The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in Akkala Rami Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, quashed criminal proceedings under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the accused, ruling that the complainant, being a practising Christian and a Pastor, could not invoke the protective provisions of the Act. Justice Harinath N. held that conversion to Christianity severs Scheduled Caste status and the complainant had misused the statute.
Background
The petitioners were accused in a case registered under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, along with Sections 341, 506, and 323 read with 34 of the IPC. The case was based on a complaint dated 26 January 2021, lodged by the second respondent, a Pastor in Pittalavanipalem village, Guntur district. He alleged caste-based abuse and threats to his life during and after Sunday prayer meetings.
Petitioners’ Submissions
Counsel for the petitioners contended that the complainant, being a Christian Pastor, could not claim the status of a Scheduled Caste under the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950, which restricts SC status to persons professing the Hindu faith (and certain allied religions). They relied on precedents including:
- Chinni Appa Rao v. State of A.P. (2016 1 ALD (Cri) 545)
- C. Selvarani v. Special Secretary–cum–District Collector [AIR Online 2024 SC 793]
The petitioners also argued that the complaint was a misuse of the protective legislation and lacked sufficient corroboration under IPC provisions.
Respondent’s Submissions
The second respondent’s counsel contended that the caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar (listed witness no. 12) recognised him as Hindu-Madiga, a Scheduled Caste, and therefore, the complaint under the Atrocities Act was maintainable. It was further submitted that the investigation had resulted in a charge sheet supported by multiple witness statements and medical evidence of simple injury.
Reliance was placed on Kurapati Maria Das v. Dr. Ambedkar Seva Samajan [2009 LawSuit (SC) 624] and Mohammad Sadique v. Dabar Singh Guru [(2016) 11 SCC 617], to argue that caste is a matter of birth and conversion does not automatically extinguish caste identity.
Observations of the Court
The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the complainant’s religious identity, noting:
“The defacto-complainant has been serving as Treasurer of Pastors Fellowship in Pittalavanipalem Mandal. In order to become Pastor one has to essentially convert to Christianity. Evidently the 2nd respondent is a Christian professing Christianity.”
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the Court reiterated that:
“A convert ceases to have any caste.”
It added:
“The caste system is alien to Christianity. Having converted to Christianity and admitting his role as a Pastor in a Church the 2nd respondent could not invoke the provisions of the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.”
The Court emphasised that:
“Mere non-cancellation of the caste certificate… cannot instil the protection granted under the Protective Legislation.”
It concluded that the 2nd respondent had ceased to be a Scheduled Caste member on conversion and misused the Act.
On IPC Allegations
The Court also found insufficient corroboration for charges under Sections 341, 506, and 323 read with 34 IPC. Statements of witnesses lacked consistency regarding the alleged altercation. The Court held:
“With these allegations, the requirements under Sections 341, 506, 323 read with 34 of IPC cannot be made out even after full-fledged trial.”
Decision
Holding that the complaint was a misuse of protective legislation, the High Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed Spl. S.C. No. 36 of 2021. It observed:
“No purpose would be served if the petitioners are relegated to the trial Court and to undergo the rigmarole of trial.”
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also closed.
