IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL
OF SCs/STs Cases– CUM – VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDG AT: MAHABUBNAGAR
Wednesday, the 16th day of October, 2019
And
Friday, the 18th day of October, 2019
Present:- Sri K.Ajita Simha Rao
Special Sessions Judge – cum - VII Addl District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
Spl.S.C.No.162 of 2017 (This case was committed by this court in Crime No.98/17 of PS Bhoothpur for the offences U/Secs 448,354-A IPC and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act., 1989 (As Amended by the Act 1 of 2016)
Prosecution.Sri Puttapaga Raghupathi I/C Spl. Public prosecutor, Mahabubnagar
AccusedKhadar Ali Khan s/o Abdulla Khan, Age:37 years, Occupation:Private Job, H.No.1-2-21/B/ A, Boyapally Gate, Mahabubnagar town.
CounselfortheSri N.Subramanyam Advocate for Accused accused Offence under sectionU/Secs 448,354-A IPC and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act., 1989 (As Amended by the Act 1 of 2016) Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty
FindingAccused is found guilty for the offences U/Secs 448,354-A IPC and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the SCs/STs (POA) Act., 1989 (As Amended by the Act 1 of 2016), U/Sec 235(2) Cr.P.C. In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences U/Secs 448, 354-A of IPC and also Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Sentence or order Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act 1989 (As amended by the Act 1 of 2016) and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of Three (03) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand) for the offence U/Sec 448 IPC and also he is convicted and sentenced to undergoSimple Imprisonment for a period of One (01) year each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand) each for the offences U/Sec 354-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act 1989 (As amended by the Act 1 of 2016), U/Sec 235 (2) Cr.P.C. Total fine amount is Rs.3000/- (Three Thousand). In default of payment of fines, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (01) month for each offence. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The default sentences shall run consecutively. Period of detention if any, already undergone by the accused, shall be set off U/Sec 428 2
Cr.P.C. Accused represented that he had means to engage Advocate to prefer appeal against this Judgment.
This case is coming up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri Puttapaga Raghupathi I/C Spl. Public prosecutor, Mahabubnagar for the State and Sri N.Subramanyam Advocate for accused and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:- -: J U D G M E N T :-
Sub Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubnagar filed final report against sole accused for the offences punishable U/Secs 448,354-A of Indian Penal Code 1860 for short (IPC) and Sec.3(1)
(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act., 1989 (As Amended by the Act 1 of 2016) (for short “the Act”) in Crime
No.98/2017 of PS Bhoothpur.
2.Precisely, as per the contents of final report, case of prosecution is as under:-
a) On 27-05-2017, at 7.00 P.M, Smt.Chettikari
Swapna (LW.1/PW.1) moved law into motion stating that she worked as training instructor in Sindhu Pramotions Home Needs,
Mahabubnagar for a period of five months in the year 2016. She was given training. Khadar Ali Khan (accused) also worked in the said Home Needs. On 26-05-2017, at 06.00 P.M, while she was alone present in her house accused entered into house and caught hold of her hand and asked her to come to him. Meanwhile, her husband returned and seeing her husband, accused escaped from the house and prayed to take necessary action.
b) Basing on the report of the PW.1, N.Ashok Sub
Inspector of Police, Bhoothpur P.S (LW.10/PW.10) registered a case in Crime No.98/2017, U/Secs 448,354-A IPC and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act.,. Later, Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar appointed B.Bhasker, SDPO, Mahabubnagar (LW.12/PW.7) to investigate the case. PW.7 visited the scene of offence on 28-05- 2017 and secured the presence of mediators and conducted scene 3 of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch. He examined and recorded the statements of witnesses.
c)On 30-05-2017, he caused service of notice to the accused to appear before him. Accused appeared. He was released after obtaining undertaking. Thereafter, PW.7 obtained caste certificates of the victim and accused. After completion of investigation, he filed final report that accused criminally trespassed into the house of PW.1 with previous acquaintance and with malafide intention tried to outrage her modesty knowingly that the victim belongs to Schedule Caste sought sexual pleasure and used the words of sexual nature and thereby, he committed the offences punishable U/Secs 448,354-A IPC and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act.,
3.On appearance of accused, on hearing learned I/C
Spl.P.P and accused, framed charges against accused, U/Secs 448,354-A of IPC and also Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act., U/Sec 228
Cr.P.C read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4.To prove its case, prosecution examined as many as ten (10) witnesses out of twelve (12) witnesses cited marked Exs.P1 to
P11. The learned I/C Spl. Public Prosecutor gave up the evidence of Ginne Smt.Chettikari Nagamma (LW.3) and Smt.Chettikari
Narsamma (LW.4).
5.The status of the witnesses examined is as under:-
a)C.Swapna (PW.1) is the victim. She moved law into motion by lodging report under Ex.P1.
b)C.Mahendar (PW.2) is husband of PW.1 and eye witness to offence.
c) Md.Abas Ali (PW.3) is circumstantial witness. His statement recorded by the police is marked as Ex.P2.
4
d)Chandraiah (PW.4) and B.Chinna Chennaiah (PW.5) are panchas for scene of offence. Their signatures are marked as Exs.P3 and P4 respectively.
d)Smt.Ete Balanagamma (PW.6) is circumstantial witness. Her statement recorded by the police is marked as Ex.P5.
e)B.Bhaskar, SDPO, Mahabubnagar (PW.7) is the Investigating Officer. He marked Exs.P6 to Ex.P10.
i)M.V.Prabhakar Rao (PW.8) is the Tahsildar, who issued caste certificate of accused under Ex.P10.
j)Smt.N.Jyoth (PW.9) is the Tahsildar, who issued caste certificate of PW.1 under Ex.P11.
k)N.Ashok (PW.10) is Sub Inspector of Police, who issued First Information Report.
6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was examined U/Sec 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the prosecution evidence. He has not wished to examine any witnesses on his behalf.
7.Heard both sides. Written arguments filed on behalf of accused.
8.The learned I/C Spl.P.P would contend that PW.1 and PW.2 totally supported the case of prosecution and their testimonies remained unchallenged at material particulars. Therefore, the prosecution could prove the offences charged.
9.On the other hand, it is the contention of the counsel for the accused that there is one day delay in lodging the report to police. There are several glaring infirmities in the case of prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt and he prayed to record order of acquittal.
10. On rival contentions made across the bar and on going through the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, the following points would emerge for consideration:- 5
1)Whether the prosecution could prove that Smt.Chettikari Swapna (PW.1) belongs to schedule Caste?
2)Whether the prosecution could prove that the accused criminally trespassed into the house of PW.1 and PW.2 to commit the offence for the offence punishable U/Sec 448 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?
3)Whether the prosecution could prove that accused committed physical contact and explicit sexual overtures demanding PW.1 for sexual favour for the offence punishable U/Sec 354-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?
4)Whether the prosecution could prove that accused knowingly that PW.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and used words of sexual nature and asked her to come close him for the offence punishable U/Sec 3(1)(w)
(ii) of the Act., beyond reasonable doubt ?
Point No.1:-
11.It is the case of the prosecution that the PW.1 belongs to
Schedule Caste. It is the contention of the counsel for the accused in the written arguments that the Pw.8 issued caste verification certificate under Ex.P10 is that of accused and there is discrepancy in the requisition for obtaining Ex.P10. It is not at all seriously disputed before this court that the PW.1 does not belong to Schedule
Caste and accused does not belong to OC community. Ex.P10 and
Ex.P11 would clinchingly show that the accused belongs to “Muslim” of OC community and whereas PW.1 belongs to “Madiga” caste of
Schedule Caste community. Even assuming for a moment, the testimonies of PW.8 and PW.9 and the contents of Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 are not helpful to the case of prosecution for the latches point out in written arguments on the dates of requisition and dates of issuance, the very admission of the accused in his examination U/Sec 313
Cr.P.C would clinchingly prove that the accused knew that the PW.1 6 belonged to “Madiga” caste. For proper appreciation, the question no.2 in U/Sec 313 Cr.P.C examination and reply is re-produced hereunder:-
Q.No.2:-Smt.C.Swapna R/o Annasagar village as PW.1 has stated that you belonged to Muslim Caste of OC community and she belonged to “Madiga” caste of SC community. What do you say ?
Ans:-Nizame (True).
12.On plain reading of the above answer in the shape of explanation given by the accused would clinchingly prove that the accused knew that the PW.1 belonged to “Schedule Caste”.
13.Viewed from legal angle, the Sec.8 of the Act., postulates the court shall presume the accused was aware of caste of PW.1, if he got personal knowledge of the victim or his family. For proper appreciation Sec.8 of the Act., is re-produced hereunder:- 8.Presumption as to offences:- In a prosecution for an offence under this Chapter, if it is proved that:-
(a) ---------
(b) ---------
(c) The accused was having personal knowledge of the victim or his family, the Court shall presume that the accused was aware of the caste or tribal identity of the victim, unless the contrary is proved.
14.In view of the admission made in the examination U/Sec 313 Cr.P.C. and in the light of above provision, it is crystal clear that the accused got personal knowledge that the PW.1 belonged to
Schedule Caste. There is no need for the prosecution to prove that the PW.1 belonged to Schedule Caste even by documentary evidence under Exs.P10 and Ex.P11. In view of Sec.8 of the Act., it can be presumed that accused knew that PW.1 belonged to schedule
Caste. I hold this point in favour of prosecution and against the accused.
7
Point Nos.2 to 4:-
15.All the points are interwoven, as such, they are adjudicated together for brevity and convenience. It is simple case of prosecution that the accused criminally trespassed into the house of
PW.1 on 26-05-2017 to commit an offence and sought sexual favour from her in the absence of her husband and when her husband returned to house and tried to catch him but the accused escaped.
16.The PW.1 moved law into motion by filing written report on 27-05-2017, at 7.00 P.M for the offence said to have been committed at 06.00 P.M on 26-05-2017. The learned counsel for the accused would seriously contend that there was one day delay in lodging report to police and, as such, it is serious fatal to the case of prosecution. He contended that accused is entitled for acquittal.
Delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be used as ritualistic formula for doubting the case of prosecution and discarding the same on the sole ground of delay in lodging of report.
Where there is possibility of embellishment on account of delay, it would be fatal to the case of prosecution. In some cases, the prosecution would give the explanation for causing delay. In the case on hand, on plain reading of the contents of Ex.P1 and the oral testimony of PW.1, no material was elicited to show embellishments or improvements made for the purpose of dragging the accused. It is clear that the PW.1 is rustic woman and did some job along with the accused in Sindhu Promotions Home Needs, Mahabubnagar for a period of five months, which is also admitted by the accused. It is suggested that to avoid payment of hand loan a false case is foisted.
The said suggestion is baseless as no evidence is adduced or elicited. Therefore, the one day delay caused in reporting the matter by PW.1 would not affect the case of prosecution as it is not serious fatal to the case of prosecution.
17.Viewed from another angle also, the PW.1 is a woman and reporting of the matter soon-after the occurrence would lead to loss of her reputation in the society. Near and dear and more particularly, 8 woman folk would raise fingers against her character for accused entering into her house in the absence of her husband. It appears that the PW.1 took time for lodging the report for facing consequences from the society. In the absence of any material particulars elicited that there was some animosity in between her and accused that she wanted to settle the score with the accused by lodging false report, the delay not at all serious fatal to the case of prosecution.
18.Now coming back to evidence in respect of charges, it can be seen from the oral testimony of the PW.1 and the contents of
Ex.P1, it is very much clear that the PW.1 informed this court that she worked as Trainer in Sindhu Pramotions Home Needs for a period of five months and accused also worked as Team Leader in the said organization and she got acquaintance with him. PW.1 stated that accused came to her house and he asked her to come close to him. PW.1 further stated that on 26-5-2017, at about 6.30
P.M, accused came to her house when she was alone present and accused caught hold her hand and asked her to share bed with him and he behaved rashly. PW.1 further stated that her husband returned from attending coolie work and asked the accused why he came to their house and tried to catch but accused escaped.
19.The testimony of the PW.1 is remained unchallenged at material particulars. The cross examination is a lethal weapon in the hands of adversary. It is well settled legal proposition that the adversary is required to challenge every incriminating part of the statement of witness.
20.The purpose of the cross examination is succinctly stated by the Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in KARTAR
SINGH V/s STATE OF PUNJAB [1994 SCC (3) 569] at paragraph no.278 as under:-
278. “Section 137 of the Evidence Act defines what cross- examination means and Sections 139 and 145 speak of the mode of cross-examination with reference to the doc- uments as well as oral evidence. It is the jurisprudence of 9 law that cross-examination is an acid-test of the truthful- ness of the statement made by a witness on oath in examination- in-chief, the objects of which are :
(1) to destroy or weaken the evidentiary value of the wit- ness of his adversary; (2) to elicit facts in favour of the cross- examining lawyer's client from the mouth of the witness of the adversary party; (3) to show that the wit- ness is unworthy of belief by impeaching the credit of the said witness; and the questions to be addressed in the course of cross- examination are to test his veracity; to discover who he is and what is his position in life; and to shake his credit by injuring his character”.
21. The law in respect of the same is enunciated by the
Hon’ble Apex Court, in Laxmibai (Dead) thr. Lrs. & Anr. V/s
Bhagwantbuva (Dead) thr. Lrs. & Ors. [AIR 2013 (SC) 1204], held at para no.31 is similar circumstances:- “Furthermore, there cannot be any dispute with respect to the settled legal proposition, that if a party wishes to raise any doubt as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by drawing his attention to that part of it, which has been objected to by the other party, as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to impeach his credibility. Such a law has been advanced in view of the statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which enable the opposite party to cross-examine a witness as regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial examination in chief, and the scope of this provision stands enlarged by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be questioned, inter-alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the unchallenged part of his evidence is to be relied upon, for the reason that it is impossible for the witness to explain or elaborate upon any doubts as regards the same, in the absence of questions put to him with respect to the circumstances which indicate that the version of events provided by him, is not fit to be believed, and the witness himself, is unworthy of credit. Thus, if a party intends to impeach a witness, he must provide adequate opportunity to the witness in the witness box, to give a full and proper explanation. The same is essential to ensure fair 10 play and fairness in dealing with witnesses. (See: Khem Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1994
SC 226; State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh (dead) & Ors.,
AIR 1998 SC 1328; Rajinder Pershad (Dead) by L.Rs. v. Darshana Devi (Smt.), AIR 2001 SC 3207; and Sunil Kumar & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2005
SC 1096)”
22.From the plain reading of the above precedential guidance, this court is required to appreciate the oral testimony of
PW.1. The accused failed to challenge the incriminating sentences specifically stated by PW.1. The PW.1 stated in her evidence that when she was alone present in the house accused came and caught hold her hand and asked her to share bed with him. The said part of incriminating evidence remained totally unchallenged. It is also surprising to see that not even suggested to PW.1 that the accused never entered into her house and never asked PW.1 to share bed with him by catching her hand. In the absence of challenging the incriminating part of evidence, this court is required to take that the accused accepted the version of PW.1, as true, as stated by her in her chief examination. Therefore, it is clear that non-serious cross examination by the accused helped the prosecution to prove its case easily.
23.The PW.2 is none other than husband of PW.1. PW.2 stated that on the date of incident, he went to attend coolie work and returned home at 06.00 P.M and he witnessed accused caught hold hand of his wife and he heard that accused asked her to come close to him and he tried to catch but the accused pushed and escaped. It is also surprising to see that the accused failed to challenge the incriminating statement of PW.2. In the absence of cross examination disputing the correctness of the statement made by the PW.2, this court is required to accept that the accused totally accepted the version of PW.2. PW.2 entered into picture on his return from attending coolie work witnessed the actual occurrence.
Therefore, the testimony of the PW.2 is totally corroborating with the incriminating testimony of PW.1 at material particulars. It is needless to say that the testimony of the PW.1 itself is wholly reliable one for 11 the purpose of this case as her testimony was not at all discredited or discounted in the cross examination. Adding to it, the testimony of the PW.2 totally corroborated to the testimony of the PW.1 to prove that the accused caught hold the hands of PW.1 and asked her to come close to him taking the case of prosecution to dizzy heights.
24.The learned counsel for the accused would contend that the PW.3 and Pw.6 failed to support case of prosecution. As such, the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 are unworthy of credit. The PW.3 and
PW.6 are circumstantial witnesses only to prove that they saw the accused at the house of PW.1. There is nothing elicited in the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 that the accused never trespassed into their house. Though PW.3 and PW.6 failed to support case of prosecution, the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.2 remained unshaken at material particulars as held in the paragraphs supra.
25.Now coming back to the proof of charges framed in the light of oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.7 and documentary evidence and on proven facts, the prosecution could prove that the accused criminally trespassed into the house of PW.1 and PW.2 to commit offence. No suggestion given to the PW.1 or PW.2 that the accused never entered into the house. Therefore, the prosecution could prove that the accused criminally trespassed into the house of
PW.1 to commit the offence, thereby, the prosecution could prove the charge for the offence U/Sec 448 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
26.Now coming to the Charge No.2, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused committed physical contact and explicited sexual overtures demanding PW.1 for sexual favour. For proper appreciation, Sec.354-A IPC is re-produced hereunder:-
Section 354-A:- Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.
1) A man committing any of the following acts:-
(i)Physical contact and advances involving un - welcome and explicit sexual overtures; or
(ii)A demand or request for sexual favours; or 12
(iii)Showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv)Making sexually coloured remarks; Shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.
2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause
(i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause
(iv) of sub-section 91) shall be punished with imprison- ment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
27.On plain reading of the above Penal Provision, it is clear that a person committing physical contact advancing for explicit sexual overtures or demand or request for sexual favour would amount to sexual harassment. In the case on hand, PW.1 specifically stated that the accused caught hold her hand and asked her to share bed with him. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the accused got physical contact demanding sexual favor. Therefore, the accused committed the offence U/Sec 354-A IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
28.Now coming to the last charge U/Sec 3(1)(w)(ii) of the
Act., it is the case of the prosecution that the accused used words and acted or gestures of sexual nature belonging to the Woman of
Schedule Caste. For proper appreciation, Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act., is re-produced here under:-
Sec.3(1)(w) (ii) of the Act., :- “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled tribe shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine”.
29.On plain reading of the above Penal provision of law under the Special Act., it is clear that the prosecution could prove that the
PW.1 belongs to Schedule Caste and also admitted by the accused 13 while his examination U/Sec 313 Cr.P.C. The PW.1 stated that the accused asked her to share bed with him. The using of said words “to share bed with him” would amount to using of words of sexual nature. Further-more, the PW.2 also stated that the accused asked
PW.1 to come close to him and that he also caught hold her hand.
Using words as stated by PW.1 and also act to get sexual favour with a woman belonging to Schedule Caste could prove that accused committed offence U/Sec 3(i)(w)(ii) of the Act.,. It appears that the ingredients under Sec.354-A IPC and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act., are overlapping but the Penal provisions are very much clear. The mere using words or acts or gestures of sexual nature against woman belonging to schedule caste is a Penal offence U/Sec 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act., For the proof of the Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act., there is no need for the prosecution to prove the physical contact, which is necessary in proving the offence U/Sec 354-A IPC or Sec.3(1)(w)(i) of the Act., Therefore, it is clear that the using of words to share bed with him stated by accused would fall under the Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the
Act., Therefore, the prosecution by oral evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 could prove that the accused committed the offence U/Sec 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act.,
30.Several trivial contentions are raised in the written arguments. Those contentions, if considered together, would not shake the case of the case of prosecution.
31.For foregoing discussion, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution could prove the offences U/Secs 448, 354-
A IPC and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act., . I hold these points in favour of prosecution and against accused.
In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences under Secs 448, 354-A IPC and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Act., and thereby, he is convicted U/Sec 235 (2) Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by
me in open court on this the 16th day of October , 2019.
14
Spl. Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum–VII Adl. District & Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar 15
Dt:16-10-2019
In view of Sec.15A(5) of SCs/STs (POA) Act., 1989, (as
Amended by the Act 1 of 2016), this court is required to hear the victim in this case while sentencing accused. For proper appreciation, Sec.15A(5) Rights of Victims and witnesseses is reproduced hereunder:- “A victim or his dependent shall be entitled to be heard at any proceeding under this Act in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of an accused or any connected proceedings or arguments and file written submission on conviction acquittal or sentencing.
Since the above provision mandates to hear the victim on the sentence to be imposed, Issue notice to the victim by name
Smt.C.Swapna w/o Mahendar R/o Annasagar village (PW.1) through police to appear before this court for hearing on sentence.
Meanwhile, the accused is remanded to judicial custody. Call on 18- 10-2019.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
open court on this the 16th day of October , 2019.
Spl. Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum–VII Adl. District & Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar
Plea of the accused and sentence part of the Judgment
Dt:18-10-2019
1]The accused is produced from District Jail, Mahabubnagar.
The Police, Bhoothpur served notice to the victim. She is present in the open court.
2]The accused is questioned on the quantum of sentence to be imposed. Accused request this court to impose minimum sentence for the offences U/Secs 448, 354-A of IPC and U/Sec.3(1)(w)
(ii) of the Act., He represents that he has wife, two children. His 16 mother is mentally retarded woman. He is required to see attend their basic needs.
3]The victim is also heard on the quantum of sentence to be imposed against accused. She requests the court to impose maximum sentence for the offences. She says that the accused harassed her. Her parents are not at all visiting her due to this offence. Several disputes sprouted in between her and her husband due to the acts of the accused.
4]Heard the learned I/C Spl.P.P and also counsel for the accused.
5]Considering the plea put forth by accused and on hearing the victim to meet the ends of justice, and both I/C Spl.P.P and accused, this court is of the considered view that the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three (03) months for the offence U/Sec 448 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence U/Sec 448 IPC. He is further sentenced to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of One (01) years each for the offences U/Sec 354-A IPC and also Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act 1989 (As amended by the Act 1 of 2016) and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each.
6]In the result, accused is found guilty for the offences
U/Secs 448, 354-A of IPC and also Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act 1989 (As amended by the Act 1 of 2016) and he is convicted and sentenced to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for a period of Three (03) months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand) for the offence U/Sec 448 IPC and also he is convicted and sentenced to undergoSimple
Imprisonment for a period of One (01) year each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (One Thousand) each for the offences
U/Sec 354-A Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act 1989 (As amended by the Act 1 of 2016), U/Sec 235 (2) Cr.P.C. Total fine amount is Rs.3000/- (Three Thousand). In default of payment of fines, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one 17 (01) month for each offence. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The default sentences shall run consecutively.
Period of detention if any, already undergone by the accused, shall be set off U/Sec 428 Cr.P.C. Accused represented that he had means to engage Advocate to prefer appeal against this Judgment.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in open court on this the 18th day of October, 2019.
Spl. Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum–VII Adl. District & Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar
Appendix of Evidence: [Witnesses examined for] For Prosecution:-
PW.1 Smt.C.Swapna PW.2 Sri C.Mahendar PW.3 Sri Md.Abas Ali PW.4 Sri Chandraiah PW.5 Sri B.Chinna Chennaiah PW.6 Sri Bala Nagamma PW.7 Sri B.Bhaskar PW.8 Sri M.V.Prabhakar Rao PW.9 Sri Smt.N.Jyothi PW.10 Sri N.Ashok
For Defence:-None-
Exhibits marked for
For Prosecution:- Ex.P1is report, Dt:27-05-2017 Ex.P2is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3, Dt:26-5-2017 Ex.P3is signature of PW.4 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P4is signature of PW.5 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5is 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P6is Appointment Order Ex.P7is First Information Report, Dt:27-05-2012 Ex.P8is Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P9is Caste certificate of PW.1 Ex.P1is caste certificate of accused 0 Ex.P1is caste certificate of PW.1. 1 For Defence:- -Nil- Material Objects marked:- Nil 18
Spl. Sessions Judge for SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum–VII Adl. District & Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar