Sri B.babu Naik

1

APKR000000882019

IN THE COURT OF X-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE

KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Sri B.Babu Naik, X-Additional District Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

APPEAL SUIT NO.7 OF 2019

Between :

1. Chennu Prameela Devi, W/o. Ravi, age 50 years, house maker, R/o. D.No.13-83, Club back side road, Patimeeda, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District.

2. Vulusu Akhalamma, W/o. Katam Raju (late), age 48 years, Government Employee, R/o. Bhushanagulla Village, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal, Krishna District.

3. Nanda Sreedevi, W/o. Siva Prasad, age 46 years, house maker, Etchelavari Veedhi, Corner House by the side of Sathavahana Kalasala, Vijayawada.

4. Bathula Murali Krishna, S/o. Venkateswara Rao (late), 44 years, Employee in bank, R/o. Bhushanagulla Village, Gudivada, Gudivada Mandal. Krishna District.

… Appellants /Defendants 1 to 4.

And

1. Badugu Talamma, W/o. Maraiah (late), age 63 years, properties, R/o. Pedathummidi Village, Bantumilli Mandal. Krishna District. (Plaintiff )

2. Tammalala Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Venkaiah (late), age 63 years, Agricultural Coolie, R/o. Pedathummidi Village, Bantumilli Mandal. Krishna District. (5th Defendant). … Respondents.

ON APPEAL AGAINST THE DECREE AND JUDGMENT DATED

2 26.11.2018 IN O.S.No.170/2010 PASSED BY THE PRL.SENIOR CIVIL

JUDGE, MACHILIPATNAM.

Between:

Badugu Talamma. … Plaintiff.

And:

1. Chennu Prameela Devi,

2. Vulusu Akhalamma,

3. Nanda Sreedevi,

4. Bathula Murali Krishna,

5. Tammalala Venkateswara Rao. ... Defendants.

This appeal suit is coming on 03.03.2026 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri Ch.V.Phani Kesava Rao, Advocate for appellants and of Sri G.Srinivas, Advocate for 1st respondent; and of the 2nd respondent remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The defendants 1 to 4 filed this appeal under Order XLI Rule 1 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil

Judge, Machilipatnam in O.S. No.170/2010, along with costs.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court in O.S. No.170/2010.

3. Before considering the grounds of appeal, it is necessary to briefly state the case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint:

(i). Bathula Seethamahalakshmi was the absolute owner of Ac. 2.00 cents of land situated in R.S. No.703/1 of Thummidi Village, Bantumilli

Mandal, which she purchased under two registered sale deeds dated 10.07.1989 and 22.10.1990. She is the wife of Bathula Venkateswara Rao.

Defendants 1 to 4 are their children, and the 5th defendant is her younger 3 brother. During her lifetime, she, along with the 5th defendant, agreed to sell an extent of Ac. 2.49 cents, including the said Ac. 2.00 cents, to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs.1,02,500/-. Accordingly, a possessory agreement of sale dated 10.05.1992 was executed.

(ii). The plaintiff submits that she paid the entire sale consideration of Rs.1,02,500/- and was put in possession of the property. Thereafter,

Seethamahalakshmi informed her about an outstanding loan due to the

Pedathummidi Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society, which was raised on the security of the suit property. In this regard, Seethamahalakshmi and the 5th defendant executed another document dated 14.11.1992, agreeing to release the title deeds upon discharge of the loan. The plaintiff claims that she discharged the entire loan amount of Rs.86,077/- and obtained a full satisfaction certificate dated 03.06.2000. However, according to her, the 1st defendant took away the title deeds without her knowledge.

(iii). The plaintiff further submits that though Seetha Mahalakshmi and the 5th defendant initially agreed to clear the loan amount of

Rs.45,000/- from the sale consideration, they failed to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff herself paid the loan amount to avoid the auction of the property, thereby paying more than the agreed sale consideration due to the suppression of material facts by the vendors.

(iv). The plaintiff claims that she has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and has been paying land revenue. She also submits that her name was entered in the revenue records. Despite repeated requests made through elders, Seetha Mahalakshmi and the 5th defendant did not execute a registered sale deed.

(v). The plaintiff further contends that the defendants are trying to sell the property to third parties for a higher price. She claims that she has 4 always been ready and willing to perform her part of the contract.

Therefore, she seeks a decree for specific performance directing the defendants to execute a registered sale deed, or in the alternative, for a refund of Rs.1,02,500/- with interest at 12% per annum from 10.05.1992 till the date of suit and thereafter at 6% per annum till realization.

4. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 to 4, contending as follows:

(i).The 1st defendant denied the plaint allegations and submits that Seetha Mahalakshmi was the sole and absolute owner of the suit property and that the 5th defendant had no right or interest in it. After purchase, the land was converted into fish tanks and was managed by the 5th defendant, who used to give income to Seetha Mahalakshmi after deducting expenses.

(ii).It is contended that during the lifetime of Seetha

Mahalakshmi, the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 04.04.2006, making false claims. In response, Seetha Mahalakshmi issued a reply notice dated 25.07.2006, denying the execution of any agreement of sale and the delivery of possession. She stated that she never borrowed any loan from the society but only stood as a guarantor for the loan taken by the 5th defendant. After the loan was discharged by the 5th defendant, she received her title deeds back.

(iii). The defendants further contend that the 5th defendant, in collusion with the plaintiff, created false documents to avoid payment of lease amounts due to him. They contend that the agreement of sale dated 10.05.1992 is a forged and fabricated document and that no sale consideration was paid nor possession delivered. They also submit that prior to the notice dated 04.04.2006, the plaintiff never demanded 5 execution of a sale deed.

(iv).It is further contended that the present suit is barred by limitation, as it was filed beyond three years from the date of the reply notice dated 25.07.2006. The defendants contend that the plaintiff suppressed the earlier notice and issued a fresh notice dated 15.05.2010 to create a false cause of action. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.

5.Based on the above pleadings, the learned trial court settled the following issues for trial.

i) Whether the averred possessory agreement of sale by late Battula Sitha Mahalakshmi and 5th defendant dated 10.05.1992, is true?

ii) Whether payment of Rs.1,02,500/- is true?

iii) Whether the plaintiff paid Rs.86,077/- to PACS, Peddatummidi, and discharged the mortgage debt due by Sitha Mahalakshmi and 5th defendant?

iv) Whether the averred security agreement dated 14.11.1992 for the release of the original title deeds dated 10.07.1989 and 22.10.1990 to the plaintiff upon clearance of the loan is true?

v) Whether the 5th defendant only did pisci culture and not Sitha Mahalakshmi?

vi) Whether the 5th defendant only borrowed from PACS?

vii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation being beyond three years from denial/refusal of performance through reply notice dated 25.07.2006?

viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for specific performance as prayed for? Alternatively, ix) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for refund of Rs.1,02,500/- with interest, as prayed for?

6

6.To prove her case, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 4. She got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

7. After considering the entire evidence on record, the learned trial court decreed the suit with costs. The Court directed the defendants to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property and to deliver possession within six months from the date of the decree. It was further observed that, in case of non- compliance, the plaintiff is at liberty to take steps in accordance with the law.

8. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018, defendants 1 to 4 preferred the present appeal challenging the findings of the trial court on the grounds, which are briefly as follows:

(i) The judgment of the trial court is contrary to law, evidence, and the probabilities of the case.

(ii) The suit ought to have been filed before the year 2009, but it was filed only in 2010, and therefore it is barred by limitation. The trial Court erred in relying upon Ex.A2 while deciding the issue of limitation.

(iii) There is no proper evidence to show that Seetha Mahalakshmi signed or affixed her thumb impression on Ex.A1 agreement of sale or Ex.A2 security agreement, and hence the suit ought to have been dismissed.

(iv) The trial court erred in relying upon the title deeds, as they do not show joint ownership of Seetha Mahalakshmi and the 5th defendant, which casts doubt on the genuineness of the agreement.

(v) The trial court failed to examine to whom the sale consideration was paid under Ex.A1, whether jointly or individually.

(vi) The trial court did not consider that Ex.A1 does not clearly mention the extent of the property belonging to each executant.

(vii) The dates on the stamp papers used for Ex.A1 create doubt about the 7 genuineness of the document. Further, the non-examination of one of the attestors is fatal to the plaintiff’s case, and no explanation was offered for the same.

(viii) The trial court failed to consider the case law relied upon by the defendants.

(ix) The trial court erred in applying Article 54 of the Limitation Act.

(x) The trial court wrongly presumed that the thumb impression on the document belongs to Seetha Mahalakshmi without obtaining an expert opinion.

(xi) The trial court failed to properly consider the documentary evidence adduced by the defendants.

9. On these grounds, the appellants prayed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 in O.S.No.170/2010 on the file of the

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, and to dismiss the suit.

10. Heard both sides.

11. Based on the grounds raised in the appeal and the evidence available on record, the points for consideration in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.05.1992?

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation as contended by the defendants?

3. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is required interference in terms of facts and law?

4. To what relief?

POINTS No.1 TO 4 :

12. As Points No.1 to 4 are interdependent, to avoid repetition of facts and to better appreciate the evidence on the record, they are discussed under one head. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking specific 8 performance of the agreement of sale dated 10.05.1992. According to the plaintiff, she purchased the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs.1,02,500/- and was put in possession of the property on the same day by the executants of Ex.A1.

13. The plaintiff further stated that she discharged the bank loan relating to the property. However, she alleged that the motherof defendants 1 to 4 took away the original title deeds of the suit property without her knowledge. It is also her case that after the death of the said Seetha

Mahalakshmi, she issued a legal notice on 15.05.2010 and subsequently filed the suit on 17.05.2010.

14. It is noted that though Seetha Mahalakshmi, the first executant and mother of defendants 1 to 4, had died, neither the plaintiff nor the defendants disclosed the date of her death. It is also not in dispute that

Seethamahalakshmi and the 5th defendant are sister and brother. The 5th defendant remained ex-parte in the suit proceedings.

15.The 1st defendant filed a written statement denying the execution of the agreement of sale under Ex.A1. It was further contended that the plaintiff had issued a legal notice even during the lifetime of Seetha

Mahalakshmi, to which she had denied execution of the agreement. The 1st defendant also alleged that the plaintiff and the 5th defendant, by colluding together, fabricated the suit documents and filed the present suit.

16. To discharge the initial burden regarding her case, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1, and she filed her chief examination affidavit in lieu of examination in chief, wherein she had reiterated the plaint averments. In her evidence, the plaintiff had exhibited Exs.A1 to A10. Ex.A1 is the possessory contract of sale, dated 10.05.1992. Ex.A2 is the Security agreement, dated 14.11.1992. Ex.A3 is the certificate issued by

Pedatummidi, PACS, dated 03.06.2000. Ex.A4 is the letter, dated 10.05.2002. Ex.A5 is land revenue receipts. Ex.A6 is the office copy of 9 the legal notice, dated 15.05.2010. Ex.A7 is the postal receipt, dated 15.05.2010. Ex.A8 is a land revenue receipt, dated 30.08.2017. Ex.A9 is

Adangal/Pahani. Ex.A10 is the Electricity demand notice (4 in number). In support of her case, the plaintiff also examined P.Ws.2 to 4.

17. As could be seen from the record, P.W.1 stated that she is a housewife and owns about Ac. 3.00 cents of land prior to the alleged agreement. She deposed that the vendors, including Bathula Seetha

Mahalakshmi and the 5th defendant, approached her and offered to sell the suit property. However, she admitted that she had no prior acquaintance with them and did not verify their title or encumbrance

before entering into the agreement. She stated that the sale consideration

was Rs.1,02,500/- and that she had to discharge a bank loan of

Rs.45,000/-. She admitted that she is illiterate and cannot read the contents of the agreement. She could not clearly state whether the entire sale consideration was paid or recollect the specific recitals in the agreement. She admitted during cross-examination that the agreement was not attested by the scribe and that there were variations in the ink used in the document of Ex.A1. She further admitted that there was no fixed time for the discharge of the alleged loan and that she took a long time to repay it. She also failed to produce any proof to show that she had sufficient funds at the time of the agreement.

18. Further, P.W.1 expressed ignorance regarding Ex.A2 and other related documents and could not explain the details of the loan or produce any documentary proof of its discharge. She admitted that she did not obtain any written acknowledgement from the alleged vendor regarding repayment of the loan. She further admitted that, though she had issued an earlier legal notice, Seetha Mahalakshmi denied execution of the agreement, and thereafter she waited for more than three years before issuing another notice. She also admitted that she did not file the suit 10 during the lifetime of the alleged executant and could not explain the delay in filing the suit. Though she claimed possession of the suit property, she could not state the income derived from it. She relied on certain revenue and electricity records but admitted that she does not remember the relevant years, and no clear proof was produced to show that such documents relate to the suit property.

19. As well, P.W.2 stated that he is an agriculturist, and the plaintiff is his niece. He admitted that he is deposing at the request of the plaintiff and that he has been well acquainted with the 5th defendant for several years. He stated that the 5th defendant was managing the properties of

Seetha Mahalakshmi and handled the entire transaction. He deposed that he was present at the time of the execution of Ex.A1 at the plaintiff’s house. However, he admitted that he was not present during prior negotiations and does not know how the sale was settled. He further admitted that in his presence, the contents of the agreement were not read over or explained to Seetha Mahalakshmi. He stated that the plaintiff paid the sale consideration in cash in his presence, but admitted that he does not know who purchased the stamp papers and that there is no documentary proof to show his presence at the time of the agreement. He further admitted that the plaintiff did not verify title documents and that the land was not measured before entering into the agreement. He also expressed uncertainty regarding the source of funds of the plaintiff.

20. Further, P.W.2 stated that disputes arose regarding the discharge of a loan, but admitted that he does not know why the plaintiff did not obtain a registered sale deed even after the alleged payment of full consideration. He also admitted that he never demanded the execution of the sale deed from the defendants. He admitted that he has no knowledge of the details of the loan allegedly discharged or about the custody of title documents. He further admitted that the plaintiff did not show him any 11 documents to prove possession of the suit property. He also admitted that he does not know why no steps were taken by the plaintiff to get the sale deed executed for several years.

21. Also, P.W.3 stated that he is related to one Vanamalamma and occasionally visits Pedathummidi village, but he does not own any property there. He admitted that he does not know who filed the present suit, against whom it was filed, or for what purpose, and that he came to

Court only at the request of the plaintiff. He deposed that the 5th defendant executed Ex.A4 in his presence, agreeing to execute a sale deed.

However, he admitted that he does not know the reasons why the sale deed was not executed earlier and that such reasons were not mentioned in Ex.A4.

22. Similarly, P.W.4 stated that he is a reporter and a distant relative of the plaintiff. He admitted that he does not own any property in

Pedathummidi. He deposed that he prepared Ex.A4 at the house of the plaintiff on the instructions of the parties, but could not clearly recollect the full details or contents of the document. He stated that he read over the contents after preparing the document. However, during cross- examination, he admitted that there are differences in writing style between Ex.A2 and Ex.A4. He denied the suggestions that the documents were created later or that he was giving false evidence, but no independent material was produced to support his version.

23. After the closure of the plaintiff’s side evidence, the defendants examined the 1st defendant as D.W.1, and examined D.Ws.2 to 4 in support of their contention. They also exhibited Exs.B1 to B4. Ex.B1 is the certified copy of the registered sale deed, dated 10.07.1989, standing in the name of Seetha Mahalakshmi. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of the extract of the registered sale deed, dated 22.10.1990. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of the registered extract declaration dated 01.10.1990.

12

Ex.B4 is the title deed dated 30.09.1994 issued by RDO, Machilipatnam.

24. The 1st defendant filed her chief examination under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C in the same lines as that of her written statement. It could be seen that D.W.1 stated that the suit property originally belonged to her mother, Seetha Mahalakshmi, who purchased it under registered sale deeds. She admitted that her mother had taken a loan by creating a charge over the property and that the 5th defendant, her maternal uncle, was managing the property.

25. Further, D.W.1 admitted that her mother was not residing at

Pedathummidi and that she did not know the details of the loan, including the amount, interest, or repayment. D.W.1 further admitted that she has no documentary proof to show that the loan was discharged and that such a fact was not even mentioned in her written statement. She also admitted that the original title deeds were with the 5th defendant and that neither she nor her mother paid land revenue. She stated that she has no documents to prove possession or enjoyment of the suit property and does not know who has been paying land revenue. She admitted that she never personally visited the suit property and that it was being managed by the 5th defendant. She further admitted that, as on the date of her evidence, the property is in the possession of the 5th defendant and not in her possession.

26. Further, D.W.1 admitted that a certificate was issued by the society, but stated that she does not know whether the plaintiff discharged the loan. She also admitted that, though a legal notice was received, no reply was issued and no action was taken against the society. She denied the execution and validity of the alleged agreement of sale.

27. In the same way, D.W.2 stated that he is a resident of another village situated about 15 kilometres away from the suit property and that he visited Pedathummidi only occasionally. He admitted that he does not 13 know the survey number, boundaries, lease details, or lease amount of the suit property. He deposed that Seetha Mahalakshmi is his relative and was residing at Bhushanagulla, but admitted that he has not seen any documents relating to payment of land revenue, taxes, or discharge of the loan. He also stated that he does not know who paid land revenue or whether the loan was discharged by anyone, including the plaintiff. He admitted that he has not seen any documents to show possession or enjoyment of the property either by Seetha Mahalakshmi or by defendants 1 to 4 from 1992 to till date. He also admitted that he has not verified any documents regarding the possession of the 5th defendant and has not seen any lease documents.

28. D.W.2 further stated that he does not know whether the property was sold to the plaintiff and admitted that he has no direct knowledge of the transactions. He also stated that he is deposing at the request of a relative and has no direct connection with the suit. Though he denied the execution of any agreement of sale, his evidence is not based on personal knowledge or documentary proof.

29. Equally, D.W.3 stated that he is the son-in-law of Seetha

Mahalakshmi and the husband of D.W.1. He admitted that he came to court on his own without receiving the summons and that he could not recollect the details, such as the survey number and boundaries of the suit property. He deposed that a loan was obtained by mortgaging the property, but admitted that he has not seen any document to show repayment of the loan and does not know whether the plaintiff discharged it. He also admitted that no records were maintained to show payment of land revenue by Seetha Mahalakshmi and that the tax receipts stand in the name of the plaintiff.

30. D.W.3 further admitted that there are no lease documents and that he has not mentioned any lease details. Though he stated that the 14 property documents are in his custody, he admitted that he has not seen any document to show possession of the 5th defendant and does not know who is actually in possession of the property. He also admitted that

Seetha Mahalakshmi never visited or cultivated the suit property and that there were no disputes earlier. Though he denied execution of any agreement of sale, he admitted the lack of knowledge regarding aspects such as possession, loan discharge, and transactions.

31. In addition, D.W.4 stated that he is a Junior Assistant in the Sub-

Registrar Office and produced the relevant register as directed by the

Court. However, it was reported that the record does not support the case of the party that summoned it. Therefore, no useful evidence was brought on record through him, and his evidence was closed.

32. On perusal of the record, Ex.A1 is the agreement of sale dated 10.05.1992. A careful examination of the document shows that the entire contents are written in black ink, whereas the name of the 5th defendant appears to have been subsequently inserted in blue ink. The attestation on the first page is also in a different ink, and there is no attestation on the second page. The signature of the 5th defendant is also found in blue ink.

33. Additionally, P.W.1, in her cross-examination, admitted that the interpolation was not attested by the scribe and that the agreement was originally written in black ink. This clearly indicates that the name of the 5th defendant was added later and is not part of the original document. From the contents of Ex.A1, it is evident that the agreement was executed only by Seetha Mahalakshmi, and the inclusion of the 5th defendant is not supported by the recitals.

34. As well, P.W.1 further admitted that she issued a legal notice to

Seetha Mahalakshmi, who in turn denied execution of the agreement by issuing a reply notice. She also admitted that she issued another notice marked under Ex.A6 after a delay of more than three years. She could not 15 explain why she waited till 2010, despite claiming that the loan was discharged by 03.06.2000. She also failed to explain the delay of more than four years after the death of Seetha Mahalakshmi.

35. Moreover, the plaintiff did not give any valid reason for obtaining

Ex.A2 shortly after Ex.A1. Besides that, though the plaintiff claimed to have discharged the loan, she failed to produce any receipts or examine the concerned officials of the Cooperative Society. Ex.A3, the certificate

dated 03.06.2000, was not properly proved, as the person who issued it

was not examined, nor were the society records produced. The contents of

Ex.A3, including the reference to the sale of the property, have no proper basis.

36. Furthermore, there is also an inconsistency in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 regarding the literacy of the plaintiff. While P.W.1 claimed that she is illiterate, P.W.2 stated that she studied up to the 7th class and can read and write. These circumstances create serious doubt regarding the genuineness of Exs.A1 and A3, which are not properly proved.

37. Coming to the question of limitation, Article 54 of the Limitation Act governs suits for specific performance. Where no time is fixed for performance, the suit must be filed within three years from the date when the plaintiff has notice of refusal. In the present case, P.W.1 admitted that during the lifetime of Seetha Mahalakshmi, a legal notice was issued and a reply was received denying the agreement. Despite this, the plaintiff filed the suit only after more than three years. Since the plaintiff did not file the suit within three years of the limitation period stipulated under law, the plaintiff is not entitled to the execution of a regular sale deed as prayed for.

Therefore, the suit is clearly barred by limitation.

38. The plaintiff also suppressed the earlier notice and reply, which shows that she has not approached the Court with clean hands. The trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and came to the wrong 16 conclusion in decreeing the suit.

39. It is a well-settled law that the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of her own case and not on the weakness of the defendants’ case. In the present case, the plaintiff failed to prove the agreement of sale, the discharge of the loan, and her readiness and willingness by proper evidence.

40. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 in O.S.

No.170/2010 of the trial court are unsustainable in law and are liable to be set aside, and the suit stands dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with costs.

41. In the result, the appeal is allowed with costs by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2018 passed by the learned Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, in O.S. No.170/2010 and consequently,

the suit stands dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

X-Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam.

Appendix of Evidence

No oral or documentary evidence is adduced on either side.

X-Additional District Judge, Machilipatnam.

1

APKR000012532020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM- X-ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Sri B.Babu Naik. Spl.Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 Cum-X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

FRIDAY, THIS THE 17th DAY OF APRIL, 2026.

SPL.S.C.No.53/202 0

Between: The State is represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudivada. … Complainant. AND :

1. Chittajallu Rama Lakshmi (died),

2. Chittajallu Rama Swamy, S/o. Jagannadham, age 45 years, Surya Balija, Indira Colony, H/o. Kalidindi Village and Mandal.

(Case against A1 wasabated on 06.03.2023 due to death) … Accused.

This case is coming on 07.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Venkanna Babu., Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri S.Balaji Rao, Advocate for the accused, and on perusing the material available on record and after having stood over for considera- tion till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gudivada, filed a charge sheet in

Crime No.257 of 2019 of Kalidindi Police Station against the accused for 2 the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 r/w Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC/ST (POA) Act).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows;

(i). The accused were earning their livelihood by grazing cattle. They had erected a cattle shed on a vacant site belonging to one Undi Jayaraju, situated near the Thriloka Eka Mandiram Church in Venkatapuram

Harijanawada. Near the said church, there exists a common pathway used by the residents of Harijanawada and others in the locality. The defacto complainant, who is also a resident of Harijanawada and belongs to the

Mala caste of the Scheduled Caste category, was using the said pathway.

(ii). On 03.10.2019, after attending to calls of nature, the complainant (L.W.1) was returning through the pathway. While he was near the church and attending to a phone call, the accused questioned him as to why he was using that pathway. When the complainant replied that it was a public pathway, Accused No.2 wrongfully restrained him by placing a bicycle across the path. It is alleged that the accused then threatened and abused him in the name of his caste, using the words as “Kulam thakkuva nakodaka, Mala naakodaka, Neeyamma Mala Pooku thenga,

Maalanagudda”, in a public place. Thereafter, the accused assaulted the complainant with hands and legs. The incident was said to have been witnessed by Vodimi Ajay and Gadidesi Ratna Kumari (L.W.4 and L.W.5), and at that time, Chennakesava Chinthalamma (L.W.6) intervened, rescued the complainant, and sent him away. The complainant initially approached village elders for settlement, but as no resolution was reached, he lodged a complaint on 11.10.2019 at Kalidindi Police Station.

3. On receiving the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police (L.W.13) 3 registered a case in Crime No.257/2019 under Sections 341, 323 r/w 34

IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Subsequently, the Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, Gudivada (L.W.14), took up the investigation as per the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Krishna District. He visited the scene of the offence, prepared a rough sketch and scene observation report in the presence of mediators (L.W.9 and L.W.10), examined witnesses, and recorded their statements. Notices under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. were issued to the accused. The medical officer (L.W.11) examined the complainant and issued a certificate stating that the injuries were simple in nature. The Tahsildar (L.W.12) issued caste certificates confirming that the complainant belongs to the Mala caste of

Scheduled Caste category and that the accused belongs to the Surya

Balija caste of BC-D category. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.

4. This Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 341, 323 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act against both

Accused Nos.1 and 2.

5. However, before framing of charges, Accused No.1 was reported to have died, and the case against her was abated. Accordingly, charges were framed only against Accused No.2.

6. After the appearance of Accused No.2 before the Court, copies of all relevant documents were furnished to him. Upon being questioned, the accused stated that he had sufficient means to engage counsel.

7. After hearing the arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under Sections 341 and 323

IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act were framed against him.

The charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

8. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked documents under Exs.P1 to P8.

9. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him in the prosecution evidence. He denied all such allegations and did not choose to adduce any defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence’s side evidence was closed.

10. Heard the arguments on both sides.

11. Now, the point that arises for determination in this case is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused for the offences charged against him beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT:

12. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.10.2019 at about 8:15 a.m., the defacto complainant, examined as P.W.1, who belongs to the Mala community of Scheduled Caste category, was proceeding along a pathway near the church at Venkatapuram village. At that time, Accused

No.1 allegedly abused him, and at her instigation, Accused No.2 wrongfully restrained him by placing a bicycle across the pathway. It is further alleged that Accused No.2 abused P.W.1 by referring to his caste and assaulted him, thereby committing offences punishable under

Sections 341 and 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

13. To establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8.

14. As seen from the material placed by the prosecution, P.W.1, the injured, stated that he is a painter residing in Venkatapuram village and belongs to the Mala community. According to him, on the date of the incident, while returning from Gollagudem Puntha and speaking on his 5 mobile phone, Accused No.1 questioned and abused him. When he objected, she instigated Accused No.2, who obstructed his path with a bicycle, abused him using the words by “ mala na kodaka”, and beat him along with Accused No.1. He further stated that P.W.2 and his brother intervened and took him home. Though he initially sought resolution through village elders, he finally lodged a complaint on 11.10.2019, which is marked as Ex.P1. During cross-examination, P.W.1 admitted that the incident occurred on a private pathway and that he had gone there for easing purposes. He also admitted that no other persons were present at that time and that there was a delay of several days in lodging the complaint. He denied all suggestions of false implication and maintained that the accused were in the habit of abusing persons using the pathway.

15. Likewise, P.W.2, who is also a painter from the same village, supported the version of P.W.1. He stated that he witnessed the accused beating P.W.1 and abusing him by caste name. He, along with another person, intervened and separated them. However, in cross-examination, he admitted that several persons were present at the scene, but none intervened and that he did not inform the police on his own.

16. Similarly, P.W.3 deposed that he saw the accused beating and abusing P.W.1 by referring to his caste. He stated that P.W.2 intervened and took P.W.1 away. In cross-examination, he admitted that several people had gathered at the scene, but none intervened, and he did not report the incident to anyone. He also stated that the pathway was commonly used by villagers.

17. P.W.4 also supported the prosecution's case by stating that he witnessed the accused quarrelling with and abusing P.W.1 in his caste name. However, he admitted in cross-examination that he did not know the cause of the quarrel, that several persons were present, and that he did not report the matter to the police, even though the police station was near 6 his shop.

18. P.W.5, the doctor, stated that she examined P.W.1 on 12.10.2019 and found no external injuries. Although P.W.1 complained of pain in the neck and rib region, the doctor opined that the injuries were simple in nature and issued a wound certificate, Ex.P2. In cross-examination, she confirmed that no visible injuries were found.

19. P.W.6, who acted as a mediator, stated that he prepared the scene observation report, Ex.P3, near the church at Venkatapuram village.

However, he admitted that no local residents signed the report and that he was called only through a phone call.

20. P.W.7, the Tahsildar, issued caste certificates confirming that P.W.1 belongs to the Mala caste of the Scheduled Caste category and that the accused belongs to the BC-D category. However, he admitted that the enquiry report on which the certificate was based was not enclosed and that there was no endorsement of verification.

21. P.W.8, the Sub-Inspector, stated that he registered the case on 11.10.2019 based on the complaint of P.W.1 and issued the FIR, Ex.P6.

He admitted that there was a delay of eight days in lodging the complaint and that P.W.1 did not mention his caste or the names of village elders in the complaint. He also admitted that there was a delay of eight hours in sending the FIR to the Court.

22. P.W.9, the Investigating Officer, stated that he conducted the investigation, examined witnesses, prepared the scene observation report and rough sketch, and filed the charge sheet. However, he admitted that some witnesses were not examined, the houses of the main witnesses were not shown in the sketch, and the enquiry report relating to caste verification was not produced.

23. As seen from the entire evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution mainly relies on the testimony of P.W.1 and the supporting 7 evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. Though P.W.1 is an injured witness, his evidence requires scrutiny. There is a delay of eight days in lodging the complaint, and the explanation given for the delay is not satisfactorily supported by evidence, as the names of the alleged village elders were not mentioned.

24. Further, there are material contradictions between P.W.1 and the other eyewitnesses. While P.W.1 stated that no one was present at the time of the incident, P.Ws.2 to 4 stated that they were present and that several persons had gathered. Despite the presence of many persons, no independent witnesses were examined. All the eyewitnesses belong to the same locality and are related, which makes them interested witnesses.

25. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution’s case of assault, as no external injuries were found on P.W.1. This creates doubt regarding the allegation that he was beaten by two persons.

26. There are also inconsistencies regarding the nature of the pathway, with P.W.1 describing it as private and P.W.3 stating that it is a common pathway. This supports the defence suggestion that there was a dispute relating to the pathway.

27. The conduct of the eyewitnesses further creates doubt, as none of them reported the incident to the police, despite having the opportunity to do so. The investigation also suffers from gaps, including failure to examine independent witnesses, delay in recording statements, and lack of proper verification in issuing caste certificates.

28. To establish offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC, the prosecution must prove wrongful restraint and causing hurt beyond all reasonable doubt. For the offence under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, it must be proved that the accused intentionally insulted the victim by referring to his caste in a place within public view. The evidence of P.W.7 is purely formal and only establishes caste status. It does not prove the occurrence of the incident.

8

29. In the present case, due to the delay in lodging the FIR, material contradictions in the evidence, absence of independent witnesses, lack of medical support, and deficiencies in investigation, as stated supra, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. The possibility of false implication arising out of a dispute over the pathway cannot be ruled out.

30. Therefore, in light of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, Accused No.2 is entitled to the benefit of doubt. Since A1 was reported to have died, the case against her was abated on 06.03.2023.

31. So far as entitlement for compensation of P.W.1 is concerned, since the prosecution failed to establish the offences charged against the accused, P.W.1 is not entitled to any compensation. Hence, it is not a fit case for awarding compensation as laid down under Section 357-A

Cr.P.C.

32. In the result, the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323 IPC and section 3(1)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Case against A1 was abated on 06.03.2023. The unmarked non-valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time, if no appeal is pending.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pro- nounced by me in open Court, on this the 17th day of April, 2026.

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum X Addl. Sessions Judge, 9

Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

P.W.1: Thati Chinna Babu, None. P.W.2: Bathula Venkateswara Rao, P.W.3: Vodimi Ajay, P.W.4: Eeda Padmarao, P.W.5: Dr.M.Sabitha, P.W.6: Panthagani Samuel Raja Sekhar, P.W.7: V.Swami Naidu, P.W.8: T.Rama Krishna, Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.9: N.Satyanandam, Sub Divisional Police Officer.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION :

Ex.P1: Report of P.W.1, dated 11.10.2019, Ex.P2: Wound certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P3: Scene observation report, Ex.P4: Caste certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P5: Letter, dated 26.11.2019 containing caste of A1 and A2, Ex.P6: FIR, Ex.P7: Proceedings, Ex.P8: Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

FOR DEFENCE : Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : Nil

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989- cum-X Addl. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

1

APKR000044662023 307 Bandar Taluk Police station

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM- X ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Sri B.Babu Naik., Spl.Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 Cum-X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

Monday, this the 20th day of April, 2026. SPL.S.C.No.74/2023

Between:

State represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Machilipatnam. … Complainant.

Vs.

1. Vannemreddy Pavan Kumar, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, age 26 years, Kapu, Manginapudi Village, Bandar Mandal.

2. Vannemreddy Prakash, S/o. Sambasiva Rao, age 20 years, Kapu, Manginapudi Village, Bandar Mandal.

3. Kagolu Pavan Kumar, S/o. Nagaraju, age 21 years, Rajaka, Manginapudi Village, Bandar Mandal. … Accused Nos.1 to 3.

Child in conflict with law : Kagolu Bhavani Shankar, S/o. Nagaraju, age 18 years, Rajaka, Manginapudi Village, Bandar Mandal.

(A separate case before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate- cum-Juvenile Justice Board, Vijayawada against above Child in conflict with lawnamely Kagolu Bhavani Shankar was filed by the Police)

This case coming on 16.04.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Venkanna Babu., learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State., and of Sri S.Balaji Rao., Advocate for A1 to A3 and upon pe- 2 rusing the material available on record and after having stood over for con- sideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. The charge sheet is filed by the Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Machilipatnam in Cr.No.307/2023 of Bandar Taluq Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 r/w.34 IPC, sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preven- tion of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SCs and STs (POA)

Act, 1989”, for brevity) against the accused.

2.The contents of the charge sheet narrated in brief are that :

(i) The defacto complainant by name Samanapudi Vinay Babu (L.W.1) is a resident of Manginapudi Village of Bandar Mandal, working in

Hyderabad, had come to his village on 17.09.2023 for festival holidays. On the same day at about 3.30 P.M., he went to the Elementary School in his village to watch a volleyball game being played by local youths, where

Chinnam Ravindra, Achanta Chaitanya, Gulla Ajay Babu, Jaldula Snehith,

Achanta Kowsik Kumar and Jaldula Santhosh (L.Ws.3 to 8) and others were present. While he was watching, A1 to A3 along with a child in con- flict with law arrived there and asked the players to allow them to join the game, for which the players refused. The accused became angry, ques- tioned why they were not allowed, and made remarks asking them why they had come to that place and to go to houses of their caste people.

Then the defacto complainant (L.W.1) intervened, stating that the place was allotted by the Government for house sites and questioning why the accused were objecting. On that the accused grew wild, intentionally in- sulted the complainant in the name of his caste in public view and abused 3 him as “ee Mala nakodukulani maa Illallo kalapatame thappu, evaro pichi nakodukulu aa pani chesaru”.

(ii) Further, A1 beat him with a stone on the left side of his head, while A2, A3, and the child also assaulted him with their hands and legs. On seeing this, the witnesses present there intervened, rescued the complainant and shifted him to the Government Hospital, Machilipatnam, where his statement was recorded by the Head Constable, Bandar Taluq

Police Station (L.W.14). Later based on the said statement and hospital intimation, the Sub Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluq Police Station (L.W.15) registered a case in Crime No.307/2023 under Sections 323, 324 r/w.34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA)

Act and submitted the FIR to the court.

(iii) Further investigation was took up by the Sub Divisional Po- lice Officer, Machilipatnam (L.W.16). During his investigation he visited the scene, examined and recorded the statements, received the caste certifi- cates of A1 to A3 and the defacto complainant. After completing the entire investigation, the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Machilipatnam filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and separate information was filed before the II Addl.Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-cum-Juvenile

Justice Board, Vijayawada, against the child in conflict with law.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under sections 323, 324 IPC, sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused.

4. After the accused had appeared before this court, the copies of documents were furnished to them, and when questioned, they stated that they had sufficient means to engage counsel.

5.Upon hearing the arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and defence counsel, charges under sections 324 IPC against 4

A1; 323 r/w. 34 IPC against A2 and A3; sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A1 to A3 were framed, read over, and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P15. Since some of the examined witnesses did not support the case, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor gave up the other listed witnesses, as no purpose would be served due to their examination as witnesses before the Court. Hence, evidence on the prosecution's side was closed.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same. The accused reported no defence evidence.

8.During arguments, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor fairly contended that there is no adequate incriminating evidence against the accused to record their conviction for the charges leveled against them and prayed to pass necessary orders.

9. At the same time, the defence counsel also contended that most of the examined witnesses on behalf of the prosecution did not support the case, and therefore, there is absolutely nothing on record to conclude the charges against the accused, and they are entitled to be acquitted of the offences charged against them.

10. Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution proved its case for the offences charged against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

5

POINT:

11. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 to

P.W.5 and marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, P.W.2 is mother of P.W.1,P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the alleged eye witnesses to the alleged occurrenceand P.W.5 is Sub Inspector of

Police, Bandar Taluq Police Station.

12. As seen from the material on record, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant gave report against the accused alleging that while he was playing wally ball at the Elementary School, situated in

Manginapudi Village, A1 to A3 came there, intervened, beat him and abused him with his caste name. But as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 he deposed that about three years back while he was playing wally ball with other players, suddenly she-buffaloes come across there, as a result, he fell down and received injuries. Later he was shifted to the

Government hospital, Machilipatnam. Though he identified his signature marked as Ex.P1 on the statement, he expressed ignorance about the contents therein. He further deposed that the police neither examined him nor recorded his statement.

13. The prosecution examined the mother of P.W.1 as P.W.2. As seen from the evidence of P.W.2, she deposed that she does not know anything about the facts of the case and the police neither examined her nor recorded her statement. The prosecution examined other two independent witnesses, who alleged to have present at the scene, as

P.W.3 and P.W.4. They deposed that while P.W.1 was playing wally ball, suddenly she buffaloes come across him, by then he fell down and received injuries. Thus, P.W.1 to P.W.4 deposed nothing against the accused, and they resiled from their earlier statements marked as Exs.P2 6 to P5, recorded by the police. They simply deposed that they did not know about the facts of the case. They further deposed that the police neither examined them nor recorded their statements.

14.Thus, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4, who are the crucial witnesses as defacto complainant, his family member and other independent alleged eye witnesses did not support the prosecution's case in any manner. Further, they disowned the statements as having been given by them. Thus, P.W.1 to P.W.4 did not support the case in any manner and they did not depose anything against the accused or anything of their involvement in the offences charged against them.

15. The last witness examined by the prosecution is P.W.5, the Sub

Inspector of Police, Bandar Taluq Police Station. He deposed about his registering the case and subsequent proceedings and investigation done by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Machilipatnam, in which he assisted.

16. On considering the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, as described above, it shows clearly that the contended defacto complainant i.e., P.W.1 and other witnesses, who are the family member of P.W.1, i.e., P.W.2 and other independent alleged eye witnesses P.Ws.3 and 4 themselves deposed nothing against the accused and even not supported the prosecution’s case on any aspect and they were declared as hostile witnesses by the prosecution. If the version of the prosecution is true, P.W.1 to P.W.4 would have given evidence in support of the prosecution's case. Their hostile nature weakens the case, as the prosecution cannot establish that the accused beat the defacto complainant. The prosecution further failed to establish that the accused abused the defacto complainant with his caste name, as alleged. Thus, any of the charged offences were not proved against any of the accused.

7

17. To prove the guilt of the accused for the charges under sections 324 IPC against A1; 323 r/w. 34 IPC against A2 and A3; sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A1 to A3, the prosecution examined five witnesses as stated supra. Except the evidence of P.W.5, who is an official witness, there is no cogent evidence on record to connect the accused with the charged offences. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a vain attempt to elicit something from the cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4 in favour of the prosecution after obtaining permission of this Court, but the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor could elicit nothing, except confronting the

contents of the previous statements recorded by the police under Section 161(2) of Cr.P.C., marked as Exs.P2 to P5 and getting a denialofthem.

Thepreviousstatementscanbeusedonlyfor thelimited purpose of contradicting the witnesses, not for corroborating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the previous statements marked as Ex.P2 to Ex.P5, would not extend any aid to the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against them.

18. The witnesses, whom the investigating officer said he had examined, did not support the version of the prosecution. In these circumstances, the testimony of the official witness examined as P.W.5, who deposed about various subsequent proceedings of the investigation, is unreliable to establish the charges levelled against the accused. Such evidence from the official witness would not help the prosecution to prove the entire case.

19. On scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds absolutely nothing on record pointing out the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 324 IPC against 8

A1; 323 r/w. 34 IPC against A2 and A3; 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of

SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A1 to A3.

20. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly gave up the other listed witnesses, as it would not serve any purpose except to waste precious time. Hence, this court finds no evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against them, and they are liable to be acquitted for the said charges, as they are found not guilty.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

21. As far as entitlement for compensation of the defacto complainant who examined as P.W.1, he deposed nothing against the accused and further he himself deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. Therefore, P.W.1 is not entitled to any compensation as laid down under Section 357-A Cr.P.C.

22. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.324 IPC; A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/s.323 r/w. 34 IPC; and A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for further period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The unmarked non-valuable property if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time, if no appeal is pending.

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

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under

SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum

X Addl. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: Samanapudi Vinay Babu, P.W.2: Samanapudi Jaya Rani, P.W.3: Chinnam Ravindra, None P.W.4: Achanta Chaitanya, P.W.5: K.Chanikya., Sub Inspector of Police.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on statement dated 17.09.2023, Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, Ex.P6: Statement of P.W.1, Ex.P7: Hospital intimation, dated 17.09.2023, Ex.P8: FIR, Ex.P9: Proceedings, dated 17.09.2023, Ex.P10: Rough Sketch, Ex.P11: Caste certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P12 to Ex.P14: Caste certificates of A1 to A3, Ex.P15: Wound certificate of P.W.1.

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil

X Addl. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

1

APKR000020932024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM- X ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE, KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Sri B.Babu Naik., Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 Cum-X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

WEDNESDAY, THIS THE 25th DAY OF MARCH, 2026.

SPL.S.C.No.40/2024

Between:

State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Disha Police Station. … Complainant.

Vs.

1. Kesana Adinarayana, S/o. (late) Nancharaiah, age 41 years, Gowda, D.No.14/196/26-4, Temple Colony, Machilipatnam.

2. Kesana Narendra, S/o. Adinarayana, age 21 years, Gowda, D.No.14/196/26-4, Temple Colony, Machilipatnam.

3. Yeddu Kodanda Ramudu @ Ramu, S/o. Vanalaraju, age 31 years, Gowda, D.No.14/161/2, Nizampeta, Machilipatnam.

... Accused.

This case coming on 18.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Venkanna Babu., Additional Public Prosecutor for State., and of Sri Y.N.V.Ramana., Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material available on record and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

JUDGMENT

1.The charge sheet is filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Disha Police Station in Cr.No.52/2024 of Inaguduru P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 IPC and Secs.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2) (va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities

Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989”, for brevity) against the accused.

2. The contents of the charge sheet narrated in brief are that:

(i) The defacto complainant is a resident of Balaramunipet, Machili- patnam and belongs to Madiga community of SC category. He does plumbing works. The accused are also residents of Machilipatnam. There are previous disputes pending between the families of the accused and complainant. Previously, during the time of Deewali Festival in the year 2023, the defacto complainant along with his friends while going to burial ground situated in Balaramunipet, Machilipatnam, A1 obstructed them and did not allow to proceed further. In that connection both parties assaulted on each other and A1 received injury and a case in crime number 216/2023 under section 324 r/w.34 IPC was registered against the com- plainant herein. Since then A1 bore grudge against the defacto com- plainant and waiting for an opportunity.

(ii) On 05.02.2024 at about 6:30 PM, while the defacto complainant along with his associates Bollu Sathish, Maganti Deepak, Tata Suresh,

Borra Praveen and Athkuri Pavan (LWs.2 to 6) were consuming alcohol at

Pampula Cheruvu, one person by name Durga asked about their location.

Then Maganti Deepak (L.W.3) informed the same. On that at around 6:40

PM, A1 to A3 and others arrived their spot on bikes and attacked the defacto complainant due to previous disputes. A1 hurled an iron rod on the defacto complainant, A2 struck the complainant on the left side of his head 3 with an empty liquor bottle and beat him with hands. The accused abused the complainant in the name of his caste as “Madiga lanja kodaka” in public place. On intervention of the persons i.e., Bollu Sathish, Maganti

Deepak, Tata Suresh, Borra Praveen and Athkuri Pavan (L.Ws.2 to 6) present there, the accused escaped from the spot. Later the injured complainant was shifted to the Government General Hospital,

Machilipatnam. There his statement was recorded by the Sub Inspector of

Police (L.W.11), Inaguduru Police Station, who in turn registered the case in Cr.No.52/2024 under sections 323, 324 r/w.34 IPC, 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of

SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989.

(iii) After registering the case, based on the proceedings issued by the Superintendent of Police, Krishna, Machilipatnam, vide

C.No.3156/C3/2024, dated 06.02.2024, the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Disha Police Station (L.W.12) conducted investigation in respect of visiting the scene of offence, examining the witnesses, recording their statements, preparing rough sketch of scene of offence. After securing the caste certificates of the defacto complainant and A1 to A3 from the

Tahsildar, Machilipatnam (L.W.9) and wound certificate of injured and after completing the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 324 IPC against A2; 323 IPC against A3; 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A1 to A3.

4. After the accused had appeared before this Court, the copies of documents were furnished to them and when questioned, the accused stated that they had got sufficient means to engage Counsel.

5.Upon hearing the arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and defence Counsel, charges under Sections 324 IPC against 4

A2; 323 IPC against A3; 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A1 to A3; and section 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A2 and A3 are framed, read over, and explained to them in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.5 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P17 and M.O.1 to M.O.3. Since some of the examined witnesses did not support the case, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor gave up the other listed witnesses, as no purpose would be served due to their examination as witnesses before the Court. Hence, evidence of the prosecution side was closed.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same. The accused reported no defence evidence.

8.During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor fairly contended that there is no adequate incriminating evidence against the accused to record their conviction for the charges levelled against them and prayed to pass necessary orders.

9. At the same time, the defence counsel also contended that most of the examined witnesses on behalf of the prosecution did not support the case and turned hostile; therefore, there is absolutely nothing on record to conclude the charges against the accused, and they are entitled to be acquitted of the offences charged against them.

10.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against accused for the offences charged against them beyond all reasonable doubt?

5

POINT:

11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.5 and marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and M.Os.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. P.W.2 to P.W.4 are the close associates of P.W.1 and who allegedly present along with P.W.1 at the time of alleged occurrence and P.W.5 is an official witness.

12. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant, who gave statement to the Police alleging that on 05.02.2024, A1 to A3 beat him with empty liquor bottle and with their hands and they also abused him and insulted him with his caste name. But as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 he deposed that about two years back while he was proceeding on a motor cycle from Panduranga Swamy temple towards

Pampula Cheruvu, he fell down and received injury to back side of his head. Thereafter he was admitted in Government hospital, Machilipatnam.

Though he identified his signature marked as Ex.P1, he pleaded ignorance about the contents of the statement. He further categorically deposed that he does not know the facts of the case and the police not examined him and no statement was recorded from him. Thus, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he did not state anything to the Police and he was not examined by the police. P.W.1, who was the crucial witness as well as the defacto complainant, did not support the prosecution's case in any manner. Further he disowned the statement said to be given by him.

13. P.W.2 to P.W.4 who are said to be present along with P.W.1 at the time of alleged occurrence, deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. They further testified that the Police did not examine them, and their statements were not recorded by the police.

6

14. Thus, P.W.1 to P.W.4 did not support the case in any manner, and they did not depose anything against the accused or any involvement of accused in the offences charged against them.

15. The P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant, and other witnesses

P.W.2 to P.W.4 did not depose any involvement of the accused, as alleged by the prosecution. As they did not support the version of prosecution, they were declared as hostile witnesses. If the version of the prosecution is true, P.W.1 to P.W.4 would have given evidence in supporting the prosecution's case. Their hostile nature weakens the case, as the prosecution cannot establish that A1 to A3 abused P.W.1 with his caste name or they beat him with empty liquor bottles on left side of his head.

16. To prove the guilt of the accused for the charges under sections 324 IPC against A2; 323 IPC against A3; 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SCs and

STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A1 to A3; and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A2 and A3, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses as stated supra. Except the evidence of P.W.5, who is a police official, there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused with the charged offences. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor made a vain attempt to elicit something in the cross- examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4 to support the case of the prosecution after obtaining permission of this Court, but he could elicit nothing, except confronting the contents of the previous statements recorded by the police under Section 161(2) of Cr.P.C. and getting denialofthem.The previousstatementscanbeusedonlyfor thelimited purpose of contradicting the witnesses, not for corroborating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the previous statements marked as Exs.P2 7 to P5 would not extend any aid to the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against them.

17. The witnesses, whom the investigating officer said to have examined, do not support the version of the prosecution. In these circumstances, the sole testimony of the police official examined as

P.W.5, who deposed about various subsequent proceedings of the investigation marked under Exs.P6 to P17 and seizure of M.Os.1 to 3, is unreliable to establish the charges levelled against the accused. Such evidence from the police official would not help the prosecution to prove the entire case.

18. On scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds absolutely nothing on record pointing out the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/sec.324 IPC against A2; 323 IPC against A3; 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against

A1 to A3; and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A2 and

A3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly gave up the other listed witnesses, as it would not serve any purpose, except to waste the precious time. Hence, this court finds no evidence to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences charged against them, and they are liable to be acquitted for the said charges, as they had found not guilty.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

19. As far as entitlement for compensation, P.W.1, who is defacto complainant, clearly testified that he does not know anything about the facts of the case. Further, there is no material on record to establish the entitlement of P.W.1 for compensation. Hence, it is not a fit case for awarding compensation as laid down under Sec.357-A Cr.P.C.

8

20. In the result, A2 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 324 IPC, A3 is found not guilty for the offence punishable 323 IPC, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under

Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989, A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 3(2)(va) of

SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and hence A1 to A3 are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for further period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

M.O.1 (Broken pieces of liquor bottle Royal Green Brand), M.O.2 (Empty beer bottle labelled as King Fisher Ultra) and M.O.3 (Empty liquor bottle labelled as Bacardi Platinum+Cranberry) are ordered to be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time, if no appeal is pending.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 25th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- B.Babu Naik

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under

SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum

X Addl. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: P.W.1: Cheeli Reejesh Babu, P.W.2: Maganti Deepak, P.W.3: Tata Suresh, P.W.4: Atukuri Pavan, P.W.5: Y.V.V.Satyanarayana, Sub Inspector of Police,

FOR DEFENCE:

None 9

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on the statement, Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, Ex.P6: Statement of P.W.1 dated 06.02.2024, Ex.P7: FIR, Ex.P8: Proceedings, dated 06.02.2024, Ex.P9: Scene observation report, Ex.P10: Rough sketch, Ex.P11: Photos (5 in number) along with CD, Ex.P12: Caste certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P13 to Ex.P15: Caste certificates of A1 to A3, Ex.P16: Wound certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P17: Section adding memo, dated 23.04.2024,

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

M.O.1: Broken pieces of liquor bottle Royal Green Brand, M.O.2: Empty beer bottle labelled as King Fisher Ultra, M.O.3: Empty liquor bottle labelled as Bacardi Platinum+ Cranberry.

Sd/- B.Babu Naik

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989- cum-X Addl. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

1

APKR000037682021

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL.JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM- X ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE, KRISHNA AT MACHILIPATNAM.

Present: Sri B.Babu Naik., Spl.Judge for trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 Cum-X Additional Sessions Judge, Krishna at Machilipatnam.

TUESDAY, THIS THE 24th DAY OF MARCH, 2026.

SPL.S.C.No.86/2021

Between:

The State being represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell-I, Krishna District, Machilipatnam. …. Complainant.

Vs.

1. Punnavalli Veera Raghavaiah (died),

2. Punnavalli Charan Kumar, S/o. Veera Raghavaiah, age 25 years,

3. Punnavalli Satyanarayana, S/o. Veera Raghavaiah, age 55 years,

4. Punnavalli Krishnamraju, S/o. Satyanarayana, age 35 years,

5. Punnavalli Srinivasa Rao @ Sai, S/o. Krishna Murthy, age 45 years,

6. Punnavalli Rama Rao, S/o. Purnachandra Rao @ Purnaiah, age 48 years,

7. Punnavalli Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Veera Raghavaiah, age 28 years,

The above A2 to A7 are Kapu by caste and residents of Peddapuram Village, Veerulapadu Mandal, Krishna District.

(A7 was not charge sheeted by police as his name was deleted during investigation) (As Accused No.1 reported died, case against him was abated on 07.10.2025) … Accused.

2

This case coming on 18.03.2026 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B.Venkanna Babu., Additional Public Prosecutor for the State., and of Sri S.Balaji Rao., Advocate for accused Nos.2 to 6 and upon perusing the material available on record and after having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The charge sheet is filed by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, SC/ST Cell-1, Krishna District, Machilipatnam in Cr.No.352/2021 of

Veerulapadu P.S. for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989”, for brevity) against the accused.

2.The contents of the charge sheet narrated in brief are that:

(i) The defacto complainant (L.W.1) is a victim woman , aged 27 years and belongs to Madiga community of SC category. She is a resident of Reddigudem Village of Krishna District. She along with her family eking out their livelihood by doing coolie works. On 22.08.2021 she along with her husband Chintarala Suresh (L.W.2) and son was while going to

Peddapuram on their motor cycle to her parents’ house, reached near the house of A1. There a function was going on and a crowd had gathered due to said function. At that time, A3 and A5 obstructed the motorcycle of the husband of the victim. When the complainant’s husband requested them to give way, the accused became angry, abused him, and started quarreling.

Thus, A1, A4, A6, and A7 joined A3 and A5, pushed the complainant and her husband to the ground, and beat them. During the incident, though the complainant told that she is native of same village and her parents house is situated very near to the spot, the accused abused her, by referring to her caste in filthy language, beat them with sticks and behaved indecently with the complainant by tearing her blouse and pulling her saree. Thereby 3 the accused outraged her modesty in public place. All the accused also threatened the victim and her husband with dire consequences.

(ii) On receiving information, relatives of the complainant by name Velpula Chinnammayi, Velpula Meri, Velpula Ravi and Velpula

Venkateswara Rao (L.Ws.3 to 6 respectively) rushed to the spot, witnessed the incident, reprimanded the accused and sent them away.

After discussing with her parents, the complainant lodged the complaint.

Based on the complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Veerulapadu Police

Station (L.W.14) registered a case in Crime No.352/2021 under sections 354, 324, 506 r/w. 34 IPC, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Later the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

SC/ST Cell - I Krishna, Machilipatnam, took up investigation with regard to inspection of the scene, preparation of rough sketch and observation report, examination of witnesses, recording their statements and collection of caste certificates of both victim and accused. Based on the investigation the name of Punnavalli Srinivasa Rao was deleted from the list of accused as A7 in this case. After completing entire investigation proceedings, the

Deputy Superintendent of Police filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3. This Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 354, 324, 506 IPC, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 against

A1 to A6.

4. After the accused had appeared before this Court, the copies of documents were furnished to them and when questioned, the accused stated that they had got sufficient means to engage Counsel.

5.Upon hearing the arguments of the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor and the defence Counsel, charges under Sections 354, 323, 4 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA)

Act, 1989 against A1 to A6 are framed, read over, and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.6 were examined and marked Exs.P1 to P21. Since some of the examined witnesses did not support the case, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor gave up the other listed witnesses, as no purpose would be served due to their examination as witnesses before the Court. Hence, evidence of the prosecution side was closed.

7.On closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/s.313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same. The accused reported no defence evidence.

8.During the course of arguments, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor fairly contended that there is no adequate incriminating evidence against the accused to record their conviction for the charges levelled against them and prayed to pass necessary orders.

9. At the same time, the defence counsel also contended that most of the examined witnesses on behalf of the prosecution did not support the case and turned hostile, therefore, there is absolutely nothing on record to conclude the charges against the accused, and they are entitled to be acquitted of the offences charged against them.

10.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against accused for the offences charged against them beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

11. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined

P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P21. P.W.1 is 5 the defacto complainant. P.W.2 is the husband and P.W.3 is the father of

P.W.1 respectively. P.W.4 and P.W.5 are relatives of P.W.1 and P.W.6 is an official witness.

12. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant cum victim. She gave report against the above accused alleging that on 22.08.2021 while she along with her husband and son was going to her parents’ house, accused assaulted them, beat them with their hands and sticks and threatened them with dire consequences. She further alleged that the accused outraged her modesty. But, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 she deposed that at about 4 years back she fell down from a motor bike and received injury but she does not know the facts of the case. She further deposed that about four years back her signature was obtained by the village elders on a blank paper, but she does not know the purpose of it. Her signature is marked as Ex.P1. She also deposed that the police neither examined herand nor recorded her statement. Thus, as seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she did not state anything to the Police and she was not examined by the police. P.W.1, who was the crucial witness as well as the defacto complainant, did not support the prosecution's case in any manner. Furthermore, she disowned the statement said to be given by her.

13. P.W.2 who is husband of P.W.1 and P.W.3 to P.W.5 who are relatives of P.W.1 and the other alleged direct witnesses to the incident, simply deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. They further testified that the Police neither examined them nor recorded their statements.

14. Thus, P.W.1 to P.W.5 did not support the case in any manner, and they did not depose anything against the accused or any involvement of accused in the offences charged against them.

6

15. The P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant, and other witnesses

P.W.2 to P.W.5 did not depose any involvement of the accused, as alleged by the prosecution. As they did not support the version of prosecution, they were declared as hostile witnesses. If the version of the prosecution is true, P.W.1 to P.W.5 would have given evidence in supporting the prosecution's case. Their hostile nature weakens the case, as the prosecution cannot establish that the A1 to A6 assaulted

P.W.1 with intent to outrage her modesty, and abused P.W.1 with her caste name and beat P.W.2 with hands by voluntarily causing hurt and criminally intimidated them.

16. To prove the guilt of the accused for the charges under sections 354, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of

SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 against A2 to A6, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses as stated supra. Except the evidence of P.W.6, who is a police official, there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused with the charged offences.

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made a vain attempt to elicit something in the cross-examination of P.W.1 to P.W.5 to support the case of the prosecution after obtaining permission of this Court, but the learned Additional Public Prosecutor could elicit nothing, except confronting the contents of the previous statements recorded by the police under Section 161(1) of Cr.P.C. and getting denialofthem.The previousstatementscanbeusedonlyfor thelimited purpose of contradicting the witnesses, not for corroborating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thus, the previous statements marked as Exs.P2 to P6 would not extend any aid to the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused for the charges framed against them.

7

17. The witnesses, whom the investigating officer said to have examined, do not support the version of the prosecution. In these circumstances, the sole testimony of the police official examined as

P.W.6, who deposed about various subsequent proceedings of the investigation marked under Exs.P7 to P21, is unreliable to establish the charges levelled against the accused. Such evidence from the police official would not help the prosecution to prove the entire case.

18. On scrutiny of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds absolutely nothing on record pointing out the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sections 354, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA)

Act, 1989. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor rightly gave up the other listed witnesses, as it would not serve any purpose, except to waste the precious time. Hence, this court finds no evidence to establish the guilt of A1 to A6 for the offences charged against them, and they were liable to be acquitted for the said charges, as they had found not guilty. Accordingly, the point is answered.

19. As far as entitlement for compensation, P.W.1, who is defacto complainant, clearly testified that she does not know anything about the facts of the case. Further, there is no material on record to establish the entitlement of P.W.1 for compensation. Hence, it is not a fit case for awarding compensation as laid down under Sec.357-A Cr.P.C.

20. In the result, A2 to A6 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 354, 323, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC, sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Case against A1 was abated on 07.10.2025. The bail bonds of A2 to A6 shall remain in force for further period of six months as contemplated under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The 8 unmarked non-valuable property if any, shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal time, if no appeal is pending.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 24th day of March, 2026.

Sd/- B.Babu Naik

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under

SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989-cum

X Addl. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE :

P.W.1: Chitarala Ratna Kumari, P.W.2: Chintarala Suresh, None. P.W.3: Velpula Chinnammayi, P.W.4: Velpula Ravi, P.W.5: Velpula Venkateswara Rao, P.W.6: B.Moses Paul, Deputy Superintendent of Police,

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of P.W.1 on the written report, Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2, Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3, Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4, Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5, Ex.P7: Written report of P.W.1, dated 26.08.2021, Ex.P8: FIR, Ex.P9: Proceedings, dated 26.08.2021, Ex.P10: Scene observation report, dated 27.08.2021, Ex.P11: Rough sketch, Ex.P12: Wound certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P13: Wound certificate of P.W.2, Ex.P14: Caste certificate of P.W.1, Ex.P15 to Ex.P20: Caste certificates of A1 to A6, 9

Ex.P21: Deletion memo of A7, dated 15.09.2021,

FOR DEFENCE: Nil.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: Nil.

Sd/- B.Babu Naik

Spl.Judge for trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989- cum-X Addl. Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam.