134441

BAIL SLIP: The AppellanU Accused was directed to be released on bail by the order

of the High court dated 05-12-2011 in crl.A.tvl.P,No.2109 ol 2O11 in Crl.A.No.l3BB

of 201 1.

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

IUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 1388 OF 2011

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. aggrieved by the Judgment dated

22-09-2011 passed in SC.No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Special

Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Act cases at Nalgonda.

Between:

Kunde Mahender, S/o Ailu Mallaiah, Age:29 years, Occ: Agriculture R/o

Bahupeta Village,

...AppellanUAccused

AND

State of A.P. Rep. by its Public Prosecutor, at Hyderabad.

...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. Triveni, Amicus Curiae, appearing for

Sri A. Dattanand

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri D. Arun Kumar,

Additional Public Prosecutor

The Gourt delivered the following: JUDGMENT

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TI: -ANGANA

AT HYDERABAD

THE HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI :ADA

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1388 of 2011

Date'.07.0+.2026

Between:

Kunde Mahender

Appell, rnt /Accused

And

State of Andhra Pradesh,

Rep. by Public Prosecutor

At Hyderabad.

Res pondent

JUDGMENT:

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appe I ant-accused

aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by:he Special

Sessions Judge cum Additional Districi Judge, N:rl ;onda, vide

judgment dated 22.09.201 1 in SC No 69 of 2009.

2. The case of the prosecution is that t^ > de facto

complainant, who is a resident of Vangapalli Villagr: is a Ward

Member of Bahupeta village and the accused is a rrr i,lent of the

Bahupeta village. lt is alleged that on 16.04.2009 at about 12.00

noon, the de facto complainant and his wife Shoba Rar were going

to polling station arranged in a primary school, Bahupet r, in order to

casi their votes in the General Elections. When they r:;rched near

ETD,J

the compound wall of the said school, the accused restrained them

not to cast their votes in Bhupeta village on a plea that they have no

house in the village. Then, the de facto complainant has informed

the accused that he has no vote at Vangapalli village and being a

Ward Member he had to cast his vote in Bahupeta village and on

saying so, he tried to get into the polling booth, but the accused,

keeping previous political grudge in mind, picked up a quarrel with

him, beat him with a stick indiscriminately and gave fist blows by

abusing him in the name of caste, in the public view. He has also

threatened the de facto complainant with dire consequences that he

would see his end. As such, the de facto complainant has lodged the

complaint against the accused. Basing on the said complaint, Crime

No.91 of 2009 in Yadagirigutta porice

station, is registered against

the accused for the offences under Sections 341 , 324 and 506 lpC

and Section 3(1)(vii) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short SC & ST Act,).

After completion of investigation, the police filed charge sheet

against the accused for the said offences.

2.1 . The Speciat Sessions Judge for SC/STs (pOA) Act at

Nalgonda, has heard the accused on charges and the accused has

2

ETO,J

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, he wa s tried for the

said offences

2.2. During the trial, the prosecution has exanir,=d PWs l to

9 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 to substantiate its ca;e. No oral

evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence, but E ; . D'l-porton of

the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 was marked

2.3. On hearing both the counsel and on a1t r.eciating the

evidence on record, the trial court has found the ac: rsed guilty of

the offences under Sections 3(1Xvii) of SC & ST Acl, Sections 324

and 506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC i ST Act and

accordingly, convicted the accused for the said tffences and

sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for:ix (6) months

and to pay fine of Rs.5,0001, in default of payme rt of fine. to

undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the tffence under

Section 3(1 )(vii) of the SC & ST Act; to un<i :r go rigorous

imprisr-,nment for six (6) months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in

default of payment of fine, to undergo simple impriso rment for one

month for the offence punishable under Section 324 lF C and further

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months : nd to pay fine

of Rs.5,000/- in default of payment of fine, to I r clergo simple

imprisonment for one month for the offence under Se ction 506 lpC

J

EfD,J

C.I.A No 1188 o12011

read with Section 3(1Xx) of SC and ST Act, and directed to run all

the sentences concurrently. Aggrieved by the said judgment of

conviction and sentence, the present appeal is prefened by the

appellant.

3. Since there is no representation on behalf of the appellant-

accused on many occasions, Amicus Curiae was appointed to argue

the matter on behalf of the appellant

4. Heard NIs. Triveni, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for

the appellant and Sri D. Arun Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the respondent-State

5. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant has

submitted that the alleged incident has not taken place in the public

view and that the scene of offence is outside the compound wall of

the polling booth and that there was no public witnessing the alleged

incident and hence, the offences under SC & ST Act do not get

attracted. He further has submitted that the entry to the polling booth

would be guarded by the police whenever polling takes place and

that the general public would be under the surveillance of police.

Therefore, the question of the appellant obstructing the de facto

complainant to enter into the polling booth, would not arise. and

4

EID,J

hence, the said offence cannot be alleged against tre appellant.

She further submitted that PW.5 has admitted i I his cross

examination that he had political rivalry against the ac< used. Thus,

his evidence cannot be considered and that pWs.2

to { have turned

hostile and not aided the case of the prosecutior. She further

submitted that no weapon is recovered from the scr,r e of offence

and therefore, without there being any weapon seizer and without

any grievous injuries on the de facto complainant, the rgredients of

Section 324 IPC do not get attracted against the appel rnt and thus,

the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ofie nces against

the appellant. Hence, he prayed to set aside the r;,nviction and

sentence recorded by the trial court against the ap: :llant and to

acquit the appellant.

6. The learned Additional Public prosecutor

l- as submitted

that the incident is alleged to have been occurred on a rublic road in

front of the polling booth and that it is very much wit in the public

view and hence, the atrocities under SC & ST r\;t would get

attracted once the offence is committed within the ptrl lic view. He

further submitted that the evidence of pWs.1

t r 5 is well

corroborated, which proves the case of the prosecutic I against the

appellant. The de facfo complainant was obstructed Ir, the accused

)

ETO J

in front of the polling booth, stopping him to cast his vote and

abusing him in filthy language by taking the name of caste and also

has threatened him and the same is deposed by PWs.1 to 5

uniformly. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal by upholding

the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court

7. Perused the record

B. Now, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal

are

1. Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt

of the appellanlaccused for the offences under

Sections 3(lXvii) of SC & ST Act, Sections 324 and

506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST

Act?

2. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the

trial court are sustainable in laur anci under the facts?

3. To what relief?

9 POINT No.1:

The case of the prosecution is that the appellant-accused has

obstructed PW.1-de facfo complainant while entering into the polling

booth to cast his vote, so as to prevent him from casting his vote and

further has abused PW.1 in the name of cast and also threatened

him with dire consequences. PW.1 stated in his evidence that the

accused has beaten him with a stick and also abused him in filthy

6

language in the name of caste. The specific words of abuse are

elicited frcm the evidence of PW.1, which indicate the rbuses in the

name of caste. PW.1 has deposed that PWs.2 to 5 i ad witnessed

the incident. ln his cross-examination, PW.1 admitted

,rat

there was

police bandobasth at the entrance of the primary ,;;hool

i.e. the

polling booth and also that the police will not allow an y political party

people or any others within the radius of 100 yards :f the polling

booth. lt is further elicited from him that the accused lt :at him on his

back with stick while he was proceeding towards thr> polling booth

and is away for about 2 to 3 steps to the polling bool r and that he

has not sustained any bleeding injury. lt is elicited frrt n him that he

has not seen the kind of stick and that he had lodgerl the complaint

on the next day of the alleged incident and further, vr ren the police

came to the scene of offence, he has not given any cc r rolaint though

the police met him.

10. PW.2 is the wife of PW.'l . Her evidence cc,r oborates that

of PW.1 and it is elicited that she accompanied her r tsband to the

polling booth to cast her vote.

11. PWs.3 and 4 are the witnesses to the a lrged incident.

PW.3 turned partially hostile. pW.3

stated that he rad seen the

accused beating PW.1 with a stick and that he rescred pW.1

and

7

EfD,J

C A.No.1383o11011

went away, but he has not heard the abuses made by the accused in

the name of caste. Nothing was elicited in his cross-examination on

being declared hostile

12. PW.4 has totally turned hostile stating that the accused

and PW.'1 picked up quarrel with each other when both of them went

to exercise their franchise and that he separated them. But, he

failed to reveal any details as to the occurrence of the incident

However, the evidence of PWs.3 and 4 supports the case of

prosecution to the extent that there was quarrel between PW.1 and

the accused and that the accused beat PW.1 with a stick

13. PW.5 is an eye witness to the incident and he

corroborated the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. He narrated the entire

incident as to the accused raising objection for casting vote by PW.1

since PW.1 is a resident of Vangapalli and PW.1 disputing the said

objection and that the accused abusing PW.1 in the name of caste

and also beating him with a stick. Thus, occurrence of the alleged

incident is proved by the prosecution to the extent that there was an

altercation between PW.1 and the accused when PW.1 went to cast

his vote. The abusive words are also narrated by PWs.1 ,2 and 5

8

9 EfD.J

14. pW.6,

who is the Tahsildar, has isste d the caste

certificates of pU/.1

and the accused under EX; p3

and p4,

respectively, revealing that pW.

1 belongs to SC Mliiga and the

accused belongs to BC_B Kurma caste.

15. All the witnesses stated uniformly that re scene of

offence is in front of the poiling booth and the date ol :ffence is on

the day of general elections. Thus, the scene of of -.nce is very

much a pubric prace. rt is arso ericited from pw.1

tha: t is a pofiing

booth and it is under police bandobasth. Therefore, rt can be said

that the afleged incident has occurred in the pubric vre'and hence,

the offence under Section 3(1)(vii) and 3(1)(x) of SC arr ST Act gets

altracted against the appellant.

16. None of the witnesses stated with regard r the threats

posed by the accused as against pW.1.

lt is only p\A/:

.1 ,2 and S,

who have spoken in support of the prosecution case. I ie evidence

of PW.1 also does not point out anything with regard r the threats

made by the accused i.e. the victim himself has fai r cl to speak

anything about the areged threat posed by the accuse c. So arso

PWs 2.and 5 have not deposed anything with regard tt the alleged

act of threatening committed by the accused. Therefore ,,

the offence

under Section 506 lpC is not proved against the accuserr . As far as

t0

efD.l

the offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, the said section is

extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

"324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or

means.-

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334,

voluntanly causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting,

stabbrng or cutting, or any rnstrument which, used as weapon of

offence, is lkely to c€use death, or by means of fire or any heated

substance, or by means of any porson or any corrosrve substance, or

by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance

which it is deletenous to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to

recerve into the blood or by means of any animal, shall be punished

with rmprisonment of either descflption for a term whrch may extend to

three years, or with fine, or with both "

17. A perusal of the injury certificate-Ex. P5 discloses that the

injuries on the de facto complainant are simple in nature. PW.7

Doctor, who issued Ex.P5, has stated that the injuries are simple in

nature and might have been caused by a blunt object. Therefore,

the offence does not fall under Section 324 lPC. lt is pertinent to

take note of the fact that no weapon is seized in this case. The

witnesses PWs.1, 2 and 5 has stated that the accused has used a

stick to beat PW.1. No such stick is recovered during the course of

investigation. ln the absence of recovery of any weapon and in the

absence of any evidence with regard to causing grievous injuries on

the body of PW.1, the offence under Section 324 IPC does not get

attracted. Hence, the offence under Section 324 IPC is not proved

ll

ETD,J

Ctt-A.No 1 388 ot 2011

beyond reasonable doubt. However, the evidence rs to the extent of

causing simple hurt to PW.1 as he is proved tc have sustained

simple injuries and the evidence of Doctor asserts tt- I same. Hence,

the offence under Section 323 lpC is attracted agai-;t the appellant.

Thus, it is held that the prosecution could prove the ,)ffences under

Section 323 IPC 3(1)(vri) and 3(1)(x) of the SC & St .Act. point

No.1

is answered accordingly.

18. POINT No.2:

Hence, in view of the above findings at )oint No.1 , the

accused is found guilty of the offences under Sec:i rn 323 lpC and

Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(vii) of Scheduted Caster; and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and that he is rr rl found guilty of

the offences under Sections 324 and 506 IpC. Tht; the appellant_

accused is acquitted of the offences under Sectio rs 324 and 506

lPC. But, the trial court convicted the accused or the offences

under Sections 324, 506 tpC 3(1)(vii) and 3(1)(x :f the SC & ST

Act. Hence, the conviction and sentence passed ry the trial court

needs to be modified. point

No.2 is answered acccr I ngly.

19. POINT No.3:

ln the result, the Criminal Appeal is parfly ur owed modifying

the conviction against the appeilant-accused from th r offences under

To,

Sections 3(1Xvii) of SC & ST Act, 324 tp} and Section 506 tpc

read with Section 3(1)(x) of the SC and ST Act to that of the offences

under Section 323 tpc and Sections 3(i)(vii) and 3(1Xx) of the SC

and ST Act. The appellant is sentenced:

a) to pay a fine of Rs 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to

undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence

under Section 323 lpC;

b) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six (6) months and to

pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to

undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence

under Section 3(1)(vii) of SC and ST Act; and

c) to undergo rigorous intprisonment for six (6) months and to

pay a fine of Rs.5,0001 in default of payment of fine, to

undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence

under Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act.

The sentences of imprisonment are directed to run

concurrently.

Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

SD/- K.SRINIVASA RAO

JOINT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

1 . The Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (pOA) Act cases at

Nalgonda.

2. The Superintendent, District Jail, Nalgonda.

3. The Station House Officer, Yadagirigutta police

Station, Nalgonda District

4. One CC to Sri A. Dattanand, Advocate tOpUCl

6

5. Two CCs to the Public Prosecutor, High Court for the ll 3te of Telangana at

Hyderabad. [OUT]

6. Two CD Copies

KAM/PSL

h?

&

HIGH COURT

DATED: 07t04t2026

JUDGMENT

CRLA.No.13BB ot 2011

PARTLY ALLOWING THE CRLA

r)

ilt

\c./t

L

(

rIe

,ti ,

e

\s\

o

lr $\

.()

n

l

I:,'

fl$t +

(

t

d

I

,lh