IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES UNDER THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED
TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT-cum-III ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AT KHAMMAM
Friday, this the 3rd day of November, 2023
Present: Sri.Devineni Ram Prasada Rao, Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under the Schedule Castes and the ScheduledTribes(Preventionof Atrocities) Act -cum- III Additional
Sessions Judge, Khammam
Special Sessions Case No.107 of 2018
1.Complainant:The State represented by the Sub- DivisionalPoliceOfficer, Kothagudem
2.Names of the Accused:A1: Mahammad Nizamuddin, S/o:Mahammad Alimuddin, Age 30 yrs, muslim, Private Employee, R/o: Hno.13-1-205, Peon Basthi, Kothagudem A2: Chatla Samba Reddy, S/o: Paidireddy, Age 36 yrs, Reddy, Coolie, R/o: Hno.13-1-205, Peon Basthi, Kothagudem A3: Perumalla Nageswar Rao, S/o: Roshaiah, Age 36 yrs, Mala, Coolie, R/o: Hno.13-3-58/35, Ganga Hussain Basthi, Kothagudem A4: Kola Salman Raju, S/o: Krishna, Age: 43 yrs, Auto Driver, Madiga, R/o: Hno.13-3-58/36, Ganga Hussain Basthi, Kothagudem A5: Biyyani Laxminarayana @ Laxman, S/o: Nagulu, Age 40 yrs,
S.C.No.107 of 2018
Coolie, R/o: Hno.13-3-58/25, GangaHussainBasthi, Kothagudem, now R/o: Nehru basthi, Bhupathi rao hospital, Kothagudem. A6: PeramNaresh,S/o: Venkateswarlu, Age 36 yrs, Mala Coolie, R/o : Hno.13-3-8, Ganga Hussain Basthi, Kothagudem. A7: PeramRamu,S/o: Venkateswarlu, Age 29 yrs, Mala, Auto driver, R/o: Hno.13-3-8, Ganga Hussain Basthi, Kothagudem A8: Lodh Sudha, W/o: Ashok Prasad, Age 47 yrs, Paradeshi, hotel worker, R/o: Hno.13-3-58/1- D, Ganga Hussain Basthi, Kothagudem. A9: Parapathi Manemma, W/o: Laxman Reddy Age 61 yrs, Reddy, Business, R/o: Hno.10-1-130, A’ Power house Basthi, Kothagudem. A10: Irusu Nagamani, W/o: Saradhi Reddy, Age 33 yrs, Reddy homemaker, R/o: Hno.13-3-37/1, Ganga Hussain Basthi, Kothagudem
3.Crime Number:70/2018 of P.S. Kothagudem I - Town
4.Prosecution conducted by:Sri.B.Krishna Mohan Rao, Special Public Prosecutor, Khammam
5.Defence conducted by:Sri.M.Niranjan Reddy, Advocate
for the Accused.
6.ChargesU/Sec.143, 147, 504, 323, 324,
Page 2 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 :506 IPC r/w 149 IPC and Section 92(a)(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Sec.3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989, as amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
7.Plea of the Accused persons:“Pleaded not guilty”
8.Finding of the Court:“Found not guilty”
9.Result :In the result, the Accused No.1, A2, A8, A9 and A10 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 IPC, Section 92(a)(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015, and accused Nos. the Accused No.3, A4, A5, A6, and A7 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 IPC, Section 92(a)(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 10 shall be in force for a period of
Page 3 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018
SIX months as contemplated under Section 437 Cr.P.C. ===================================================
This Special Sessions case came before me on 27.10.2023 for final hearing, after hearing the arguments of Special Public Prosecutor for the State and that of counsel for Accused ; upon perusing the material available on record and having 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, Kothagudem has filed the charge sheet against the Accused Nos.1 to 10 in Crime
No.70/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Amendment
Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred as SCs/STs (POA) Act), 1989 and
Section 92(a)(b) of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
2. The brief case of the Prosecution as disclosed from the charge sheet is that:
(i) The defacto-complainant (Kota Shiva Shankar-PW1) belongs to Scheduled Caste (Mala) and he is RPI party District President cum Telangana State SC,ST, BC and Minority student Youth
Page 4 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018
Federation, State General Secretary went to police station
Kothagudem I-Town and lodged report stating that on 11.04.2018 at about 8-07 hours, accused Nos.1 to 10 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and went to the house of LW4-Jakkula
Sandhya and pressurized her to repay their debt amount by selling her house and picked up quarrel with her, in the mean time, Lws.3 and 5 (mother and son of defacto-complainant) interfered, upon that accused abused them in filthy language, in turn LW5 called over phone to the defacto-complainant. On receiving the same defacto-complainant along with his wife (LW2) rushed to the scene and observed that all the accused threatened
LWS.3 to 5 in filthy language due to dispute over the payment of debt amount by the husband of LW4. All the accused also abused him in filthy language by criticizing his disability and also abused him as “Mala Lanja koduka” and A1 beat defacto- complainant indiscriminately with his hands by holding nail cutter key chain in hands on the face of LW1 and A4 fisted on forehead
Page 5 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 of the LW1 and caused bleeding injuries. In the mean time LW2 who is the wife of LW1 tried to rescue her husband and on that the accused Nos.8 to 10 attacked on LW2 and abused her in filthy language. This incident was witnesses by Lws.2 to 8.
(iii)Basing on the Report filed by the defacto-complainant the Sub-Inspector of police (LW13), registered a case in Crime
No.70/2018 under Sections 143, 147, 294(b), 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act.
Subsequently LW14/ Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem took up investigation in this case as per the proceedings
C.No.22/C3/DCRB-KGM/SC-ST/Pro/2018, dated 12.04.2018. During the course of investigation, LW14/SDPO visited the scene of offence situated at Ganga Hussain Basthi, Kothagudem, observed the scene, secured the presence of mediators (LW9 and LW10) and drafted the scene of offence and subsequently examined witnesses, recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 8 in part-II CD.
iv)During the course of further investigation, S.D.P.O.
Page 6 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 (LW14) collected the caste certificates of PW1, A1 to A10 from
LW12/ Tahsildar, Kothagudem. During the course of further investigation, the investigating officer collected wound certificate of PW1, which discloses that PW1 sustained simple injuries.
v)On 16.04.2018 LW14 / S.D.P.O. served notices under
Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. to A1 to A10 with a direction to appear
before the court to answer the charges against them. After
collecting all relevant documents and after completion of investigation LW14/ S.D.P.O. filed charge-sheet against the accused No.1, A2 and A8 to A10 under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 and section 92(a)(b) of Rights of Persons With
Disabilities Act, 2016 and A3 to A7 committed the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and section 92(a)(b) of Rights of Persons With Disabilities
Act, 2016.
3.This court has taken on file for the offences under
Page 7 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018
Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, section 92(a)(b) of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 against accused Nos.1, A2 and A8 to A9, and sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 r/w 109 of IPC and section 92(a)(b) of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 against A3 to A7.
4. On the appearance of Accused Nos.1 to 10 before this court, the copies of the charge-sheet and other connected documents were furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr. P.C.
5. Later, heard both the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel under Section 226 of Cr.P.C.
and considering the material on record, as per Section 228 of
Cr.P.C, the charges under Sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989, section 92(a)(b) of Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, against accused Nos.1, A2, A8
Page 8 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 to A10 and sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 of IPC and section 92(a)(b) of Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016 against
A3 to A7 have been framed, read over and explained the same to accused in Telugu, for which, they denied the same and pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. Hence the
Trial Schedule was fixed for recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
6.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined P.W-1 to PW.14 and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-12 were exhibited and marked MO-1. PW1 is the defacto-complainant and injured,
Pw.2 is the eye witness and wife of PW1, PW3 is the eye witness and mother of PW1, PW4 is the eye witness and sister of PW1, Pw5 is the nephew of PW1 and eye witness, PW6, Pw7 and PW12 are the eye witnesses to the alleged incident. PW8 and
PW9 are the panch witnesses for CDF. PW10 is the doctor who treated PW1. PW11 and PW13 are the investigating officers.
PW14 is the Tahsildar, who issued caste certificates of PW1 and
Page 9 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 accused Nos.1 to 10.
7. On closure of evidence of the prosecution, the Accused
No.1 to 10 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence adduced by the Prosecution, for which, they denied the incriminating circumstances, and did not prefer to adduce evidence on their behalf. Ex.D1 is marked during cross- examination of prosecution witnesses.
8. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the material available on record.
9.The points that arise for determination are, as follows:
1.Whether accused Nos.1 to 10 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of their common object attacked PW1 and his family members and abused him in filthy language in the name of his caste and insulted him with an intent to provoke breach of peace ?
2. Whether A1 to A10 in prosecution of common object attacked PW1 and caused injuries by beating him with hands and pierced him on his face with nail cuter knife ?
3.Whether A1 to A10 in prosecution of common object
Page 10 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 committed criminal intimidation against the defacto- complainant and threatened him with dire consequences ?
4.Whether A1 to A10 in prosecution of common object abused PW1 in filthy language by insulting his disability in public view ?
5Whether the accused No.1, A2, A8 to 10 not being the members of Scheduled Caste abused PW1 in the name of his caste knowingly that he belongs to Schedule Caste (Mala) ?
6Whether the prosecution has proved its case and established the guilt of accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 of IPC, section 92(a)(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) SCs/STs (POA) Act, beyond all reasonable doubt ?
POINT No.1 to 5:
10.The prosecution story in brief is that on 11.04.2018 at 8-30 PM all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and in prosecution of common object attacked PW1 and his family members and beat PW1 with hands, pierced with nail cutter knife and all the accused also abused PW1 as “Mala
Lanjakodaka”, A1 to A10 threatened PW1 and his family members with dire consequences and asked them to pay the
Page 11 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 previous debt amount by selling the house of PW4. Then Pw1 lodged report with police.
11.A perusal of Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the S.Cs/S.Ts.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act of 2015), is very clear, in so far as, it requires the act of abusing a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, taking his caste name in any place within public view, constitutes an offence. Therefore, every utterance which comes within the purview of this provision by itself is not an offence, unless, it is made in any place within the public view.
Section 3(2)(va) provides that whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence specified in the schedule against person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a scheduled tribe or such property belongs to such person shall be punishable.
12.The learned special public prosecutor has argued that, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 14. The evidence of prosecution witnesses proved that the Accused persons formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked on PW1 and his family members, abused P.Ws.1 to 4 in filthy language by taking their caste name in the public view and thereby humiliated them. Further they also threatened them with dire consequences
Page 12 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 to kill and accused also pierced Pw1 on his face with nail cutter knife and that accused committed the offence punishable for the charges against them and they are liable for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and section 92(a)(b) of Rights of persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
13.PW1 in his chief examination deposed that on 11.04.2018 at about 8.00 A.M, PW.5 informed him on phone that
Accused persons along with others went to the house of PW.4, abused her by saying her to vacate the house, utensils and house hold articles were thrown out of her house. Then he and his wife
PW2 went to the scene of offence, where the accused persons made loud voice alleging that his brother-in-law Venkanna (husband of PW4) borrowed money from them and did not return the same and in that regard a cheating case was registered against his brother-in-law basing on the complaint of accused persons. His brother-in-law was also detained in prison. PW1
Page 13 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 further deposed that, on seeing him all the accused persons have stated to him that his sister PW4 and her husband have to vacate their house, so that they will sell their house and adjust their debts. Pw1 replied to accused that his brother-in-law only raised debts and he alone is responsible and the debts are to be recovered from him only. At that time accused persons abused him in filthy language as "kunti lanjakodaka" and insulted him as he is handicapped. A.1 abused him as "mala lanjakodaka" and fisted on his face. A4 attacked with a small knife attached to the nail cutter on his left eye and caused bleeding injury to him.
Later accused persons attacked him by beating with hands indiscriminately when PW2 came to his rescue, A1 to A.10 beat her, pulled her hair and fisted her. At that time of incident, Pw1 informed the same to the police by dialing 100 number from his mobile. Later he went to Kothagudem I town P.S and lodged report/Ex.P.1. MO.1 is the small knife attached with nail cutter identified by PW1. Ex.P.2 is the attested copy of his Disability
Page 14 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018
Certificate dt.28-10-2010 issued by Medical Board.
14. During his cross examination, he deposed that he reached the house of P.w.4 by 8.15 AM on the date of incident.
The incident continued for about half an hour in the house of
Pw.4 and nearly about 30 to 40 neighbours came to the house of
Pw4, but those persons did not interfere and did not come to the rescue of Pw.4. He lodged report Ex.P.1 at P.S on the same day at about 9.00 AM and police referred to the hospital. His brother- in-law- is an auto driver and had no owned properties. Pw.1 admitted that in his entire Ex.P.1 report, there is no mention of citing his caste name by any of the accused persons. So also, he did not mention specifically to which eye accused persons have stabbed. While recording his 161 Cr.P.C statement by police, he stated that A4 attacked him with MO1 knife (Omission). P.w.1 admitted that he did not mention specific names of the persons who came to the house of Pw4. He also further admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P.1 report that the accused persons have
Page 15 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 thrown the house hold articles and utensils outside the house of
Pw.4. So also he did not mention the names of accused persons who have insulted his disability. PW.1 denied all the material suggestions.
15.PW2 in her chief examination deposed that on 11.4.2018 at about 8.00 a.m, Pw.5 informed Pw.1 on phone that accused persons came to the house of Pw.4 and 5 abused Pw.3 and Pw.4. The accused further threatened that whoever intervenes in their issue, they would kill them and abused as "E lanja koduku adduvastadu". P.w1 intervened and advised the accused persons to go to any P.S and lodge report against husband of pw4. At that time, the accused persons have abused
PW1 by taking his caste name as "mala" caste persons and tried to beat Pw1. A1 beat Pw1 with his hands on his face. A4 pierced above the right eye of Pw1 with a small knife attached to nail cutter, due to which he sustained bleeding injury. When Pw.2 tried to rescue Pw.1, A8 to A10 beat her with hands.
Page 16 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018
16. In her cross examination, it was elicited that while recording her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she did not state that the accused persons have abused Pw.1 by taking his caste name. Pw2 deposed that while recording her 161 Cr.P.C statement by police, she has stated to the police, that A4 pierced
PW1 with small knife attached to the nail cutter above the right eye of PW1 (omission). The incident took place in the court yard of house of PW.4. PW2 denied all the material suggestions put to her.
17.Pw.3 is the mother of Pw1, who deposed in her chief examination that on 11.4.2018 at about 7.30 AM to 8.30
AM, while she was at the house of Pw4, A1 to A10 came to the house of Pw4 and abused Pw4 and her husband in filthy language as “mala lanjakoduku". Later herself and Pw5 informed the same to her son Pw1. Immediately Pw1 along with Pw2 came to the scene of offence before 8.00 AM. At that time A1 fisted
Pw1 on his fore head and caused bleeding injury to Pw1. All the
Page 17 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 accused persons abused Pw1 taking his disability. Later Pw.4 went to the police station, Kothagudem I-town and lodged a report for necessary action.
18. During her cross examination, she deposed that she was present at the police station Kothagudem I town, while
Pw.4 was lodging the report in this case. After Pw1 sustained injuries, he called police by dialling 100 number. The entire incident was concluded by 8.00 AM. She did not observe as to use of any weapon while causing injuries to Pw.1. Even till date, her son-in-law Venkanna did not return the amount of subscribers including the accused persons. She is a retired employee. She do not know whether her son-in-law cheated the accused persons.
While recording her section 161 Cr.P.C. statement by police, she did not state to the police that her son-in-law cheated the amount to the accused persons (Ex.D1). At the time of recording of her s.161 Cr.PC statement, she was residing at H.No.9-8-170,
Barlibit area, Kothagudem where the D.S.P., Kothagudem,
Page 18 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 examined her and recorded her statement. She denied the suggestion that she was not residing at the house of Pw4 at the time of alleged incident. She denied all the material suggestions put to her.
19.Pw4 in his chief examination deposed that at about 4 years ago on one day, at about 8.30 AM, while herself, Pw.3 and her sons were present in her house, totally 10- 15 persons including A1 to A10 who are present in the court today, who gave finance amount to her husband Venkanna, came to her house and asked them to vacate their house to enable them to sell their house and thereby adjust their finance amount and accordingly all of them have thrown the house hold articles from the house. Later her son Pw.5 informed the said incident to
Pw1 over phone, hence Pw1 and Pw.2 came to their house and stopped them by stating that they have also sustained the same loss, which was sustained by them. At that time, A4 pierced PW1 with the nail cutter on his fore head and thereby PW1 sustained
Page 19 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 bleeding injury, at that time A1 to A10 abused PW1 in filthy language by taking his disability and also abused as "mala kulam". Later PW1 went to the police station and lodged report for necessary action.
20. During her cross examination, she deposed that she do not know her house number. Her house is not adjacent to the road. The said house was assigned to them by the
Government under Indiramma House scheme. She used to attend her regular duties as Aaya at Gurukul Hostel and she leaves her home at 6.00 AM and return to house at 5.00 PM. The distance between her house and place of her work is about 4 to 5 Kms.
On the date of incident, Pw5 did not go to the School. She do not know how much amount was cheated by her husband. She denied when suggested that she did not state that the accused person have abused PW1 by taking his disability and caste such as "kuntivada, Mala vada". While recording her 161 Cr.PC statement by the police, she has stated that A4 pierced Pw1 with
Page 20 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 nail cutter on his fore head (Omission). She denied all the material suggestions.
21.PW5 in his chief examination deposed that on 11.4.2018 at about 8.00 AM, Nizam/A1, Ramu, Nageshwara Rao,
Solmen Raju, Samba Reddy, Nagamani, Manemma and others came to their house and thrown out the house hold articles from their house. At that time he has informed the same to his uncle
PW.1 over phone. Hence Pw.1 and 2 rushed to their house. A2 and A4 have abused Pw1 by taking his caste name as "mala lanjakodaka kunti na kodaka", thereafter A2 and A4 tried to beat
Pw1 and that A4 beat on the forehead of Pw.1 with nail cutter and thereby Pw.1 had sustained bleeding injury. A2 and A4 also abused and beat Pw.2 and 4.
22. In his cross examination, Pw.5 admitted that his father Venkanna is indebted huge amounts to colony persons including accused persons and the accused persons filed a criminal case against his father, for which his father was arrested
Page 21 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 and detained in judicial custody. While recording his section 161
Cr.PC statement 'by the police, he has stated that A1, Ramu,
Nageshwara Rao, Solmen Raju, Samba Reddy, Nagamani,
Manemma and others thrown out the house hold articles from their house (omission). It is admitted by Pw.5 that while recording his 161 Crpc statement by the police, he has not specifically stated that A2 and A4 abused Pw.1 by taking his caste name as "Mala lanjakodaka, Kunti na kodaka". So also he has not stated specifically that A2 and A4 tried to beat Pw1 and that A4 beat on the forehead of Pw1 with nail cutter and thereby
Pw1 had sustained bleeding injury. Apart from the accused, there were 15 more colony persons, who also participated in the offence, but he do not know their names. Pw.5 further admitted that said 15 persons belongs to SC-Community, they did not array them in the present criminal case since the said 15 persons belongs to SC-Community. It is further elicited from Pw5 that since the accused persons in the present criminal case have
Page 22 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 lodged a criminal case against his father prior to the alleged incident, they have filed the present criminal case against the accused persons and this present criminal case is filed against the accused persons as a counter blast to the criminal case already filed by the accused persons against his father.
23.PW6 in her chief examination deposed that about 4 years ago on one day the locality people of Ganga
Hussain Basthi, Kothagudem came to the house of Pw4 and demanded her to return the amount, which was borrowed by her husband. She turned hostile and was cross examined by the
Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and she denied that she gave her section 161 Crpc Statement to D.S.P., Kothagudem.
24.Pw.7 also turned hostile and did not support the case of Prosecution and nothing in favour of Prosecution could be elicited from PW7 in her cross examination by the Learned Spl.
Public Prosecutor.
Page 23 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018
25.PW.8 and PW.9, who are CDF panchas, turned hostile, by deposing that about 4 years ago, police, Kothagudem I-Town have obtained their signatures on standard form papers without conducting any panchanama and no rough sketch map of scene of offence was drawn in their presence at any time concerning this case.
26.Pw.10 is the Medical officer who deposed in her chief examination that she examined PW.1 and found one abrasion with a size of 6x3x2 Cms on forehead and the above said injury was inflicted with a knife, the injury is simple in nature and fresh. ExP.8 is Medical Certificate of PW1 issued by her. In her cross examination, she deposed that on the information given by Pw1, that he was attacked with a knife, but she has suspected that such injury could not be possible with a knife, hence she has placed a question mark as "?" and as per the version of Pw1, she has mentioned the kind of weapon used as Knife at the relevant column in Ex.P.8. She admitted that the
Page 24 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 nature of injury sustained by PW1 could not be possible by use of knife.
27.PW.11 is the first investigating officer, who issued FIR/ Ex.P9. He deposed in his cross examination that only the names of some of the accused persons was mentioned in ExP1
Report. The time of offence mentioned in Ex.P.1 report is 8.07
AM and in ExP9 FIR is 8.30AM. It was admitted that the accused never abused the victim by touching his caste name.
28. P.W.12 deposed in her chief examination that on 11.4.2018 at about 8.30 AM at Ganga Hussain Basthi, A1 to A10 came to the house of PW4 and quarreled with Pw4 and PW5. On the phone call of Pw4, Pw1 and his wife Pw2 came to the scene of offence and while they were enquiring with PW4, A4 beat pw1 on his face with the help of Cadiam (Hand Ring), due to which he sustained bleeding injury. A1 and A2 abused Pw1 in filthy language saying that "Mala lanjakodaka, Nuvvu evadivira". PW1 was attacked by the accused when he was on his 3 wheeler
Page 25 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 vehicle meant for Physically challenged persons. During her cross examination, it was elicited that Pw4 is her distant relative. She stated before the Police in her 161 CrPC statement that "A4 beat
Pw1 on his face with the help of cadiam (Hand ring), due to which he sustained bleeding injury" (Omission). The alleged incident took place infront of the house of Pw.4.
29. PW.13 is the 2nd investigating Officer, who deposed in his cross examination that, there is a delay of 2 ½ hours in lodging the report by Pw1. There are no contents in
ExP.1 report so as to attract the offences under the provisions of
Scs and Sts (POA) Act, 1989, Amendment Act, 2015. There is interpolation of name of the Caste "Mala" in 15 line of Pg.No.2 of S.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1. It is true PW1 did not state to him that A4 stabbed PW1 with a knife. It is true as per ExP1, the allegation against 20 persons is false. It is admitted that PW2 did not state before him that the accused persons abused Pw1 or herself touching the name of their caste. The house number of
Page 26 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 the house of PW4 is not mentioned in ExP11/CDF or in 161 CrPC statement. It is true nothing has revealed with respect to throwing of house hold articles of Pw4 by the accused in the investigation. It is true PW4 did not state in her 161 CrPC statement that A4 used MO1 nail cutter in committing the offence. PW.14 is the Tahsildhar who issued caste certificates of
Accused and PW1.
30.It is the evidence of Pws. 1, 4 and 5 that the house hold articles from the house of PW4 were thrown out by the Accused persons. Whereas PW's 2 and 3 who are alleged to be victims in this case did not say anything about throwing out of the house hold articles or utensils from the house of PW4 by the Accused persons. PW13/Investigation Officer in his cross examination deposed that nothing was revealed with respect to throwing of house hold articles of PW4 by the Accused in his investigation.
31.PW1 further deposed in his evidence that Accused
Page 27 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 abused him in filthy language as "kunti lanjakodaka" and insulted him as he is handicapped and A1 abused him as "mala lanjakodaka". In his cross examination it was elicited that he did not mention in his Ex.P1/Report the names of Accused persons who have insulted his disability and also there is no mention of citing his caste name by any of the accused persons. Pw2 did not corroborate the version of PW1 in this regard and categorically deposed that she did not state before the police in her section 161 Cr.P.C statement by the police that the accused persons have abused Pw1 by taking his caste name. PW5 also clearly admitted in his Cross examination that he did not specifically state while recording his section 161 CrPC statement by the Police that A2 and A4 abused Pw1 by taking his caste name as "mala lanjakodaka, kunti na kodaka". Further PW11/first Investigation
Officer in his evidence, admitted that the accused never abused the victim by touching his caste name. Even PW13/Second
Investigation Officer also in his evidence, admitted that PW2 did
Page 28 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 not state before him that the accused persons abused Pw1 or herself touching the name of their caste and there is interpolation of name of the Caste "Mala" in 15 line of Pg.No.2 of S.161 CrPC
Statement of PW1.
32.PW1 also deposed that A1 fisted on his face. A4 attacked with a small knife attached to the nail cutter on his left eye and caused him bleeding injury Accused person beat him indiscriminately. When Pw2 came to his rescue, A1 to A10 beat her, pulled her hair and fisted her. MO1 is the small knife attached with nail cutter was identified and marked through Pw1.
In his cross examination he deposed that while recording s.161
Crpc statement by the police, he stated that A4 attacked him with MO1 knife. Which was marked as Omission. PW13/
Investigation Officer deposed that PW1 did not state to him that
A4 stabbed PW1 with a knife. Further PW3, who is the mother of
PW1, in her evidence deposed that she did not observe as to use of any weapon while causing injuries to PW1. PW12, who is
Page 29 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 distant relative of PW4, deposed that A4 beat PW1 with a cadium (Hand Ring) on his face. The eye witnesses more particularly PW3 and PW12 who are alleged to have witnessed the incident did not corroborate the version of PW1 with respect to use of MO1 and the investigating officer/Pw13 categorically deposed that Pw1 did not state to him that A4 stabbed PW1 with a knifePW10 is the medical officer deposed in her evidence that the injury to PW1 was inflicted with a knife. In her cross examination, she deposed that on the information given by PW1, that he was attacked with knife, but she has suspected that such injury could not be possible with a knife, hence she has placed a question mark as "?" in ExP8/Medical Certificate of PW1. The discrepancies in the evidences of material witnesses including the victim/Pw1 with respect to the use of crime weapon for the commission of the offence by the accused doubts the prosecution case.
33.As per the evidence of PW1, nearly about 30 to 40 neighbours came to the house of PW4. But apart from the
Page 30 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 family members PW1 to PW5, PW12, who is the distant relative of PW4, none of the independent witnesses i.e., PW6 and 7 supported the version of PW1. Even the CDF panch witnesses i.e.,
PW8 and 9 also did not support the case of the Prosecution. The seizure of MO1 could not be proved by Prosecution. PW3 is the mother of PW4, as per the evidence of her, PW2 and PW4, she is very much present at the scene of offence at the time of the offence. But PW1 and PW5 did not whisper about the presence of
PW3 in their evidence. Thus the presence of PW3 cannot be probabalised by this Court.
34.Pw.5 is the son of PW4, on whose house Accused persons alleged to have attacked. His evidence discloses that apart from the Accused, there were 15 more colony persons, who also participated in the offence, but he do not know their names. He further admitted that the said 15 persons belongs to SC- community, they did not array them in the present criminal case since the said 15 persons belongs to SC- Community. It was
Page 31 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 further elicited from him that since the accused persons in the present criminal case have lodged a criminal case against his father prior to the alleged incident, they have filed the present criminal case against the accused persons and this present criminal case is filed against the accused persons as a counter blast to the criminal case already filed by the accused persons against his father. In view of aforesaid discussion of evidence of
PW5, which is quite contrary to the evidence of PW1 as well as there are serious infirmities in his evidence as discussed above, as such the credibility of his evidence is at stake.
35.On over all scrutiny of entire evidence adduced by the prosecution there are material contradictions and significant omissions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses who alleged to have witnessed the offence, which goes to the root of the prosecution case so as to disbelieve the case of prosecution.
Hence the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused.
36.In view of the above discussion, the prosecution
Page 32 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 has failed to prove that the Accused Nos.1 to 10 in prosecution of their common object P.W.1 in filthy language in the name of his caste within the public view or threatened them with dire consequences, all the accused beat PW1 with hands and pierced with a nail cutter knife. Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against the
Accused Nos.1, A2, A8 to 10 for the offences punishable under
Sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 of IPC, and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 92(a)(b) of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and against accused
Nos. 3 to A7 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 of IPC, Section 92(a)(b) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Points are answered in favour of the Accused and against the prosecution.
POINT No.6 : RESULT:
37.In the result, the Accused Nos.1, A2, A8 to 10 are
Page 33 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 of IPC, and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 92(a)(b) of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, and Accused No.3 to A7 are not found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 504, 323, 324, 506 of IPC, and section 92(a)(b) of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges. The bail bonds of Accused Nos.1 to 10 shall be in force for a period of
SIX months as contemplated under Section 437 Cr.P.C. MO1 nail-cutter shall be destroyed after expiry period.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer(G-I), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 3rd day of November, 2023.
Special Sessions Judge for the trial of cases under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-III Additional
Sessions Judge, Khammam
Page 34 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018 :: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
P.W-1:K.Shiva Shankar P.W-2:K.Durga Bhavani P.W-3:K.Hymavathi P.W.4:J.Sandhya P.W.5:J.Ravi Teja P.W.6:D.Yamuna P.W.7:P.Rama P.W.8:Ramnarayana Pasi P.W.9:B.Sagar P.W.10.Dr.Shanaz Begum P.W.11.G.Thirupathi P.W.12.M.Saraswathi P.W.13.S.M.Ali P.W.14.S.Ashok chakravarthy
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
None
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.P-1Report of PW1, dated 11.04.2018
Ex.P-2Attested copy of Disability certificate of PW1 dated 28.10.2010
Ex.P-3Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6
Ex.P-4Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7
Ex.P-5Signature of PW8 on Crime Details Form
Ex.P-6Signature of PW9 on Crime Details Form
Ex.P-7 Medical Requisition
Ex.P-8 Medical certificate
Ex.P-9First Information Report
Ex.P-10Proceedings issued by Superintendent of police dated 12.04.2018
Ex.P-11Crime Details Form
Page 35 of 36
S.C.No.107 of 2018
Ex.P-12Caste certificate showing caste particulars of PW1 and A1 to A10
DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
Ex.D1: Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.
Material Objects Marked MO-1 Nail Cutter
Special Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act -cum- III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Khammam.
Page 36 of 36