K.B.Narasimhulu

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

ACT-CUM-I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Monday, this the 31st day of October, 2016

PRESENT: K.B.Narasimhulu,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.8 OF 2016

(Cr.No.332 of 2013 of PS Dornakal)

1. Name and description of the :The State of Telangana rep. by the complainantInspector of Police, PS Dornakal.

2. Name and description of the : Pagilla Nagaraju, s/o Yellaiah, accusedAged: 23 years, Chakali, R/o Thodellagudem of Dornakal Mandal.

3. Offence charged:Sections 420, 366 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and Section 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

4. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

5. Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6. Conviction, sentence or acquittal:The accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 366 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and Section 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. No case property has been forwarded.

7. Name of the Counsel for the :Addl. P.P. prosecution

8. Name of the Counsel for accused:Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, Advocate 2 SSC No.8 of 2016

This case coming on 17.10.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State/complainant and of

Sri Ch.Rama Krishna, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Inspector of Police, PS Dornakal, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 366 and 376(2)(i) of

Indian Penal Code; Section 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act and Section 9 of Prohibition of Child Marriage Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the victim is a minor aged only 14 years. That, the younger brother of the accused is her classmate and the accused developed intimacy with the victim and went on eluding her with deceitful words of love and marriage. The victim being a minor unaware of false promise made by the accused, fell in love. That, at about ten months prior to the date of complaint, the accused went to the house of the victim in the absence of her parents and keeping under the impression of marriage had forcible sexual intercourse. Thereafter, he threatened the victim not to inform the sexual intercourse to the family members. That, on 7.12.2013 while the victim was proceeding to the house during afternoon from the school, the accused went to her and asked her to follow him to Hyderabad and promised her that he would marry her at Hyderabad and thereby he eluded the victim and he took her away to Khammam, from there to Hyderabad and took a house on rent, where, he confined the victim in the said house and used to have sexual intercourse everyday, due to which, she conceived. When the victim expressed her desire to see her mother because of her pregnancy, the accused called her mother and when the mother of the victim and other relatives came to the house, the 3 SSC No.8 of 2016 accused fled away and that she was brought to the house of her parents.

Thereby, the accused has committed the above said offence.

3. The case was taken on file under Sections 420, 366 and 376(2)(i) of the

Indian Penal Code and Section 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant papers, as required under Section 207 of Cr.PC were furnished to him. Upon hearing and on perusal of record, charges for the offences under Sections 420, 366 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and Section 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of The Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused were framed, read over and explained to him and he denied the said charges and claims to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution in all examined PWs 1 to 15 and Exs-P1 to P15 are marked. PW1 is the victim. PW2 is the mother of the victim and de-facto complainant. PW3 is the junior paternal uncle of the victim.

PWs 4 and 6 are the other circumstantial witnesses. PW5 is the panch witness for the scene of offence at the house of the victim. PW7 is the owner of the house where the accused kept the victim. PW8 is the Head Master, who issued date of birth particulars. PW9 is another Head Mistress, who furnished date of birth certificate. PW10 is the WPC, who recorded the statement of the victim.

PW11 is the doctor, who examined the victim. PW12 is the doctor, who examined the accused. PWs 13 to 15 are the Investigation Officers.

5. There upon, the accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC with regard to incriminating evidence found against him, he denied the said evidence and reported that he has no defence evidence.

6. Heard both sides.

4 SSC No.8 of 2016

7. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution

is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 420, 366 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code

(Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and Section 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of The Protection

of Children from Sexual Offences Act, as alleged beyond any reasonable

doubt?

8. POINT: The evidence of PW1, the victim is that younger brother of the accused namely Mahesh is her classmate. In the month of November, 2013, he introduced the accused to her as his brother and thereafter, he used to meet her everyday near the school or on the way to the school. That, the accused eluded her that he would show important places in Hyderabad. That, the accused visited her house in the absence of her parents and he eluded her with false words of love and marriage and that he had forcible sexual intercourse and continued for two to three times on the promise of marriage. Thereafter, when she informed the accused to inform her mother, the accused requested not to inform her mother and that he promised to marry her by taking her to Hyderabad to show all the important places. That, on 7.12.2013 when she came out of the school during interval, the accused came to her and asked to follow to

Hyderabad on the promise of marrying and took her to Mulkalapally, from

Mulkalapally to Khammam, from Khammam to Hyderabad. On reaching

Hyderabad at about 5.00 or 6.00 PM, he took her to Secunderabad and took a portion of house of one Radha Krishna and kept her there, where he used to enjoy her sexually keeping under impression of marriage. That, after one month, she conceived and when she reached 7th month pregnancy, he shifted to another house at L.B. Ngar and when she requested the accused to talk to her mother, the accused kept under threat, but he promised to secure her mother.

5 SSC No.8 of 2016

Accordingly, on 20.8.2014 her mother and relatives came to the house at

L.B.Nagar, the accused fled away on seeing them. That her mother and relatives brought her back to the house and produced before the police. Six months after delivery of female child, the accused came to her house along with elders and requested her to join marital life, but she refused. When she along with accused and newly born child was sent to DNA profile.

9. PW2 is the mother of the victim. She deposed that about two years back, her daughter left the house to go to the school and when she returned home at 6.00 PM found missing. She searched for her at all known places. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint. That, nine months after her missing, PW1 called her and informed that the accused had taken away and kept at Hyderabad and she was carrying 7th month pregnancy. As such, she along with her brothers-in-law went to the house at L.B. Nagar and found the victim conceived and when she enquired, PW1 informed that the accused eluded her with false promise and enjoyed her sexually, due to which, she became pregnant.

10. PW3 is the junior paternal uncle of the victim and his evidence is that on 7.12.2013, PW1 did not return home from the school. That, they searched for her. That, on 20.8.2014, he came to know through PW2 that PW1 is staying in

L.B. Nagar along with the accused. That, they went to the house, brought her back to the house. When they enquired, PW1 informed that the accused took her away by putting under misconception of love and marriage.

11. PWs 4 and 6 being circumstantial witnesses categorically denied of any knowledge of facts of the case.

12. PW5 is the panch witness for crime details form. But, he also denied of acting as panch witness for crime details form at any time.

6 SSC No.8 of 2016

13. PW7 is the owner of the house where the victim was kept at

Mansoorabad. His evidence is that the accused came along with a woman introduced herself as wife and that she was carrying 8th month pregnancy.

Later, the mother of the victim came to the house and took her away.

Unfortunately, in this case, there was no identification of the accused.

14. PW8 is the Head Master, MPPS, Kannegundla. His evidence is that he furnished date of birth certificate to the police. That, as per the school records, the date of birth of PW1 was recorded as 17.9.2000.

15. PW9 is another Head Mistress, MPPS, Kannegundla, who furnished copy of extract of admission and withdrawal register.

16. PW10 is the WPC, who recorded the statement of the victim.

17. PW11 is the doctor, who examined the victim. As per her evidence by the time of examination, she was pregnant carrying 32 weeks.

18. PW12 is the doctor, who examined the accused for his potency.

19. PW13 is the first Investigation Officer. His evidence is that on 10.12.2013 at 3.00 PM, he registered a case on the complaint presented by PW2. That, he visited the house of PW2 and prepared crime details form. Thereafter, PW14 carried investigation.

20. PW14 is the Investigation Officer. His evidence is that on 21.8.2014 PW2 produced PW1 before him. That, he got recorded the statements of PWs 1 and

2. That, he sent PW1 to Government Hospital for examination. Thereafter, he altered provision of l aw and later, he examined and recorded the statements of 7 SSC No.8 of 2016 other witnesses and got recorded the statement of PW1 under Section 164

Cr.PC.

21. PW15 is another Investigation Officer. His evidence is that on 24.4.2014, he proceeded to the house situated at L.B.Nagar, where, he got prepared crime details form, examined and recorded the statement of PW7. After birth of female child by PW1, he filed requisition before the Court on 6.12.2014 and sent the victim, new born child and accused for DNA test. Thereafter, he also collected copy of admission and withdrawal register from the school and subjected PW1, the accused and new child to DNA profile, found that the accused is the biological father of the child. Later, he filed charge sheet.

22. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submits that the evidence of PW1, the victim is quite consistent and it is also proved by her date of birth certificate that as on the date of her abduction, she was just aged 14 years, who is not aware with regard to sexual relations or love relations. But, the accused has been harassing the victim by following everyday in the name of love and also eluded her with deceitful words of showing important places of Hyderabad. The victim being a child was unaware of intention of the accused had followed the accused. That, on 7.12.2013 when the victim came out of the school during interval period, the accused went to her and again eluded with deceitful words of taking her to Hyderabad showing important places and marrying her and took her from the village to Mulkalapally, from there to Khammam and from Khammam, he took her to Secunderabad, kept her in a room. Even prior to that the accused used to visit the house of the victim in the absence of her family members and keeping under the impression of marriage, participated in sexual intercourse repeatedly. After taking her to Secunderabad, he kept her in a room, continued his sexual intercourse, due to which, she conceived. Thereafter, he shifted his 8 SSC No.8 of 2016 residence to L.B.Nagar and when the victim was carrying 7th month pregnancy the doctors advised the victim and the accused to look after the victim properly, the victim expressed her intention to see her mother. It is quite natural for the girls when they conceived to have the presence of their family members, particularly, the mother, for which, she expressed her intention to see her mother.

Then, the accused called her mother, on reaching the house, the accused fled away leaving the victim. As such, the victim was brought to the accused and produced before the police. In this regard, the intention of PW1, the victim is consistent as to how the accused was following her and as to how he perpetrated sexual intercourse and as to how he took her away to Hyderabad and made her pregnant. The fact that the victim was went along with the accused is categorically deposed by PWs 2 and 3. No doubt, PW2 is the mother, while,

PW3 is the junior paternal uncle of the victim. But, their evidence is quite consistent that PW1 contacted PW2 about her location, they went to the house and found the victim and brought to her house. Therefore, it is categorically proved that the accused had kept the victim with him knowingly well that she is a minor, aged only 14 years. The fact of living together with the victim by the accused is also corroborated by the evidence of PW7, who is owner of portion of the house, which was let out to the accused.

He further submits that after delivery of the child both the victim, child and the accused were subjected to DNA profile test which discloses that the accused was biological father of female child of the victim.

Thus, the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly the victim is quite consistent and it is also a fact that the victim was a minor just aged 14 years, no extension can be extended to the accused and the accused is liable for punishment.

9 SSC No.8 of 2016

23. The learned Counsel for the accused denied the case of the prosecution as well the evidence of PWs 1 to 3. His submission is that nowhere PW1, the victim deposed that the accused had forcibly abducted her from the custody of her parents. As per her evidence on 7.12.2013, when the victim came out of the school, the accused alleged to have took her from the village to Hyderabad on the promise of marrying her and that she followed. Her evidence further discloses that from the village Thodellagudem, the accused said to have taken by an auto up to Mulkalapally, from Mulkalapally to Khammam by an auto and from

Khammam to Hyderabad by bus. But at any point of time either at the village, or at Mulkalapally or at Khammam bus station, the victim raised any alarm that the accused was forcibly taking her away. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, it can easily be said that the victim went along with the accused on her own accord voluntarily. Hence, no offence under Section 366 IPC is proved.

Similarly, the accused said to have cheated the victim in the name of marriage. But, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove dishonest intention from the inception of commission of offence. According to the evidence of PW1, on 7.12.2013, the accused used to visit their house and used to participate in sex and that she did not reveal the incident to any of the family members including her mother. Further, the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC clearly shows that the accused had married the victim and that he never cheated the victim at any point of time and even after delivery also the accused went to her to see the victim and the child. But, nowhere the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 discloses the dishonest intention on the part of the accused. Therefore, in order to prove the offence under Section 420 IPC, the prosecution must establish the dishonest intention from the inception of the commission of offence. Thus, the offence under Section 420 IPC is also not proved.

10 SSC No.8 of 2016

As far as the other offences is concerned, the accused said to have participated in sex. But, it was only with the consent of the victim. When the accused alleged to have participated in sex, it clearly shows that the victim is a consenting party for sex. Further, the victim herself followed the accused and stayed with him for about eight months. Her evidence does not disclose anywhere that the accused had forcibly committed such sexual assault on her.

Therefore, the sexual intercourse was only with the consent of the victim.

Therefore, it is not persecution, but it is promiscuity.

As far as age of the victim is concerned, he submits that the prosecution has relied on school certificate issued by MPPS, Kannegundla village. But, the prosecution has miserably failed to subject the victim to age determination test to prove whether the victim was below 16 years or not. Therefore, he submits that the school certificate issued by MPPS, Kannegundla cannot be basis for proving the age of the victim. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim and in such circumstances, the age of the victim cannot be taken as a minor.

Thus, as seen from the material and the evidence of PW1, she herself had followed the accused on her own accord voluntarily and she never raised objection to participate in sex at any point of time prior to the date of complaint.

Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

24. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses, PW1 is the victim, PW2 is the mother of the victim, while, PW3 is the junior paternal uncle of the victim. As per the evidence of the victim, the accused used to follow her and eluded her with deceitful words of love and marriage and 11 SSC No.8 of 2016 thereby, he developed intimacy with her. That, he also used to visit her house in the absence of her family members and had participated in sex on the promise of marriage and thereafter, on 7.12.2013 the accused went to her when she came out of the school and eluded her to go to Hyderabad to show important places and also to marry at Hyderabad, took her away from the village to Mulkalapally, from Mulkalapally to Khammam, from Khammam to Hyderabad by bus. But at any point of place either at the village while taking away from the village up to

Secunderabad, nowhere she raised any alarm that she was forcibly being abducted by the accused. Further, it also clearly shows that she stayed with the accused for about eight months, during which period, she also conceived and she did not reveal the abduction by the accused to any of the neighbours at

Secunderabad or at L.B. Nagar in Hyderabad. Therefore, all these acts clearly goes to show that the victim has followed the accused voluntarily on her own accord and therefore, I am of the opinion that the offence under Section 366 IPC is not made out.

25. Similarly, the evidence of PW1 further discloses that after taking away to

Hyderabad, he took her to a Darga where he said to have married her.

Therefore, the contention of the prosecution that the accused deceitfully took her away in the name of marriage is not tenable, as he has married as per the evidence of PW1, the victim. Therefore, no dishonest intention has been proved by the prosecution against the accused and the offence under Section 420 IPC is also not made out.

26. As far as the offence under Section 376(2)(i)(n) IPC is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that the victim is a minor just aged 14 or 15 years as on the date of abduction from the village. Therefore, the contention of the 12 SSC No.8 of 2016 prosecution that even if the victim said to have given consent, it cannot be treated as consent.

27. As seen from the evidence, it clearly goes to show that the victim has followed voluntarily and participated in sex with consent. No doubt, the consent expressed by the victim knowingly well that she participated in sex, who is below 16 years is defined as rape.

28. As seen from the evidence, it clearly reveals that the victim has followed voluntarily and lived with the accused for about nine months prior to production of the victim before the police by her mother. Further, the evidence clearly shows that she never raised any alarm that the accused has brought her forcibly from the village either when she was leaving the village or when she was taken to

Khammam, from Khammam to Secunderabad. It is also further clearly shows that at the first instance, they stayed in a room in Secunderabad and subsequently after conceiving she was brought to another room in L.B. Nagar.

That either at Secunderabad or L.B. Nagar she chooses to inform any of the neighbours that she was brought forcibly from her parents house. Therefore, the stay with the accused by the victim can be inferred was voluntarily.

29. The contention of the prosecution is that the victim was aged only 15 years and even she said to have given any consent, it is not a consent and it is a offence under Section 376(2) of IPC. But, the stay with the accused by the victim was for a quite long period of nine months and they were living as wife and husband with the knowledge of the victim both at Secunderabad and L.B. Nagar.

No force has been proved by the prosecution on the accused that she was forcibly brought from her parents house. Therefore, it shows that the contention 13 SSC No.8 of 2016 of the prosecution is that the victim is a minor. Therefore, her consent cannot be taken in to consideration.

30. In order to prove that the victim is a minor aged below 16 years to constitute the offence, the prosecution, the investigation agency failed to subject the victim to age determination. As seen from the evidence of PWs 8 and 9, the date of birth particulars in the school records were entered as per the information furnished by the parents at the time of admission. Therefore, it is obvious that no correct date of birth has been proved. In the said circumstances, it can easily be said that the Investigation Officer has miserably failed to prove the age of the victim and that she was a minor particularly aged below 16 years so as to infer an inference that the victim is a minor. The evidence clearly shows that the victim was aware of participating in sexual intercourse and that it was voluntarily.

31. Thus, from the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the victim has followed the accused voluntarily on her own accord and participated in sex knowingly well that she is participating in the sex, which would lead to conception. Though, PW7 said that the accused came to his house along with a woman, he did not identify the victim whether the victim was woman stayed with the accused or not.

32. Thus, for all the above said circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences against the accused with which he is charged.

33. IN THE RESULT, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 366 and 376(2)(i)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and Section 5(j)(ii) r/w 6 of The Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act and accordingly, he is acquitted for the same 14 SSC No.8 of 2016 under Section 235(1) of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. No case property has been forwarded.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 31st day of October, 2016).

Sd/- K.B.Narasimhulu,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : Prosecutrix/victim None PW2 : Saida Bee/mother of the victim and de-facto complainant PW3 : Sk.Ghouse/junior paternal uncle of the victim PW4 : P.Ananda Rao/circumstantial witness PW5 : S.Ramulu/panch witness for CDF PW6 : Alli Suresh/circumstantial witness PW7 : J.Radha Krishna/owner of the house PW8 : V.Ramulu/Head Master PW9 : J.K.Seetha Maha Lakshmi/Head Mistress PW10 : E.Anitha/WPC PW11 : Dr.Malathi/doctor, who examined the victim PW12 : Dr.K.Chandra Shekar/doctor, who examined the accused PW13 : Syed Khadar Baba/first Investigation Officer PW14 : J.Krishna Reddy/Investigation Officer PW15 : Y.Harish Kumar/Investigation Officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the complaint presented by PW2. Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4. Ex-P3 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW6. Ex-P4 is the date of birth certificate. Ex-P5 is the copy of admission register. Ex-P6 is the date of birth certificate. Ex-P7 is the copy of admission register. Ex-P8 is the opinion. Ex-P9 is the potency certificate. Ex-P10 is the FIR. Ex-P11 is the crime details form. Ex-P12 is the section alteration. Ex-P13 is the crime details from. Ex-P14 is the DNA profile test. Ex-P15 is the FSL report.

15 SSC No.8 of 2016

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/- K.B.Narasimhulu,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES –

CUM – VII –ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT WARANGAL.

Monday, the 22 nd day of July, 2013.

Present:- Sri K.B. Narasimhulu, Spl. Judge for SC/ST (POA) Cases, Cum- VII-ADJ, Warangal.

S.S.C.No. 52 of 2010

(P.R.C.No. 27/2010 Committed by the Learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon in Cr.No.54/2010 of P.S. Cherial.)

1. Name and description ofThe State of A.P. through the Complainantthe Sub-Divisional Police officer, Jangaon.

2. Name and description Avusharla Krishna, Of the accused S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 34 yrs, Munnurkapu, HTV Driver, R/o. Nagulaveedi, Cherial.

3. Offence chargesu/S. 324 IPC and Section 3(1)

(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act., 1989.

4. Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the CourtFound guilty.

6. Conviction/Sentence orIn the result, Accused is acquittalfound guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and he is convictedunderSection 235(2) Cr.P.C. Accused is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for a period of one month. The accused is also sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6(six) months for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month. Both the sentencesshallrun concurrently. The period of judicial remand shall be setoff under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

S.S.C. 52 of 20102

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri. Md. Sardhar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by:Sri.G. Madhusudan Reddy, Advocate

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri.G. Madhusudan Reddy, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Divisional Police officer, Jangaon filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324

IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

2. The averments of the prosecution case in brief are that the complainant as well as the victim belongs to Mala Caste, a

Scheduled Caste while the accused belongs to Non-Scheduled Caste.

That on 10.03.2010 at about 1.00 p.m. the accused herein beat one

Amudala Malla Reddy CPM party Division Secretary. In that regard the said Amudala Malla Reddy went to the P.S along with complainant and lodged a complaint against the accused. Since, then the accused bore grudge against the complainant. That on 28.03.2010 at about 6.00 p.m. while the complainant was attending his work at his cattle shed in the outskirts of Cherial village accused went to him abused in filthy language touching the name of his Mala caste and beat him with stick causing injuries thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3.The case was taken on file by learned Additional J.F.C.M.,

Jangoan against the accused for the offences punishable under Section

S.S.C. 52 of 20103 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x)of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and registered the same as a case in PRC.No.27/2010.

4.On appearance the learned Magistrate has furnished the copies of the case documents as contemplated under Section 207

Cr.P.C. and questioned with regard to his means for engaging the counsel for which he stated that he had means to engage the counsel for his defence. After following the due process and procedure laid down, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to this court, which is specially constituted for trial of the offences under Section

SC/ST (POA) Act, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.

5.On appearance before the court, this court has taken on file and cognizance of the offence under Section 324 IPC and under

Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

6.Basing on the material placed before this court, and on the basis of the contents of the charge sheet, and upon hearing the learned counsel for the accused and Spl. Public Prosecutor, this court has framed charges for the offences under Section 324 IPC and under

Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act,. The charge contents were read over in vernacular language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial schedule was fixed and trial was faced.

7.In order to prove its case the prosecution in all examined

Pws.1 to 6 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of the defence.The accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., to explain incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and accused stated that the

S.S.C. 52 of 20104 evidence of prosecution witnesses is false. The accused did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses is reliable, whether the

prosecution is able to establish the guilt

against the accused beyond reasonable

doubt”?

10.To prove the case, the prosecution in all examined Pws.1 to

6. Pw.1 is the complainant as well as the victim and injured. Pws.2, 3 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Pw.4 is the 1st investigation officer who registered the case. Pw.6 is the investigation officer.

11. The evidence of Pw.1, complainant, injured, is that he belongs to CPI(M) party and one Malla Reddy is their Division Party

Secretary and he belongs to Mala Caste. That on 28.03.2010 at about 5.30 or 6.00 pm. While he was attending his cattle in the cattle shed the accused went to him in fully drunken state and abused in filthy language touching the name of his Mala Caste and picked up a babul stick and beat on his left shoulder near collar bone due to which he sustained injuries. That the accused also beat him on his back, that the same was witnessed by Pws.2 and 3 and Pw.5. Thereafter he went to

Police Station and lodged a complaint on the same day between 9.00 or 10.00 pm. He further deposed that prior to incident the accused beat one Amudala Malla Reddy and in that connection he went to

Police Station along with said Malla Reddy due to which the accused bore grudge against him and beat him. Pw.2 is eye witness to the

S.S.C. 52 of 20105 incident and his evidence is that on 28.03.2010 at about 5.00 or 6.00 pm. while he was returning from coolie work and on reaching near the cattle shed of Pw.1 saw dispute was going on and the accused was abusing Pw.1 in filthy language touching the name of his Mala Caste and beat him with a stick on his left shoulder and right forehead. That

Pw.1 had sustained bleeding injuries then he was taken to hospital.

Pw.3, another eye witness to the incident and his evidence is that, on the date of incident between 6.00 or 7.00 p.m. when he was returning from his cotton fields, and on reaching near the back yard of Pw.1, saw

Pw.1 and accused were quarrelling, that accused abused Pw.1 in filthy language touching the name of his Mala Caste, that the accused also beat Pw.1 with stick on his shoulders and fled away. That he along with one Ramulu, Pw.5 and Lw.4 shifted him to his house. Pw.5 is another eye witness, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. He categorically deposed that he did not witness any incident. Pw.4 is the SI of police who registered a case on the complaint of Pw.1. Pw.6 is main investigating officer and the then

SDPO, Jangaon. His evidence is that he was appointed as investigating officer on 28.03.2010 and he proceeded to the Cherial P.S and examined Pws.1 to 3 and 5. That he also visited the scene of offence situated in the outskirts of Cherial village and he prepared scene observation panchanama in the presence of two mediators. That he addressed letter to the Tahsildar of Cherial village to furnish the caste particulars of Pw.1 and accused and arrested the accused on 16.04.2010, that on admitting guilty by the accused he affected his arrest and produced before the court.

12.Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that this case where the accused committed the offence of Atrocity against Pw.1 who

S.S.C. 52 of 20106 belongs to Mala caste, a scheduled caste. He further submits that the evidence of Pw.1 is quite consistent with regard to the incident. He categorically deposed that on 28.03.2010 between 5.00 to 6.00 p.m.

when he was attending his cattle in the cattle shed accused went to him and abused in filthy language touching the name of his Mala caste and beat him with stick causing injuries. The said incident is also witnessed by Pws.2,3 and 5. Before the court Pws.2,3 have categorically deposed that they witnessed the incident that the accused was abusing Pw.1 and beating when they were returning from the fields. The evidence of Pws.2,3 is quite natural as the time of incident which is a time for return of the agricultural labour to their houses and witnessing the incident by Pws.2, 3 is quite natural and quite consistent. Evidence of Pw.1 is corroborated by the evidence of

Pws.2,3. He submits that the contention of the accused that a scene of offence is not established is not tenable. The scene observation panchanama clearly disclose that the agricultural fields as well as the cattle sheet of Pw.1 is situated in the same place and the presence of

Pw.1 at the cattle shed which is situated at his agricultural fields is also proved. He further submits that the contention of the counsel for the accused that Pws.1,2, 3 belongs to CPM party and that the accused belongs to separate political party, that due to dispute between the accused and one Malla Reddy he got foisted a false case is not tenable.

Pw.1 has categorically stated both in the complaint and 161 Cr.P.C.

statement that prior to this case the accused also assaulted the said

Malla Reddy and in that connection Pw.1 accompanied the said Malla

Reddy to the Police Station as such accused bore grudge. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is quite consistent and corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 and 3. That immediately after the incident Pw.1 proceeded to P.S and lodged complaint and he was

S.S.C. 52 of 20107 sent to hospital. The investigating officer after he was appointed as investigating officer visited the scene of offence on the next day and examined the witnesses. Thus, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses has categorically established the offence against the accused and the accused is liable for punishment.

13.Learned counsel for the accused vehemently denied the case of the prosecution. He submits that it is admitted by Pw.1 that he belongs to CPM party and follower of one Malla Reddy Division Party secretary. He submits that there was a dispute between the accused and the said Malla Reddy and keeping the said dispute in mind the said

Malla Reddy got foisted a false case against the accused through Pw.1.

He submits that as per the evidence of Pw.1 the offence took place near his cattle shed and he also deposed that the incident took place inside the cattle shed and also outside. But the same is not disclosed both in the complaint as well as in 161 Cr.P.C. statement and therefore, the evidence of Pw.1 that the incident took place both incident of cattle shed and outside the cattle shed is an improvement.

He further submits that he did not mention as to where specifically the accused beat him and caused injuries. He also did not state in his 161

Cr.P.C. statement as to specifically where accused beat him and caused injuries. Before the court he categorically deposed that the accused beat him on his left shoulder near collar bone, right fingers and on back, and that the said piece of evidence is also an improvement. He submits that in order to prove the said injuries the prosecution failed to examine the doctor. Therefore, the injuries as stated by Pw.1 cannot be taken into consideration. He further submits the abusive words as stated in the complaint as well as in 161 Cr.P.C.

statement are quite different from that of the abusive words stated

S.S.C. 52 of 20108

before the Court. Similarly Pws.2 and 3 did not speak specifically

abusive words hurled at Pw.1, therefore the abusive words were not proved by the evidence of the prosecution. He further submits that the scene of offence is quite different from that of the evidence of Pw.1 and the scene observation panchanama. As per the evidence of Pw.1 the offence took place near his cattle shed where as the complaint shows that the incident took place when he was attending agricultural work in his fields. Therefore, when scene of offence is not proved no offence is proved against the accused. He further submits that as per the medical certificate he was brought to the hospital at 8.00 p.m. and whereas complaint disclose that it was presented at 10.00 p.m. then only Pw.4 sent Pw.1 to the hospital, that means he must have sent the injured after 10.00 p.m. but the wound certificate shows otherwise. It shows that, he submits that, Pw.1 was sent to the hospital much prior to registering the case and in the said circumstances the prosecution failed as to why case was not registered when a cognizable offence was disclosed. The complaint is also hit by 161 Cr.P.C. statement as it was registered subsequent to the complaint as well as the statement of Pw.1. He further submits that as per the medical report he was treated as outpatient whereas Pw.1 deposed before the court that he was admitted in hospital as in patient for about one week. The same is not supported by medical certificate. He further submits that the evidence of Pw.1 is quite inconsistent and contradictory containing several contradictions. In view of the previous dispute between the accused and one Malla Reddy a false case has been foisted against the accused and therefore the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

S.S.C. 52 of 20109

14. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses Pw.1 herein is the complainant as well as the victim and injured belongs to Mala which is a scheduled caste.

There is no dispute with regard to the caste of Pw.1 that he belongs to

Mala, a scheduled caste. The evidence of Pw.1 disclose that he is an activist of CPM party in the village and one Malla Reddy is a Divisional party Secretary. The evidence of Pw.1 himself disclose that about 2 or 3 days prior to this incident there was a dispute between the accused and the said Malla Reddy and that the said Malla Reddy lodged a complaint against the accused in Cherial P.S and he accompanied the said Malla Reddy to the P.S. Therefore, the accused bore grudge against Pw.1. The said fact is also got elicited by the accused. But the contention of the accused that he bore grudge against Pw.1 for accompanying the said Malla Reddy has no basis. It is proved that the accused bore grudge against Pw.1 as he belongs to CPM party and follower of the said Malla Reddy and as such motive is established against the accused.

15. Coming to the facts of the evidence with regard to the incident the evidence of Pw.1 is that on 28.03.2010 at about 5.30 or 6.00 p.m. while he was attending his cattle in the cattle shed the accused went to him in drunken state abused in filthy language touching the name of his Mala caste and beat him with stick on his shoulder, back, and right hand and caused injuries. The said incident is witnessed by Pws.2, 3 and 5. Pws.2 and 3 also deposed on the date of the incident while they were returning after attending the agricultural work at about 5.00 or 6.00 pm. witnessed the accused abusing pw.1 in filthy language touching the name of his Mala caste and also beating him with sticks. Thus, the evidence of Pw.1 with

S.S.C. 52 of 201010 regard to the incident is corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 and 3, the eye witnesses to the incident. Both Pws.2 and3 have categorically stated that they have nothing to do with the CPM party and they are agricultural coolies as per their evidence before the court. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 cannot be stated that they deposed because of the affiliation to any political party and their evidence is quite consistent and independent. In this regard the counsel for the accused submits that Pws.2 and 3 did not state abusive words hurled by the accused to the police during their examination. But on perusal of the 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the investigating officer they have categorically stated the abusive words hurled at Pw.1. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the accused that they did not speak the abusive words is not tenable. No doubt Pw.5, the prosecution relied him as eye witness to the incident but he did not support the case of the prosecution. But the evidence of Pws.2,3 is quite consistent and corroborated the evidence of Pw.1 with regard to the offence.

16. The counsel for the accused further submits that the accused herein lodged a complaint against Pw.1 and others for attempt to murder in Aleru P.S. when the said case is pending therefore Pw.1 has intentionally deposed against the accused. The said fact is admitted by Pw.1 during cross examination that the accused filed a complaint against him for an attempt to murder and that the said case is pending. It is categorically deposed that the said complaint was lodged much subsequent to this case and therefore the evidence of

Pw.1 with regard to the offence cannot be said as a counter blast case.

17.Further the contention of the counsel for the accused is that the doctor is not examined therefore it is fatal to the case of the

S.S.C. 52 of 201011 prosecution. No doubt the prosecution herein did not examine the doctor but on perusal of the medical certificate which is marked through the investigating officer shows that Pw.1 had sustained three injuries that is contusion on left scapula, right chest, and abrasion on right leg. The injury No.1 is left scapula is proved by the evidence of

Pw.1 that the accused beat him on left shoulder near the collar bone and also on right chest. That Pw.1 stated that he sustained fracture injuries, but the would certificate does not disclose of any such fracture therefore, the offence alleged against the accused is only under

Section 324 IPC. For the reason that the doctor is not examined, it cannot be said that the evidence of the prosecution is brushed aside when the evidence of Pw.1, injured is quite consistent and corroborated by the evidence of other independent witnesses. In this case the investigating officer after his appointment as investigating officer had visited the scene of offence immediately on the same after his appointment and examined the witnesses at the scene of offence itself by preparing the scene observation panchanama. The scene observation panchanama clearly disclose the scene of offence near the cattle shed and the cattle shed is also situated within fields of Pw.1.

Therefore, the agricultural fields of Pw.1 and cattle shed are situated at one place, therefore, there is no variation in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 with regard to scene of offence.

18. It is a fact that Pw.1 herein belongs to Mala Caste, a scheduled caste and the said facts is very well known to the accused that he belongs to scheduled caste. The very abusive words used at

Pw.1 shows that the accused with an intention to insult him particularly touching the name of his Mala caste is an atrocity under Section 3(1)

(x) of SC/ST Act. The incident also took place in a public place. That it is

S.S.C. 52 of 201012 admitted by Pws.2 and 3 also that the cattle shed is situated abutting to the B.T. road which is public place. Thus the offence against the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is also proved. Thus from the above said circumstances I am of the opinion that the evidence of

Pw.1 is quite consistent and corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 the independent witnesses. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and investigating officer. Thus, the evidence of prosecution witnesses established the offences against the accused and the accused is found guilty for the offences under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

19. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and he is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

(Dictated to the Personal Asst., after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of July, 2013)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES, Cum- VII ADJ, WARANGAL.

The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him:

He stated that he has got wife and children and that they are depending upon him and pleaded for mercy.

Taking into consideration of the circumstances of the case and mitigating circumstances explained by the accused, there is no possibility of extending the benefit under Section P.O. Act or 360

Cr.P.C.

Having regard to the said circumstances of the case I sentence the accused to suffer R.I. for 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to

S.S.C. 52 of 201013 suffer S.I. for a period of one month. The accused is also sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6(six) months for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The period of judicial remand shall be setoff under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES, Cum- VII ADJ, WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw.1 Kamalapuram JayaramuluNone Pw.2 Bodasu Sudhakar Pw.3 Chemiti Balaiah Pw.4 K. Satyanarayana Pw.5 Ippakayala Ramchandram Pw.6 K.R. Nagaraju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/ Complaint of Pw.1 Ex.P2/ First Information Report Ex.P3/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5 Ex.P4/ Appointment order Ex.P5/ Scene observation panchanama (C.D.F.) Ex.P6 & P7/ Medical Certificates & Caste Certificate

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1/ Part of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES,

Cum- VII ADJ, WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES –

CUM – VII –ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, AT WARANGAL.

Monday, the 22 nd day of July, 2013.

Present:- Sri K.B. Narasimhulu, Spl. Judge for SC/ST (POA) Cases, Cum- VII-ADJ, Warangal.

S.S.C.No. 52 of 2010

(P.R.C.No. 27/2010 Committed by the Learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon in Cr.No.54/2010 of P.S. Cherial.)

1. Name and description ofThe State of A.P. through the Complainantthe Sub-Divisional Police officer, Jangaon.

2. Name and description Avusharla Krishna, Of the accused S/o. Yellaiah, Age: 34 yrs, Munnurkapu, HTV Driver, R/o. Nagulaveedi, Cherial.

3. Offence chargesu/S. 324 IPC and Section 3(1)

(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act., 1989.

4. Plea of the AccusedPleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the CourtFound guilty.

6. Conviction/Sentence orIn the result, Accused is acquittalfound guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and he is convictedunderSection 235(2) Cr.P.C. Accused is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for a period of one month. The accused is also sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6(six) months for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month. Both the sentencesshallrun concurrently. The period of judicial remand shall be setoff under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

S.S.C. 52 of 20102

7. Prosecution conducted by:Sri. Md. Sardhar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

8. Accused defended by:Sri.G. Madhusudan Reddy, Advocate

This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri.G. Madhusudan Reddy, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:- :: J U D G M E N T ::

The Sub Divisional Police officer, Jangaon filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324

IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

2. The averments of the prosecution case in brief are that the complainant as well as the victim belongs to Mala Caste, a

Scheduled Caste while the accused belongs to Non-Scheduled Caste.

That on 10.03.2010 at about 1.00 p.m. the accused herein beat one

Amudala Malla Reddy CPM party Division Secretary. In that regard the said Amudala Malla Reddy went to the P.S along with complainant and lodged a complaint against the accused. Since, then the accused bore grudge against the complainant. That on 28.03.2010 at about 6.00 p.m. while the complainant was attending his work at his cattle shed in the outskirts of Cherial village accused went to him abused in filthy language touching the name of his Mala caste and beat him with stick causing injuries thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

3.The case was taken on file by learned Additional J.F.C.M.,

Jangoan against the accused for the offences punishable under Section

S.S.C. 52 of 20103 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x)of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and registered the same as a case in PRC.No.27/2010.

4.On appearance the learned Magistrate has furnished the copies of the case documents as contemplated under Section 207

Cr.P.C. and questioned with regard to his means for engaging the counsel for which he stated that he had means to engage the counsel for his defence. After following the due process and procedure laid down, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to this court, which is specially constituted for trial of the offences under Section

SC/ST (POA) Act, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C.

5.On appearance before the court, this court has taken on file and cognizance of the offence under Section 324 IPC and under

Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

6.Basing on the material placed before this court, and on the basis of the contents of the charge sheet, and upon hearing the learned counsel for the accused and Spl. Public Prosecutor, this court has framed charges for the offences under Section 324 IPC and under

Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act,. The charge contents were read over in vernacular language to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, trial schedule was fixed and trial was faced.

7.In order to prove its case the prosecution in all examined

Pws.1 to 6 witnesses and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. Ex.D1 is marked on behalf of the defence.The accused was examined u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., to explain incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and accused stated that the

S.S.C. 52 of 20104 evidence of prosecution witnesses is false. The accused did not propose to examine any defence witness.

8. Heard both sides.

9. Now the point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses is reliable, whether the

prosecution is able to establish the guilt

against the accused beyond reasonable

doubt”?

10.To prove the case, the prosecution in all examined Pws.1 to

6. Pw.1 is the complainant as well as the victim and injured. Pws.2, 3 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Pw.4 is the 1st investigation officer who registered the case. Pw.6 is the investigation officer.

11. The evidence of Pw.1, complainant, injured, is that he belongs to CPI(M) party and one Malla Reddy is their Division Party

Secretary and he belongs to Mala Caste. That on 28.03.2010 at about 5.30 or 6.00 pm. While he was attending his cattle in the cattle shed the accused went to him in fully drunken state and abused in filthy language touching the name of his Mala Caste and picked up a babul stick and beat on his left shoulder near collar bone due to which he sustained injuries. That the accused also beat him on his back, that the same was witnessed by Pws.2 and 3 and Pw.5. Thereafter he went to

Police Station and lodged a complaint on the same day between 9.00 or 10.00 pm. He further deposed that prior to incident the accused beat one Amudala Malla Reddy and in that connection he went to

Police Station along with said Malla Reddy due to which the accused bore grudge against him and beat him. Pw.2 is eye witness to the

S.S.C. 52 of 20105 incident and his evidence is that on 28.03.2010 at about 5.00 or 6.00 pm. while he was returning from coolie work and on reaching near the cattle shed of Pw.1 saw dispute was going on and the accused was abusing Pw.1 in filthy language touching the name of his Mala Caste and beat him with a stick on his left shoulder and right forehead. That

Pw.1 had sustained bleeding injuries then he was taken to hospital.

Pw.3, another eye witness to the incident and his evidence is that, on the date of incident between 6.00 or 7.00 p.m. when he was returning from his cotton fields, and on reaching near the back yard of Pw.1, saw

Pw.1 and accused were quarrelling, that accused abused Pw.1 in filthy language touching the name of his Mala Caste, that the accused also beat Pw.1 with stick on his shoulders and fled away. That he along with one Ramulu, Pw.5 and Lw.4 shifted him to his house. Pw.5 is another eye witness, but he did not support the case of the prosecution. He categorically deposed that he did not witness any incident. Pw.4 is the SI of police who registered a case on the complaint of Pw.1. Pw.6 is main investigating officer and the then

SDPO, Jangaon. His evidence is that he was appointed as investigating officer on 28.03.2010 and he proceeded to the Cherial P.S and examined Pws.1 to 3 and 5. That he also visited the scene of offence situated in the outskirts of Cherial village and he prepared scene observation panchanama in the presence of two mediators. That he addressed letter to the Tahsildar of Cherial village to furnish the caste particulars of Pw.1 and accused and arrested the accused on 16.04.2010, that on admitting guilty by the accused he affected his arrest and produced before the court.

12.Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that this case where the accused committed the offence of Atrocity against Pw.1 who

S.S.C. 52 of 20106 belongs to Mala caste, a scheduled caste. He further submits that the evidence of Pw.1 is quite consistent with regard to the incident. He categorically deposed that on 28.03.2010 between 5.00 to 6.00 p.m.

when he was attending his cattle in the cattle shed accused went to him and abused in filthy language touching the name of his Mala caste and beat him with stick causing injuries. The said incident is also witnessed by Pws.2,3 and 5. Before the court Pws.2,3 have categorically deposed that they witnessed the incident that the accused was abusing Pw.1 and beating when they were returning from the fields. The evidence of Pws.2,3 is quite natural as the time of incident which is a time for return of the agricultural labour to their houses and witnessing the incident by Pws.2, 3 is quite natural and quite consistent. Evidence of Pw.1 is corroborated by the evidence of

Pws.2,3. He submits that the contention of the accused that a scene of offence is not established is not tenable. The scene observation panchanama clearly disclose that the agricultural fields as well as the cattle sheet of Pw.1 is situated in the same place and the presence of

Pw.1 at the cattle shed which is situated at his agricultural fields is also proved. He further submits that the contention of the counsel for the accused that Pws.1,2, 3 belongs to CPM party and that the accused belongs to separate political party, that due to dispute between the accused and one Malla Reddy he got foisted a false case is not tenable.

Pw.1 has categorically stated both in the complaint and 161 Cr.P.C.

statement that prior to this case the accused also assaulted the said

Malla Reddy and in that connection Pw.1 accompanied the said Malla

Reddy to the Police Station as such accused bore grudge. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is quite consistent and corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 and 3. That immediately after the incident Pw.1 proceeded to P.S and lodged complaint and he was

S.S.C. 52 of 20107 sent to hospital. The investigating officer after he was appointed as investigating officer visited the scene of offence on the next day and examined the witnesses. Thus, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses has categorically established the offence against the accused and the accused is liable for punishment.

13.Learned counsel for the accused vehemently denied the case of the prosecution. He submits that it is admitted by Pw.1 that he belongs to CPM party and follower of one Malla Reddy Division Party secretary. He submits that there was a dispute between the accused and the said Malla Reddy and keeping the said dispute in mind the said

Malla Reddy got foisted a false case against the accused through Pw.1.

He submits that as per the evidence of Pw.1 the offence took place near his cattle shed and he also deposed that the incident took place inside the cattle shed and also outside. But the same is not disclosed both in the complaint as well as in 161 Cr.P.C. statement and therefore, the evidence of Pw.1 that the incident took place both incident of cattle shed and outside the cattle shed is an improvement.

He further submits that he did not mention as to where specifically the accused beat him and caused injuries. He also did not state in his 161

Cr.P.C. statement as to specifically where accused beat him and caused injuries. Before the court he categorically deposed that the accused beat him on his left shoulder near collar bone, right fingers and on back, and that the said piece of evidence is also an improvement. He submits that in order to prove the said injuries the prosecution failed to examine the doctor. Therefore, the injuries as stated by Pw.1 cannot be taken into consideration. He further submits the abusive words as stated in the complaint as well as in 161 Cr.P.C.

statement are quite different from that of the abusive words stated

S.S.C. 52 of 20108

before the Court. Similarly Pws.2 and 3 did not speak specifically

abusive words hurled at Pw.1, therefore the abusive words were not proved by the evidence of the prosecution. He further submits that the scene of offence is quite different from that of the evidence of Pw.1 and the scene observation panchanama. As per the evidence of Pw.1 the offence took place near his cattle shed where as the complaint shows that the incident took place when he was attending agricultural work in his fields. Therefore, when scene of offence is not proved no offence is proved against the accused. He further submits that as per the medical certificate he was brought to the hospital at 8.00 p.m. and whereas complaint disclose that it was presented at 10.00 p.m. then only Pw.4 sent Pw.1 to the hospital, that means he must have sent the injured after 10.00 p.m. but the wound certificate shows otherwise. It shows that, he submits that, Pw.1 was sent to the hospital much prior to registering the case and in the said circumstances the prosecution failed as to why case was not registered when a cognizable offence was disclosed. The complaint is also hit by 161 Cr.P.C. statement as it was registered subsequent to the complaint as well as the statement of Pw.1. He further submits that as per the medical report he was treated as outpatient whereas Pw.1 deposed before the court that he was admitted in hospital as in patient for about one week. The same is not supported by medical certificate. He further submits that the evidence of Pw.1 is quite inconsistent and contradictory containing several contradictions. In view of the previous dispute between the accused and one Malla Reddy a false case has been foisted against the accused and therefore the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and for acquittal.

S.S.C. 52 of 20109

14. Upon hearing both sides and on perusal of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses Pw.1 herein is the complainant as well as the victim and injured belongs to Mala which is a scheduled caste.

There is no dispute with regard to the caste of Pw.1 that he belongs to

Mala, a scheduled caste. The evidence of Pw.1 disclose that he is an activist of CPM party in the village and one Malla Reddy is a Divisional party Secretary. The evidence of Pw.1 himself disclose that about 2 or 3 days prior to this incident there was a dispute between the accused and the said Malla Reddy and that the said Malla Reddy lodged a complaint against the accused in Cherial P.S and he accompanied the said Malla Reddy to the P.S. Therefore, the accused bore grudge against Pw.1. The said fact is also got elicited by the accused. But the contention of the accused that he bore grudge against Pw.1 for accompanying the said Malla Reddy has no basis. It is proved that the accused bore grudge against Pw.1 as he belongs to CPM party and follower of the said Malla Reddy and as such motive is established against the accused.

15. Coming to the facts of the evidence with regard to the incident the evidence of Pw.1 is that on 28.03.2010 at about 5.30 or 6.00 p.m. while he was attending his cattle in the cattle shed the accused went to him in drunken state abused in filthy language touching the name of his Mala caste and beat him with stick on his shoulder, back, and right hand and caused injuries. The said incident is witnessed by Pws.2, 3 and 5. Pws.2 and 3 also deposed on the date of the incident while they were returning after attending the agricultural work at about 5.00 or 6.00 pm. witnessed the accused abusing pw.1 in filthy language touching the name of his Mala caste and also beating him with sticks. Thus, the evidence of Pw.1 with

S.S.C. 52 of 201010 regard to the incident is corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 and 3, the eye witnesses to the incident. Both Pws.2 and3 have categorically stated that they have nothing to do with the CPM party and they are agricultural coolies as per their evidence before the court. Therefore, the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 cannot be stated that they deposed because of the affiliation to any political party and their evidence is quite consistent and independent. In this regard the counsel for the accused submits that Pws.2 and 3 did not state abusive words hurled by the accused to the police during their examination. But on perusal of the 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the investigating officer they have categorically stated the abusive words hurled at Pw.1. Therefore, the contention of the counsel for the accused that they did not speak the abusive words is not tenable. No doubt Pw.5, the prosecution relied him as eye witness to the incident but he did not support the case of the prosecution. But the evidence of Pws.2,3 is quite consistent and corroborated the evidence of Pw.1 with regard to the offence.

16. The counsel for the accused further submits that the accused herein lodged a complaint against Pw.1 and others for attempt to murder in Aleru P.S. when the said case is pending therefore Pw.1 has intentionally deposed against the accused. The said fact is admitted by Pw.1 during cross examination that the accused filed a complaint against him for an attempt to murder and that the said case is pending. It is categorically deposed that the said complaint was lodged much subsequent to this case and therefore the evidence of

Pw.1 with regard to the offence cannot be said as a counter blast case.

17.Further the contention of the counsel for the accused is that the doctor is not examined therefore it is fatal to the case of the

S.S.C. 52 of 201011 prosecution. No doubt the prosecution herein did not examine the doctor but on perusal of the medical certificate which is marked through the investigating officer shows that Pw.1 had sustained three injuries that is contusion on left scapula, right chest, and abrasion on right leg. The injury No.1 is left scapula is proved by the evidence of

Pw.1 that the accused beat him on left shoulder near the collar bone and also on right chest. That Pw.1 stated that he sustained fracture injuries, but the would certificate does not disclose of any such fracture therefore, the offence alleged against the accused is only under

Section 324 IPC. For the reason that the doctor is not examined, it cannot be said that the evidence of the prosecution is brushed aside when the evidence of Pw.1, injured is quite consistent and corroborated by the evidence of other independent witnesses. In this case the investigating officer after his appointment as investigating officer had visited the scene of offence immediately on the same after his appointment and examined the witnesses at the scene of offence itself by preparing the scene observation panchanama. The scene observation panchanama clearly disclose the scene of offence near the cattle shed and the cattle shed is also situated within fields of Pw.1.

Therefore, the agricultural fields of Pw.1 and cattle shed are situated at one place, therefore, there is no variation in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 with regard to scene of offence.

18. It is a fact that Pw.1 herein belongs to Mala Caste, a scheduled caste and the said facts is very well known to the accused that he belongs to scheduled caste. The very abusive words used at

Pw.1 shows that the accused with an intention to insult him particularly touching the name of his Mala caste is an atrocity under Section 3(1)

(x) of SC/ST Act. The incident also took place in a public place. That it is

S.S.C. 52 of 201012 admitted by Pws.2 and 3 also that the cattle shed is situated abutting to the B.T. road which is public place. Thus the offence against the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is also proved. Thus from the above said circumstances I am of the opinion that the evidence of

Pw.1 is quite consistent and corroborated by the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 the independent witnesses. I do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence of Pws.1 to 3 and investigating officer. Thus, the evidence of prosecution witnesses established the offences against the accused and the accused is found guilty for the offences under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

19. In the result, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and he is convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.

(Dictated to the Personal Asst., after transcription, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of July, 2013)

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES, Cum- VII ADJ, WARANGAL.

The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed on him:

He stated that he has got wife and children and that they are depending upon him and pleaded for mercy.

Taking into consideration of the circumstances of the case and mitigating circumstances explained by the accused, there is no possibility of extending the benefit under Section P.O. Act or 360

Cr.P.C.

Having regard to the said circumstances of the case I sentence the accused to suffer R.I. for 6 (six) months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to

S.S.C. 52 of 201013 suffer S.I. for a period of one month. The accused is also sentenced to suffer R.I. for 6(six) months for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to suffer S.I. for one month. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The period of judicial remand shall be setoff under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES, Cum- VII ADJ, WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw.1 Kamalapuram JayaramuluNone Pw.2 Bodasu Sudhakar Pw.3 Chemiti Balaiah Pw.4 K. Satyanarayana Pw.5 Ippakayala Ramchandram Pw.6 K.R. Nagaraju

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1/ Complaint of Pw.1 Ex.P2/ First Information Report Ex.P3/ 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5 Ex.P4/ Appointment order Ex.P5/ Scene observation panchanama (C.D.F.) Ex.P6 & P7/ Medical Certificates & Caste Certificate

FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.D1/ Part of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil-

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES,

Cum- VII ADJ, WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, WARANGAL

Thursday, this the 27th day of October, 2016

PRESENT: K.B.Narasimhulu, I-Additional District Judge, Warangal.

ORIGINAL SUIT NO.1 OF 2012

BETWEEN:

A.Upender Rao ... Plaintiff

AND

K.Kumara Swamy … Defendant

This suit coming on 16.9.2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.Krishna Prasad, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri K.V.K.Gupta,

Advocate for the defendants and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of contract of agreement of sale, dated 18.8.2011.

2. The averments of the plaint, in brief are that the defendant is the owner and possessor of the land in an extent of Ac.4-20 guntas in Sy.No.1351/B of

Madikonda revenue village. That, the defendant had purchased the said property from one Mukala Mallaiah and others and mutated in his name, passbooks and title deeds were also issued under ROR Act in favour of the defendant. That, the defendant approached the plaintiff and offered to sell the suit-schedule property and after mutual negotiations, the defendant agreed to sell the suit-schedule property for a total price of Rs.45,00,000/- i.e. @

Rs.10,00,000/- per acre and after satisfying the nature of the documents, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as an earnest on 18.8.2011 and entered into an agreement of sale. Subsequently, the plaintiff paid Rs.8,00,000/- on 31.8.2011. Received the said Rs.8,00,000/- on the pretext of clearing the debt at

PACS and other financial institutions to get passbooks released, the defendant failed to do the same. On the other hand, the defendant started demanding more amount. In the said circumstances, the plaintiff lost faith in the defendant and got issued legal notice, dated 5.10.2011 demanding to comply the terms and conditions of the agreement of sale. On receipt of legal notice, the defendant approached the plaintiff and expressed his inability to perform the contract on the ground that one Makula Rajya Laxmi filed O.S.No.404/2011 against him. That, subsequently, it was amicably settled before the Lok Adalath on 9.11.2011.

That, at the time of recording compromise and prior to it, the defendant received

Rs.10,00,000/- on 21.10.2011; Rs.8,00,000/- on 28.10.2011 and another

Rs.10,00,000/- on 31.10.2011, in all the defendant received Rs.38,00,000/-. The plaintiff waited for more than four months, but for the reasons known to the defendant, he dodged the matter without any progress. The plaintiff learned that the defendant is trying to alienate the suit-schedule property in favour of third parties even after receiving considerable sale consideration of Rs.38,00,000/-.

That, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/-. The plaintiff got issued notice, dated 20.12.2011.

But, the defendant did not give any reply nor come forward to fulfill the contract.

Hence, the suit.

3

O.S.No.1 of 2012

3. The defendant filed written statement and denied the averments of the plaint in toto. He denied execution of any agreement of sale agreeing to sell the suit-schedule property @ Rs.10,00,000/- per acre and also denied receiving

Rs.2,00,000/- and executing agreement of sale on 18.8.2011. He also denied receiving Rs.8,00,000/- on 31.8.2011 on the pretext of clearing debts in PACS and other financial institutions. He submits that the defendant has no account in

PACS and any other financial institutions, therefore receiving Rs.8,00,000/- on the said pretext does not arise. When the defendant did not enter into agreement of sale, the question of demanding him by the plaintiff does not arise.

That on receipt of legal notice, the defendant questioned the plaintiff for issuing notice, he promised not to initiate any action on the said notice. The plaintiff further furnished Xerox copy of the agreement of sale. The defendant denied that he expressed his inability in view of filing of O.S.No.404/2011 by one

M.Rajya Laxmi and others. When it is the plaintiff who caused said notice against the defendant in order to exert pressure on him. That, at the time of settlement of dispute between M.Rajya Laxmi, the plaintiff obtained the signatures on the defendant on blank stamped paper and white papers and fabricated the agreement of sale, dated 18.8.2011 and other receipts, dated 31.8.2011, 21.10.2011, 28.10.2011 and 30.10.2011. But, on perusal of the agreement of sale, it clearly shows manipulation as the contents were got typed to suit the space between the signatures. The defendant having believed the plaintiff to settle the dispute between him and Rajya Laxmi had signed on the said blank papers. Thereby, the documents are forged by the plaintiff. The relief under Specific Relief Act is discretionary relief and that no relief can be passed on the said fabricated or forged document. The defendant is an agriculturist 4

O.S.No.1 of 2012

eking out his livelihood. His only source of income is the suit-schedule property, the question of selling of the land, loosing his source of income does not arise.

The plaintiff is put to strict legal proof of payment of Rs.38,00,000/- on different dates. The defendant got issued reply, dated 4.1.2011, but the plaintiff did not give any rejoinder nor filed any rejoinder even after filing written statement. The plaintiff has engaged Sri P.V.Vidyadhar Raj, Advocate on his behalf in

O.S.No.404/2011 and got the dispute settled. The defendant does not know

English and he does not know the signature in English. As such the plaintiff taking innocence of the defendant has fabricated the document. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. Upon hearing both sides, the following issues are framed:

1) Whether the agreement of sale, dated 18.8.2011 is true, valid and binding on the defendant?

2) Whether the the receipts, dated 31.8.2011, 21.10.2011, 28.10.2011 and 31.10.2011 were passed by the defendant on receipt of money under agreement of sale, dated 18.8.2011?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance on the basis of agreement of sale, dated 18.8.2011?

4) To what relief?

5. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself is examined as PW1 and got examined PW2 and got marked Exs-A1 to A10. On behalf of the defendant, no evidence has been adduced in-spite of availing several adjournments.

6. Heard.

5

O.S.No.1 of 2012

7. ISSUE NOs.1 AND 2:The learned Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the defendant being owner of agricultural land, the suit-schedule property offered to sell to the plaintiff and the plaintiff after going through the title deeds and other documents and after mutual negotiations agreed to purchase the suit- schedule property @ Rs.10,00,000/- per acre, for total sale consideration of

Rs.45,00,000/- and paid Rs.2,00,000/- on the date of agreement of sale i.e. on 18.8.2011, thereafter, he also paid Rs.8,00,000/- on 31.8.2011, thereby, in all he paid Rs.10,00,000/-. The defendant pretended as if to clear loans from PACS and other financial institutions and also to get release of the documents.

Thereafter, the plaintiff went on expressing his willingness to pay the balance of sale consideration and demanding to execute sale deed. The defendant postponed the same on one pretext or the other. But, finally, he got issued legal notice, dated 5.10.2011 i.e. within two months from the date of agreement of sale. On receipt of the notice, the defendant approached him and expressed his inability to execute sale deed in view of suit, O.S.No.404/2011 filed by one

M.Rajya Laxmi and others. Then subsequently, the suit was settled between the defendant and M.Rajya Laxmi and others before the Lok Adalath and an award was also passed on 9.11.2011. That, at the time of recording compromise and prior to that the defendant had received Rs.10,00,000/- i.e. Rs.2,00,000/- on 18.8.2011; Rs.8,00,000/- on 28.10.2011; Rs.10,00,000/- on 31.10.2011 and another sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on 21.10.2011, thereby, in total he received

Rs.38,00,000/- and a mere sum of Rs.7,00,000/- was only to be paid, for which, the plaintiff was always ready and willing to pay. In order to prove execution of agreement of sale as well the receipts for receiving of the amounts, the plaintiff herein got examined PW2. PW2 has categorically deposed that on 18.8.2011, 6

O.S.No.1 of 2012

the agreement of sale was executed by the defendant and the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in his presence on 18.8.2011. He identified the agreement of sale under Ex-A1, dated 18.8.2011 and the receipt, dated 31.8.2011 for receipt of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, he submits that the plaintiff has proved execution of agreement of sale and receipt of the amount by the defendant and the plaintiff also proved that he was always ready and willing to perform his contract by paying remaining balance of sale consideration and it is the defendant, who miserably failed to perform his part of contract. His further submission is that the defendant did not enter into witness box and therefore, no evidence is available on behalf of the defendant. Hence, the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with the documentary evidence, Exs-A1 to A9 established the case of the plaintiff and prayed to pass a decree.

8. Upon hearing and on perusal of the evidence, PW1 has categorically deposed that he entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant, who agreed to sell the agricultural land, the suit-schedule property @ Rs.10,00,000/- per acre to an extent of Ac.4-20 guntas and total cost of the property was

Rs.45,00,000/- and that the defendant executed agreement of sale under Ex-A1.

Though, he denied of execution of the agreement of sale, he did not adduce any evidence on his behalf to prove his contention. As per the contention raised in the written statement, the plaintiff had obtained the signatures of the defendant on signed blank papers and stamp papers at the time of settlement of

O.S.No.404/2011 before Lok Adalath. It is clear that no evidence has been

produced before the Court to substantiate his contention. Absolutely, no evidence is available on behalf of the defendant to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff. On the other hand, the evidence of PW2 lends support the evidence of 7

O.S.No.1 of 2012

PW1 with regard to execution of agreement of sale under Ex-A1 and he also identified the receipt, dated 31.8.2011 for payment of Rs.8,00,000/-. Therefore, the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant stands proved by the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Ex-A1 and Ex-A2.

9. The defendant did not choose to examine himself in response to the evidence of the plaintiff nor taken any steps to send documents to any handwriting expert to prove that the signatures were forged or documents were forged. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence on behalf of the defendant, the evidence of PW1, supported by PW2 and Exs-A1 to A9, I am of the opinion that the plaintiff has proved his case and he is entitled for the relief.

Accordingly, these two issues were answered in favour of the

plaintiff.

10. ISSUE NO.3:In view of the findings arrived in Issue Nos.1 and 2, it is proved that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of specific performance.

Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiff.

11. ISSUE NO.4: IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs, directing the defendant to receive balance of sale consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven lakhs only) and to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff or his nominee within one month from the date of receipt of the decree.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 27th day of October, 2016).

Sd/- K.B.Narasimhulu,

I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT:

8

O.S.No.1 of 2012

PW1 : Arrabelli Upender Rao None PW2 : Dhupaka Rajesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex-A1 is the original sale agreement. Ex-A2 is the original receipt, dated 31.8.2011. Ex-A3 is the original receipt, dated 21.10.2011. Ex-A4 is the original receipt, dated 28.10.2011. Ex-A5 is the original receipt, dated 31.10.2011. Ex-A6 is the original postal receipt, dated 15.10.2011. Ex-A7 is the original Eenadu daily newspaper Prakatana, dated 13.9.2011. Ex-A8 is the office copy of legal notice, dated 20.12.2011. Ex-A9 is the office copy of l egal notice, dated 5.10.2011. Ex-A10 is the original bank statement.

FOR DEFENDANT:

- Nil -

Sd/- K.B.Narasimhulu,

I-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES

ACT-CUM-I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL

Thursday, this the 27th day of October, 2016

PRESENT: K.B.Narasimhulu,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act-cum-I-Additional Sessions Judge, Warangal.

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.53 OF 2016

(Cr.No.260 of 2015 of PS Maripeda)

1. Name and description of the :The State of Telangana rep. by the complainantSub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubabad.

2. Name and description of the : A1: Jatoth Nagesh, s/o Veeranna, accusedAged: 20 years, ST-Lambada, Occu: Student, A2: Jatoth Reddy, s/o Bhavsingh, Aged: 27 years, ST-Lambada, Occu: Agriculture, both are R/o Kudya Thanda H/o Anepuram Village, Maripeda Mandal.

3. Offence charged:Sections 366, 347, 376(2)(n) r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and Section 5(l) r/w 6 and 16 r/w 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

4. Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty

5. Finding of the Court:Found not guilty

6. Conviction, sentence or acquittal:The accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 347 and 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366 r/w 109 and 376(2)(n) r/w 109 of Indian Penal Code and Section 16 r/w 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same under Section 232 of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

7. Name of the Counsel for the :Addl.P.P. prosecution

8. Name of the Counsel for accused:Sri G.Vidyasagar Reddy, Advocate 2 SSC No.53 of 2016

This case coming on 26.10.2016 for hearing before me in the presence of

Additional Public Prosecutorfor the State/complainant and of

Sri G.Vidyasagar Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubabad, filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 347, 376(2)(n), 506 IPC and

Section 5(l) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against

A1 and for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376(2)(n) r/w 109 IPC and Sections 5(m) r/w 6 r/w 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act against the accused No.2.

2. The facts of the prosecution case, in brief are that the victim is a minor aged 17 years and also de-facto complainant. That, the victim used to visit

Maripeda village to learn tailoring from one Vinoda. That, she used to travel by the auto belonging to A1. That, the accused used to follow her in the name of love and marriage. That, on 6.12.2015 at 9.30 AM she got down the auto at

Kargil Center, Maripeda, where both the accused persons met her, forcibly abducted her and took her towards rented house of A2 situated on the opposite to SBH, Maripeda. After, A2 left the place, A1 forcibly committed rape on her and detained in the room till 8.12.2015. That, on 9.12.2015 at about 8.30 AM when A1 went to bathroom, she escaped from the room and rushed to her parents, but she did not inform the incident to her parents due to fear from the accused. But, as she was unable to bear the torture, she narrated the incident to her parents. That, the parents of the victim approached the village elders, who advised to approach the police. As such, the victim lodged a complaint.

Thereby, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the above said offence.

3. The case was taken on file under Sections 347, 366, 376(2)(n) and 506

IPC and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences 3 SSC No.53 of 2016

Act against the accused No.1 and under Sections 366 and 376(2)(n) r/w 109 IPC and Section 5(m) r/w 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused No.2. On appearance of the accused, copies of relevant papers, as required under Section 207 of Cr.PC were furnished to them. Upon hearing and on perusal of record, charges for the offences under Sections 366, 347 and 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and

Section 5(l) r/w 6 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused No.1 and under Sections 366 r/w 109 and 376(2)(n) r/w 109 IPC and

Section 16 r/w 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act against the accused No.2 were framed, read over and explained to them and they denied the said charges and claims to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution in all examined PWs 1 to 9 and

Exs-P1 to P9 are marked. PW1 is the victim as well as de-facto complainant.

PWs 2 and 3 are the parents of the victim. PWs 4 to 7 are the other circumstantial witnesses for abduction and illegal confinement. PWs 8 and 9 are the mediators for confessional statement of the accused.

5. As there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused, the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with.

6. Heard.

7. Now, the point that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution

is able to establish the guilt of the accused No.1 for the offences

punishable under Sections 366, 347 and 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code

(Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of The Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act and the accused No.2 for the offences

punishable under Section 366 r/w 109 and 376(2)(n) r/w 109 of Indian Penal

4 SSC No.53 of 2016

Code and Section 16 r/w 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, as alleged beyond any reasonable doubt?

8. POINT: During the evidence, PW1, the victim as well as de-facto complainant stated that about a year back, the village Sarpanch came and obtained her signatures on white papers. That, she is not aware aware of the contents of the complaint. That, she did not state anything before the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC. That, the police did not send her to any hospital. She categorically deposed that she is not aware of the accused and that they did not commit any offence against her.

9. Thus, as seen from the evidence of PW1 being victim and de-facto complainant is quite inconsistent and contrary to her own complaint and statement. She categorically denied of committing any offence by the accused.

Therefore, the evidence of PW1 is not useful to the case of the prosecution.

10. PWs 2 and 3 are the parents of the victim. But, they categorically deposed that they cannot identify the accused persons and that they are not aware of the facts of the case, as PW1 did not inform them anything against the accused. Thereby, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 being parents of the victim is also not in support of the case of the prosecution.

11. PWs 4 to 7 are the other circumstantial witnesses except the evidence of

PW7 that he let out the room to the accused persons. The other witnesses stated that they are not aware of the facts of the case. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 4 to 7 is also not useful to the case of the prosecution.

12. PWs 8 and 9 are the mediators for confessional statement of the accused.

But, their evidence is that about ten months back, when they were proceeding near police station, the police obtained their signatures on some papers. That, they did not see any of the accused and nothing was recovered in their presence.

5 SSC No.53 of 2016

Therefore, the apprehension of the accused and the alleged confessional statement is also not proved.

13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of other prosecution witnesses, in view of evidence of PWs 1 to 9. As no incriminating circumstances were elicited, the examination of the accused under

Section 313 Cr.PC is dispensed with. Though, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor declared the witnesses hostile and cross-examined, no incriminating circumstances have been elicited.

14. Thus, basing on the evidence available on record, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.

15. IN THE RESULT, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 347 and 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code (Criminal Law (Amendment) Act) and Section 5(l) r/w 6 of The Protection of

Children from Sexual Offences Act and the accused No.2 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366 r/w 109 and 376(2)(n) r/w 109 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 16 r/w 17 of The Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted for the same under

Section 232 of Cr.PC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court, on this the 27th day of October, 2016).

Sd/- K.B.Narasimhulu,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.

6 SSC No.53 of 2016

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1 : Prosecutrix/victim/de-facto complainant None PW2 : Bhukya Balya/father of the victim PW3 : Bhukya Jamli/mother of the victim PW4 : P.Chandrashekar/circumstantial witness PW5 : K.Lingamma/circumstantial witness PW6 : B.Ramchandru/circumstantial witness PW7 : G.Satyanarayana/circumstantial witness PW8 : Jatoth Bheema/panch witness for confessional statement PW9 : Jatoth Bahusingh/panch witness for confessional statement

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex-P1 is the signature of PW1 on the complaint. Ex-P2 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1. Ex-P3 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2. Ex-P4 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW3. Ex-P5 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW4. Ex-P6 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW6. Ex-P7 is the 161 Cr.PC statement of PW7. Ex-P8 is the signature of PW8 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama. Ex-P9 is the signature of PW9 on confession-cum-recovery panchanama.

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/- K.B.Narasimhulu,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT-CUM-

I-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

WARANGAL.