Page 1 of 6 CC No. 4403 of 2022
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE
:: HANUMAKONDA::
Present: Miss. Nishka Patrudu Gummalla, Spl. JMFC (Mobile) under PCR Act-cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Hanumakonda.
Tuesday, this the 19th day of July, 2022
CC.No. 4403 of 2022
BETWEEN:
The State of Telangana, through Sub-Inspector of Police, Chennaraopet Police Station, Warangal Rural. …Complainant AND
A1. Anumula Kumaraswamy, S/o. Sammaiah, Age: 38 years, Caste: Lakkamarikapu, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Khaderpet Village. A2. Kusa Venkat Reddy, S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 55 years, Caste: Lakkamarikapu, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Khaderpet Village. A3. Pendli Ravi, S/o. Saireddy @ Sainna, Age: 42 years, Caste: Lakkamarikapu, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Khaderpet Village. A4. Anumula Yashodha, D/o. Late Sai Reddy, Age: 63 years, Caste: Lakkamarikapu, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Khaderpet Village. ….Accused Nos. A1 to A4
This case is coming on 19-07-2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri. N. Ram Reddy, counsel for the accused and having perused the evidence adduced on either side, exhibits marked and 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::
01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chennaraopet Police Station, Warangal Rural filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 for the offenses punishable U/sec. 290, of
Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Sec. 7(1)(b)(c) of Protection of Civil
Right (PCR) Act in Cr. No. 72 of 2020.
Page 2 of 6 CC No. 4403 of 2022
02. Brief averments of charge sheet are as follows:
On 17.04.2020 at 18:30 hours the complainant LW-1/Anumula Sambalaxmi @
Samba, lodged a telugu written complaint in which she stated that on 02.04.2020 her aunt demised and at that time she went to agricultural fields for attending work and
LW-2/Anumula Rajkumar was doing petty business at Hyderabad and none of the caste elders informed the same to her and LW-2/Anumula Rajkumar. The other caste members informed the matter to LW-2/Anumula Rajkumar and in turn he informed LW-5/Diddi
Devender and also instructed to inform the same to her. She further stated that
LW-2/Anumula Rajkumar arrived to the village lately due to Corona effect, but keeping the previous grudges in mind accused A1 insisted and made A4 perform the funeral rites
before LW-2/Anumula Rajkumar reached the village. On questioning A4 picked up
quarrel with LW-1/Anumula Sambalaxmi @ Samba and LW-2/Anumula Rajkumar. Later,
LW-2/Anumula Rajkumar went to Hyderabad after a day but LW-1/Anumula Sambalaxmi @ Samba participated in all funeral programs according to their customs. She further stated that on 14.04.2020 accused A1 to A4 conducted meeting and excommunicated the family of LW-1/Anumula Sambalaxmi @ Samba from the village, concluding that no one shall communicate with their family or go their home or attend their agricultural works and if any one deviates the same they will be fined with Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand
Only) The said conclusion was campaigned in the village by LW-6/Keshapaka Kommalu, the same was witnessed by LW-3/Subbani Sampath, LW-4/Pendli Ilaiah, LW-5/Diddi
Devender.
03.On receipt of the above complaint LW-9/S.Ravi registered a case in Crime No. 72 of 2020 under section 290 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and Section 7(1)(b)(c) of
Protection of Civil Right (PCR) Act and issued FIR. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of LW-1/Anumula Sambalaxmi @ Samba and on the next day (18.04.2020) visited the scene of offence and in the presence of LW-7/Erra
Malla Reddy and LW-8/Thummalapalli Anil drafted scene of offence Panchanama and drew rough sketch in Crime Detail Form. He secured the presence of LW’s 2 to 6 (Amumula Rajkumar, Subbani Sampath, Pendli Ilaiah, Diddi Devender, Keshapaka
Page 3 of 6 CC No. 4403 of 2022
Kommalu) examined and recorded their statements.
04.On 17.04.2020 notices under section 41(A) (1) of Cr.P.C were served to accused
A1 to A4 and instructed to appear before the Hon’ble Court on receipt of summons for facing trial. On completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused A1 to A4 have committed an offence punishable under section 290 Indian Penal Code(I.P.C)
Section 7(1)(b)(c) of Protection of Civil Right (PCR) Act.
05.Cognizance taken by this Hon’ble Court against the A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under section 290 Indian Penal Code(I.P.C) and Section 7(1)(b)(c) of
Protection of Civil Right (PCR) Act-1955.
06.Upon appearance of accused A1 to A4 copies of the case records are furnished on them as per section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later A1 to A4 were examined under section 251
Cr.P.C for the offenses under section 290 of Indian Penal Code(I.P.C) and section 7 (1)(b)
(c) of Protection of Civil Right (PCR)Act by explaining the substantiate of acquisition against accused A1 to A4 in telugu. Having understood the same they denied pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
07.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-4 out of Nine(9) listed witnesses and got marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW’s 5, 6, 7, 8 (Diddi Devender, Keshapaka Kommalu, Erra
Malla Reddy, Thummallapalli Anil) due to the hostility of material witnesses.
08.After closure of prosecution evidence A1 to A4 were examined under section 313
Cr.P.C by explaining the material evidence available against them from the evidence of prosecution witnesses in telugu. Having understood the same they denied and reported no defense evidence.
09.Heard arguments of both sides.
10. The point for determination is: -
Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused for
the offenses punishable under section 290 of Indian Penal Code and
Section 7 (1)(b)(c) of Protection of Civil Right (PCR)Act to prove its
Page 4 of 6 CC No. 4403 of 2022 case?
11. POINT:
In order to prove its case prosecution firstly examined Complainant/PW-1 who deposed that PW-2 is her son and she knows PW-3, PW-4, LW-5 and LW-6 she deposed that she knows all the accused and they are present in the court hall on that day she further deposed that she stays alone at her house and her son PW-2 and her daughter-in-law resides at Hyderabad. She further deposed that on 02.04.2020 her mother-in-law died and no one intimated her about the same. She also deposed that LW-5 made a phone call to her son and intimated about the death. She also deposed that her son informed her and she immediately went home and witnesses that her mother-in-law dead body is placed infront of the house of my sister-in-law. She also further deposed that she did not go near the body as they were scolding her. She also further deposed that she requested them to wait as her son is coming but they did not wait and conducted the funeral rituals. She deposed that her son reached along with his family at 08:00 P.M and the delay was due to
Lockdown she deposed that her son asked Accused A3 why they performed the funeral rituals without him and after two(2) days he left to Hyderabad. She further also deposed that on 14.04.2022 tom-tom was made that no one should communicate with them or go to their house and if they do so a fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees Five Thousand Only) will be imposed. She clearly deposed that LW-6 did tom-tom. She also deposed that as there are land disputes between them and accused, accused have done the said tom-tom against them in village. She also deposed that police examined and recorded her statement, and the complaint given by her is marked as Ex.P-1.
12.During cross-examination of PW-1 by Learned Defense Counsel PW-1 clearly admitted that she has stated false in her chief examination and stated that as she is illeterate she do not know the date on Ex.P-1. She clearly admitted that she is no way concerned with the attendance of her son to the funeral. She also admitted that due to pandemic situation her son could not attend the funeral and so Accused/A4 has conducted the funeral rituals. She clearly admitted that no one ex-communicated them from the
Page 5 of 6 CC No. 4403 of 2022 caste and no tom-tom was conducted and further that accused are no way concerned with the said tom-tom. Inspite of Re-Examination of PW-1 by Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor nothing was elicited in favour of case of prosecution.
13.Coming to the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 all the Three (3) turned hostile by stating that they do not know anything about the present case and also that police did not examined and recorded their statements. The Learned Additional Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 but nothing was elicited in favour of the case of the prosecution. Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2 was marked as Ex.P-2, PW-3 was marked as Ex.P-3 and PW-4 was marked as Ex.P-4.
14.Upon going through material evidence available on record it is crystal clear that the complainant PW-1 completely resiled from her evidence given during her Chief-
Examination it appears that during the Cross-examination she denied her own statements and admitted the suggestions put by Learned Defense Counsel which in turn totally shaken the veracity of evidence given by her. During Re-examination she simply denied the question that she has compromised the matter out side the court and so now she is deposing false. On the other hand the material witnesses and the victim PW-2 was turned hostile and due to their hostility since no purpose will be served on examining the remaining witnesses the Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up their evidence.
15.It is pertinating to mention that the offenses against Accused A1 to A4 are public nuisance punishable under section 290 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) and the offenses arising out of un-touchability punishable under section 7(1)(b)(c) of Protection of Civil
Right (PCR) Act-1955, in view of the hostile nature of the star witnesses and material circumstantial witnesses the prosecution could not prove its case for the said offenses against the Accused A1 to A4.
16.From the discussion made Supra the prosecution utterly failed in bringing home the guilt of accused A1 to A4 for the offenses arrayed against them beyond all reasonable doubts.
IN THE RESULT, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offense under section
Page 6 of 6 CC No. 4403 of 2022 290 of Indian Penal Code (I.P.C) and Section 7 (1)(b)(c) of Protection of Civil
Right(PCR) Act and are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused A1 to A4 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period. Unmarked and non valuable case properties any shall be destroyed after appeal period.
(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer on the computer corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 19th day of July, 2022)
Sd/-
SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT - CUM –II ADDITIONAL
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA.
Page 7 of 6 CC No. 4403 of 2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESS EXAMINED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:
1. PW1 – Anumula Sambalaxmi @ Samba - NIL -
2. PW2- Anumula Rajkumar
3. PW-3 Subbani Sampath
4. PW-4 Pendli Ilaiah
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR THE PROSECUTION:FOR THE DEFENCE:
1. Ex.P1- Complainant -NIL-
2. Ex.P2- is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2
3. Ex.P3- is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3
4. Ex.P4- is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4
MATERIAL OBJECTS : – NIL --
Sd/-
SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM-II ADDITIONAL
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA.
Page 8 of 6 CC No. 4403 of 2022
Calender Extract
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST
CLASS (MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT - CUM - II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL
JUDGE
:: HANUMAKONDA::
CC. No. 4403/2022
1. Name of the Police Station: PS. Chennaraopet
2. FIR No: 72/2020
3. Offence U/S.:Under section290 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Sec. 7(1)(b)(c) of Protection of Civil Right (PCR) Act-1955.
4. Name of the accused: A1. Anumula Kumaraswamy A2. Kusa Venkat Reddy A3. Pendli Ravi A4. Anumula Yashodha
5. Date of :
a) Offence: 14.04.2020
b)Complaint: 17.04.2020
c)Arrest / surrender: ---
d)Released on bail: ---
e)Commencement of Trial: 09.03.2022
f)Close of Trial: 13.07.2022
g)Date of Judgment : 19.07.2022
6. Result :IN THE RESULT, the accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 290 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as IPC) and Sec. 7(1)(b)(c) of Protection of Civil Right (PCR) Act-1955 and accordingly they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused A1 to A4 shall stands cancelled and the sureties shall be discharged after expiry of appeal period.
7. Explanation for delay: ---
Page 9 of 6 CC No. 4403 of 2022
Sd/-
SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS
(MOBILE) UNDER PCR ACT-CUM–II
ADDITIONAL
JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HANUMAKONDA.
Dis. No. Dated:
To
The Hon'ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.