Kumar Vivek

Page 1 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present: Sri KUMAR VIVEK, District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

Friday, this the 5th day of December, 2025

SPL.SC. No. 111 of 2020

1.Complainant:The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaipur division I/c. Mancherial division.

2.Name of the accused:A1: Bhaskarla Srikanth, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Lorry Driver, R/o. Bhaga- wanthamwada, Mancherial.

A2: Bhaskarla Saritha, W/o. Mallaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: House wife, R/o. Bhaga- wanthamwada, Mancherial.

A3: Bhaskarla Mallaiah @ Mallanna, S/o. Chandraiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Lorry Driver,R/o.Bhagawanthamwada, Mancherial.

3.Crime number and :380/2020 of Mancherial police station. police station

4.Prosecution:Sri. M. Ramana Reddy, conducted by Special Public Prosecutor, Adilabad.

5.Defence conducted :Sri Y. Vishnu Bhagawan, byAdvocate, Adilabad.

6.Charges :Sections 417, 323, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused no.1, and sections 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.2 and 3.

7.Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

8.Finding of the Court: Not guilty.

Page 2 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025

9.Order or sentence:Accused no.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 417, 323, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and the accused nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and they are acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused nos.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per the section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no property deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of the case property is passed by this Court.

This special sessions case has come before me on 28.11.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Ramana Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and that of Sri Y. Vishnu Bhagawan, learned Advocate for the accused nos.1 to 3, and upon hearing and having perused the materials available on record, this Court doth the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaipur division I/c. Mancherial division has filed charge sheet in crime no.380/2020 of Mancherial police station for the offences punishable under sections 417, 323, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused no.1 and sections 323 and 290 of the Indian Penal

Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.2 and 3 to punish them as per the law with the following allegations:

the informant belongs to SC (Madiga sub caste) community and the accused nos.1 to 3 are not the members of the Schedule Caste or Scheduled

Tribe community; that the informant was studying Degree 1st year at

Page 3 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025

Government Degree College, Mancherial by residing in the house of her aunt by name Irugurala Banakka and while the informant was studying in the

Intermediate the accused no.1 made friendship with her on the name of love and when she denied the love proposal of accused no.1 disclosing that she belong to SC (Madiga sub caste) community on that the accused no.1 forced her to love him and he promised to marry her; that the informant accepted the love proposal of the accused no.1 and both moved closely; that while the mother of the informant namely Pegadapalli Pentakka was searching for the bridegroom for the informant, the accused no.1 went to the house of said Irugurala Banakka and told her that he is in love with the informant and he will marry her and thereafter they stopped searching for bridegroom for the informant; that the informant told about her love affair with the accused no.1 to said Pegadapalli Pentakka; that when the informant asked the accused no.1 to tell about their love affair to the accused nos.2 and 3 on that the accused no.1 replied that the accused nos.2 and 3 are not willing to perform their marriage; that during the last year the informant along with said Pegadapalli Pentakka and said Irugurala Banakka went to the house of the accused no.1 and disclosed the love affair between the informant and the accused no.1, and asked for their marriage on that the accused nos.2 and 3 abused the informant in the name of her caste, and the accused no.2 beat her with hand and warned her to leave their house; that about two months ago the accused no.1 told the informant to purchased required items for marriage in a temple on that the informant purchased nuptial thread, clothes etc. but the accused no.1 took the informant to Ramuni

Page 4 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025

Cheruvu Park, Mancherial where he told her that his parents are not agreeing for their marriage and they decided to commit suicide together; that the informant consumed poison initially that was brought by the accused no.1 and she became unconscious; that the accused no.1 brought the informant to the Government Area Hospital, Mancherial and left her; that

Pw1 received treatment in the said hospital and she was discharged; and that on 05.10.2020 at 08:00 P.M. while the informant was proceeding from the narrow lane near Venkateshwara Theatre the accused no.1 took up quarrelled with her, and kicked her by abusing her in the name of her caste within public view.

02.On 13.10.2020 the Sub Inspector of Police, Mancherial police station registered a case as in crime no. 380/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 417, 420, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, issued FIR and upon completion of investigation the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaipur division I/c.Mancherial division filed charge sheet against for the offences punishable under sections 417, 323, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code and sections 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused no.1 and sections 323 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.2 and 3.

03. This Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheet for the offences punishable under section 417, 323, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused

Page 5 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025 no.1 and section 323 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.2 and 3, and assigned Spl. SC. No. 111 of 2020 to the case.

04.The accused nos.1 to 3 appeared before this Court and the copy of the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to them as per section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

05.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opened this case by describing the charges to be brought against the accused nos.1 to 3, and also about the evidence going to be let-in to prove their guilt.

06.Upon hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as the learned defense counsel, and considering the entire materials available on the record, charges for the offences punishable under sections 417, 323, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 are framed against the accused no.1, and sections 323 and 290 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.2 and 3 under section 228(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, and the said charges have been read over and explained to the accused no.1 in the Telugu language, for which the accused nos. 1 to 3 denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. After framing of the charges, the case is posted for prosecution side evidence after fixing the schedule for trial under section 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Page 6 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025

07.In support of its case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has examined Pws.1 to 10 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P15, and closed prosecution side evidence.

08.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused nos.1 to 3 are examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to appearing in the prosecution witnesses against them, to which they denied and reported no defense evidence on their side.

09.Heard the arguments advanced on the side of the prosecution and the accused nos.1 to 3

10. Now the points for determination are :

(1)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused no. 1 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 417 of the Indian Penal Code ?

(2)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused no. 1 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code ?

(3)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused nos.1 to 3 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code ?

(4)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused nos.1 to 3 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code ?

(5)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused nos. 1 to 3 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(s)

Page 7 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025 of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 ?

(6)To what finding ?

POINTS NOS.1 to 5 :-

11. Since these points are interconnected with each other as such this

Court intend to answer them together. Pw1 is the informant. Pw2 is the aunt of Pw1. Pw3 is said to be an eye witness. Pw4 is the

Photographer/Videographer. Pw5 is one of the mediators for spot inspection.

Pw6 is the then Tahsildar, Penchikalpet mandal. Pw7 is the then Tahsildar,

Mancherial mandal. Pw8 is the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government

Area Hospital, Mancherial. Pws.9 and 10 are the first and second

Investigating Officers.

12.Pw1 has deposed in her examination-in-chief that she belongs SC (Madiga sub caste) community and the accused nos.1 to 3 belong to BC (Munnurukapu sub caste) community. Pw6 is the author of Ex.P7 and Pw7 is the author of Ex.P8. The testimony of Pws.6 and 7 are that after receiving requisitions from Pw10 for conducting verification regarding the caste of

Pw1, and accused nos.1 to 3 respectively they entrusted the work of conducting said verification on their respective field staff, who did so and submitted their respective reports before them and on the basis of their reports they issued Exs.P7 and P8 respectively, and as per the contents of

Ex.P7 Pw1 belongs to SC (Madiga sub caste) community and as per the contents of Ex.P8 the accused nos.1 to 3 belong to BC-D (Munnurukapu sub caste) community. There is no denial of the testimony of Pw1 regarding her

Page 8 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025 caste and the caste of the accused nos.1 to 3 as deposed by her. The testimony of Pw1 regarding her caste as well as the caste of the accused nos.1 to 3 as testified by her is corroborated with the evidence of Pws.6 and

7. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that Pw1 is a member of Scheduled

Caste community whereas the accused nos.1 to 3 are not the members of

Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.

13. Pw1 has averred in Ex.P1 that after coming to know about the love proposal of the accused no.1 to her the same was informed in the house of

Pw2, and when they all enquired with the accused no.1 about the same on that the accused no.1 promised to marry Pw1 and made them to believe that he will marry Pw1. Pw1 has stated in her examination by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act that she stated in her 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement that the accused no.1 promised to marry her. Pw1 has deposed in her examination- in-chief that the accused no.1 resiled from his promise to marry her. There is no evidence of Pw2 that in her presence the accused no.1, on being enquired about his love proposal to Pw1, promised to marry Pw1 and made them believe that he will marry Pw1. Per contra the evidence of Pw2 disclose that from Pw1 she came to know about the promise of the accused no.1 to marry to her (Pw1).

14. The testimony of Pw1 in her examination-in-chief indicates that she and the accused no.1 were aware about the caste of each other from the inception, and the accused no.1 told her that her caste is not a barrier for

Page 9 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025 their marriage. Pw1 has stated on oath in her examination-in-chief that she went to the house of the accused nos.1 to 3, and on the said date the accused no.2 was only present and she (Pw1) resided in the house of the accused nos.1 to 3 for one night expecting to meet the accused no.1 but the accused no.1 did not return to their house, however, the accused no.3 returned to their house, and the accused nos.2 and 3 abused her as “Madiga

Lanjamunda Kulam Thakkova Dana”, and necked her out from their house.

Pw1 has stated during her cross examination that she was aware that the accused nos.2 and 3 were against their marriage.

15.Pw1 has deposed in her examination-in-chief that the accused no.1 met him and asked her to purchase materials for performing marriage like

Pusthelu, Mattelu and sarees, and thereafter the accused no.1 took her to

Gudemgutta temple, Luxettipet mandal for performing marriage and the accused no.1 told her that the accused nos.2 and 3 were not agreeing for their marriage, and thereafter the accused no.1 brought her to Mancherial and accused no.1 resiled from his promise to marry her.

16. It is significant to note that as on the date of visit of Pw1 to the house of accused nos.1 to 3, the accused no.1 was not present. There is no evidence of Pw1 before this Court that she narrated about her ill-treatment by the accused no.2 and 3 to the accused no.1 when he met her at

Bellampalli cross roads, Mancherial or that he had knowledge about the same from other source. Pw1 has stated in her cross examination for the first time without laying any foundation in Ex.P1 that when the accused no.1

Page 10 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025 met her he promised to marry her though the accused nos.2 and 3 were against their marriage thereby rendering said improved testimony of Pw1 on the said aspect wholly unreliable. Therefore, in the circumstance of the case knowledge on the part of the accused no.1 regarding nature of treatment meted out to Pw1 by the accused nos.2 and 3 in his house in his absence is not attributable to the accused no.1. So it can be said that when the accused no.1 had met Pw1 and asked her to purchase materials for performing marriage like Pusthelu, Mattelu and sarees and took her to

Goodemgutta temple, Luxettipet mandal for performing marriage he cannot be said to have possessed knowledge that the accused nos.2 and 3 were against their marriage. Hence intention to deceive Pw1 on the part of the accused no.1 cannot be said to exist from the inception of making promise to marry Pw1 as said conduct of the accused no.1 in asking Pw1 to purchase materials for performing marriage and taking Pw1 to the temple to marry her indicates his intention to marry Pw1. The accused no.1 did not marry as the accused nos.2 and 3 were against his marriage with Pw1, and not because he did not intend to marry Pw1 from the beginning. It is pertinent to note that at that juncture Pw1 had knowledge that the accused nos.2 and 3 were against their marriage. Therefore, the question of Pw1 feeling deceived when the accused no.1 did not marry her citing unwillingness of the accused nos.2 and 3, does not arise.

17.Pw1 has further stated in her examination by the learned Special

Public Prosecutor under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act that after coming to know about her marriage alliance the accused no.1 came to the

Page 11 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025 house of Pw2 and when he revealed their love affair, her marriage was broken. There is no evidence of Pw2 that the accused no.1 came to her house and he told them about his love affair with Pw1 and for that reason the marriage alliance of Pw1 with one Praveen was broken.

18.The testimony of Pw1 do not disclose that the accused nos.2 and 3 abused her as “Madiga Lanjamunda Kulam Thakkova Dana” within public view. Therefore, section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 is not attracted to the said incident as the same did not occur within public view.

There is also no whisper in Ex.P1 about utterance of alleged words by the accused nos.2 and 3 to Pw1.

19.Pw2 has stated in her examination by the learned Special Public

Prosecutor under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act that when she along with Pw2 and her mother (Pegadapalli Pentakka/Lw2) went to the house of the accused nos.2 and 3, the accused nos.2 and 3 abused Pw1 as “Kulam Thakkovadana Neku Na Kodukea Kavalisi Vachinda”, beat Pw1 with hands and threatened Pw1 that if she again come to their house it will not be good on their part. There is no specific evidence of Pw1 before this Court that she along with Pw2 and said Pegadapalli Pentakka/Lw2 went to the house of the accused nos.2 and 3, and in their presence the accused nos.2 and 3 abused her as “Kulam Thakkovadana Neku Na Kodukea Kavalisi

Vachinda”, beat her with hands, and also threatened her. This indicates interestedness on the part of Pw2 in prosecution of the accused nos.2 to 3 for the commission of the charged offences.

Page 12 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025

20.Pw1 has further deposed in her examination-in-chief that after returning from Gudemgutta temple, Luxettipet mandal the accused no.1 took her to Ramuni Cheruvu Park at Mancherial town and told her that they shall commit suicide by consuming poison as their parents are not agreeing for their marriage and he forced her to consume poison, and she consumed poison and thereafter the accused no.1 left the park, and she fell down after consuming poison and some persons shifted her to the Government

Hospital, Mancherial where she received treatment. Pw1 states during her cross examination that she do not know from where the accused no.1 purchased said poison and she did not observe the label on the poison glass bottle. Pw1 volunteers during her cross examination that accused no.1 held the said poison bottle in his hand and forced her to consume the same and no members of the public were present in the vicinity.

21.Pw8 has deposed in her examination-in-chief that at the time of admission of Pw1 her vitals were normal and she was conscious and coherent and she was given primary treatment but she absconded from the hospital on 16.09.2020 at 06:00 A.M. Pw10 states in his cross examination that he did not investigate from where the accused no.1 got poison. There is no evidence of Pw8 that poison was administered to Pw1. No medial record is forthcoming from the side of the prosecution revealing that Pw1 was administered poison on 15.09.2020. No evidence is adduced by the prosecution to establish the source of procuring alleged poison glass bottle during investigation and administration of poison to Pw1. Self serving evidence of Pw1 regarding administration of poison to her will not suffice.

Page 13 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025

Therefore, in the circumstance of the case the solitary evidence of Pw1 that the accused no.1 administered poison to her cannot be believed.

22.Pw1 has stated in her examination by the learned Special Public

Prosecutor under section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act that she stated in

Ex.P1 that after three days when she was going to the hospital for general check up in the lane near Venkateshwara Theatre the accused no.1 obstructed her, abused her as “Madiga Lanja” and humiliated her, indiscriminately beat her, and also kicked her.

23.Pw3 has deposed that on one day at about 08:00 P.M. when he was going through the lane near Venkateshwara Theatre he saw that the accused no.1 was abusing Pw1 in the name of her caste as “Madiga Lanja

Inka Chavaleduenti”, beat her with hands.

24.As per the contents of Ex.P1 the incident of intentional insult, and abused, and voluntarily causing to Pw1 by the accused no.1 occurred on the road in front of Venkateshwara Theatre near the petrol pump occurred on account of expression of anguish by the accused no.1 that he thought that

Pw1 had died but she survived. The said reason for occurrence of alleged incident for reasons unknown is not brought on the record of the case by the prosecution during examination of Pw1 under section 154 of the Indian

Evidence Act. When the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused no.1 administered poison to Pw1, the genesis of occurrence of alleged incident on the road in front of Venkateshwara Theatre near the petrol pump as disclosed in Ex.P1 appears to be doubtful. Therefore, in the circumstance

Page 14 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025 of the case where the prosecution has suppressed reason for occurrence of alleged incident on the road in front of Venkateshwara Theatre near the petrol pump the testimonies of Pws.1 and 3 regarding the liability of the accused no.1 for intentional insulting, abusing and voluntarily causing hurt to Pw1 with his hands and legs cannot be believed.

25.Pw5 has turned hostile and he did not support he case of the prosecution. The testimonies of Pws.4, 9 and 10 are circumstantial in nature and their testimonies are of no avail to the prosecution for proving the commission of the charged offences by the accused nos.1 to 3 against Pw1.

26.Accordingly in view of the foregoing discussion this Court concludes that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the accused no.1 committed offences punishable under sections 417, 323, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and the accused nos.2 and 3 committed offences punishable under sections 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989. These points are answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused nos.1 to 3.

POINT NO.6 :

27.In view of the adjudication of points no.1 to 5 in negative against the prosecution, the accused no.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 417, 323, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and the accused nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323 and

Page 15 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA)

Act, 1989. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused nos.1 to 3.

28. In the result, the accused no.1 is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 417, 323, 294(b) and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and the accused nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 323 and 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and they are acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused nos.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per the section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no property deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of the case property is passed by this Court.

Dictated by me to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 5 th day of December, 2025.

Special Judge for trial of cases under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

Pw1 : P. Mamatha

Pw2 : I. Bannakka

Pw3 : P. Kiran Kumar

Page 16 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025

Pw4 : Gare Murali

Pw5 : Bandi Srikanth

Pw6 : K. Ragunath Rao

Pw7 : P. Rajeshwar

Pw8 : Dr. Kalavathi

Pw9 : V. Praveen Kumar

Pw10: G. Narender

For Defence: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report dated 13.10.2020

Ex.P2 : D.V.D.

Ex.P3 : Signature of Pw5 on Crime Details Form-I

Ex.P4 : Signature of Pw5 on rough sketch-I

Ex.P5 : Signature of Pw5 on Crime Details Form-II

Ex.P6 : Signature of Pw5 on rough sketch-I

Ex.P7 : Caste verification report of Pw1

Ex.P8 : Caste verification report of the accused nos.1 to 3

Ex.P9 : Medical Examination Report

Ex.P10: First Information Report

Ex.P11: Proceeding bearing no. C.No.21/MNCL/C2-CCRB/RGM/2020 dated 13.10.2020

Ex.P12: Crime details form-I

Ex.P13: Rough sketch-I

Page 17 of 17 SPL.SC No.111 of 2020 Dt: 05.12.2025

Ex.P14: Crime details form-II

Ex.P15: rough Sketch-II

For Defence:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

For Prosecution :

- Nil -

For Defence:

- Nil -

Special Judge for trial of cases under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 1 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

THE SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present: Sri KUMAR VIVEK, District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

Tuesday, this the 02nd day of December, 2025

SPL.SC. No. 113 of 2020

1.Complainant:Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaipur division I/c. Mancherial division.

2.Name of the accused:A1: Thota Thirupathi, S/o. Ramulu, Age: 38 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Old Mancherial.

A2: Penta Naveen, S/o. Bapu, Age: 31 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Old Mancherial.

A3: Mudam Umakar, S/o. Lingaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Old Mancherial.

3.Crime number and :131/2020 of Hajipur police station. police station

4.Prosecution conducted:Sri. M. Ramana Reddy, by Special Public Prosecutor, Adilabad.

5.Defence conducted by:Sri M. Narender Advocate, Adilabad.

6.Charges :Sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989

7.Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

8.Finding of the court: Not guilty.

9.Order or sentence:Accused nos. 1 to 3 found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and they are acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused nos.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per the section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no property deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of the case property is

Page 2 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025 passed by this Court.

This special sessions case has come before me on this date for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Ramana Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and that of Sri M. Narender, learned Advocate for the accused nos.1 to 3 and upon hearing and having perused the materials available on record, this Court doth the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaipur division I/c. Mancherial division has filed charge sheet in crime no.131/2020 of Hajipur police station for the offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 to punish the accused as per the law with the following allegations:

that on 17.09.2020 on the occasion of birthday of one Thumula Naresh the informant posted a comment on the Whatsapp group of old Mancherial appreciating said Thumula Naresh as an upcoming leader to which the accused no.1 posted a negative comment; that on 18.09.2020 the accused no.1 made telephone call to the informant and abused him in the filthy language and challenged him to come to Sai Maruthi Dhaba, Vempalli for discussion; that the informant narrated said incident to one Are Devender over telephone and thereafter went to timber shop of said Are Devender where one Neligeti Kumar and one Noothi Yugender were also present; that the informant narrated the said incident to them and requested them to accompany him to discuss the issue with the accused no.1 and they together went to Sai Maruthi Dhaba, Vempalli in the car of said Are Devender at about 05:30 P.M.; that finding no one in the said Dhabha while they were returning in the car and reached in front of beedi leaves godown in the meantime accused no.1 made phone call and asked about their location and the same was share by the informant; that the accused nos. 1 to 3 came there in a car and the accused nos.1 and 3 caught hold of the informant and beat him with their hands, and abused him in the name of his caste; that the accused no.2 also

Page 3 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025 abused the informant in the name of his caste and beat him with his hands; that when said Are Devender, said Neligeti Kumar and said Noothi Yugender tried to rescue the informant the accused no.1 had threatened them; and that after the incident the informant escaped from the spot by boarding running RTC bus.

02.On 18.09.2020 the Sub-Inspector of police, Hajipur police station registered a case as in crime no. 131/2020 for the offences punishable under sections 143, 294(b) and 323 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, issued FIR and upon completion of investigation the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jaipur division I/c. Mancherial division filed charge sheet against the accused nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

03. This Court has taken cognizance of the chargesheet for the offences punishable under section 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.1 to 3, and assigned Spl. SC. No. 113 of 2020 to the case.

04.The accused nos.1 to 3 appeared before this Court and the copy of the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to them as per section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

05.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opened this case by describing the charges to be brought against the accused nos.1 to 3, and also about the evidence going to be let-in to prove their guilt.

06.Upon hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as the learned defense counsel, and considering the entire materials available on the record, charges for the offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian

Page 4 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025

Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 are framed against the accused nos.1 to 3 under section 228(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, and the said charges have been read over and explained to the accused nos.1 to 3 in the Telugu language, for which the accused nos.1 to 3 denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. After framing of the charges, the case is posted for prosecution side evidence after fixing the schedule for trial under section 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

07.In support of its case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has examined

Pws.1 to 10 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P11, and closed prosecution side evidence.

08.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused nos. 1 to 3 are examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to appearing in the prosecution witness against them, to which they denied and reported no defense evidence on their side.

09.Heard the arguments advanced on the side of the prosecution and the accused.

10. Now the points for determination are :

(1)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused nos.1 to 3 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code ?

(2)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused nos.1 to 3 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code ?

Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused (3)beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 ?

Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused

Page 5 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025 (4)beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 ?

(5) To what finding ?

POINTS NOS.1 to 4

11. Since these points are interconnected with each other as such this Court intend to answer them together. Pw1 is the informant. Pws.2 to 4 are said to be the eye witnesses. Pw5 is said to be a circumstantial witness. Pw6 is the photographer/videographer. Pw7 is said to be one of the mediators for spot inspection. Pws.8 and 9 are the first and second Investigating Officers respectively.

Pw10 is the then Tahsildar, Mancherial mandal.

12.Pw1 has deposed that he belongs SC (Mala sub caste) community and the accused nos.1 to 3 belong to BC (Munnurukapu sub caste) community. The evidence of Pw1 that he belongs to SC (Mala sub caste) community and the accused nos.1 to 3 are not the members of the Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe community is not controverted by the accused nos.1 to 3 during his cross examination. Pw10 is the author of Ex.P11. Pw10 has deposed that after receipt of requisition from Pw9 for conducting verification regarding the caste of Pw1, the accused nos.1 to 3, one Martha Ashok Goud and one Dharni Sathyanarayana he instructed the field staff to conduct enquiry regarding the same, and thereafter his field staff submitted enquiry report before him, and on the basis of the same he issued Ex.P11, and that as per the contents of Ex.P11 Pw1 belongs SC (Mala sub caste) community, the accused nos.1 to 3 and said Dharni Sathyanarayana belong to BC-D (Munnurukapu sub caste) community and said Martha Ashok Goud belongs to BC-B (Goud sub caste) community. Pw10 cross examined on behalf of the accused nos.1 to 3 but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the testimony of

Page 6 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025

Pw10 regarding the caste of Pw1 as well as the accused nos.1 to 3 and two others as deposed by him in his examination-in-chief. The evidence of Pw1 that he is a member of Schedule Caste community and the accused nos.1 to 3 are not members of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe is corroborated with the evidence of

Pw10 as well as with recitals of Ex.P11. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved that Pw1 is a member of SC (Mala sub caste) community, and the accused nos.1 to 3 belong to BC-D (Munnurukapu sub caste) community.

13. Pw1 has stated on oath that on 17.09.2020 he posted a message on Patha

Mancherial Whatsapp group wishing happy birthday to one Thumula Naresh appreciating him as an upcoming leader; that said Thumula Naresh and the accused nos.1 to 3 are the members of the said Whatsapp group; that the accused no.1 posted derogatory message against said Thumula Naresh in the said

Whatsapp group; that on 18.09.2020 in the evening hours he received a phone call from the accused no.1 and the accused no.1 abused him as “mannepu lanjakoduka” and he dared him to come to Sai Maruthi Dhaba; that he told the accused no.1 that he was at Srirampur and that he would come and meet him; that again the accused no.1 made telephone call to him and enquired about him about coming to said Dhaba and he told him that he would come there; that he went to the timber shop of Pw2 and he narrated the entire incident to Pw2 and thereafter he along with Pws.2 to 4 went to the said Dhaba in the car of Pw2; that the accused no.1 was not present in the said Dhaba and while they were returning the accused no.1 again made phone call to him and enquired with him about his arrival on that he told him that they came there and they were returning, and that they were present beside beedi leaves godown; that the accused nos.1 to 3 came near the said godown in a car; that the accused nos.1 and 3 beat him with their hands on his head, left palm and stomach; that the accused no.2 abused him as “Mannea

Page 7 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025

Lanjakoduku” and threatened to see his end under the lorry; that the accused nos.

1 to 3 had also beaten him; that Pws.2 to 4 intervened for his rescue; that the accused no.1 had slapped Pw2 on his cheek while he was rescuing him; and that he left the spot by boarding RTC bus.

14.Pw1 admits during his cross examination that he did not state in Ex.P1 that he went to the timber depot of Pw2 and he narrated the incident to Pw2 and thereafter he along with Pws.2 to 4 went to the said Dhaba in the car of Pw2; that he told the accused no.1 that he was at Srirampur and he would come and meet him; that thereafter the accused nos.1 to 3 came in a car near the said godown; and that he left the spot by boarding RTC bus. Therefore, Pw1 has deposed about the alleged facts for the first time before this Court without laying any foundation in his previous statement under Ex.P1 thereby rendering his testimony on said aspects wholly reliable.

15.The testimony of Pw1 indicates that posting a Whatsapp message on Patha

Mancherial group by him on 17.09.2020 appreciating one Thumula Naresh as an upcoming leader, and the accused no.1 posting derogatory message against said

Thumula Naresh in the said Whatsapp group is the genesis of occurrence of the alleged incident. Pw1 states during his cross examination that the police did not collect the message posted by him in the said Whatsapp group appreciating said

Thumula Naresh by him as upcoming leader and also the derogatory message posted by the accused no.1 in the said Whatsapp group, from him. There is no evidence of Pw9 about collection of the alleged messages posted by Pw1 and the accused no.1 in the said Patha Mancherial Whatsapp group. The alleged Whatsapp messages are the best evidence to prove the genesis of occurrence of alleged incident of violence against Pw1. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of the occurrence of the alleged incident.

Page 8 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025

16.Pw1 has deposed that the accused no.1 abused him as “Mannepu

Lanjakoduka” over phone call. There is no evidence of Pw1 that he had put his mobile phone on speaker mode while the accused no.1 was making alleged casteist slur against him and the same was heard by independent witnesses. Therefore, it can be said that the alleged incident did not occur within public view.

17.The evidence of Pw1 also disclose that the accused no.2 abused him as “mannepu lanjekouduka” in the presence of Pws.2 to 4. The testimony of Pw1 further indicates that the accused nos.1 and 3 had beaten him with their hands on his head, left palm and stomach, the accused no.2 had threatened him to see his end under the lorry, and the accused nos.1 to 3 had beaten him in the presence of

Pws.2 to 4. Pws.2 to 4 have deposed in one voice before this Court that they do not know anything about the facts of this case. Pw5 has also deposed that he do not know anything about the facts of this case. Pws.2 to 5 have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution in general and the testimonies of Pw1 that in their presence the accused no.2 abused him as “mannepu lanjekouduka”, the accused nos.1 and 3 had beaten him with their hands on his head, left palm and stomach, the accused no.2 had threatened him to see his end under the lorry, and the accused nos.1 to 3 had beaten him.

18.In Hutu Ansari @ Futu Ansar & Others Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 745 the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that to sustain a conviction under section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 the abuse or derogatory reference must be carried out publicly, in the presence of individuals other than the victim and the accused. Hence solitary evidence of Pw1 is not enough to believe utterance of alleged casteist remark by the accused no.2 against Pw1.

Page 9 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025

19.It has been brought on the record of the case during cross examination of

Pw1 by the accused nos.1 to 3 that said Thumula Naresh was the then Town

President of Congress (I) party of Mancherial town, and that there is political rivalry between Thumula Naresh and the accused nos.1 to 3, and that on 18.09.2020 said

Thumula Naresh helped him in lodging Ex.P1 by coming to Hajipur police station.

The circumstance of the case indicates proximity between Pw1 and said Thumula

Naresh who is having political rivalry with the accused nos.1 to 3. Therefore, inimical disposition of Pw1 against the accused nos.1 to 3 cannot be ruled out and for that reason it is not safe to rely upon uncorroborated testimony of Pw1 for believing that the accused nos.1 and 3 had beaten him with their hands on his head, left palm and stomach, the accused no.2 had threatened him to see his end under the lorry, and the accused nos.1 to 3 had beaten him.

20.The evidence of Pw1 that the accused no.1 slapped Pw2 on his cheek while

Pw2 was rescuing him is not supported that the evidence of Pw2 as there is no evidence of Pw2 that the accused no.1 had slapped him while he was rescuing him.

21.Pw7 has also turned hostile and he did not support the testimony of Pw9 about inspecting the alleged scene of crime in his presence and in the presence of one Radandi Srinivas and drafting of Ex.P10 by Pw9 in their presence. The testimonies of Pw6 is not at all relevant for adjudicating the liability of accused nos.1 to 3 for abusing him within public view in the name of his caste and also voluntarily causing hurt to him with their hands. The testimonies of Pws.8 and 9 are the chronology of the investigation done by them in this case, and thus circumstantial in nature.

22.Accordingly in view of the foregoing appreciation of the circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove commission of the offences punishable under sections

Page 10 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the

SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 by the accused nos.1 to 3 against Pw1.These points are answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

POINT NO.5

23.In view of the adjudication of points no.1 to 4 in negative against the prosecution, the accused nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for commission of the offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

24. In the result, accused nos. 1 to 3 found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 294(b) and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and they are acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused no.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per the section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no property deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of the case property is passed by this Court.

Dictated by me to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 02 nd day of December, 2025.

Special Judge for trial of cases under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

Pw1 : D. Prathap

Page 11 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025

Pw2 : Are Devender

Pw3 : N. Kumar

Pw4 : N. Yugander

Pw5 : G. Madhukar

Pw6 : G. Rakesh

Pw7 : M. Ramesh

Pw8 : Chandra Shekar

Pw9 : G. Narender

Pw10: P. Rajeshwar

For Defence: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report dated 18.09.2020

Ex.P2 : Section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement of Pw2

Ex.P3 : Section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement of Pw3

Ex.P4 : Section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement of Pw4

Ex.P5 : Section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement of Pw5

Ex.P6 : D.V.D.

Ex.P7 : Signature of Pw7 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P8 : First Information Report

Ex.P9 : Proceeding bearing no. C.No.16/MNCL/C2-CCRB/RGM/2020 dated 18.09.2020

Ex.P10: Crime Details Form

Ex.P11: Caste verification report

Page 12 of 12 SPL.SC No.113 of 2020 Dt: 02.12.2025

For Defence:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

For Prosecution :

- Nil -

For Defence:

- Nil -

Special Judge for trial of cases under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 1 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

THE SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present: Sri KUMAR VIVEK, District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

Thursday, this the 18th day of December, 2025

SPL.SC. No. 93 of 2022

1.Complainant:The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad.

2.Name of the accused:Loka Praveen Reddy, S/o. Venkat Narayana Reddy, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Deepaiguda village now at Vidhyanagar, Adilabad.

3.Crime number and police :86/2022 of Mavala police station. station

4.Prosecution conducted by :Sri. M. Ramana Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor, Adilabad.

5.Defence conducted by:Sri B. Grahesh, Advocate, Adilabad.

6.Charges :Sections 448, 353, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

7.Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

8.Finding of the court:Not guilty.

9.Order or sentence:Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 353, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and he is acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per the section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no property deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of the case property is passed by this Court.

Page 2 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025

This special sessions case has come before me on 15.12.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Ramana Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and that of Sri B. Grahesh, learned Advocate for the accused and upon hearing and having perused the materials available on record, this Court doth the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad has filed charge sheet against the accused in crime no.86/2022 of Mavala police station for the offences punishable under sections 448, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 to punish the accused as per the law with the following allegations:

that on 26.04.2022 at 09:00 P.M. while one Pandram Jangu and one Kova

Sreekanth were performing their duties as gunmen of the Member of the

Parliament at the house of the Member of the Parliament, the accused came there, and he pushed them and obstructed them from performing their duties as public servants and criminally trespassed into the house of the Member of the Parliament and entered into the bed room of the Member of the Parliament and when they brought the accused out of the bed room, the accused left by threatening to kill them.

02.On 27-04-2022 the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Mavala police station registered a case as in crime no. 86/2022 for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 353 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs &

STs (POA) Act, 1989, issued FIR and upon completion of investigation the Sub

Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 448, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) amendment Act, 2015.

03. This Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheet for the offences punishable under section 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)

Page 3 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025 (va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused, and assigned Spl. SC.

No. 93 of 2022 to the case.

04.The accused appeared before this Court and the copy of the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to him as per section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

05.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opened this case by describing the charges to be brought against the accused, and also about the evidence going to be let-in to prove his guilt.

06.Upon hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as the learned defense counsel, and considering the entire materials available on the record, charges for the offences punishable under sections 448, 353 and 506 of the Indian

Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 are framed against the accused under section 228(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the said charges have been read over and explained to the accused in the Telugu language, for which the accused denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. After framing of the charges, the case is posted for prosecution side evidence after fixing the schedule for trial under section 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

07.In support of its case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has examined

Pws.1 to 11 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P11, and closed prosecution side evidence.

08.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to appearing in the prosecution witness against him, to which he denied and reported no defense evidence on his side.

Page 4 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025

09.Heard the arguments advanced on the side of the prosecution and the accused. Written arguments is also filed on behalf of the accused.

10.The learned counsel for the accused had placed reliance on the judgments of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India between Peddireddy Subbareddi and others Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh reported in AIR 1991 SC 1356, the Hon’ble Himachal Pradesh High

Court between State of H.P. Vs. Kansi Ram and another reported in 2009 Supreme (HP) 2, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala between Mukkannan Moosa Haji aged 53 years Vs.

State of Kerala reported in 2013 Supreme (Online) (KER) 872, and the Hon’ble High

Court of Rajasthan between State of Rajasthan Vs. Ramphal Choudhary reported in 2017 Supreme (Raj) 1322.

11. Now the points for determination are :

(1)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 448 of the Indian Penal Code ?

(2)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code ?

(3)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code ?

(4)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 ?

(5)To what finding ?

Page 5 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025

POINTS NOS.1 TO 4 :-

12. Since these points are interconnected with each other as such this Court intend to answer them together. Pws.1 and 2 are said to be the victims at the hands of the accused. Pws.3 and 4 are said to be eye witnesses. Pws.5 and 6 are said to be the mediators for spot inspection. Pw7 is the Photographer. Pws.8 and 9 are the then Tahsildars of Sirikonda and Adillabad (Urban) mandals respectively.

Pws.10 and 11 are the Investigating Officers.

13.Pws.1 and 2 have deposed in their examination-in-chief in one voice before this Court that they belong to ST (Gond sub caste) community and that the accused belongs to OC (Reddy sub caste) community. Pws.8 and 9 in their examination-in- chief have deposed that after receipt of requisition from Pw11 they got conducted field enquiry about the caste of Pw1, and Pw2 and the accused respectively and it was revealed that the Pws.1 and 2 belong to ST (Gond sub caste) community and the accused belongs to OC (Gurudakapu sub caste) community and thereafter they issued Exs.P6 and P7 respectively. As per the contents of Ex.P6 Pw.1 belongs to ST (Gond sub caste) community and as per the recitals of Ex.P7 Pw2 belongs to ST (Gond sub caste) community and the accused belongs to OC (Gurudakapu sub caste) community. Therefore, the testimonies of Pws.1 and 2 about their caste as well as the caste of the accused is corroborated with the evidence of Pws.8 and 9 and also with the recitals of Exs.P6 and P7. Therefore, it is held that the prosecution has proved that the Pws.1 and 2 are the members of Schedule Tribe community whereas the accused is not a member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe community.

14.Pw1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that at the relevant time he and

Pw2 were gunmen of the Member of the Parliament by name Soyam Bapu Rao

Page 6 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025 whose house is situated near K.C.B. Garden, Adilabad town and at the relevant time Pws.3 and 4 were the Personal Assistant and Cook respectively of said Soyam

Bapu Rao; that on 26.04.2022 at about 09:00 P.M. he and Pw2 were performing their duty and in the meantime the accused came there to meet the said Soyam

Bapu Rao; that they informed the accused that said Soyam Bapu Rao was taking rest in the bed room and in spite of the same the accused entered into the bed room; that they brought the accused out of the bed room and sent him out of the house of said Soyam Bapu Rao; that while leaving the accused threatened to kill him and Pw2; that the accused obstructed him and Pw2 from performing their duties; and that on the following day he lodged Ex.P1.

15. Pw2 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that for about one year prior to this case he was working as gunman of said Soyam Bapu Rao along with Pw1 who was working as gunman of said Soyam Bapu Rao prior to him; that on 26.04.2022 at 09:00 P.M. while he and Pw2 was performing their duties at the house of said

Soyam Bapu Rao in the meantime the accused came there and they stopped the accused; that the accused informed them that he wanted to meet said Soyam Bapu

Rao and they told him that said Soyam Bapu Rao was taking rest; that the accused entered into the bed room of said Soyam Bapu Rao and quarreled with said Soyam

Bapu Rao and they brought him out of the bed room and thereafter they sent the accused out of the house of said Soyam Babu Rao; that the accused left by abusing them; and that except him, Pws.1, 3 and 4 no other witnesses were present. Pw2 has stated during his examination by the learned Special Public Prosecutor under section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code that he stated in his section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement that the accused left by threatening to kill them.

Page 7 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025

16. Pw3 has stated on oath in his examination-in-chief that on 26.04.2022 at 09:00 P.M. he, Pws.1, 2 and 4 were present in the house of said Soyam Bapu Rao; that said Soyam Bapu Rao was present in his bed room; that the accused entered into the bed room of the said Soyam Bapu Rao and thereafter he left the house of the said Soyam Bapu Rao; and that Pw1 asked the accused to not to enter into the bed room.

17.Pw4 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 26.04.2022 at 09:00

P.M. he was cooking in the house of said Soyam Bapu Rao and said Soyam Bapu

Rao was taking rest in the said house and other persons were performing their duties; that in the meantime the accused came there; that on hearing the sound of quarrel he came out of the kitchen and that he saw that in spite of stopping by

Pws.1 and 2, the accused entered into the bed room of said Soyam Bapu Rao; that

Pws.1 and 2 sent the accused out of the house of said Soyam Bapu Rao after convincing him; and that the accused while leaving the house had threatened

Pws.1 and 2 to kill.

18.Pws.5 and 6 have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution about Pw11 inspecting the alleged scene of crime in their presence and drafting Ex.P10 by Pw11 in their presence.

19.There is no evidence of Pws.1 and 2 before this Court that the accused had used criminal force to them by pushing them as alleged by them in Ex.P1.

Therefore, the ingredients of section 353 of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted to the facts of this case. Ex.P1 is said to be the joint report of Pws.1 and 2. There is no recital in Ex.P1 that the accused had threatened to kill Pws.1 and 2. Hence, the first time version of Pws.1 and 2 before this Court about the liability of the accused of threatening to kill them cannot be relied upon. There is no evidence of Pw3 that

Page 8 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025 the accused had threatened to kill Pws.1 and 2 while leaving the house of said

Soyam Bapu Rao. Similarly in absence of any foundation in Ex.P1 and evidence of

Pw3 about the liability of the accused of criminally intimidating Pw1, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of Pw4 that the accused had threatened Pws.1 and 2 while leaving the house of said Soyam Bapu Rao.

20.The accused is said to have committed trespass into the house of the

Member of the Parliament by name Soyam Bapu Rao. Pw1 has deposed that the house of said Soyam Bapu Rao is situated near KCB Garden, Adilabad town. As per the contents of Ex.P10, the alleged scene of crime is situated in the house of the

Member of the Parliament that is located at Vagdevinagar, Adilabad. It has been brought on the record of the case during cross examination of Pw11 by the accused that Mavala, Vagdevinagar, KCB Garden are different localities of Adilabad town.

The testimony of Pw1 and the contents of Ex.P10 contradicts each other about the location of the alleged scene of crime. Said Soyam Bapu Rao is not examined by the prosecution to prove that the accused committed criminal trespass into his house initially and thereafter into his bed room.

21.Merely because Pws.1 and 2 belong to ST (Gond sub caste) community the same by itself is not sufficient to attract section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA)

Act, 1989 sans any knowledge on the part of the accused about their caste.

Admittedly there is no mention in Ex.P1 that the accused was aware about the tribal identity of Pws.1 and 2. The alleged incident occurred on26.04.2022 whereas

Ex.P1 was lodged on 27.04.2025 at 01:30 P.M. Pw1 states during his cross examination that no reason for the said delay in lodging Ex.P1 is mentioned in

Ex.P1. Similar admission is made by Pw11 during the cross examination by the

Page 9 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025 accused. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to explain the delay of almost 16½ hours in lodging of Ex.P1 by Pws.1 and 2.

22.Accordingly on account of absence of any evidence of Pws.1 and 2 about the liability of the accused of using criminal force to them in the nature of pushing them while performing their duties as gunmen of the Member of the Parliament

Soyam Bapu Rao, absence in recital in Ex.P1 about the liability of the accused of criminal intimidating Pws.1 and 2 as developed by them before this Court, non- examination of said Soyam Bapu Rao, inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution about the location of alleged scene of crime and unexplained delay of 16½ hours in lodging Ex.P1 are the factors that weigh in the mind of this Court for disbelieving the case of the prosecution against the accused for committing the offences punishable under section 448, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989. These points are answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

POINT NO.5 :

23.In view of the adjudication of points no.1 to 4 in negative against the prosecution, the accused is found not guilty for commission of the offences punishable under sections 448, 353, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2) (va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

24. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 353, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the

SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and he is acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bond of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per the section

Page 10 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no property deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of the case property is passed by this Court.

Dictated by me to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 18 th day of December, 2025.

Special Judge for trial of cases under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

Pw1 : P. Jangu/Informant

Pw2 : K. Srikanth/Informant

Pw3 : Soma Anish/Eye witness

Pw4 : S. Mallesh/Eye witness

Pw5 : K. Gyaneshwar/Mediator

Pw6 : K. Swamy/Mediator

Pw7 : M. Srikanth/Videographer

Pw8 : M.A. Sarfaraz Nawaz/Tahsildar

Pw9 : P. Sathish Kumar Sharma/Tahsildar

Pw10: K. Ashanna/Investigating Officer

Pw11: N.N.S.V.V. Venkateshwar Rao/Investigating Officer

For Defence: - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Page 11 of 11 SPL.SC No.93 of 2022 Dt: 18.12.2025

Ex.P1 : Report dated 27.04.2022/Pw1

Ex.P2 : Section 161(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code statement of Pw3/Pw3

Ex.P3 : Signature of Pw5 on crime details form/Pw5

Ex.P4 : Signature of Pw6 on crime details form/Pw6

Ex.P5 : D.V.D. along with section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act certificate/Pw7

Ex.P6 : Caste verification report of Pw1/Pw8

Ex.P7 : Caste verification report of Pw2 and the accused/Pw9

Ex.P8 : First Information Report/Pw10

Ex.P9 : Proceeding bearing no. C.No.19/C2-DCRB/2022 dated 27.04.2022/Pw11

Ex.P10: Crime details form/Pw11

Ex.P11: Proceeding bearing no. C.No.19/C2-DCRB/2022 dated 02.06.2022/Pw11

For Defence:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

For Prosecution :

- Nil -

For Defence:

- Nil -

Special Judge for trial of cases under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 1 of 7 SPL.SC No.113 of 2021 Dt: 18.12.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

THE SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present: Sri KUMAR VIVEK, District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

Thursday, this the 18th day of December, 2025

SPL.SC. No. 113 of 2021

1.Complainant:Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad.

2.Name of the accused:A1: Loka Praveen Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Deepaiguda village now at Vidhyanagar, Adilabad. A2: Loka Karunakar Reddy, S/o. Jayaprakash narayana Reddy, Age: 39 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Deepaiguda village now at Vidhyanagar, Adilabad.

A3: Payala Sharath, S/o. Shankar, Age: 27 years, Occ: Agriculture,. R/o. Ada village, Jainath.

3.Crime number and :106/2021 of Jainath police station. police station

4.Prosecution conducted:Sri. M. Ramana Reddy, by Special Public Prosecutor, Adilabad.

5.Defence conducted by:Sri N. Nagesh, Advocate, Adilabad.

6.Charges :Sections 3 (1)(r) and (s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

7.Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

8.Finding of the court: Not guilty.

9.Order or sentence:Accused nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3 (1)(r) and

(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and they are acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused nos.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per the section 437-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. There is no property deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of the case property is passed by this Court.

Page 2 of 7 SPL.SC No.113 of 2021 Dt: 18.12.2025

This special sessions case has come before me on 15.12.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri M. Ramana Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and that of Sri N. Nagesh, learned Advocate for the accused and upon hearing and having perused the materials available on record, this Court doth the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad has filed charge sheet in crime no.106/2021 of Jainath police station for the offences punishable under section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.1 to 3 and to punish the accused nos.1 to 3 as per the law with the following allegations:

that on 09.09.2021 between 03:30 P.M. and 04:30 P.M. at the office of the

Mandal Parishad Development Officer, Jainath Mandal the accused nos.1 to 3 intimidated, insulted, and abused the informant in the name of his caste as “Lanjakoduka, Gadidha Koduka, Nee Amma” due to political rivalry.

02.On 10.09.2021 the Sub Inspector of Police, Jainath police station registered a case as in crime no. 106/2021 for the offences punishable under section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.1 to 3, issued FIR and upon completion of investigation the

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under section 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.1 to 3.

03. This Court has taken cognizance of the charge sheet for the offences punishable under section 294(b) and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused nos.1 to 3, and assigned Spl. SC. No. 113 of 2021 to the case.

Page 3 of 7 SPL.SC No.113 of 2021 Dt: 18.12.2025

04.The accused nos.1 to 3 appeared before this Court and the copy of the documents relied upon by the prosecution have been furnished to them as per section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

05.The learned Special Public Prosecutor opened this case by describing the charges to be brought against the accused nos.1 to 3, and also about the evidence going to be let-in to prove their guilt.

06.Upon hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor as well as the learned defense counsel, and considering the entire materials available on the record, charges for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 are framed against the accused nos.1 to 3 under section 228(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the said charges have been read over and explained to the accused nos. 1 to 3 in the Telugu language, for which the accused nos. 1 to 3 denied, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried. After framing of the charges, the case is posted for prosecution side evidence after fixing the schedule for trial under section 230 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

07.In support of its case, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has examined

Pws.1 to 6 apart from exhibiting Exs.P1 to P12, and closed prosecution side evidence.

08.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused nos.1 to 3 are examined under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code by stating the incriminating circumstances found to appearing in the prosecution witness against them, to which they denied and reported no defense evidence on their side.

09.Heard the arguments advanced on the side of the prosecution and the accused nos.1 to 3.

Page 4 of 7 SPL.SC No.113 of 2021 Dt: 18.12.2025

10. Now the points for determination are :

(1)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused nos. 1 to 3 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(r) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 ?

(2)Did the prosecution prove the guilt of the accused nos. 1 to 3 beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under sections 3(1)(s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 ?

(3)To what finding ?

POINT NOS.1 AND 2 :-

11. Since these points are interconnected with each other as such this Court intend to answer them together. Pw1 is the informant. Pws.2 to 5 are said to be the eye witnesses. Pw6 is the Investigating Officer.

12.Pw1 has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he belongs to ST (Gond sub caste) community, the accused nos.1 and 2 belong to OC (Gurudakapu sub caste) community and the accused no.3 belongs to BC (Perika sub caste) community.

Ex.P12 is the caste verification report of Pw1, and the accused nos.1 to 3 issued by the then Tahsildar, Jainath mandal. The contents of Ex.P12 corroborates the testimony of Pw1 about his tribal identity as well as the non-tribal identity of the accused nos.1 to 3.

13. Pw1 has further deposed in his examination-in-chief that he do not know anything about the facts of this case; that the police obtained his signature on a white paper; and that he did not lodge any report against the accused nos.1 to 3.

Pws.2 to 5 have deposed in one voice in their examination-in-chief that they do not know anything about the facts of this case.

Page 5 of 7 SPL.SC No.113 of 2021 Dt: 18.12.2025

14. Pws.1 to 5 have turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. Pw6 has testified in his examination-in-chief that Pws.1 to 5 stated

before him as in Exs.P2 to P6. Pw6 is not an eye witness to the alleged incident.

The testimony of Pw6 that Pws.1 to 5 stated before him as in Exs.P2 to P6 will not prove the contents of the alleged previous statements of Pws.1 to 5 when Pws.1 to 5 turned hostilein the light of the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment between Renuka Prasad Vs. State in Criminal Appeal Nos. 3189 and 3190 of 2023 dated 09.05.2025 wherein it is held that the evidence of the

Investigating Officer will not prove the contents of the section 161(3) of the

Criminal Procedure Code statements of the witnesses when they turned hostile.

15.Accordingly in view of the foregoing discussion on account of hostility of

Pws.1 to 5 this Court concludes that the prosecution has failed to prove the liability of the accused nos.1 to 3 for commission of the offences punishable under sections sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 and the benefit of doubt is extended to the accused nos.1 to 3 for the commission of the said offences. These points are answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused nos.1 to 3.

POINT NO.3 :

16.In view of the adjudication of points no.1 and 2 in negative against the prosecution, the accused nos.1 to 3 are found not guilty for commission of the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989. This point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused nos.1 to 3.

17. In the result, the accused nos. 1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, and

Page 6 of 7 SPL.SC No.113 of 2021 Dt: 18.12.2025 they are acquitted for the said offences under section 235(1) of the Criminal

Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused nos.1 to 3 shall remain in force for a period of six months from the date of this judgment as per the section 437-A of the

Criminal Procedure Code. There is no property deposited in this case as such no order regarding disposal of the case property is passed by this Court.

Dictated by me to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court on this the 18 th day of December, 2025.

Special Judge for trial of cases under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

ProsecutionName of witnessDescription Witness No.

1.Pendur MohanInformant

2.M. UshannaEye witness

3.K. BhojannaEye witness

4.K. KeshavEye witness

5.T. PochannaEye witness

6.N.N.S.V. Venkateshwar Rao Investigating Officer

For Defence:

- None -

Page 7 of 7 SPL.SC No.113 of 2021 Dt: 18.12.2025

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Exhibit Description of Proved by/ No.the ExhibitAttested by

1.Signature on report dated Pw1 10.09.2021

2.Section 161(3) of the CriminalPw1 Procedure Code statement of Pw1

3.Section 161(3) of the CriminalPw2 Procedure Code statement of Pw2

4.Section 161(3) of the CriminalPw3 Procedure Code statement of Pw3

5.Section 161(3) of the CriminalPw4 Procedure Code statement of Pw4

6.Section 161(3) of the CriminalPw5 Procedure Code statement of Pw5

7.Proceeding bearing no. 22/C2-Pw6 DCRB./2021 dated 13.09.2021

8.Report dated 10.09.2021Pw6

9.First Information ReportPw6

10.Crime details form and rough sketchPw6

11.VCD along with section 65-B of thePw6 Indian Evidence Act certificate

12.Caste verification report of Pw1,Pw6 accused nos.1 to 3

For Defence:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

For Prosecution :

- Nil -

For Defence:

- Nil -

Special Judge for trial of cases under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.