Sri. B.S. Jag Jeevan Kumar

Spl SC 52 of 2018 1/17

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF

ATROCITIES) ACT, ADILABAD

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

Present: Sri B.S. Jag Jeevan Kumar, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Principal Sessions Judge

FAC Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs and the STs (POA) Act

SPL SC NO.52 OF 2018

[Crime No.104 of 2018 of PS Mancherial ]

1)Name of complainant:The State of Telangana through Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mancherial

2)Name of accused:1) Vemula Madhukar S/o Shankar, 35 years, Padmashali, Lab Technician, R/o Bheemaramvillage,District Mancherial

2) Vemula Krishna S/o Shankar, 27 years, Padmashali, worker in cloth store, R/o Bheemaramvillage,District Mancherial

3) Vemula Arun Kumar S/o Shankar, 25 years, Padmashali, Student, R/o Bheemaram vilage, District Mancherial

4) Vemula Shankar S/o Rajamallu, 57 years, Padmashali, Tailor, R/o Bheemaramvillage,District Mancherial

5) Vemula Sharada W/o Shankar, 52 years, Padmashali, Housewife, R/o Bheemaramvillage,District Mancherial

3)Charge/s: Under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 420 IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i) and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act against A1 and under Sections 294(b) and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act against A2 to A5

4)Plea of accused:A1 to A5 pleaded not guilty.

5)Finding of Judge:A1 to A5 are found not guilty.

6)Prosecution conducted by:Sri Sanjay Kumar Vairagare Special Public Prosecutor, Adilabad

7)Accused defended by:Sri S.Ashok Reddy, Advocate, Adilabad

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 2/17

8)Sentence/Order:A1 to A5 are found not guilty and are acquitted, under Section 235(1) CrPC, of the charges framed against them. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed and the bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on 08.06.2021 for final hearing; upon hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.A1 to A3 are brothers and A4 and A5 are their parents. A1 stands trial for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 420 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act and A2 to A5 stand trial for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act.

2.On the complaint dated 10.3.2018, Ex.P1, of BA/PW1, crime No.104 of 2018 was registered by A.Venkateshwar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, PS

Mancherial/PW10 and the said crime was investigated by Mohd. Ghouse Baba, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mancherial/PW11.

3.After completing the investigation, PW11 filed charge-sheet against A1 to

A5 alleging: PW1 is a member of Scheduled Tribe – Lambada and A1 is Backward

Class – Padmashali. In the year 2008, PW1 was working as nurse and A1 was working as lab technician in Vijaya Nursing Home, Mancherial run by Dr.Vijaya

Babu and love developed between them. A1 took a room on rent in the house of Akula Rajeshwari/PW2 situate at Janmabhumi Nagar, Mancherial and he and

PW1 lived there for 2 years in live-in-relationship. During the said period, A1 committed penetrative assault against PW1 by promising to marry her. PW2 objected A1 and PW1 for living in her house without marriage. Then, A1 vacated the room and kept PW1 in Dhatri Ladies Hostel of Kunduru Padma and started

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 3/17

bearing the hostel expenses. The said Kunduru Padma and her son Kunduru

Rajashekhar Reddy/PW3 enquired with PW1 and came to know about the relation between her and A1 and then, PW1 and A1 assured them that they would marry. Later PW1 insisted A1 to marry her. On 15.2.2018 A1 to A5, PW1,

Kunduru Padma, PW3 and PW3’s two friends Vemula Udayasagar/PW4 and Cheti

Dharmendra @ Dharmanna gathered near Ice Factory, Old Mancherial and discussed about the marriage but A1 was not ready to marry. When PW1 insisted for registration of marriage, A1 gave copies of the required certificates for filing the same in the Marriage Registration Office. On 24.2.2018 PW1 went to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Mancherial to know the procedure of registration of marriage. The staff in said office advised PW1 to perform marriage outside and later get the marriage registered in their Office. A1 agreed and fixed the date for marriage as 24.2.2018 at 11.00 hours and provided money to PW1 for marriage shopping. On 21.2.2018 A1 switched off his mobile for which PW1 reported the matter in Women Police Station, Mancherial. On 6.3.2018 the police counseled them and advised them to take a decision and at about 15.30 hours when PW1 was outside the Women Police Station, A2 to A5 abused PW1 in filthy language by taking her caste name and threatened her with dire consequences in the presence of Kunduru Padma, PWs3 and 4 and Cheti

Dharamendra. On 10.3.2018 PW1 lodged the complaint, Ex.P1, at PS Mancherial.

Thus, A1 to A5 committed the aforesaid offences.

4.After hearing both the parties and considering the charge-sheet and the documents submitted therewith, this Court framed the following charges against

A1 to A5:

1.A1 from 2008 to 2018 at the house of PW2 situated at Mancherial and other places, committed rape repeatedly on PW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n) IPC;

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 4/17

2.A1, on the date and place mentioned in charge No.1 supra, committed cheating by deceitful words to marry PW1 and had co- habitation with her and thereafter refused to marry her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 417 IPC;

3.A1, on the date and place mentioned in charge No.1 supra, cheated

PW1 by dishonestly saying deceitful words to marry her surely and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC;

4.A2 to A5 on 21.2.2018 at Women Police Station, Mancherial abused

PW1 by uttering obscene words and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC;

5.A2 to A5, on the date and place mentioned in charge No.4 supra, committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW1 with injury to her person and with intent to cause alarm to her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC;

6.A1, on the date and place mentioned in charge No.1 supra, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, intentionally touched PW1, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and the touching was of sexual nature and without the consent of PW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act;

7.A1, on the date and place mentioned in charge No.1 supra, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, committed offence under Section 376(2)(n) IPC against PW1 knowing that she is a member of a Scheduled Tribe and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act;

8.A2 to A5, on the date and place mentioned in charge No.4 supra, not being members of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, abused

PW1, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, by her caste name in a place within public view and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act; and

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 5/17

9.A2 to A5, on the date and place mentioned in charge No.4 supra, not being members of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, committed offence under Section 506 IPC against PW1, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, by threatening her with dire consequences and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5.The above said charges were read over and explained to A1 to A5 and they pleaded not guilty.

6.To prove the said charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, PWs1 to 11, and marked 12 documents, Exs.P1 to P12. A1 to A5 were examined under

Section 313 CrPC. They denied the incriminating material put to them. A1 stated that when he was working in the hospital, PW1 asked him to give money, that he did not give money to PW1 but others gave money to her and that for that reason, PW1 filed this false case. They reported no defence evidence.

7.The Special Public Prosecutor submitted that PWs1 to 4 are crucial witnesses. The evidence of PW1 is corroborated by the evidence of PWs2 to 4.

The prosecution proved its case beyond doubt. A1 to A5 are to be convicted for the offences for which they are charged.

8.The point for determination is: whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the charges against A1 to A5 beyond doubt?

9.PW10 spoke about receiving of the complaint, Ex.P1, from PW1, registering of the crime, issuing of FIR, Ex.P10, sending Ex.P10 along with Ex.P1 to the Magistrate, referring PW1 to Government Hospital, Mancherial for examination and report, flashing all the said information to the Unit Officer and handing over CD file to PW11 for further investigation.

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 6/17

10.PW11/IO deposed that on 12.03.2018 he received memo, Ex.P11, from the

Commissioner of Police, Ramagundam appointing him as Investigation Officer and took up investigation of the case from PW10. He got recorded statement of PW1 through Woman Police Constable under video coverage with the help of

Gare Murali/PW6, visited the scene of offence and observed it minutely, conducted CDF panchanama, Ex.P2, and drew rough sketch of the scene in the presence of Chandragiri Mahesh/PW5 and Chunchu Anjaiah, examined and recorded statements of PWs2 to 4 and 6, Kunduru Padma and Cheti Dharmendra.

On 18.04.2018 A1 surrendered before him and confessed the commission of the offence. After complying the legal formalities, he sent A1 to Government Area

Hospital, Mancherial for potency test. Dr.Aravind conducted potency test on A1 and issued certificate, Ex.P12. After receiving Ex.P12, he sent A1 to judicial custody.

11.PW6 corroborated PW11 by stating that on 16.03.2018 the police of

Mancherial called him to the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Mancherial to videograph and that accordingly he went there, videographed recording of the statement of PW1 by the police and handed over DVD, Ex.P4, to the police.

12.PW5 also corroborated PW11/IO by deposing that on 16.03.2018 the police of Mancherial called him and Chunchu Anjaiah to the house of PW2 and that in their presence, the police observed the rented house of PW1 and conducted the CDF panchanama in Ex.P2 and drew rough sketch of the scene in

Ex.P3.

13.Dr.C.Radhika, Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital,

Mancherial/PW9 deposed that on 10.03.2018 she received requisition from the police of Mancherial to examine PW1 who was sent under escort of WPC 621T.

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 7/17

She examined PW1 and found that hymen was not in tact and vaginal extroitus was easily admitting two fingers and that there were no external injuries. She preserved vaginal swab and smear and cervical swab and smear for examination by Regional Forensic Laboratory (RFSL). Pending RFSL report, she issued medical examination report, Ex.P7. After receiving RFSL report, Ex.P8, she issued final opinion, Ex.P9, that there was no evidence suggestive of recent intercourse.

14.PW11/IO further deposed that on his requisitions, J.Rajalingam, the then

Tahsildar, Nennel/PW7 issued caste verification report of PW1, Ex.P5, that PW1 belongs to Scheduled Tribe – Lambada, and N.Bhumeshwar, the then Tahsildar,

Bheemaram/PW8 issued caste verification report of A1 to A5, Ex.P6, that A1 to

A5 belong to Backward Class – Padmashali. He got recorded Section 164 CrPC statement of PW1 and forwarded the material objects to RFSL, Karimnagar. The

RFSL authorities analyzed the material objects and issued report, Ex.P8. Based on Ex.P8, PW9 issued final opinion, Ex.P9. After completion of the investigation and collecting all the documents, he filed charge-sheet against A1 for the offences under Section 376(2)(n), 417 and 420 IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act and against A2 to A5 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506 IPC and

Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

15.It is not in dispute that A1 to A5 are Padmashali by caste and are not members of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. The evidence of PW8 is that on the requisition of the IO/PW11, he got verified the caste particulars of A1 to

A5 through Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer and issued caste verification report, Ex.P6, that A1 to A5 belong to Backward Class – Padmashali.

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 8/17

16.PW1 stated that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe – Lambada. PW7 deposed that on the requisition of PW11/IO, he got verified the caste particulars of PW1 through Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue Officer and issued caste verification report, Ex.P5, that PW1 belongs to Scheduled Tribe – Lambada. No suggestion was given to PWs1 and 7 that PW1 is not a member of Scheduled

Tribe. Therefore, it is held that PW1 is a member of Scheduled Tribe.

17.PW1 deposed that in the year 2008, A1 used to work as lab technician and she as nurse and they got acquaintance with each other. A1 proposed love to her but she refused. A1 left the hospital for five days and later made a phone call to her and told her that if she did not accept his love, he would commit suicide.

Then she accepted A1’s love proposal. A1 took one room for rent and they started living together. A1 tortured her for sexual intercourse and also promised her that he would marry her. She accepted A1 and they had sexual intercourse.

They lived together in that room for 2 years. After coming to know that they were not married and were living together, the owners scolded them and asked them to vacate the room. Then they vacated the room and A1 kept her in Dathri

Hostel and used to meet her regularly at the hostel. The Hostel Warden and her son Rajashekar Reddy/PW3 enquired them about their relationship and A1 told them that he would marry her. A1 used to bear the hostel and educational expenses. After completion of her education, the Hostel Warden and PW3 advised A1 to marry her, on that A1 said that he would bring his parents. A1’s parents and the Hostel Warden made discussion and A1’s parents accepted and left the hostel. After 2 days, A1 said that they would perform registered marriage so that they would get amount from the Government as theirs would be inter caste marriage. PW3 collected their caste certificates and date of birth certificates. When they approached the officials of the Registrar’s Office, the officials advised them to perform the marriage in any temple and then they would register the marriage immediately. Later, they fixed the marriage date as

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 9/17

24.02.2018. Till 20.02.2018, A1 was in touch with her and later he switched off his mobile. She made a phone call to A1’s family members and then A2 and A3 told her that A1 was not available at home and attributed that she kidnapped A1 and threatened her. Again she made a phone call but no one responded. On 5.3.2018 she went to Mahila Police Station, Mancherial and gave complaint.

Mahila police called A1 to A5 to the Police Station, did counseling and asked them to come to some conclusion.

18.The counsel for A1 to A5 submitted that PW1 was deserted by her family members and she was staying alone. The police did not visit the village of PW1 and did not examine either relatives or village elders or caste elders of PW1.

PW1 deposed that she fell in love with A1 in the year 2008 but the present crime was registered in the year 2018. PW1 kept quiet for 10 years. Therefore, the version of PW1 is not trustworthy.

19.In the cross-examination PW1 stated that after one year of her work in the nursing home, A1 asked her to stop working in the nursing home and to continue her studies. She denied the suggestion that A1 never asked her to stop working but the doctors removed her from service as her behavior was not good. She also denied the suggestion that A1 never took room in the house of PW2 on rent and never paid her hostel and educational expenses. At another stage of cross- examination, she stated that her mother and her brother did not take measures to perform her marriage with A1 and volunteered by stating that they deserted her. She denied the suggestion that her mother and her brother deserted her due to her behavior and attitude. She also denied the suggestions that A1 is in no way concerned with this case and that she foisted this false case to extract money from A1 to A5, to get compensation from the Government and to marry

A1.

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 10/17

20.Not even a suggestion was given to PW1 that there was no love affair between her and A1. PW1’s evidence shows that she and A1 lived together for two years in the room taken on rent from PW2. Her evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PW2 which will be discussed infra. PW1 denied the suggestion that the doctors removed her from service as her behavior was not good.

PW1’s love affair with A1 and her living with A1 was not to the liking of her family members and for that reason her family members might not have taken measures to perform her marriage with A1, but on that ground, her evidence cannot be held to be untrustworthy.

21.PW2 deposed that about 10 years back A1 and PW1 lived in their house on rent for 2 years. At that time, A1 and PW1 told them that they were going to marry. As A1 and PW1 were living together without marriage, she asked them to vacate the house and then they vacated the house and went away.

22.As regards the evidence of PW2, the contention on behalf of A1 is that she is a planted witness, for according to PW1, she was examined at the house of

PW2 along with PW2, but according to PW11/IO, PW1 was examined in the Police

Station and therefore the evidence of PW2 is not trustworthy.

23.In the cross-examination PW11/IO stated that he verified the statement of

PW1 recorded by WPC1266 Ch.Swapna. He further stated that he recorded the statements of PW2, K.Padma, PW3, PW4 and Dharmendra at the house of

K.Padma. PW1 was examined on 2.3.2020, after 23 months of her examination.

She must not be remembering the things correctly. It is well settled in law that minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness.

24.PW2 was cross-examined. She denied the suggestion that A1 never

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 11/17

resided in her house on rent. She stated that she advised PW1 and A1 to get married but she did not take any measures to perform their marriage. She denied the suggestion that she deposed false at the instance of the police.

25.As can be seen, PW2 withstood the test of cross-examination. Her evidence cannot be disbelieved. Her evidence coupled with the evidence of PW1 shows that A1 and PW1 lived together for 2 years prior to 2.3.2020 in a room in the house of PW2 on rent and later they vacated the room as PW2 asked them to vacate.

26.In the complaint, Ex.P1, PW1 stated that A1 made her to believe that he would marry her and enjoyed her sexually. In her chief-examination, PW1 stated that A1 took one room on rent and they started living together, that A1 tortured her for sexual intercourse and also promised her that he would marry her and that she accepted A1 and they had sexual intercourse.

27.That A1 tortured PW1 for sexual intercourse is a new version. If PW1 was tortured by A1, she would have informed about it at least to PW2 and she would not have lived with A1. The evidence on record shows that A1 and PW1 lived together for two years in the room taken on rent from PW2.

28.After referring to case law, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pramod

Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra [2020(2) ALD (Crl) 400 (SC)] held: “… the “consent” of a woman with respect to Section 375 must involve an active and reasoned deliberation towards the proposed act. To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise must be of immediate

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 12/17

relevance, or bear a direct nexus to the woman’s decision to engage in the sexual act.”

29.The evidence of PW1 does not show that the promise by A1 was false or that PW1 engaged in sexual relations on the basis of the said promise or that when A1 promised to marry PW1, it was made in bad faith or with intention to deceive her. A1’s failure in 2018 to fulfill his promise made in 2008 or during the period when they lived together in the room taken on rent from PW2 cannot be construed to mean that the promise itself was false. Therefore, no offence under Sections 376(2)(n), 417 and 420 IPC can be said to have been made out.

30.The evidence of PW3 is that PW1 used to stay in their hostel from 2011 and A1 used to look after the payment of hostel fee and maintenance of PW1.

When enquired, A1 stated that he was going to marry PW1 and was looking after her welfare and was bearing her educational expenses. On 15.02.2018 A1 to A5 along with two elders came to Ice Factory, Mancherial, discussed about the marriage proposal of A1 and PW1 and fixed the marriage date as 24.02.2018. On 20.02.2018, A1 came to his house and requested him to give one portion for rent and paid advance of Rs.3,000/-. Later he came to know through PW1 that A1 switched off mobile from the next day. On 5.3.2018 PW1 gave complaint in

Mahila Police Station. On 6.3.2018 the police made counseling. He and his mother Padma, A1 to A5 along with two elders, PW4 and Cheti Dharmendra went to the Police Station and the police advised them to discuss and compromise the matter. In the Police Station A1 told them that his parents were not accepting

PW1 as she belongs to Scheduled Tribe – Lambada. In the meanwhile, A1 to A5 abused PW1 by taking her caste name and insulted her. PW1 lodged complaint in the Police Station and they all left the place.

31.PW4 deposed that on 15.02.2018 PW3 called him over phone to discuss

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 13/17

about marriage alliance between A1 and PW1. He went to Ice factory. By the time he reached there, A1 to A5 and two or three elders were present on behalf of PW1. Himself, PW3, Padma and Cheti Dharmendra attended the panchayath for settlement of the marriage between PW1 and A1. A1 and his family members requested some time and then, they all went away. Even after 10 or 15 days, A1 to A5 did not respond and PW1 went to Police Station and gave complaint against A1 to A5. They all accompanied PW1 to the Police Station. The police called A1 to A5 to the Police Station for counseling. A1 said that he was not going to marry PW1 as she belonged to lower caste and A1’s family members abused PW1 saying “kulam takkuva dana”.

32.The prosecution cross-examined PW4 and elicited from him that PW3 informed him about the attitude of A1 having forcible sexual relationship with

PW1 by cheating her. PW3 invited him for panchayat at Ice Factory. In the said panchayat, A1 to A5 fixed the marriage date as 24.2.2018. Just prior to 24.2.2018, A1 stopped communicating with PW1. Then PW1 gave complaint in the Police Station. The police conducted counseling to the family members of

A1. During lunch time, A1 and his family members abused PW1 in front of the

Police Station. A1 abused PW1 saying “kulam thakkuva danivi, ninnu pelli chesukonu” and A2 to A5 abused her saying “kulam thakkuva danivi, lambadi danivi, bajaru danivi” and insulted her.

33.The contention of the counsel for A1 to A5 as regards the evidence of PW3 is that he is the owner of the women’s hostel. PW3 and his mother played a key role. PW3’s mother is a leader of Mahila Sangham and she instigated PW1 to file false case against A1 to A5. As per the version of PW3, A1 used to pay hostel charges of PW1. But no record was produced to prove the said fact. To extract money from A1, PW3 and his mother falsely implicated A1 to A5 in this case.

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 14/17

34.As regards the evidence of PW4, the contention on behalf of A1 to A5 is that PWs3 and 4 are friends. PW4 accompanied PW3 to the Police Station. A1 to A5 asked some time to discuss and they all went away. PW4 knows only A1,

A2 and A5 but he stated that all the family members abused PW1 by taking her caste name. PW4 was declared as hostile to the prosecution as regards his coming to know through PW3 about the disputes between PW1 and A1.

35.The case of the prosecution is that A1 paid the hostel fees of PW1 for about 7 years. PW3 was given a suggestion that A1 never paid hostel fees and he denied the suggestion. On behalf of A1, it was contended that A1 used to earn only Rs.2,500/- to 3,000/- per month and with that meager income it was very difficult for A1 to maintain A2 to A5. PW3 admitted that they are still running

Dhatri Ladies Hostel, that there are no receipts for payment of hostel fees but they maintain a register and enter the details of payments in it and that they did not hand over the said register to the police. In the absence of the hostel records, it is difficult to accept the prosecution case that A1 paid the hostel fees of PW1 for 7 yeas from the years 2011.

36.If A1 to A5 came to Ice Factory, Mancherial along with two elders to discuss about the marriage of PW1 and A1 and fixed the marriage date as 24.2.2018 as stated by PWs3 and 4, PW1 would have stated the same in her complaint, Ex.P1, and in her evidence. Neither in Ex.P1 nor in her evidence PW1 stated about it.

37.PWs1, 3 and 4 spoke about PW1 giving complaint in WPS, Mancherial against A1 to A5 on 5.3.2018 and the police calling A1 to A5 to the WPS and counseling them on 6.3.2018. PWs1 and 11 were given suggestions that the police of WPS did not register the complaint as they found it as false case and that on 10.3.2018 PW1 influenced the police and got registered the case.

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 15/17

Neither PW1 nor PW11 stated that the said complaint was registered as crime.

The said complaint, if given, was crucial but PW11/IO did not bother to collect it from the WPS. In the circumstances, it is difficult to believe that PW1 gave any complaint in WPS, Mancherial against A1 to A5 on 5.3.2018 and that the police called the parties to the WPS and counseled them on 6.3.2018.

38.The last allegation is that on 6.3.2018 at about 15.30 hours outside the

WPS, Mancherial, A2 to A5 abused PW1 in filthy language by taking her caste name and threatened her with dire consequences in the presence of PWs3 and 4 and Kunduru Padma. It must be noted that PW1 did not give any complaint to the police on 6.3.2018. PW1 stated in her chief-examination that A1 to A5 requested the police of WPS to give one day time but they did not turn up and therefore she lodged complaint on 10.3.2018. Abusing PW1 by taking her caste name and threatening her with dire consequences are serious offences and if A2 to A5 indulged in committing the said offences, that too in the premises of the

WPS, the police would not have allowed A1 to A5 to leave the WPS as stated by

PW1.

39. In the complaint, Ex.P1, PW1 stated that A2 to A5 abused her saying “lambadi dana” and threatened to kill her. Before the Court, PW1 gave a different version that A1 to A5 abused her saying “nuvvu bajaru danivi, kulam thakkuva danivi, neeku ma caste valle dorikara, lanja munda”. PW3 stated that

A1 to A5 abused PW1 in filthy language by touching her caste name and also insulted her character. He did not give the exact abusive word/s allegedly used by A2 to A5 and he did not state that A2 to A5 threatened to kill PW1. Coming to PW4, he stated that the family members of A1 abused PW1 saying “kulam thakkuva dana”. There is a serious difference in the versions regarding the words allegedly used by A2 to A5 and therefore the prosecution case becomes suspicious. Added to this, there is a delay in making the complaint which

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 16/17

remained unexplained.

40.For the foregoing reasons, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of A1 to A5 and consequently, A1 to A5 are found not guilty and are acquitted, under Section 235(1) CrPC, of the charges framed against them. The unmarked non-valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed and the bail bonds of A1 to A5 shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Prepared, signed and pronounced by me in the virtual court held through video conference on this the 9th day of June 2021.

SPECIAL JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1Smt. BA PW2Smt. Akula Rajeshwari PW3Sri Kunduri Rajashekhar Reddy PW4Sri Vemula Udayasagar @ Pappy PW5Sri Chandragiri Mahesh PW6Sri Gare Murali PW7Sri J.Rajalingam PW8Sri N.Bhumeshwar PW9Dr.C.Radhika PW10Sri A. Venkateshwar/SIP PW11Sri Mohd. Ghouse Baba/IO

For Defence:

Nil

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1Complaint dated 10.03.2018 Ex.P2CDF Ex.P3Rough sketch Ex.P4DVD Ex.P5Caste verification report of PW1

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 52 of 2018 17/17

Ex.P6Caste verification report of A1 to A5 Ex.P7Medical examination report Ex.P8RFSL report Ex.P9Final opinion Ex.P10FIR in Crime No.104 of 2018 Ex.P11Memorandum dated 12.03.2018 Ex.P12Potency certificate

Exhibits Marked For Defence

Nil

MOs Marked

Nil

JUDGE

June 9 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 1/10

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF

ATROCITIES) ACT, ADILABAD

Friday, June 4, 2021

Present: Sri B.S. Jag Jeevan Kumar, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Principal Sessions Judge

FAC Special Judge for trial of cases under the SCs and the STs (POA) Act

SPL SC NO.38 OF 2018

[Crime No.29 of 2018 of PS Sirpur Town]

1)Name of complainant:The State of Telangana through Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Kagaznagar

2)Name of accused:Kotthuri Mallesh S/o Bheemaiah, 25 years, Munnurukapu, Coolie R/o Govindpur village, Mandal Sirpur-T

3)Charge/s: Under Sections 354, 323 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act

4)Plea of accused:The accused pleaded not guilty.

5)Finding of Judge:The accused is found not guilty.

6)Prosecution conducted by:Sri M. Ramana Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor, Adilabad

7)Accused defended by:Sri Dasari Gangaram, Advocate, Legal Aid Counsel, Adilabad

8)Sentence/Order:The accused is found not guilty and is acquitted, under Section 235(1) CrPC, of the charges framed against him and is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case/s.

This case coming on 03.06.2021 for final hearing; upon hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The accused is the husband of K.Rajani/PW4 and is the son-in-law of

S.Renuka/PW1. The accused is BC – A and PW1 is SC – Mala. The accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 506

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 2/10

IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against PW1.

2.The facts of the case, as per the charge-sheet filed by P.Sambaiah, the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad, are: The accused and PW4 loved each other about 5 years back, went to Vemulawada of Karimnagar District and married against the wishes of the family members of PW1. The accused led happy marital life with PW4 for 2 years and they were blessed with a daughter.

Thereafter, the accused was addicted to alcohol and he used to harass PW4 by suspecting her fidelity. Unable to bear the harassment, PW4 left the accused, went to Hyderabad along with the child and was living there by working as a nurse in a private hospital. Since then, the accused had been quarreling with

PW1 and had been insisting her to send PW4 and his daughter to his house. On 27.4.2016 at about 16.00 hours the accused went to the house of PW1 and picked up a quarrel with her and insisted her to send PW4 and his daughter to his house and in a fit of rage he broke the door of PW4’s house vide CC No.188 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sirpur-T in Crime No.46 of 2016 under Sections 448, 427, 506 and 290 IPC. Since 2 months prior to 10.3.2018, the accused had been again quarreling with PW1 over the said issue.

On 10.3.2018 at about 14.00 hours, the accused went to the house of PW1, abused her by taking her caste name saying mala lanje nee bidda ekkada vundhe, nee biddanu pamputava, neeve vasthava, mee kulam takkuva vandlanu chesukunnanduke naa jeevitham itla ainadi, mala lanja ninnu champutha, neevu chastene naa samasya teetuthadi , beat her indiscriminately and humiliated her on caste basis and threatened her with dire consequences. The accused stayed at the house of PW1 till 17.00 hours and tried to beat her. The said incident was witnessed by PW1’s tenants, S.Lingaiah/PW7, M.Venkateshwar Reddy and

Ch.Venkat Reddy/PW8. The said witnesses tried to persuade the accused but the accused did not listen to them and threatened to beat them.

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 3/10

3.On 20.7.2018 this Court took cognizance of the said offences. On 20.9.2018, this Court framed the following charges against the accused:

1) that the accused, on 10.3.2018 at about 14.00 hours at the house of

PW1 situated at BSNL Area, Sirpur-T, abused PW1 saying mala lanje nee bidda ekkada vundhe, nee biddanu pamputava, neeve vasthava with intent to outrage her modesty and used criminal force and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 354 IPC;

2) that the accused on the date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1, supra, voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by beating her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC;

3) that the accused, on the date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1 supra, committed criminal intimidation by threatening PW1 with injury to her person with intent to cause alarm and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 506 IPC;

4) that on the date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1 supra, the accused, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insulted and intimidated PW1, a member of Scheduled

Caste (Mala), with intent to humiliate her in a public place within public view and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(1)

(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act; and

5) that on the date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1 supra, the accused, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, abused PW1, a member of Scheduled Caste, by her caste name in a place within public view and thereby committed an offence punishable

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 4/10

under Section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

When the above said charges were read over and explained, the accused pleaded not guilty.

4.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses, PWs1 to 11, and marked 8 documents, Exs.P1 to P8. The accused marked a contradiction,

Ex.D1, in the statement of PW8.

5.PW1/Renuka stated that the accused beat her in drunken condition and then she went to Police Station and lodged complaint, Ex.P1. Later, the prosecution with the permission of the Court cross-examined her. She admitted that she stated before the police that her daughter/PW4 and the accused fell in love, eloped and got married against their wish. The accused was habituated to alcohol and started harassing PW4 by suspecting her chastity. Unable to bear the harassment, PW4 left the company of the accused, went to Hyderabad and started living there by working as nurse. After PW4 went to Hyderabad, the accused started coming to her house in drunken state, used to quarrel with her and used to beat her. On 10.03.2018 at about 14.00 hours, the accused came to her house in drunken condition, abused her saying “Mala lanja, where is your daughter? Will you send your daughter or will you come? As I married the girl of lower caste, my life has been affected like this. Mala lanja, I will kill you and if you die, my problem will be solved”, beat her indiscriminately and humiliated her.

PW7/Sunarkar Lingaiah, Mailarapu Venkateshwar Reddy and PW8/Chagireddy

Venkat Reddy witnessed the incident and when they tried to pacify the matter, the accused did not listen to them and threatened them. Later, she went to the

Police Station and lodged complaint, Ex.P1.

6.PW4/Rajani deposed that that the accused is her husband. Theirs is love marriage and they married in the year 2014. For 2 years they led happy marital

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 5/10

life. They were blessed with one daughter by name Ramya. After 2 years the accused was addicted to drinking, used to pick up quarrels with her in drunken state and used to suspect her character. In the year 2017, she went to

Hyderabad along with Ramya and she joined as nurse in Deepa Nursing Home,

Begum Bazar, Hyderabad. After few days of her going to Hyderabad, the accused started going to her mother’s house and started making galata with her.

Through her mother, she came to know that the accused was saying that she sent her to Hyderabad, that she should come to him and that he caught hold of her hand and dragged her and also abused her by taking their caste name. Her mother also told her that the accused damaged house articles.

7.PW7/Lingaiah deposed that for 3 months from February 2018 he was tenant in the house of PW1. On 10.03.2018 at about 2.00 pm or 3.00 pm he was in front of his house. Then, the accused came to the pial of the house of PW1 in drunken state and abused PW1 saying “Mala lanja”. When he intervened, the accused came on him to beat him. The accused came there with a demand to send PW4 to him claiming that he married PW4. PW1 told the accused that PW4 was at Hyderabad and asked him to go to Hyderabad and take PW4 along with him. Then, the accused said that PW1 sent PW4 to Hyderabad and asked PW1 whether she would come with him. When PW1 questioned the accused as to why he was saying like that, the accused beat PW1. The accused remained there for 2 to 3 hours. Meanwhile, PW1 went into her house and closed the doors.

PW1 by crying requested for making a phone call to police. He phoned to 100.

The police came after some time.

8.PW8/Venkat Reddy deposed that he was tenant of PW1 for two months in

March and April 2018. On 10.03.2018 between 1.55 pm and 2.00 pm he and

M.Venkateshwar Reddy returned to their room after having lunch in a hotel and found a gathering at the house of PW1. The accused was making galata in

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 6/10

drunken state. The accused was asking the whereabouts of PW4. PW1 informed the accused that PW4 was at Hyderabad. Then, the accused abused PW1 saying “Madiga lanja” and asked her whether she would send PW4 or she would come to him. Himself, M.Venkateshwar Reddy and PW7/Lingaiah tried to convince the accused but the accused did not hear them. Then, PW7 phoned to 100. After 1 or 2 hours the police came. Prior to the arrival of the police, the accused fled away.

9.PW6/M.Praveen Kumar, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Sirpur-T deposed that on 11.03.2018 at 1500 hours he received complaint, Ex.P1, from

PW1, registered Ex.P1 as Crime No.29 of 2018, issued FIR, Ex.P4, sent Ex.P4 along with Ex.P1 to the Magistrate and copies thereof to the officers concerned, that as the offence is under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, he flashed RM to the Superintendent of Police, Komuram Bheem Asifabad with a request to appoint IO in the crime and that the Superintendent of Police appointed Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Asifabad in charge Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Kagaznagar, A.Satyanarayana/PW11 as IO, and that he handed over the

CD file to PW11.

10.PW11 deposed that on 11.03.2018 he received memo, Ex.P7, from the

Superintendent of Police appointing him as IO in Crime No.29 of 2018 of PS

Sirpur-T. He took up investigation from PW6. After receiving the CD file, he visited the scene of offence along with WPC, B.Ramadevi/PW2. He got examined PW1 and got recorded her statement through PW2 under videography done by Videographer, T.Rajanna/PW3.

11.PW2 stated that on the instructions of PW11, she recorded the statement of PW1 on 11.03.2018 under videography done by PW3 and that she handed over the statement recorded to PW11.

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 7/10

12.PW3 also deposed that on 11.03.2018 on the instructions of the police he videographed recording of statement of PW1 by PW2 at the Office of the SDPO,

Kagaznagar and handed over the CD, Ex.P2, to the police.

13.PW11/IO further deposed that he recorded statements of PWs7 and 8 and

M.Venkateshwar Reddy under videography done by PW3. In the presence of

PW5/Mohammad Farooq and PW9/Durgam Vikram, he observed scene of offence minutely and drafted panchanama and obtained signatures of PWs5 and 9 by explaining the contents therein. During the said panchanama, he prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P5 is crime details panchanama.

14.PW5/Mohammad Farooq admitted his signature in Ex.P5, which was marked as Ex.P3, but did not support the prosecution. The prosecution cross- examined him but it could not elicit anything from him. But PW9/Durgam

Vikram corroborated PW11 by stating that on 11.03.2018 he and PW5 were called to the house of PW1, that in their presence, the police conducted the crime details panchanama, Ex.P5, that the police showed them the location of the rooms in the house of PW1 and the neighboring houses, that the police drew sketch of the house of Pw1 and neighboring houses and that the police obtained their signatures in the panchanama, Ex.P5.

15.PW11/IO further deposed that on his requisition, the Thasildar, Sirpur,

P.Ugender/PW10 issued caste verification report, Ex.P6. P.Sambaiah, SDPO,

Kagaznagar returned to duty and was appointed by the Superintendent of Police as IO in the case vide memo, Ex.P8. He handed over the CD file to the SDPO,

P.Sambaiah. As per the charge-sheet, the SDPO P.Sambaiah arrested the accused and sent him for remand and after completing the investigation, the SDPO

P.Sambaiah filed the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 323 and 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act.

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 8/10

16.The accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC. He stated that the evidence of PWs1, 4, 7 and 8 is false. As regards the evidence of the other witnesses, he stated that he knew nothing about it except his arrest. He further stated that he and PW4 loved each other and married at Vemulawada Temple in the year 2013, that their marriage was not liked by his in-laws, that when PW4 was pregnant, he sent PW4 to the house of PW1 for delivery, that PW1 changed the mind of PW4 and performed her marriage with another and that when he went to the house of PW1 to enquire about PW4, a false case was foisted against him.

17.The point for determination is: Whether the prosecution succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond doubt?

18.PW1 in her chief-examination just stated that the accused beat her in drunken condition and then she went to the police station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P1, and that the police recorded her statement. In the cross- examination by the prosecution, she was narrated the facts in Section 161 CrPC statement and the facts admitted by her were recorded.

19.The accused elicited from PW11/IO that PW1 did not specifically state that the accused outraged her modesty and that she was threatened by the accused with injury to her person.

20.As per the rough sketch of Ex.P5, the house of PW1 consists of three portions; out of the two front portions, one was occupied by PW1 and another was occupied by Saraiah and the back portion was occupied by PW8. It was elicited from PW11/IO that in the rough sketch of Ex.P5, rented portion of

Saraiah is shown and the portion of PW7 is not shown. Then, the evidence of

PW7 that he was tenant in the house of PW1 at the relevant time and that he witnessed the alleged incident, has to be doubted.

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 9/10

21.In the complaint, Ex.P1, PW1 stated that the accused was in front of her house till 5.00 pm on that day. PW7 also claimed that the accused remained there for 2 or 3 hours and that at the request of PW1 he phoned to 100 and the police came there after some time. PW8 stated in the chief-examination that

PW7 phoned to 100, that after 1 or 2 hours the police came and that prior to the arrival of the police, the accused fled away. In the cross-examination PW8 stated that at about 3.00 pm they phoned to 100, that within 1 km the police station is there and that the police came on that day.

22.PW1 did not state that PW7 phoned to 100 and the police came to her house on 10.3.2018. If what was stated by PWs7 and 8 is true, PW1 must have given complaint to the police and the police must have apprehended the accused on that day itself, but those things did not happen. Therefore, it is difficult to believe the alleged incident and the presence of PWs7 and 8 at the house of PW1 at the relevant time

23.For the foregoing reasons, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused and consequently, the accused is found not guilty and is acquitted, under Section 235(1) CrPC, of the charges framed against him and is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case/s.

The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Prepared and pronounced on this the 4th day of June 2021.

Special Judge

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution:

PW1Smt. S.Renuka PW2Smt.B.Rama Devi PW3Sri T.Rajanna @ Prashanth

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

Spl SC 38 of 2018 10/10

PW4Smt. K.Rajani PW5Sri Mohammad Farooq PW6Sri M.Praveen Kumar/SI PW7Sri Sunarkar Lingaiah PW8Sri Ch.Venkat Reddy PW9Sri Durgam Vikram PW10Sri P.Ugendhar/Tahsildar PW11Sri A.Sathyanarayana/IO

For Defence:

Nil

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1Complaint dated 11.03.2018 Ex.P2Compact disc Ex.P3PW5’s signature on crime details panchanama Ex.P4FIR in Crime No.29 of 2018 Ex.P5Crime details panchanama dated 11.03.2018 Ex.P6Verification report of PW1 and the accused Ex.P7Memo of the SP, Kumram Bheem Asifabad dated 11.03.2018 Ex.P8Memo of the SP, Kumram Bheem Asifabad dated 21.03.2018

Exhibits Marked For Defence

Ex.D1Marked portion in Section 161 CrPC statement of PW8

MOs Marked

Nil

JUDGE

June 4 Spl Judge, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD

Monday, March 15, 2021

Present: Sri B.S. Jag Jeevan Kumar, B.Sc., LL.M.,

Sessions Judge

SC NO.4 OF 2019

[Crime No.53 of 2017 of PS Bazarhathnoor]

1)Name of complainant: The State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, Utnoor

2)Name of accused:1)Chandapure Sangappa S/o Kishan Rao, 40 years, Linga Balija, Agriculturist, R /o Bhosra Village, Mandal Bazarhathnoor

2)Chandapure Gajanand S/o Kishan Rao, 42 years, Linga Balija, Agriculturist, R /o Bhosra Village, Mandal Bazarhathnoor

3)Chandapure Kantha Bai W/o Sangappa, 38 years, Linga Balija, Agriculturist, R /o Bhosra Village, Mandal Bazarhathnoor

4)Chandapure Shashikala W/o Gajanand, 40 years, Linga Balija, Agriculturist, R /o Bhosra Village, Mandal Bazarhathnoor

3)Charge/s: Under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC against A1 and A2 and under Sections 302 read with 109 and Sections 294(b) read with 34 IPC against A3 and A4.

4)Plea of accused: The accused pleaded not guilty.

5)Finding of Judge: The accused are found not guilty.

6)Prosecution conducted by: Sri Sanjay Kumar Vairagare, Additional Public Prosecutor, Adilabad

7)Accused defended by: Sri A.Amarender Reddy, Advocate, Adilabad

8)Sentence/Order: The accused (A1 to A4) are acquitted, under Section 235(1) CrPC, of the charges framed against them. MOs1 to 5 shall be destroyed and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on 12.03.2021 for final hearing; upon hearing both the parties and considering the evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

Mar 15 1/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

JUDGMENT

1.On the charge-sheet filed by G.Jayaram, the then Circle Inspector of

Police, Boath, the Court of JMFC, Boath took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 302 and 294(b) read with 34 IPC against the accused in PRC No.7 of 2018. The said Court of JMFC, Boath, after following the required procedure, committed the case to this Court vide its order dated 17.12.2018.

2.Upon considering the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith and after hearing the counsel for both the parties, this Court framed the following charges on 14.05.2019:

1) That A1 and A2, on 27.09.2017 at about 7.00 pm at Bhosra Village, did commit murder of their brother, Chandapure Madhav S/o Kishan Rao, 35 years, by beating him on his head with a sickle by A1 and with stone by A2, in view of the path way disputes of agricultural lands in between A1 and A2 and the deceased, and that A1 and A2 thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC;

2) That on the date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1, supra, A3 and A4, in furtherance of common intention, abetted the commission of the offence of murder of Chandapure Madhav by A1 and A2, which was committed in consequence of its abetment by A3 and A4 and that A3 and A4 thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 302 read with 109 IPC; and

3) That on the date, time and place mentioned in charge No.1, supra, A3 and A4, in furtherance of common intention, caused annoyance to Chandapure Madhav and his family members in a public place i.e., in front of his house, by uttering obscene words against Chandapure Madhav and that A3 and A4 thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 294(b) read with 34 IPC.

On explaining the said charges, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses, PWs1 to 13, and marked 30 documents, Exs.P1 to P30, and 5 material objects, MOs1 to 5.

Mar 15 2/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

4.After the prosecution closing its side of evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 CrPC. The accused denied the incriminating material put to them and reported no evidence in their defence.

5.The point for determination is: whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused beyond doubt?

6.PW1/Ch.Subhangi is the wife, PW2/Ch.Maruthi is the younger brother and

PW7/Ch.Mangala Bai is the mother of the deceased Madhav. PW1/Ch.Subhangi,

PW2/Ch.Maruthi, PW3/Gajanand, PW4/Baswanth Rao and PW5/Chandrakanth are said to have witnessed the alleged incident.

7.But none of PWs1 to 5 and 7 supported the prosecution. PW1 stated that about 3 ½ years back at about 7.00 pm the deceased developed giddiness and fell on a stone in front of their house and received head injury. PW2/Ch.Maruthi,

PW3/Gajanand and PW4/Baswanth Rao shifted the deceased to RIMS, Adilabad for treatment. On advice, the deceased was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad. On the next day morning, the deceased succumbed to the injury while undergoing treatment. She gave complaint, Ex.P1, to the police. The police recorded her statement. She gave statement before Magistrate.

8.PW2/Ch.Maruthi stated that about 3 ½ years back at about 6.30 pm he was at Hanuman Mandir as Durgamatha was installed there in a pandal. At that time one boy came and told him that the deceased fell down in front of their house.

He rushed to that place and found that the deceased fell on a stone and sustained head injury. He phoned to PW3/Gajanand, auto driver, and

PW3/Gajanand brought his auto. Himself, PW1/Ch.Subhangi, PW3/Gajanand and

PW4/Baswanth Rao shifted the deceased to RIMS, Adilabad. The deceased was referred to higher institution at Hyderabad and the deceased was taken to

Gandhi Hospital. On the next day, the deceased succumbed to the injury while

Mar 15 3/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

undergoing treatment. The police recorded his statement. The Magistrate also recorded his statement.

9.PW3/Gajanand said that about 3 years 4 months back the deceased died but he did not know the cause of the death of the deceased. On the request of

PW2/Ch.Maruthi, he came with his auto and he was told that the deceased fell down. He shifted the deceased to hospital in his auto. PW2/Ch.Maruthi and

PW4/Baswanth Rao accompanied the deceased in his auto. The police did not examine him.

10.PW4/Baswanth Rao deposed that when the deceased was being taken in an atuo, there was lorry and then he came to know about the deceased receiving injuries. He did not know the cause of the death of the deceased. He went to the hospital where the deceased was taken. From Adilabad Hospital, the deceased was referred to Hyderabad for better treatment. On the next day morning, the deceased died in Gandhi Hospital while undergoing treatment. The police recorded his statement.

11.PW5/Chandrakanth stated that about 3 ½ years back between 6.30 pm and 7.00 pm the deceased received injuries in front of the house of the deceased.

He went there while the deceased was being shifted to hospital in an auto. The police did not examined him.

12.PW7/Ch.Mangala Bai also stated that when she was at Durga pandal, she heard that the deceased fell down near their house and received injuries. By the time she rushed to that place, the deceased was shifted. Her husband was in the house but he is dead and he did not hear and did not see anything. The police examined her.

13.The Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined PWs1 to 5 and 7. PWs1 and 2 denied the suggestions that they stated to the police as in Exs.P2 and P4,

Mar 15 4/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

marked portions in Section 161 CrPC statements, and to the Magistrate as in

Exs.P3 and P5, Section 164 CrPC statements. PWs3 to 5 and 7 denied the suggestions that they stated to the police as in Exs.P6 to P8 and P10, Section 161

CrPC statements. All the said witnesses also denied the suggestions that they deposed false to help the accused.

14.The accused also cross-examined PWs1 and 2. They elicited from PWs1 and 2 that they do not know reading and writing Telugu and that they do not understand Telugu. They elicited from PW1 that she did not know what was written in Ex.P1, that she did not know who drafted Ex.P1 and that nobody read over and explained the contents of Ex.P1. They further elicited from PWs1 and 2 that the police did not read over and explain to them the statements which they recorded, that they were not explained in Hindi the statement in Exs.P3 and P5 and did not know what was recorded by the Magistrate in Exs.P3 and P5 and that none of the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased.

15.PW6/K.Ganesh, photographer, stated that on 28.9.2017 on the instructions of the CI, he photographed the dead body of the deceased through his digital camera and handed over 4 photos of the deceased along with CD,

Ex.P9, to the CI. His evidence was not challenged by the accused.

16.PW8/Sangameshwar and PW9/Eashwar are said to be panchas for crime detials panchanama and seizure of control earth and blood stained earth. They did not support the prosecution. They admitted their signatures in the panchanama and on the chits affixed to blood stained earth and control earth, which were marked as Exs.P11 to P13 and P14 to P16, but stated that about 2 or 3 years back when they were at Gram Panchayat, the police came there and obtained their signatures on some papers and that no panchanama was

Mar 15 5/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

conducted and nothing was seized in their presence. The prosecution cross- examined them but they denied the suggestions given.

17.PW10/Sriram and PW11/Nagesh are said to be panchas for panchanama of confession of A1 and A2 and recovery of sickle from A1 and stone from A2. They also did not support the prosecution. They admitted their signatures in the panchanama dated 30.9.2017 and chits pasted to the sickle and the stone, which were marked as Exs.P17 to P19 and P20 to P22 respectively, but stated that no confession panchanama and no seizure panchanama were conducted by the police in their presence. PW10 said that about 3 years back he signed the papers at the request of the police and PW11 said that the police conducted panchanama about 3 years back near Gram Panchayat and he did not know what was written in the papers wherein his signatures were taken by the police.

18.The Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined PWs10 and P11 and they denied the suggestions that on 30.9.2017 at about 3.15 pm A1 and A2 confessed the offence and at their instance the police seized a sickle from A1 and a stone from A2 under a cover of panchanama, that they signed in the panchanama knowing the contents therein to be true and correct and also signed in the panch chits pasted to the sickle and the stone seized in their presence and that they deposed false to help A1 and A2.

19.The above discussed evidence will not help the prosecution in establishing the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence. But the prosecution proceeded to examine the two I.Os/SI A.Srikanth and CI G.Jayaram, and after examining them reported no further evidence.

20.PW12/SI A.Srikanth deposed that on 28.09.2017 at 12.00 noon, he received complaint, Ex.P1, from PW1, registered it as Crime No.53 of 2017, issued express

FIR, Ex.P23, sent Ex.P23 along with Ex.P1 to the Magistrate concerned and copies

Mar 15 6/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

of Exs.P23 and P1 to the officers concerned and recorded statement of PW1 and that PW1 stated to him as in Ex.P2.

21. PW13/CI G.Jayaram deposed that on 28.09.2017 he took up investigation from PW12/A.Srikanth, verified the investigation done by PW12 and found it to be on correct lines, that he rushed to the scene of offence at Bhosra village along with PW12 and prepared CD panchanama, Ex.P24, in the presence of

PW8/Sangameshwar and PW9/W.Eshwar, that under Ex.P24 he seized blood stained earth, MO1, and control earth, MO2, from the scene of offence. that he re-examined PW1/Ch.Subhangi but did not record her statement as she reiterated what she stated to PW12, that from the scene of offence, he proceeded to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, observed the dead body of the deceased Madhav, got photographed the dead body through PW6/K.Ganesh, the photos and the CD of which is Ex.P9, and that he examined PW2/Ch. Maruthi,

PW3/Mugade Gajanand, PW4/Ch.Baswanth Rao, PW5/S.Chandrakanth, B.Laxman,

PW6/K.Ganesh, Ch.Kishan Rao and PW7/Ch.Mangala Bai and PWs2 to 5 and 7 stated to him as in Exs.P4, P6 to P8 and P10 respectively.

22.PW13/G.Jayaram further deposed that on the same day i.e., 28.09.2017, he seized blood stained banian, MO3, under panchanama, Ex.P25, and also held inquest, Ex.P26, over the dead body of the deceased at the mortuary of Gandhi

Hospital in the presence of S.Abhilash and Afroz Khan, that he gave requisition to the Professor, Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Hospital for conducting autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, that after autopsy, Dr.Lavanya Kowsil Gangula issued

PME report, Ex.P27, that the viscera preserved was sent to FSL, Hyderabad, and that after receiving report from FSL, the said Dr.Lavanya Kowsil Gangula issued final opinion, Ex.P28, that the cause of death of the deceased Madhav to the best of her knowledge and belief was due to multiple injuries.

Mar 15 7/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

23.Further evidence of PW13 is that on credible information, on 30.09.2017 at 1500 hours, he rushed to Bhosra village, apprehended A1 and A2 at their house and interrogated them in the presence of PW10/Ade Sriram and PW11/Sontake

Nagesh, that A1 and A2 confessed the offence and at their instance he seized one blood stained sickle, MO4, from A1 and one stone, MO5, from A2 under a cover of panchanama, the relevant portion of which is Ex.P29, and that he took

A1 and A2 to the PS, arrested them after due formalities and sent them for remand.

24.PW13’s further evidence is that he sent through the SDPO, Adilabad the material objects to the FSL, Hyderabad for analysis and report and he received report of the FSL, Ex.P30, that on his requisition, P.B.Kiran Kumar, JMFC, Utnoor recorded statements of PW1/Ch.Subhangi, PW2/Ch.Maruthi, PW3/M.Gajanand,

PW4/Ch. Baswanth Rao, PW5/S.Chandrakanth and Bongade Laxman under

Section 164 CrPC and that after collecting all the documents and after completing the investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 294(b) read with 34 IPC.

25.Ex.P27, PME report, shows that the death of the deceased was due to multiple injuries. Ex.P30, FSL report, shows that human blood was detected on blood stained soil, blood stained banian and blood stained sickle but their blood group could not be determined. All the material witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution.

26.The counsel for the accused submitted and it was conceded by the

Additional Public Prosecutor that conviction in a case of this nature cannot be

based on the sole testimony of the I.Os.

Mar 15 8/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

27.Therefore, it must be held that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond doubt the charges framed against the accused. The point is accordingly answered.

28.IN THE RESULT, the accused (A1 to A4) are found not guilty and are acquitted, under Section 235(1) CrPC, of the charges framed against them. MOs1 to 5 shall be destroyed and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Partly typed to my dictation by the Steno, partly prepared by me and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of March 2021.

JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined For Prosecution:

PW1Smt. Chandapure Subhangi

PW2Sri Chandapure Maruthi

PW3Sri Mugade Gajanand

PW4Sri Chandapure Baswanth Rao

PW5Sri Sontake Chandrakanth

PW6Sri Kadergula Ganesh

PW7Smt. Chandapure Mangala Bai

PW8Sri Ware Sangameshwer

PW9Sri Ware Eshwer

PW10Sri Ade Sriram

PW11Sri Sontake Nagesh

PW12Sri A.Srinath/first IO

PW13Sri G.Jayaram/second IO

For Defence:

Nil

Mar 15 9/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

Exhibits Marked For Prosecution

Ex.P1Complaint dated 28.09.2017 Ex.P2Marked portion in Section 161 CrPC statement of PW1 Ex.P3Section 164 CrPC statement of PW1 Ex.P4Marked portion in Section 161 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P5Section 164 CrPC statement of PW2 Ex.P6Section 161 CrPC statement of PW3 Ex.P7Section 161 CrPC statement of PW4 Ex.P8Marked portion in Section 161 CrPC statement of PW5 Ex.P9Four photos of the deceasaed Madhav with CD Ex.P10Section 161 CrPC statement of PW7 Ex.P11Signature of PW8 on CD panchanama dated 28.09.2017 Ex.P12Signature of PW8 on chit affixed to blood stained earth Ex.P13Signature of PW8 on chit affixed to control earth Ex.P14Signature of PW9 on CD panchanama dated 28.09.2017 Ex.P15Signature of PW9 on chit affixed to blood stained earth Ex.P16Signature of PW9 on chit affixed to control earth Ex.P17Signature of PW10 on C&S panchanama dated 30.09.2017 Ex.P18Signature of PW10 on chit affixed to sickle Ex.P19Signature of PW10 on chit affixed to stone Ex.P20Signature of PW11 on panchanama dated 30.09.2017 Ex.P21Signature of PW11 on chit affixed to sickle Ex.P22Signature of PW11 on chit affixed to stone Ex.P23FIR No.53 of 2017 dated 28.09.2017 Ex.P24CD panchanama dated 28.09.2017 Ex.P25Seizure panchanama dated 28.09.2017 Ex.P26Inquest panchanama dated 28.09.2017 Ex.P27PME report dated 28.09.2017 Ex.P28Final opinion dated 29.09.2017 Ex.P29Relevant portion in C&S panchanama dated 30.09.2017 Ex.P30Report of FSL dated 18.12.2017

Exhibits Marked For Defence

Nil

MOs Marked

MO1Blood stained earth

Mar 15 10/11 SJ, ADB

SC 4 of 2019 Murder

MO2Control earth MO3Blood stained banian MO4Blood stained sickle MO5Stone

JUDGE

Mar 15 11/11 SJ, ADB

OS 6 of 2017 Specific Performance

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ADILABAD

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc., LL.M.,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

Tuesday, November 9, 2021

OS NO. 6 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

M/s Sri Venkateshwara Enterprises, represented by its Managing Partner D. Mahesh S/o late Venkat Rao, 46 years, Businessman, C/o Ganesh Theater, Cinema road, Adilabad … PLAINTIFF

AND

The Municipal Council, Adilabad represented by its Commissioner … DEFENDANT

Counsel for Plaintiff:Sri A. Amarender Reddy Counsel for Defendant :Sri T. Venkat Kumar Sri M. Ramana Reddy

This suit is coming on 01.11.2021 for final hearing; upon hearing the counsel on record and considering the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.The defendant, with the permission of the Government accorded vide GO

Ms No.69 MA dated 16.2.2002, leased out open land out of S.No.1 admeasuring 123’ x 183’ = 22509 sq. ft., bounded by East – 60’ Cinema road, West – H.No.6-7- 58/21/6, 6-7-58 Municipal land, North – H.No.6-6-2 Municipal land, South – 33’

Municipal road, situated at Cinema Road, Bhukthapur locality, Adilabad Town, hereinafter called as “suit land”, to the plaintiff for 15 years commencing from 10.5.2002 for construction of cinema theater and annexe for commercial purpose vide registered lease deed dated 10.5.2002.

2.Challenging the said GO Ms No.69 MA dated 16.2.2002, one Halwale

Yogender filed WP No.9030 of 2002 on the file of the Hon’ble erstwhile High

Court of Andhra Pradesh and on 18.12.2002 the said WP No.9030 of 2002 was

Nov 9 1/9 DJ, ADB

OS No. 6 of 2017 Specific Performance

dismissed as withdrawn. One Atharuddin filed WP No.3174 of 2003 and on 18.7.2003 the said WP No.3174 of 2003 was also dismissed as withdrawn.

3.The plaintiff was granted permission to construct cinema hall in the suit land in the name and style of Sri Ganesh AC Cinema Hall subject to condition that the construction work should be completed within six months vide proceedings

dated 3.1.2003 of the Joint Collector, Adilabad. At the request of the plaintiff,

the time for construction of the theater was extended for a further period of six months.

4.Permission for exhibition of films in the newly constructed cinema hall was granted to the plaintiff vide proceedings dated 21.1.2004 of the Joint Collector,

Adilabad.

5.On 10.2.2005 the plaintiff made application for extension of the lease period upto 35 years and the defendant’s Council in its resolution No.130 dated 14.2.2005 approved for extension of the lease period upto 35 years and resolved to recommend proposals to the Government. On 21.2.2015 the defendant’s

Commissioner submitted proposals to the Principal Secretary to Government,

Municipal Administration and urban Development Department, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad, for extension of the lease period along with connected papers.

6.The plaintiff’s Managing Partner D. Mahesh filed OS No.197 of 2005 for injunction against the defendant pleading that on 6.6.2005 he made application to the defendant for grant of permission to construct commercial annexe in the suit land as per the plan, that the defendant collected building plan fee and development charges vide receipt dated 28.7.2005 but it neither returned nor rejected its application, that he issued legal notice dated 1.9.2005 stating that he started construction as per the plan submitted, under deeming provision and that the defendant, after receiving the said notice, came to the premises with its

Nov 9 2/9 DJ, ADB

OS No. 6 of 2017 Specific Performance

men and asked to dismantle the construction. The defendant contested the said suit. After full trial, the said suit was decreed on 15.4.2008.

7.On 18.5.2008 the plaintiff sought permission for commercial annexe in the suit land based on the judgment and decree in the said OS No.197 of 2005 and the defendant granted the permission sought vide its proceedings dated 26.3.2009.

8.On 28.1.2017 the plaintiff addressed letters to the defendant’s Chairman and Commissioner requesting to execute lease deed for further period of 20 years effective from 9.5.2017 in its favour. On 7.2.2017 it submitted reminder letter to the defendant’s Commissioner.

9.On 3.3.2017 and 11.3.2017 the defendant’s Commissioner issued notice to the plaintiff’s Managing Partner D. Mahesh requiring him to hand over possession of the suit land to the defendant on 9.5.2017 as the period of lease was going to expire on that day.

10.The case of the plaintiff is that in the lease deed dated 10.5.2002 there is renewal clause which reads: “The lessee shall have an option of renewal of lease on the terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon by the lessor and the lessee, provided the lessee communicates his intention to renew the lease in writing three months before expiry of lease.” The defendant breached the said clause and its resolution No.130 dated 14.2.2005 and is bent upon to dispossess it from the suit land. Therefore, it filed the suit directing the defendant to execute registered lease deed in respect of the suit land for further period of 20 years from 10.5.2017 as per its resolution No.130 dated 14.2.2005 and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with its possession and enjoyment over the suit land.

11.The defence of the defendant is that it is of the view not to extent the lease period for having greenery park in the site and that the plaintiff has no

Nov 9 3/9 DJ, ADB

OS No. 6 of 2017 Specific Performance

right to seek extension of the lease for further period of 20 years by filing suit for specific performance.

12.Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial on 28.02.2019:

1)Whether the plaintiff made application to the defendant on 10.02.2005 seeking extension of lease for 20 more years in terms of renewal clause in the lease agreement No.1474/2002 dated 10.5.2002 entered by the plaintiff and the defendant?

2)Whether the Municipal Council in its meeting dated 14.02.2005 passed resolution No.130 vide File No.G1/1561/2001-05 extending the lease for further 20 years? If so, whether the said resolution is valid and subsisting as on the date of filing of the suit?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of specific performance directing the defendant to execute registered lease deed in favour of the plaintiff extending the lease of the suit land for another period of 20 years with effect from 10.5.2017?

4)Whether the defendant is entitled for eviction of the plaintiff from the suit land with effect from 10.5.2017 i.e., soon after completion of initial 15 years lease period?

5)To what relief?

13.The plaintiff examined its Managing Partner D. Mahesh as PW1 and filed 20 documents, Exs.A1 to A20. PW1 reiterated the plaint pleadings. Ex.A1 is acknowledgment of registration of firm of the plaintiff. Ex.A2 is registered lease deed document No.1474/2002 dated 10.5.2002. Ex.A3 is copy of order dated 11.6.2002 of the Hon’ble erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in WPMP

No.11184 of 2002 in WP No.9030 of 2002 filed by Halwale Yogender against the

Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Director of Municipal Administration, the defendant and PW1, granting suspension of the impugned GO Ms No.69 MA

dated 16.2.2002 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh subject to the

condition that Halwale Yogender filed an undertaking before the Registrar (Judicial) within a period of one week that if the writ petition was to be allowed and the property was put to auction and in the eventuality of the auction

Nov 9 4/9 DJ, ADB

OS No. 6 of 2017 Specific Performance

fetching the amount lesser than the amount offered by PW1, he would pay the difference amount to the defendant. Ex.A4 is copy of order dated 18.12.2002 in

WP No.9030 of 2002 dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn. Ex.A5 is copy of

order dated 18.7.2003 of the Hon’ble erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing as withdrawn WP No.3174 of 2003 filed by Atharuddin against the

Government of Andhra Pradesh, the Director of Municipal Administration, the defendant and PW1 challenging the said GO Ms No.69 MA dated 16.2.2002.

Ex.A6 is true copy of proceedings dated 7.1.2003 of the Joint Collector, Adilabad granting permission to PW1 for constructing cinema hall in the name and style of

Sri Ganesh AC Cinema hall in the Municipal land situated at Old Kamal Talkies measuring 123’ x 183’, marked subject to objection that it is not certified copy.

Ex.A7 is copy of proceedings dated 30.7.2003 of the Joint Collector, Adilabad granting permission to extend the time granted in the proceedings dated 7.1.2003 for construction of the theater for a further period of six months i.e., from 6.7.2003. Ex.A8 is copy of letter dated 22.10.2003 of the Collector, Adilabad requesting the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adilabad to inspect Sri Ganesh 70 MM

AC situated at Old Kamal Talkies, Adilabad and furnish his remarks on the said theatre. Ex.A9 is copy of proceedings dated 21.01.2004 of the Joint Collector,

Adilabad granting performance to PW1 for exhibition of films in Sri Ganesh 70

MM AC Theatre, Adilabad. Ex.A10 is true copy of Resolution No.112 dated 24.1.2005 of the defendant. Ex.A11 is copy of PW1’s application to the

Commissioner, Municipality Adilabad for granting permission to construct commercial annexee in view of the judgment and decree dated 15.4.2002 of the

Court of Junior Civil Judge, Adilabad in OS No.197 of 2008 filed by PW1 against the defendant. Ex.A12 is proceedings dated 26.3.2009 of the defendant’s

Commissioner granting permission to PW1 for making commercial construction in ground floor and first floor in the leased land. Ex.A13 is copy of resolution

No.130 dated 14.2.2005 of the defendant. Ex.A14 is copy of letter dated

Nov 9 5/9 DJ, ADB

OS No. 6 of 2017 Specific Performance

21.2.2005 of the defendant’s Commissioner to the Principal Secretary to

Government Municipal Administration and Urban Department, Andhra Pradesh,

Hyderabad submitting proposals for extension of lease period as resolved in the resolution, Ex.A13. Exs.A15 and A16 are copies of the plaintiff’s letter dated 28.1.2017 addressed to the defendant’s Chairman and Commissioner requesting for executing lease deed for a further period of 20 years effective from 9.5.2017.

Ex.A17 is copy of the plaintiff’s reminder letter dated 7.2.2017 to the defendant’s

Commissioner. Exs.A18 and A19 are eviction notices dated 3.3.2017 and 11.3.2017 issued to the plaintiff by the defendant’s Commissioner. Ex.A20 is 11 receipts issued by the defendant on receiving lease amount for the months

January 2016 to April 2017.

14.On the other hand, the defendant examined its Commissioner Adumulla

Shailaja as DW1 and filed attested copy of letter dated 8.9.2021 of the

Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration, Telangana State,

Hyderabad and certificate issued by DW1 under Section 65B of the Indian

Evidence Act as Exs.B1 and B2.

15.Admittedly, the lease under Ex.A2 is for 15 years. At page 9 of Ex.A2, there is lease renewal clause which reads: “The lessee shall have an option of renewal of lease on the terms and conditions as mutually agreed upon by the lessor and the lessee, provided the lessee communicates his intention to renew the lease in writing three months before expiry of lease.”

16.DW1 in her chief-examination stated: “It is true as per the Municipal record, in the year 2005 submitted proposal for further extension of lease period by from 15 years to 35 years, the same was placed in the agenda for discussion in

Council. On 14.2.2005 passed Resolution vide No.130 as “the Municipal Council in its resolution, has approved for the extension of the lease period from 15 years to 35 years and also resolved to recommend the proposals to the Government

Nov 9 6/9 DJ, ADB

OS No. 6 of 2017 Specific Performance

through Commissioner and Director Municipal Administration, AP, Hyderabad for forwarded to Government” and the same was forwarded to the Government through proper channel. The duty of the Municipality is post man duty, the duty is over, as the this file was forwarded to the Government vide letter dated 21.2.2005.”

17.Ex.A13 is copy of the said resolution No.130 dated 14.2.2005 of the defendant. Ex.A14 is copy of the said letter dated 21.2.2005 submitted by the defendant’s Commissioner to the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal

Administration and urban Development. In Ex.A4 there is a reference to the application dated 10.2.2005 of the plaintiff submitted for extension of lease period upto 35 years. Therefore, issue No.1 is held in favour of the plaintiff.

18.The resolution in Ex.A13 is only for submitting proposals to the

Government through the Commissioner and the Secretary for extension of the lease from 15 years to 35 years, not for extending the lease for further 20 years.

Issue No.2 is accordingly decided.

19.PW1 admitted that the renewal of lease under Ex.A2 is not automatic on the application of the plaintiff and that the lease given to them under Ex.A2 is not extended till now.

20.The Commissioner and Director of Municipal Administration through his letter dated 8.9.2021, Ex.B1, informed the defendant’s Commissioner that the proposal for extension of the lease period is not considered. DW1 denied the suggestion that Ex.B1 is an afterthought and is prepared to defeat the purpose of the suit.

21.There is no automatic renewal clause in the lease deed, Ex.A2. The resolution in Ex.A13 is not for extending the lease for further 20 years. The proposal of the defendant for extension of the lease period in favour of the plaintiff is not considered by the Commissioner and Director of Municipal

Nov 9 7/9 DJ, ADB

OS No. 6 of 2017 Specific Performance

Administration vide his letter dated 8.9.2021, Ex.B1. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of directing the defendant to execute and register lease deed for another period of 20 years from 10.5.2017 and issue No.3 is accordingly decided.

22.Admittedly, the lease period under Ex.A2 is not extended and the plaintiff did not deposit rents into the Court having obtained permission from the Court vide order dated 13.2.2019 in IA No.826 of 2017. There is default clause at page 8 of the lease deed, Ex.A2. The duties of the plaintiff after expiry of the lease are specified in para 2 at page 9 of the lease deed, Ex.A2. Then, the plaintiff cannot continue its possession over the suit property. Issue No.4 is accordingly answered.

23.In view of the findings on issue Nos.1 to 4, the plaintiff not entitled to any relief in the suit. Issue No.5 is accordingly answered.

24.In the result, the suit is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed with costs.

Prepared and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of November 2021.

JUDGE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFFOR DEFENDANT

PW1 Sri D. MaheshDW1 Adumalla Shailaja

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1Acknowledgment of registration of firm

Ex.A2Registered lease deed document No.1474/2002 dated 10.5.2002

Ex.A3Copy of order dated 11.6.2002

Nov 9 8/9 DJ, ADB

OS No. 6 of 2017 Specific Performance

Ex.A4Copy of order dated 18.12.2002 in WP No.9030 of 2002

Ex.A5Copy of order dated 18.7.2003

Ex.A6True copy of proceedings dated 7.1.2003 of the Joint Collector, Adilabad

Ex.A7Copy of proceedings dated 30.7.2003 of the Joint Collector, Adilabad

Ex.A8Copy of letter dated 22.10.2003 of the Collector, Adilabad

Ex.A9Copy of proceedings dated 21.01.2004 of the Joint Collector, Adilabad

Ex.A10True copy of Resolution No.112 dated 24.1.2005

Ex.A11Copy of PW1’s application to the Commissioner, Municipality Adilabad

Ex.A12Proceedings dated 26.3.2009

Ex.A13Copy of resolution No.130 dated 14.2.2005

Ex.A14Copy of letter dated 21.2.2005

Exs.A15Copies of the plaintiff’s letter dated 28.1.2017 and A16

Ex.A17Copy of the plaintiff’s reminder letter dated 7.2.2017

Exs.A18Eviction notices dated 3.3.2017 and 11.3.2017 and A19

Ex.A20(11) Receipts

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

Ex.B1Attested copy of letter issued by the Commissioner and Director of MunicipalAdministration,TS,HyderabadvideLr. No.369088/2021/K1 dated 08.09.2021

Ex.B2Certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act

JUDGE

Nov 9 9/9 DJ, ADB

oc ah Cri A 93 of 2019Appealagainstconviction

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONSJUDGE AT ADILABAD

PRESENT: SRI B.S.JAG JEEVAN KUMAR, B.Sc.,LL.M.,

SESSIONSJUDGE

Tuesday, January19, 2021

CRIMINALAPPEAL NO.93OF 2019 [Against judgmentdated12.6.2019in CC No.538 of 2017 of the Court of SpecialJudicialMagistrateof First Class,Mobile (PCR),Adilabad]

BETWEEN:

ThokalaSuresh@ Tillu S/oRajeshwar,30 years,Agriculturist,R/o Wagapur village,Mandal Mavala, District Adilabad

... Appellant/Accused

AND

The State of TelanganathroughSub-Inspectorof Police, PS Mavala

Respondent/Complainant

Counsel for Appellant: Sri G. MadhusudanRaju

Counsel for Respondent: Sri SanjayKumar Vairagare,

Additional Public Prosecutor

Thisappealcomingon4.1.2021forfinalhearing;upon hearingthe counselon record and consideringthematerialon recordandhavingstoodoverfor considerationtill thisday,this Court has deliveredthe following:

JUDGMENT

This appealchallengesthe judgmentdated12.6.2019of the

Courtof SpecialJMFC,Mobile(PCR),Adilabadin CC No.538of 2017convictingandsentencingtheappellant/accused(1)to go simple imprisonmentfor 6 months for the offence under

Section®354A(1)(iv)IPC, (2) to undergosimpleimprisonmentfor 6 : =for theoffenceunderSection500IPC, (3)to undergo

ayimprisonment

for 6 months for the offence under Section sim Bie

Jan 19VuSJ,ADB

Cri A 93 of 2019Appeal againstconviction 506IPC, (4) to undergosimpleimprisonmentfor 6 monthsandto payafineofRs.1,000/-,indefault,toundergosimple imprisonmentfor 15 days,for the offenceunderSection509 IPC.

OnPW1/Savitha’scomplaintdated7.1.2017,Ex.P1, 2

PW9/Tirupathi,the then SI of PS Adilabad Rural, registereda case in Crime No.6 of 2017underSections354A(i)(iv),500,506 and 509IPCandissuedFIR,Ex.P3,recordedstatementof

PW1/Savithaand transferredthe CD file on thesameday to PS

Mavalaon thepointof Firtdicianas pertheordersof theSDPO for furtherinvestigation.PW10/L.Raju,the thenSI, PS Mavala, visitedthesceneofoffenceandconductedcrimedetails panchanama,Ex.P2,in thepresenceof PW8/ andVilas Reddy, recordedstatementsofPW2/Rajeev(PW1’shusband),

PW3/Ashanna(PW1’s father),PW4/Linganna(PW1's father-in-law),

PW5/Ashok (panchayatelder), PW6/Bhumanna (panchayatelder),

PW7/Lasmanna(panchayatelder),Amrutha(wifeof accused),

Gunwanth (panchayatelder) and Venanna (PW1's brother-in-law), arrestedandremandedtheaccusedtojudicialcustodyon 9.1.2017,gaverequisitionandgotrecordedstatementof

PW1/Sayitha:underSection164CrPCon28.1.2017andfiled aa” sheetagainshy theaccusedfortheoffencespunishable

ér'Sections 354h(a)(v), 500, 506 and 509 IPC.

3,y | Jan 192/11SJ,ADB

7

ie Cri A 93 of 2019Appeal againstconviction

3.The charge-sheetallegations are: Savitha and Rajeev settled marriageof Amruthawith theaccusedandtheirmarriagewas solemnized about 7 years ago and they had one son and daughter.

Subsequently,the accuseddisliked Amruthaas she is not beautiful and is black in complexion.On 4.1.2017at about 20.00 hours the accusedquarreledwith Amrutha,beat her and drove her out of the housealongwith the children.Amruthawentto thehouseof

Savitha and Rajeev and at 21.00 hours the accusedwent to the houseof SavithaandRajeev, abusederatin filthy language, insultedthemodestyofSavithabyusinguglywordsand threatenedthemwithdireconsequencesbyshowingaknife.

Venannaintervenedandsentawaytheaccused.While proceeding,theaccusedsaidthathewoulddosomethingin betweenSavithaand Rajeev in the presenceof villagers on that theywould commitsuicide.On 5.1.2017at about09.30hours the accusedcalled casteelders,Savithaand othersto conduct panchayat.In the panchayat,the accusedtold that Savithais his wife ashis wife is notbeautifulandas to why he shouldlead conjugallifewithher,abusedSavithainvulgarlanguageand insultedhermodestyin thepresenceofRajeev,Ashanna, and others.Thus, the accused committed the aforesaid

we

Jan 193/i1SJ, ADB

Cri A 93 of 2019Appeal againstconviction

4.On 28.2.2017theCourtof JMFC, Adilabadtookthecharge- sheeton file as CC 124 of 2017.On 22.3.2017thesaid Court transferredthecaseto theCourtof SpecialJMFC, Mobile(PCR),

Adilabad in view of the proceedingsdated 20.3.2017of the District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

5.UponexaminingtheaccusedunderSection239CrPCand consideringthecharge-sheetandthedocumentssubmitted therewith,thesaidCourtof SpecialJMFC, Mobile (PCR),Adilabad, calledas “trialCourt”,framedthefollowingcharges hereinafter

against the accused:

1) Thathe on 05.01.2015at9.30a.m.,atWagapur villageof Mavala Mandal with intendingto insultthe modestyof Jagati Savitha and therebycommittedan offence punishableunder Section 354A(1)(v)IPC;

2)Thathe on 05.01.2015at9.30a.m.,atWagapur villageof MavalaMandaldefamedJagatiSavithaby means of as she is not beauty, intending to harm, or knowingorhavingreasontobelievethatsuch imputationwould harm the reputationof JagatiSavitha and therebycommittedan offencepunishableunder

Section500 IPC;

3)Thathe on 05.01.2015at9.30a.m.,atWagapur iofMavalaMandalcommittedcriminal ayonby paJagatiSavithawithdire “offe ne ‘punishableunder Section 506 IPC; and

K-

4/1SJ, ADB

19/3

a Cri A 93 of 2019Appeal againstconviction

4)Thathe on 05.01.2015at9.30a.m.,atWagapur villageofMavalaMandalintendingtoinsultthe modestyof JagatiSavithaby usingutteredwords, intendingthatthesameshallbeheardby Jagati

Savitha and therebycommitted an offence punishable under Section 509 IPC.

The accusedpleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

6.Toprovethecharges,theprosecutionexamined10 witnesses,PWs1to10,andmarked3 documents,Exs.P1itoP3.

TheaccusedwasexaminedunderSection313CrPC.He denied theincriminatingmaterialput to him.He did not adduceany evidence in his defence.

7.Onappreciatingtheoral-anddocumentaryevidenceon record, the trial Court, by its judgmentdated 12.6.2019,recorded the above said conviction and sentence by concluding:

“In view of facts and circumstancesof the caseas discussed abovethattheprosecutionhasadducedbestavailable evidence to record the conviction against the accused.So, basing on the material on record and concerning prosecution and defence,I hold that theprosecutionprovedthenexus betweentheaccusedand.theoffences.withwhichheis i rged.Theprosecutionon whomburdenlies,. madeout 4 ‘case against the accused that the accused committed the we id offenceswhichoutragethemodestyof .Pwiandinsulted /¢riminallyintimidatedher and her husband.I am of

Ge

Jan 19S/M1SJ, ADB

Cri A 93 of 2019Appeal againstconviction consideredopinionthatthe _ prosecution— clinchingly establishedthesaidoffencesagainsttheaccusedbeyondall reasonabledoubt and accusedis liable for conviction.”

8.Aggrievedby thesaid judgmentof thetrialCourt,the accusedfiled the presentappealcontending:

‘3.That,theevidenceof PWs1 to 4is not believablein the eyeof law sincethePWs1 to 4 arebloodrelativesi.e., victim, husband,fatherand father-in-lawrespectively, as suchdefinitelytherewill be corroborativeevidenceto eachother.That,thePWs5to7areinterested witnessesas in cross examinationthe Pw5 categorically admittedthat “it is trueI came to the Court todaywith

PWsito 4 at theirrequest,”Pw6 categoricallystated that“it is truePw2 cameto theCourttoday”andPw2 categoricallystatedin crossexaminationthat“it is true

Pw2 cameto theCourttoday”,henceas perevidenceof

PWsS5 to 7it is clearlyrevealsthatat the instanceof Pw2 theyhavegiven evidencebeforethelearnedCourt, thereforetheevidenceofPWs5to7isalsonot believable.

4. That,therearelotof contradictions,improvements, omissionsand admissionsin the evidenceof PWs1 to 7, but the learned lower Court utterly failed to appreciate andconsiderthesamein favourof appellantand

erroneously passed the judgment under appeal against

the ‘eppgllant, hence the same is liable to be set aside.

aeif todgingthecomplaintandtheIO i.e.,Pw9 & 10

SJ, ADBKo

Jan 196/11

Cri A 93 of 2019Appeal against conviction categoricallyadmittedthesameinthecross examination,but the learned lower Court simply thrown out the same by stating that, the delay of (3) days was not extraordinarydelay in lodging complaint, as such the finding of learned lower Court is incorrect.

6. That,thejudgmentof thelearnedlowerCourtby convicting the appellant basing on the sole testimonyof

PWs1 to 7 is mereimaginary,andthelearnedlower

Courthasnot takeninto considerationtheevidence which wasbroughton recordand withoutadjudicating the matterin a proper manner,passedan erroneous judgmentbyconvictingtheappellantinsteadof acquittinghim, henceliable to be set aside.

7. That,theinvestigationofficer failed toexamineany independentwitnesses and the prosecution also failed to examinethewife of accusedin learnedlowerCourt, which is fatal to the prosecutioncase.

8. That, the learned lower Court had come to conclusion on mere surmises and conjecturesand the judgmentitself lieu and the ingredientsof underSection354-A (1)(iv), 500,509and506IPCandthemandatoryrulesnot followed and envisagedin the judgment.

9. That, basing on the sole testimony of PWsi to 7 passing thejudgmentandconvictingtheappellantby the learnedlowerCourtisillegalandagainsttothe principles of natural justice,hence the same is liable to t aside.

he learned lower Court failed to see the material

ns contradictions and admissions as available on ‘butseemstohavebaseditsconvictionon ‘andutopiangrounds,whichcannotbe

Stainedto the legal scrutiny”.

a

Jan 19TALSJ, ADB

Crl A 93 of 2019Appealagainstconviction

9.The counsel for the accused reiterated the contentionsraised in the appealand urgedfor allowing the appeal.Per contra,the

AdditionalPublic Prosecutorsupportedthe judgmentof thetrial

Court and urged for dismissing the appeal.

10.The pointthatarisesfor determinationin thepresentappeal is: whetherthe judgmentof the trial Court is erroneousand illegal © and is liable to be interferedwith?

11.TheFIRis notpromptin thiscase.Itwaslodgedon 7.1.2017.Thereis no explanationfor thedelay.Then, embellishmentor exaggeration cannot be ruled out.

12.As regardstheallegedfirst: incident,no chargewasframed.

TheFIR allegationsarethattheaccusedabusedPWs1and2 saying bosidiki dana, o lanja boddi, areyi Rajeev areyi badkav and went upon them showingknife and saying thathe would go to jail by killing them.PW1 gavea differentversionin herevidencethat the accusedsaid thatsheperformedtheirmarriageandnow he wantedherandthattheaccusedbroughtaknifetokill them.

ThoughPW1 statedthatthe accusedabusedher andPW2 in filthy language,shedid not give the abusivewords.PW2 gaveanother versionthattheaccusedpickedupa quarrelwiththemand

““thré@tened to kill one of them and that the accused said that he

would,eafl themto thepanchayat.PW3 saidthatPW1 informed a...ataquarrel tookplacebetweenher and theaccused.PWs5 8/11SJ, ADB

as

:

|Cri A 93 of 2019Appeal against conviction and 7 also said that a quarrel took place between the accused and

PWi1.PW6 statedthaton 4.1.2017duringeveninghoursthe accusedabusedPWs1 and 2 and pickedup a quarrelwith them.

The abovediscussedevidenceshows thattherewas a quarrel betweenPWs1 and 2 on one hand and the accusedon the otheron the issue of the wife of the accusedcoming to the houseof PWs1 and 2 but it doesnot provethe said allegationsmadein theFIR.

13.TheFIR allegationsasregardstheallegedsecondincident arethatbeforethepanchayateldersandcastepersonsthe accusedabusedPW1 sayingo /lanjaneekenenumoganninuvve naapellanivi,andsaidthathe led conjugallife withher,thathe tied thali to her, thathe had proof and cell phonerecordingsand thather husbandwas not capableand thatby beatinghis thighs and jumping, the accused said that from then onwards she was his wife.Each of PWs1 to 7 gavea differentversionas regardsthe alleged incident.

14.PW1 statedthatin thepanchayattheaccusedsaidthathe wouldkeepherandhis wife andthattheaccusedabusedher sayinglanja,bosidiandalsoabusedPW2 sayingbhadkav.PW2 statedthattheaccusedsaidthathe wouldkeepPW1 andthathe %:__was in possessionof thephotoswhichshowedthathe tiedthaliin *kofPW1i.PW3saidthattheaccusedattendedthe

Ie

‘O/11SJ, ADB

Cri A 93 of 2019Appealagainstconviction oe statedthatin thepanchayatthe accusedsaid thathe was in possessionof photosshowingthathe tied thaliin theneckof PW1 and thattheaccuseddid not heartheadviceof theelders.PW5 deposedthatin thepanchayattheaccusedabusedPW1 saying thathe would tie thali to her and would show theproof and that the accuseddid not heartheiradvice.PW6’s versionis thatin the panchayattheaccusedabusedPW1 in filthylanguagesayingthat he kepther.PW7 saidthatin thepanchayattheaccusedstated thathe tiedthalito PW1 andkeptherandthatwhentheyasked the accusedto show proof the accusedwent away.

15.It is true,PW1 statedthatthe accusedsaidin thepanchayat thathewouldkeepher.Butin thecross-examinationshe admittedthatshe did not statebefore the police that the accused said that he would keep her.Then, the accusedcannotbe said to havemadesuchremarkagainstPW1 in thepanchayat.

16.PW1saidthatin thepanchayattheaccusedabusedher sayinglanja,bosidiandalso abusedPW2 sayingbhadkav.But no corroborationfor thesaidevidenceis forthcomingfromthe idence of PWs2 to 7.

17. : Thengre,thechargesunderSections354A(1)(iv),500and 9:IPC sholild fall to ground.

Jan1910/11SJ, ADB

2/8

Cri A 93 of 2019Appeal against conviction

18.Thereremainsonly the chargeunderSection506IPC.It is not thecaseof theprosecutionthattheaccusedthreatenedPW1 with dire consequenceson 5.1.2017at 9.30am in the panchayat.

None of PWs1 to 7 saidthatthe accusedthreatenedPW1 with dire consequencesin thepanchayat.Therefore,thesaid charge shouldalso fall to ground.

19.For theforegoingreasons,thepointhastobeansweredin favouroftheaccusedandagainsttheprosecutionandis accordingly answered.

20.Intheresult,theappealis allowed.The judgmentof the trial Court is set aside.The accused/appellantis acquittedof the offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(iv), 500, 506 and 509

IPC.The bailbondsof theappellantshallstandcanceled.The fine amount shall be refunded to the appellant.

SESSIONS JUDGE

APPENDIXOF EVIDENCE

Nily——

JUDGE

Jan 191W/ilSJ,ADB