THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2123 of 2004 BETWEEEN: The Public Proseuctor … Appellant AND Gori parthi Gandhi & 3 others. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2123 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The State filed this appeal questioning order of acquittal of A1 to A4/respondents 1 to 4 recorded by the lower Court of the offences under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act (in short, the Act) and Section 323/34 I.P.C. PW1 is a person belonging to Madiga Caste. PW5, Mandal Revenue Officer gave Ex.P4 caste certificate of PW1 to that effect. PW2 is daughter of PW1. A1 to A4 belong to Yadava caste. PW1 married A1’s brother and they have children. Husband of PW1 died on 01.04.2000. It is alleged that the accused and PW1’s husband entered into a document under which 15 cents of land and house site of 30 cents were given to PW1’s husband and that after death of PW1’s husband, the accused occupied the said properties forcibly and that on 24.04.2000 at about 3:00 P.M., when PWs 1 and 2 went to house of the accused at Guduru and questioned them, all the accused abused them touching their caste as Madiga bitches and beat them with hands indiscriminately in the house. Plea of the accused is one of not guilty. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs 3 and 4 turned hostile to the prosecution, even though they are stated to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. PW6, who is the Doctor who examined PWs 1 and 2 and gave Exs.P5 and P6 wound certificates, deposed that there were no visible injuries on them. There is no proof of the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. in this case. 2. It is a property dispute between the family members. In order to prove an offence under Section 7(1)(d) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused either insulted or attempted to insult the victim belonging to Scheduled Caste on the ground of untouchability. The incident occurred inside house of the accused. Mere utterances of Madiga bitches will not attract the offence under Section 7(1)(d) of the Act. It is not the prosecution case that the victims were asked to go out of the house on the ground of untouchability. In the circumstances, the lower Court rightly recorded acquittal of the accused in this case. 3. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ______________________________ JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU Dt:21.12.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2123 of 2004 Dt:21.12.2011 ysk