The court upheld the conviction under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, confirming that the accused's actions constituted an insult to a member of a Scheduled Caste in public view.

JUDGMENT :

Sole accused in Sessions Case No.39 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Prakasam division, Ongole, is the appellant in the present Criminal Appeal.

2. The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act").

3. The substance of the charge is that, the accused, on 4^th day of February, 2007, at about 02.00 pm, at the bus stand centre of Podalakuntapalli village, intentionally insulted and abused the de facto complainant namely Kalva Nageswara Rao, Auto Driver, by touching his caste as “ARE MADIGA NA KODUKULAKU IKKADA YEMI PANIRA” and intimidated him with intent to humiliate him, within the public view, thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

4. After completion of trial, learned Special Judge convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees One Hundred only), in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one week.

5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused is Reddy by caste and PW.1, who is an Auto driver, is Madiga by caste, which comes under Scheduled Caste community. Both of them belong to Podalakuntapalli village. On 04.02.2007, at about 02.00 pm, when PW.1 was sitting in his auto at bus stand centre of Podalakuntapalli village, the accused is alleged to have gone there and abused PW.1 by touching his caste stating that in Panchayat elections, having received sarees, blouses and cash, they voted in favour of his opposite candidate and the accused spit on PW.1. Further, the accused is also alleged to have abused wife of PW.1 in filthy language and threatened him with dire consequences. The same was witnessed by PWs.2 and 3 and LW.4 – M. Siva Reddy. The further case of the prosecution is that, previously about one week prior to this incident, the accused abused PW.1 in the same manner at Racharla Gate Centre of Giddalur, which was witnessed by PW.4. Based on the Ex.P1 report given by PW.1, PW.6, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Giddalur Police Station registered a case in Crime No.17 of 2007, for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sent the copies of FIR to all concerned. Ex.P4 is the original FIR. PW.7 – the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Markapur, conducted investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined PWs.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. He prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence Ex.P5. He obtained caste certificate of PW.1 under Ex.P3 and after completing investigation, he filed charge sheet.

6. The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Giddalur, after filing charge sheet, took cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and numbered the same as PRC No.16 of 2007. On appearance of the accused, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session and later the same was numbered as SC No.39 of 2007 and made over the case to the Court of the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989, Prakasam Division, at Ongole, for disposal.

7. On appearance of accused, charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was framed, contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. On behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P5 were marked.

9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied.

10. No witnesses were examined nor were any documents marked on behalf of the accused.

11. The learned Special Judg