16/8/2018 1 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER
S.Cs. AND S.Ts. (POA) ACT-CUM-V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE
Present: Sri H.Chandrasekhar,
Special Judge for trial of offences under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act
-cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore
THURSDAY, the 16th day of AUGUST, 2018
SESSIONS CASE No.28 of 2013
(P.R.C.No.35 of 2012 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur in Crime No.74 of 2011 of Dagadarthi police station
Name of the ComplainantState – represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural Sub Division, Nellore.
Name of the Accused 1. Polepalli Bala Sankara Reddy, Son of Peda Kotareddy, Kapu by caste,
2. Audireddy Audiseshareddy, Son of Ramireddy, Kapu by caste,
3. Kommu Venu @ Pydi Venu, Son of Venkaiah, Gamandla by caste,
4. Pydi Venkaiah, Son of Kondaiah, Gamandla b y caste,
5. Papana Mallikharjuna Reddy, Son of Ankireddy, Kapu by caste.
All are Hindus and residents of Chennur village, Dagadarthi Mandal, S.P.S.R. Nellore District.
OffencesUnder Sections 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act against the accused.
Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty
Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty
Sentence of Order: The accused are found not guilty of the charges u/ss 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act; hence they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the said charges. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Prosecution conducted bySmt. Maddali Vijaya, Public Prosecutor, Nellore
Name of the Defence counselSri P. Vijaya Kumara Reddy, Advocate for accused, Nellore.
16/8/2018 2 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
This case was committed by the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur as per the Orders, dated 15.4.2013 in P.R.C. No.35 of 2012 (Con- cerned in Crime No.74 of 2011 of Dagadarthi Police Station)
This case coming up before this Court on 7.8.2018 for final hearing in the presence of the learned Public Prosecutor for the Complainant, Sri P. Vijaya Kumara Reddy, Advocate for the accused, this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural filed charge sheet against the accused 1 to 5 in Crime No.74/2011 u/s 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of
S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act of Dagadarthi Police Station.
2.The brief allegations in the charge-sheet are that all the accused belong to other than Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe community; that the defacto-complainant viz., Policherla Kistaiah examined as PW-1, Addanki Pitchi
Venkaiah examined as PW-2 belong to Schedule caste community; that PWs.1, 2 and others are cultivating about Ac.40.00 cents of dry land on the Western side of
Chennur cheruvu; that on 14.10.2011 at about 2.00 p.m. when PW-1 and others were working in their fields, all the accused along with their 200 followers criminally trespassed into the land of Uppala Lingaiah (PW-4), closed the way to other lands; that all the accused dug soil in the lands of PW-1 and disturbed the standing crop with JCB proclainer; that when it was objected, all the accused abused PWs.1 to 3 in filthy language with their caste name as “Mee Amma Madiga
Pukulo Naa Modda Ee na Kodukuni Narakandi ra” with an intention to insult and humiliate them in the public place; that A-1 beat PW-1 with a stick on his head causing bleeding injury; that A-2 beat PW-2 with a stick on his head, A-3 beat
PW-2 with a stick on his right shoulder, A-4 and A-5 beat PW-2 with sticks on his hands and caused injuries; that this incident was witnessed by PWs.3 to 8; that immediately PW-1 to 3 and others went to Dagadarthi police station; that from there, they went to DSR Government hospital, Nellore in 108 Ambulance at about
16/8/2018 3 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
6.00 p.m.; that on the receipt of hospital intimation under Ex.P-7, the then Head
Constable of V town police station (PW-15) recorded the statement of PW-1 in the hospital and sent it to Dagadarthi police station; that the then Sub Inspector of
Police Sri B. Srinivasulu Reddy (PW-16) registered F.I.R. in Crime No.74/2011 u/s 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act; that on 16.10.2011 Sri K. Bala Venkateswara Rao, the then Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Nellore Rural Sub Division (PW-17) received orders from the Superintendent of
Police, S.P.S.R. Nellore District, visited Government Headquarters hospital, Nellore on 16.10.2011 at 8.00 a.m., examined PWs.1 to 3 and recorded their statements; that from there, he rushed to the scene of offence, observed it in the presence of
PWs.11 and 12, got prepared scene observation report, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P-12; that the then Tahsildar, Dagadarthi Mandal issued caste certificates of all the accused and PW-1; that after completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences as stated above.
3.Learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kovur, after considering the charge sheet, took it on file, after securing presence of the accused, served copies of case documents and after observing all the formalities as laid down under Section 209 Cr.P.C, committed the case to this Court vide
Orders in P.R.C. No.35 of 2012, dated 15.4.2013 where it is numbered as S.C.
No.28 of 2013.
4.After receipt of record from the Lower Court and considering the material on record, this Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act; that after securing the presence of the accused, they were examined under Section 228(1)(b)
Cr.P.C., since the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act is exclusively triable by this Court, charges under Sections 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act against the accused were framed,
16/8/2018 4 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.To prove the charges against the accused, the Prosecution examined
PWs. 1 to 17, got marked Exs.P-1 to P-18. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., every incriminating material available on record was read over and explained to them in
Telugu, they denied the same. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D-1 is marked during the cross-examination of PW-16. The accused did not choose to adduce any evidence on their behalf.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor argued by submitting that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is totally corroborated with each other to prove the charges against the accused and it is supported by the evidence of PWs.3, 5 and 9 who categorically supported the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are the injured; that though PWs.11 and 12 in whose presence PW-17 observed the scene of offence turned hostile, in view of the ocular evidence on record through PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 9, the prosecution proved the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; hence, she prayed to convict the accused of the charges framed against them and punish them accordingly.
7.The learned counsel for the accused replied by submitting that A-1 is
President of Water Users Association in Chennur village as admitted by all the prosecution witnesses; that some villagers of Chennur and neighbouring villagers have occupied Chennur cheruvu land due to which there is no proper water flow to the original Ayacutdars; that being the President of Water Users Association of
Chennur, A-1 gave representation to the Mandal Revenue Officer; that the Mandal
Revenue Officer and other officials had fixed boundaries by identifying the encroachments and when the encroachments were being removed, PWs.1 to 3 and others attacked the accused party, basing on which Crime No.73/2011 is registered against PWs.1 to 3 and another which is subject matter of
16/8/2018 5 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
C.C.No.1/2016 on the file of this Court; that as a counter blast to this case, in order to escape from that case and to get the encroached lands, PWs.1 to 3 hatched up a plan and lodged false report under Ex.P-1 after due deliberations.
He further submitted that Ex.P-1 report is not spontaneous report; that in fact, immediately after the alleged incident, PWs.1 to 4 and others went to Dagadarthi police station and lodged report against 30 persons wherein the names of A-1 to
A-5 herein were not present; that on the next day, by the intervention of CPI(M) party leaders, the original report is suppressed and Ex.P-1 is prepared by involving
A-1 to A-5 to escape from Crime No.73/2011 and to get the encroached lands. In support of his contention, he has pointed out that under the signature of PW-15 who allegedly recorded the statement of PW-1 (Ex.P-1) it does not show the time at which it is registered. He further submitted that admittedly, PW-15 recorded
Ex.P-1 in the presence of duty doctor; that surprisingly the date is put by the duty doctor under his signature as 15.10.2011. He further submitted that it shows that
Ex.P-1 is recorded on 15.10.2011 after due deliberations and by suppressing the original F.I.R. He further submitted that the evidence of PWs.6 to 8 shows that they have not witnessed the incident. He further submitted that Ex.P-1 shows that the incident occurred in the land of PW-1 whereas the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 5, 9 shows that the incident occurred in the land of PW-4; that the evidence of the medical officer who is examined as PW-10 does not disclose the alleged injuries sustained by PW-2 as spoken by the witnesses. He further submitted that even if it is assumed for argument sake that Ex.P-1 is recorded on 14.10.2011 at 8.00 p.m. F.I.R. is registered on the next day at 13.00 hours by PW-16 and the F.I.R.
reached the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Kovur at 9.30 p.m.
on 15.10.2011; that the distance between Dagadarthi police station and Kovur is hardly 20 kms. and thus, there is abnormal unexplained delay in reaching the
F.I.R. to the Magistrate; that all these circumstances would show that the original
F.I.R. lodged by PW-1 on 14.10.2011 in Dagadarthi police station is suppressed and Ex.P-1 is prepared on the next day at the influence made by the CPI (M) party
16/8/2018 6 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
leaders. He further submitted that when once F.I.R. is proved to be fabricated, the entire investigation and the evidence are highly suspicious. In view of these circumstances, he submits that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt; hence, he prayed to acquit the accused of the charges framed against them.
8. In view of the submissions, as discussed supra, the point that falls for consideration is—
“Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecution is
sufficient to hold that the prosecution proved charges
against the accused u/s 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and section
3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act beyond all reaso-
nable doubt or not?”
9. POINT:
According to the prosecution, as discussed above, there is some land abutting Chennur water tank and it is being occupied by Chennur villagers and the neighbouring villagers on the Western side; that on 14.10.2011 all the accused along with their followers i.e., 200 people criminally trespassed into the land of
PW-4 and closed the way to reach the other lands; that when it was objected, all the accused beat PWs.1 and 2 as stated above; that this incident is witnessed by
PWs.3 to 9 and others.
10. PW-1 Policherla Krishnaiah deposed that he got two acres of encroached land in Chennur cheruvu land; that about 8 years back, the accused requested them to cast their votes to their candidate; that since they refused for it, all the accused were trying to evict him from his land; that about 6½ years back at about 2.00 p.m. all the accused along with 200 villagers came to the land of Uppala Lingaiah (PW-4) with JCB and tried to form ridges; that at that time, he was present in his land which is at a distance of 1½ furlongs; that he went to the land of PW-4 and obstructed the accused from forming ridges; that all the accused
16/8/2018 7 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
abused him in filthy language with his caste name; that A-1 beat him with a stick on his head causing bleeding injury; that A-2 to A-4 beat PW-2 with sticks on his head; neck, shoulders and hands causing bleeding injuries; that this incident is witnessed by J. Venkama Raju (PW-7) and one Raghuramaiah; that after beating them, all the accused went towards his land; that he along with 12 others went to
Dagadarthi village by a tractor; that in the meanwhile, one Ambulance came; that he was shifted in that Ambulance along with PWs.2 and 3 to Government headquarters hospital, Nellore; that his statement was recorded by the police in the hospital which is Ex.P-1. A perusal of Ex.P-1 shows that on 14.10.2011 at about 2.00 p.m. when he was working in his land, all the accused came with JCB and criminally trespassed into his land and the incident occurred in the land of
PW-1. But the evidence of PW-1 and other witnesses goes to show that the incident occurred in the land of Uppala Lingaiah (PW-4). As discussed above, in his chief examination of PW-1, it is found that since PW-1 and others refused to cast their votes in favour of the candidate suggested by the accused, they bore grudge against them and they were trying to evict him from his land. But this has not been mentioned either in Ex.P-1 or in the statement of PW-1 recorded by the
Investigating Officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 9 also deposed that since they did not cast their votes in favour of the candidate suggested by the accused, they bore grudge against them. But, they also did not mention this in their statements before the Investigating Officer recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. As argued by the learned counsel for the accused, PW-1 did not specifically mention the abusive words allegedly used by the accused.
11.In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that he is shown as A-1,
PW-3 who is his son is shown as A-2, PW-2 who is his brother-in-law is shown as
A-3, one Addanki Seenu who is son of A-3 herein is shown as A-4 in C.C.1/2016 on the file of this Court. He further admitted that PW-1 in C.C.1/2016 lodged a report against them alleging that he was beaten by them. The learned counsel for the accused submits that as admitted by PW-1 in his cross-examination, he is a
16/8/2018 8 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
resident of Venkanapalem village; Panta Mallikarjuna (PW-6) is a resident of
Reddipalem village; Jonnalagadda Venkama Raju (PW-7) is a resident of
Buchireddipalem, CPI(M) party leader; Shaik Rahamathulla (PW-5) is a resident of Turimerla; but, PWs.4 and 9 alone are residents of Chennur village. He further submits that the villagers of Chennur and other villagers had occupied and encroached a part of Chennur tank Ayacut land which affected the flow of water to the original Ayacutdars. In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that some of the villagers encroached a part of Chennur cheruvu and subsequently, other villagers also had encroached a part of that cheruvu land. In his cross- examination, it is categorically suggested that two days prior to the incident, the
M.R.O. and A.E. (Irrigation) asked the Ayacutdars to get proclainers to clear the encroachments; that the officials could not clear the encroachments immediately; hence, the proclainers were left there only; that on 14.10.2011 at 2.00 p.m. when
PWs.1 to 4 in C.C.1/2016 and other Ayacutdars were removing the encroachments, they attacked them and caused injuries to PW-1 in C.C.1/2016; that in order to escape from C.C.1/2016, he gave false report against the accused herein; but he denied it. It is the contention of the learned defence counsel that on 14.10.2011 PW-1 gave a report in Dagadarthi Police Station against 30 members in which the names of the accused herein were not found; that on the next day, the said report was suppressed and Ex.P-1 is fabricated in order to get over from C.C.1/2016; hence, they involved A-1 who is village elder and President of Water Users Association and others. In the cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that all the accused are elders in Chennur village.
12.The evidence of PW-2 Addanki Pitchi Venkaiah shows that in the chief examination, he deposed that the incident occurred at 9.00 a.m. but according to
Ex.P-1 averments and the evidence of PW-1, the incident occurred at 2.00 p.m.
The chief examination of PW-2 further shows that at about 9.00 a.m. on the date of incident when he was present in his lands, all the accused went to the land of
Uppala Lingaiah (PW-4) with 200 members and JCB and when they were trying to
16/8/2018 9 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
dig soil, he along with others questioned the accused; that all the accused abused him with his caste name. This witness also did not depose the exact abusive words allegedly used by the accused. PW-2 further deposed that A-2 to A-5 beat him with sticks on his head, left shoulder, hands and caused bleeding injuries.
This witness did not depose anything about the accused beating PW-1. A perusal of Ex.P-1 shows that there is no specific overt act attributed against A-2; but, in the chief examination, PW-2 deposed that A-2 to A-5 beat him with sticks and caused bleeding injuries. In his cross-examination, PW-2 also admitted that all the accused are village elders and he is one of the accused in C.C.1/2016 on the file of this Court.
13.PW-3 viz., Policherla Chenchaiah who is son of PW-1 deposed that on 14.10.2011 at about 2.00 p.m. when they were working in their lands in Chennur cheruvu, all the accused along with 150 followers came to the land of Uppala
Lingaiah (PW-4) and Nizam Audinarayana (PW-8) armed with sticks and JCB and when they were trying to form ridges in the land of PW-4 and PW-8, all of them objected for which all the accused abused him with his caste name; that all the accused beat PWs.1 and 2 with sticks. This witness also did not depose the specific abusive words allegedly used by the accused against them. Moreover, this witness did not depose the specific overt acts against A-1 to A-5. It is the contention of the defence, as discussed above, that when the injured went to
Dagadarthi, they lodged report in the police station on 14.10.2011 before they were referred to hospital; that this report was suppressed and Ex.P-1 is fabricated. According to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, they did not lodge any report in Dagadarthi police station on 14.10.2011. In the cross-examination, PW-3 admitted that while going to Nellore from Chennur through Dagadarthi, one has to pass through Dagadarthi police station. He further deposed that they did not inform the police anything about the incident on that day. When it was suggested that the original report is suppressed which does not contain the names of the
16/8/2018 10 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
accused; that on the next day Ex.P-1 is fabricated by falsely implicating the accused who are village elders to get over from C.C.1/2016, he denied it.
14.According to the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 9 who are said to be the eye witnesses to the incident and injured, the incident occurred in the land of
Uppala Lingaiah (PW-4) but PW-4 did not support the prosecution. In the chief examination, he deposed that he does not have any land in Chennur cheruvu; that since 7 years several villagers of Chennur had occupied the cheruvu land; that about 7 years back, the District Collector and the Mandal Revenue Officer issued eviction orders to remove encroachments; but the encroachers refused for it.
Thus, he was declared hostile with the permission of the Court and in the cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing could be elicited.
15.The evidence of PW-5 viz., Shaik Rahamathulla of Turimerla village of
Dagadarthi Mandal shows that he purchased two acres of land in Chennur cheruvu from Barikala Ramaiah about 13 years back; that on the date of incident i.e., about 6½ years back at about 2.00 p.m. when he was working in his fields, 150 villagers of Chennur came to the encroached land with two JCBs; that they entered into the land of PW-4 and PW-8 and dug pits that when Venkama Raju (PW-7) and others questioned A-2 about their digging pits; in the meanwhile,
PWs.1 and 2 also came there and questioned the accused; that all the accused beat PWs.1 and 2 with sticks on their heads and caused bleeding injuries. This witness also did not specify the overt acts that are attributed against A-1 to A-5.
16.The evidence of PW-6 Panta Mallikarjuna shows that he is a resident of Reddipalem village of Buchireddipalem Mandal; that he purchased 4 acres of land in Chennur cheruvu land from Kolli Venkaiah; that the villagers of Chennur occupied the cheruvu land and cultivating it; that Chennur village elders intended to evict PWs.2, 3, 5, 8, 9 as they did not cast their votes in favour of the candidate as suggested by the accused; but, as discussed above, there is no such statement given by this witness before the Investigating Officer. The chief
16/8/2018 11 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
examination of PW-6 further shows that on 14.10.2011 he learnt that all the accused came to cheruvu land with JCBs. and tried to dig pits; that all the accused beat PW-2 and others; that after knowing this incident, he went to Dagadarthi police station at about 8.00 p.m. In the cross-examination, he admitted that when he went to Dagadarthi police station, he was informed by the police that
PW-2 and another injured were referred to Government hospital, Nellore. This piece of evidence shows that the injured i.e., PWs.1 and 2 went to Dagadarthi on 14.10.2011 immediately after the incident and they were referred by the police to
Government Headquarters hospital, Nellore. But the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and 5 is on the contrary to the effect that they directly went to Government General hospital, Nellore from Dagadarthi by an Ambulance without going to Dagadarthi police station. The evidence of PW-7 Jonnalagadda Venkama Raju shows that he is a resident of Buchireddipalem; that on 14.10.2011 at about 12 noon he went to
Chennur cheruvu and requested A-1, A-2 not to obstruct the encroachers as their encroachment is not objectionable to anybody; that A-1, A-2 and others came there with JCBs. and they damaged the standing crop in the lands of PWs.2, 3, 8 and 9. This has been not deposed by any witness. He further deposed that in the meanwhile, a large crowd pounced upon them; that in this incident, PWs.1 and 2 sustained injuries; that he did not see who beat PWs.1 and 2. In the cross- examination, this witness also admitted that he accompanied the injured and others by tractor to Dagadarthi police station; that he informed the incident in the police station; that from there, he also accompanied the injured to Government hospital, Nellore; but not in ambulance; that he informed the names of assailants who beat the injured in Dagadarthi police station and at that time, PW-1 also was present there; that the police enquired PW-1 also. This piece of evidence strengthens the contention of the accused; that immediately after the incident on 14.10.2011 the injured went to Dagadarthi police station where they gave a report against 30 assailants wherein the names of the accused were not found; that subsequently Ex.P-1 is fabricated by falsely implicating the names of the accused.
16/8/2018 12 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
The evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 5 and 9 that they did not go to Dagadarthi police station on 14.10.2011 but they directly went to Government General hospital,
Nellore by 108 Ambulance from Dagadarthi appears to be suspicious in view of the evidence of PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8. The evidence of PW-8 Nizam Audinarayana shows that on the date of incident, he went to Buchireddipalem; that by the time he returned to Chennur, the incident was over and he found ridges formed in
Cheruvu land. In the cross-examination, he also deposed that he went to
Dagadarthi police station along with PWs.1 to 7 immediately after the incident; that from Dagadarthi police station, the injured were referred to Government hospital, Nellore. Thus, the evidence of PWs.6 to 8 shows that immediately after the incident, the injured and others went to Dagadarthi police station and they were enquired by the police and the injured were referred to Government hospital,
Nellore by the police.
17.The evidence of PW-9 Jakka Venkata Subbaiah shows that the villagers occupied a portion of Chennur cheruvu land; that when he came to know that the villagers of Chennur are trying to evict them, he complained the matter to
Communist party people as he also got two acres of land in Chennur cheruvu land.
He further deposed that on the date of incident at about 1.00 p.m. when he was cultivating his land, their village farmers about 200 in number came there with
Proclainers to the land of PW-4 and PW-8 and they dug pits in it; that when they obstructed them, A-1 abused PW-1 stating that “Nee Yamma Madiga Pukulo na
Madda”; that A-1 beat PW-1 with a stick on his head causing bleeding injury; that all the accused beat PW-2 with sticks causing bleeding injuries on his head, shoulder. Thus, except PW-9, the other witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 3 and 5 did not depose the alleged abusive words used by the accused against PWs.1 and 2. In the cross-examination, PW-9 admitted that he is a CPI(M) party worker. It is the contention of the accused that at the instance of CPI(M) party leaders, a false
16/8/2018 13 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
report is fabricated after due deliberations as mentioned in Ex.P-1 by implicating them.
18.The evidence of PW-10 Dr. M. Kiran Kumar shows that on 14.10.2011 at about 5.30 p.m. he examined PW-1 and found a lacerated wound of 5 x 1 cms.
over left parieto temporal region; that X-ray revealed no skull fracture; hence, he issued Ex.P-3 by showing the injury as simple in nature. He further deposed that on the same day at 6.00 p.m. he examined PW-2 and found a lacerated wound of 5 x 1 cms. over left parieto occipital region with bleeding and another lacerated wound of 3 x 1 cms. over right occipital region with bleeding; that X-ray of skull, chest and right shoulder revealed no fracture; hence, he issued wound certificate under Ex.P-4 by showing the injuries as simple in nature. In his evidence, PW-1 deposed that he was beaten by A-1 with stick on his head. According to the prosecution, A-2 beat PW-2 with stick on his head causing bleeding injury; that
A-3 beat A-2 with stick on his right shoulder; A-4 and A-5 beat PW-2 with sticks on hands; but Ex.P-4 shows that PW-2 sustained only two injuries as stated above. In the cross-examination, PW-10 admitted that the injuries as mentioned in Exs.P-3 and P-4 are possible by pelting stones; that if a person is beaten with stick or iron rod, a linear injury would be formed. But, in Exs.P-3 and P-4 and as deposed by PW-10, no such linear abrasions or injuries are found on PWs.1 and 2.
19.According to the prosecution, the Investigating Officer examined the scene of offence in the presence of PW-11 and PW-12 on 16.10.2011 at about 11.30 a.m. But, PWs.11 and 12 viz., Siginam Thirupathaiah, Policherla
Thirupathaiah did not support the prosecution in this aspect.
20.The evidence of PW-13 Paturi Madhusudhana Rao who is a retired
Assistant Executive Engineer in the Irrigation department shows that during the relevant period, he was in-charge of Kanigiri Reservoir section of Buchireddipalem; that Chennur cheruvu falls within its limits; that A-1 who is a Rythu Sangam
President and others gave representation to him stating that due to
16/8/2018 14 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
encroachments in the cheruvu, there is no sufficient storage of water in the tank; hence, he addressed a letter to the Mandal Revenue Officer, Dagadarthi, dated 24.8.2011 for fixing boundaries to the tank and for eviction of the encroachers; that one week thereafter he along with Mandal Revenue Officer, V.R.O., their
Surveyor and one police constable went to Chennur cheruvu tank at about 10.30 a.m. and fixed boundaries to the tank; that Ayacutdars agreed to dig pts around the tank. This part of the evidence shows that A-1 being Rythu Sangam President complained against the encroachers as there was no sufficient storage of water in the tank. In the cross-examination, PW-13 admitted that A-1 was the President of
Water Users Association of Chennur cheruvu tank; that on 23.8.2011 A-1 gave representation to him complaining against 25 encroachers. The evidence of
PW-14 Bandi Ramulu, the then VRO of Chennur shows that in the chief- examination, he deposed that the extent of Chennur tank is 350 acres in Survey
No.488 of Chennur; that it supplies water to 650 acres of land; that approximately 50 acres of land of it is under encroachment; that A-1 who is President of Water
Users Association in Chennur gave representation to PW-13 for removal of encroachments; that accordingly, he along with their Surveyor, R.I. and irrigation department people surveyed the tank and fixed boundaries. The evidence of
PWs.13 and 14 shows that the contention of the accused that A-1 being the
President of Water Users Association of Chennur gave a representation to the officials for removal of encroachments in Chennur cheruvu land.
21.The evidence of PW-15 N. Dharma Rao shows that previously while he was working as Head Constable in V town Police Station, Nellore on 14.10.2011 when he was in-charge of O.P. police station at ACSR Government
Medical College, Nellore at about 8.00 p.m. he received hospital intimation under
Ex.P-7; that immediately he rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of
PW-1 in the presence of the duty doctor under Ex.P-1; that he forwarded Exs.P-1 and P-7 to Dagadarthi police station on the point of jurisdiction. As argued by the learned defence counsel, a perusal of Ex.P-1 shows that PW-15 made
16/8/2018 15 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
endorsement under the recitals of the report stating that he recorded the statement of PW-1 in the presence of duty doctor on 14.10.2011; but the time is kept blank without mentioning anything and it is admitted by PW-15 in his cross- examination. Surprisingly, the duty doctor who had certified that the statement of
PW-1 was recorded by PW-15 in his presence had signed and put the date as 15.10.2011 and it is admitted by PW-15 also in his cross-examination. The
Investigating Officer examined as PW-17 could not explain anything in this aspect when it was specifically questioned by the defence counsel. The evidence of
PW-16 viz., Sri B. Srinivasulu Reddy, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Dagadarthi police station shows that on 15.10.2011 at about 13.00 hours he received Exs.P-1 and P-7 from O.P. police station, ACSR Government Medical College, Nellore; that basing on it, he registered F.I.R. against the accused in Crime No.74/2011 u/s 324 r/w 34 I.P.C., section 3(1)(x of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act under Ex.P-8. It is the contention of the accused that before registering F.I.R. under Ex.P-8, another
F.I.R. was registered by PW-16 in Crime No.73/2011 on the report given by one
Nizam Venkateswarlu (PW-1 in C.C.1/2016) against PWs.1 to 3 and another.
PW-16 admitted that he registered F.I.R. in Crime No.73/2011 u/s 324 r/w 34
I.P.C. and he conducted part of investigation in that crime. Certified copy of F.I.R.
in Crime No.73/2011 u/s 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. of Dagadarthi police station is marked as Ex.D-1.
22.The evidence of PW-17 Sri K. Bala Venkateswara Rao, Additional
Deputy Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada shows that while he was working as
SDPO, Nellore Rural sub division, he received authorization proceedings on 15.10.2011 vide C.No.139/C3/AL/2011, dated 15.10.2011 from the
Superintendent of Police, S.P.S.R. Nellore District under Ex.P-9; that on the next day, he visited Government hospital, Nellore at 8.00 a.m. examined PWs.1 to 3 and recorded their statements; from there, he visited scene offence, observed it in the presence of PWs.11, 12, prepared scene observation report under Ex.P-10; that he got the scene of offence photographed (Ex.P-11); that he prepared rough
16/8/2018 16 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P-12; that then he examined PWs.4 to 9,
Pidugu Vemaiah and recorded their statements; that from there, he visited
Dagadarthi police station, examined PWs.13, 14 and recorded their statements; that on 30.11.2011 he received wound certificates of PW-1 (Ex.P-13) and caste certificates of A-1 to A-5 (Exs.P-14 to P-18); that on 6.1.2012 he received orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Criminal Petition No.11380/2011,
dated 15.11.2011 with a direction to complete the investigation without arresting
the accused; hence, he filed charge sheet against the accused. But, in the cross- examination, he deposed that he is not aware whether he verified the investigation done by PW-16 in Crime No.73/2011 of Dagadarthi Police Station.
He further admitted that Ex.P-1 does not disclose the time of recording the statement of PW-1 by PW-15 and it is kept blank after putting the date as 14.10.2011. When it was suggested that the duty doctor endorsed on Ex.P-1 with regard to condition of PW-1 on 15.10.2011, he denied it. But, a perusal of Ex.P-1 shows that it is very much apparent to naked eye that the duty doctor had put the date as 15.10.2011 beneath his signature. The cross-examination of PW-17 further shows that PWs.2, 3, 5, 6, 7 omitted to state material aspects which are deposed by them in their chief examination.
23.While submitting his arguments, the learned defence counsel pointed out that the evidence on record as adduced clearly shows that the injured went to
Dagadarthi police station and gave report in the police station on 14.10.2011 and then they were referred to Government hospital, Nellore by the police; but subsequently original F.I.R. which was lodged against 30 assailants wherein the names of the accused herein were not found was suppressed and with the intervention of CPI(M) party leaders, Ex.P-1 is fabricated after due deliberations.
The evidence on record more particularly the evidence of PWs.6 to 8 supports this version. In this aspect, the learned defence counsel relied upon a judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Marudunai Augusti Vs. State of Kerala 1
11980 SCC (Crl.) 985
16/8/2018 17 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
wherein Their Lordships held that when it was proved that the F.I.R. is found
to be fabricated, the entire prosecution case collapse; that unexplained
delay in dispatching of F.I.R. to the Magistrate besides other infirmities
would throw serious doubt on the prosecution case. In the present case also, according to the evidence of PW-15, Ex.P-1 is recorded on 14.10.2011 at 8.00 p.m. and it was registered at Dagadarthi police station by PW-16 on 15.10.2011 at 13.00 hours and the F.I.R. reached the Magistrate at 9.30 p.m. on 15.10.2011 and it is admitted fact that the distance between Dagadarthi police station and Kovur is only 20 kms. All these factors would throw light on the contention of the accused that Ex.P-1 is fabricated after due deliberations. While submitting the effect of delay in reaching the F.I.R. to the Magistrate, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of our Hon’ble High Court in the case of Y.S.
Nanji Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 2 . The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that it is PW-9 alone who deposed the exact alleged abusive words used by the accused against PW-1. But, even then, he submits that unless such abusing with caste name is made with an intention to humiliate or intimidating the persons in public view, the offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of
S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act is not attracted, in this aspect he relied upon the judgment of our Hon’ble High Court in the case of Parasa Somaiah and others
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others 3 .
24.Thus, in view of the evidence on record, the prosecution could not prove that Ex.P-1 which is material document in this case is genuine and it is not fabricated as contended by the prosecution. Apart from it, the circumstances as submitted by the accused in their defence suggest that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the charges framed against them and thus, in my considered view, the prosecution failed to prove the charges u/s 324 2 2000(2) L (CRL.) 546 (AP) 3 2015(1) ALD (Crl.) 143
16/8/2018 18 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
r/w 34 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.Accordingly, the point is answered.
25.IN THE RESULT, A-1 to A-5 are found not guilty of the charges u/ss 324 r/w 34 I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act; hence, they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. of the said charges. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open
Court on this the 16 th day of August, 2018.
Special Judge for trial of offences
under S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act -cum-V Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
PW-1:Policherla Krishnaiah, PW-2:Addanki Pitchi Venkaiah, PW-3:Policherla Chenchaiah, PW-4:Uppala Lingaiah, PW-5:Shaik Rahamathulla, PW-6:Panta Mallikarjuna, PW-7:Jonnalagadda Venkama Raju, PW-8:Nizam Audinarayana, PW-9:Jakka Venkata Subbaiah, PW-10:Dr. M. Kiran Kumar, Asst. Professor in ACSR Government Medical College, Nellore. PW-11: Siginam Thirupathaiah, PW-12: Policherla Thirupathaiah, PW-13: Paturi Madhusudhana Rao, the then in-charge Assistant Engineer of Kanigiri Reservoir section, Buchireddipalem. PW-14:Bandi Ramulu, the then V.R.O. of Chennur. PW-15:N. Dharma Rao, the then Head Constable in V town Police Station, Nellore. PW-16:B. Srinivasulu Reddy, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Dagadarthi Police Station. PW-17:Sri K. Bala Venkateswara Rao, the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore rural.
16/8/2018 19 of 19 SC 28 of 2013
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION
Ex.P-1:Statement of PW-1 recorded by the police. Ex.P-2:Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-4. Ex.P-3:Wound certificate of PW-1 issued by PW-10. Ex.P-4:Wound certificate of PW-2 issued by PW-10. Ex.P-5:Signature of PW-11 in the scene observation report. Ex.P-6:Signature of PW-12 in the scene observation report. Ex.P-7:Hospital intimation. Ex.P-8:Original F.I.R. Ex.P-9:Authorisation proceedings issued by the Superintendent of Police, S.P.S.R. Nellore District. Ex.P-10:Scene observation report. Ex.P-11:Bunch of Photographs. Ex.P-12:Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P-13:Caste certificate of PW-1. Ex.P-14:Caste certificate of A-1. Ex.P-15:Caste certificate of A-2. Ex.P-16: Caste certificate of A-3. Ex.P-17:Caste certificate of A-4. Ex.P-18:Caste certificate of A-5.
WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
-NONE-
EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE
Ex.D-1/ Certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.73/2011 of Dagadarthi Police Station.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
--Nil –
Special Judge