HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4023 of 2009 Date: September 30, 2010 Between: P. Anjibabu … Petitioner And 1. The State of A.P., rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and 3 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.4023 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is originally accused of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 509 IPC in crime No.178 of 2008 of Tuni Town Police Station when FIR therein was registered on 28.10.2008. Subsequently, the police added Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 also to that crime and investigated into the same. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet in P.R.C. No.4 of 2009 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Tuni against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, “the Act”) and Sections 324, 323 and 509 IPC. The petitioner’s counsel questioned propriety of adding Section 3(i) (x) of the Act by the police subsequently in this crime. 2. Originally the second respondent gave report to the police on 28.10.2008 alleging that he was beaten by the accused on his head when he questioned the accused about his going to the place where his adopted daughter, the 4th respondent, was residing after death of her husband and misbehaving with her. Subsequently, the respondents 2 to 4 put together gave a representation to the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District against the accused alleging that on 29.10.2008 evening the accused came from Kakinada Police Station and shouted at the third respondent who is wife of the second respondent and that the accused abused the third respondent as untouchable ‘Madiga’ bitch and also claimed that he gave Rs.10,000/- to the police and he was let off and challenged as to what they would do now. When the said representation was forwarded to the police station, the police added Section 3(i)(x) of the Act in this crime. 3. There are two incidents here, one relating to the offence covered by report dated 28.10.2008 and the subsequent representation after 29.10.2008. Though the police should have registered a subsequent event after registration of the original crime, as a separate case, had chosen to incorporate the subsequent offence also in the original crime as the subsequent event is a continuation of original event covered by report dated 28.10.2008. 4. It is contended by the petitioner’s counsel that there is inconsistency with regard to the fact as to when the second respondent received injury from the accused in both the original report and the subsequent representation and that it cuts at root of the original report. The inconsistency in the allegation regarding the second respondent sustaining injury has to be explained by the prosecution during trial. At this stage I do not find that adding of Section 3(i)(x) of the Act to the case is not in any way illegal, as subsequent representation given by the respondents 2 to 4 to the Superintendent of Police contain a subsequent event of the accused insulting and abusing in the name of ‘Madiga’ caste. Truth or falsity of the said allegation cannot be decided by this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is for the trial court to decide the same after recording entire evidence to be let in by the prosecution as well as the accused and after appreciating the said evidence before the court. I do not find any legal or valid reasons to come to the conclusion that charge sheet filed by the police against the petitioner/accused is abuse of process of law. 5. Hence, the petition is dismissed. ___________________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Date: September 30, 2010. BSB