State Of A.P vs Rayaneedi Sitharamaiah & Ors

The remaining twenty nine persons of the police case and other accused persons of the complaint case were acquitted of the charges.

4. Prosecution case in short was that since long time past dispute was going on between two communities, viz., Kammas and Madigas [Harijans] in village Karamchedu. Members of the Kamma community were having grievances against the Madigas as they were not giving due regard and not extending courtesy to them which was being extended since time immemorial. During assembly elections, members of Kammas community supported Telugudesam Party and the Madigas Congress Party. The immediate cause for the incident was that on 16.07.1985 at 3.00 pm A-69 took his cattle to fresh water tank at Madigapalli, which is commonly known as Madiga Kunta, and when he was taking out water therefrom for drinking of buffaloes, the same was protested by Chandraiah [PW-21], upon which he was given a beating by A-69. At that time, Munnangi Suvartha [PW-20], who was also present there, protested whereupon A-69 assaulted her also and at that point of time Pandiri Nageswara Rao [PW-76] intervened and pacified the matter. Feeling humiliated, A- 69 informed about the incident to his brother-in-law Rayaneedi Prasad [A-1]. Both of them went to Madiga Kunta and started abusing PW-76, who is nobody else than brother-in-law of PW-20. At that time A-1 and A-69 were pacified by PW-76, thereupon A-1 and A-69 went to the house of PW-20 along with Pothina Thirupathaiah [A-27] and others and abused and assaulted her [PW-20]. On the intervention of PW-76 the matter was again pacified. A-1, A-69 and their relatives who belonged to Kamma community felt humiliated and they wanted to teach a lesson to the Madigas with the help of their caste-men.

6. A First Information Report [hereinafter referred to as `FIR'] was lodged in which the police upon registration of the case took up investigation and upon completion thereof submitted chargesheet against ninety four accused persons whereupon a complaint was filed before the learned Magistrate in which apart from ninety four accused persons against whom chargesheet was submitted names of seventy more persons were disclosed who were not sent up by the police. Learned Magistrate took cognizance in both the cases and summoned accused persons of both the cases and they were committed to the Court of Sessions to face trial.

23. Thus, we are of the view that the order of acquittal passed by the High Court in relation to the aforesaid sixteen accused persons of Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999 acquitting them of the charge under Section 148 I.P.C. cannot be said to be perverse in any manner.

25. In the result, Criminal Appeal No. 356 of 1999 against respondent Nos. 19, 25, 28, 35 and 48 is held to have abated in view of the fact that they died during the pendency of appeal and the appeal is dismissed against Respondent Nos. 3, 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 26, 30, 34, 38, 39, 43, 44, 49 and 50. The appeal against the remaining twenty nine respondents is allowed, the impugned order of acquittal passed by the High Court acquitting them of the charge under Section 148 IPC is set aside and the order of their conviction under Section 148 recorded by the trial court is restored. Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 1999 in relation to respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 is held to have abated in view of the fact that they died during the pendency of this appeal and the appeal filed against respondent No. 1 is dismissed so far as charge under Section 302 I.P.C. is concerned but allowed in relation to charge under Section 148 I.P.C., the judgment of acquittal rendered by the High Court in relation to the charge under Section 148 I.P.C is set aside and his conviction under Section 148 I.P.C. recorded by the Trial Court is restored. But so far as appeal in relation to respondent no. 5 is concerned, the same is allowed, the impugned order passed by the High Court acquitting him of the charges under Section 302 and 148, IPC is set aside and the order of Trial Court convicting him under Section 302 and 148, IPC is restored. Bail bonds of the said respondents of Criminal Appeal Nos. 356 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 357 of 1999 in relation to whom conviction recorded by Trial Court has been restored, are cancelled and they are directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence for which the matter must be reported to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. The other respondents of these appeals are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. Criminal Appeal No. 358 of 1999 in relation to respondent nos. 1, 3 and 15 is held to have abated in view of the fact that they died during the pendency of this appeal. The appeal in relation to the remaining seventeen respondents is dismissed and they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds.

26. In view of the afore-mentioned order passed in the appeals, it is not necessary to pass any further order in the Special Leave Petition [Crl.] Nos. 3788-90 of 1998 which are accordingly disposed of.

[G.S. SINGHVI] December 19, 2008 NEW DELHI.