G.Anil Kiran Kumar

1SSC:2/2013

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, AT WARANGAL.

Tuesday, this the 20 th day of November, 2018.

Present: Sri T.Venkateshwara Reddy,

III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Warangal, FAC Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases- Cum-VII-Additional District Judge,

Warangal.

Special Sessions Case No. 2 of 2013

(Cr.No.195/2011 of P.S. Athmakur in P.R.C.No. 35/2012, committed by learned I Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal. ) 01Name and Description of:Assistant Superintendent of Police, the ComplainantKazipet. 02Name and Description of:1. Korukoppula Savithramma, W/o. the AccusedSuraiah, Age: 50 years, Caste: Gouda,

2. Korukoppula Rajitha, W/o. Nagesh, Age: 28 years, Caste: Gouda,

3. Korukoppula Suman, S/o. Suraiah, Age: 25 years, Caste: Gouda,

All are R/o. Peddapuram of Athmakur Mandal, Warangal.

03Offences charged:Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., and Section 3 (i) (x) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 04Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty 05Finding of the Court:Found not guilty 06Conviction/Sentence or : The accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found acquittalnot guilty of the offences punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled CastesandScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, the accused are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. The unmarked non-valuable property involved in this Crime is ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

2SSC:2/2013 07Name of the Counsel for:Sri M.Vasanth Kumar, the ProsecutionAdditional Public Prosecutor 08Name of the Counsel for:Sri E.Venugopal Rao, the AccusedAdvocate

This case is coming up before me on 13.11.2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M.Vasanth Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri E.Venugopal Rao,

learned Counsel for the accused; upon hearing, upon perusing the material papers on record andhaving stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kazipet, filed the charge- sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No. 195 of 2011 of

Athmakur Police Station under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989, alleging that the defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled

Caste and the accused are not belong to Scheduled Caste. The defacto complainant lodged a written complaint on 05-10-2011 before Police stating that the defacto complainant is working as a labour in a Quarry along with 170 persons. The labour were given festival advance of

Rs.1,500/- to each by the Quarry owners. The accused No.1 is a group leader while the defacto complainant and others were discussing about the distribution of money, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 abused the defacto complainant by touching his caste by saying that “ORAY MADIGA

LANJAKODUKA BAYATAKURARA MAA AMMANU EMANNAVURA MAA AMMAKU

EDURU MATLADUTHAVURA”. When the daughter and wife of the defacto complainant intervened the accused attacked them with sticks, as a result the wife of the defacto complainant and daughter of the defacto complainant sustained injuries. On the basis of the said complaint, the then Head Constable (LW-11/M.Raju) of Athmakur Police Station registered a case and the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer of Kazipet, investigated 3SSC:2/2013 into the case and filed charge-sheet.

2.The IAdditional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, took the case on file under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., and Section 3(i)(x) of

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 in P.R.C.No. 35 of 2012 and furnished the copies of case documents to the accused on their appearance before the Court. Since the offences alleged against the accused are exclusively triable by the Special Court of Sessions, the

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal, committed the case against the accused to the Court of Special Sessions Judge, Special

Court for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act, Warangal Division for disposal of the same in accordance with Law.

3.After hearing both sides, Charges under Section 324 read with 34

I.P.C., and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were framed against the accused and the same were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which the accused denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.To substantiate the charges, the prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-19.

PW-1 is defacto complainant and injured, PWs 2 and 3 are wife and daughter of PW-1 and injured persons, PWs 4 to 6 are eye witnesses, PWs 7 and 9 are Panch Witnesses for Crime Details Form, PW-8 is Tahsildar,

Athmakur, who issued Letter dated 18-11-2011 containing caste particulars of PW-1 and A-1 to A-3, PWs 10 and 12 are Investigating

Officers and PW-11 is Medical Officer, who treated PWs 1 to 3.

4SSC:2/2013

Ex.P-1 is Complaint given by PW-1 dated 05-10-2011, Exs.P-2 to P-4 are relevant Portions of Statements of PWs 1 to 3 respectively recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Exs.P-5 to P-7 are Statements of PWs 4 to 6 respectively

Ex.P-8 is signature of PW-7 on Crime Details Form dated 21-10-2011, Ex.

P-9 is Letter dated 18-11-2011 containing caste particulars of PW-1 and

A-1 to A-3 issued by PW-8, Ex.P-10 is Crime Details Form dated 06-10-2011, Ex.P-11 is original First Information Report dated 06-10-2011 issued by PW-10, Ex.P-12 is Authorization Letter of PW-11 dated 07-06-2017 to attend Court for deposing evidence, Exs P-13 to P-15 are

Injury Certificates dated 06-10-2011 of PWs 1 to 3 respectively, Ex.P-16 is

Appointment Order of PW-12 dated 07-10-2011, Exs.P-17 to P-19 are

Statements of PWs 1 to 3 respectively, recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

5.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P,.C., and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them and stated that they have no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf. Ex.D-1-Relevant Portion of Statement of

PW-2 recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C., is marked for the accused.

6.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.

7.Now the points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused of the offences punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., and under Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, beyond reasonable doubt?

2. To what result?

5SSC:2/2013

8.POINT NO.1:

PW-1 is the defacto complainant, PW-2 is the wife and PW-3 is daughter of PW-1. The case of the prosecution is that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 armed with sticks abused PWs 1 to 3 by touching their caste by saying that “ORAY MADIGA LANJAKODUKA BAYATAKURARA MAA AMMANU

EMANNAVURA MAA AMMAKU EDURU MATLADUTHAVURA”. Further, the accused 1 to 3 assaulted PWs 1 to 3. PW-11 is the Doctor, who examined

PW-1 and issued Ex.P-13-Wound Certificate. PW-11 Doctor also examined

PWs 2 and 3 and issued Exs.P-14 and P-15-Wound Certificates of PWs 2 and 3 respectively. From the evidence of the Doctor and from Exs.P-13 to

P-15-Wound Certificates of PWs 1 to 3, it is clear that the injuries mentioned in Exs.P-13 to P-15 are proved and it is held that PWs 1 to 3 sustained injuries as mentioned in Exs.P-13 to P-15.

Now, it has to be seen whether the accused are the persons, who caused injuries to PWs 1 to 3. On this aspect, we have to examine the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. In the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 3 dated 13-11-2018, PWs 1 to 3 stated in their evidence that they cannot identify the persons, who assaulted them and accused had not assaulted them.

The accused were not present at the scene of offence. The accused had not assaulted PWs 1 to 3 and the accused had not abused the PWs 1 to 3 by touching their caste. Thus, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, who are very material witnesses to the case of the prosecution, is not clear on the aspect that the accused are the persons, who assaulted PWs 1 to 3. In the examination-in-chief PWs 1 to 3 stated that the accused assaulted them and the accused also abused PWs 1 to 3 by touching their caste but in the cross-examination of PWs 1 to 3 dated 13-11-2018 PWs 1 to 3 have not supported the prosecution case and they clearly stated in their cross- examination that the accused had not assaulted them and the accused 6SSC:2/2013 had not abused them by touching their caste. Thus, PWs 1 to 3 gave two different versions in their evidence and their evidence is not consisting and does not inspire confidence about the genuineness of prosecution case. Since PWs 1 to 3 have not supported the prosecution case in their cross-examination dated 13-11-2018, a reasonable doubt will arise in the mind of the Court about the prosecution version and benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. When the very material witnesses that is

PWs 1 to 3 have not supported the prosecution version in their cross- examination dated 13-11-2018, the evidence of PWs 4 to 12 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution to fix the crime on the accused.

Considering the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 in their cross-examination dated 13-11-2018, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused of the offences for which they stand charged and this Point is answered against the prosecution.

9.POINT No.2 :

In view of my findings on Point No.1, the accused are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., and

Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, the accused 1 to 3 are to be acquitted of the above said offences.

10.In the result, the accused Nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., and Section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989. Hence, the accused are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

of the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. The unmarked non-valuable property involved in this Crime is ordered to be 7SSC:2/2013 destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of November, 2018.)

SD/-SRI T.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

FAC. Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases- Cum-VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge At Warangal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :

PW-1 : Manthri Komuraiah, defacto complainant PW-2 : Manthri Sarojana, injured PW-3 : Madasi Kalyani, eye witness and injured PW-4 : Mundrati Krishna Murthy, eye witness PW-5 : Kukkamudi Kumara Swamy, eye witness PW-6 : Velpula Kiran, eye witness PW-7 : Kodepaka Sudhakar, Panch Witness for Crime Details Form PW-8 : Gulam Dastagiri, Tahsildar, Athmakur. PW-9 : Kommula Sambaiah, Panch Witness for Crime Details Form PW-10: M.Raju, Investigating Officer PW-11: Dr.K.Mamatha, Medical Officer PW-12: D.Venkatnarsaiah, Investigating Officer

For Defence :

- None -

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P-1 :Complaint given by PW-1 dated 05-10-2011 Ex.P-2 : Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-1 recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-3 : Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-2 recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-4 : Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-3 recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-5 : Statement of PW-4 recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-6 : Statement of PW-5 recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-7 : Statement of PW-6 recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-8 : Signature of PW-7 on Crime Details Form dated 21-10-2011 Ex.P-9 : Letter dated 18-11-2011 containing caste particulars of PW-1 and A-1 to A-3 issued by PW-8. Ex.P-10: Crime Details Form dated 06-10-2011 Ex.P-11: Original First Information Report dated 06-10-2011 issued by PW-10 Ex.P-12: Authorization Letter of PW-11 dated 07-06-2017 to attend Court for deposing evidence.

8SSC:2/2013

Ex.P-13: Injury Certificate of PW-1 dated 06-10-2011 Ex.P-14: Injury Certificate of PW-2 dated 06-10-2011 Ex.P-15: Injury Certificate of PW-3 dated 06-10-2011 Ex.P-16: Appointment Order of PW-12 dated 07-10-2011 Ex.P-17: Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-1 recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-18: Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-2 recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-19: Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-3 recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

For Defence :

Ex.D-1: Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-2 recorded u/Sec. 161 Cr.P.C.

Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution

– NIL –

SD/-SRI T.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

FAC. Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases-

Cum-VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge At

Warangal.

// TRUE COPY // 9SSC:2/2013

CALENDER EXTRACT

JUDGMENT IN S.S.C.No.2/2013, ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL

JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT CASES-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT WARANGAL, IN P.R.C.NO.

35/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE

OF FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL.

1. Name of the Police Station with Cr.No: Athmakur, Cr.No. 195/2011

2. Name of the Accused :

1. Korukoppula Savithramma, W/o. Suraiah, Age: 50 years, Caste: Gouda,

2. Korukoppula Rajitha, W/o. Nagesh, Age: 28 years, Caste: Gouda,

3. Korukoppula Suman, S/o. Suraiah, Age: 25 years, Caste: Gouda, All are R/o. Peddapuram of Athmakur Mandal, Warangal.

3. Date of offence: 05-10-2011

4. Date of Report: 05-10-2011

5. Date of Arrest/Surrender: 07-11-2011

6. Date of Release on bail: 11-11-2011

7. Date of Commitment : 15-12-2012

8. Date of commencement of Trial: 08-12-2015

9. Date of closure of Trial: 12-07-2017

10. Date of Sentence/Order : 20-11-2018

In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C., and under Section 3 (i) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Hence Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C., for the above said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked non- valuable property involved in this case is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

11. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY : The case was received on committal on 21.12.2012. On 02.05.2013 on appearance of all accused copies furnished to them and on 15.07.2013 charges framed and Schedule fixed. Trial commenced on 08.12.2015 and closed on 12.07.2017. PWs 1 to 12 are examined and Exs.P-1 to P-18 marked on behalf of prosecution and Ex.D-1 is marked on behalf of defence. The accused were examined u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. on 22-08-2017. On 13-11-2018 arguments were heard and on 20-11-2018 Judgment was

pronounced.

FAC SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA)CASES-Cum-VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL

Present : G. Anil Kiran Kumar, VII Addl. District Judge, Warangal.

WEDNESDAY, 3RD APRIL, 2019

O.S. No. 126 of 2011

Between: Anugula Samba Reddy, S/o Venkata Krishna Reddy, Age: 46 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.2-8-576, Bhavani Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. …Plaintiff AND

Gangidi Madhava Reddy, S/o Venkat Reddy, Age: 71 years, Occ:Retired Teacher Permanent R/o H.No.1-84, Thimmapur, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, presently residing at Flat No.201, Pendyala Mohan Rao Apartments, KLN Reddy Colony, Subedari, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. …Defendant

The suit is coming before me for final hearing on dt:28/03/2019 in the presence of Sri P. Muralidhar, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.

Ch. Upender, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till today this court delivered the following:

:J U D G M E N T:

1. This suit is filed seeking this court to direct the defendant to receive balance sale consideration and thereupon to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or in case of defendant’s failure, sought this Court to execute a Registered Sale Deed. Alternative relief was also sought so as to direct the defendant to return an amount of Thirty-seven lakhs along with damages of thirty lakhs rupees to the plaintiff.

O.S.No.126/2011 VII Addl District Judge

Date: 03/04/2019 Warangal

2

The case of the Plaintiff:

2. That the defendant is the owner and possessor of open plot approximately to an extent of 799 Sq. yards situated in Survey No.

72/1 (New) 237 (old) situated at Snehanagar, Waddepalli Village,

Hanamkonda Mandal, Warnagal District (Suit Property).

3. The defendant offered to sell the suit property to the plaintiff to meet his family and personal requirements. An amount of Six thousand was fixed as sale consideration for per square yard. A sale deed shall be drawn based on the actual land available at the spot. In other words, land that would go for laying roads by Municipal and other developmental authorities shall be deducted. Accordingly, a written contract to sell was entered by parties on date 25/03/2010. Later, Parties measured the suit property and came to know that approximately an extent of 150 square yards of the suit property is getting affected towards municipal roads. As such, parties agreed sale consideration as Rs.38,00,000/-(Rupees thirty-eight lakhs only). The same was agreed by the defendant too. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid entire sale consideration amount except an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). But, the defendant refused to receive balance sale consideration of one lakh and demanded to pay consideration for the entire 799 square yards contrary to terms agreed upon.

4. The Plaintiff also averred that to secure above funds he sold his house bearing H.No.2-8-641/4 situated at Bhavani Nagar,

Hanamkonda. Thus, thereby plaintiff sustained mental agony apart from huge financial loss due above actions on part of the defendant.

5. In view of the above, parties exchanged legal notices over the issue of the extent of land available at suit property and consequent balance sale consideration and ultimately upon the readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff. But, they remain unresolved, hence the suit.

O.S.No.126/2011 VII Addl District Judge

Date: 03/04/2019 Warangal

3

The case of the defendant:

6. The defendant maintained silence entering into contract to sell the suit plot with the plaintiff by way of Ex.A1 and receipt of sale consideration to an extent of Rs.37,00,000/-. But, he disputed the rest of the plaint averments.

7. It is the case of the defendant that it is false to state that an extent of 163 square yards of land is unavailable due to roads caused by municipal authorities. The said idea was invented to evade the liability of pay sale consideration to an extent of 799 square yards. Hence, the defendant seriously questioned the bonafides and absence of readiness and willingness on part of the plaintiff. Hence, defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

ISSUES:

8. The following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff is ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration under agreement of sale dt.25/03/2010 for the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get direction against the defendant to execute a regular registered sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff by receiving the balance sale consideration, in case of his failure the Court may execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff?

3. Alternatively, whether the defendant may be directed to return the amount of Rs.37,00,000/- along with damages of Rs.30,00,000/- to the plaintiff?

4. Whether the time was essence of the contract under agreement of sale dated 25/3/2010?

5. To what relief?

O.S.No.126/2011 VII Addl District Judge

Date: 03/04/2019 Warangal

4

EVIDENCE ON RECORD:

9. In proof of his case, plaintiff examined PW1 to PW3 and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 and Ex.C1 to Ex.C2 are marked through PW3. The defendant himself examined as DW1 and marked nothing on his behalf.

POINT.01:

10. Admittedly there is no dispute about ownership and possession of the defendant over the entire suit property i.,e with regard to the extent 799 square yards and its dimensions. In fact, they were shown in the plaint schedule itself. Similarly, there is no dispute about entering into a contract to sell the suit property by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff by way of Ex.A1 and receipt of sale consideration to an extent of Rs.37,00,000/-. There is also no dispute about the fact that parties agreed to draw sale deed to an extent of land physically available at the spot instead of land actually owned and possessed by the defendant. It can be seen from the recitals in the Ex.A1 itself.

Thus, the parties are at variance about the extent of land available at the suit property.

11. Now coming to the central question, as per the plaintiff the land available was only to an extent of 606 square yards whereas as per the defendant is 799. The reason for the availability of 606 only is due to roads laid or proposed to be laid by the municipal authorities or other developmental authorities. In view of plaintiff’s admission about defendants’ right of ownership to an extent of 799 square yards, the burden to show that the available land is only to extent of 606 square yards due to municipal roads is upon the plaintiff himself. Now, let us turn to examine the same. To show the same plaintiff made valiant efforts with the aid of PW1 and PW3 evidence Ex.C1 to C3.

O.S.No.126/2011 VII Addl District Judge

Date: 03/04/2019 Warangal

5

12. That the Pw3 is the Advocate Commissioner and through him ExC1 to C3 are marked. It is his evidence that he measured the land with the aid of private surveyor and found that after deducting roads the land available at the suit property was only an extent of 606.62 square yards. Accordingly, Ex.C2 map was prepared. In the course of cross- examination, PW3 pleaded absolute ignorance about the basis on which

Ex.C2 map was prepared and above extent of 606.62 square yards was arrived at. PW3 also admitted that he didn’t refer to any document for causing said finding in his report. Similar, questions were also put to the PW1. He also admitted that he didn’t file any authentic official record in support of his contention. Though, PW1 stated that he filed master plan certificate, but bare perusal of documents filed exhibits that no such certificate is filed on record.

13. It shall be noted that when the right of ownership and possession of the defendant is to an extent of 799 square yards any deduction of such property from the hands of the defendant by any public authority must be in accordance with the due process of law. In fact, it is known to one and all that the factum of deducting or taking possession of any portion of land belonging to a private person shall be as per appropriate proceedings issued by competent Governmental or Municipal authorities. Even in case of a land proposed to be deducted towards municipal roads, there must be some plans or ideas in the form of public documents. But, the plaintiff did not file any such official proceedings showing that there were any such plans either at the time of suit or during the pendency of the suit. In these circumstances, this

Court is afraid to give any weight to the evidence of PW1 or PW3 and

ExC1 to C3 on this score. As a corollary, this Court constrain to hold that the entire land as show in the plaint schedule is available for sale i.e, 799 square yards.

O.S.No.126/2011 VII Addl District Judge

Date: 03/04/2019 Warangal

6

14. In view of the above, the question boils down to examine is whether the plaintiff was ever ready and willing to conclude the contract covered under Ex.A1. Admittedly, there is a clause in the Ex.A1 itself that drawing sale deed is subject to land available upon deducting municipal roads. The defendant is the executant to Ex.A1 and as such he is estopped from speaking otherwise. Added to it, the fast changing developmental activities in and around Warangal town and consequent road widening activities might be the cause for his apprehension. This argument gains strength in view of admissions made by defendant in his reply notice dated 04/08/2011(Ex.A9). Hence, this Court opines the apprehension sounds to be justified one but not a tangible one to act upon so as address the questions rose by way of this suit. Moreover, it is proved on record that PW1 to secure funds so as to purchase the suit property sold his existing house property situated at Bhavani Nagar, Hanamkonda. On the top of it, the defendant received substantial portion of sale consideration but failed to show on record any attempt on his part to return the same despite lapse of long nine years. There was no demand from the side of the plaintiff to return the same. In these admitted and proved factual scenario, this Court opines that plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform his part of the plaintiff, as averred by him. Accordingly, this court holds that plaintiff was ever ready and willing to perform his part of contract. Point.1 is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

POINT.04:

15. This Court thought it ideal and necessary to decide this issue

before addressing the other settled issues. The bare perusal of entire

material on record, it is evident that the time was not the essence of the contract. For the reason the defendant never expressed his intention to terminate the contract (EX.A1). Moreover, he received substantial sale consideration contrary to time fixed under Ex.A1. Needless, to note that fixation of time period doesn’t make the contract as time is the essence of the contract unless they parties actually

O.S.No.126/2011 VII Addl District Judge

Date: 03/04/2019 Warangal

7

intended to do so. Accordingly Point.4 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

POINT.02 & 03:

16. In view of the above this Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance and as such defendant is directed to execute a registered sale deed as per the boundaries and dimensions mentioned in the plaint schedule property to an extent of 799 square yards as shown in the plaint schedule property. Accordingly

Point.2 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. As a corollary, Point.3 is not required to be answered as it is only alternative relief.

POINT.05:

17. The parties agreed that the sale consideration as Rs.6000/- per square yard whereas available extent is 799 square yards and as such the total sale consideration comes to Rs.47,94,000/-(6000 X799). The plaintiff already paid an amount of Rs.37,00,000/- and as such balance to paid is Rs.10,94,000/-. Hence, the defendant is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,94,000/-.

18. In the result, the suit is decreed without costs directing the plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs.10,94,000/- to the defendant and the plaintiff is directed to deposit the said amount before this Court within one month from the date of judgment and decree. Thereupon, the defendant is directed to execute a registered sale deed as per the boundaries and dimensions mentioned in the plaint schedule property to an extent of 799 square yards as shown in the plaint schedule property or in alternative to the extent available (due to any changed circumstances subsequent to suit) in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee and in the event of failure, the plaintiff is at liberty to get it done through the process of Law. (Partly typed and dictated to the Stenographer, after transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in open court on this the 03rd day of April, 2019)

Sd/-

(G. Anil Kiran Kumar)

VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

O.S.No.126/2011 VII Addl District Judge

Date: 03/04/2019 Warangal

8

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT :

PW-1 : Anugula Samba Reddy DW-1: Gangidi Madhava Reddy PW-2 : A. Mohan Reddy PW-3 : M.Rajendra Prasad :DOCUMENTS MARKED:

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A.1. Original Agreement of sale executed by defendant dt. 25/3/2010 Ex.A.2. Original Receipt for Rs.4,75,000/- executed by Anuradha dt 5/4/ 2010 Ex.A.3. Original Receipt for Rs.25,000/- executed by Satyanarayan Reddy,

dated 7/4/2010

Ex.A.4. Part payment receipt for Rs.10,00,000/- executed by Anuradha,

dt. 25/9/2010

Ex.A.5. Part payment receipt for Rs. 10,00,000/- executed by defendant

dt. 4/1/2011

Ex.A.6. Receipt for Rs.5,00,000/- executed by Anuradha, dt. 12/2/2011 Ex.A.7. Receipt for Rs.2,00,000/- executed by Anuradha, dt. 10/03/2011 Ex.A.8. Office Copy of the Legal Notice dt. 20/07/2011 Ex.A.9. Reply Legal Notice dt. 4/8/2011 Ex.A.10. Office Copy of the Legal Notice, dt. 20/10/2011 Ex.A.11. Reply Legal Notice, dt. 21/10/2011

EXHIBITS MARKED THROUGH PW3: Ex.C1. Warrant Ex.C2. Map issued by Surveyor Ex.C3. Commissioner Report

FOR DEFENDANT: NIL

Sd/-

(G. Anil Kiran Kumar)

VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

O.S.No.126/2011 VII Addl District Judge

Date: 03/04/2019 Warangal

C.C. No. 358 of 2011 - 1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT

CASES-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT

WARANGAL.

Tuesday, this the 20 th day of November, 2018.

Present: Sri T.Venkateshwara Reddy, III Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Warangal, FAC Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases- Cum-VII-Additional District Judge,

Warangal.

CALENDAR CASE NO. 358 OF 2011

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Athmakur.

...Complainant

and

1.Manthri Komuraiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 45 years, Madiga, Occu: Coolie,

2.Manthri Sarojana, W/o. Komuraiah, Age: 40 years, Madiga, Occu: Coolie,

3.Madasi Kalyani, W/o. Prashanth, Age: 21 years, Madiga, Occu: Coolie,

All are R/o. Peddapur Village of Athmakur Mandal.

… Accused

This case coming before me for final hearing on 13.11.2018 in the presence of Sri M.Vasanth Kumar, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri

T.Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Accused; upon hearing, upon perusing the material papers 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-Inspector of Police, Athmakur Police Station filed charge sheet in his station Crime No. 194/2011 under Section 324 read with 34

I.P.C., against the accused Nos. 1 to 3 alleging that on 06-10-2011 the defacto complainant Korukoppula Rajitha lodged a written complaint

before Police stating that the accused Nos. 1 to 3 assaulted the defacto

C.C. No. 358 of 2011 - 2 complainant, her relative Namala Rajeshwari (PW-2) and her mother

Savithri (PW-3) with sticks. On the basis of the said complaint, the then

Head Constable (LW-10/M.Raju) registered a case and investigated into the same and after completion of investigation, Prosecution filed the charge-sheet against the accused under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C..

2.This case was taken on file under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C.

against the accused. After furnishing the case documents to the accused, the accused are examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C., to which the accused denied the prosecution case and after hearing both side counsel,

Charge under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., is framed against the accused and the same is read over and explained in Telugu, to which the accused denied the said charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3.To substantiate the case, the prosecution got examined PWs 1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-5.

PW-1 is the defacto complainant and injured, PW-2 is the injured,

PW-3 is the mother of the defacto complainant, PW-4 is the father of

PW-1, PWs 5 and 6 are eye witnesses to the incident, PW-7 is the then

Head Constable, who registered the case and investigated the same,

PW-8 is Doctor, who examined PWs 1 and 2 and issued Exs.P-4 and

P-5-Wound Certificates of PWs 1 and 2 respectively, and PW-9 is the then

Sub-Inspector of Police, who filed the charge-sheet after completion of investigation.

Ex.P-1 is Complaint given by PW-1 dated 06-10-2011, Ex.P-2 is

Crime Details Form dated 06-10-2011, Ex.P-3 is original First Information

Report dated 06-10-2011, Ex.P-4 is Injury Certificate of PW-1 dated 06-10-2011 and Ex.P-5 is Injury Certificate of PW-2 dated 06-10-2011,

C.C. No. 358 of 2011 - 3

Ex.P-6 is the Statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and

Ex.P-7 is the Statement of PW-3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C..

Exs.D-1 to D-3, the relevant portions in Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Statements of PWs 4 to 6 respectively, are marked for the accused.

4.After closure of the prosecution side evidence, the accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and the accused denied the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against them and stated that they have no defence witnesses to be examined on their behalf.

5.Heard the arguments submitted by both side counsel.

6.Now the points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused of the offences punishable under Section 324

read with 34 I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt?

2. To what result?

7.POINT NO.1:

PW-1 is the daughter of PW-5 and injured. PWs 2 and 3 are also injured. The accused No.1 is the husband of accused No.2 and father of accused No.3. The case of the prosecution is that due to previous grudges the accused Nos. 1 to 3 attacked PWs 1 to 3 and caused injuries on PWs 1 and 2.

PW-8 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, who examined PWs 1 and 2 and issued Exs.P-4 and P-5-Wound certificates of PWs 1 and 2. PW-8-Doctor stated in her evidence that PW-8 examined PW-1 and found the following injuries:

i)Laceration over the frontal region ii)Blunt injury back of abdomen

C.C. No. 358 of 2011 - 4

PW-8 further deposed in her evidence that PW-8 examined PW-2 and found the following injuries:

i)Laceration over the left palm at the index finger ii)Blunt injury back of abdomen

From the evidence of PW-8-Doctor and from Exs.P-4 and P-5, the injuries on PWs 1 and 2 are proved. Now, it has to be seen whether the accused are the persons, who caused injuries to PWs 1 and 2. PW-1 is the defacto complainant and injured. PW-1 stated in her cross-examination

dated 13-11-2018 that PW-1 cannot identify the persons, who assaulted

them and accused had not assaulted them and the accused were not present at the scene of offence and PW-1 is not examined by Police.

Similarly, PW-3, who is an eye witness to the incident as per the prosecution case, has not supported the prosecution version in her cross- examination dated 13-11-2018. Since the very injured and the defacto complainant stated in her cross-examination that the accused had not assaulted them and as the very eye witness PW-3 also not supported the prosecution version in her cross-examination dated 13-11-2018, a reasonable doubt will arise in the mind of the Court about the genuineness of prosecution version and benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused. There is no corroboration to the evidence of PW-2 from the very material witnesses that is from PWs 1 and 3. Admittedly, against the

PW-1, PW-3 and brother of PW-1, a case is registered under Sections 324 read with 34 I.P.C., and Section 3(i)(x) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thus, there are ill-feelings between the complainant and accused. Under this circumstance, when the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 is not consisting and they have not supported the prosecution case in their cross-examination, it is not safe to place reliance on the testimony of PW-2. Since PWs 1 and 3, the very

C.C. No. 358 of 2011 - 5 material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they denied their statements recorded by Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and the same are marked as Exs.P-6 and P-7, the evidence of PWs 2, 4 to 6 is not helpful to the prosecution case. Since PW-1 and PW-3 have not supported the prosecution version in their cross-examination dated 13-11-2018, benefit of doubt is given to the accused and it is held that prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused of the offences punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C., beyond reasonable doubt and this Point is answered against the prosecution.

8.POINT No.2 :

In view of my findings on Point No.1, the accused are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C..

Hence, the accused 1 to 3 are to be acquitted of the above said offence.

9.In the result, the accused 1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 I.P.C. Hence, the accused are acquitted under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C. of the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months from the date of Judgment. The unmarked non- valuable property involved in this Crime is ordered to be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Gr.III, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 20 th day of November, 2018.)

SD/-SRI T.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

FAC. Spl.Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases- Cum-VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge At Warangal.

C.C. No. 358 of 2011 - 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution :

PW-1 : Korukoppula Rajitha, defacto complainant and injured

PW-2 : Namala Rajeshwari, injured and eye witness

PW-3 : Korukoppula Savithramma, mother of PW-1 and eye witness

PW-4 : Samudrala Pedda Mallaiah, eye witness

PW-5 : Elukati Suraiah, eye witness

PW-6 : Kandikonda Mallaiah, eye witness

PW-7 : M.Raju, Investigating Officer

PW-8 : Dr.K.Mamatha, Medical Officer

PW-9: B.Praveen, Investigating Officer

For Defence :

- None -

Exhibits marked

For Prosecution :

Ex.P-1 :Complaint given by PW-1 dated 06-10-2011

Ex.P-2 : Crime Details Form dated 06-10-2011

Ex.P-3 :Original First Information Report dated 06-10-2011 issued by PW-7

Ex.P-4 :Injury Certificate of PW-1 dated 06-10-2011

Ex.P-5 : Injury Certificate of PW-2 dated 06-10-2011

Ex.P-6 :Statement of PW-1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P-7 :Statement of PW-3 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C..

For Defence :

Ex.D-1 :Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-4 recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.D-2 : Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-5 recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.D-3 : Relevant Portion of Statement of PW-6 recorded u/Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

C.C. No. 358 of 2011 - 7

Material Objects marked on behalf of Prosecution

– NIL –

SD/-SRI T.VENKATESHWARA REDDY

FAC. Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases- Cum-VII-Addl. District and Sessions Judge At Warangal.

// TRUE COPY //

C.C. No. 358 of 2011 - 8

CALENDER EXTRACT

JUDGMENT IN C.C.No.358/2011, ON THE FILE OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE

FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT CASES-CUM-VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE AT WARANGAL, TRANSFERRED FROM THE COURT OF I

ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, WARANGAL, TO

TRY ALONG WITH S.C.NO. 2/2013, ON THE FILE OF THIS COURT VIDE

ORDERS DATED 28-03-2014 OF THE HON'BLE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL IN TR.CRL.M.P.NO. 1245/2013.

1. Name of the Police Station with Cr.No:Athmakur, Cr.No. 194/2011

2. Name of the Accused :

1.Manthri Komuraiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 45 years, Madiga, Occu: Coolie,

2.Manthri Sarojana, W/o. Komuraiah, Age: 40 years, Madiga, Occu: Coolie,

3.Madasi Kalyani, W/o. Prashanth, Age: 21 years, Madiga, Occu: Coolie,

All are R/o. Peddapur Village of Athmakur Mandal.

3. Date of offence: 05-10-2011

4. Date of Report: 06-10-2011

5. Date of Arrest/Surrender: 24-10-2011

6. Date of Release on bail: 24-10-2011

7. Date of Commitment : --

8. Date of commencement of Trial: 08-12-2015

9. Date of closure of Trial: 18-08-2017

10. Date of Sentence/Order : 20-11-2018

In the result, A.1 to A.3 are found not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 I.P.C.. Hence, the Accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C., for the above said offence. The bail bonds of the accused shall ordered to be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked non-valuable property involved in this case is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

11. EXPLANATION FOR DELAY :

The case was received on being transfer from I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Warangal, on 19.05.2014. On appearance of all

accused copies furnished to them and on 19.02.2013 charge has been framed in the Lower Court and Schedule fixed. Trial commenced on 08.12.2015 and closed on 18.08.2017. PWs 1 to 9 are examined and Exs.P-1 to P-7 marked on behalf of prosecution and Exs.D-1 to D-3 are marked on behalf of defence. The accused were examined u/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. on 22-08-2017. On 13-11-2018 arguments were heard and on 20-11-2018 Judgment was pronounced.

FAC SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST

C.C. No. 358 of 2011 - 9 (POA)CASES-Cum-VII ADDL. DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING OF

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Tuesday, this the 26th day of April, 2022

PRESENT:-Sri G.Anil Kiran Kumar,

Special Judge for Fast Tracking of Cases

Relating To Atrocities against Women-Cum- IX Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal

SESSIONS CASE NO.214 OF 2021

(Crime No.113/2019 of P.S. Kazipet) Between: The State of Telangana Represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kazipet Division, Warangal ….Prosecution

And

1.Nagula Shiva Prasad, S/o. N.Rajaiah, Age: 36 yrs, Occ: Page layer in Andhra Jyothi, R/o.H.No.25-7-373, Vishnupuri Colony, Kazipet, Hanumakonda District

2. Smt Nagula Laxmi @ Saraswathi, W/o.N.Rajaiah, Age: 70 yrs, Occ: House wife, R/o.H.No.25-7-373, Vishnupuri Colony, Kazipet, Hanumakonda District Presently staying at H.No.8-3-228/276, Rahmath Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad

3. Nagula Rajaiah, S/o. N.Ramaiah, Age: 75 yrs, Occ: Retired employee, R/o.H.No.25-7-373, Vishnupuri Colony, Kazipet, Hanumakonda District Presently staying at H.No.8-3-228/276,

Rahmath Nagar, Yousufguda, Hyderabad ....Accused nos.1 to 3

This case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Vasudev Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri P.Narsimha Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution:

1. On 17.02.2017, Accused no.1 married Damera Harshita Devi (deceased). Accused nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Accused no.1. At that time of marriage, the parents of the deceased towards dowry gave the following: An amount of Rs.5,00,000/- cash, motor cycle worth of Rs.75,000/- and

SC.No.214 of 2021 Page no.1 of 4 IX Addl Sessions Judge, Warangal

other household articles worth of Rs.2,00,000/-, half tula gold ring, one tula gold chain and two and half tulas gold bracelet. The accused were not satisfied with the said dowry. As such, they demanded additional dowry.

The parents of the deceased were unable to meet the said demands. As such, the accused subjected the deceased to dowry cruelty. The deceased could not able bear the dowry cruelty and as such, on 25.05.2019, she committed suicide by hanging at her in-laws house.

2. Initially, the Police, Kazipet, received the report from LW1 and registered it as Crime No. 113/2019 for offences punishable under S.s 498 (A), 304 (B) IPC, S.3 & 4 of D.P. Act. Later, upon conclusion of the investigation, a report was laid under Sec.173 (2) of Cr.P.C., before the learned Prl. Judicial of First Class Magistrate, Warangal. Thereupon, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, and committed the same under Sec.209 of

Cr.P.C., to the Court of Sessions, Warangal. As a result, the Sessions Court took cognizance of the offence, vide S.C.No.214/2021 and made over the same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. At the time of committal, the learned Magistrate furnished copies of the documents to the accused under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

3. After hearing the arguments submitted on behalf of the parties, charge under S.s 498 (A), 304 (B) IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act was framed against the accused nos.1 and 3. The same were read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused Nos.1 and 3 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P18. On the side of the defense, no one was examined and nothing was marked.

5. It would be ideal to set out the roles of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW1 is the mother whereas PW2 is the paternal uncle of the deceased. PWs 3 to 5 are the circumstantial witnesses, PWs 6 & 7 are the panchs for disclosure and recovery. It may be noted that the father and brother of the deceased died during the pendency of this case and as such their evidence was closed upon report filed by the prosecution.

SC.No.214 of 2021 Page no.2 of 4 IX Addl Sessions Judge, Warangal

6. Heard and perused the material on record.

7. Now, the points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the death of deceased was due to suicide?

2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was due to dowry cruelty caused by the accused within seven years of her marriage and thereby committed offences punishable under S.s 498 (A), 304 (B) IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of D.P. Act ? 3) To what result?

POINT NO.1:

8. The prosecution witnesses in unison testified that deceased committed suicide by hanging in the year 2020. This portion of the prosecution evidence was remained undisturbed. Hence, this Court holds that the death of deceased was due to suicide.

POINT NOS.2 & 3:

9. In order to opine anything about the allegations covered under the charge, there was no incriminating evidence on this score. The prosecution witnesses in one voice categorically deposed that the accused were in no manner related to the death of the deceased. As per PW1 to PW5 the deceased gave a birth to premature baby and the said baby also died.

Further, the ovaries of the deceased were removed and thereby she cannot give birth to a child. The deceased unable to accept this harsh fact and thereby underwent unbearable stress and as such she committed suicide. Thus, there was a complete go bye by PWs. In view of this scenario, the learned public prosecutor duly put questions to the material witnesses under S.154 Indian Evidence Act. But he failed to elicit anything in support of the case of the prosecution. Nevertheless, as the deceased died within seven years of marriage, this Court tried to verify the possibility of drawing a presumption prescribed under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act.

But it could not. For this reason, the material on record did not disclose dowry harassment or cruelty on part of the accused. None of the witnesses spoke anything about the demand of dowry or dowry cruelty on part of the accused. Even the mother or relatives of the deceased didn’t say anything about dowry cruelty. In fact, they stated that the deceased and the accused were in a cordial relationship. Thus, there was nothing on record so as to hold that the death of the deceased was due to dowry cruelty or demand for dowry by the accused. In these circumstances, the learned

SC.No.214 of 2021 Page no.3 of 4 IX Addl Sessions Judge, Warangal

public prosecutor gave up the left-over prosecution witnesses. The reason being the material witnesses went against the case of the prosecution. This Court having perused the material on record did not find any reason to reject the action of the Special public prosecutor. The Court failed to see any purpose in examining the leftover listed prosecution witnesses.

Consequently, due to the absence of any incriminating material in the prosecution evidence, this Court dispensed the examination U/S.313 Cr.P.C.

Hence, this Court is constrained to answer this point against the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt against the accused and as such, they are acquitted. Point Nos.2 & 3 are answered accordingly.

10. In the result, the accused nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for offences punishable under S.s 498-A, 304-B IPC and S.3 and 4 of DP Act. Hence, they are acquitted for the same under S.235 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled upon lapse of six months. The unmarked non- valuable is ordered to be destroyed after lapse of appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on 26.04.2022)

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING OF CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-

IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: Damera Venkatamma None PW2: Damera Rajanna PW3: Thanda Srihari PW4: Balabadra Divya PW5: Makula Satya Murthy PW6: Paka Srinivas Rao PW7: Indla Anil Kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Signature of Damera Arun Kumar on report Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5 Ex.P7 to P12 : Signatures of PW6 on documents Ex.P13 to P18 : Signatures of PW7 on documents

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING OF CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-

IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

SC.No.214 of 2021 Page no.4 of 4 IX Addl Sessions Judge, Warangal

SC.No.214 of 2021 Page no.5 of 4 IX Addl Sessions Judge, Warangal

CALENDER EXTRACT

JUDGMENT IN S.C.No.29/2020

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING OF

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-IX

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

1. Name of the Police Station : Sangem 2.Crime Number : 80/2019

3. offences : S.s 417, 420, 506, 376 (1) IPC & S.3 of D.P. Act against A1 S.s 417, 420, 506, & S.3 of D.P. Act against A2 to A3

4. Name of the Accused :

1. Podeti Raju, S/o. Babu, Aged 25 Years, Caste: SC-Madiga,Occ: Agricultural Labour.

2. Podeti Babu, S/o. Dudaiah, Aged 46 Years, Caste: SC-Madiga,Occ: Agricultural Labour, R/o. Pallariguda, Sangem (Mdl).

3. Podeti Pulamma @ Pula Pulamma, W/o.Babu, Aged 42 Years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occ: Coolie, Ward Member-5, Pallariguda.

4. Podeti Srikanth, S/o. Babu, Aged 19 Years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occ: Labour all R/o. Pallariguda Village, Sangem Mandal.

5. Date of offence : 16.12.2018

6. Date of Report : 09.06.2019

7. Date of remand of accused : 25.07.2019

8. Date of release : 07.08.2019 (A2 to A4) 15.10.2019 (A1)

8. Date of commencement of Trial : 05.01.2022

9. Date of closure of Trial : 05.01.2022

10. Date of Sentence/Order : 03.02.2022

In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the offences under S.s 417, 420, 506, 376 (1) IPC and Sec.3 of D.P. Act and A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under S.s. 417, 420, 506, IPC and Sec.3 of D.P. Act. Hence, they are acquitted for the said charge under Sec. 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled upon lapse of six months. The Unmarked non-valuable case property is to be destroyed after lapse of the appeal time.

Y :

On 04.03.2020, A1 to A4 appeared before Court and copies furnished. In view of COVID-19, the matter is postponed to various dates. On 19.03.2021 charges framed and Schedule fixed. Trial commenced and closed on 05.01.2022 PWs 1 to 3 examined and Exs.P1 to P5 are marked. Accused

SC.No.214 of 2021 Page no.6 of 4 IX Addl Sessions Judge, Warangal

examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed. Heard on 03.02.2022 and on the same day the Judgment was pronounced.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING OF CASES

RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-CUM-

IX ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

SC.No.214 of 2021 Page no.7 of 4 IX Addl Sessions Judge, Warangal

IN THE COURT OF EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE

AND CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL

OFFENCES ACT, WARANGAL

Thursday, this the 17th day of March, 2022

PRESENT:G.ANIL KIRAN KUMAR, IX-Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Warangal FAC.Special Judge for Trial and disposal of Rape & Cases under Protection of Children from Sexual ofences Act, Warangal

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.103/2020

(Crime No.111/2019 of P.S. Inavole) Between: The State of Telangana Represented by Asst. Commissioner of Police, Mamnoor…. Prosecution

And

1. Singarapu Dinesh, S/o Chandramouli, Age: 19 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Welding Work, R/o. SC Colony, Kondaparthy Village.

2.Singarapu Vanitha, W/o. Chandramouli, Age: 35 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Business, R/o. SC Colony, Kondaparthy Village,

3. Singarapu Divyasri, D/o. Chandramouli, Age: 21 years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Business,

R/o. SC Colony, Kondaparthy village....Accused Nos.1 to 3

This case is coming on this day for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Ranjeeth, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The case of the prosecution:

1.The date of birth of the victim (PW1) is 26.01.2005. During the year, 2019, Accused No.1 committed penetrative sexual assault against PW1 at his Kirana shop by putting her under the fear of death. As a result, PW1 became pregnant. Further, Accused No.2 and 3 abetted A1 to commit the same and also threatened PW1 not to disclose the same and forcibly gave medicine to terminate the pregnancy of PW1. Due to this medicine, the victim pregnancy got terminated and on 03.11.2019, victim got delivered a dead child at her 7th month of pregnancy. Hence, PW1 reported the matter to the police.

SPL.SC.No.103 of 2020 Page no.1 of 5 Spl Judge, Warangal

2.Initially, the Police, Inavole, received the report from PW2 and registered the Crime No.111/2019 for the ofences punishable under S.s 376(2)(n), 376(3), 506, 109 IPC, S.5(1), 5(j)(ii) r/w 6, 17 of POCSO Act- 2012 (hereafter referred as Act). Later, upon conclusion of the investigation, a report was laid under S.173 (2) of Cr.P.C., before the I-Addl Sessions Judge, Warangal, i.e., designated Special Court to try cases under the Act.

3. Thereupon, the Special Court took cognizance of the ofence, vide Special S.C.No.103/2020. Subsequently as per the orders passed by the

Hon’ble Prl Sessions Judge, Warangal vide Dis No.3374, dt.15.06.2021,

the case was made over to IV Addl Sessions Judge (FTC) cum Fast Track Special Court under POCSO Act, Warangal. Later, with the establishment of Fast Track Special Court for expeditious disposal of Rape cases and cases under the Act, at Warangal, the Hon’ble Prl Sessions Judge vide Dis.No.7284, dt.21.12.2021 transferred this case to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. At the time of appearance, the copies of the documents were furnished to the accused under Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. After hearing the arguments submitted on behalf of the parties, charge under S.376 (2) (n), 376(3), 506 IPC and S.5(j)(ii) and S.5

(l) r/w S.6 of POCSO Act framed against A1 and S.s 109, 315 IPC and S.16 & 17 of POCSO Act was framed against A2 & A3 and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P20. On the side of the defense, no one was examined and nothing was marked.

6. It would be ideal to set out the roles of the various witnesses examined by the prosecution. PW1 is the victim, PW2 is the neighbor, PW3 is the witness at the time of inquest of infant baby of victim, PW4 is the photographer, PW5 to PW10 are the panch witnesses, PW11 is the Head Master who issued date of birth certifcate of victim and PW12 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon who issued fnal opinion of victim.

7. Heard and perused the material on record.

SPL.SC.No.103 of 2020 Page no.2 of 5 Spl Judge, Warangal

8. Now, the points that arise for determination are:

1. Whether the actions and omission of the A1 constitute ofences Sec.376 (2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and S.5 r/w S.6 of POCSO Act and A2 & A3 constitute ofences under S.s 109, 315 IPC and S.16 & S.17 of POCSO Act?

2. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the A1 committed ofences under S.s 376 (2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and S.5 r/w S.6 of POCSO Act and A2 & A3 committed ofences under S.s 109, 315 IPC and S.16 & S.17 of POCSO Act?

3. To what result?

Point Nos.1 and 2:

9. PW1 testifed that during the year 2019, she was aged about 17-years. PW11 testifed that PW1’s date of birth as 26.01.2005. PW12 testifed that PW1 was 30-weeks old pregnant at the time of examination. There was hardly any dispute on this score of minority and attaining pregnancy by PW1 during her minority. PW1 testifed that during the year 2019, while she was residing at the house of Accused No.2, she gave birth to a male child, who died in the womb. PW1 testifed that Accused are her relatives. PW1 deposed that she gave a report to the police and statement before learned Magistrate as per the instructions of her grandparents. She pleaded ignorance about the contents of the report given to the police and statement given before learned Magistrate. PW1 spoke nothing against the accused touching the allegations covered by the charge. PW2 to PW10 pleaded complete ignorance about the case of the prosecution. As such, the learned Prosecutor by obtaining permission of the Court put questions to these witnesses in line with the case of the prosecution. However, he could not elicit any material in support of the proposed case of the prosecution or throw away the version set forth by the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, the learned public prosecutor gave up the left-over prosecution witnesses. The reason being the material witnesses went against the case of the prosecution. This Court having perused the material on record did not fnd any reason to reject the action of the Special public prosecutor. PW9 was examined so as to show that victim underwent sexual intercourse. This portion of PW9 evidence was remained unquestioned.

SPL.SC.No.103 of 2020 Page no.3 of 5 Spl Judge, Warangal

9. In view of the above, it is evident that PW1 was a minor girl and she sufered sexual intercourse during her minority. Further, she became pregnant and gave birth to a dead child. But, there is no material to show that accused is the one who was responsible for the pregnancy of PW1. As such, this Court, to probe further into the matter conducted examination under S.313 Cr.P.C. But the Accused pleaded ignorance about the version of the prosecution and he denied commission of any ofence against the victim. Thus, there is nothing on record to show that PW1 sufered any prohibited action in the hands of the accused. Thus, there is nothing on record to hold that the accused is guilty of any ofence for which he was charged. Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

11. In the result, A1 is found not guilty for the ofences punishable under S.s 376 (2)(n), 376(3), 506 IPC and S.5 r/w S.6 of POCSO Act and A2 & A3 are found not guilty for the ofences punishable under S.s 109, 315 IPC and S.16 & 17 of POCSO Act. Hence, they are acquitted for the said charge under S.232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled upon lapse of six months. The unmarked non-valuable case property shall be destroyed after lapse of appeal time. (Typed to my dictation, corrected & pronounced by me on 17.03.2022)

FAC. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE & CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

FROM SEXUAL OFFECES ACT, WARANGAL

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: PW1: M.Maneesha None PW2: B.Kailasam PW3: M.Babu PW4: J.Bixapathi PW5: K.Paninadh PW6: M.Babu PW7: B.RamBabu PW8: K.Benson PW9: N.KumaraSwamy PW10:B.Venkata Swamy PW11:K.Madmalatha PW12:Dr.Laxmi

SPL.SC.No.103 of 2020 Page no.4 of 5 Spl Judge, Warangal

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature appearing on the complaint Ex.P2: Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Relevant portion of 164 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3 Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4 Ex.P7: Signature appearing on the panchanama Ex.P8: Signature appearing on the panchanama Exs.P9& Ex.P10: Signatures appearing on the confession and Seizure panchanama Ex.P11: Signature appearing on the Inquest panchanama Ex.P12: Signature appearing on the Inquest panchanama Exs.P13 & Ex.P14: Signature appearing on the confession and Seizure panchanama Ex.P15: Date of Birth Certifcate of the Victim Ex.P16: Date of Birth Certifcate of the Accused No.1 Ex.P17: Preliminary Report, dated 30.09.2019 Ex.P18: Copy of the Ultrasonography Report. Ex.P19: RFSL Report, dated 26.10.2019. Ex.P20: Final Opinion, dated 24.08.2020

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

FAC. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF

RAPE & CASES UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN

FROM SEXUAL OFFECES ACT, WARANGAL

SPL.SC.No.103 of 2020 Page no.5 of 5 Spl Judge, Warangal