,whilethecomplainantGunti Srikanth/ appellant/PW 1 was present at his tent house along with his elder brother Gunti Matlikarjun/Pw2 an-d friends Bommerla Pase 2 of 7 Suresh/PW3 and Mohammed Azmal*t, the rrccused / D.Arun Kumar f 2,\d respondent herein, in a drunken state, ttejpassed into the premises holdrng tuo empty beer bottles. He began abusing the appellant, PW2 and PW3 by referring to their ::rste and using derogatory language, broke the bottles, kicked the tatle and chair and issued scrious threats to them, further using obscen,: language. When they questionc.d his behavior, the 2nd respondenl escalated the situation by continuing his verbal assault, creating panic among those present, PW4, who tricd to pacify the 2"d respondent ,,v-as also abused with filthy language. The 2"d respondent then peltr:c a stone at the house o[ PW 7. r\iarmeci, his wiie called pW7, who ar.rLved shortiy and witnessed the <:ontinued abuse. The accused thrr:atened pW 7, demanding th:rt PWs l and 2 vacate the MaJgL or face dire consequenccs. l.lvcnluall.v, the wives of the 2nd fesporrc eht arrived and took him back inlo lhcir house. The incident was also v,itnessed bv pW 5, Sri Raju YadzLv and others. 4- Basing on the above facts, the appe.lant lodged a complaint on 1.1- I l.20 10 $'ith the police. Accordingiv, FIR No.433 of 20IO was registered for the offences punishable under Seclions 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs P()A Act arnd Sections 323 and 506 of IpC against the 2n(r responclent /ac--cr-rsccl. Upon completion of investigatrcn, the police laid chargc sheet against thc accused alleging that thr: accuscd abused PWs. 1 to 3 by naming their caste and also threatened wittr dire consequences and thereby committed the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act and 323 and 506 of IPC' The trial Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and 506 of IPC and upon completion of procedural formalities, commenced. the tria1, during which PWs' 1 to 1 1 were examined and Exs.Pl to P9 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The 2'd respondent/ accused denied the prosecution's allegations and claimed that being a member of a Scheduled Caste, the provisions of the SCs and STs (POA) Act were not applicable to hirn' In support of his defence, the accused examined DWs.1 to 3 and marked Dxs'D1 to D7. Upon considering the evidence adduced on either side, the trial Court. while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 5o6 Part-I of IPC, convicted him and sentenced, aS Stated

5. Aggrieved by the trial Cor'rrt's decision acquitting the 2"d respondent/ accused of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, the de-facto complainant/appellant preferred the present criminal appeal. The main contention is that the trial Court erred in rejecting the Memo hled by the prosecution along with the school certificates of the accused's children, which clearly indicated Pase 4 o[ 7 his caste as Mudiraj and not SC (Mala). It is argued that the trial Court failed ro properly appreciate the evidence. including the integrated cert ihcate details issued by the Gover-rrinent of Andhra Pradesh, and wrongly concluded that the accused br:longed to the SC (Maia) categorl.. The trial Court also overlooked thr: rejection of the accused's application for SC (Mala) caste certihcate, .,hich q,as based on an enquiry rcport by the rcvenue authorities corrfi.rming his caste as Mudiraj/BC(D). Furthermore, the Court erred in stating that the prosecution failed to prove the accused,s BC(D) st r.1_us, despite the legal position that the burden lies on the person assrerting Scheduled Caste status. The accuseci ciid not produce atr1. document to substantiate hrs claim of belonging to SC community. It is also contended that the investigation was dehcient in rLct coilecting the caste certificatr. of the accused, thereby weakening :he prosecution case and diluting the gravity of the offence. TtrLrs stating it is requested to allow the criminal appeal and to punislr the accused for the offence under Section 3(l)(x) of SCs & STs (pOl.f Act apart from conhrming the <:onviction awarded against the accus()c, for the offence under Section 506 Part-I of IpC. 6- On the other hand, learned Assistant Fublic prosecutor and the learne<l counsel for the respondent No.2 tave vehemenfly contended that lhe criminal appeal hled by the de-facto complainant is devoid of merit and liablc to be dismissed' The trial Court' after a thorough appreciation of oral and documentary evidence' rightly acquitted the 2'd respondent/ accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act apart from convicting the accused for the offence under Section 506 Part-l of IPC' The prosecution's reliance on school records and documents pertaining to the children of the accused to prove his caste is misplaced and legally insufl'icient' as such records are not conclusive proof of the caste status of the parent' Further, the rejection of a caste certificate application does not amount to a judiciat determination of caste ln the absence of any conclusive documentary or authoritative evidence proving that the accused does nor belong to SC community, the invocation of Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act does not sustain' The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 filed Memo vide USR No 7981 of 2O25' dated 04.Oa.2025 along with copy of caste certificate of the accused' issued by the Governmcnt o[ Telangana, Revenue Department in Form IIIA declaring the caste of the accused as Mala-34(SC)' Basing on the above caste certihcate, Iearned counsel for the complainant and the learned Assistant hrbtic Prosecutor veLremently contended that in view of the fact that the accused. belongs to SC community' invoking the provisions of the said Act cannot withstand tl.e legal scrutiny' v_l l'agc 6 of 7

7. Upon hearing the rival contentions rrlr.anced on either side, upon perusal of the trial Court record includi.ll the t-,vidence and impugned judgment, and the grounds raised in 1l c prcsent appeal, this Court finds no substantial error or perversirr in the judgment passed by the trial Court. The trial Court has riglrtly evaluated the evidence, incltrding oral testimonies and documen :;: ry records, and arrived at the r:onclusion rhat the prosecution [ailr.< ,o establish that the accused does not belong to a Scheduled Casrr Thc documents relied upon b-y the appellant, such as school r:::rlificates of the accused's children and the rejection of the accused,s rpplication for SC certillcate. do n6r qcrn5litutc conclusivc pi-oof of t.ersir ulrtler Iaw. The tria-l court has correctly herd that the burden lies.rr the prosecution to prove the r.aste shtus of the accuscd, partictrtarll/ when the applicability of the SCs and STs (pOA) Act is in cluesrion. In the absence of any legally admissible and conclusive t_.r,irjc.rce l.o establish that the accused belongs to the BC(D) community. rro fault can be found with the trial Court's reasoning. Further, thc ,rlleged lapses in investigation, such as failure to collect the accused,s t:aste certificate, is not suflicient to reverse the well reasoned l-rndings,>f the trial Court and to establish the cssential ingredients of the offe,r:t: uncler Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (pOA) Act. Further, thc acc-rr;ed, by hling a copy of his caste certihcatc along with the Memo refel r r:ri to above, has clearly establishr:d that he belongs to a Schedul<:d (tiLste c.mmunitv. .\ Pagc 7 of 7 In view of the same, this Court hnds no reason to interfere with the well-reasoned hndings of ttre trial Court. Accordingly, this Court frnds no merit in the appeal, and tJ e same is liable to be dismissed.

8. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed Interlocutory applications, if any, pending, stand dismissed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY'/ SECTION OFFICER To, 1- The Special Judge for Trial of Offences under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum VI Additional lt/letropolitan Sessions Judge, Secunderabad

2. One CC to SRl. K RA^/A SUBBA RAO Advocate [OPUCI s 8*Bcqto THE puBlrc pRosECUroR, HIGH couRT, HyD [ourl 4. One CC to SRl. Y SUBHASH Advocate IOPUCI I 5. Two CD Copies PSL fY .'-:: -: i-:=- .r i,r/ri,._-t:i Iicil?ffi \1 - t.),. .!: '' ,\'.}' ';' l \ ,l I -r/ )-' HIGH COURT DATED:04/0812025 JUDGMENT GRLA.No.339 of 2014 /a

1., l. -, 1. ) r.",' \., DISMISSING THE CRLP t ,P(d S+':