PALIKA SRINIVASA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both the learned counsel on record.

(2.) Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, the learned counsel representing the petitioner-accused would contend that in the light of the documents which are placed before the Court, it is clearthatthe 2nd respondent is a Christian and Christian would not fall under Scheduled Caste, so as to attract the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Act". The learned counsel also pointed out the relevant offence and had drawn the attention of this Court to Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and would maintain that the certified copies of proceedings and decrees in relation to matrimonial proceedings being public documents, they can be looked into and inasmuch as the fact that the 2nd respondent is a Christian, having been clearly established, the dismissal of the discharge application by the learned Judge cannot be sustained.

(3.) On the contrary, the learned Public Prosecutor would maintain that in the light of the reasons recorded in detail by the learned Judge, these aspects need further proof and these are all matters to be considered at the appropriate stage and hence the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever.