AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Instant criminal petition has been preferred under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973), for quashing of Crime being No.103 of 2024 of Dharmavaram I Town Police Station, Sri Sathya Sai District, registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 120-B read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “I.P.C.”), and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, “SC/ST (POA) Act”).
Second respondent lodged a written complaint with the police, contending inter alia that he is a driver by profession. He has two sons, namely, Birru Rajesh and Birru Sampath Kumar (younger son-deceased). Birru Sampath Kumar completed his LL.B. degree and was practising as an Advocate at Hindupur Court. He was working as National Secretary of National Students’ Union of India (NSUI) and was in charge of Kerala State NSUI wing.
It is further contended therein, Birru Sampath Kumar (deceased) and D.A. Srikanth are residents of Hindupur and are good friends. It was alleged that there were disputes between petitioner (A.1) and his family members with D.A.Srikanth in respect of land situated at Melapuram Cross, Hindupur. Birru Sampath Kumar (deceased) supported his friend D.A. Srikanth in the said dispute. It was also alleged that some false complaints were foisted by petitioner against Birru Sampath Kumar and D.A. Srikanth. It was further alleged that the deceased was threatened over phone by one Ramanji @ Settlement Ramanji (A.4) and others. On 29.05.2024 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased informed complainant that he was going to Court. On 30.05.2024 at about 9.00 a.m., friends of Birru Sampath Kumar informed complainant that his son was found dead on Dharmavaram - Ellutla Road. Upon coming to know the said information, complainant went to spot and saw dead body lying in thorny bushes near Dharmavaram irrigation tank, II Water Flow Point.
It was further alleged in complaint that deceased had hacking injuries on left side of his face, back of his neck and on right and left hand. It was further alleged in the said written complaint that complainant had suspicion over petitioner (A.1), his family members, Settlement Ramanji (A.4), and Narendra (A.5), alleging that they had killed his son and dumped his dead body in bushes. Based on the above said written complaint, dated 01.09.2024, the police registered a case in Crime No.189 of 2024.
Several grounds were raised in the criminal petition. However, at the time of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been falsely implicated in this crime and had no connection with the alleged offence.
It is the positive ground before this Court that provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act are not at all applicable to present case, because the deceased did not belong to a Scheduled Caste.
It is contended that the deceased is not a Hindu by religion but had embraced Christianity and therefore, not a scheduled caste person. He was cremated as per Christian rites and customs and so also his brother had died in March 2004. Thus, the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act are not applicable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shajan Skariah v. State of Kerala1, Akkala Rami Reddy v. State of A.P.,2 Learned counsel also argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chinthada Anand v. State of Andhra Pradesh3, has observed that a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste, upon embracing Christianity, would cease to be treated as a member of Scheduled Caste unless and untill he re-converted to his original religion to which his parents and earlier generations are belonged.
Learned counsel for petitioner also placed on record certain photographs and a news article to show that the deceased has already embraced Christianity and he was cremated as per Christian rites. Thus, registration of a case against the petitioner under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act is not maintainable and the same is liable to be quashed.
During argument, learned counsel for the petitioner also filed a memo containing inter alia that a certificate issued by the Secretary of C & I.G. Mission Church, Hindupur, which reads as under:
“we hereby certify that BIRRU SAMPATH KUMAR, S/o.B.Rajasekhar and his family adopted baptism decades back and have been members of C & IG Mission Church. They regularly offer prayers every Sunday without fail. Birru Sampath Kumar, unfortunately passed away on 29 May, 2024. He was cremated as Christian rights and customs in C & IG Mission Church Burial Ground on 31 May, 2024.”
During argument, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has also placed a statement recorded by the police in respect of the said certificate issued by the Secretary, C & I.G. Mission Church. It appears from the statement that the Secretary stated to police that he had not issued the said certificate and that signature appearing thereon does not belong to him. He has also mentioned in his statement that Birru Sampath Kumar was working as an advocate at Hindupur, that he was not a member of church and that he was not attending the church. He also stated that he does not know whether Birru Sampath Kumar had taken baptism or whether he had converted to Christianity.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that aforesaid statement had been procured by the police by exerting pressure upon the Secretary of C & I.G. Mission Church.
On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased belonged to a Scheduled Caste community and that petitioner was well aware of his caste. Thus, the provisions of Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act are applicable to the facts of present case.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chinthada Anand (supra 3).
A coordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with a similar issue, quashed the a crime registered under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act on the ground that, as victim has embraced Christianity, he could not come under the purview of SC/ST (POA) Act.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in analysing the issue in the case of Chinthada Anand (supra3) has held that,
“58)As far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the caste certificate is concerned, we are of the view that mere possession of the certificate will not be of any benefit to the appellant. The said caste certificate is mandatorily required to be in consonance with the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In this regard, we place reliance on the decision of this Court in K.P. Manu vs. Scrutiny Committee for Verification of Community Certificate4, wherein a Division Bench had laid out three mandatory tests to be established by a person who claims to be a beneficiary of a caste certificate:
“38.In our considered opinion, three things that need to be established by a person who claims to be a beneficiary of the caste certificate are: (i) there must be absolutely clear-cut proof that he belongs to the caste that has been recognised by the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950; (ii) there has been reconversion to the original religion to which the parents and earlier generations had belonged; and (iii) there has to be evidence establishing the acceptance by the community. Each aspect according to us is very significant, and if one is not substantiated, the recognition would not be possible.” (emphasis supplied)
59)From the above, it is clear that the administrative action of the State in providing the caste certificate to the appellant cannot be in disharmony with the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950. In the present case, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellant, having ceased to be a member of the Madiga community upon his conversion to Christianity and having failed to establish any subsequent reconversion, does not satisfy the mandatory Constitutional requirement for claiming the status of Scheduled Caste.
WHETHER THE HIGH COURT WAS RIGHT IN QUASHING PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENT NOS. 2 TO 7?
A. Offences alleged under the SC/ST Act
60)At the very outset, it must be unequivocally stated that the offences registered under the SC/ST Act against respondent nos. 2 to 7 at the instance of the appellant cannot be sustained. Having already held that the appellant ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste community upon his conversion to Christianity, he cannot subsequently invoke the provisions of the SC/ST Act. The said statute is a special legislation enacted with the avowed object of preventing atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and once the foundational requirement of caste status stands extinguished, the statutory protection thereunder is no longer available.
61)Therefore, we are of the view that the High Court was right in holding that the appellant has ceased to be a member of the Scheduled Caste on his conversion to Christianity. Accordingly, the appellant cannot be a person aggrieved under the SC/ST Act.”
In cases before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chinthada Anand (supra 3) as well as in Akkala Rami Reddy (supra2), prosecution has already filed charge sheets invoking the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act. In this particular case, investigation of police is still in progress and charge sheet of the case is yet to be submitted. Though the petitioner has raised the issue regarding issuance of certificate by the concerned church, the prosecution has placed the statement of the Secretary of the Church denying the issuance of such certificate. Whether the said statement of Secretary of the church would be made part of charge sheet, or not, we cannot presume at this stage. Moreover, the investigation is going on. At this juncture, it would be too early to predict regarding the materials which may be collected and produced by prosecution in this case with the final report.
Thus, in my view it would be justified to hold that the issue raised by the petitioner be kept open to be decided at appropriate stage. As the investigation is yet to be completed, it is not desirable for this court to pass appropriate order on this issue.
Accordingly, in view of the above instant criminal petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this criminal petition shall stand closed.