Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
APWG000009812019
Presented on : 30-04-2019 Registered on : 30-04-2019 Decided on : 11-05-2026 Duration : 7 years, 0 months, 11 days
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER
SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI:: ELURU
PRESENT: SRI I.SRINIVASA MURTHY ,
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-
VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru
Monday, this the 11th day of May, 2026
SPL. SESSIONS CASE No.16/2019
Name of the Accused :VasabathulaRamakrishna,S/o.Venkata and particularsRatnam, 40 years, Behind Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Temple, Badetivari street, 32nd ward, Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem Town
Charges:Under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the judge:Found not guilty.
Sentence or Order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
1
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
Counselforthe:Smt N.Saradamani, Spl. Public Prosecutor, prosecutionW.G. District, Eluru.
Counsel for defence:Sri E.Srinivasa Babu, Learned counsel for the accused.
This case is coming on this the 27.04.2026 for hearing and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC ST Cell-1, Eluru filed charge sheet against the sole accused for the offences under Sections 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 in Cr.No.219/2017 of Tadepalligudem Town Police Station.
2.Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
One Surreddy Bujjamma is a resident of H.P.Gas Godown street,
Malakunta cheruvu, Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem town and she is the defacto complainant and deceased in the present case and she belonged to ST-Erukula community. The accused is a resident of
Badetivari street, Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem town and he belongs to
BC-Viswabrahmin caste. Originally the deceased was a native of
Gokavaram village of East Godavari District and she studied up to 10th class. She loved one Cheruvusetti Srinu of Gokavaram and married in the year 2004, led conjugal life for two years, later she quarreled with her husband and discarded him without giving any divorce, and later she came down to Tadepalligudem and started living alone. She lived with one Vasubabu of Unguturu for about two years and later the said
Vasubabu died. Accused is already married and one Anantha Lakshmi is his wife and they blessed with children. He got acquaintance with 2
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 the deceased for the last two years prior to the incident and used to maintain extra marital relationship with her by visiting the house of the deceased and used to live as her husband. Though the deceased led conjugal life with the accused, she did not bless with any children, for which the deceased approached the Medical Officer in GVK Hospital,
Rajamahendravaram and underwent medical tests.
ii)As the matter stood thus, accused used to neglect the deceased spending more time with his first wife, and also used to talk with L.W.13 by name Nethala Venkata Lakshmi over phone frequently.
Due to the said ill-feelings, there was a quarrel between the accused and deceased on 17.08.2017 at 10.00 p.m., at the house of the deceased. In that quarrel, accused abused the deceased and insisted her to die, and so insisting he went away. The deceased felt very unhappy and disgust over her life and she poured kerosene over her person at about 1.00 a.m. in the intervening night of 17/18.08.2017, went to the house of accused with wet clothes of kerosene on her activa two wheeler, called him over phone and when the accused came out of the house she informed him that she would go and die and went to her house in a hectic speed though the accused tried to stop her.
Then the accused went to her house. In the meanwhile, she went in to her house and lit fire with a match box and set fire to herself with a view to commit suicide and she was caught with flames. The accused also sustained burn injuries on his face and hands while he was trying to rescue the deceased. Then the accused went to his house with a view to bring his car to shift her to the hospital for treatment. Meanwhile deceased called L.W.1 by name Kanumuri Krishnamraju over phone, who rushed to the spot and noticed that the deceased was suffering from burn injuries. Then the deceased revealed the circumstances that 3
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 led her to commit suicide to L.W.1 by name Kanumuri Krishnamraju.
L.W.1/Kanumuri Krishnamraju recorded the same in his cell phone.
Meanwhile accused came with his car and then the accused and L.W.1 by name Kanumuri Krishnamraju shifted the deceased to Area Hospital,
Tadepalligduem for treatment and got her admitted for treatment.
iii)The Medical officer informed the same to L.W.24 by name
M.Surya Bhagavan for taking necessary action and also intimated the same to L.W.22/Md. Isarat Fathima, II Additional Judicial Magistrate of
First Class, Tadepalligudem for recording the dying declaration of the
deceased. After receipt of the hospital intimation, the Medical Officer,
Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem, L.W.24 by name M.Surya Bhagavan,SI of Police, Tadepalligudem town police station visited the Government
Hospital, Tadepalligudem and recorded the statement of the deceased and registered the same as Cr.No.219/2017 under woman burns of
Tadepalligduem town police station on 18.08.2017 at 6.00a.m., During the course of investigation he visited the Area hospital,
Tadepalligudem, secured the presence of the deceased, examined her and recorded her statement, visited the scene of offence which is the house of the deceased and observed the scene of offence in the presence of mediators by name L.Ws.15 and 16 Matta Veera Venkata
Mahalakshmi and Chilaka Srinivasa Rao, seized half burnt match stick,
Home lite match box, plastic water bottle having some kerosene, burnt clothes, Hospital OP card of GVK Hospitals, Rajamahendravaram,
Aaadar card of the deceased under the scene observation report. He also got photographed the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch of the same. L.W.22/ Md. Isarat Fathima, II Additional Judicial
Magistrate of First Class, Tadepalligudem visited Area Hospital and
recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 18.08.2017 between 4
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 5.00a.m., and 5.30a.m., Later the deceased was shifted to Government
General Hospital,Eluru for better treatment and again she was shifted to
Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment. While the investigation stood thus, the deceased was succumbed to burn injuries on 19.08.2017 at 6.15a.m., in the Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada.
iv)On receipt of the death intimation from the said hospital,
L.W.25 Ch.Anjaneyulu, SI of police Tadepalligudem town P.S., altered the section of law into Section 306 IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of SCs &
STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 on 19.08.2017 at 8.00a.m., and dispatched the express FIR to all concerned. As per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police in C.No.5892/C2/Auth/SC.ST/2017, dt.19.08.2017, L.W.26/S.Vijaya Sekhar, Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Sc ST Cell-1, Eluru took up investigation and he visited the scene of offence lead by L.W.25/Ch.Anjaneyulu, SI of Police,
Tadepalligudem town Police station, examined the same, recorded the statements of witnesses, again, visited Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 19.08.2017 between 3.00p.m., and 4.30p.m., in the presence of L.Ws.15 to 17 inquest panchayatdars by name Matta Veera Venkata Mahalakshmi,
Chilaka Srinivasa Rao and Muvva Dharmayya, recorded the statements of L.Ws.8 to 12 by name Surreddy Siva Kumar, Md, Baba, Gada
Rambabu, Peyyala Jansi, Bhattu Dhana Bhagyam, re-examined L.W.1 by name Kanumuri Krishnamraju. On 23.08.2017 he arrested the accused in front of his house and sent him for judicial custody. He also seized green and blue colour half hands shirt having name “Royal touch” and black colour pant which were emitting kerosene smell from his person after asking him to wear another pant and shirt under cover of mediators report in the presence of L.Ws.15 and 16 by name Matta 5
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
Veera Venkata Mahalakshmi and Chilaka Srinivasa Rao and he forwarded the material objects seized from the accused and also the material objects seized at the scene of offence by L.W.24 M.Surya
Bhagavan, SI of Police, Radepalligudem Town PS on 18.08.2017 to the
Director, Telangana Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis under letter of advise who issued a report opining that item No.3 contains ‘kerosene oil’ and inflammable hydrocarbons in it, but not in
Items 1,2,4,5 and 6.
v)L.W.18/P.Nagamani, Tahsildar, issued caste certificate of the accused stating that he belongs to BC-Viswabrahmin. L.W.19
Dr.D.Durga Prasad conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued PME certificate opining that the deceased died due to complications of burns. L.W.20/Dr.T.Rajesh Kumar, Civil
Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tadepalligudem examined the accused and issued medical certificate noting the burn injuries received at the time of commission of offence. L.W.21/G.Venkateswara
Rao, III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, recorded the dying declaration of the deceased at Vijayawada. Thus, on completion of investigation, the Deputy superintendent of Police filed charge sheet.
3.ThisCourt took cognizance under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C and later he was examined U/s.228(2) of Cr.P.C., Charges under Sections 306 IPC and
Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
4.During trial, prosecution has examined twenty (21) witnesses as
P.Ws.1 to 21 and marked Exs.P1 to P32 on its behalf. M.Os.1 to 4 are marked during the chief examination of P.W.20. Exs.D1 to D4 are marked by the defence during the cross examination of P.W.20. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidences of
L.Ws.17 and 25 by name Muvva Dharmayya and Ch.Anjaneyulu, SI of
Police. The evidence of L.Ws.3 and 19 by name Battu Subbamma and
Dr.D.Durga Prasad are closed as reported died.
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
6.Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State and the learned counsel for the accused.
7.Now, the points that arise for consideration are:
1) Whether the deceased died due to committing suicide with burn injuries?
2) Whether the accused abetted the deceased in committing suicide?
3) Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act beyond reasonable doubt?
Contentions:- 8.The contention of the learned Special Public Prosecutor is that in the present case initially the dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by P.W.18 on 18.08.2017 from 5.00 a.m., to 5.30 a.m., under
Ex.P20 immediately after the deceased was admitted in hospital and 7
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 thereafter at 5.30 a.m., P.W.20 SI of Police recorded the statement of the deceased under Ex.P24 on receipt of Ex.P23 hospital intimation, and that the dying declaration of the deceased was again recorded by
P.W.19 at Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada on 18.08.2017 between 5.58 p.m., and 6.42 p.m., under Ex.P22 on the requisition of Andhra Hospital under Ex.P21, and thus there are three statements of the deceased, one in the form of complaint recorded by P.W.20 under Ex.P24 and two in the form of dying declarations under Exs.P20 and P22 recorded by
P.Ws.18 and 19 respectively, and as per the said dying declarations under Exs.P20 and P22, it is clearly established by the prosecution that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide by instigating her to die, and the said fact is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt by virtue of the said dying declarations of the deceased, and therefore even though the other independent witnesses did not support the case of prosecution who are examined as P.Ws.1 to 13, this Court can believe the case of the prosecution solely relying on the dying declarations of the deceased under Exs.P20 and P22 and base conviction against the accused on the said dying declarations. It is further contended that the prosecution has clearly established that the death of the deceased was due to burn injuries with kerosene oil, and the death of the deceased is established by the prosecution that it is a suicidal death as per the medical evidence, and since the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused that the accused abetted the deceased in committing suicide and since it is established by the prosecution that the accused knowing that the deceased belonged to ST community has committed the offence under Section 306 IPC, the accused is liable for punishment for the offences under 8
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment
Act.
9.On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that in the present case the identity of the accused is not at all established by the prosecution and that there is no iota of evidence to show that the accused and the deceased lived together under one roof as husband and wife as is the case of prosecution, and there is no evidence to show that the accused instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide, and the dying declarations under Exs.P20 and P22 cannot be relied on because they are not consistent with each other and those dying declarations are not consistent with Ex.P24 statement allegedly recorded by P.W.20, and when there is no consistency among
Exs.P20, P22 and P24, the dying declarations cannot be relied on by the prosecution. It is also contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused in the present case and even otherwise, Section 306 IPC is not attracted in the present case and
Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act is not attracted because it is not the case of the prosecution that intentionally on the ground that the deceased belonged to ST community the accused allegedly committed the offence of abetment to commit suicide, and thus the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for any of the offences with which he is charged and hence the accused is entitled to acquittal in the present case.
Point No.1:-
10.Under this point, this Court has to see whether the deceased died due to committing suicide with burn injuries as is the case of prosecution. The fact is that the deceased is a resident of HP gas godown street, Malakunta Cheruvu, Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem. In the 9
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 present case the Doctor who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased was not examined by the prosecution as the said Doctor died, and his evidence was closed on filing his death certificate. P.W.21 is the investigating officer and during his chief examination he produced
Ex.P31 postmortem examination report and Ex.P32 FSL report. As seen from Ex.P31 Postmortem examination report it is stated by the
Doctor that he examined the deceased by name Surreddy Bujjamma and she found ante mortem injuries and found Dermo-epidermal burns present on the entire body and around 90% with infected debrided tissue material with foul smelling pus and opined that the death was due to complications of burns and the approximate time of death was about 11 hours prior to postmortem examination. He conducted the postmortem examination on 19.08.2017 at 5.00 p.m. As seen from
Ex.P32 RFSL report, the RFSL examined partially burnt match stick as item No.1, a match box printed as ‘Home light’ as item No.2, blue coloured liquid marked as item No.3, partially burnt black and cream coloured pieces of clothes with floral design marked as item No.4, light green coloured half hands shirt with blue coloured stripes printed as “Royal Touch” marked as Item No.5, black coloured pant marked as item No.6. Out of the said six items, items 5 and 6 belonged to the accused according to the case of prosecution. On examination, the
RFSL authorities gave report that Items 1 to 6 are analyzed and the liquid in item No.3 is found to contain kerosene oil, an inflammable hydrocarbons in it, but he did not find any such kerosene oil in items 1,2,4,5 and 6. According to the case of prosecution, the deceased poured kerosene on her person from the bottle and lit fire to herself and committed suicide. As per Ex.P31 postmortem examination, the 10
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 deceased died due to burn injuries. The death of the deceased is not denied or disputed by the accused.
11.P.W.14 is the VRO who acted as one of the mediators for scene observation report under Ex.P14. He deposed that he accompanied the SI of Police to the house of the deceased and in his presence the police observed the scene of offence and seized one half burnt match stick, one Homelite match stick box, one medical file of GVK Hospitals (Ex.P27), one bottle containing small quantity of kerosene and burnt clothes. P.W.15 is VRO, Tadepalligudem and he deposed that he went to Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada on 19.08.2017 at 3.00 p.m., and in his presence police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased
Bujjamma under Ex.P15 inquest report, and he found the deceased died with burn injuries and all of them including blood relatives opined that deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene and lighting fire to her person. These facts would clearly suggest that the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze on her own. Therefore, the prosecution has established the fact that the deceased died due to burn injuries by committing suicide. This point is answered accordingly.
Point Nos.2 and 3:- 12.According to the case of prosecution, accused developed extra marital relationship with the deceased and both of them started living under one roof, and that as the accused started neglecting the deceased and started living with his first wife and also started talking with P.W.12, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and in that quarrel the accused insisted the deceased to die and went away, and therefore the deceased felt unhappy and disgust 11
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 over her life and committed suicide. It is also the case of the prosecution that after the deceased poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze, accused rushed to his house to bring the car to shift her to hospital and in the meanwhile the deceased herself called P.W.1 over phone and P.W.1 came there and then she narrated the entire incident to P.W.1 and P.W.1 has recorded the video in his cell phone.
But the prosecution has not collected the said video clipping from the cell phone of P.W.1 and has not produced the same before the court for the reasons best known to it. In fact the said alleged video record is the first information given by the deceased to P.W.1 according to the case of prosecution. When the said piece of evidence is very crucial for the prosecution, the prosecution has failed to collect the said video clipping from P.W.1 and no reason whatsoever is explained by the prosecution for the said lapse.
13.Coming to the evidence part, P.W.1 has deposed before the
Court that he is not aware of the relationship between the accused and the deceased and he is not aware of the caste of the deceased. He deposed that about eight years back he came to know that the deceased died due to burn injuries and he is not aware of the cause on her death and police never examined him. Thus, P.W.1 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Coming to his cross examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor with the permission of the Court he denied the suggestion that he stated before police that on 18.08.2017 at 2.00a.m., the deceased called him over phone and informed him that she had a dispute with the accused and she poured kerosene on her person and set fire to herself and received burn injuries, and then he went there and found the accused escaping from that place and then the deceased informed him that the accused abused her and abetted 12
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 her to commit suicide. He denied to have stated before police as in
Ex.P1 which is section 161 Cr.P.C statement.
14.It is pertinent to mention here that as seen from the evidence of
P.W.21 who is investigating officer, he made a requisition for recording
Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 by the Magistrate and the
Magistrate has recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 which
is marked as Ex.P30. It is relevant to mention here that in the deposition of P.W.21, there is a typographical mistake stating that the said statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. instead of
Section 164 Cr.P.C.
15.As seen from Ex.P30, the learned Magistrate recorded Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1, wherein it is stated that on 18.08.2017 at 2.00 a.m., the deceased called him over phone and he went to her house and found the accused and the deceased coming out of the house and he found the deceased with burn injuries, and on seeing him the accused left that place and when questioned, the deceased informed him that she was residing with accused since two years in live in relationship, and there was a dispute between them at 10.00 p.m., on that night and due to the said dispute between them she tried to commit suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and by setting fire, and she also told the accused that she would commit suicide and even then the accused did not turn up, and hence she poured kerosene on her person at 1.00 a.m., and then the accused came with car to shift her to her brother’s house, and thereupon he intervened and advised to give report to police and admit her in hospital, and thereupon both of them admitted her in Government Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem, and later they informed to her brother, and the Doctor referred her to
Government General Hospital, Eluru, and he handed over house keys 13
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 to the police and police examined him and recorded his statement, and later the deceased was shifted to Andhra Hospital, Vijayawada, and on the request of the deceased he took video of the said incident and handed over the same to police. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the said Ex.P30 Section 164 statement was not put to
P.W.1 during his evidence by the prosecution. Probably for the reason that the prosecution has not produced the said video clipping before the
Court, Ex.P30 was not put to P.W.1 by the prosecution. It is relevant to mention here that when the offence is of such a serious nature, the prosecution has to take all positive efforts to prove the guilt of the accused and collect all the material evidence available. But though
P.W.1 has stated in Ex.P30 Section 164 statement that he handed over the said video clipping to the police, for the reasons best known to it the prosecution has failed to produce the same before the Court and mark the same on its behalf. It is a grave lapse on the part of the prosecution in the present case.
16.P.Ws.2 to 13 who are said to be the independent witness did not support the case of prosecution and they turned hostile to its case. All of them denied to have stated before police as in Exs.P2 to P13 which are their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements. P.W.7 is the brother of the deceased and he deposed that he is not aware of the accused at all.
Relying on this particular evidence it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that in the present case the prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused. But the prosecution has produced Ex.P27 GVK hospital record which shows that Surreddy
Bujjamma is wife of Rama Krishna. At this juncture, learned counsel for the accused contended that merely mentioning the name as Rama
Krishna in Ex.P27 does not prove that the said Rama Krishna is the 14
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 accused himself. But as per the case of prosecution, Rama Krishna also sustained injuries to his face and fingers while rescuing the deceased at the time of the incident.
17.P.W.17 is the Doctor who examined the accused at the time of remanding him to judicial custody and he deposed that accused was brought to the hospital for examination and he examined the accused and issued a certificate stating that he found burn injuries over the face and both hands and fingers, and accordingly issued Ex.P18 certificate.
Ex.P18 is not denied or disputed by the accused. But a suggestion was given to P.W.17 that in Ex.P18 he did not mention the age of the injuries found by him. But the accused did not give any answer for the said injuries received by him. Therefore, it cannot be said that accused was not identified in the present case by the prosecution and the identity itself is in dispute.
18.Learned counsel for the accused contended that during the course of cross examination of P.W.20, Exs.D1 to D4 were marked and
Ex.D1 is a certified copy of FIR, Ex.D2 is the mediators report and
Exs.D3 and D4 are certified copies of remand report and charge sheet in Cr.No.239/2015 and P.W.20 has clearly admitted that as per Exs.D1 to D4, the name of the husband of the deceased Bujjamma was mentioned as Vasubabu. On a perusal of Exs.D1 to D4, the name of the husband of the deceased was mentioned as Vasubabu. Even according to the case of prosecution, she lived with Vasubabu and thereafter Vasubabu died, and then the deceased started living with the accused. Therefore, Exs.D1 to D4 which are not in dispute are not relevant to come to the conclusion that the identity of the accused is not proved by the prosecution.
15
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
19.Now the fact remains that the accused was also found with burn injuries at the time of his remand and his identity is proved though
P.W.1 though other witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution.
P.W.12 is said to be the person with whom the deceased used to talk and therefore the deceased raised a dispute with the accused. But
P.W.12 turned hostile to the case of prosecution in all material aspects.
20.Now that the prosecution has established the fact that the deceased committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and setting her ablaze and it is also established that the identity of the accused is proved. Now, the main question is whether the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide within the meaning of Section 107 IPC to attract Section 306 IPC. As per Section 107 IPC, a person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing. In the present case, the specific case of the prosecution is that accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide and it is only the case of prosecution that the accused asked the deceased to die and went away. Thus, according to the case of prosecution, the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
Instigation comes into play when the accused provoked, incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. This instigation includes willful misrepresentation or concealment of material facts. Now the question is whether the accused provoked, incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide to attract Section 107 IPC within the meaning of instigation and whether there is any intention on the part of the accused that the deceased should commit suicide, and with such intention he instigated the deceased.
16
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 21.The main basis for such instigation for the prosecution is
Exs.P20, P22 and P25. As already pointed out earlier, Ex.P22 is the dying declaration recorded by the learned Magistrate on 18.08.2017 between 5.00a.m., and 5.30a.m., The learned Magistrate is examined as P.W.18. As seen from Ex.P20 dying declaration which is the first statement given by the deceased, she stated that she poured kerosene after having fight with her husband and her husband has instigated her to die and that she is the second wife and the accused did not want to live with her. She also stated that her husband got her admitted in hospital and her husband is responsible for her situation. Except that she did not say anything in the said dying declaration under Ex.P20.
She simply deposed that accused instigated her to die. Except stating that the accused instigated her to die, the form of such instigation is not stated by the deceased under Ex.P20. Ex.P24 is the statement recorded by the SI of Police in the hospital at 5.30a.m., immediately after Ex.P20 dying declaration. As seen from Ex.P24, it is stated by the deceased that her husband Rama Krishna was not staying with her properly, and he is staying with his first wife only and he was also talking with one Venkata Lakshmi (P.W.12), and therefore there was a dispute between both of them and in that dispute the accused uttered that if the deceased intends to die, she can die (ఛస్తే� చావు, దరిద�� పోతుం�ది) and went away. She did not mention the time and date at which the said dispute took place between them. She further stated in Ex.P24 that in view of such scolding given by the accused, she felt discomfort and unhappy, and on 18.08.2017 at about 1.00a.m., in the mid night, she poured kerosene on her person, went to the house of the accused and told him that she was doing as the accused stated and committing suicide, came back to the house and lit fire to herself, and in the 17
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 meanwhile accused came there and tried to rescue her, poured water on her person and admitted her in hospital.
22.As seen from Ex.P22, which is the subsequent dying declaration recorded by P.W.19 at 5.30p.m., on 18.08.2017, it is stated by the deceased that she disputed with her husband and thereafter she went to her in-laws house, and in the said dispute her husband told her that he is not having peace of mind and asked her to die, and therefore she poured kerosene on her person by coming back to her house and accused followed her and again started abusing her, and therefore she lit fire by lighting a match stick to her person, and then the accused fled away from that place and thereupon she herself poured water on her person, and in the meanwhile the accused came there and asked the deceased that he would take her to her parents house, but she asked the accused to take her to hospital and thereupon the accused took her to police station in his car and from the police station they went to
Government Hospital where her brother also accompanied. It is also stated that one Venkata Lakshmi used to call her husband, and in that connection the dispute arose between both of them and that her husband married her secretly. This version given by the deceased under Ex.P21 is contrary to the statement in Ex.P24. In the first dying declaration under Ex.P22 there are no such details. In Ex.P24 statement recorded by the SI of Police it is stated that the accused scolded her to die and therefore she poured kerosene and lit fire to her and then the accused poured water on her person and attempted to rescue her and took her to hospital. But in Ex.P22 she gave a different version stating that she went to her in-laws house and the accused also accompanied her to the house and she poured kerosene on her person and again the accused abused her and therefore she lit fire to herself 18
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 by lighting a match stick, and then the accused fled away and thereupon she herself poured water on her person and thereafter the accused came there and initially took her to police station, from there she was taken to the Government Hospital. Thus there is no consistency in Exs.P22, P24 and P22.
23.It is no doubt true that merely because there are two dying declarations recorded by two different Magistrates at different places, the Court is not bound to reject them. The decisive test is whether the declarations are voluntary, truthful, reliable and substantially consistent on material particulars. If the discrepancies are minor, explainable and relate to insignificant details, both dying declarations can still be relied upon and conviction can be based on them. But if the discrepancies are material, irreconcilable and go to the root of prosecution case, such as manner of occurrence, then it becomes unsafe to base conviction solely on such dying declarations without corroboration.
24.In the present case, there is no corroboration for Exs.P20, P24 and P22, and all the three declarations are quite inconsistent on material aspects. Therefore, it is unsafe to rely upon those dying declarations without any corroboration. As already stated above P.W.1 to 13 turned hostile to the case of prosecution. Therefore, the dying declarations cannot solely be relied upon by this Court in view of the inconsistency in those dying declarations and when there is no corroboration. Learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on Kushal
Ushal Rao v. The State of Bombay 1 and Smt. Paniben v. State of
Gujarat2. In these decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the dying declaration can be the sole basis for conviction if the dying 1 AIR 1958 SC 22 2 AIR 1992 SC 1817 19
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 declaration is trustworthy and reliable. There is no dispute with regard to the said proposition. But, in this case, there are three dying declarations and there is no corroboration in material aspects in those statements and hence the said decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case.
25.Even if it is assumed for the arguments sake that the accused asked the deceased to die as he has no peace of mind, the said act does not amount to abetment within the meaning of Section 107 IPC without there being any mens rea on the part of the accused. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to the case law.
26.In Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt of NCT of Delhi)3, aggrieved by the framing of the charge under Section 306 read with
Section 34 IPC, appellant filed a revision petition before the Hon'ble
High Court which dismissed the revision and it was challenged in special leave petition. Appellant was a partner along with two more persons and the deceased engaged in real estate business. On account of the problems created by those three persons, deceased committed suicide leaving a suicide note which mentioned that there were some money transactions between them and those three persons abetted him to commit suicide. In this factual situation, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held:
“Thus, to constitute "instigation", a person who instigates another has to provoke, incite, urge or encourage doing of an act by the other by "goading" or "urging forward". The dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is a thing that stimulates someone into action: provoke to action or reaction" (See: Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to keep irritating or annoying somebody until he reacts" (See: Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary 7th Edition). Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try hard to persuade somebody to do something or to make a person to move more quickly and or in a 32009 (11) Scale 24 20
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 particular direction, especially by pushing or forcing such person. Therefore, a person who instigates another has to "goad" or "urge forward" the latter with intention to provoke, incite or encourage the doing of an act by the latter.” In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted commission of suicide by a person, it has to be established that: (I) the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words, deeds or willful omission or conduct which may even be a willful silence until the deceased reacted or pushed or forced the deceased by his deeds, words or willful omission or conduct to make the deceased move forward more quickly in a forward direction; and (ii) that the accused had the intention to provoke, urge or encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner noted above. Undoubtedly, presence of mens rea is the necessary concomitant of instigation.” 27.The abetment to suicide must be that the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or is forced to move forward in the direction of committing suicide and the accused should have intention to provoke the deceased to commit suicide and mens rea is necessary, as can be gathered from the above decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is also held in that case:
“The question as to what is the cause of a suicide has no easy answers because suicidal ideation and behaviours in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Different individuals in the same situation react and behave differently because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide. Each individual's sociability pattern depends on his inner subjective experience of mental pain, fear and loss of self-respect. Each of these factors are crucial and exacerbating contributor to an individual's vulnerability to end his own life, which may either be an attempt for self-protection or an escapism from intolerable self.” 28.But, in the present case, the prosecution has utterly failed to show that there is mens rea on the part of accused and he irritated the deceased and forced the deceased to move forward to commit suicide and provoked her to commit suicide.
21
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 29.In Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh4 appellant alleged that his farm servant committed theft of some gold ornaments and had demanded return of the advance amount given to him at the time of his employment. The farm servant could not bear this harassment and committed suicide. The Hon'ble Apex Court observed:
“Each person's sociability pattern is different from the others. Each person has his own idea of self- esteem and self-respect. Therefore, it is impossible to lay down any straight jacket formula in dealing with such cases. Each case has to be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court is clear that in order to convict a person under section 306, IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.”
30.The Hon'ble Apex Court thus held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing, and without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained, and in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, mens rea is essential. In the present case, there is no evidence to show that accused intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide.
31.In Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh5, the deceased was a practicing lawyer and after finishing his work for the day he left the court along with his two brother-lawyers on their bicycles. As they reached a spot near Barhpur Block, a woman by name Violet, shouted, “The 4AIR 2010 SC 327 5AIR 1975 SC 175 22
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
Vakil has come”. One Sia Ram and his companions who were hiding behind a tree came out and Sia Ram fired a shot from point blank range as a result of which deceased fell down and later succumbed to death.
The only part attributed to Violet is her shouting as aforesaid on seeing the deceased. The question was whether by giving that particular shout she intended to facilitate the murder of the deceased. Interpreting
Section 107 IPC the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the backdrop of the facts, held:
“Thus, in order to constitute abatement, the abettor must be shown to have intentionally aided the commission of the crime. Mere proof that the crime charged could not have been committed without the interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough compliance with the requirements of Section 107. A person may, for example, invite another casually or for a friendly purpose and that may facilitate the murder of the invitee. But unless the invitation was extended with intent to facilitate the commission of the murder, the person inviting cannot be said to have abetted the murder. It is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime. Intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abatement under the third paragraph of Section 107.” Holding so, the Hon'ble Apex Court acquitted Violet. The law therefore is that it is not enough that an act on the part of the alleged abettor happens to facilitate the commission of the crime; intentional aiding and therefore active complicity is the gist of the offence of abetment under the third paragraph of Section 107.
32.In Sohan Raj Sharma vs. State of Haryana6, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court clearly held that if it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstance individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied 6(2008) 11 SCC 215 23
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide.
33.In the present case it is not the case of the prosecution that the accused with mens rea uttered the deceased to die by committing suicide. There is no mens rea at all on the part of the accused, even as per prosecution. Thus, there is no abetment within the meaning of
Section 107 IPC especially for the reason that all the material witnesses turned hostile to the case of prosecution, and hence it cannot be said that the accused is liable for conviction under Section 306 IPC in the present case. Hence, the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the accused need not be gone into.
34.Coming to Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, the accused should have committed the offence under IPC punishable for ten years or more against a person knowing that such person is a member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and then he shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine. In the humble opinion of this Court, mere knowledge that the deceased belonged to
ST community is not sufficient without the intention of the accused to humiliate the deceased with caste discrimination. Moreover, this Court already found in the preceding paragraphs that the offence under
Section 306 IPC is not made out against the accused. When the said
Section under Section 306 IPC is not made out, the offence under
Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act is also not attracted and therefore the accused is not liable for punishment under Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act also.
35.The other evidence on record is not of much help to the prosecution because all the other witnesses are official witnesses and 24
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026 the documents produced by them are not material to the points on hand. Thus, the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of
SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, and therefore accused is not found guilt for any of the offences and he is entitled to acquittal. Both points are answered accordingly.
36.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under
Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015 and he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer transcribed by her, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court, this the 11 th day of May, 2026 .
(Digitally signed)
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT
CUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,
ELURU.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION:-
P.W.1K.Krishnam Raju (eye witness) P.W.2K. Malleswara Rao (eye witness and neighbour) P.W.3M.Rajeswari (eye witness and neighbour) P.W.4G.Venu (eye witness at the house of accused) P.W.5P.Govinda Raju (eye witness at the house of accused) P.W.6U.Damodara Durga Prasad (eye witness at the house of accused) P.W.7S.Shiva Kumar (brother of deceased) P.W.8Md. Baba (eye witness) P.W.9G.Rambabu (eye witness) P.W.10P.Jhansi ( eye witness) 25
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
P.W.11B.Dhana Bhagyam (eye witness) P.W.12N.Venkata Laxmi (eye witness) P.W.13K.Venkayamma (eye witness) P.W.14M.V.V.Maha Laxmi (VRO-IV, Tadepalligudem) P.W.15Chilaka Srinivasa Rao (VRO-V, Tadepalligudem) P.W.16P.Nagamani (Tahsildar, Tadepalligudem) P.W.17Dr.T.Rajesh Kumar (CAS, Area Hospital, Tadepalligudem) P.W.18Md Ishrath Fathima (II Add. Civil Judge (Jr. Dvn.) Tpg.) P.W.19G.Venkateswarlu, (III ACMM, Vijayawada) P.W.20M.Surya Bhagwan, (SI of Police, Tadepalligudem) P.W.21S.Vijaya Sekhar, (DSP, SC ST Cell-1, Eluru)
FOR DEFENCE :- - NONE -.
DOCUMENTS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION:-
Ex.P.118.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.1 on 11.08.2025); Ex.P.219.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.2 on 11.08.2025); Ex.P.319.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.3 on 12.08.2025); Ex.P.419.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.4 on 12.08.2025); Ex.P.519.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.5 on 13.08.2025); Ex.P.619.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.6 on 13.08.2025); Ex.P.719.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.7 on 18.08.2025); Ex.P.819.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.8 on 18.08.2025); Ex.P.919.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.9 on 18.08.2025); Ex.P.1019.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.10 on 18.08.2025); 26
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
Ex.P.1119.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.11; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.11 on 18.08.2025); Ex.P.1221.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.12; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.12 on 18.08.2025); Ex.P.1321.08.2017161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.13; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.13 on 18.08.2025); Ex.P.1418.08.2017Scene observation report; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.14 on 18.08.2025); Ex.P.1519.08.2017Inquest Report; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.15 on 19.08.2025); Ex.P.1619.08.2017Caste Certificate of deceased; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.16 on 19.08.2025); Ex.P.1719.08.2017Caste Certificate of accused; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.16 on 19.08.2025); Ex.P.1829.08.2017Medical Certificate of accused; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.17 on 29.08.2025); Ex.P.1918.08.2017Requisition to record dying declaration of deceased; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.18 on 29.08.2025); Ex.P.2018.08.2017Dying declaration; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.18 on 29.08.2025); Ex.P.2118.08.2017Requisition issued by Andhra Hospital, Bhimavaram branch; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.19 on 12.09.2025); Ex.P.2218.08.2017Dying declaration; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.19 on 12.09.2025); Ex.P.2318.08.2017Hospital intimation; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.20 on 03.11.2025); Ex.P.2418.08.2017Statement of the deceased; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.20 on 03.11.2025); Ex.P.2518.08.2017First Information Report; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.20 on 03.11.2025); Ex.P.2618.08.2017Rough sketch of the scene of offence; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.20 on 03.11.2025); 27
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
Ex.P.2721.06.2017Medical report of the deceased of GVK Hospital; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.20 on 14.11.2025); Ex.P.2819.08.2017Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police in C.No.5892/C2/AUTH/SC ST/2017; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.21 on 01.12.2025); Ex.P.2924.08.2017Alteration Memo; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.21 on 01.12.2025); Ex.P.3016.09.2017164 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.21 on 01.12.2025); Ex.P.3119.08.2017PME report; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.21 on 01.12.2025); Ex.P.3209.11.2017FSL report; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.21 on 01.12.2025);
FOR DEFENCE :-
Ex.D.104.11.2015Certified copy of FIR registered by SI of Police; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.20 on 14.11.2025); Ex.D.204.11.2015Mediators report attached to Ex.D1; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.20 on 14.11.2025); Ex.D.305.11.2015Certified copy of remand report in Cr.No.239/2015; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.20 on 14.11.2025); Ex.D.4--Charge sheet; (marked during the cross examination of P.W.20 on 14.11.2025);
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:-
M.O.1 : Half burnt match box; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.20 on 03.11.2025);
M.O.2 : Bottle; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.20 on 03.11.2025); 28
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
M.O.3 : Match box of three mangoes; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.20 on 03.11.2025);
M.O.4 : burnt saree of the deceased at the scene of offence; (marked during the chief examination of P.W.20 on 03.11.2025); (digitally signed)
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA)
ACT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.
Copies to:
1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District (through C.D).
2. The Director of Prosecution, Vijayawada.
3. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.
4. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.
5. The Special Public Prosecutor, West Godavari, Eluru.
29
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530
Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 Dt.11.05.2026
TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN
Spl. S.C.No.16/2019 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989 – CUM - VIII ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU UNDER
RULE 354 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.
1. Sessions Case No. : Spl. S.C.No.16/2019
2. Name of the Police Station and: Tadepalligudem Police Station, Crime No.Cr.No.219/2017
3. Name of the Accused VasabathulaRamakrishna,S/o.Venkata and particulars Ratnam, 40 years, Behind Subrahmanyeswara Swamy Temple, Badetivari street, 32nd ward, Kadakatla, Tadepalligudem Town
4.Date of Offence:18.08.2017 Complaint:18.08.2017 Apprehension:24.08.2017 Release on bail:08.09.2017 Commitment :-- Commencement of trial:11.08.2025 Close of Trial:01.12.2025 Sentence or Order:11.05.2026
5. Explanation for the delay. : No avoidable delay.
In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under
Section 306 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015 and he is acquitted of the said offences under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
M.Os.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
(Digitally signed)
SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASESSPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIIICASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONSCUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &
JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,
Dt.11.05.2026.ELURU.
30
Digitally Signed by
SRINIVASA M ISUKAPALLI
Date: 2026.05.11 15:52:54 +0530