Sri G Raja Gopal

1

FAIR

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER THE

SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF

ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 -cum-V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE :: MEDAK

AT SANGAREDDY.

PRESENT: SRI G.RAJA GOPAL, Spl. Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act-cum- V Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy

WEDNESDAY : THIS THE 13th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019.

SC/ST. S.C. No. 19 OF 2018 .

Crime Number.44 of 2017 of P.S.Manoharabad, Medak District.

Description of A1) Sanda Somulu Yadav S/o Mallesh Yadav, 39 Yrs., AccusedR/o Manoharabad village & Mandal, Dist: Medak.

A2) Panja Bixapathi S/o Venkataiah, 46 Yrs., R/o Dandupally village H/ov Manoharabad village & Mandal, Dist: Medak.

A3) Nayakuni Kumar S/o Narayana, 45 Yrs.,

R/o Dandupally village H/ov Manoharabad village & Mandal, Dist: Medak.

A4) Thappati Srinivas S/o Ramulu, 38 Yrs., ,

R/o Manoharabad village & Mandal, Dist: Medak.

A5) ImampuramYadagiri Goud S/o Narsagoud,. 39 Yrs., R/o Manoharabad village & Mandal, Dist: Medak.

ChargesU/Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the JudgeAs a result, Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence punishable Under Section 3 (1) (s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly they are acquitted U/Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C., for the said offences. A1 to A5 are set at liberty. The bail bonds of A1 to A5, if any, shall stand cancelled. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution Sri Devidas Naik, Addl. Public Prosecutor. conducted by

Accused defended by Sri G.Hanumantha Reddy, Advocate.

2

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Toopran Sub-Division, Medak District has filed charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 5 in Cr.No.44/2017 of P.S.Manoharabad for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act 2015.

2.That the defacto-complainant/LW.1 Smt.Marati Bharathamma and LW.2/Smt.Aitha

Nagamani and LW.3/Smt.Marati Yellavva who are the victims and the Accused No.1 to 5 are residents of Dandupally village H/o Manoharabad village. That LWs.1 to 3 belong to SC-

Mala community, Accused No.1 belongs to Yadav caste and Accused No.2 to 4 belong to

Mudiraj and Accused No.5 belongs to Goud caste. On 08.07.2017 at 8.30 PM one Mahipal

Reddy was celebrating his birth day on the road near Gandhi Statue. As such the road was jammed. At the same time Accused No.2 has came there from his duty and asked them why they have jammed the road and questioned whether Mahipal Reddy is a big leader?. As such a quarrel took place in between Accused No.2/Bixapathi and Mahipal Reddy, Marati Raju,

Rangu Ganesh, Narender Reddy and Javed Pasha and they beat Accused No.2 Bixapathi. In the meanwhile Accused No.3 to 5 reached there and tore the birthday wishes flexes of

Mahipalreddy. In this regard, a case in Cr.No.38/2017, under Sections 448,323, 504 IPC was registered against Mahipal Reddy, Marati Raju, Rangu Ganesh, Narender Reddy and Javed

Pasha. At the time of incident the Accused No.1 to 5 abused LW.1 to 3 by taking their caste name as “Marati pendlala denga, mala pendlala denga” and insulted them within view of public. LW.4 to 13 witnessed the incident. Thus, the accused have committed an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act 2015.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act 2015 against Accused No.1 to 5. On appearance of Accused No.1 to 5 before this court, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required under

Section 207 Cr.P.C. On hearing both sides, a charge under Section 228 of Cr.P.C., has been framed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs/STs (POA)

3

Amendment Act 2015. The charge has been read over and explained to the accused in vernacular language, all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.During the course of trial, PW.1 to 19 are examined, Ex.P1 to P19 are marked on behalf of the prosecution. Ex.D1 contradiction is elicited by the defence.

5.After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused No.1 to 5 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. Accused No.1 to 5 have denied the said incriminating circumstances and they did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf.

6.Heard arguments from both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration in this case is;-

Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 5

for the charge levelled against them beyond all reasonable doubt ?

8. POINT:- To substantiate its case, the prosecution in all examined 19 witnesses as

PWs.1 to 19 and got marked Ex.P1 to P19. PW.1 is defacto complainant and victim. PW.2 & 3 are victims, PW.4 to 13 are alleged eye witnesses, PWs.14 & 15 are panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama, PW.16 is the then Tahsilder of Manoharabad mandal, who issued caste certificate of PWs.1 to 3 and the accused persons. PW.17 to 19 are the Police

Officers and Investigating Officers.

9.The story of the prosecution as unfolded by the testimonies of prosecution witnesses in brief is as under;-

10.PW.1-Smt.Marati Bharathamma is the defacto complainant and resident of

Dandupally village of Manoharabad mandal. Her evidence is that about 24 months ago (as on the date of giving her evidence ), their villager Mahipal Reddy has celebrated his birthday near Ambedkat Statue in their village. Then, Accused No.2 caught hold the collar of

4

Mahipalreddy and questioned him why he was celebrating birthday at that place by parking their cars. One Raju who is the son of elder brother of husband of Pw.1 intervened and all the accused abused him in the name of their caste saying as “Mala Madiga Pendlala”. All the accused also damaged the flexes arranged at that place. She along with LW.2 to 5 have witnessed the incident. After one week of the incident she lodged complaint in

P.S.Manoharabad under Ex.P1, which is dated 14.07.2017.

11.Basing on Ex.P1 on 14.07.2017 at 9.00 PM PW.17 the then Sub-Inspector of Police of

P.S. Manoharabad has registered a case in Cr.No.44/2017, under Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act 2015 and issued First Information Report under Ex.P16 to all concerned and subsequent investigation was done by PW.18 the then S.D.P.O., Toopran. He deposed that on 15.07.2017 he received Ex.P17 proceedings from Superintendent of Police,

Medak district appointing him as Investigating Officer in the above case. Accordingly he took up the investigation, on the same day he visited scene of offence and recorded the statement of PW.1 to 5. He secured two mediators namely PW.14 and 15 and observed the scene of offence, drafted scene of offence panchanama and also rough sketch under Ex.P18.

He also recorded the statements of PWs.6 to 13 on 19.08.2017. On 30.08.2017 he served notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C., to all the accused. He also gave requisition to PW.16 to issue caste certificates of the victims and accused. In view of his transfer he handed over the case diary file to PW.19 for further investigation.

12.PW.19 has been appointed as Investigating Officer as per the proceedings of

Superintendent of Police, Medak district under Ex.P19. He has verified the investigation done by PW.18 and found to be on correct lines and later he filed charge sheet.

13.PWs.2 & 3 are also alleged victims and they also deposed on the similar lines with that of PW.1.

5

14.PWs.4 to13 who are alleged eye witnesses to the incident did not support the prosecution and they turned hostile. Even the alleged panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama, who are examined as PW.14 & 15 also did not support the prosecution case and they also turned hostile. PW.16 the then Tahsildar of Manoharabad mandal has furnished caste particulars of PW.1 to 3 and Accused No.1 to 5 under Ex.P15. According to him, PW.1 to 3 belong to SC-Mala, Accused No.1 belong to BC-D Yadav, Accused No.2 to 4 belong to

BC-D Mudiraj and Accused No.5 belongs to BC-B Goud.

15.There is no serious dispute regarding the caste of PW.1 to 3 and they belong to SC-

Mala and Accused No.1 to 5 belong to other than SCs/STs community. As discussed above, except PW1. To 3 and all other private witnesses have turned hostile.

16.The submission of the learned defence counsel is that infact the accused herein did not commit any offence and there are two groups in the village, one group belongs to

Mahipal Reddy and another group belongs to Accused. He also submitted that Accused No.2 herein filed a criminal case against one Raju, Rangu Ganesh, Narender Reddy and Javed

Pasha etc., in Cr.No.38/2017 of P.S.Manoharabad and as a counter blast to the above said case PW.1 foisted a false case against the accused after 7 days delay from the date of alleged accident with due consultations and deliberations and that the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is not supported by any other independent witness and that the Investigating Officer has not examined Mahipal Reddy, Bixapathi and Marati Raju and others to depose the alleged incident. He also submits that at the instance of said Mahipal Reddy, PW.1 to 3 gave false evidence who are his followers and urged to acquit the accused.

17.In view of submission made by the learned defence counsel, the cross-examination of

PW.1 to 3 and 17 to 19 has to be scrutinized carefully including the documentary evidence.

18.A perusal of Ex.P1 complaint lodged by PW.1 goes to show that on 08.07.2017 at about 8.30 PM there was galata in their village with regard to installation of Ambedkar Statue

6

and due to grudges Accused No.1 to 5 herein and some other have abused her and PW.2 & 3 near Ambedkar Statue and came to beat them. At that time one Banuri Srinivas (PW.5),

Bhanuri Mahesh Goud (PW.4) were present there and requested the police to take action against Accused No.1 to 5 herein. But absolutely there is no whisper in Ex.P1 regarding celebration of birthday of Mahipal Reddy near Ambedkar Statue and Accused No.2 caught holding the collar of Mahipal Reddy and questioning him with regard to celebrating the birthday and intervention of one Raju, who is the son of elder brother of husband of PW.1 etc. Undisputedly the Investigating Officer has not examined either Mahipal Reddy or the above said Raju. PW.1 in her cross-examination stated that she did not depose before police as in Ex.D1 i.e., a portion of her statement recorded by the police under 161 Cr.P.C. to the effect that Accused No.2 herein said to have stated that whether Mahipal Reddy is a big leader as he was celebrating his birthday by blocking the entire road and that the said

Mahipal Reddy and Accused No.2 caught hold their collars and that one Marati Raju and others have beat Bixapathi.

19.Now coming to the cross-examination of PW.2, she admits that there are two groups in their village and one group belongs to Mahipal Reddy and another group belongs to

Accused and that herself, PW.1 and PWs.3 to 6 belong to Mahipal Reddy group. She further admits that initially Raju and their caste people beat Accused No.2 and due to which Accused

No.2 filed a criminal case against the above said persons. She categorically admitted that as a counter blast to the above said case the present case is filed. PW.3 also admitted the said fact in her cross-examination. Here it is pertinent to mention that PWs.1 to 3 herein have stated that all the accused abused one Raju in the name of their caste and they did not whisper anything regarding abusing them by all the accused in the name of their caste.

20.Now coming to cross-examination of PW.17, he stated that as per Ex.P1 the alleged incident took place on 08.07.2017 and there is a delay of 6 days in lodging First Information

Report. He admits that the reason for the delay is not explained. He further admits that he

7

registered a case in Cr.No.38/2017, under Sections 448, 323, 504 IPC against one

Raju,Ganesh, Narender Reddy, Mahipal Reddy, Javeed Pasha on the complaint lodged by

Accused No.2 herein. PW.18 also admits registration of Cr.No.38/2017 on the file of

P.S.Manoharabad against Mahipal Reddy, Bixapathi, Marati Raju and others. Further PW.19 admits that Marati Raju, Rangu Ganesh, Narender Reddy and Javed Pasha etc., have beat

Accused No.2 herein on 08.07.2017.

21. From the above said admissions of Police Officers-cum-Investigating Officers, it is crystal clear that on 08.07.2017 a case in Cr.No.38/2017 was registered on the complaint of

Accused No.2 herein for allegedly beating him by Mahipal Reddy and others. As admitted by PW.2 & 3 they belong to Mahipal Reddy group and accused persons belong to another group. Undisputedly there is a delay of six days in lodging First Information Report in the present case. The delay has not been explained properly. Even PW.17 who issued First

Information Report has falsely stated in Col.No.8 of Ex.P16 First Information Report that there is no delay though he has admitted in his cross-examination that there is a delay of 6 days in lodging First Information Report. For non-explanation of delay properly, the entire case of the prosecution is clouded with suspicious circumstances regarding genuineness of alleged incident said to have occurred on 08.07.2017. The prosecution has miserably failed to clear those suspicious circumstances. In the circumstances of the case, the evidence of

PW.1 to 3 is not believable and they are not trustworthy. Moreover, they categorically admitted that as a counter blast to the case in Cr.No.38/2017 the present case has been foisted. The evidence of PW.3 is not corroborating with Ex.P1 contents. Even the

Investigating Officers did not seize the alleged torned flexes etc.

22.With the foregoing discussion and in view of material available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the Accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act 2015.

Therefore, Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the said offence.

8

23.As a result, Accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 3 (1)

(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act 2015 and they are acquitted under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C., for the said offence. Accused No.1 to 5 are set at liberty. The bail bonds of Accused

No.1 to 5, if any, shall stand cancelled. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected & pronounced by me

in the open court on this the 13th day of November 2019.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act -cum- V Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

1. PW.1-Smt.Marati Bharathamma.

2. PW.2-Smt.Aitha Nagamani.

3. PW.3-Smt.Marati Yellavva.

- NONE -

4. PW.4-B.Mahesh Goud.

5. PW.5-B.Srinivas.

6. PW.6-N.Narsimulu.

7. PW.7-Gandi Kumar.

8. PW.8-V.Anjaneyulu.

9. PW.9-Goudi Yellam.

10. PW.10 – N.Babu.

11. PW.11-B.Bixapathi Goud.

12. PW.12 – M.Pochaiah.

13. PW.13 – U.Venkatesh.

14. PW.14 – B.Yadagiri.

15. PW.15 – M.Ramaswamy.

16. PW.16 – Nazeem Ahmed, Tahsildar. 17 PW.17 – Varaprasad, SIP/I.O.

18. PW.18 – A.Bhaskar, S.D.P.O./I.O.

19. PW.19 - S.Ramgopal Rao, S.D.P.O./I.O.

9

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

1. Ex.P1 – Complaint lodged by PW.1.

2. Ex.P2 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4.

3. Ex.P3 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.5. Ex.D1 – Portion of 161

4. Ex.P4 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.6. Cr.P.C., statement of

5. Ex.P5 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.7. PW.1.

6. Ex.P6 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.8.

7. Ex.P7 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.9.

8. Ex.P8 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.10.

9. Ex.P9 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.11.

10. Ex.P10 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.12.

11. Ex.P11 – 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.13.

12. Ex.P12 – Signature of PW.14 on scene of offence panchanama dt; 14.07.2017. 13.. Ex.P13 - Signature of PW.15 on scene of offence panchanama dt; 14.07.2017.

14. Ex.P14 – Signature of PW.15 on rough sketch.

15. Ex.P15 – Caste particulars (certificate)of Pws.1 to 3 & A1 to A5.

16. Ex.P16 – First Information Report..

17. Ex.P17 – Proceedings of S.P., appointing PW.18 as I.O.,

18. Ex.P18 – Scene of offence panchanama.

19. Ex.P19 – Proceedings of S.P., appointing PW.19 as I.O.,

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act -cum- V Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER

THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF

ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 -CUM- V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE ::

MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: G.RAJA GOPAL, Spl. Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act-cum- V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019

S.C. No. 290 OF 2016

Cr.No., PRC No. and the file of P.R.C.No.29 of 2016 Addl. Judl. First Class the Court.Magistrate’s Court, Sangareddy

Committed bySmt. Harisha, Addl. Judl. First Class

Magistrate, Sangareddy

Description of AccusedJuttu Nandu S/o Ramulu, aged 40 years, Occu: Labour, R/o Cheriyal village of Sangareddy Mandal.

Charge/sSection 302 IPC.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge and In the result, I find the Accused not guilty for sentence.the offence punishable under 302 of IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offence under section 232 Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted bySri Devidas Naik, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySmt. N.Yadagiri, Counsel for the accused.

This case coming up before me for final hearing in the presence

of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and N.Yadagiri, Advocate for

the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the

arguments, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Circle Inspector of Police, Sangareddy Rural Circle, Sangareddy

District has filed charge sheet against the accused under section 302 of IPC with the following averments.

2.That the defacto-complainant/LW1 hails from Cheriyal village of

Sangareddy Mandal and she is the mother of deceased, LW2 is the senior paternal uncle of the deceased and brother of accused, LW3 is cousin brother of deceased, LW4 also hails from Cheriyal village, who shifted the deceased 2 to Govt. Hospital for treatment, LWs 5 to 11 also hails from Cheriyal village and they are eye witnesses to the incident, LW12 is photographer who took photographs of the deceased at mortuary room, Sangareddy, LWs 13 and 14 are panch witnesses for scene of offence, inquest panchanama and seizure panchanama for seizing the clothes of deceased, LW15 and 16 are the panchas for confession of accused, LW17 is the Medical officer who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, the accused Juttu Nandu is father of the deceased and husband of defacto-complainant/LW1, their marriage was performed about 15 years back. Out of their wedlock they blessed with (2) sons and one daughter, among them their elder son Anil

Kumar (deceased) and the daughter are physically handicapped and due to severity of handicap, his elder son (deceased) could not move individually for which someone has to assist him regularly for his routine work. The accused addicted to alcohol and used to spend his earnings for his lavish expenses.

His both physically handicapped children get Rs.1500/- each every month as pension from government and wherever he ask for money for consuming alcohol the defacto-complainant/LW1 used to pick up argument with him, and the deceased Anil Kumar used to interfere between them and raised quarrel with him. As such the accused bore grudge with his physically handicapped elder son and felt to kill him. While the matter stood on 04-11-2015 at about 16.00 hours he went to house in drunken condition, at that time his elder son

Anil Kumar (deceased) was found alone when he entered in the house and raised quarrel with him and asked why you came to house in drunken condition and asked to leave the house for which he felt angry and due to old grudge in his mind against his elder son, he abused and intentionally to kill him he lifted him up from the house and brought out and hit him down on the cement floor as a result the said Anil Kumar(deceased) sustained severe 3 blood injuries over his head and face and fell unconscious and succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment at Govt. Hospital, Sangareddy. Thus the accused has committed an offence punishable under section 302 IPC.

3.Cognizance was taken for the offence under section 302 of IPC against the accused by the learned Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents have been furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C. The case has been committed to Court of Sessions, Medak at Sangareddy vide P.R.C.No.29 of 2016. In turn the Sessions Court made over the case to this Court for disposal according to law. On appearance and on hearing both sides charge for the offence under section 302 IPC has been framed under section 228 of Cr.P.C read over and explained to the accused in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial PWs 1 to 11 are examined and Exs.P1 to P12 have been marked on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Addl.Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of rest of the witnesses i.e. LWs 12 to 19 in view of hostile evidence of PWs 1 to 11.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with since there is no incriminating material against the accused in view of hostile evidence of PWs 1 to 11.

7.Heard arguments from both sides.

8.Now the point for consideration in this case is whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charge leveled against him?

4

9. POINT:

As above said to substantiate the case of the prosecution as many as 11 witnesses are examined, PW1 is the defacto-complainant and mother of the deceased, PWs2 to 5 are the circumstantial witnesses. PWs6 to 11 are said to be the eye witnesses.

10.PWs 1 to 10 unitonely deposed that the deceased Anil Kumar died about 4 years back but they do not know the cause of death of the deceased.

And they do not know anything about the case. PW1 further deposed that when she was attending coolie work she was informed that her son fell down and received injuries and by the time she came to village her son was shifted to Govt. Hospital, Sangareddy, after two or three hours while undergoing treatement her son died in the hospital. PW1 further deposed that she did not lodge any complaint before police. However she identified her signature on complaint Dt.04-11-2015 and stated that the same was obtainedin the hospital for providing treatment to her son. PW11 deposed that about 4 years back the accused came to his clinic requesting to come to his house to see his son who is vomiting blood and that he advised him to go to a bigger hospital as he cannot entertain the case and he do not know what happened subsequently.

11.After declaring the witnesses hostile the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor has cross examined PWs 1 to 11 with the permission of the Court.

PWs 1 to 11 in their cross examination by the learned Addl. public prosecutor, they categorically denied the suggestion that they have stated as in Exs.P2 to

P12 i.e. their respective section 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by the investigating officer during course of investigation.

5

12.In view of hostile evidence of PWs 1 to 11 absolutely there is no evidence of whatsoever to prove that the accused has committed any offence.

Thus, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 302 of IPC, as such the accused is found not guilty.

13.As a result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC and he is acquitted under section 232 of Cr.P.C and is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 14 th day of November, 2019.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum- V Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE

P.W.1: J.Santosha– Complainant. -Nil- P.W.2: J.Narsimulu. P.W.3: J.Venkateshwarlu. P.W.4: D.Jagapathi. P.W.5: M.Kumar. P.W.6: J.Yadamma. P.W.7: B.Durgamma. P.W.8: M.Dasharath. P.W.9: S.Narsimulu. P.W.10: J.Chinna Balaraju. P.W.11: B.Pochender.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P.1: Signature of PW1 on complaint -Nil- Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW1. Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW2. Ex.P.4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW3.

6

Ex.P.5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4. Ex.P.6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW5. Ex.P.7: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW6. Ex.P.8: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW7. Ex.P.9: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW8. Ex.P.10: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW9. Ex.P.11: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW10. Ex.P.12: Sec.161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW11.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

for trial of offences under SC/ST (POA) Act-cum- V Addl. Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

TSME000012392018

Presented on : 18-12-2018 Registered on : 21-12-2018 Decided on : 14-11-2019 Duration : 0 years, 10 months, 27 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 -

cum--III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

OS/280/2018

Eeragalla Sathyamma @ Parvathamma Age: 46 Occupation : Address: R/o H.No.2-63, Tangatoor (V), Shankarpally (M), R.R.District. 2: China Papu Veeramani Age: Occupation :

3: Aratala Parvathamma @ Ansuja Age: Occupation :

4: Togarpally Yadhamma Age: Occupation VERSUS :Manthuri Pentaiah Age: 85 Occupation : Address: R/o H.No.7-55, Malkapur(V), Kondapur(M), Sangareddy District. 2:Debadi Nagamma Age: 50 Occupation : 3:Shanthamma Age: 42 Occupation : 4:Manthuri Vittal Age: 44 Occupation : 5:Manthuri Venkatesham Age: 42 Occupation : 6:Manthukri Anjamma Age: 0 Occupation : 7:Manthuri Ravinder Age: 30 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Venkataiah M Advocate for : appearing for Manthuri Pentaiah: Advocate , appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Plaintiffs and Defendants are present. Counsel for both sides also present. At the intervention and upon advice by the members of the Lok Adalat bench and the learned counsel on either side, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into compromise. Accordingly award is passed. (vide separate one) as per the terms of compromise mentioned in the award.

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act,

1989 - cum--III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSME000008092017

Presented on : 21-09-2017 Registered on : 09-10-2017 Decided on : 14-11-2019 Duration : 2 years, 1 months, 23 days

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 -

cum--III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

OS/141/2017

K.Urmila Reddy Age: 64 Occupation : Address: R/o 8-12-38, St.No.8, Habsiguda, Hyderabad-500007

VERSUS :M.Venkatamma Age: 74 Occupation : Address: R/o Flat No.501, Vasavi Life Style Apartments, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad-500016 2:M.Bhaskar Reddy Age: 79 Occupation :

3:Hon'ble Justice P.Swaroop Reddy (Retd) Age: 68 Occupation :

4:P.Satyanarayana Reddy Age: 62 Occupation : 5:P.Prabhakar Reddy Age: 60 Occupation : 6:P.Ravinder Reddy Age: 58 Occupation : 7:P.Lakshmi Age: 58 Occupation : 8:P.Pradeep Reddy Age: 39 Occupation : 9:P.Deepak Reddy Age: 37 Occupation : 10:M.Prameela Reddy Age: 76 Occupation : 11:K.Sarala Age: 0 Occupation : 12:K.Indira Age: 68 Occupation : 13:M.Kushal Reddy Age: 61 Occupation : 14:M.Sureshchandra Reddy Age: 48 Occupation : 15:Baby Sahasra Age: 0 Occupation : 16:M.Smt Padmaja Age: 51 Occupation ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : K.Krishna Rao,Ch.Raj Kumar, P.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for : appearing for M.Venkatamma: Advocate , appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Transfer to II additional chief judge ct civil court Hyderabad

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs

and STs (POA) Act, 1989 - cum--III Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

TSME000014992017

Presented on : 25-10-2017 Registered on : 25-10-2017 Decided on : 05-08-2019 Duration : 1 years, 9 months, 11 days

IN THE COURT OF

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy AT ,MEDAK Presided Over by Dr. P. P KRISHNA ARJUN

OS/157/2017

Exhibit No.:

: D.Sanjeeva Reddy Age: 46 Occupation : Address: Karegama Village, Pitlam Mandal, Kamareddy District.

VERSUS : K.Nagi Reddy Age: 38 Occupation : Address: thdkal Village, Kangti Mandal, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Anil Reddy B Advocate for : appearing for K.Nagi Reddy: Advocate appearing for respectively.

ORDER

Judgment pronounced in the open court vide separate typed one. As a result, the suit is decreed for Rs. 1,83,00000/- with costs proceeded at the rate of 9 percent per annum from the date of suit till realization on the

principal amount adjusted.

Date : 05-08-2019 (Dr. P. P KRISHNA ARJUN)

II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Dr. P. P KRISHNA ARJUN) {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME} II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS