Smt. G. Rajeswari

1

k "" ttr; ~~

OF THE v ADDL. JOJ)ICIAL MAGISTRATE pF FIRST CLASS ;• :i -_:--,_"

-:~':::-<. 1· ] %'\

: RAJAMA}ltlfDRA VAR.AM

1 f'/ f7 -• \ !· \

\ 1 ijl , .. ,._. : . -I ::/ . ' Present SM1'.G,RAJESHWAR1,

V Addi- Jndicial Magistrate of First class V

- v=_,\ ' . . . : .. ~> -I

, ·::;i//--1

-;,' I Tuesday the 25th day of April, 2017. '.~-.i, r .,,:• P.R.C. No. 23/2016 r No.343/2014 of Rajanagaram Police station.

Between:

The State-Represented by the Deputy -Superintendent of Police East Zone, Urban police District, ' Rajamahendravaram. Complainant

And

G. Ganeshan s/o Late Sri Ganapathi A/46 years C/Nadar, C/BC Working as Head of the DepartI~ent of Mathematics, Adikavi Nannayya University Rajanagaram, East Godavari, Residing at S-1, Brunda Residency, 85-2-9 / 6, VL Puram, Accused Rajamahendravaram.

This case is coming on this day before me for hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for State and of Sri.M.Siva Subbarao, Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

Committal order

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, East Zone, Urban Police District, Rajamahendravaram filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act in Cr No. 343/2014.

The brief facts o f the prosecution case are as follow:- 2.

Lwl Marlapudi Asservadam S/o. Venkata rao is a resident of

Church street, Jagannadhapuram, Tadepalligudem W.G. District and he . b te Lwl Asservadam working as Assistant belongs to Ma 1ga dy cas · Professor in the Deparment of Mathematics having being appointed by l'th 3 others ie, Lw2 Badampoudi Satish Vijay kumar Adhoc means a ong w 1 . . . ao The accused is the head of the Department of ,Lw4 Tadepalh Srin1vasar .

s·

. from the inception of the joining of Lwl Asservadam Matbema 1cs. t1nce in this job, the accused is degrading Lwl by showing discrimination by

I f the complainant. The accused used to look ~ v- learning about the caSt e O ! but he used to separate Lwl and entrust ~im after other staff properly• d. g the work tbat an attender has to do. with a lot of work inclu 1n On 4.5.2014 Mathelilatical Internal Examinations have been ·d . th U . ersi·ty At that juncture when the accused and other con ucte 1n d e nlV ' , staff sat in a room. Then Lwl Asservadam went to that room 1and when he pulled a chair beside the accused with a view to sit, the accused intentionally insulted LWl Asservadam by uttering that "nee kurchi duranga vesuko, neevu SC Kulasttidavu, maatho kurchovadam amiti ."

Subsequently, though the Attender Lw5 Lingineni Santosha rao alias

Santosh is present, intentionally the accused Lwl Asservadam t o affix stamps on the papers. On that when he said to the accused that the attender, is present. Then the attendar came and affixed those stamps.

13 5 . I".}. U . . n .0 .2014 the n1vers1ty campus gt Arts college Campus in 0

Rajamahendravaram was shifted to the University campus at Velugubanda

Village, Rajanagaram Mandal.At that juncture, the accused deputed Lw 1

Asservadam for loading the ' material at the Arts College in

Rajamahendrvaram. But having got another work at the University, Lw l

Asservadam requested the accused to change his duty from Arts college to the University, so that both work~ could be completed. But the accused grew wild towards Lwl Asservadam and insulted Lwl furiously by abusing that, " SC vallatho University antha Kampu Kampu aiyandi, nuvvu ekkada nundi dobbai"

On 19.5.2014 at about l0-30 am when Lwl Asservadam was entering the corridor of the Uni:versity, the accused sat there and on 1 seeing the arrival of the complainant, he questioned the complainant, " as l to why you came, I removed ou from the job, go away from y • .

here, your chair will be remove,;! by fa-morrow". Lw2 Badampudi Satish

Vijay kumar , Lw3 Amanchi Sri Venkateswara swamy Samkrutyan, Lw4

Tadepalli Srinivas rao have eye witnessed the same and advised Lwl 3

Asservadam to report the matter to the Registrar and the Vice Chancellor the University. On that Lw1 Asser'O'iidam started proceeding towards their ®,; chamber, Mean while the accused ridiculed that there are many similar cases against him, no one can pluck any thing and challenged Lw 1

Asservadam to do what ever he can and warned that the chair of L w 1

Asservadam will be removed by toiporrow. Further after the departure of the complainant, the accused delibqrately commented that "SC , ST vallu akkuva aipoyaru, ee VC Vellka v~Uu andarini nalipastanu, Ambedkar desani brastu pattinchadu" Lwl As~ervadam informed the matter to the

University authorities, but no justice was done to him. Having no other go, Lwl reported the matter at Rajanagaram Police station.

Basing on the strength of the "'report of Lwl Asservadam , this case in Cr. No.343/2014 U/sec. 3(1l(r) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment

Ordinance, 2014 of Rajanagaram police station, Rajamahendravaram was . . registered on 27.5.2014 at 6.00 pm by Lwl2 V.Ramakoteswarao SI of police, Rajanagaram. Then Lwl3 K.V. Muralikrishna Deputy

Superintendent of police, East Zone, Rajamahendravaram took up investigation into having been appointed as the investigating officer in this case.

Lwl 1 Smt.P. Nagamani Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem Manda! issued caste certificate through Mee-seva ·vide certificate No.OOEE55432899 dt.16.06.2014 by certifying that Lwl Asservadam belongs to Madiga SC caste.

The accused belongs to Nadar by caste which is OC and it originates from Tamilnadu state. There is no such caste in Andhra Pradesh. Hence an attested copy of the extract of the service book of the accused has

Obtained from Adikavi Nannayya University Rajamahendravar,: ::' .. be en where in it was mentioned that he belongs to OC-Nadar . The accused went on absconding ever since the commission of the offence, evading arrest by police and approached the l{on~-ig~urt of Judicature at

J 4

r

\.. the . state of Telangaua and the state of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad for k. fi uash of FIR and the Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant order see mg or q interim stay for a period of six week on 10.6.2014. Further it was extended on 13.1.2015 until further orders and finally on dtr.19.2.2015 the Hon'ble Court issued orders, directed the police not to arrest the accused during the course of investigation and accordingly , the criminal petition ,is disposed off. Under the above circumstances, the accused was deterred from arrest in this case.

In this case Sec.3(11( r) of SCs and STs (prevention of Atrocit ies

Amendment ordinance, 2014 was applied in the FIR, which is not in force now. Hence the section of law was altered to Sec.3 (l)(x) of SCs and

STS(POA) Act from sec. (l)(r ) of $Cs and STs (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Ordinance 2014. Hence the charge.

3. On perusal of the charge slieet, FIR, 161 Cr.P.C. statements and other material of part of record, Cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence punishable U/s.3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act. Case copies are furnished to the accused U/s 208 Cr.P.C.

4. Perused the record. Prima facie, the case is made out against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec.3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act. Which is exclusively trial able by the Hon'ble Court of Sessions. Hence case is committed to the Hon'ble court of Sessions, East Godavari, Rajamahendravaram U/Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C.

5. Accused is on bail, and he shall continue to be on bail on the same terms and conditions during and until conclusion of the trial at the court of Sessions U/sec.209(b) ofCr.P.C.

6. Submit all the material papers and material objects to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions U/Sec.209 (c) of Cr.P.C.

7. Notify to the Public Prosecutor about the commitment of the case to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions U/Sec.209 (d) Cr.P.C.

• 8. When questioned the accused about his means, he stated that

has got means to engage an Advocate to defend him during the trial at the Hon'ble Court of Sessions.

9. The Office is directed to take bonds from the accused to attend

before the Hon'ble Court of Sessions. Bind over the accused.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 25 th day of April, 2017 • _

, I sci/- G.Rajeswari V Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

sd/- G.Rajeswari

Nil. \' Z' V Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, i Rajamahendravaram. ·-I, .. , f ..

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Smt. G.Rajeswari, V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thursday the 27 th day of April, 2017

Cr No.100/2015 of Anaparthi Police station

C.C.No.448/2015

Between:

State –Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Anaparthi Police station. ….. Complainant

And

Mallidi Suresh Reddy, s/o. Veera Raghava Reddy, A/30 years, C/Reddy , Duppalapudi Village,

Anaparthi Mandal. … Accused

This case coming on 26-04-2017 for final hearing before me in

the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State 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, Anaparthi Police station filed

charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.448,509,354D(i)

IPC in CR No. 100/2015.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that:-

The defacto-complainant Kosanam Devi and accused are

resident of the same village. She is studying intermediate at MNR

College at Anaparthi . Accused is having illegal attitude against the

defacto-complainant which was noticed by her mother and she

admonished the accused once even after that he did not change his

attitude. On 10-07-2015 in absence of her parents taking advantage of

it accused visited the barber shop near the house of defacto-

complainant later he entered into the house of defacto-complainant

and noticing him she immediately left to the house of her grand

mother. Thereafter when her parents returned she has informed them

about the act of the accused. Therefore she lodged a report against the

2

accused. Basing on which Cr No.100/2015 U/sec. 509, 354(A)(II), 448

IPC is registered and investigated into.

During investigation the scene of offence was observed rough

sketch was prepared witnesses were examined and after completion of

investigation the charge U/sec. 509, 354(A)(II), 448 IPC is laid against

the accused.

3. Cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 354-D (1), 448, 509 of Indian Penal Code.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents have been

furnished to him. He is examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C and explained about

the accusation. He denied the offence. Charge U/sec. 354-D (1), 448,

509 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained

to him in Telugu as required U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. He pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs 1

to 3 and got marked Ex’s P1 to P.4 documents. After closure of

prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence against the

accused, examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

The accused has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence.

7. Heard arguments of both sides.

8. Now, the point for determination is:

i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s 354-D (1), 448, 509 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

Pw1 is the victim herself Pw2 and Pw3 are parents of the victim.

Pw1 stated that about two years back while she was at house some

group of persons were teasing her due to fear she informed the same

3

to the parents and then she was taken to police station and at Police

station her signature were obtained on some blank papers. She

admitted her signature but denied the contents. She turned hostile.

She did not support the case of prosecution. Similarly Pw2 and 3 have

also stated that about two years back their daughter informed them

about some persons teasing Pw1 then they went to police station and

gave report, but they have not spoken who are the persons . Both of

them turned hostile. Exp3 and P.4 are their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

The material witnesses ie., victim and her parents have not supported

the case of prosecution. They have not spoken anything against the

accused either accused trespassing into their house or any criminal

intimidation against Pw1 or insulting modesty of Pw1. Prosecution has

given up the evidence of Lw4 Dandu Varalakshmi, Lw5 Badampudi

Sesha rao, Lw6 Kuncham Bhadra rao. Lw7 Kuncham Kasi, Lw8 A.

Prasad, Lw9 K.Kishore babu. As the material witness turned hostile .

Having gone through the entire evidence on record there is

absolutely no evidence to prove the case against the accused therefore

accused are entitled for acquittal. Point answered infavour of the

accused and against the accused.

9. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec. 354-D (1), 448, 509 . Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this 27 th day of

April,2017.

V ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

4

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW-1/ 26-04-2017 K.Devi.

PW-2/26-04-2017 K. Apparao.

Pw-3/26.04.2017 K.Subbalakshmi.

For Accused: None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1/dt.14-07-2015 Signature

Ex.P-2/dt. 14-07-2015 161 Cr.P.C statement .

Ex.P-3/dt.14-07-2015 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P-4/dt. 14-07-2015 161 Cr.P.C statement.

For Accused: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

V ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

C.C.No.448/2015

Offence : 14-07-2015

Complaint : 14-07-2015

Apprehension of accused : 14-07-2015

Release on bail : 14-07-2015

Commencement of trial : 26-04-2017

Close of trial : 26-04-2017

Sentence or order : 27-04-2017

Explanation for delay : Due to non-production of the prosecution witnesses.

Name of the Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Anaparthi PS.

Name of the accused

Mallidi Suresh Reddy, s/o. Veera Raghava Reddy, A/30 years, C/Reddy , Duppalapudi Village,

Anaparthi Mandal.

Offence : U/s 354-D (1), 448, 509 .

Finding : Not Guilty. Sentence or Order :

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 354-

D (1), 448, 509. Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail

bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry six months.

REMAND PERIOD:- From 14-07-2015 to 14.07.2015.

V ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajahmundry for favour of information.

6

1

IN THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS:: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Present: Smt. G.Rajeswari, V Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Thursday the 27 th day of April, 2017

Cr No.100/2015 of Anaparthi Police station

C.C.No.448/2015

Between:

State –Represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Anaparthi Police station. ….. Complainant

And

Mallidi Suresh Reddy, s/o. Veera Raghava Reddy, A/30 years, C/Reddy , Duppalapudi Village,

Anaparthi Mandal. … Accused

This case coming on 26-04-2017 for final hearing before me in

the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State 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, Anaparthi Police station filed

charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.448,509,354D(i)

IPC in CR No. 100/2015.

2. The case of prosecution in brief is that:-

The defacto-complainant Kosanam Devi and accused are

resident of the same village. She is studying intermediate at MNR

College at Anaparthi . Accused is having illegal attitude against the

defacto-complainant which was noticed by her mother and she

admonished the accused once even after that he did not change his

attitude. On 10-07-2015 in absence of her parents taking advantage of

it accused visited the barber shop near the house of defacto-

complainant later he entered into the house of defacto-complainant

and noticing him she immediately left to the house of her grand

mother. Thereafter when her parents returned she has informed them

about the act of the accused. Therefore she lodged a report against the

2

accused. Basing on which Cr No.100/2015 U/sec. 509, 354(A)(II), 448

IPC is registered and investigated into.

During investigation the scene of offence was observed rough

sketch was prepared witnesses were examined and after completion of

investigation the charge U/sec. 509, 354(A)(II), 448 IPC is laid against

the accused.

3. Cognizance is taken against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 354-D (1), 448, 509 of Indian Penal Code.

4. On appearance of accused copies of documents have been

furnished to him. He is examined U/s 239 Cr.P.C and explained about

the accusation. He denied the offence. Charge U/sec. 354-D (1), 448,

509 of Indian Penal Code has been framed, read over and explained

to him in Telugu as required U/Sec.240(2) Cr.P.C. He pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial the prosecution examined PWs 1

to 3 and got marked Ex’s P1 to P.4 documents. After closure of

prosecution evidence, as there is no incriminating evidence against the

accused, examination of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

The accused has not adduced either oral or documentary evidence.

7. Heard arguments of both sides.

8. Now, the point for determination is:

i) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s 354-D (1), 448, 509 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

Pw1 is the victim herself Pw2 and Pw3 are parents of the victim.

Pw1 stated that about two years back while she was at house some

group of persons were teasing her due to fear she informed the same

3

to the parents and then she was taken to police station and at Police

station her signature were obtained on some blank papers. She

admitted her signature but denied the contents. She turned hostile.

She did not support the case of prosecution. Similarly Pw2 and 3 have

also stated that about two years back their daughter informed them

about some persons teasing Pw1 then they went to police station and

gave report, but they have not spoken who are the persons . Both of

them turned hostile. Exp3 and P.4 are their 161 Cr.P.C statements.

The material witnesses ie., victim and her parents have not supported

the case of prosecution. They have not spoken anything against the

accused either accused trespassing into their house or any criminal

intimidation against Pw1 or insulting modesty of Pw1. Prosecution has

given up the evidence of Lw4 Dandu Varalakshmi, Lw5 Badampudi

Sesha rao, Lw6 Kuncham Bhadra rao. Lw7 Kuncham Kasi, Lw8 A.

Prasad, Lw9 K.Kishore babu. As the material witness turned hostile .

Having gone through the entire evidence on record there is

absolutely no evidence to prove the case against the accused therefore

accused are entitled for acquittal. Point answered infavour of the

accused and against the accused.

9. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec. 354-D (1), 448, 509 . Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1)

Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry six months.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this 27 th day of

April,2017.

V ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

4

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW-1/ 26-04-2017 K.Devi.

PW-2/26-04-2017 K. Apparao.

Pw-3/26.04.2017 K.Subbalakshmi.

For Accused: None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P-1/dt.14-07-2015 Signature

Ex.P-2/dt. 14-07-2015 161 Cr.P.C statement .

Ex.P-3/dt.14-07-2015 161 Cr.P.C statement

Ex.P-4/dt. 14-07-2015 161 Cr.P.C statement.

For Accused: NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

V ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

5

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF V ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

C.C.No.448/2015

Offence : 14-07-2015

Complaint : 14-07-2015

Apprehension of accused : 14-07-2015

Release on bail : 14-07-2015

Commencement of trial : 26-04-2017

Close of trial : 26-04-2017

Sentence or order : 27-04-2017

Explanation for delay : Due to non-production of the prosecution witnesses.

Name of the Complainant : Sub-Inspector of Police, Anaparthi PS.

Name of the accused

Mallidi Suresh Reddy, s/o. Veera Raghava Reddy, A/30 years, C/Reddy , Duppalapudi Village,

Anaparthi Mandal.

Offence : U/s 354-D (1), 448, 509 .

Finding : Not Guilty. Sentence or Order :

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 354-

D (1), 448, 509. Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.248 (1) Cr.P.C. His bail

bonds shall stand cancelled after expiry six months.

REMAND PERIOD:- From 14-07-2015 to 14.07.2015.

V ADDL.JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM.

Copy submitted to the Hon’ble Chief Judicial Magistrate, East Godavari, Rajahmundry for favour of information.

6

\ l

( ,, . d }'

CALENDAR At'lj ) JUDGMENT \~ ._. _ .\..._ IN THE / OUR OF THE V ADDL. J.F ,.C. MAGISTRATE:: RAJAHMUNDRY

.-_,, ' , . ir.~--C.C.No ?7912011 -

I I

( 29-09-2016

Offence 29-09-2016 Complaint Apprehension of Accused Release on bail Commencement of trial Close of trial 01 -05-2017 Sentence or order State Bank of India, Rep by its Branch Manager, Hindu, age: 52 years, Seethanagaram Branch, Seethanagarcm,

.. complainant

East Godavari,

and

Appikonda Venkataswareddy, S/o Boorayya, Hindu, age 39 years, D no.2-165, Kunavaram

... Accused

Seethanagaram Mandal.

L·,·:.~.::. 138 of N.I. Act. Offence Plea of the Accused

Finding

Sentence or Order Complainant absent. t'~o ,ep;-,x.)ntation since two adjournments . Hence

_ _ _________,=----~,_,====--

the complaint is dismissed.

sd/- G.Rajeswari

. V Add]. Judl. First Class Magistrate

Rajarnahendravararn. ' f I• , I

"@

THE COURT OF THE V ADDL. Ji.JDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS .. n•, · ·' ·,•r.-RY

j

Pre ent: SMT.G.Rajeswari.::~;i~~=cial Magistrate ot Flrst class,

Monday tho 1 sr :iay of May, 2017

'

Between: State Bank of India, , ,11 · Rep by its Branch Manager, Hindu, age: 52 years, Seethanagaram Branch, Seethanaoc.ro,·,1,

.. complainant

East Godavari,

and

,: J . . c , y ·

Appikonda Venkataswareddy, S/o Boorayya, Hindu, age 39 years, D no.2-165,

Kunavaram ... Accused

Seethanagaram Manda!.

This case is coming on th;s ·(;.:.~,_~ t 't:,;3aring before me in the presence of Sri.V. Koteswararao Advocate k·r c~ ·$ 1,:iinant and the court delivered the following: ·

1/J (l"ll-~ M, :c , NT//

. ,,,,

.

1. The complainant State c,f lrnlt:Ji.·l:t/ i1s branch Manager filed a complaint against the accused for the offenc.3 U.~sec. 138 and 142 of N.I. Act.

2. Complainant absent. !'lo 1e!: ,•;~~~ :taiion since two adjournments . Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced by me in open Cd .h on this the ist day of May, 2017.

sd/- G.Rajeswari

V Addi. Judl. First Class Magistrate, · Rajamahendravaram.

, l