1
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL
OF CASES UNDER SC’S & ST’S (POA) ACT 1989 CUM VII
ADDL.DISTRIST & SESSIONS JUDGE, R.R.DISTRICT.
PRESENT: - SRI CH.RAMESH BABU.,
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL
OF CASES UNDER SC&ST (POA) ACT, 1989
CUM VII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE,
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR
Dated this the 28 th day of September, 2015.
S.C.NO. 13 of 2011
Between:
The State of A.P through P.S. Tandur. ….Complainant.
AND
1.Smt. Mangamma, W/o. Basi Reddy, age: 30 years, Occ: Tea Stall, R/o. H.No. 4-2-47, Showkarpet, Opp: VVH School, Tandur, R.R.District.
2.Y. Gopi Chand S/o. Punnaiah, Age: 76 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No. 4-2-93, Showkarpet, Tandur, Ranga Reddy District. …Accused.
This case coming on 09-09-2015 before me for final hearing and disposal in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor representing the State and Sri. B. Ram
Mohan, Counsel for the Accused No.1 & 2 and having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tandur Sub-Division, R.R.District filed charge sheet in Cr.No.155/2009 of P.S. Tandur against the accused No1 & 2 for the offence U/s. 323, 504 IPC & 3 (1) (x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 for the following acquisition.
PW1 is the complainant and victim. PW2 is an eye witness to the incident,
PWs 3 to 6 are the locality people and residing near by the VV High School locality, Tandur and PW7 is an eye witness to the incident, whereas the accused 2
A1 Smt. Mangamma W/o. Basi Reddy, 30 years, Occ: Tea vendor, is the resident of the H.No. 4-2-47 Showkarpet, Opp: VVH School, Tandur and she belongs to
Reddy caste and A2 Y. Gopichand S/o. Punnaiah age: 66 years. Occ: Business, is the resident of H.No. 4-2-93, Showkarpet, Tandur. On 01-08-2009 at about 17:00 hours PW1 Alampally Prakash went to the tea stall of the accused A1 Smt.
Mangamma and asked for cup of tea duly giving the money, but the accused A1 gave him in a broken and uncleaned cup. On noticing the same when he asked the
A1 as to why she gave him tea in a broken and un-cleaned cup, she abused him touching his caste him saying “Madiga Kulamuvariki, Sweeparlaku Ede Kappulo
Esthamu Memu reddy Kulasthulamu Madigavalla Engili Kappulu Kadagamu”. On that when the complainant demanded the A1 saying that the she has to give him tea in a fresh cup as he paid the money to the tea, the A1 beat him with a chappal and also abused him raising his caste name. Meanwhile the alleged accused A2, who was arrived to the scene was also supported the acts of the alleged A1. The above incident was witnessed by the witnesses PW2 and 7. But the accused A1 did turn threatened the complainant as alleged by the complainant. Section 506 IPC is not attracts in this case.
The evidence available on the record, the accused A1 & A2 have committed offence, which are liable to be punished U/s. 323, 504 IPC & Sec. 3 (1) (x) of
SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
The learned Magistrate took the case on file as PRC.No.51/2010 and committed the case to the court of Sessions vide its committal order dated 07-02-2011. This court registered as SC.No.13/2011 and framed the charge U/s.
323, 504 IPC against A1 and & Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 against
A1 and A2.
3
In proof of the case of the prosecution PW.1 to 9 were examined and got marked Ex.P1 to P4 and D1 to D3.
After completion of the prosecution evidence the accused were examined
U/S.313 Cr.P.C the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against tehm are read over and explain to them in Telugu.
The accused stated that it is either false or that they do not know, arguments on the point of acquittal. Heard both sides.
The accused were not acquitted U/S.232 Cr.P.C accused were called upon to enter upon their defence and adduce any evidence they may have in support there off. The accused reported no evidence.
Arguments of both sides heard, the point arises for consideration whether the prosecution has proved all or any of the charges leveled against all or any of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
In proof of the case of the prosecution A. Prakash was examined as PW1 and he stated that he proceeded to take tea A1 served the tea in broken cup. When he requested A1 to provide tea in good cup then A1 abused him that she will supply tea to Madiga people in those cups only. Then he thrown the cup, then A1 slapped him on his cheek with chappal. Meanwhile A2 came to the scene and caught hold the collar and pushed him. The incident was witnessed by Shabir Ahmed and
Nizam Uddin.
Shabir Ahmed was examined as PW2 and he stated that A1 and PW1 raised dispute with regard to cleanliness of the glass and PW1 thrown the glass on that A1 slapped PW1 with a chappal. Meanwhile A2 came to the scene and abused PW1 that “Madigollani Madigollu ante Tappu ente” he pacified the accused and PW1.
4
A. Sujatha was examined as PW3 and she stated that she know A1 and A2.
She do not know PW1 and PW2. She do not know anything about this case. She was examined by the Police.
M. Damodhar was examined as PW4 and he stated that he know A1 and A2 and PW3. He do not know PW1 and PW2. He do not know anything about this case.
Syed Mahaboob was examined as PW5 and he stated that he know A1, A2,
PW4, PW3. He do not know PW1 and PW2. He do not know anything about this case. He was not examined by the Police.
G. Krishna was examined as PW6 and he stated that he do not know PW1.
He know A1 and A2. He do not know anything about this case. Police examined him and recorded his statement.
Mohd Nizamuddin was examined as PW7 and he stated that A1 beat PW1 with a chappal when PW1 questioned accused when she served tea in a broken cup, A1 abused PW1 as “Madiga Lanjakodaka”.
Appalnaidu was examined as PW8 and he stated that he have been working as Assistant Vigilances Officer Water Management Agency, Ranga Reddy since
September, 2014. Previously he worked as Deputy Tahasildar Tandur Mandal from
October, 2008 to June, 2011. On the request of SDPO Tandur he issued caste particulars of A1 and A2, PW1. Ex.P2 is the caste particulars issued by him.
M. Sudhakar was examined as PW9 and he stated that he worked as SDPO
Tandur from 03-01-2008 to 17-01-2010. On 17-08-2008 SP Ranga Reddy appointed him as Investigating Officer in Cr.No. 155/2009 of PS Tandur, Ex.P3 is 5 the said proceedings. He took up the CD file on the same day on verification he found that SI of Police registered a case in Cr.No. 155/2009 U/s. 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SC and ST (POA) Act, basing on private complaint received from the court. Ex.P4 is the FIR issued by SI of Police. On 02-09-2009 he examined PW1, PW2 and recorded their statements. On 26-09-2009 he examined
PW6, PW3 recorded their statements. 12-10-2009 he examined PW4, PW5 and recorded their statements. On 02-11-2009 he examined PW7 and recorded his statement. Venkata Swamy arrested the accused No.2 on 19-05-2010.
The case of the prosecution that PW1 went to have a tea into hotel of the A1, she served the tea in a broken and un-cleaned cup noticing the same PW1 asked
A1. She informed that they will provide tea to un-touchables in unclean cup and also abused PW1 stating that “Madiga Kulamuvariki, Sweeparlaku Ede Kappulo
Esthamu Memu reddy Kulasthulamu Madigavalla Engili Kappulu Kadagamu”.
Meanwhile A2 intervened and supported the acts of the A1.
In proof of the case of the prosecution the complainant was examined as
PW1 he stated that A1 provide tea in a broken cup when he requested A1 to provide tea in good cup she abused that she will supply tea to Madiga people in broken and unclean cup only then he thrown the cup, then A1 slapped him on his cheek with chappal. Meanwhile A2 came to the scene and caught hold the collar and pushed him. PW2 stated that A1 and PW1 raised dispute with regard to cleanliness of the glass and PW1 thrown the glass on that A1 slapped PW1 with a chappal. Meanwhile A2 came to the scene and abused PW1 that “Madigollani
Madigollu ante Tappu ente” he pacified the accused and PW1. PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6 has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW7 stated that A1 beat
PW1 with a chappal when PW1 questioned accused when she served tea in a 6 broken cup, A1 abused PW1 as “Madiga Lanjakodaka”. PW9 is the Investigating
Officer.
It is to be noted that Ex.P1 is the complaint filed before the Magistrate which was forwarded to Police on the Investigation Police filed charge sheet. Except
PW1 and PW2 and PW9 none of the prosecution witnesses has supported the case of the prosecution. Even then PW3 to PW6 were cited as eye witnesses.
In the cross examination PW1 admitted that prior to the incident he had a tea in the tea stall of A1 for several times but no such incident took place. In this case the evidence of PW2 is crucial. PW1 in his cross examination stated that meanwhile after the incident he gave complaint to the Police. PW1 stated that on 01-08-2009 the incident was took place he got filed the complaint before the court on 10-08-2009. It is the case the Investigating Officer filed the copy of the judgment in SC.No. 129/2008 which shows one Suraj Singh Takoor and Sumathi,
Jaheera Begum are accused they found guilty for the offence U/s. 354 IPC for outraging the modesty of A1 in this case. The A2 is the PW4 in SC.No. 129/2008.
The contention of the accused that PW2 is related to Jaheera Begum who is the A3 in SC.No. 129/2008 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Vikarabad. During the cross examination it was put to PW2 that PW1 was planted by Suraj Singh Takoor and Jaheera Begum. PW1 stated that he know PW2 prior to the incident. PW2 stated that he has not stated before Police as per Ex.D1. PW4 stated that he has not stated before the Police as per Ex.D2. PW7 stated that he stated before the Police as per Ex.D3. As per the U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 he stated before the
Police between A1 and Suraj Singh Takoor a dispute took place between them.
7
The case of the prosecution and the evidence of PW1, 2 and 7 clearly shows that a case was filed by A1 against Suraj Singh Takoor, Sumathi and Jaheera
Begum and they were convicted and the brother of the Suraj Singh Thagoor is an
Advocate. The evidence of Investigating Officer shows that the PW2 has stated
before the Police that A1 field case against Suraj Singh Thagoor. It clearly shows
that the prosecution witnesses has knowledge about A1 filing case against Suraj
Singh Thagoor and Sumathi and Jaheera Begum and they are convicted. PW1 has not filed a copy of the complaint which was given immediately after the incident it clearly evident that he has not given any complaint to the Police. The manner and mode of investigation clearly shows that out of 7 prosecution witnesses 4 prosecution witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution even then they were cited as witnesses. Apart from that PW1 in his cross examination stated that he used to visit the tea stall of A1 prior to incident but she has not supplied the tea in a broken cup in earlier occasion. It clearly shows that PW1 is suppressing the real facts and deposing false. Hence benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
In view of the above discussions the case of the prosecution clearly shows that A1 has filed a case against Suraj Singh Tahgoor, Sumathi and Jaheera Begum and the prosecution witnesses known the said facts which were suppressed by them during the evidence. Apart from that PW1 in his cross examination stated that he know PW2 prior to the incident which clearly shows that there is every chance to file a false case against the accused. Hence, benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.
In the result, A1 is not found guilty for the offence U/s. 323, 504 IPC and A1 and
A2 are not found guilty for the offence U/s. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. A1 and 8
A2 are acquitted for the said charges U/s. 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled.
Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 28 th day of September, 2015.
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
SC’S & ST’S (POA) ACT, 1989 CUM VII ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
AT L.B.NAGAR.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
On behalf of the Prosecution:
PW.1 – A.Prakash PW.2 – Shabir Ahmed PW.3 – A. Sujatha PW.4 – M. Damodhar PW.5 – Syed Mahaboob PW.6 – G. Krishna PW.7 – Mohd Nizamuddin PW.8 – Appalnaidu PW.9 – M. Sudhakar
On behalf of the Accused: -Nil-
EXHIBITS MARKED
On behalf of the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 – Signature on Complaint Ex.P2 – Caste particulars of A1, A2 & PW1 Ex.P3 – Proceedings Ex.P4 - FIR On behalf of the Defence:
Ex.D1 – U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.D2 – U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.D3 – U/s. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 Material Objects Marked: -Nil-
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
SC’S & ST’S (POA) ACT, 1989 CUM VII ADDL. DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT
AT L.B.NAGAR.
Copy to:
1. The Registrar (Vigilance), Hon’ble High Court of A.P, Hyderabad.
2. The Hon’ble District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.
3. The District Collector, Ranga Reddy District.
4. The Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District.
5. The Director of Prosecutions.
6. The Commissioner, Social Welfare Department, Hyderabad.