1 SC 50 of 2011
IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER
S.Cs AND S.Ts (PoA) ACT-CUM-V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE
Present: Sri.B. SRINIVASA RAO,
IV Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore
FAC:Spl. Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act-
cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore
Wednesday, the 21st day of March, 2018
SESSIONS CASE No.50 of 2011
(P.R.C.No.28 of 2010 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kota in Crime No.15 of 2010 of Chittamur P.S.)
Name of the Complainant:State – Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur Name of the Accused: 1) Mannuru Penchala Reddy, son of Sundararami Reddy, aged 45 years, Kapu by caste,
2) Menneti Chenchaiah, son of Chenchaiah, aged 49 years, Mutharasi by caste,
3) Chennuru Srihari Reddy, son of Raghurami Reddy
4) Dudala Hazarathu, son of Dasaiah,
5) Yenimeti Chenchaiah, son of Chenchaiah (All are residents of Mettu village of Chittamur mandal) Note: A3 to A5 were added as per the order dated 11.07.2017 in CrlMP No.527 of 2017
Offences:u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 and u/s.326 IPC against A1 to A5
Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Judge:In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable Sentence of Order: u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 and u/s.326 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused and those of their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
2 SC 50 of 2011
Prosecution conducted by:Smt.Maddali Vijaya,
Additional Public Prosecutor, Nellore
Name of the Defence Sri.P. Vijayakumara Reddy and counsel: Sri.P. Sri Harsha, Advocates, Nellore
This Sessions Case coming up before this Court on 09.03.2018 for hearing in the presence of above said Additional Public Prosecutor for Complainant and the above said advocate for accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:
J U D G M E N T
1.The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur filed charge sheet in
Crime No.15 of 2010 of Chittamur police station against A1 and A2 alleging commission of offences u/s.324, 326 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and
S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989.
2.The case of prosecution in brief is that Pw1 and Pw2 are close blood relatives. About two years back, Pw2 sold away two oxen to A2 for
Rs.25,000/- and A2 executed a promissory note for the above said
Rs.25,000/- in favour of Pw2. According to their agreement, A2 has to clear the said loan after harvesting the crop. But a2 failed to repay the loan to
Pw2 as promised. On that on 12.04.2010 A2 visited the house of Pw2 to repay the loan amount on 14.04.2010. On 14.04.2010 at about 1 P.M., A1 and A2 visited the village square and called Pw2 to tear away the promissory note taking Rs.2,000/- from A2 towards full settlement. Pw2 did not agree for the same and asked A1 to direct A2 to pay at least Rs.23,000/- by deducting the interest amount of Rs.2,000/-. On that A1 scolded Pw2 in abusive language saying that A2 would not repay his loan amount. On that
Pw2 grew wild and questioned A1 about his authority, in indulging this issue unnecessarily. At that time, Pw1 came there and pushed A1 by using criminal force.
3 SC 50 of 2011
On 14.04.2010 at about 7 PM, while Pw1 was at Kamma Manu, near Saibaba temple, at Mettu village, A1 and A2 with an intention to cause hurt to Pw1 went upon Pw1 armed with deadly weapons like knife and rod, and bet him indiscriminately and caused injuries to him over his body. The accused also abused Pw1 in filthy language touching his caste name. Pw2 went to the shop of Pw3, heard the cries, rushed to the scene of offence and witnesses the occurrence. Pw2 and Pw4 shifted the injured Pw1 to the shop of Pw3. Then Pw3 took Pw1 and Pw2 to the Government hospital on his motor cycle and admitted Pw1 in the hospital for treatment. Pw1 was shifted to the Government hospital, Gudur for treatment.
On hospital intimation, police went and recorded the statement of Pw1 and registered the same as a case in crime No.15 of 2010 of
Chittamur police station u/s.147, 324 r/w 149 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 against A1 and A2 and submitted original FIR to the court and copies to all the concerned officials. After receipt of authorization from the Superintendent of Police, Nellore, the then Sub
Divisional Police Officer, Gudur, took up investigation in this case, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, observed it, got prepared scene observation report and rough sketch and arrested A1 and A2 and produced before the court along with remand report.
The investigation reveals that the accused in this case also sustained injuries in the said incident and hence a case in crime No.14 of 2010 was registered against Pw1, Pw2 and another. The Pw1 taking advantage of his injuries gave his statement with exaggerations against some others whose names are figured as A1 to A5 and A8 to a11. During investigation, the involvement of others is not proved and the names of the above persons are deleted and the charge is filed against A1 and A2 only. The medical officer 4 SC 50 of 2011 who treated Pw1 issued wound certificate and opined that the injury No.2 is grievous in nature. Hence after receipt of all certificates and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused under the above sections of law. Hence the charge sheet.
3.The learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kota taken the case on file for the offences punishable u/s.324, 326 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 against A1 and A2 and numbered as PRC
No.28 of 2010 and committed to this court to proceed further according to law as the offence under S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 is exclusively triable by this Court. After receipt of the record, this court has taken the case on file for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 against A1 and A2 and numbered the case as S.C. No.50 of 2011 and proceeded with trial according to law and in due course in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C., the copies of documents were furnished to the accused.
4. Before this Court, on hearing the advocate for defence and learned Additional Public Prosecutor, charges were framed U/s.326 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 against A1 and A2 . When read over and explained the charges in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During trial, on petition by the prosecution, A3 to A5 were added as per the order dated 11.07.2017 in CrlMP No.527 of 2017, basing on the evidence of Pw1. Hence charges were framed U/s.326 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 against A3 to A5. When read over and explained the charges in Telugu, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5 SC 50 of 2011
6. During trial, the prosecution got examined 8 witnesses out of 10 witnesses cited in the charge sheet and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.8.
7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., wherein the accused denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and pleaded innocence and claimed that they have not committed any offence. Further reported that there is no defence evidence on their behalf, but got marked Ex.D1 to D5.
8.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.
9.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the prosecution could able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/s.3(1)
(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 and u/s.326 IPC
against A1 to A5 beyond all reasonable doubts?”
P O I N T:
10.It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 14.4.2010 at about 1 P.M., Pw1 and his son in law Pw2 asked A2 for repayment of loan amount of Rs.25,000/- borrowed by him from Pw2, for that without giving any answer A2 went away and further contended that on the same day night at 7 PM A2 who developed grudge against Pw1 and Pw2 for asking the loan amount came to Sri Sai Baba temple along with 10 others who were shown as A1 to A11 in FIR armed with knives, sticks, axes and iron rods surrounded Pw1 and beat Pw1 on his body indiscriminately and caused injuries to him over his body and A1 and A2 abused Pw1 in filthy language by touching his caste name. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed the court to punish the accused for the offences u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts 6 SC 50 of 2011 (PoA) Act, 1989 and u/s.326 IPC as the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
11.On the other hand, the learned advocate for the accused vehemently contended that this is a case where there is no evidence and further contended that initially Pw1 gave report against 11 accused and basing on the report the concerned police registered a case in crime
No.15/2010 u/s.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989. After investigation Pw8/investigating officer, he filed charge sheet against two persons only i.e. A1 and A2 and subsequently after chief examination of Pw1, prosecution filed an application u/s.319 CrPC praying the court to add the accused by name Chennuru Srihari Reddy, Dodla
Hazarat and Enimeti Chenchaiah and the petition was allowed and the above three persons were added as A3 to A5 and further contended that the evidence of the injured witnesses is not corroborating with the other prosecution eyewitnesses as there is a difference in between their evidence with regard to the injuries sustained by Pw1. The learned advocate for the accused vehemently contended that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the accused and prayed the court to acquit the accused.
12.Pw1/Rayapati Nagooraiah deposed that he knew A1 and A2 who are residents of his village, he is Mala-Scheduled caste, he is an illiterate person, that on 14.4.2010 at 1.00 PM his nephew Lw.2 Perikala Ramesh
Babu called Manneti Chenchaiah A2 who borrowed Rs.25,000/- from his nephew and did not repay the amount, on that himself and his nephew asked
A2 for repayment of loan amount, but A2 did not give any proper reply for 7 SC 50 of 2011 them and they left that place and A2 also left the place. He further deposed that on the same day at 7.00 P.M. he went to Srinivasulu Reddy sundry shop and returning back, while he reached Saibaba temple, A1 to A5 came in a running stage and beat him on his right shoulder with a rod by A3 and caused injury, A2 beat him on the back side of his head with iron rod and caused injury, A1 beat him with a stick on his right leg knee and caused bleeding injury, after receipt of the injuries he fell down on the ground and in the meantime A4 and others who are present at the scene along with the above persons beat him indiscriminately with hands and legs by using the deadly weapons armed by saying thatEE MALA NA KODUKU
CHACHINADURA, EE NA KODUKUNI YEVARU KAPADUTHARU, MANA
VALLANE YEDIRINCHEVADAYYADA and left the place. He further deposed that he was at the scene of offence with injuries, then Lw2/Perikala
Ramesh Babu, Lw4/Challa Chenchaiah came to him and lifted him from the scene and took him to sundry shop of Konduru Sreenivasulu Reddy/Lw3, then Lw3/Sreenivasulu Reddy and his nephew Ramesh Babu took him on a motor cycle to Government hospital, Kota for treatment , they gave first aid and later he was shifted to Government hospital, Gudur and while he was in the hospital the police came and recorded his Ex.P1 statement which contained his signature.
13.Pw2/Perikala Ramesh Babu @ Babulu deposed that he knew all the accused, that prior to the alleged offence, he sold his two oxes to A2 for a sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-, A2 did not pay the amount and executed a promissory note, A2 agreed to pay the amount after harvest of the crop but not paid the amount so promised. He further deposed that on 12.4.2010 morning he went to the house of A2 and asked about repayment 8 SC 50 of 2011 of amount for which A2 promised him that A2 will pay the amount on 14.4.2010 and on 14.4.2010 at about 1.00 PM called him to Rachabanda in his Harijanawada colony by A1 and A2, he went there, both A1 and A2 are in full drunken state and A1 told him that A2 will pay Rs.2,000/- to him and to receive the same and asked him to torn the promissory note executed by
A2 for which he stated that he did not take the interest even on Rs.25,000/- promissory note and demanded the accused to pay his entire amount, that
Penchala Reddy informed him that Chenchaiah will pay only Rs.2,000/- and asked him to go and state to anybody and he also demanded to torn the promissory note, by saying so abused him and fell down from the
Rachabanda, some elders who are present at Rachabanda pacified the matter between him and A1 and A2 and sent them from the place. He further deposed that on the same day at 7.00 PM he is proceeding towards the sundry shop of Sreenivasulu Reddy, he heard some cries from Saibaba temple, then he rushed to the Saibaba temple, by the time he reached the scene, his father in law Pw1 fell down on the ground with injuries, himself and Chenchaiah/Lw4 brought him to the shop of Sreenivasulu Reddy, by the time he went there, nobody were present, he shifted Pw1 to Government hospital, Kota on the motor cycle of Sreenivasulu reddy for treatment. From there, he was shifted to Government hospital, Gudur on the advice of doctor at Kota, from there he was shifted to Nellore General hospital for further treatment, police examined him at Gudur and recorded his statement.
14.Pw3/Konduru Sreenivasulu Reddy deposed that he knew all the accused and on 14.4.2010 at about 7 or 7.30 PM , Pw1 came to his sundry shop and purchased beedies and proceeded towards Kavamma manu, after few seconds, he heard big cries from Saibaba temple, he observed Saibaba 9 SC 50 of 2011 temple from his shop and found a mob of 10 to 15 persons are gathered at the Saibaba temple. In the meanwhile one tractor driver Chenchaiah and
Pw2 Ramesh Babu brought Pw1 to his shop, he observed injuries on the head, right hand, right knee of Pw1, they are oozing bleeding, then himself and Pw2 took Pw1 on his motor cycle to Government hospital, Kota for treatment, he left them at hospital and returned to his village, Police examined him and recorded his statement.
15.Pw4/Challa Chenchaiah deposed that he knew the accused, he is an illiterate person, about 7 years back at about 7.00 or 7.30 PM while he was sitting near the sundry shop of Pw3 Sreenivasulu reddy, he heard some cries from Kamamma manu centre, immediately he rushed to the centre and found Naguraiah lying on the ground with bleeding injuries, himself and Pw2
Ramesh Babu lifted Nagooraiah and they brought him to the shop of Pw3
Sreenivasulu Reddy, from there Nagooraiah was shifted to hospital on the motor cycle of Sreenivasulu Reddy along with Ramesh Babu, police examined him and recorded his statement.
16.Pw5/Bandili Subba Rao deposed that he knew the accused and on 14.4.2010 at about 7.30 PM while he was present in his house, he heard some cries and he came out of the house which is adjacent to Rachabanda of
Harijanawada and found that Sreenivasulu reddy and Perikala Ramesh Babu are taking Nagooraiah on the motor cycle of Sreenivasulu reddy, by the time he observed, Nagooraiah is having bleeding injuries on his body, they have taken him to Kota hospital for treatment, himself, Pw1’s brother and some others went to Kota hospital in an auto, from there Pw1 was shifted to Gudur
General hospital for treatment, he came to know that Pw1 received injuries 10 SC 50 of 2011 in the disputes in the village, police examined him and recorded his statement.
17.Pw6/Sd.Siraj, the then S.I. of Police deposed that he received the statement of Pw1 Rayapati Nagooraiah recorded by Lw.8 N.V.Mukunda
Rao, ASI of Police of Gudur I town police station, and he registered the same as a case in crime No.15/2010 u/s.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC and u/s.3(1)
(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 of Chittamuru police station on 15.4.2010 at 12.00 hours, Ex.P2 is the original FIR along with Ex.P1 submitted to the court and copies to all the concerned officials, Lw8/N.V.
Mukunda Rao, ASI of police, Gudur I town Police station recorded the statement of Pw1 and on point of jurisdiction it was sent to Chittamuru police station and the further investigation is taken up by Lw10/K.Narayana reddy, the SDPO, Gudur.
18.Pw7/Dr.B. Vara Subrahmanyam, the then CAS deposed that on 14.4.2010 one person by name Naguraiah son of Venkataiah, aged 30 years accompanied by P. Ramesh Babu to the hospital and he has seen him at 11.30 AM and found the following injuries:- (1) Laceration occipit 1x5cm (2) laceration right hand (3) laceration right knee 1x1.5 cm (4) contusion multiple over body, xray MLC No.737 showing fracture ulna right hand and he issued Ex.P3 wound certificate opining that the above injuries are due to sharp object and injury No.2 is grievous in nature on right hand injury.
19.Pw8/K. Narayana Reddy, the then SDPO, Gudur deposed that on 15.4.2010 he received copy of FIR in the above crime No.15 of 2010 of
Chittamuru police station, he received Ex.P4 authorization proceedings and 11 SC 50 of 2011 on 16.4.2010 he proceeded to Government Head Quarters hospital, Nellore where Pw1 Naguraiah was admitted and taking treatment, he secured the presence of Pw1 and recorded his statement at the hospital, subsequently he proceeded to the scene of offence situated at Mettu village and examined the scene and prepared Ex.P5 rough sketch, he tried to examine the witnesses at the scene of offence but in vain. He further deposed that he secured the presence of Pw2 P. Ramesh Babu, Pw3 K. Sreenivasulu Reddy at his office on 16.4.2010, examined them and recorded their statements and on 17.4.2010 he secured the presence of Pw4 at his office and recorded his statement, that on 25.4.2010 he secured the presence of Pw5 B. Subba rao examined him and recorded his statement. He further deposed that on 27.4.2010 he learnt that A1 and A2 surrendered before the Magistrate court at Kota, after receipt of caste certificates of Pw1, A1 and A2 under Ex.P6 to P8 respectively, wound certificate of Pw1 under Ex.P3 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused on 11.10.2010.
That being the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
20.It is the contention of the accused is that originally Pw1 gave report against 11 accused basing on the report the investigating officer/Pw8 registered a case against 11 persons u/s.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989. After investigation of the above case by Pw8, he filed charge sheet against two only, i.e. A1 and A2 who figured as A6 and A7 in the FIR Ex.P1 and P2 and the remaining persons were deleted and not filed charge sheet against them since no case is made out against those persons. A3 to A5 were added subsequently after chief examination of Pw1 and on the filing of petition by prosecution u/s.319 12 SC 50 of 2011
CrPC. As seen from Ex.P1 FIR, the following overt acts were attributed to the various accused in the above case.
21.On 14.4.2010 at about 1 PM Pw1 Rayapati Nagooraiah and his son in law Pw2 Perikala Ramesh Babu asked A2 Manneti Chenchaiah for repayment of loan amount of Rs.25,000/- borrowed from Pw2 Perikala
Ramesh Babu, for which without giving any answer, A2 went away. On the same day night, at about 7 PM , Manneti Chenchaiah/A2, who developed grudge against Pw1 and Pw2 for asking the loan amount, came to Saibaba temple with 10 others who were shown as A1 to A11 in the FIR. All the 11 persons armed with knives, sticks, axes and iron rods, surrounded Pw1. It is mentioned in Ex.P1, among the 11 persons, Tatiparti Srinivasulu Reddy who figured as A1 in the FIR is not shown as an accused in this case andl it is further mentioned in Ex.P1 that Tatiparti Srinivasulu Reddy hacked with a knife on the right knee of Pw1. Chennuru Srihari Reddy who figured as A4 in
FIR and A3 in this case beat with an iron rod on the right shoulder of Pw1.
A2 beat with an iron rod on the back side of the head of Pw1. Then Pw1 fell down. The remaining accused beat Pw1 with sticks and hands indiscriminately all over his body. It is pertinent to note here that among the 11 persons, Tatiparti Srinivasulu Reddy who figured as A1 in FIR in Ex.P1, is not an accused in this case stated that MALA NA KODAKA NEEKU
POGARU PERIGINAADI,MAMMALNE YEDIRISTAVAA, NINNU YEVARU
KAPAADUTAARU. By saying so, he stated that EE MALA NAKODUKUNI
CHAMPEYANDIRAA. It is also pertinent to note that Konduru Venkata
Reddy, A2, as per Ex.P1 FIR who is not an accused in this case stated that
CHAMPEYANDIRAA EE NA KODUKUNI. By stating that, he hacked Pw1 with knife, Pw1 fell down and became unconsciousness. As Pw1 unconscious, the accused went away stating that Pw1 died. It is the further 13 SC 50 of 2011 case of the prosecution that the unconscious, the Pw1 was initially taken to
Kota Government hospital by Pw2 and Pw5. The hospital authorities of Kota
Government hospital referred Pw1 to Gudur Govt. Hospital and after his admission in Gudur Government hospital, police came and recorded his statement. But Pw1 in his evidence categorically stated that on 14.4.2010 at 1 PM , his nephew Pw2 called Manneti Chenchaiah A2 as he borrowed
Rs.25,000/- from his nephew and did not repay the amount, on that himself and Pw2 asked A2 for repayment of loan amount, but he did not give proper reply to them and left that place. On the same day at 7 PM, he went to
Srinivasulu Reddy sundry shop and returning back while he reached Sai Baba temple, A1 to A5 came in running stage and beat him on his right shoulder with a rod by A3/Srihari Reddy and caused injury. A2 beat him on his back side of head with an iron rod and caused injury, A1 beat him with stick on his right leg knee and caused bleeding injury. After receipt of the injuries, he fell down on the ground in the meantime, A4 and others who were present at the scene along with above persons beat him indiscriminately with their hands and legs by using the deadly weapons armed by them EE MALA NA
KODUKU CHACHINADURAA, EE NA KODUKUNI YEVARU
KAPADUTHARU, MANA VALLANI YEDIRINCHEVADAYYADAA. Pw2 and
Pw5 shifted him to Government hospital, Kota for treatment . At Government hospital, Kota, they gave first aid and later he was shifted to Gudur and he was treated at Gudur while he was in the hospital, police came and recorded his statement under Ex.P1. In his cross examination, he admitted that he did not state in Ex.P1 statement and in his statement before police that Mannuru
Penchala Reddy/A1 beat him with stick on his right leg knee and caused bleeding injury. He further admitted that he did not state in Ex.P1 or in his statement before police that after receipt of injuries, he fell down on the 14 SC 50 of 2011 ground in the meantime, A3 to A5 are present at the scene of offence along with above persons beat him indiscriminately with their hands and legs by using the deadly weapons armed by them by saying that EE MALA NA
KODUKU CHACHINADURAA, EE NA KODUKUNI YEVARU
KAPADUTHARU, MANA VALLANI YEDIRINCHEVADAYYADAA, and left the place. He denied the suggestion that he stated before police in his statement when he was at the scene of offence with injuries, Pw2 and Pw5 came to him and lifted from the scene and took him to Konduru Srinivasulu
Reddy sundry shop. He denied the suggestion that he did not state before police in his statement that Lw3 Srinivasulu Reddy and nephew Ramesh
Babu took him on a motor cycle to Government hospital, Kota for treatment.
He got conscious after lifting him from the ground by Ramesh Babu and
Challa Chenchaiah. After 10 minutes, he fell down on the ground with injuries and become unconscious . Pw2 and Pw5 came to him and lifted him from the ground. He do not remember that he gave Ex.P1 statement by mentioning 11 persons names as accused. He admitted that he did not state
before police either in Ex.P1 or his 161 CrPC statement that on the same day
at 7 PM he went tok Srinivasulu Reddy sundry shop and returning back. He knew that one Tatiparti srinivasulu Reddy, resident of his village. He do not know that one Tatiparti Srinivasulu Reddy who was shown as A1 in the FIR, abused him by touching his caste that he also threatened him with dire consequences and instigate others to kill him. He do not remember whether he had stated in Ex.P1 that among them, Tatiparti Srinivasulu Reddystated that MALA NA KODAKA NEEKU POGARU PERIGINAADI,MAMMALNE
YEDIRISTAVAA, NINNU YEVARU KAPAADUTAARU. By saying so, he
stated that EE MALA NAKODUKUNI CHAMPEYANDIRAA ANNADU. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely to help Srinivasulu Reddy 15 SC 50 of 2011 that he did not utter such words as stated above and instigate other to kill him as stated in Ex.P1 report. He do not remember that he has stated before the police under 161 CrPC statement when he was at Sai Baba temple centre, that the accused surrounded him, among them, Tatiparti Srinivaslu
Reddy hacked him on his right knee with knife. A3 beat him with iron rod on his right shoulder back side that Manneti Chenchaiah A2 beat him on his head right back side with iron rod, that after receipt of injuries, he fell down unconscious.
22. He denied the suggestion that on the same day at the same place at same time, himself Perika Ramesh Babu/Pw2, his brother Chengaiah beat A1 and A2 with deadly weapons and caused multiple injuries. He admitted that the police registered a case basing on the report of A2 in this case in crime No.14/2010 u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC on the file of Chittamuru police station showing himself A2 and his brother as accused. He further admitted that after investigation, police laid charge sheet vide C.C.No.59/2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge court, Kota and he further admitted that the case is ended acquittal before commencement of trial in this case. He denied the suggestion that as they caused injuries to A1 and A2 as a counter-blast, they gave report to the police. Ex.P1 report was recorded by police basing on the information from one of his relatives, but he can not furnish the name of the person who gave information to the police. He do not remember whether
Dy.SP enquired him and recorded his statement or not. He do not remember whether no police officer recorded his statement including the DySP during the course of investigation. He denied the suggestion that after due deliberations and consultations of party leaders, Ex.P1 is brought into existence, that is why he is unable to say whether his statement was recorded by police or not. He do not know whether Mudi Parandhami Reddy 16 SC 50 of 2011 was murdered by Telugu Desam party workers and leaders. He knew one
Puchalapalli Naresh Reddy. He do not know as to whether Puchalapalli
Naresh Reddy belongs to Telugu Desam party or not. He do not know whether Puchalapalli Naresh Reddy and 11 others are in Central Prison,
Nellore, as life convicts. He denied the suggestion that the accused who were present in the court hall not abused him by touching his caste. He denied the suggestion that he did not state in Ex.P1 statement or his statement given to
DySP that A1 to A5 abused him by touching his caste. He denied the suggestion that A1 to A5 did not beat him and caused injuries on his person.
At about 8 or 8.30 PM on the date of offence, he visited the Kota hospital .
He do not know whether the signature on Ex.P1 was taken police at Kota hospital or not. He do not remember where he put his signature on Ex.P1 whether at Kota or Gudur or at any other place. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P1 is prepared by some other person. So he do not know abut the contents as well as the signature put on Ex.P1. He knew one Rayapati
Kotaiah and Venkata Ramanaiah. He do not know they are the accused in
Parandhami reddy’s case. One Somi Seshu Reddy filed criminal case filed against him and Pw2 and Lw3 Srinivasulu reddy. He denied the suggestion that he foisted a false case against A1 to A5 on the instigation of Puchalapalli
Naresh Reddy who is the leader of Telugu Desam party.
23.Pw2 stated that by the time he rushed to the Sai Baba temple and reached the scene, Pw1 who is his father in law fell on the ground with injuries. Himself and , Pw4 brought him to shop of Srinivasulu Reddy by the time he went there, nobody was present.
24.Pw3 categorically stated that on 14.4.2010 at 7 or 7.30 PM Pw1 came to his shop and purchased beedies and proceeded towards Kavamma manu. After few seconds, he heard big cries from Sai Baba temple. He 17 SC 50 of 2011 observed Sri Saibaba temple and found a mob and 10 to 15 persons gathered at Sri Saibaba temple and in the meantime, Pw2, Pw4 brought Pw1 to his shop.
25.Pw4 stated that at about 7 years back at about 7 or 7.30 while he was sitting near sundry shop of Pw3, he heard some cries from Kavamma manu center, immediately he rushed to the centre and found Pw1 lying on the ground and with bleeding injuries. Himself , Pw2 lifted Pw1 and brought him to the shop of Srinivasulu Reddy.
26.Pw5 stated that on 14.4.2010 at about 7.30 PM while he was present in his shop, he heard some cries, and he came out of the house which is adjacent to Rachabanda of Harijanawada and found that Srinivasulu
Reddy and Perikala Ramesh babu are taking Nagooraiah Pw1 on the motor cycle of Pw3. By the time he observed Nagooraiah is having bleeding injuries on his body. They have taken him to Kota hospital for treatment. Himself,
Pw1’s brother and some others went to Kota hospital in an auto and from there, Pw1 was shifted to Gudur government hospital. He came to know that
Pw1 received injuries in the disputes in the village.
27.In cross examination, Pw2 admitted that he was not examined by constable at Kota , he was examined at Government hospital, Gudur by ASI of Police. He admitted that the Government area hospital Gudur is a very big hospital. In area hospital, the doctor examined him by removing the bandage and observed the injuries and again put the bandage and asked them to shift him to the hospital, Nellore. Pw1 was shifted in a car to Government hospital, Nellore. He was not present at the time of recording the statement of Pw1 at Govt Hospital, Nellore, as such he do not know whether his signature was obtained in the statement by the police. He did not file civil case against A2 for recovery of Rs.25,000/- who executed promissory note in 18 SC 50 of 2011 his favour. He further stated that the promissory note was lost by him. A2 signed on the promissory note. He denied the suggestion that A2 is not a signatory and he is only a thumb impressionist. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false that he sold two oxes to A2 that in turn A2 executed promissory note that he has not paid the amount that calling him to
Rachabanda by A1 and A2 and offered Rs.2000/- and asked him to torn the promissory note. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false due to the close relationship with Pw1 . He did not state before police as in Ex.D1.
He stated that his clothes were stained with blood. Police did not seize the blood stained clothes. He admitted that Somi Seshu Reddy filed a criminal case against him as himself and Pw1 and others damaged the fencing of the site and damaged the boundary stones etc. the said case is still pending. He further admitted that there are village factions in the village . He knew A3 and Puchalapalli Naresh Reddy. He do not know that Naresh Reddy is leading one group of people in the village and A3 is leading one group of people in the village. He denied a suggestion that he belongs to Puchalapalli Naresh
Reddy. He do not know whether Naresh reddy and his group men numbering in 12 are sentenced to life imprisonment in connection with murder case of
Mudi Parandhami Reddy. He admitted that A3 and Mudi Parandhami Reddy are related with each other . He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false at the instigation of Puchalapalli Naresh Reddy group.
28.In cross examination, Pw4 stated that his clothes were stained with blood while shifting Pw1 from the ground . He did not hand over the blood stained shirt to the police. He admitted that there are two groups in the village, leading by Mudi Parandhami Reddy and Puchalapalli Parandhami
Reddy. He admitted that Mudi Parandhami Reddy, leader of congress party and Puchalapalli Naresh Reddy , leader of Telugu Desam party. He admitted 19 SC 50 of 2011 that both leaders were murdered. He further admitted that Puchalapalli
Naresh Reddy is leading the group of Puchalapalli Parandhami Reddy. A3 is leading Mudi Parandhami Reddy group in the village. Further admitted that
Dw1 belongs to the group of Puchalapalli Naresh Reddy. He further admitted that Naresh Reddy is in jail in a murder case of Mudi Parandhami Reddy. He further admitted that he belongs to Naresh Reddy group. He denied the suggestion that a false case is foisted against the accused that the accused did not commit any offence that they are no way concerned with the alleged crime. He denied a suggestion that he is deposing false at the instance of
Naresh Reddy.
29.Pw5 in cross examination denied the suggestion that he did not witness shifting of Pw1 by Pw2 and Pw3. He denied the suggestion that he did not observe the bleeding injuries of Pw1. He denied the suggestion that himself along with brother of Pw1 and others went to Kota hospital is false.
He denied the suggestion that from there, they went to Gudur General hospital is also false. He denied the suggestion that he did not come to know that Pw1 received injuries in the disputes in the village. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing false as he is the henchman of Puchapalli
Ramesh Reddy. After 2 or 3 days of the incident, he was examined by police.
30.Pw6 Sub Inspector of Police who retired from service stated that he received statement of pw1 and registered the same as a case in crime
No.15/2010 u/s.147, 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, on 15.4.2010 at 3 PM.Ex.P2 is the original FIR, Ex.P1 is the statement. He sent Ex.P1 and P2 to court and higher officials as the offence of S.C and S.T. is involved in this case and on point of jurisdiction, it was sent to Chittamur police station. In cross examination, he stated that as per
Ex.P2, there are 11 accused and against 11 accused, the crime was 20 SC 50 of 2011 registered. He admitted that Ex.P1 discloses that Tatiparti Srinivasulu Reddy one of the accused as per FIR abused by pw1 by touching his caste and instigatedasMALA NA KODAKA NEEKU POGARU
PERIGINAADI,MAMMALNE YEDIRISTAVAA, NINNU YEVARU
KAPAADUTAARU. By saying so, he stated that EE MALA NAKODUKUNI
CHAMPEYANDIRAA ANNADU and further admitted that as per Ex.P2, A1 is
Tatiparti Srinivasulu Reddy . Further admitted that in Ex.P1, it is not disclosed by Pw1 that other than Tatiparti Srinivasulu Reddy , other accused abused him by touching his caste . He further admitted that he registered the crime on 15.4.2010 at 12 noon ASI of Police recorded the statement of
Pw1 on 14.4.2010 in the midnight 12 AM. He admitted that on Ex.P2 the concerned Magistrate endorsed that he received Ex.P1 along with FIR on 15.4.2010 at 6.30 AM through PC 2465 of Chittamur police station. He further admitted that the jurisdiction of Chittamur PS covered within the jurisdiction of JMFC, Kota. The distance between Chittamur to Magistrate court is about 25 KM. There are bus services are available to reach Kota from
Chittamur. It is not mentioned in Ex.P1 where Ex.P1 was drafted by ASI of
Police. He admitted that it is not stated by Pw1 in Ex.P1 that when Pw1 pass at the scene of offence with injuries, Pw2 Pw4 when they came to him and lifted him to the shop of Pw3 Srinivasulu Reddy. In Ex.P1, it is not mentioned that Pw2 and Pw3 took Pw1 in a motor cycle to the hospital. He admitted that in Ex.P1 it is not mentioned that while he was returning from sundry shop of Pw3 , the incident took place. There isl no specific allegation against
A1 to A5 that they abused Pw1 by raising his caste in filthy language. He denied the suggestion that Ex.P1 statement was prepared after due deliberations with kith and kin of Pw1 that in the after noon of 15.4.2010. He denied the suggestion that the registration of Ex.P2 is ante dated.
21 SC 50 of 2011
31.Pw7/Dr.B. Vara Subrahmanyam, the then CAS deposed that on 14.4.2010 one person by name Naguraiah son of Venkataiah, aged 30 years accompanied by P. Ramesh Babu to the hospital and he has seen him at 11.30 AM and found the following injuries:- (1) Laceration occipit 1x5cm (2) laceration right hand (3) laceration right knee 1x1.5 cm (4) contusion multiple over body, xray MLC No.737 showing fracture ulna right hand and he issued Ex.P3 wound certificate opining that the above injuries are due to sharp object and injury No.2 is grievous in nature on right hand injury.
32. In cross examination, Pw7 stated that after seeing the xray and opinion of radiologist he has given his opinion that injury No.2 is grievous in nature. He do not know the name of the radiologist. He has seen the injured for the first time on 14.4.2010 at 11.30 AM. He recorded the same in the wound certificate. He denied the suggestion that Pw1 Nagooraiah did not sustain any injuries as deposed by him. Pw8 in his cross examination he admitted that Pw1 did not state before him that Mannuru Penchala Reddy A1 beat him with stick on his right knee caused bleeding injury. He did not state
before him that after receipt of injuries, he fell down on ground and in the
meantime A3 and others who are present at the scene of offence beat him indiscriminately with their hands and legs by using deadly weapons armed by them by saying that EE MALA NA KODUKU CHACHINADURAA, EE NA
KODUKUNI YEVARU KAPADUTHARU, MANA VALLANI
YEDIRINCHEVADAYYADAA. He further admitted that Pw1 did not state
before him that he was at the scene of offence with injuries. Pw2, Pw4 Challa
Chenchaiah came to him land lifted him from the scene of offence and took him to Konduru Srinivasulu Reddy sundry shop and his nephew Pw2 on a motor cycle to Kota Government hospital for treatment. He further admitted that 11 persons were shown as accused in the FIR. He further admitted the 22 SC 50 of 2011
A1 and A2 herein were shown as A6 and A7 in Ex.P1. He further admitted that his investigation discloses that A1 to A5 and A8 to A11 in the FIR Ex.P1 and P2 were falsely implicated in this crime. The present A2 to A5 who were shown as A4, A8 and A11 in the FIR were falsely implicated as accused iln the above crime. He admitted that according to Ex.P1 statement of Pw1 one
T.Srinivasulu Reddy who is shown as A1 in FIR abused Pw1 in filthy language by touching his caste and also threatened him with dire consequences and instigate others to kill him. He further admitted that as per FIR except T.
Srinivasulu Reddy, none others abused or scolded Pw1 with filthy language by touching his caste. Pw1 did not state before him when he was at Saibaba temple that the accused surrounded him among them, and T. Srinivasulu
Reddy hacked him with a knife and Chennuru Srihari Reddy beat him with rod on his right shoulder back side that Pw1 Manneti Chenchaiah A2 beat him on his head back side with iron rod that after receipt of injuries, he fell down unconscious. He further admitted that on the same day at the same place at the same time, Pw1 and Pw2 and his brother Perikala Chengaiah beat A1 and A2 with deadly weapons and caused multiple injuries. Further admitted that the police also registered a case basing on the report of A1 in this case as a crime No.14 of 2010 u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC of Chittamur police
Station showing Pw1 , Pw2 and his brother Perikala Chengaiah as accused.
He further admitted that SHO, Chittamur PS filed the charge sheet in the above crime and numbered as CC 59 of 2011 on the file of Junior Civil Judge court, Kota and the said case is ended in acquittal even before commencement of trial in this case. Ex.D2 is the certified copy of FIR . Ex.D3 is the CC of charge sheet in CC 59 of 2011 on the file of JMfC, Kota. Ex.D4 is the CC of wound certificate of A1. Ex.D5 is the CC of wound certificate.
Before filing charge sheet in this case, he verified the record in crime No.14
23 SC 50 of 2011 of 2010 of Chittamur PS. He is aware of this crime No.14 of 2010l of
Chittamur PS as a case and counter cases. He has not taken any steps to transfer the crime 14 of 2010 registered as CC 59 of 2011 on the file of JMFC court, Kota to try this case along with the sessions case 50 of 2011. He did not file the wound certificate of A1 and A2 and injuries sustained by them in crime No.14 of 2011. Pw2 stated before him as in Ex.D1. He admitted that according to his investigation, Pw1 at first he was admitted in Govt hospital,
Kota for treatment, he did not secure the presence of medical officer who gave first aid at Kota. He did not seize the blood stained clothes of Pw1 and
Pw2. He admitted that Mettu village is a faction village. One group is led by
P. Naresh Reddy and another group is led by Chennuri Sri Hari Reddy, A3. He admitted that pw1 to 5 belonging to the group of Naresh Reddy. He admitted that the accused herein are the group people of A3. He denied the suggestion that accused did not commit any offence that they are innocent that a false case is foisted against them.
33.A close scrutiny of the evidence of Prosecution witnesses coupled with Ex.P1, initially Pw1 gave statement against 11 members but after thorough investigation, the concerned police laid charge sheet against A1 and A2 who are figured as A6 and A7 in Ex.P1 and P2. Pw8 the Investigating
Officer categorically stated that his investigation discloses that A1 to A5 and
A2 to A7 in the FIR Ex.P1 were falsely implicated in this case and the same is noted in his charge sheet. There is a variation in between the contents of FIR
Ex.P1 and the evidence of Pw1 . The cross examination of Pw1 and Pw8 totally destroy the case of the prosecution . Admittedly there are disputes and differences in between the accused party and prosecution party. The accused party belongs to Telugu Desam and the prosecution party belongs to
Congress party. There were criminal cases were ended with life conviction 24 SC 50 of 2011 since the leader of prosecution party is a life convict which fact was admitted by Pw1 . Pw4 admitted that the said Naresh Reddy is in jail in the murder case of Mudi Parandhami Reddy. The prosecution witnesses are the group members of Naresh Reddy. Pw3 admitted that he is the eldest son Konduru
Dayakar Reddy and his father Dayakar Reddy underwent life imprisonment in connection with the murder of Mudi Parandhami Reddy. Naresh Reddyis the
A1 in the murder case of Mudi Parandhami Reddy. Naresh Reddy is the relative of Pw3. Admittedly there are political rivalry in between the prosecution party and the accused party. The prosecution witnesses did not state about the involvement of A1 to A5 since Pw1 lodged complaint against 11 persons and their testimonies are not free from suspicion and doubt.
There are no direct witnesses to the incident. Pw2 and Pw3 and Pw4 went to the scene of offense after hearing hue and cries, but all of them categorically stated that they witnessed Pw1 on the ground and stated that they did not witness nobody was present at their arrival. The prosecution witnesses admitted that there is a case and counter case against each other and the
Pw1 and Pw2 and brother of Pw2 are accused in CC 59 of 2011 and the prosecution witnesses and the I.O categorically admitted that the time, date and place are one and the same and A1 and A2 received injuries in the hands of prosecution witnesses and moreover Pw8 who investigated the case admitted that he did not file the wound certificates of A1 and A2 into this court and further admitted that he did not take any steps to try the calendar case along with the Sessions Case.
34) The learned advocate for the accused
cited a decision reported in 2008(1) ALD
(crl) 830 (AP) in between Golla Sankaraiah
and others Vs. State of AP, wherein it was
held in Para 15 that the principle
underlying such a requirement is not
25 SC 50 of 2011
difficult to discern. It needs to be noted
that when a case and a counter case are
filed in relation to an incident, same
individuals answer the description of
victims in one case, and of accused, in
another case. Whatever be the
permissibility of the same individual
playing the role of a plaintiff and defendant
in the suits filed in relation to the same
subject matter, almost irreconcilable
situations emerge when they figure as
victims and culprits, in relation to one and
the same incident, in two different cases.
35.It is a settled law that when an incident both parties received injuries and when it is not established who are the aggressors and where the eyewitnesses are interested ,benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
In this case on hand the prosecution witnesses are interested and inter related with each other and both parties belongs to two different political parties and both parties received injuries as admitted by the investigating officer. In these circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused.
36.It is settled law that prosecution has to explain the injuries on the accused. Though Pw8 admitted that A1 and A2 received injuries in the same incident on the same date, place and time and he categorically admitted that he did not file the wound certificates of the accused No.1 and 2, it is fatal to the case of prosecution. Ex.D2 is the CC of FIR in crime No.
14/2010 of Chittamur Police station. Ex.D3 is the CC of charge sheet in CC 15 of 2011 on the file of JMFC court, Kota. Ex.D4 is the CC of wound certificate of A1 . The Pw8 categorically admitted that he did not file the wound certificates of A1 and A2 and the injuries sustained by them in crime
No.14 of 2010. Moreover Pw8 categorically admitted that Pw1 did not state
before him that A2 beat A1 with stick on his right leg knee and caused
26 SC 50 of 2011 bleeding injury and also further did not state before him that after receipt of injuries he fell down on the ground in the meantime A3 and others who are present at the scene along with the above persons beat him indiscriminately with hands and legs by using the deadly weapons armed by them by saying that EE MALA NA KODUKU CHACHINADURAA, EE NA KODUKUNI
YEVARU KAPADUTHARU, MANA VALLANI YEDIRINCHEVADAYYADAA.
So, the touching of caste by the accused does not arise.
37) In AIR 1973 SC 2773 Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, wherein it was held that another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two view are possible on the evidence adduced in the case one pointing to the guilty of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused would be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence. Rule has accordingly been laid down that unless the evidence adduced in the case is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and is inconsistent with that of his innocence, the court should refrain from recording a finding of guilt of the accused. It is also an accepted rule that in case the court entertains reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, the
accused must have benefit of that doubt.
38.I have due respect on the citations submitted by the learned advocate for the accused and they are applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
39. Pw4 categorically stated that his clothes were also stained with blood while shifting the Pw1 from the ground. The police did not seize the blood stained clothes of Pw1 or Pw3 and Pw4 . Moreover the doctor who issued Ex.P3 categorically stated that he do not know the name of the radiologist. He had seen the injured at first time on 14.4.2010 at 11.30 AM.
He recorded the same in the wound certificate. But a perusal of wound 27 SC 50 of 2011 certificate discloses that he has seen the Pw1 at 7 PM on 14.4.2010. It is quite astonishing as to how the Pw7 had seen the injured for the first time on 14.4.2010 at 11.30 AM. Pw1, Pw2, Pw3, pw4, pw5, categorically stated that the offence took place on 14.4.2010 at 7 or 7.30 PM and how the doctor Pw7 could examine the Pw1 at 11.30 AM on 14.4.2010. These circumstances are creating a doubt in the mind of the court and the doubt would goes to the accused as benefit of doubt. Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal for the charges levelled against them.
40.Therefore, in the above stated circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1 to A5 for the offences punishable u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 and u/s.326 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the
A1 to A5 are entitled for acquittal for the said offences. Accordingly, the point is answered.
41.In the result, A1 to A5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act, 1989 and u/s.326 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same under Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused and those of their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.
Typed on my direct dictation, by the Stenographer, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 21st day of March, 2018.
Spl. Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act- cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore 28 SC 50 of 2011
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution:
P.W.1: R. Nagooraiah, defacto complainant cum injured P.W.2:P. Ramesh Babu P.W.3:K. Sreenivasulu P.W.4:Ch. Chenchaiah P.W.5:B. Subba Rao P.W.6:Sd.Siraj, S.I. of Police P.W.7:Dr.B. Vara Subrahmanyam, Medical officer P.W.8:K. Narayana Reddy
For Defence:NONE
DOCUMENTS MARKED
For prosecution:
Ex.P1:Report of Pw1 given to police dated 15.4.2010 Ex.P.2 :Original FIR Ex.P.3:Wound certificate of Pw1 Ex.P.4:Authorisation proceedings issued by S.P., Nellore
dated 15.4.2010
Ex.P5:Rough sketch Ex.P6:Caste certificate of Pw1 Ex.P7:Caste certificate of A1 Ex.P8:Caste certificate of A2
For Defence: Ex.D1:Contradictory portion in the 161 CrPC statement of Pw2 Ex.D2:Certified copy of FIR in crime No.14 of 2010 of Chittamur PS Ex.D3:Certified copy of charge sheet in CC 59 of 2011 on the file of JMFC, Kota Ex.D4:Certified copy of wound certificate of A1 Ex.D5:Certified copy of wound certificate of A2
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
-Nil-
Spl. Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (PoA) Act- cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore