Smt. A. Neeraja

Fair 1 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs/STs (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:SMT. A. NEERAJA,

Special Judge for trial of

cases under SCs/ST (POA) Act-cum- III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR.

Tuesday, the 21st day of April, 2026

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE No. 133 OF 2022

Nameofthe:The State through Assistant Co Complainant/Statemmissioner of Police, Godavarikhani. (Crime No. 68 of 2022 of Manthani P.S.). Name of the Accused:A.1Appala Raj Kumar @ Raju, S/o. Komuraiah, Age: 25 yeas, Caste: BC-D (Yadav), R/o. H.No. 5-41/D, Eklaspur village of Manthani mandal.

A.2Appala Komuraiah, S/o. Parvathalu, Age: 42 years, Caste: BC-D (Golla), R/o. H.No. 5-41/D, Eklaspur village of Manthani mandal. A.3Appala Rajakka @ Rajamma, W/o. Komuraiah, Age: 40 years, Caste: BC-D (Golla), R/o. H.No. 5-41/D, Eklaspur village of Manthani mandal. A.4Appala @ Bethu Srilatha @ Sahasra, W/o. Sridhar, D/o. Komuraiah, Age: 22 years, Caste: BC-D (Yadav), R/o. H.No. 5-41/D, Eklaspur village of Manthani mandal. Now at Rajapur village of Ramagiri mandal.

Fair 2 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022

Charges:Under Sections 290, 417, 420 and 376 (2) (n) and 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.1, under Sections 290 read with 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to 4 and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.2 to 4.

Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty” Finding of the Court:“ Not guilty”

Sentence or order:Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 417, 420 and 376 (2) (n) and 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 290 read with 34 of IPC and Accused No.2 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

Prosecution:Sri A.R. Srinivas, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar. Accused defended by:Sri B. Murali Manohar, Advocate, Karimnagar.

This Special Sessions Case came before me on 21-4-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. R. Srinivas, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and of Sri B. Murali Manohar, Advocate

for Accused No.1 to 4, having been heard and stood over for consideration

till this day, the Court delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Godavarikhanihas laid the

Charge Sheet against in Crime No. 68 of 2022 of Manthani P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 417, 420 and 376 (2) (n) and 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act,

Fair 3 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022 2015 against Accused No.1, under Sections 290 read with 34 of IPC against

Accused No.1 to 4 and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.2 to 4.

2.AVERMENTS OF THE CHARGE SHEET

The case of the Prosecution as disclosed from the Charge Sheet is as follows:

That on 6-4-2022, at 17:00 hours, the defacto complainant by name, Kannam Rajeshwari @ Priya who belongs to SC (Madiga) community lodged a complaint before the Police stating that she is resident of Eklaspur village of Manthani mandal, that about two years back she got acquaintance with Accused No.1 and thereafter, both of them fell in love with each other and decided to marry. She stated that thereafter on 31-3-2022, at about 20:00 hours, Accused No.1 took her to his house to persuade his parents and intimated about their marriage proposal, then his parents asked her about her community and when she replied that she belongs to SC (Madiga) community, Accused No.2 to 4 who are parents and sister of Accused No.1 abused her in filthy language with her caste name as “Gee madigadhe dorikinda” and Accused No.4 made her to deposit Rs.1,00,000/- in her account and used her by all means and as such she was in distress mood, but Accused No.1 convinced her and took her to his room in Manthani and there they stayed amicable for about two days and later, he has abused her with her caste name as “Nuvvu madiga dhanivi neevu naaku vaddu”, beat her with hands and broken her phone and left her. Therefore, the defacto

Fair 4 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022 complainant requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the said complaint, P. Chandra Kumar, Sub Inspector of Police, Manthani P.S. (L.W.23) registered the case in Crime No.68 of 2022 for the offences under 290, 323 and 417 read with 34 of IPC and

Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and issued

First Information Report.

4. Subsequently, as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of

Police, Ramagundam in C.No.06/GDK/C2/CCRB/RGM/2022, dated 6-4-2022,

S. Giri Prasad, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Godavarikani (L.W.24) took-up further investigation of the case, visited the scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form-I in the presence of Samudrala Suresh Kumar (L.W.11) and Samudrala Srinivas (L.W.12) and also prepared Crime Details

Form-II in the presence of Gudimalla Satyanarayana (L.W.13) and Bandi

Mahesh (L.W.14),examined and recorded the statements of witnesses under the videography of Lyshetti Naresh (L.W.10), Indarapu Pushpalatha,

Tahasildar (L.W.18)has issued caste particulars of L.W.1 and Bandi Prakash,

Tahasildar (L.W.19) has issued caste particulars of Accused No.1 to 4.

5.On the requisition of Police, Dr. R. Bhagya, Lady Medical Officer (L.W.17) has examined the victim (L.W.1) and issued Medical Certificate and after receipt of report from the F.S.L., Hyderabad, she has issued final opinion as “as per F.S.L., report, there is no evidence of recent sexual intercourse, but physical examination of the victim, the hymen is not intact, evidence that she has sexual intercourse previously.

Fair 5 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022

6.During the course of further investigation, on 20-4-2022, at 09:30 hours, L.W.23 has apprehended Accused No.1 at I.O.C., Petrol Pump,

Manthani and produced him before L.W.24 and on interrogation, Accused

No.1 voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence, then L.W.24 effected the arrest of Accused No.1 and produced him before the Court for judicial remand and later on the requisition of Police, Dr. N. Showraiah, Civil

Assistant Surgeon (L.W.20) has conducted Potency Test on Accused No.1 and issued report stating that “there is nothing to suggest that Accused

No.1 cannot perform sexual act”. On 28-4-2022, Accused No.2 to 4 surrendered before L.W.24 and on the requisition of Police, Smt. Moola

Swathi, Addtional Junior Civil Judge-cum-Additional Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Manthani has recorded the statement of the victim under

Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and G. Hari Prasad, Nodal Officer, Reliance JIO

Infocom Limited has furnished CDRs and CAFs of Accused No.1 and victim and also issued certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.

7.The investigation conducted by L.Ws.23 and 24 revealed that

Accused No.1 with false promise to marry her, enjoyed her sexually for several times, but later refused to marry her and that he along with his family members i.e., Accused No.2 to 4 intentionally insulted her by lowering her caste. After completion of entire investigation, L.W.24 has filed

Charge Sheet for the offences under Sections 290, 417, 420 and 376 (2)

(n) and 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.1, under Sections 290 read with

Fair 6 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to 4 and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.2 to 4.

8.COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES

This Court took cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 290, 417, 420 and 376 (2) (n) and 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.1, under Sections 290 read with 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to 4 and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015 against Accused No.2 to 4.

9.FURNISHING OF COPIES

On appearance of Accused No.1 to 4, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

10.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED

On appearance of Accused No.1 to 4, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 417, 420 and 376 (2) (n) and 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.1, under Sections 290 read with 34 of IPC against

Accused No.1 to 4 and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.2 to 4 were framed, read over and explained the same to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

Fair 7 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022

11.EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.s 1 and 4 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 4.

12.P.W.1 (K. Rajeshwari) is the defacto complainant-cum-victim and she deposed that about two years back, on one day, she went to Police

Station on her work, at that time Police obtained her signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers. She further deposed that she do not know the contents of complaint and Police not examined her. She further deposed that she gave her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., before L.W.21 at the instance of her relatives and that she do not know the contents of 164 Cr.P.C., statement.

13.P.W.2 (M. Banamma) is relative of P.W.1 and P.W.3 (I. Krishnaiah) is a circumstantial witness and they deposed that they do not know anything about this case and Police not examined them and not recorded their statements.

14.P.W.4 (K. Rani, the then Woman S.I., of Police) deposed that on the instructions of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Godavarikhani (L.W.24), she has recorded the statement of P.W.1 under the videography of L. Naresh (L.W.10).

This is the evidence on record in brief.

Fair 8 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022

15.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF CR.P.C.

After closure of Prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to 4 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, for which they denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

16.ARGUMENTS Heard both sides.

17.Perused the record.

18.The point for determination is :

Whether prosecution has established the guilt for the offences under Sections 290, 417, 420 and 376 (2) (n) and 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.1, under Sections 290 read with 34 of IPC against Accused No.1 to 4 and under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused No.2 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

19.P O I N T

According to the Prosecution, Accused No.1 who belongs to BC-

D (Yadav) community has cheated P.W.1/victim who belongs to SC (Madiga) community with his deceitful words on the pretext of love and marriage and on the said pretext, he has enjoyed her sexually for several times and later when she asked him to marry her, he along with his family members i.e., Accused No.2 to 4 refused stating that she belongs to SC (Madiga) community and Accused No.1 also voluntarily caused simple hurt to the victim by beating her with hands.

Fair 9 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022

20.Since the Prosecution has filed the Charge Sheet against

Accused No.1 alleging that he has cheated P.W.1 with his deceitful words that he loves her and would marry her and on the said pretext, he has enjoyed her sexually and later when P.W.1 asked Accused No.1 marry her, he along with Accused No.2 to 4 intentionally insulted her by lowering her caste and Accused No.1 also voluntarily caused simple hurt to her, the burden is on the Prosecution to establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt. According to the Prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant-cum- victim who set the Law into motion, but she did not support the Prosecution case stating that about two years back, on one day, she went to the Police

Station on her personal work, at that time, Police obtained her signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers and that she do not know the contents of complaint and Police not examined her. She further deposed that she gave her statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., at the instance of her relatives and that she do not know the contents of 164

Cr.P.C., statement. Since P.W.1 failed to support the Prosecution case, she was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross-examined, but nothing favourable to the Prosecution case is elicited and she denied to have stated to the Police as in his statement marked as

Ex.P.2. Hence absolutely there is no evidence before this Court to prove the contents of complaint, complicity of Accused No.1 to 4 in the offence and allegations levelled against them to connect them with the offences.

Fair 10 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022

21.In offences of this nature, the evidence of victim i.e., P.W.1 is crucial, but as stated above, her evidence does not whisper that to connect

Accused No.1 that he has cheated her with false promise to marry her, also enjoyed her sexually for several times and when she asked him to marry her he has voluntarily caused hurt to her and also along with Accused No.2 to 4 intentionally insulted him by busing her with her caste name.

22.The Prosecution has also examined the circumstantial witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3, but both of them in one voice deposed that they do not know anything about this case and Police not examined them. Since P.Ws.2 and 3 also failed to support the Prosecution case, they were declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and were cross- examined, but nothing favourable to the Prosecution case is elicited and they denied to have stated to the Police as in their statements marked as

Ex.P.3 and P.4 respectively.

23.The other evidence available before this Court is that of P.W.4 (W.S.I., of Police) and her evidence is that on the instructions of Assistant

Commissioner of Police (L.W.24), she has recorded the statement of P.W.1, but as stated above, P.W.1 who is the victim herself failed to support the

Prosecution case, hence the interested testimony of P.W.4 is of any avail to the Prosecution to connect Accused No.1 to 4 with the allegations levelled against them.

Fair 11 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022

24.According to the Prosecution, on the requisition of Police, the then Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani (L.W.21) has recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., but the victim who is examined before the Court as P.W.1 stated that she gave her statement

before L.W.21 at the instance of her relatives and that she do not know the

contents of said statement. Hence, 164 Cr.P.C., recorded by L.W.21 is of not helpful for the Prosecution.

25.Since the material witness i.e., P.W.1 who is none other than the victim and P.Ws.2 and 3 who are no other than the circumstantial witnesses failed to support the Prosecution case, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the

Tahasildars, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Doctors and Investigation

Officers, since no useful purpose would be served by examining them.

26.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against

Accused No.1 to 4 for any of the charges framed against them beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby they are entitled for clear acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

27.In the result, Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 290, 417, 420 and 376 (2) (n) and 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015,

Accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 290 read with 34 of IPC and Accused No.2 to 4 are found not guilty

Fair 12 Spl.S.C. No.133 of 2022 for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of

SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 to 4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21st day of April, 2026.

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

P.W.1K. Rajeshwari- NONE - P.W.2M. Banamma P.W.3I. Krishnaiah P.W.4K. Rani, W.S.I., of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1- Nil - Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

Fair 1 Spl.S.C. No.146 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs/STs (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:SMT. A. NEERAJA,

Special Judge for trial of

cases under SCs/ST (POA) Act-cum- III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR.

Monday, the 27th day of April, 2026

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE No. 146 OF 2022

Nameofthe:TheStatethrough Assistant Complainant/StateCommissioner of Police, Huzurabad. (Crime No. 49 of 2022 of Saidapur P.S.). Name of the Accused:Keshetti Sathish, S/o. Shekaraiah, Caste: Vyshya, R/o. H.No. 3-1/1/A, Vennampalli village of Saidapur mandal, Karimnagar district. Charges:Under Sections 290 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty” Finding of the Court:“ Not guilty” Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 290 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution:Sri A. R. Srinivas, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar. Accused defended by:Sri G. Bheema Saheb, Advocate, Karimnagar.

This Special Sessions Case came before me on 27-4-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. R. Srinivas, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri Bheema Saheb, Advocate for accused, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

Fair 2 Spl.S.C. No.146 of 2022 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Huzurabad has laid the

Charge Sheet against the accused in Crime No. 49 of 2022 of Saidapur

P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 290 of IPC and 3 (1) (r)

(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2.AVERMENTS OF THE CHARGE SHEET

The case of the Prosecution as disclosed from the Charge

Sheet is as follows:

That on 22-4-2022, at 10:30 hours, the defacto complainant by name, Moluguri Ilaiah who belongs to SC (Madiga) community lodged a complaint before the Police stating that he is a resident of Vennampalli village of Saidapur mandal and he is eking-out his livelihood by driving an

Auto. He stated that on 3-4-2022, at about 07:00 hours, when he was passing from Gouri Shankar setu kirana shop besides Sarabuddla Venkata

Raju Reddy land premises, small conflict took place in between the accused and said Sarabudla Venkata Raji Reddy in connection tap connection issue for digging the pit and both of them were arguing that the land belongs to them, then the accused asked Raji Reddy as who he is to dig the pit and when he (defacto complainant) interfered, accused questioned as who he is to interfere and abused him in most filthy language with his caste name as “Madiga lanja kodaka goddu kura tine lambidi kodaka cheppu virige dhaaka kodutha” and said incident was witnessed by Ajjala Malla Reddy, Regula Bikshapathi and Ijjagiri Santhosh.

Therefore, the defacto complainant requested to take necessary action.

Fair 3 Spl.S.C. No.146 of 2022

3.Basing on the said complaint, Ch. Madhukar, Sub Inspector of

Police, Saidapur P.S. (L.W.11) registered the case in Crime No.49 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 290 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and issued First Information Report.

4.Subsequently, as per the proceedings of the Commissiioner of

Police, Karimnagar in C.No.220KNR/D3/CCRB/2022, dated 22-4-2022,

K. Venkat Reddy, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Huzurabad (L.W.12) took-up further investigation of the case, visited the scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of Thota Ashok Goud (L.W.7) and Kandi Kondal Reddy (L.W.8), examined and recorded the statements of witnesses under the videography of Ch. Ramesh, P.C. No. 2241 (L.W.9) and on his requisition, G. Sadanandam, Tahasildar, Saidapur (L.W.10) has issued caste particulars of L.W.1 and accused and during the course of further investigation, L.W.12 has completed the formalities of arrest of the accused and after completion of entire investigation, L.W.12 has filed Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 290 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015.

5.COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES

This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 290 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of

SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

Fair 4 Spl.S.C. No.146 of 2022

6.FURNISHING OF COPIES

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

7.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED

On appearance of the accused, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 290 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 were framed, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.s 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 12.

9.P.W.1 (M. Ilaiah) is the defacto complainant and he deposed that about four years back, on one day, when he went to the Police

Station on his personal work, at that time, Police obtained his signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers, he do not know the contents of complaint and

Police not examined him.

10.P.W.2 (R. Bikshapathi) and P.W.3 (K. Yugender Reddy) are circumstantial witnesses and they deposed that they do not know anything about this case and Police not examined them.

11.P.W.4 (T. Ashok Goud) is a panch witness for Crime Details

Form and he deposed that about five years back, on one day, he was

Fair 5 Spl.S.C. No.146 of 2022 going to Kirana shop for purchasing groceries and at that time, Police,

Huzurabad came and obtained his signature (Ex.P.5) on some papers and

K. Kondal Reddy (L.W.8) also signed along with him. He further deposed that Police never conducted any panchanama in his presence and he do not know the contents of Crime Details Form.

12.P.W.5 (K. Venkat Reddy. Assistant Commissioner of Police) is the Investigation Officer and he deposed on the lines of Charge Sheet about the investigation conducted in this case.

This is the evidence on record in brief.

13.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF CR.P.C.

After closure of Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, for which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

14.ARGUMENTS

Heard both sides.

15.Perused the record.

16.The point for determination is :

Whether prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 290 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

17.P O I N T

Fair 6 Spl.S.C. No.146 of 2022

According to the Prosecution, when P.W.1 who belongs to SC (Madiga) community interfered in the quarrel that took place between the accused who belongs to Vyshya caste and one Sarabudla Venkata Raji

Reddy on 13-4-2022, at 07:00 hours at Vennampalli village, accused intentionally insulted him by abusing him in filthy language with his caste name as “Madiga lanja koduka goddu kura tine lambidi kodaka cheppu virige dhaaka kodutha” and thereby accused has committed the offences alleged against him.

18.There is no dispute regarding the caste of P.W.1 and accused and Prosecution has established the same through Ex.P.11 and P.12 (caste particulars of P.W.1 and accused).

19.Since the Prosecution has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused with the said allegations, the burden is on the Prosecution to establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt. According to the

Prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant-cum-victim who set the

Law into motion, but he did not support the Prosecution case stating that about four years back, on one day, when he went to the Police Station on his personal work, Police obtained his signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers, he do not know the contents of complaint and Police not examined him.

Since P.W.1 failed to support the Prosecution case, he was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross- examined, but nothing favourable to the Prosecution case is elicited and he denied to have stated to the Police as in his statement marked as

Ex.P.2. Hence absolutely there is no evidence before this Court to prove

Fair 7 Spl.S.C. No.146 of 2022 the contents of complaint and allegations levelled against the accused to prove his complicity in the offence.

20.The Prosecution has also examined the circumstantial witnesses who are examined as P.Ws.2 and 3, but as stated above they also failed to support the Prosecution case stating that they do not know anything about this case and Police not examined them. As stated above,

P.W.4 who is a panch witness for Crime Details Form also did not support the Prosecution case.

21.The other evidence that is available before this Court is that of

P.W.5 (Investigation Officer) and his evidence will be helpful for the

Prosecution if it is supported by the evidence of victim and circumstantial witnesses who are examined as P.Ws.1 to 3, but as stated above, P.Ws.1 to 3 did not state anything connecting the accused with the allegations levelled against him, hence the evidence of P.W.5 alone will not improve the Prosecution case since he is not a direct witness to the offence and as his evidence lacks corroboration. Hence the evidence of P.W.5 is of any avail to the Prosecution.

22.Since the material witness i.e., P.W.1 who is none other than the victim-cum-defacto complainant failed to support the Prosecution case, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses, since no useful purpose would be served by examining them.

Fair 8 Spl.S.C. No.146 of 2022

23.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused for any of the charges framed against him beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby he is entitled for clear acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

24.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of April, 2026.

Special Judge for trial of cases

under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: P.W.1M. Ilaiah- NONE - P.W.2R. Bikshapathi P.W.3K. Yugender Reddy P.W.4T. Ashok Goud P.W.5K. Venkat Reddy, Assistant Commissioner of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P.1Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1- Nil - Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3

Fair 9 Spl.S.C. No.146 of 2022

Ex.P.5Signature of P.W.4 on Crime Details Form Ex.P.6Complaint Ex.P.7First Information Report Ex.P.8Proceedingsofthe CommissionerofPolice, Karimnagarin C.No.22/KNR/D3/CCRB/2022,

dated 22-4-2022

Ex.P.9Crime Details Form Ex.P.10Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.11Caste particulars of P.W.1 Ex.P.12Caste particulars of accused

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Special Judge for trial of cases

under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

Fair 1 Spl.S.C. No.93 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs/STs (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:SMT. A. NEERAJA,

Special Judge for trial of

cases under SCs/ST (POA) Act-cum- III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR.

Monday, the 20th day of April, 2026

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE No. 93 OF 2021

Nameofthe:TheStatethrough Assistant Complainant/StateCommissioner of Police, Karimnagar town. (Crime No. 458 of 2020 of Karimnagar-II town P.S.). Name of the Accused:Bojja Swapna, D/o. Mohan Raj, age: 40 years, Caste: Padmashali, R/o. Flat NO. 402, G.V.K., Plaza, Kothayaswada, Vidya Nagar, Karimnagar Charges:Under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty” Finding of the Court:“ Not guilty” Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and she is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution:Smt. K. Jhansi, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar. Accused defended by:Sri D. Nagaraju, Advocate, Karimnagar.

Fair 2 Spl.S.C. No.93 of 2021

This Special Sessions Case came before me on 16-4-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Smt K. Jhansi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and of Sri D. Nagaraju, Advocate for accused, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following: :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar town has laid the Charge Sheet against the accused in Crime No. 458 of 2020 of

Karimnagar-II town P.S., for the offences punishable Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2.AVERMENTS OF THE CHARGE SHEET

The case of the Prosecution as disclosed from the Charge

Sheet is as follows:

That on 29-10-2020, at 20:20 hours, the defacto complainant by name, Kompelli Ramanjaneyulu who belongs to SC (Madiga) community has lodged a complaint before the Police stating that he is resident of Gattubhutukur village and presently he is residing at

Mankammathota locality, Karimngar and is doing Granite business. He stated that about six months back, accused got introduced to him and she is well aware of his caste and thereby they had good relation with each other. He further stated that out of such relationship, accused made him to believe that she is doing Granite business and she was in need of money for the business and that she will return the amount within few days with interest and believing her words, on 20-8-2020, at 4:00 pm, he gave Rs.2,00,000/- to her near Water Tank at Vidya Nagar, Karimnagar in

Fair 3 Spl.S.C. No.93 of 2021 the presence of his two friends and on receipt of the same, she has executed a Promissory Note to that extent promising to repay the amount within one month. The defacto complainant further stated that after one month, he has requested the accused to return the amount, but she postponed the payment with various reasons. He further stated that on 5-10-2020, at 11:30 hours, he met the accused at Hotel Geetha Bhavan and asked to return the amount and on that she grew angry, abused him in most filthy language as “Madiga nakoduka neekekkadivira dabbulu ichedhi” and also threatened stating that she knows big leaders and she will complain against him with the contents of outraging her modesty and sent him to jail and threatened her with dire consequences to kill him.

Therefore, the defacto complainant requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the said complaint, E. Gopal Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Karimnagar-II town P.S. (L.W.11) registered the case in Crime

No.458 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1)

(r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and issued

First Information Report.

4.Subsequently, as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of

Police, Karimnagar in C.No.96/KNR/D3/CCRB/2020, dated 29-10-2020,

P. Ashok, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar town (L.W.12) took-up further investigation of the case, visited the scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of Gurram Rajamalllu (L.W.7) and Gaddam Srinivas (L.W.8), examined and recorded the

Fair 4 Spl.S.C. No.93 of 2021 statements of witnesses under the videography of Gaddam Srinivas (L.W.6), and on his requisition, G. Sudhakar, Tahasildar, Karimnagar (L.W.9) and Gurram Srinivas, Tahasildar, Gangadhara (L.W.10) have issued caste particulars stating that L.W.1 belongs to SC (Madiga) community and accused belongs to Padmashali caste and during the course of investigation, L.W.12 has completed the formalities of arrest of the accused and after completion of investigation, he has filed Charge

Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015.

5.COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES

This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

6.FURNISHING OF COPIES

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

7.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED

On appearance of the accused, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 were framed, read over and explained the same to her in Telugu, to which she pleaded not guilty and

Fair 5 Spl.S.C. No.93 of 2021 claimed to be tried.

8.EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.s 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 4.

9.P.W.1 (K. Ramanjaneyulu) is the defacto complainant and he deposed that about five years back, on one day, he went to Police Station on her work, at that time Police obtained his signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers, he do not know the contents of complaint and Police not examined him.

10.P.W.2 (E. Gopal Reddy, the then A.S.I., of Police) is the

Investigation Officer and he deposed that on the complaint (Ex.P.3) of

P.W.1, he registered the case in Crime No. 458 of 20020 for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and issued First Information Report (Ex.P.4).

This is the evidence on record in brief.

11.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF CR.P.C.

After closure of Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against her in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, for which she denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence on her behalf.

Fair 6 Spl.S.C. No.93 of 2021

12.ARGUMENTS

Heard both sides.

13.Perused the record.

14.The point for determination is :

Whether prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC,3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act,2015 and issued First Information Report (Ex.P.4) beyond all reasonable doubt ?

15.P O I N T

According to the Prosecution, on the request of accused who belongs to Padmashali caste, P.W.1 who belongs to SC (Madiga) community has advanced loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and on receipt of the said amount, accused has executed a Promissory Note, but later inspite of several requests by P.W.1, accused failed to return the said amount and on 5-10-2020, at 16:00 hours at Mukarampura, Karimnagar, again when P.W.1 asked the accused about the due amount, she did not return the amount as promised and thereby cheated her and further threatened to kill her and to file a complaint against him with allegations of outraging her modesty and also intentionally insulted him by abusing him with his caste name.

16.There is no dispute regarding the caste of P.W.1 and accused and Prosecution has established the same through Ex.P.3 and P.4 (caste particulars of P.W.1 and accused).

Fair 7 Spl.S.C. No.93 of 2021

17.Since the Prosecution has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused with the said allegations, the burden is on the Prosecution to establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt. According to the

Prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant-cum-victim who set the

Law into motion, but he did not support the Prosecution case stating that about five years back, on one day, when he went to the Police Station on his personal work, Police obtained his signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers, he do not know the contents of complaint and Police not examined him.

Since P.W.1 failed to support the Prosecution case, he was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross- examined, but nothing favourable to the Prosecution case is elicited and he denied to have stated to the Police as in his statement marked as

Ex.P.2. Hence absolutely there is no evidence before this Court to prove the contents of complaint, complicity of the accused in the offence and allegations levelled against the accused to connect him with the offences.

18.The other evidence available before this Court is that of P.W.2 (Investigation Officer) and his evidence at best shows that on the complaint (Ex.P.1) of P.W.1, he registered the case and issued First

Information Report (Ex.P.4), but his evidence remained uncorroborated as

P.W.1 who lodged the complaint did not support the Prosecution case, hence the interested testimony of P.W.2 is of any avail to the Prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused in the offence.

Fair 8 Spl.S.C. No.93 of 2021

19.Since the material witness i.e., P.W.1 who is none other than the victim-cum-defacto complainant failed to support the Prosecution case, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses, since no useful purpose would be served by examining them.

20.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused for any of the charges framed against him beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby he is entitled for clear acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

21.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2026.

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: P.W.1K. Ramanjaneyulu- NONE - P.W.2E. Gopal Reddy, A.S.I., of Police

Fair 9 Spl.S.C. No.93 of 2021

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1- Nil - Ex.P.3Complaint Ex.P.4First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

Fair 1 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs/STs (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:SMT. A. NEERAJA,

Special Judge for trial of

cases under SCs/ST (POA) Act-cum- III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR.

Monday, the 20th day of April, 2026

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE No. 158 OF 2022

Nameofthe:The State through Sub Divisional Police Complainant/StateOfficer, Siricilla. (Crime No. 154 of 2022 of Thangallapalli P.S.). Name of the Accused:Sura @ Soora Ramesh, S/o. Pedda Papaiah @ Papaiah, Age: 28 years, Caste: Vaddera, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 6-118, Oddera colony, Thangallapalli village and mandal. Charges:Under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty” Finding of the Court:“ Not guilty” Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution:Smt. K. Jhansi, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar. Accused defended by:Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate, Karimnagar.

Fair 2 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2022

This Special Sessions Case came before me on 16-4-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Smt K. Jhansi, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and of Sri E. Madhusudhan Rao, Advocate for accused, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Siricilla has laid the Charge

Sheet against the accused in Crime No. 154 of 2022 of Thangallapalli town

P.S., for the offences punishable Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2.AVERMENTS OF THE CHARGE SHEET

The case of the Prosecution as disclosed from the Charge

Sheet is as follows:

That on 3-7-2022, at 19:00 hours, the defacto complainant by name, Nalvala @ Naluvala Purnachandar @ Poornachander who belongs to

SC (Madiga) lodged a complaint before the Police stating that about six years back, she gave an amount of Rs.14,500/- to the accused who belongs to her village and on receipt of the said amount, he has executed a Promissory Note. She stated that thereafter, she has requested the accused to repay the amount given by her, but he postponed the same on one or the other pretext. She further stated that on 4-6-2022, at about 11:25 hours, when she was standing under Banyan tree which was nearby the bank of river situated at the outskirts of Thangallapalli village, accused was coming towards him by driving his Tractor bearing No. TS 23 T 5250, then he stopped the accused and asked to repay the amount, then

Fair 3 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2022 accused tried to get the Tractor on him by abusing him, but he escaped and asked as why he was doing like that and on that accused abused him in filthy language by taking his caste name as “Madiga lanja koduka”, beat him with hands and kicked him and further beat him with foot-wear and threatened him with dire consequences to kill him at any time if he asked about the loan amount and said incident was witnessed by Pasula Besh

Kumar, Kamsani Dileep, Sallangula Naresh, Polasa Sampath and Komati

Venkanna. Therefore, the defacto complainant requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the said complaint, P. Laxma Reddy, Sub Inspector of Police, Thangallapalli P.S. (L.W.12) registered the case in Crime No.154 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, issued First

Information Report and sent L.W.1 to Government Hospital, Siricilla for treatment and report.

4.Subsequently, as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of

Police, Rajanna Siricilla in C.No. 112/D4/DCRB/RSLA/2022, dated 3-7- 2022, P. Chandra Shekar, Sub Divisional Police Officer, Siricilla (L.W.13) took-up further investigation of the case, visited the scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of Chanda Bhaskar (L.W.8) and Bigula Suresh (L.W.9), examined and recorded the statements of witnesses under the videography of Kamarapu Venu (L.W.6), and on his requisition,P. Sadanandam, Tahasildar, Thangallapalli (L.W.10) has issued

Fair 4 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2022 caste particulars stating that L.W.1 belongs to SC (Madiga) community and accused belongs to Vaddera caste.

5.During the course of further investigation, on 4-7-2022, at 13:30 hours, L.W.13 along with his men apprehended the accused at

Thangallapalli village and during interrogation accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence and further confessed that he had thrown away the footwear somewhere else which could not be traced out, then L.W.13 effected the arrest of the accused and produced him

before the Court for judicial remand. On the requisition of Police,

Dr. Akhul, Civil Assistant (L.W.11) has treated L.W.1 and issued Medical

Certificate opining the injuries sustained by L.W.1 as “simple in nature”.

After completion of investigation, L.W.13 has filed Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of

IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

6.COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES

This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

7.FURNISHING OF COPIES

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

Fair 5 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2022

8.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED

On appearance of the accused, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 were framed, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.s 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 4.

10.P.W.1 (N. Purnachandar) is the defacto complainant and he deposed that about three years back, on one day, he went to Police

Station on her work, at that time Police obtained his signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers, he do not know the contents of complaint and Police not examined him.

11.P.W.2 (P. Sadanandam, Tahasildar) deposed that on the requisition of Sub Divisional Police Officer, Siricilla (L.W.13), based on the report of V.R.O., and M.R.I., he has issued caste particulars (Ex.P.3 and

P.4) stating that P.W.1 belongs to SC (Madiga) community and accused belongs to Waddera caste.

This is the evidence on record in brief.

Fair 6 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2022

12.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF CR.P.C. After closure of Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, for which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

13.ARGUMENTS Heard both sides.

14.Perused the record.

15.The point for determination is :

Whether prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

16.P O I N T

According to the Prosecution, on the request of accused who belongs to Waddera caste, P.W.1 who belongs to SC (Madiga) community has advanced loan amount of Rs.14,500/- and on receipt of the said amount, accused has executed a Promissory Note, but later inspite of several requests by P.W.1, accused failed to return the said amount and on 4-6-2022, at about 11:25 hours, at the outskirts of Thangallapalli village, again when P.W.1 asked the accused about the due amount, accused beat him with hands and also with chappal, threatened P.W.1 with dire consequences to kill him if he asked the amount again and also intentionally insulted him by abusing him with his caste name.

Fair 7 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2022

17.There is no dispute regarding the caste of P.W.1 and accused and Prosecution has established the same through the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.P.3 and P.4 (caste particulars of P.W.1 and accused).

18.Since the Prosecution has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused with the said allegations, the burden is on the Prosecution to establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt. According to the

Prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant-cum-victim who set the

Law into motion, but he did not support the Prosecution case stating that about three years back, on one day, when he went to the Police Station on his personal work, Police obtained his signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers, he do not know the contents of complaint and Police not examined him.

Since P.W.1 failed to support the Prosecution case, he was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and was cross- examined, but nothing favourable to the Prosecution case is elicited and he denied to have stated to the Police as in his statement marked as

Ex.P.2. Hence absolutely there is no evidence before this Court to prove the contents of complaint and allegations levelled against the accused to prove his complicity in the offence.

19.Since the material witness i.e., P.W.1 who is none other than the victim-cum-defacto complainant failed to support the Prosecution case, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the Investigation Officers and Doctor, since no useful purpose would be served by examining them.

Fair 8 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2022

20.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused for any of the charges framed against him beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby he is entitled for clear acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

21.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC, 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 201 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20th day of April, 2026.

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: P.W.1Naluvala @ Naluvala Purnachandar- NONE - P.W.2P. Sadandam, Tahasildar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: Ex.P.1Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1- Nil - Ex.P.3Caste particulars of P.W.1 Ex.P.4Caste particulars of accused

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

Fair 1 Spl.S.C. No.196 of 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs/STs (POA) ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:SMT. A. NEERAJA,

Special Judge for trial of

cases under SCs/ST (POA) Act-cum- III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR.

Wednesday, the 29th day of April, 2026

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE No. 1 9 6 OF 2022

Nameofthe:The State through Sub Divisional Police Complainant/StateOfficer, Jagtial. (Crime No. 87 of 2022 of Sarangapur P.S.). Name of the Accused:Kampalli Ranjith, S/o. Srinu @ Srinivas, Age: 24 years, Caste: Chakali, R/o. Rangapet village of Sarangapur mandal.

Charges:Under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty”

Finding of the Court:“ Not guilty” Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution:Sri A. R. Srinivas, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar.

Accused defended by:Sri V. Raghu Raman, Advocate, Karimnagar.

Fair 2 Spl.S.C. No.196 of 2022

This Special Sessions Case came before me on 28-4-2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri A. R. Srinivas, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State-complainant and Sri V. Raghu Raman, Advocate

for accused, having been heard and stood over for consideration till this

day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial has laid the Charge

Sheet against the accused in Crime No. 87 of 2022 of Sarangapur P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2.AVERMENTS OF THE CHARGE SHEET

The case of the Prosecution as disclosed from the Charge

Sheet is as follows:

That on 4-7-2022, at 17:00 hours, the defacto complainant by name, Saida @ Chilumula Swapna who belongs to SC (Madiga) community and resident of Rangapet village lodged a complaint before the Police stating that they have constructed a house and when they were celebrating their house warming ceremony on 24-6-2022, accused who is their villager came to their house at about 6:00 pm, and without any reason slashed on her cheek by abusing her in filthy language by taking her caste name as “Eme madiga lanje kunti vanni enduku chesukunnave, etc.” and left from there and said incident was witnessed by Chilumula

Mallamma and Sunke Shanthamma. Therefore, the defacto complainant requested to take necessary action.

Fair 3 Spl.S.C. No.196 of 2022

3.Basing on the said complaint, G. Manohar Rao, Sub Inspector of Police, Sarangapur P.S. (L.W.12) registered the case in Crime No.87 of 2022 for the offences under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, issued First

Information Report and referred L.W.1 to Government Hospital, Jagtial for treatment.

4.Subsequently, as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of

Police, Jagtial in C.No.57/D7/DCRB/2022, dated 4-7-2022, R. Prakash,

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial (L.W.13) took-up further investigation of the case, visited the scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of Jalapalli Damodar (L.W.8) and Parumala Raju (L.W.9), examined and recorded the statements of witnesses under the videography of Ravula Narsinga Rao (L.W.7) and on his requisition, B.

Ravinder, Tahasildar has issued caste particulars of L.W.1 and accused and Dr. M. Radhika, Civil Assistant Surgeon (L.W.10) has examined

L.W.12 and issued Medical Certificate opining the injury sustained by her as “simple in nature”.

5.During the course of further investigation, L.W.13 has completed the formalities of arrest of the accused and after completion of entire investigation, L.W.13 has filed Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

Fair 4 Spl.S.C. No.196 of 2022

6.COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCES

This Court took cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

7.FURNISHING OF COPIES

On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

8.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED

On appearance of the accused, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of

SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 were framed, read over and explained the same to him in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9.EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.s 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 12.

10.P.W.1 (Ch. Saida @ Swapna) is the defacto complainant and she deposed that about three years back, on one day, some galata took place near her agricultural land and at that time Police obtained her signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers, she do not know the contents of complaint and Police not examined her.

Fair 5 Spl.S.C. No.196 of 2022

11.P.W.2 (Ch. Mallamma) and P.W.3 (Saini Nadipi Gangaram @

Gangaiah) are circumstantial witnesses and they deposed that they do not know anything about this case and Police not examined them.

12.P.W.4 (R. Narsinga Rao, Videographer) deposed that on 5-7-2022, during evening hours, on the request of Police, Sarangapur, he has videographed the statements of witnesses recorded by the Sub

Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial (L.W.13), later converted the same into

C.D., and handed-over the same to him along with certificate under

Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P.5).

This is the evidence on record in brief.

13.EXAMINATION OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 313 OF CR.P.C.

After closure of Prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, for which he denied the same as false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

14.ARGUMENTS

Heard both sides.

15.Perused the record.

16.The point for determination is :

Whether prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

Fair 6 Spl.S.C. No.196 of 2022

17.P O I N T

According to the Prosecution, when P.W.1 who belongs to SC (Madiga) community was celebrating her house-warming ceremony on 24-6-2022, without any reason, accused who belongs to Chakali caste slapped her and also intentionally insulted her by abusing her with her caste name as “Eme madiga lanje kunti vanni enduku chesukunnave, etc”.

18.There is no dispute regarding the caste of P.W.1 as belongs to

SC (Madiga) community and accused as belongs to Chakali caste.

19.Since the Prosecution has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused with the said allegations, the burden is on the Prosecution to establish the same beyond all reasonable doubt. According to the

Prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant-cum-victim who set the

Law into motion, but he did not support the Prosecution case stating that about three years back, on one day, some galata took place at her agricultural fields and at that time, Police obtained his signature (Ex.P.1) on some papers, she do not know the contents of complaint and Police not examined her. The Prosecution has also examined the circumstantial witnesses to the incident as P.Ws.2 and 3 but as stated above they in one voice deposed that they do not know anything about this case and Police not examined them. Since P.Ws.1 to 3 failed to support the Prosecution case, he was declared as hostile by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and was cross-examined, but nothing favourable to the

Fair 7 Spl.S.C. No.196 of 2022

Prosecution case is elicited and he denied to have stated to the Police as in his statement marked as Ex.P.2 to 4. Hence absolutely there is no evidence from the victim as well as the circumstantial witnesses before this Court to prove the contents of complaint and allegations levelled and even his complicity in the offence.

20.The other evidence that is available before this Court is that of

P.W.4 (Videographer) and he deposed that on the instructions of Police, he has videographed the statements of witnesses recorded by the Sub

Divisional Police Officer, Jagtial (L.W.13), later converted the same into

C.D., and handed-over the same to him along with certificate under

Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Though P.W.4 deposed about recording of statements of witnesses, as stated above the material witnesses who are examined as P.Ws.1 to 3 not at all supported the version of Prosecution, hence the evidence of P.W.4 whose evidence is hear-say and who is not a direct witness to the incident alone will not improve the Prosecution.

21.Since the material witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 3 who are no other than the victim and circumstantial witnesses failed to support the

Prosecution case, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given-up the evidence of remaining witnesses including the Tahasildar and

Investigation Officers, since no useful purpose would be served by examining them.

Fair 8 Spl.S.C. No.196 of 2022

22.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the allegations levelled against the accused for any of the charges framed against him beyond all reasonable doubt and thereby he is entitled for clear acquittal. The point is answered accordingly.

23.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 of IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of

SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. Unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 29th day of April, 2026.

Special Judge for trial of cases

under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: P.W.1Ch. Saida @ Swapna- NONE - P.W.2Ch. Mallamma P.W.3Saida Nadipi @ Gangamma P.W.4R. Narsinga Rao, Videographer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1Signature of P.W.1 on the complaint Ex.P.2161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.1- Nil -

Fair 9 Spl.S.C. No.196 of 2022

Ex.P.3161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.4161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3 Ex.P.5Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Special Judge for trial of cases

under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar.