Safiya Malik

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Single Bench of Justice Harinath N, quashed a criminal case invoking the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against a group of petitioners. The Court held that the de facto complainant, who had been working as a Pastor for over a decade, had converted to Christianity and therefore ceased to be a member of a Scheduled Caste, disqualifying him from invoking the protective provisions of the Act.

The petitioners were arrayed as accused in Special S.C. No.36 of 2021 before the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-SC/ST Court, Guntur. They faced charges under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2) (va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 and Sections 341, 506, 323 read with 34 of IPC.

Also Read: “Courts Can Modify Arbitral Awards Only in Limited Circumstances”: Supreme Court by 4:1 Allows Narrow Intervention Under Sections 34/37 of Arbitration Act

According to the complaint filed on 26.01.2021, the second respondent alleged he was abused by the accused with caste-based slurs over the phone and was physically assaulted during Sunday Prayers conducted at the house of one Doma Koti Reddy. He claimed to be a Pastor conducting Sunday Prayers for the past ten years, attended by 20 to 30 people.

The petitioner contended that the second respondent was a Christian Pastor, and thus not eligible to invoke the SC/ST Act. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950 was cited to argue that any person not professing Hinduism is not considered a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decisions in C. Selvarani v. Special Secretary-Cum-District Collector and Chinni Appa Rao v. State of A.P., asserting that conversion to Christianity excludes one from the SC category.

It was argued that the FIR itself is an abuse of the process of law, as the complainant had ceased to be a Scheduled Caste member. Additionally, it was stated that there was no corroborative evidence for the IPC allegations, rendering the charge sheet unsustainable.

In contrast, the second respondent maintained that he belonged to Hindu-Madiga caste and produced a caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar (LW.12). The respondent's counsel contended that the allegations were supported by multiple witness statements and that the case must proceed to trial for proper adjudication.

The second respondent relied on judgments including Kurapati Maria Das v. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajan and Mohammad Sadique v. Dabara Singh Guru to claim entitlement to caste status despite professing another faith. It was submitted that "a person can change his religion and faith but not the caste, to which he belongs, as caste has linkage to birth."

Justice Harinath N recorded that: "Only a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe can invoke the provisions of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act."

The Court meticulously reviewed the complaint and witness statements: "As seen from the recitals of the complaint and the statements of the material witnesses it is amply clear that the 2nd respondent is working as a Pastor and has been professing Christianity for the last 10 years as on the date of the complaint."

The Court stated that to serve as a Pastor, one must convert to Christianity: "In order to become Pastor, one has to essentially convert to Christianity. Evidently the 2nd respondent is a Christian professing Christianity. Having converted to Christianity, the petitioner cannot continue to be a member of Scheduled Caste community."

The judgment further stated: "The SC ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a protective legislation introduced for preventing atrocities against members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the present case, the 2nd respondent has misused the Protective Legislation though he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of the Act."

Regarding IPC charges, the Court observed: "Except for the statement of LW.1 there is no other corroborating statement of any of the witnesses."

"With these allegations, the requirements under Sections 341, 506, 323 read with 34 of IPC cannot be made out even after full-fledged trial."

The Court distinguished the cited decisions and clarified that the present case does not involve any dispute over conversion: "There is no dispute about the faith in Christianity by the 2nd respondent."

"Mere non-cancellation of the caste certificate by the authority to a person who has converted into Christianity cannot instil the protection granted under the Protective Legislation."

Also Read: “Delhi HC: Compassionate Appointment an Exception, Not a Right | No Relief for COVID Victim’s Son as Family Received ₹50 Lakh Corpus, ₹40K Monthly Pension”

The Court explicitly quashed the criminal proceedings: "Accordingly criminal petition is allowed and Spl.SC. No.36 of 2021 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge – Cum – SC, ST Court, Guntur is hereby quashed."

It further noted: "During the pendency of the present case Accused No.5 passed away."

Pending miscellaneous petitions were also ordered to be closed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri J.V. Phaniduth

For the Respondents: Learned Public Prosecutor; Sri Satheesh Kumar Eerla

Case Title: Akkala Rami Reddy & Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Another

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7114 of 2022

Bench: Justice Harinath N

[Read/Download order]