Back
2007 Supreme(AP) 22
2007(2) L.S. 44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH : : AT HYDERABAD
Present:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice
M.Venkateswara Reddy
Vennapusa Gangireddy
@ Sadhu & Ors., ..Appellant
Vs.
The State of A.P., ..Respondent
CRL.A.No.650/03
Date:5-1-2007
Mr.D.Sudershan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant.
Public Prosecutor for Respondent.
Headnote:SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULE TRIBES ACT (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989, Sec.3(1) (xiv) - PW.1, de facto complainant contested for post of Sarpanch and lost election - Successful candidate belongs to Mala community - Complaint lodged that P.W.1 and others prevented from carrying on bhajans in Siva temple and thus prevented from using temple a “place of public resort” - Trial Court convicting accused for offence publishable u/Sec.3(1) (xiv).
“Public resort” - Meaning of - A place of public resort is a place where few people can gather even though there is no legal right to do so - Place of public resort as employed in Act would take within its meaning a public temple also - Shiva temple in which commission of offence allegedly committed is considered to be a public temple, people belonging to all casts are using it for worship.
In this case, it is very much doubtful whether offence as alleged had taken place - If accused verbally demanded them to go out of temple it is a different thing - If they pushed P.W.1’s group it can be taken note of seriously - But evidence does not show that any quarrel took place between both groups - Even if incident is true, false implication of some at least must be there, in view of fact that P.W.1 was defeated in Sarpanch post just two months prior to alleged date of commission of offence - Except ipsi dixit of P.W.1 and his followers P.Ws. 2 to 4 there is no other independent evidence let in, in this case - Credence cannot be given to evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4.
Provisions of Act are given overriding powers over other laws - Punishment prescribed is serious and heavy - Therefore, standard of proof required in case of this type is very heavy - Mere allegations of two or three witnesses belonging to one group cannot be trusted, that too when there evidence is ridden with contradictions - Evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4 is doubtful as to accused throwing their musical instruments and locking temple - Accused are entitled to benefit of doubt - Hence, acquitted - Conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court, set aside - Appeal, allowed.
The fifteen appellants herein are A-1 to A-15 in Special Sessions Case No.38 of 2002, on the file of the learned 1-Additional Sessions Judge, Kadapa. They were all convicted for the offence under Section 3 (1) (xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the Act’) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years each and also pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- each, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three months. They are questioning the said conviction and sentence in this
appeal.
2. The accused and the de facto complainant as well are residents of Thuadumadinne of Khajipet mandal in Kadapa District. There is one Siva temple constructed by one Subbi Reddy and the temple is being run by him. The accused belong to Congress Party while the de facto complainant P.W.1 Chatla Kondaiah and others belong to Telugu Desam Party. PW - 1 contested for the post of Sarpanch against one Bushanam two months prior to the date of alleged commission of offence in this case, which is 24-11-2001. P.W-1 lost the election. The successful candidate Bushanam belongs to Mala community while PW-1 and others belong to Madiga community.
3. As per the prosecution case, on 24-11-2001, when PW-1 and others were performing bhajans in the aforestated Siva temple, all the accused entered into the temple, scolded PW-1 and others in the name of their caste and threw away the bhajan instruments such as harmonium, tabala, cymbals etc. PW-1 lodged a complainant - Ex.P-1 and after completion of investigation, the accused were charge sheeted. Thus, the sumum bonum of the prosecution case is that PW-1 and others were prevented from carrying on bhajans in Siva temple and thus they were prevented from using the temple a place of public resort and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1) (xiv) of the Act.
4. At this juncture, Section 3(1) (xiv) of the Act, to the extent relevant, shall be quoted for proper appreciation.
“(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,
xxxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx
xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe any customary right of passage to place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to;
xxxxxx
Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine”.
5. On appreciation of the material placed before it, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced all the accused, as stated supra.
6. The learned counsel for the appellants / accused addressed arguments elaborately. The points raised by him are:
1) A temple is not a place of public resort to fall within the ambit of Section 3(1) (xiv) of the Act;
2) Under the Rules framed under the Act, an offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police while the person who investigated into this case is the Sub-Inspector of Police and thus, an officer who is not competent to investigate had carried out investigation in this case and the same vitiates the proceedings;
3) Admittedly, there are two groups in the village, one group belong to Telugu Desam Party and the other group belonging to Congress Party and the case is foisted against the Congress party people by Telugu Desam Party people as PW-1 admittedly lost the election for the Sarpanch post in the Panchayat elections held two months prior to the alleged date of commision of offence and he wanted to wreak vengeance of his defeat against the accused that way and the case is a false one.
7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecuto
