Sri. L.sridhar

S.C.No.2/2008 1 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC

& ST (POA) ACT-CUM-XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: SRI LALAM SRIDHAR,

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday the 16 th day of April, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.2/2008

(PRC.No.15/2000 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Amalapuram in Cr.No.1/1997 of Draksharam Police Station, E.G. District)

Name of the Complainant :State represented by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram (Specially deputed)

Name of the accused: 1). Thota Thrimurthulu, S/o Pundarikakshudu, Age:38 years, Kapu, M.L.A., Ramachandrapuram Assemblyconstituency,residentof Venkatayapalem, Ramachandrapuram (M).

2). Thota Babulu @ Pedababu, S/o Peda Tatarao, Age: 30 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem.

3). Thota Ramu, S/o Pundarikakshudu, Age:45 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem.

4). Thota Pundarikakshudu @ Pundarikakshayya @ Doctorbabu, S/o Ramu, 18 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem.

5). Thota Pundarikakshudu @ Babi, S/o Sathikonda @ Sathyanarayana, 19 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem.

6). Thalatam Murali Mohan @ Murali Krishna, S/o Suryanarayana, 19 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem. (Died) 7). Devalla Kishore, S/o Sathiraju, 19 years, Kamma, Venkatayapalem.

8). Thota Srinu, S/o Subbarao @ China Tatarao, 19 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem.

S.C.No.2/2008 2 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP 9). Mancham Prakash, S/o Paparao, 26 years, Kapu, Ramalayamveedhi, Venkatayapalem.

10). Achanta Rama Sathyanarayana @ Rambabu, S/o Pakeeru, 30 years, Nai-brahmin (Barbar) village servant, Verkatayapalem. Ramachandrapuram Mandal.

(Case against A6 is abated as he died)

Date, time and Place of : On 29.12.1996 at 12.00 mid night at offenceVenkatayyapalem at the backyard of the house of A1 Charges:Under Sections 342, 324, 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(1)(iii) and section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Plea of the accused :The accused A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court :A1 to A5 and A6 to A10 are found guilty for the charges under Sections 342, 506 (2), 323 (lesser offence of Section

324) IPC and Section 3 (1)(iii) and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 and they are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Since the above accused are not found guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, they are acquitted for the charges under Section 324 and 324, r/w 34 of IPC respectively.

Sentence or Order :In the result, A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the Charge under Sections 342 IPC and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six months each. A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 are also convicted for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six months each and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, IDSI for one month each. A2 and A3 are also convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC on two counts for beating P.Ws.1 and 2 (being a lesser offence for the charge under Section 324 IPC) and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six months each for two counts. A1, A4, A5 and A7 to A10 are also convicted for the charge under Section 323, r/w 34 of IPC on two counts in respect of beating P.Ws.1 and 2 (being a lesser offence for the charge under Section 324 IPC) along with A2 and A3 and accordingly they are sentenced to sufferSimple

S.C.No.2/2008 3 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Imprisonment for Six months each for two counts. A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 are also convicted for the charge under Section 3(1) (iii) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 18 months each (one and half year) and also to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, IDSI for Two months each. A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 are also convicted for the charge under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly they are sentenced to sufferSimple Imprisonment for 18 months each (one and half year) and also to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, IDSI for Two months each. All the sentences shall run concurrently. All the sentences warded for the charges under IPC as well as ST & ST (POA) Act, 1989 as referred above shall run concurrently. The remand period if any shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Out of total fine amount of Rs.3,78,000/- that was collected from the accused, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) each is awarded by way of compensation to P.Ws.1 and 2 which is to be paid after appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri K.V.V.S.N.Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State

Accused was defended by :Sri K.V.Rama Murthy, Advocate for accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10

This case is coming on 03.04.2024 for final hearing before me in presence of Sri K.V.V.S.N.Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri K.V.Rama Murthy, Advocate for accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 and the

Case against A6 is abated as he died. the same having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The above case arises out of Charge Sheet filed by the Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Amalapuram (Specially deputed) in Cr.No.01/1997 of

S.C.No.2/2008 4 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Draksharam Police Station for the offences under Sections 342, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and under Section 3 (1) (iii) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused 1 to 10.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is arrayed as follows:-

(a). It is stated that the victims in this case are examined as P.W.1 and

P.W2 and they are residents of Venkatayapalem village of

Ramachandrapuram Mandal and they belonged to ‘MALA’ by community.

Both PW.1 and PW.2 passed I.T.I. and are seeking for a job and they are presently working as casual labour in cyclone works in electrical Department on temporary basis. All the accused are also residents of Venkatyapalem village and they are Kapu by caste except A.7 and A.10 who are classified as upper caste people not being the members of scheduled caste. The 1st accused by name Sri Thota Trhrimurthulu is a present sitting M.L.A. for

Ramachandrapuram Assembly Constituency while the other accused i.e., A.2 to A.10 are his relatives, kith and kin and close associates respectively. A.7 is a Chowdary person while A.10 is Nayi Brahmin by caste (barber) not being the members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The 1st accused owned a house by the side of main road Venkatayapalem village and the barber shop of A.10 is situated nearby to the residential house of A1.

(b).It is further stated that prior to the incident in the instant case, both PWs.1 and 2 worked on behalf of B.S.P. candidate Sri Chettibathula Raju and campaigned against A.1 in 1994 elections in which A.1 was declared and elected as an Independent candidate for Ramachandrapuram Assembly

S.C.No.2/2008 5 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP constituency. On the day of elections, P.W.1 and P.W.2 got the polling stopped for half an hour since the muscle men of A.1 indulged in rigging activities in

Venkatayapalem and since then A.1 and his associates recognized P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and resolved to take revenge on P.W.1 and P.W.2. In due course of time on 18-3-95 at 9 P.M. P.W.1 and P.W.2 and other Dalith people namely

Challapudi Pattabhiramayya were alleged to have trespassed into the landed property i.e. paddy field in S.R.NO.189-A of one Thota Govindu, a farmer and relative of A.1 and damaged the cement pillars erected therein for protection of crops. On 20-3-1995 at 6.30 P.M. on the written report of V.A.O., a case in

Cr. No.34/95 under Sec. 447, 427 IPC was registered and investigated into by

Draksharama Police and on 24-3-1995 both P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Challapudi

Pattabhiramayya were arrested and sent to A.J.F.C.M. Court,

Ramachandrapuram for remand and released on bail. The said case was charge sheeted on the file of A.J.F.M Court, Ramachandrapuram Dt.27-3-95 vide C.C.No.99/95 and pending for trial.

(c).It is further stated that thereafter on the intervening night of 22/23.12.96 at 1.00 A.M., P.W.2 and PW.3 and other dalith people namely

KanikellaGanapathi, Challapudi Pattabhiramayyaand Puvvala

Venkataramana alleged to have teased the college going girls namely Meka

Vara Lakshmi and Devalla Sunitha, grand daughter of Chinthapalli

Krishnamurthy hailing from Chowdary families of that village by writing the names of those girls coupled with obscene and prono words referring to Meka

Vara Lakshmi and Chinthapalli Krishnamurthy Manavaralu near a Nandi statue in Venkatayapalem village. The above persons were captured by A2

S.C.No.2/2008 6 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP who is relative of M.L.A while writing the same and were produced before

Draksharama Police for further action. In this connection a written report of

A.2 was registered as a case in Cr.No.126/96 U/s 292 IPC and investigated into.

(d).Subsequent to the above two incidents, ill- feelings between the scheduled caste people and other caste people (Kapu and Chowdary) have crept in and relations between both the classes of people are strained. Being the M.L.A. and leader of that constituency, A.1 was appraised of the incidents and all the circumstances incidental thereto. Therefore, A1 intended to teach

P.W.1 and P.W.2 a lesson in his own lawless manner and accordingly A.1 got himself associated with A.2 to A.10 for this offense who also shared his intention and who bore grudge impliedly on PW.1 and PW.2.

(e).On 29.12.1996 at 12-00 mid night A.1 to A.10 assembled at the house of A.1, and A.1 instructed one Kanikella Musalayya, Matcha Subbarao,

Dadala Krishnamurthy, Revu Apparao and Gundapu Narasimhamurthy to go and bring PW.1 and P.W.2. Those 5 elders of Harijanapeta obeyed the instructions of A1 by producing P.W.1 and P.W.2 before A1 at his house at that time. A.1 questioned P.W.1 and PW.2 with regard to the above incidents and since they did not admit the same, they were taken by A.1 to the back yard of his house and wrongfully confined them and there A.2 and A.3 beat P.W.1 and P.W.2 with iron rods and other accused with hands with a view to extract confession and make them admit their guilt under the nose of A.1. Both PW.1 and P.W.2 were not tolerating to that beatings admitted to have committed the offences in the above two referred cases and thereupon A.1 again placed

S.C.No.2/2008 7 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP both P.W.1 and P.W.2 before the caste elders and announced that according to him, the limbs and eyes of P.W.1 and P.W.2 should be removed for those offences for which the caste elders prayed A.1 to take lenient view over the

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and pleaded mercy. Then the 1st accused called for A.10 who is a barber of their own and ordered him to shave the heads of P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and also to remove their eye brows and mustaches. As per the instructions of A.1, the barber i.e A.10 shaved the heads of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and removed their eye brows and mustaches then and there. A.1 thereupon threatened P.W.1 and P.W.2 that he would not allow them to live if they disclosed the incident to anybody and set them free. Therefore P.W.1 and

P.W.2 confined themselves to their houses due to fear of their lives apprehending danger in the hands of accused and the matter remained un- reported as P.W.1 and P.W.2 got humiliated and mentally felt insulted and they underwent first aid by a private doctor.

(f).While the matters stand so, on 04-01-1997 the news item of the incident was however published in daily news paper Vaartha for which the

Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada responded and visited Venkatayapalem village and assured P.W.1 and P.W.2 of confidence and protection. On 04-01-1997 at 1.00 P.M., P.W.1 and PW.2 presented a common report i.e. Ex.P1 against the accused to the Circle Inspector,

Ramachandrapuram in the presence of Deputy Superintendent of Police and

Superintendent of Police.

(g).The Inspector of Police, Ramachandrapuram registered a case in

Cr.No.1/1997 under Sections 342, 324, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C. and Section 3(x) of

S.C.No.2/2008 8 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP the S.C and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 and issued Ex.P6 FIR. The

S.D.P.O., Ramachandrapuram took up investigation and examined P.W.1 and

P.W.2 in detail and taken their photographs by a private photographer. Later he sent P.W.1 and P.W.2 to Government Hospital, Ramachandrapuram for medical examination while the said S.D.P.O. recorded the statements of

P.Ws.3 to 5 in Venkatayapalem village who claimed to have been beaten by the accused prior to 29-12-1996 on some false allegations. P.W.3 to P.W.5 were also sent to Government Hospital, Ramachandrapuram.

(h).Thereafter, the S.D.P.O. Ramachandrapuram inspected the scene of offence i.e the house of A1 in Venkatayapalem village and prepared rough sketch at the place of offence and recorded the statements of other witnesses. On the requisition of S.D.P.O., Ramachandrapuram Dt.6-1-1997, the Judicial 1st Class Magistrate, Alamuru has recorded the statements of

P.W.1 and P.W.2 under Sec.164 Cr.P.C. dated:8-1-1997. During the course of investigation on 7.1.1997 by S.D.P.O., Ramachandrapuram, arrested A.1 at

Draksharama Police Station by 2.45 P.M. and sent him for remand to the concerned Court. On 8.1.1997 the S.D.P.O., Amalapuram has taken over the charge of the case as per the instructions of Superintendent of Police,

East Godavari District, Kakinada and continued further investigation and on the same day he arrested A.3 to A.6 and A.8 at Draksharam Bus stand at 2

P.M. and sent them for remand. A.2 and A.7 surrendered before the Court while A9 and A.10 are absconded. The Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government

Hospital, Ramachandrapuram shown as LW.20, examined PW.1 to PW.5 and issued wound certificates i.e. Ex.P.8 to P.12. Therefore, the accused A.1 tο

S.C.No.2/2008 9 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

A.10 being the upper caste people have committed the offences of wrongful confinement, beating with iron rods, criminal intimidation towards P.W.1 and

P.W.2 and also forcibly tonsured the heads, shaved the eye brows and mustaches of P.W.1 and P.W.2 knowing the fact that they are members of

Scheduled Caste and the said act of accused is derogatory to human dignity and PW.1 and PW.2 were intentionally insulted and intimidated to humiliate within public view. Therefore, A1 to A.10 are liable for punishment under sections 342, 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and also Section 3 (iii) and (x) of the S.C.

and S.T. Prevention of atrocities Act, 1989.

3.The I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam received by transfer from I Addl. District and Sessions Judge’s Court, East

GodavariRajahmundryasperHighCourt’sOrderin

T.R.Crl.Misc.No.2107/1997 dated 27.08.1997 and it is renumbered as

SC.4/1997. Thereafter as per orders dated 23.04.1999 in Crl.Rev. Petition

No.1944/1998, matter is transferred to Judicial First Class Magistrate,

Amalapuram for committal order. The learned I Additional Judicial First Class

Magistrate, Amalapuram had taken cognizance of the offences under

Sections 342, 324, 506(2) IPC and section 3(iii) (x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 against A.1 to A.10 and registered PRC.No.15/2000 to take trial before the I

Addl.Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court, Visakhapatnam and it was renumbered as SC.7/2000. Under the proceedings of District Court,

Visakhapatnam dated 17.05.2008 communicated in Dis.No.3305 the matter is withdrawn from the file of I Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge’s Court,

S.C.No.2/2008 10 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Visakhapatnam and committed to the court of Special Judge for trial of

Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 for disposal according to law.

4.On receiving the record, this court being the Special Sessions Court for trial of the offences under SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 had taken cognizance under Section 193 of Cr.P.C and assigned SC.No.02/2008 and issued summons to accused A1 to A.10, who appeared before the Court and engaged counsel.

5.On perusal of the record and on hearing the Special Public Prosecutor and defence counsel, the accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C for which they denied. Hence charges under Sections 342, 324, 506(2) IPC and Section 3(1)(iii) and section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 against accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the time of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked

Exs.P.1 to P14. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.6-Kanikella China Ramudu, LW.10- Dadala Sathyanarayana,

LW.11-Koti Nagamma, LW.12-Dadala Akkamma, LW.13-Kanikella Musalayya,

LW.14-MatchaSubbarao,LW.16-RevuApparao,LW.17-Gundapu

Narisimhamurthy,LW.19-RapakaBalaKrishnamurthy,LW.20-

Dr.D.D.Prasadarao, LW.21-Sri Sayyad Nayamuddin and LW.22-Sri V.R.Lazarus.

7. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 were examined on 23.06.2017 under Sections 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material available against the accused in the

S.C.No.2/2008 11 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution. The accused 1 to 5 and 7 to 10 denied the same and took total denial. The accused examined Dws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.D1 to D16 documents in their defence. The accused

are examined further under Section 313 Cr.P.C in pursuance of the

further chief examination of PW.1 and PW.2 as they are recalled as per the orders of Hon’ble A.P. High Court in Crl. Petition Nos.6005 and 6006 of 2021

dated 12.12.2023 and examined PW.12 and Exs.P13 and P14 and Exs.D7 to

D16 were marked.

8.Heard both sides. Both sides submitted their arguments in support of their respective contentions besides their written arguments. This Court has decided to appreciate the points of their arguments at relevant stage hereafter.

9. The point for consideration is whether the Prosecution could

bring home guilt of all the accused beyond reasonable doubt?

This is a case of insulting the people belonging to Schedule Caste coupled with beating, wrongful confinement and thereby tonsuring their heads and removing their eye brows and mustaches. In support of the same, the prosecution examined twelve witnesses as Pw1 to Pw12 and exhibited

Ex.P1 to P14 while two witnesses are examined as Dw1 and Dw2 on behalf of the accused by marking Ex.D1 to D14 on their behalf.

10.According to prosecution, the PW1 and PW2 along with PW3 to PW5 belonged to Schedule Caste (Mala) while the accused belonged to non scheduled caste and because of prior inimical feelings, PW1 and PW2 were brought to the house of A1 and subjected to beating and insulted by

S.C.No.2/2008 12 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP tonsuring their heads and removing their mustaches and eye brows by all the accused at the instance of A1. The main contention of the accused is that this is a false case foisted against the accused at the instance of their political rival Sri. Pilli Subhash Chandrabose and further contended that they have nothing to do with the said incident.

11. At the very outset, this court has to see whether the prosecution has got locus standi to file this case.

As per the version of prosecution, the victims in this case i.e. PW1 and

PW2 belonged to Schedule Caste (Mala) while the accused belonged to Non

Scheduled caste. Right from the beginning, it has been the contention of the accused that PW1 and PW2 at present, do not belong to schedule caste as they have taken conversion into Christianity by attending churches for prayers and professing the Christianity. As seen from the evidence on record, especially from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, they are residents of

Venkatayapalem village of Ramachandrapuram Mandal and they belonged to schedule caste (Mala). The accused are charged with offences under sections 3(iii) & (x) of S.C & S.T. (POA) Act, 1989 (Old Act) coupled with other offences under sections 342, 506(2), 324 r/w 34 IPC and the present Act No.1/2016 has no application in the present case since the said offences allegedly occurred in the year 1996 and that the present Act has no retrospective enforcement as it came into force from 26.01.2016. It is also their contention that the PW1 and PW2 do not belong to schedule caste as they have embarrassed Christianity and thus they are not entitled for any benefits of the S.C. & S.T. (POA) Act 2016 (hereafter referred as Act for brevity).

S.C.No.2/2008 13 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

12. It is true that to attract the offences under the said Act, the victims should belong to schedule caste while the accused belonged to non schedule group. In this case, as per the evidence of PWs.1 to 5, the victims belonged to schedule caste (Mala) whereas the accused belonged to non schedule group.

As contended by the learned Defence Counsel, the PW1 did not say anything about his caste and also the caste of the accused and that the prosecution did not file any caste certificates of victims and of the accused along with charge sheet but they filed the caste certificates of victims at the fag-end of trial. It is also true that as per the evidence of Investigating Officer, they did not seize the caste certificates of victims during the course of their investigation. The Section 3(1) (X) of the Old Act, 1989 provides as

“Whoever not being a member of Scheduled caste or a schedule

tribe intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a

member of schedule caste or a schedule tribe in any place within

public view.” Therefore, as per the ingredients of the above Section, the victim should belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and the accused should belong to non scheduled group. Further there should be intentional insult with reference to their caste and that too it shall be made in the public view. Therefore, in view of the above ingredients, this Court has to verify

whether the victims i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2 belonged to Scheduled Caste

or not. As referred above, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is placed

before the Court that the P.Ws.1 and 2 who are said to be victims of this case

belonged to Scheduled Caste (Mala) while the accused belonged to Non

Scheduled Group. So far as the caste of the accused is concerned, there is no

S.C.No.2/2008 14 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP dispute with regard to their caste status. But the objection from the side of the accused is only with regard to the caste status of P.Ws.1 and 2. It is also the contention of the accused that as on the date of filing of this report, they did not file their caste certificates though they were in the possession of the same as admitted and further the Investigating Officers i.e., P.Ws.10 and 11 admitted about non seizure of the caste certificates. However, during the course of the above trial, the prosecution filed a petition before this Court by enclosing the caste certificates issued by the P.W.12 the Tahsildar of

Ramachandrapuram Mandal and since this Court dismissed the said petition, they preferred a revision before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P and accordingly it was allowed as against the orders of this Court by granting permission to recall P.W1, P.W2 and also P.W12 for marking the caste certificates.

Accordingly, this Court has examined P.Ws.1, 2 and also the concerned

Tahsildar as P.W12 and through their evidence, the caste certificates of P.Ws.1 and 2 are marked as Exs.P13 and P.14.

13.The contention of the accused is that the said caste certificates of

P.Ws.1 and 2 which are exhibited as Exs.P13 and P14, have no probative value as they were issued in the year 2019 into existence and they were filed at a belated stage after having got them into existence without any enquiry as required under the Andhra Pradesh (SC, ST & BCs) Regulation of Issue of

Community Certificates Act, 1993. It is also their contention that the above caste certificates were brought into existence pursuant to the proceedings of the District Collector in reference No.C6/01/2017 dated 11.06.2019 i.e.,

Ex.D10 and those proceedings were set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of

S.C.No.2/2008 15 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

A.P in W.P.No.7935/2019 filed by one K.Jeevaratnam and K.Srinivasa Rao alleging that P.Ws.1 and 2 do not belong to Scheduled Caste (Mala) and that they belonged to BC-C community (Christian). It is true that on verification of orders of the above Writ Petition, P.Ws.1 and 2 herein were arrayed as

Respondents 6 and 7 and after hearing both sides, the Hon’ble High Court by way of orders dated 12.12.2023 i.e., Ex.D8 disposed off the said writ by holding the said proceedings of the District Collector, East Godavari District,

Kakinada, A.P in reference No.C6/01/2017 dated 11.06.2019 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the above Act 1983 as referred above and the rules made thereunder and accordingly those proceedings were set aside. Therefore, the main argument of the accused is that the above caste certificates were issued in pursuance of the above orders of the

District Collector, which were set aside by the Hon’ble A.P High Court later and accordingly the respondents therein were directed not to act upon the proceedings of the District Collector i.e., Ex.D10 which were granted in pursuance of interim stay order i.e., Ex.D7. Therefore, according to the learned defence counsel, the above caste certificates were issued in defiance of the stay order in Ex.D7 and accordingly they are non est and cannot be relied. Therefore, the learned defence counsel tried to impress upon this

Court that the above caste certificates do not carry any probative or evidenciary value and no credence shall be given to those caste certificates and hence they shall be ignored in all force.

14.It is also the argument of the learned defence counsel that the

Investigating Officer ought to have collected those caste certificates which

S.C.No.2/2008 16 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP were in the possession of P.Ws.1 and 2 even before the date of this offence and accordingly they ought to have been produced before the Court.

However, it has been the version of the prosecution that since beginning, they were in the possession of the caste certificates and also filed before the court even at the earliest time, but because of moving of the above record among different Courts, the above caste certificates are not found in the record due to of misplacement and further the above caste certificates were issued as per the procedure followed by the concerned Tahsildar.

15.The learned defence counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a case in between Bharat Singh vs. State of M.P reported in 2006(4) (crimes) Page 716, wherein it is observed that

“filing of caste certificates of complainant issued by duly competent

authority is a sine-qua-non in cases prosecuted under SC & ST Act”.

They also relied upon the another Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between Bapatla Johan Vs. State of A.P reported in 2003 (1)

ALD (Criminal) Page 417, wherein it was held that “the prosecution has

to prove that the complainant belongs to scheduled caste and to

invoke Section 3 of the Act, the first and foremost requisite is to

establish that the victim of the said offence is a person of scheduled

caste, it is only thereafter that the other things need to be

examined in the absence of such clue the accused cannot be

convicted”. They also relied upon another judgment reported in 2007 (Crl.L.J) NOC 785 Bombay, wherein it was held that “Oral saying of the caste certificate is inceptional documents”. Therefore, the learned

S.C.No.2/2008 17 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP defence counsel tried to impress upon this Court that in the absence of any such evidence, the above version of the prosecution that the victim belonged to Scheduled Caste Mala shall be ignored”.

16.Right from the beginning, the P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses placed

before the Court that the P.Ws.1 and 2 belonged to scheduled caste ‘Mala’

while the accused belonged to non scheduled group. Though, the prosecution relied upon the caste certificates i.e., Exs.P13 and P14 but the proceedings were issued by the District Collector i.e., Ex.D10 were set aside by the

Hon’ble High Court under Ex.D8 proceedings and hence the learned defence

counsel claimed to have destroyed the said fact. However, there is no dispute from the accused that originally the P.Ws.1 and 2 earlier belonged to scheduled caste ‘Mala’. The only objection from the accused is that they have embarrassed Christianity and accordingly practicing the Christianity. He also relied upon the admissions from P.Ws.1 to 3 at the time of cross-examination that their family members have been attending the Church for prayers and discourses and thus they have taken conversion. But the fact of attending the

Church for prayers does not give any significance to the effect of conversion and further nowadays the people of different religions are in the habit of attending church for prayers depending upon background of their families and merely attending the Church for prayers does not amount to conversion into Christianity and it cannot be said that they embarrassed the Christianity.

But since the accused have taken above contention of their conversion, it is

for the accused to establish before the Court as to the alleged conversion into

Christianity because the prosecution as well as the victims since beginning,

S.C.No.2/2008 18 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP have been denying the said contention of the accused. Further, they also filed the caste certificates i.e., Exs.P13 and P14 issued by P.W12 Tahsildar of

Ramachandrapuram Mandal, East Godavari District relating to the Caste status of P.Ws.1 and 2 though the proceedings of the District Collector were set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, but the above caste certificates cannot be ruled out completely to the effect of their issuance of

Tahsildar concerned. Further, all the witnesses before the Court deposed in one voice as if P.Ws.1 and 2 belonged to scheduled caste ‘Mala’ and no one

before the Court confirmed nor established the alleged conversion of the

castes of PWs.1 and 2 into Christianity. It is also to be noted that since the fact of alleged conversion is within the knowledge of the accused, therefore it is incumbent upon the accused to establish the said fact of conversion.

Further the prosecution as well as the victims right from the beginning, have been denying the alleged conversion into Christianity strongly. Thus when the said allegation of conversion of caste is completely denied by the Pw1 and

Pw2, it is for the accused to establish the said allegation with support of any such evidence. The accused also relied upon Commission Report i.e., Ex.D6 prepared by Sri Honourable Justice Puttiswamy wherein it is found that no offence took place at the house of A1 and this case is completely motivated by rival political leaders due to political frictions between the accused and other group. Accordingly the said report was submitted to the government of

Andhra Pradesh and in turn the government issued G.O for withdrawal of case against the accused, but the Court was not convinced with the plea of the government to withdraw the case and proceeded with the trial. Therefore,

S.C.No.2/2008 19 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP basing on the findings on Enqiiry Report of justice Putti Swamy, the accused claimed to have been entitled for benefit of doubt. But the findings of Enquiry

Commission Reports will not have any impact on the proceedings before the

Court and further the Court was also not convinced to withdraw the case basing upon the findings of the said Commission Report. Therefore, the said

Commission Report i.e., Ex.D6 does not have any affect on this case. Hence in the above facts and circumstances, the above point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution by holding that the P.Ws.1 and 2 belonged scheduled caste ‘Mala’. Therefore, the above contention of the accused does not hold any water.

17. There is another contention from the side of the accused with

regard to absence of authorization to P.Ws.10 and 11 to investigate

the offence. It is an argument from the side of the accused that in the cases of the above nature under SC & ST Act, there should be appointment order or proceedings either by Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, DGP or

State Government of A.P referring them as Investigating Officers in this case and further submitted that P.Ws.10 and 11, who are the Investigating Officers in this case conducted investigation without any such authorization and therefore the above case is per se illegal and not sustainable under law. As contended by the learned defence counsel, as per the Rule 7 of SC & ST (POA) Rules, 1995, it provides that “an offence committed under the Act,

shall be investigated by a Police Officer not below the rank of a

Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer shall

be appointed by the State Government, DGP, Superintendent of

S.C.No.2/2008 20 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of ability

and justice to perceive them implications of the case and investigate

it along with right lines within shortest possible time”. Therefore, in the light of the above language of the provision, P.Ws.10 and 11 investigated in this case in violation of the above Rule No.7. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between Bharat Singh vs.

State of Madhya Pradesh to that effect. Therefore, the learned defence counsel tried to impress upon this Court that the above authorization as required by the Rule 7 of the above rules is mandatory and accordingly relied upon the judgments reported in 2002 (4) ALT 456 Division Bench; 2009 (5) SCC 106; and 2016 SCC online Madras 3048 and also another judgment of Hon’ble High Court of A.P reported in 2022 (4) ALT 456.

18.It is true that in the above case, it is an undisputed fact that there is no authorization as required under above Rule 7 for P.Ws.10 and 11 to investigate into the above case. As seen from the material on record and evidence, the above incident took place in the mid night on 29.12.1996 and the matter was reported before the police on 04.01.1997. It is also narrated by P.Ws.1 and 2 in their evidence that after the above incident of beating and insult at the house of A1, the first accused threatened with dire consequences not to disclose the same to others and therefore they remained in their houses without coming out and further on 04.01.1997, the above incident was published in daily newspaper ‘Vaaratha’ and then it came into news and accordingly the then Superintendent of Police along with DSP,

S.C.No.2/2008 21 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

CI and Sub-Inspector went to the said village and then the house of P.Ws.1 and 2 and enquired the matter. Further they also took P.Ws.1 and 2 to

Draksharam Police Station and obtained a report i.e., Ex.P1. Therefore, though there is no written authorization filed before the Court, but the

Investigation was done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police i.e., P.Ws.10 and 11 with the consent of the then Superintendent of Police. Therefore, the permission of the Superintendent of Police in this case can be presumed by way of inference and unless there is consent from the Superintendent of

Police, the Deputy Superintendents of Police i.e., P.Ws.10 and 11 would not have pursued the matter. Hence, in the light of the above material and the evidence on record, the above Investigating Officers did their investigation with the consent of Superintendent of Police, and though the absence of authorization is there in this case, it is an irregularity which does not vitiate the entire trial, because the above DSPs were authorized by the

Superintendent of Police by the consent orally. Hence, the above contention of the accused does not have any substance.

19. It is also the contention of the accused that the above Act, 1989 is not applicable to this case. According to the learned defence counsel, the accused are charged with of the offences under Section 3(1) (iii) & (x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and the present amended Act 1/2016 has no application in the present case since the offence allegedly occurred in the year 1996. It is also argued that the present Act has no retrospective enforcement as it came into force from 26.01.2016. The learned defence counsel drawn attention of this Court that the above offences relating to

S.C.No.2/2008 22 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP tonsure of head is not covered in the old Act, 1989 or nowhere mentioned or dealt with in the Old Act. In the light of the above argument, it is better

to read the said provision and under Section 3 (1) (iii) of the Act,

1989 which says whoever other than SC or ST member forcibly

removes the clothes from the person of a member of SC or ST or

Parades in naked or with painted fact or body or commits any similar

act which is derogative to human dignity. Therefore, the specific word of tonsure is not mentioned in the original Section specifically, but later in the amended Act 1/2016, the said offence of tonsure is specifically added or mentioned but without giving any retrospective effect of this kind of offences committed before 26.01.2016.

20.On analyzing the above section 3(1) (iii), it clearly indicates absence of specific word tonsure. But at the same time, the language of the above provision clearly indicates that if any person of SC & ST Caste, paraded in naked position or with painted fact or body and further it also indicates the same as an offence if commits any similar act which is derogatory to human body as an offence. On coming to the facts of this case, the accused are charged with the above offences on the allegation of beating him by tonsuring his head and removing mustaches and eyebrows and thereby it gives a look of funny appearance and definitely it affects the human dignity of the persons who belonged to SC & ST (POA) Act. Therefore, despite having absence of such word tonsure in the said provision and despite the said offence is added in the Amendmended Act 1/2016, but the language of the word used in the said provision under Section 3(1) (iii) clearly discloses their

S.C.No.2/2008 23 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP affect to the dignity of the human body i.e., the body of P.Ws.1 and 2 and it definitely amounts to insult of the victims. Therefore, the above argument of the accused is also not sustainable and the above allegations of the prosecution if they are proved before the Court definitely attract the said offence under Section 3 (1) (iii) of SC & ST Act, 1989.

21.Further they are also charged with the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the old Act, 1989 which reads as “whoever not being a member of

Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or

intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of scheduled caste or

a scheduled tribe in any place within public view. Therefore, if the allegations of the prosecution with regard to the tonsure of the head of P.W1 and removing mustaches and eyebrows are established before the Court, definitely it also amounts to humiliation to the member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe intentionally, provided if it is done in public view. Therefore, the above argument of the learned defence counsel is not sustainable in view of the above reasoning.

22. Another argument of the learned defence counsel is with regard to delay in giving FIR to the police. This Court has to see whether the above delay in giving FIR would affect the case of the prosecution or not. As seen from the evidence on record, the offence took place on 29.12.1996 midnight in Venkatayapalem village, but the victims did not give any report or statement to the police till 04.01.1997. It is evidence on record that the concerned SP, DSP and other police officers visited their village on 04.01.1997 and took them to Draksharam police Station where

S.C.No.2/2008 24 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP they received the common report i.e., Ex.P1 from them. The learned defence counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case between Gajana Dasarath Karate vs. State of Maharstra reported in 2016 (4)SCC 604, wherein it is held that “the prosecution has to satisfy the reason for delay in giving FIR”. It is true that there is delay of about 6 days in giving FIR, but in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also the police officials, after the above incident, the 1st accused gave warning to P.W1, P.W2 and other elders not to disclose the same to anybody with dire consequences and therefore due to fear, they remained in their houses by taking First Aid treatment at RMP Doctor and the above news came out only on 04.01.1997 when the said news published in Vaartha Newspaper. The Honorable

Supreme Court observed in Apren Joseph v State of Kerala reported

in (1973) 3 SCC 114 and also in a case between Mukesh v State

reported in (2017) 6 SCC 1 that normally the court may reject the

case of the prosecution in the case of inordinate delay in lodging the

first information report because of the possibility of concoction of

evidence by the prosecution. It is also observed that if the delay is

explained satisfactorily, the court will decide the matter on merits

without giving much importance to such delay. It is also observed

that the delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be

reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused

falsely……………….. First Information Report in the criminal case is a

tremendously vital and important piece of evidence for the reason of

corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The

S.C.No.2/2008 25 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

significance of the report can hardly be over estimated from the

stand point of the accused. FIR has its own probative value and if

there is an inordinate delay in filing the FIR, it can lead to the

miscarriage of justice, whereas the accused has opportunity to

tamper the evidence or escape. Admittedly, the accused are dominant people in that village as A1 was already elected as MLA for more than 4 times having political rivalry with Sri Pilli Subashchandrabose. Therefore, P.Ws.1 and 2 who belonged to Scheduled Caste definitely would not dare enough to come out and give report against the accused under said circumstances of threat. It is also to be borne in mind that the above report was given by

P.Ws.1 and 2 only after it was published in Vaartha News paper that too when they were approached by the Higher Police Officials and after they were taken to Draksharamam police station. Therefore the above explanation from the side of the prosecution is convincing one and accordingly the above delay of 6 days would not affect the case of the prosecution in any way.

23.The next point for consideration is: whether the accused are liable for the above charges laid against them?

As seen from the record, the accused are charged with the offences under Section 342, 324 and 506(2) IPC and Section 3(1) (iii) and (x) of SC &

ST (POA) Act, 1989. The main case of the prosecution is that both P.Ws.1 and 2 were subjected to beating by all the accused and thereby removal of mustaches and eyebrows and tonsure of their heads and thereby the above case is resulted in the complaint of P.W1. In support of the same, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of victims i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2 and

S.C.No.2/2008 26 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there were ill feelings with the accused since long and because of the earlier incidents, the accused did the above offences. According to P.W1, he along with P.W2 acted as Polling

Agents for Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and during the said elections, A2, A3,

A5, A7 and A8 came there to attempt rigging and therefore elections were stopped for half an hour on the objection by the P.Ws.1 and 2 and later it was continued on the same day between 4:00 and 5:00 P.M and A1 came there and warned P.W1, for which A1 lodged a complaint against P.W.1, P.W2 on the allegation of removal of fencing around the lands of one Thota Govind the brother of A1. It is also his evidence that on 21.12.1996, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to

Draksharama for coolie works and after completion at about 7.00 P.M, they noticed a galata at the bridge in their village and they came to know through one Rajebndra from the crowd that the followers of A1 were beating P.W3,

Kanikella Ganapahti on the ground that the fencing poles were removed and the girls of their community were subjected to eave teasing and some writings were made on the wall near Nandi Statute and out of fear, they escaped from there and returned after one week thereafter i.e., 28.12.1996 and on their arrival, they were taken before A1 on the next day by their elders.

24.It is also the evidence of P.W2 on the same lines with regard to the said earlier incidents of the accused while working as polling agents and also about beating P.W3 by A1’s people for their responsibility for removal of cement poles and writings on the Nandi Statute. Therefore, the above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated and consistent with each other with

S.C.No.2/2008 27 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP regard to motive attributed against the accused. The learned defence counsel strongly argued that there is difference of versions between both P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to the motive aspect. But on careful analysis of the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2, it is clear that the motive part attributed by P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and corroborated with each other with regard to the result of the above incident due to the past events for writing the names of the girl students on the walls near Nandi Statute and also by beating P.W.3 by the people of A1 and also for objections from P.Ws.1 and 2 when A1’s people attempted for rigging in the elections of 1994.

25.Apart from the same, they also examined other witnesses including the elders as P.W.3 to 8 among whom PW.3 and P.W5 and P.W6 turned hostile. So also the photographer who is examined as P.W9 also turned hostile. They were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor after obtaining permission from this Court and also confronted the earlier statements i.e.,

Ex.P2 to P5 but they were disowned by them. However, a new version is brought before the Court during the cross-examination as against the prosecution that P.Ws.1 and 2 were got summoned by the elders, who got tonsured their heads and got removed the mustaches and eyebrows with one

Sade Guruvulu. Therefore, by way of the above evidence, it is tried to impact on the Court that the original version of the prosecution as against the accused is contradicted by the above version as if the above offence was committed by the above local elders with one Sade Guruvulu. But the above witnesses who turned hostile did not make any complaint against those caste elders, nor taken any steps as against them because of the above alleged

S.C.No.2/2008 28 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP offences said to have been committed by the above elders. Therefore, the above version by the hostile witnesses has no affect on this case. Out of the above witnesses P.W9 is the photographer who said to have taken photographs of P.Ws.1 and 2 showing funny look after removal of their hair on the head and mustaches and eyebrows, but however the above photos are in the record, but could not be exhibited as the photographer turned hostile.

However, the prosecution is at liberty to exhibit the above photographs through the Investigating Officers but it is not done so. The evidence of P.W4 is also to some extent, supported the case of the prosecution and his evidence is hearsay who deposed about coming to know of the same time through some body about getting P.Ws.1 and 2 to the police station through their village elders. P.W7 is the brother of P.W1 who supported the case of the prosecution about taking P.Ws.1 and 2 to backyard of A1 and beaten for confession with regard to past events. However, the 1st accused initially warned to remove the limbs and eyes of P.Ws.1 and 2 for not confessing the guilt and at the request of the elders, he changed his idea and thereby got removed their mustaches and eyebrows coupled with tonsure of their heads.

P.W8 is one of the elders who completely supported the version of P,.Ws.1 and 2 and who was present at the time of incident along with one Matcha

Subbarao, Kanigella Venkanna and Revu Apparao and Gundapu Narasimha

Murthy for a term of five years. According to his evidence, all the accused were present at the house of A1 and than took P.Ws.1 and 2 to backyard followed by hearing cries from the back yard and thereafter A1 came outside and informed them that P.W1 confessed their guilt and he got tonsured the

S.C.No.2/2008 29 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP heads of their boys through A10 and brought P.Ws.1 and 2 before them.

Therefore, merely because some of the witnesses became hostile, the other case of the prosecution cannot be ruled out provided the other material on record is consistent and corroborated. However, they also examined the

Investigating Officers as P.Ws.10 and 11 who are corroborated and consistent with regard to the investigation done by them. The Circle Inspector who registered the above case is not examined as not available and therefore the

FIR is marked as Ex.P6 through the evidence of P.W10 as he is one of the main investigating officers. Ex.P7 is Rough Sketch that was prepared by the

Investigating Officer.

26.It also shows that there is serious lapse on the part of the prosecution for not examining the medical officer who treated P.Ws.1 to 5 and issued

Wound Certificates. The record shows that the Investigating Agency got examined P.Ws.1 to 5 in Community Hospital, Ramachandrapuram and got treated all the above injuries. Accordingly, the Medical Officer Dr.D.D.Prasada

Rao, who was Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community Hospital,

Ramachandrapuram examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and issued the following Wound

Certificates. On coming to the above Wound Certificates, they are marked as

Exs.P8 to P12. One Koti Chinna Raju the P.W1 was examined by the Medical

Officer on 04.01.1997 at 5:00 P.M and found the following injuries:

(I). Physical appearance: Head is found shaved, however scanty hair is present about 3.6 mm. Eyebrows and mustaches are found shaved.

(II). Injuries:

(1). Abrasion 2/2” x 1/4” present on upper part of rightfore arm are in black colour.

S.C.No.2/2008 30 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP (2). Abrasion of 3” x 1” present are right scapular region black colour; (3). About 5 linear abrasion each about 1 ½ cm in length present over Theraco lumbar spinal region. Black colour. (4). Two abrasions each 2 ½” in length present over lower part of right back black in colour. Scab Fermat present. (5). Abrasion 1” x 1/4” present as middle of right upper arm. Scab formation present. Black as white colour. (6). Abrasion 6” x 4” present on middle of head. Black colour.

Opinion: The Medical Officer gave opinion by holding the above injuries as simple in nature and aged more than one week might be due to blunt objects.

On coming to P.W2 he was examined by the Medical Officer on the same

day at 5:10 P.M and found the following inujuries.:

(1) Head is found shaved; scanty hair is present about 3.6 mm length). The eyebrows and mustaches are found shaved.

(2) Abrasion of 1cm in length present as lower dorsum hand. Red in colour.

(3) Two old nail colour.

(4). Patient complain of pain over cervix Thoracic spinal region.

The Medical Officer issued opinion under Ex.P9 Certificate that the injury No.1 is grievous and other injuries are simple and aged mnore than one week and might be due to blunt object.

On coming to Ex.P10 Wound Certificate it was issued relating to the

injuries of Kanikella Ganapathi (P.W3) as follows:

(1). Two abrasions each 1 cm in length present over right fore finger, middle fingers on dorsal aspect. Black colour. (2). Abrasion of 2” x 1” present over left dorsum hand. Black colour. (3). Small abrasion is present over left middle finger. Black colour. (4). Abrasion of 3 cm x ¼ cm present over left upper arm. Black colour and white in colour. (5) Abrasion 1” present over right scapular region. While in colour.

S.C.No.2/2008 31 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP (6) Small abrasion each about ¾ cm x ½ cm present over thoracic lumbar spinal region. White in colour. The Medical Officer also gave Ex.P10 Certificate with opinion that the injuries are in simple aged about 10 days and might be due to blunt object. The

Wound Certificate of P.W3 is Ex.P10.

On coming to the injuries of P.W4, the Medical Officer examined him at 5.30

P.M and issued Ex.P11 Wound Certificate with the following injuries:

(1) Small abrasion of ¼ cm diameter present over right middle finger. White in colour.

(2) Patient complains of pain over both sides of chest and both sides of back.

He also issued opinion that the above injuries are simple aged more than 10 days and might be due to blunt object. Ex.P11 is the wound certificate issued in that regard.

On coming to the injuries of P.W5 Ex.P12 is the Wound Certificate with

following injuries:

(1). Three small healed abrasions each about ¾ cm in length present over right middle, forefingers, and left ring finger. Black and white in colour. (2). Patient complained of pain over left scapular region and all over the spinal column region. He also issued Ex.P12 Wound Certificate with opinion that they are simple and aged more than 10 days and might be due to blunt object.

27.Though the Medical Officer is not available, the prosecution is at liberty to examine the contemporary doctor having acquaintance with the handwriting and signature of the original medical officer. But here the prosecution did not perform the said compliance and failed to examine any of the medical officer except marking the above wound certificates as Exs.P8 to

P12 through the Investigation Officers. Therefore, though the above Wound

Certificates are not marked through the medical officer, the contents of the

S.C.No.2/2008 32 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP same cannot be said to be established. Therefore, the above failure on the part of the prosecution in not examining the medical officer is certainly a serious lapse on the part of the prosecution to attract the ingredients of charges under Section 324 IPC against the accused. However, though the above offence under Section 324 IPC is not established by the prosecution, they can be subjected for liability under Section 323 IPC being a lesser offence provided the offences against the accused are established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. But as seen from the Wound

Certificates of P.Ws.1 and 2 surprisingly the Medical Officer also mentioned therein that the heads of P.Ws.1 and 2 are found shaved and also eyebrows and mustaches of P.Ws.1 and 2 are also found shaved. Therefore, though the

Medical Officer is not examined to establish the contents of the Wound

Certificates with regard to finding of injuries and opinion, but at the same time it is categorically mentioned in those wound certificates that the heads of both P.Ws.1 and 2 are found shaved coupled with removal of the mustaches and eyebrows. They also further mentioned as to the age of the injuries as that of 10 days back. Therefore, though the contents of the above

Wound Certificates are not proved by examining the Medical Officer by the prosecution, but they were marked through the Investigating Officer and at the same time there is an observation by the Medical Officer with regard to finding of shaved heads of P.Ws.1 and 2 and also finding of removal of mustaches and eyebrows which clearly corroborate the version of the prosecution.

S.C.No.2/2008 33 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

28.It is also one of the contentions from the side of the accused that there is suppression of earlier statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. According to the learned defence counsel, the victims in this case did not take any initiative to report the case to the nearest police from 29.12.1996 to 04.01.1997 though it is nearby and further argued that though P.W2 deposed before the Court about obtaining a written report from them prior to Ex.P1, it is not filed before the

Court. But as seen from the above evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the time of cross-examination admitted as to their approach by S.P, D.S.P and other police officials and enquired them and obtained written report, but it is not the version of P.W2 as if it was obtained at Venkatayapalem village. On careful examination of the said statement, it is appeared to have reference to

Ex.P1 report that was taken on 04.01.1997 in the Police Station. Therefore, the Judgment relied upon by the learned defence counsel in a case between

Public Prosecutor A.P vs. Vendala Somayya @ Medicherla Somayya

reported in 2001 (2) ALT (Crl.) 1994 has no application to the facts of this case. Therefore, by way of the above objections from the side of the accused the accused tried to impress upon this Court that it is a false case foisted against the accused at the instance of the political rival Sri Pilli

Subhashchandrabose. Admittedly, the 1st accused herein by name Sri Thota

Thrimurthulu and Sri Pilli Subashchandrabose are political rivals in that area and the said fact of rivalry is known to all in that area as admitted by the witnesses. Even P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses admitted the same but clarified as if they are no way concerned with the same. It is brought before the Court that A1 won in MLA Elections against Sri Pilli Subhashchandrabose

S.C.No.2/2008 34 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP in the year 1994, 1999, 2012 and 2014 while the said Chandrabose won in

MLA Elections against A1 herein in the years 2004 and 2009. Therefore, there is existed political rivalry in between the accused and the said Pilli

Subhashchandrabose. But however there is no material placed before the

Court to establish a connection between P.Ws.1 and 2 and Sri Pilli

Subhashchandrabose.

29.It is also an attack from the accused with regard to motive as already discussed by this Court as against the accused and this Court does not find any variation in the motive aspect from any of the witnesses. Even in Ex.P1 report also mentioned the same motive aspect including the teasing of girls by the P.Ws.1 and 2. However, the motive is the factor that would be within the knowledge of the accused and therefore the accused are the best people to explain the same. Moreover, motive is not an important piece of evidence so far as the cases resting upon direct evidence. On coming to this case there is a direct evidence that is available before the Court with regard to the alleged offences. Therefore, the above motive as attributed by the accused place insignificant role.

30.On coming to liability of the accused, it is evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the above incident had occurred on 29.12.1996 in the midnight when A1 with the help of other accused beat P.Ws.1 and 2 in the backyard of his house forcing him to admit the earlier incidents and after having admitted the same, A1 threatened before the elders to remove the limbs and eyes of

P.Ws.1 and 2. According to their evidence both P.Ws.1 and 2 taken backyard of the house of A1 and there P.Ws.1 and 2 was subjected to beating by A2

S.C.No.2/2008 35 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP and A3 with iron rods and hands so also against P.Ws.3 to 5. According to

P.Ws.1 and 2 because of the past incidents as referred above, A1 grew wild and thereby confined them in his house and at his instance A2 and A3 beat them with iron rods and the above incident said to have taken place with the common intention of all the accused. It is also their evidence that they found the presence of all the accused at the house of A1 and also found to her remained there till completion of the assault and tonsured of their heads and removal of their eyebrows and mustaches. Though, there are no specific attributions against other accused, but they remained there along with A1 at the house of A1 and definitely we can assume the participation of all the accused in the above incident. Out of the above accused A6 has passed away and accordingly the case of A6 is abated. Though some of the witnesses i.e.,

P.Ws.3, P.W.5, P.W.6 turned hostile, but the case cannot be thrown out basing on the said factor and the other case of the prosecution cannot be ruled out merely because few of the witnesses turned hostile. Further they also introduced another version through their cross-examination and also evidence of D.W1 as if the heads of P.Ws.1 and 2 were tonsured apart from removing their mustaches and eyebrows through D.W1 by the local elders.

But this Court had already discussed as if there is no record in support of the same and further no complaint was given till now to that effect. They also examined another witness as D.W2 i.e., Superintendent of DRO, Kakinada only to mark the Enquiry Report of Sri Justice Putti Swamy. Further the learned defence counsel also relied upon some of the contradictions marked as Exs.D2 to D4. As seen from the above contradictions they are not material

S.C.No.2/2008 36 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP and would not affect the case roots of the prosecution. The evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and corroborated by all the remaining witnesses and especially by P.Ws.7 and 8 among whom P.W8 is one of the local elders.

Further, P.Ws.1 to 5 were examined by Medical Officer in Government

Hospital and while issuing the Wound Certificates the Medical Officer found the heads of P.Ws.1 and 2 as shaved off and the said observation in Wound

Certificates of P.Ws.1 and 2 marked as Exs.P8 and P9 certainly would go long way as against the accused. The main attribution by the victims and other witnesses is made against A1 at whose instance the entire incident has taken place. It is also found that on the instructions of A1 the victims were taken to backyard of A1’s house and there they were beaten by A2 and A3 with the iron rods and also hands and further the other victims were also beaten by the accused. All the accused along with A1 were found present at the house of A1 which is a scene of offence and though some variations found with regard to change of scene of offence from the backyard of A1’s house to the lane of the same house, it does not find any significance. Both the above places are located within the premises of A1 and the said lane is a way leading towards backyard of the same premises from the front yard.

Therefore, the said change of scene of offence is not a particular aspect to be discussed. It is also their case that all the accused participated in the incident and even in Ex.P1 report, P.W1 said to have given the names of all the accused serially as participated in the above incident. As already discussed by this Court there is no sufficient evidence to establish the offence under

Section 324 of IPC against the Accused for not examining the Medical Officer,

S.C.No.2/2008 37 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP who issued the Wound Certificates. As seen from the charges A2 and A3 are charged with Section 324 of IPC on two counts for beating P.Ws.1 and 2 and the other accused are charged with the offence under Section 324, r/w 34 of

IPC. In view of non examination of Medical Officer, though they are not liable for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, but at the same time they can be made liable for lesser offence i.e., under Section 323 of IPC as per the judgment of the Hon’ble A.P High Court in a case of Bandela Daveedu vs

State of A.P..The accused are also charged with offence of wrongful confinement and as already discussed by this Court, P.Ws.1 and 2 were confined in the premises of A1 with the help of other accused and then they have proceeded with further offences of beating and thereby tonsuring their heads and removal of mustaches and eyebrows. Therefore, in the light of the above material on record, the above accused are also found liable for the offence under Section 342 of IPC, which provides that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment. Therefore, in the light of the above material available on record, the prosecution could establish the charges of wrongful confinement under Section 342 of IPC and 323 of IPC as well as offence under Section 506(2) IPC for causing threats to

P.Ws.1 and 2 by A1 and other accused to remain silent without disclosing the same to anybody or-else he would end their lives. Since P.Ws.1 and 2 were confined in the presence of A1 definitely it would attract the ingredients of

Section 342 IPC coupled with the offence under Section 323 of IPC. The record further shows that the victims in this case were threatened by the accused with dire consequences to cause death and therefore it falls within

S.C.No.2/2008 38 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP the second proviso of Section 506 IPC, which provides as whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished. Therefore, all the above accused are liable for the offence under Section 323 IPC, 342 IPC and 506(2) IPC apart from the offence under Section 3 (1) (iii) and 3(1) (x) of

SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989. Therefore, in the light of the above reasoning and material on record, the prosecution could establish before the Court that because of the past events as alleged by the prosecution P.Ws.1 and 2 along with his family members, elders were summoned to the house of A1 and there at the instance of A1, P.Ws.1 and 2 were beaten by A2 and A3 with iron rods and hands and thereby caused serious injuries and also got shaved their heads and removed their mustaches and eyebrows with the help of A10. It is also the contention of the accused that the above place does not fall within the purview of public place and therefore the offence under Section 3(1) (x) does not apply. As seen from the material on record, the said offence took place within the premises of A1 that to it is backyard. Moreover, the said house consist of 7 feet compound wall and though it was not witnessed by others, but the family members and elders found to have remained there at the front yard of A1’s house and later found the heads of P.Ws.1 and 2 shaved off and found the same when P.Ws.1 and 2 came before them after the said incident. Therefore, the above victims were seen by the above public and his family members immediately after the incident after their heads were shaved off by removing mustaches of P.Ws.1 and 2 and definitely it can be considered as happened in public view. So far as other injured are concerned who are shown as P.Ws.3 to 5, they said to have received the above injuries

S.C.No.2/2008 39 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP in the earlier incident and accordingly they were also treated by the Medical

Officer along with P.Ws.1 and 2. Furthermore, this case is relating to the main allegation of tonsure of the heads of P.Ws.1 and 2 and removal of mustaches and eyebrows and therefore the prosecution also proceeded in this case against the accused only in respect of caste insult coupled with assault against P.Ws.1 and 2. The accused also tried to affect the case of the prosecution by examining D.W1 to impress that the local elders summoned

P.Ws.1 and 2 and got tonsured their heads with Sade Guruvulu i.e., D.W1 herein. Moreover, a photograph is also filed marked as Ex.D5 to show staging of protest in respect of this incident. This Court has already discussed earlier that except the oral evidence, the accused did not place before the Court any other evidence in respect of their contention placed before the court through

D.W1 and further they also failed to lodge any complaint till now as against the said local elders. The said contention from the side of the accused is not specifically put-forth at the time of cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2.

Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances it appears that the above story brought by the accused before this Court through D.W1 is not found to be correct and not made out. It is also placed that the above case is filed against 10 accused in total out of which A6 is already died and therefore case against A6 is abated. Further out of the above 10 accused A10 is said to be barber, who was pressed into service for shaving of heads of P.Ws.1 and 2 and their eyebrows and mustaches. On the instructions of A1, the A10 was also found to have participated in the above offences in support of A1 and other accused and therefore he is also equally liable for the above offences

S.C.No.2/2008 40 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP against P.Ws.1 and 2. The other accused who are kith and kin and associates of A1 were also very much present at the house of A1 at the relevant time of the above offences and further they were completely identified by the victims

before the Court as participated in the above offences by sharing common

intention with A1. Further the contents of Ex.P1 report has also corroborated and consistent with the evidence adduced before the Court by the prosecution. Therefore, though above witnesses were cross-examined, the accused could not elicit any favourable material in their support and failed to shake the evidence of prosecution witnesses. In the light of above reasoning and evidence, the prosecution could establish guilt of the accused 1 to 5 and

Accused 7 to 10 beyond reasonable doubt for the offences under sections 342, 506 (2), 323 IPC (lesser offence of Section 324 IPC) and Section 3 (1)(iii) and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989.

31. In the result, A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 are found guilty for the charges under Sections 342, 506 (2), 323 (lesser offence of Section 324) IPC and

Section 3 (1)(iii) and Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 and they are convicted under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Since the above accused are not found guilty for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, they are acquitted for the charges under Section 324 and 324, r/w 34 of IPC respectively.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Gr.II (Mahila Court), corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court this day 16 th day of April, 2024.

SRIDHAR LALAMDigitally signed by SRIDHAR LALAM

Date: 2024.04.16 18:46:25 +0530

Spl.Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

S.C.No.2/2008 41 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Quantum of Sentence

All the accused i.e., A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 were examined with regard to the quantum of sentence and all the accused submitted before this Court that by taking into consideration of their family background as well as history of this case, by which they attended the Court for more than 25 years and as they were subjected to the trauma both physically and mentally, requested this Court to reduce the punishment than prescribed under the above provisions and also some of the accused requested to consider the sentence of fine only. After taking into consideration of the above submissions made by the above accused and taking into consideration of the facts and circumstances of the above case and nature of the gravity of the same, it is not a fit case to extend any lenient view to impose fine only. But however this

Court decided to reduce punishment than prescribed under the relevant charges for which they are convicted.

The learned defence counsel for all the accused submitted before this

Court that by taking into consideration of the journey of this case, whereunder all the accused attended the Court all these years and also by taking into consideration of ill-health of wife of 1st accused as well as the family background of other accused, requested to consider while awarding the sentence of punishment. By taking into consideration of the above submissions made by the accused as well as their counsel, this Court has decided to impose the punishment prescribed under as follows:

Accordingly A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 are convicted under Section 235(2)

Cr.P.C for the Charge under Sections 342 IPC and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six months each.

A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 are also convicted for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for Six months each and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, IDSI for one month each.

S.C.No.2/2008 42 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

A2 and A3 are also convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC on two counts for beating P.Ws.1 and 2 (being a lesser offence for the charge under Section 324 IPC) and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for Six months each for two counts.

A1, A4, A5 and A7 to A10 are also convicted for the charge under

Section 323, r/w 34 of IPC on two counts in respect of beating P.Ws.1 and 2 (being a lesser offence for the charge under Section 324 IPC) along with A2 and A3 and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for Six months each for two counts.

A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 are also convicted for the charge under Section 3(1) (iii) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 18 months each (one and half year) and also to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each, IDSI for Two months each.

A1 to A5 and A7 to A10 are also convicted for the charge under Section 3(1) (x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly they are sentenced to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 18 months each (one and half year) and also to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) each,

IDSI for Two months each.

All the sentences warded for the charges under IPC as well as ST & ST (POA) Act, 1989 as referred above shall run concurrently.

The remand period if any shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

Out of total fine amount of Rs.3,78,000/- that was collected from the accused, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) each is awarded by way of compensation to P.Ws.1 and 2 which is to be paid after appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II (Mahila Court) transcribed by him,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court this day 16 th day of April,

2024. SRIDHAR LALAMDigitally signed by SRIDHAR LALAM

Date: 2024.04.16 18:46:44 +0530

Spl.Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

S.C.No.2/2008 43 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on behalf of

The Prosecution: The Defence

P.W.1: K.China RajuDW.1: S.Abbulu P.W.2: D.Venkata RatnamDW.2: Nalla Govinda Rao P.W.3: K.Ganapathi P.W.4: Ch.Pattabhi Ramayya P.W.5: P.Venkata Ramana P.W.6: P.Masenu P.W.7: K.Raju P.W.8: D.Krishna Murthy P.W.9: K.V.V.Satyanarayana PW.10: Md. Habibaddin PW.11: A.R.Srinivasa Rao PW.12: M.Suresh Kumar

Documents marked on behalf of

Prosecution:s Ex.P.1: Report given by P.W.1. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9. Ex.P.6: FIR Ex.P.7: Rough sketch Ex.P.8: Wound certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.9: Wound certificate of PW.2 Ex.P.10: Wound certificate of PW.3 Ex.P.11: Wound certificate of PW.4 Ex.P.12: Wound certificate of PW.5 Ex.P.13: Caste certificate of PW.1 Ex.P.14: Caste certificate of PW.2

Documents marked on behalf of Defence:

Ex.D1: Contradiction marked in 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 in Page No.4 Ex.D2: Contradiction marked in 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1 in Page No.3 Ex.D3: Contradiction marked in 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 in Page No.3 Ex.D4: Contradiction marked in 164 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 in Page No.2

S.C.No.2/2008 44 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Ex.D5: Photo dt.27.10.2016 Ex.D6: Main report dated 16.07.1997 issued under RTI Act. Ex.D7: Copy of order of Hon’ble A.P High Court in Writ Petition No.7935/2019 dated 26.06.2019. Ex.D8: Downloaded copy of orders of Hon’ble A.P High Court in W.P.No.7935/2019 dt.12.12.2023. Ex.D9: Copy of orders in Hon’ble A.P High Court in W.P.M.No.25758and 25759 of 2017 in W.P.No.20953/2017 dt.8.08.2017 Ex.D10: Attested copy of proceedings in C6/01/2017 dt.11.06.2019. Ex.D11: Attested copy of proceedings given by Collector in C.No.7/00 dt.31.01.2024. Ex.D12: Final Common Orders given (2) by Hon’ble A.P High Court in Writ petitions orders 20953 & 42340 of 2017 dt.12.12.2023. Ex.D13: Attested copy of relevant withdrawal application of PW.1. Ex.D14: Attested copy of relevant withdrawal application of PW.2. Ex.D15: Downloaded copy of orders in W.P.7113/21 dated 20.04.2021 of

Hon’ble High Court of A.P. (Marked subject to objection)

Ex.D16: Downloaded copy of orders in I.A.4/2021 & I.A.3/2021 in W.P.7113/21

dated 30.06.2021 of Hon’ble High Court of A.P. (Marked subject to

objection)

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

SRIDHAR

Digitally signed by SRIDHAR LALAM

LALAM

Date: 2024.04.16 18:46:57 +0530

Spl.Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

Copy to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi (uploaded).

2. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram (Specially deputed).

3. Sri K.V.V.S.N.Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor for the state.

4. The learned counsel for the Accused.

45 S.C.No.2/2008 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC

& ST (POA) ACT-CUM-XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: SRI LALAM SRIDHAR, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Tuesday the 16 th day of April, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.2/2008

(PRC.No.15/2000 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate Court,

Amalapuram in Cr.No.1/1997 of Draksharam Police Station, E.G. District)

Name of the Complainant :State represented by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram (Specially deputed)

Name of the accused: 1). Thota Thrimurthulu,S/o Pundarikakshudu, Age:38 years, Kapu, M.L.A.,RamachandrapuramAssembly constituency, resident of Venkatayapalem, Ramachandrapuram (M). 2). Thota Babulu @ Pedababu, S/o Peda Tatarao,Age:30years,Kapu, Venkatayapalem. 3). Thota Ramu, S/o Pundarikakshudu, Age:45 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem. 4). Thota Pundarikakshudu @ Pundarikakshayya @ Doctorbabu, S/o Ramu, 18 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem. 5). Thota Pundarikakshudu @ Babi, S/o Sathikonda @ Sathyanarayana, 19 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem. 6). Thalatam Murali Mohan @ Murali Krishna, S/o Suryanarayana, 19 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem. (Died) 7). Devalla Kishore, S/o Sathiraju, 19 years, Kamma, Venkatayapalem. 8). Thota Srinu, S/o Subbarao @ China Tatarao, 19 years, Kapu, Venkatayapalem. 9). Mancham Prakash, S/o Paparao, 26 years,Kapu,Ramalayamveedhi, Venkatayapalem. 10). Achanta Rama Sathyanarayana @ Rambabu, S/o Pakeeru, 30 years, Nai- 46 S.C.No.2/2008 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP brahmin(Barbar)villageservant, Verkatayapalem.Ramachandrapuram Mandal. (Case against A6 is abated as he died) Date, time and Place of : On 29.12.1996 at 12.00 mid night at offenceVenkatayyapalem at the backyard of the house of A1

Date of complaint: 04.01.1997

Date of apprehension : A1 on 07.01.1997 A3 to A6 & A8 on 8.01.1997 A2 on 07.01.1997 A7 on 08.01.1997 A9 on 14.03.1997 A10 on 24.02.1997

Whether the accused is in : On bail Jail or on bail

Date of Commitment: 18.10.2000

Date of commencement of : 08.05.2017 trial

Date of Closure of Trial: 11.03.2024

Date of Judgment : 16.04.2024

Explanation for the delay: No unavoidable delay.

SRIDHAR

Digitally signed by SRIDHAR LALAM

LALAM

Date: 2024.04.16 18:47:07 +0530

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present:- Sri L. Sridhar, B.Sc.,B.L., I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Friday, this the 1 st day of May, 2015

C.C.No.1264/2007

Between: The State Rep. by its Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam. …Complainant. And:

1. M.V.Raghava Reddy, S/o. M.Dharma Reddy, 48 years, proprietor, M/S.Sai Balaji medicals, D.no.49-34-15/1A, Opp. Venu Gopalaswamy Temple, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam .

2. N.Ravi Prasad, S/o. late Venkata Raju. 40 years, Proprietor, Ravi medical Stones, D.No.49-34-1/26, Devi Towers, Akkayyapalem High Way Bus stop, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam .

3. B.S.Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Nagamayya, 37 years, R/o. Pavan Medial Agen- cies, D.No.44-1-22/1, Lakshminarayanapuram, Kailaspuram Road, Visakhapatnam . … Accused.

This case coming on 20-4-2014 for final hearing before me in the presence of A.P.P.Gr.II for the complainant and of Sri.N.S.V.Reddy, Advocate for A.1, Sri P.Ramu, Advocate for A.2 and Sri G.Parvateesam Rao, Advocate for A.2, the same having stood over for consideration and this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The above case arises out of the complaint filed by the State of Andhra

Pradesh, Rep. by its Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam and licensing authority, Visakhapatnam district against A.1 to A.3 for violation of its provisions by its stocking and sale of habit forming drugs ie., Spas Pokran

Capsules without prescription or license.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- It is stated that on 13- 12-2006 the complaint ie., PW.1 herein along with Drugs inspector,

Anakapalli who is shown as LW.2, inspected M/s. Pavan Medical Agencies ie., A.3 herein situated at Laxminarayanapuram, Kailaspuram,

Visakhapatnam and during the raid , found purchase of Spas Pokran capsules from M/s. Vijaya Vasavi Traders Narsaraopet vide Invoice

No.4574 dt. 6-11-2006 ( 30 X 45 X 8 capsules) and another invoice no.4933 dt. 29-11-2006 ( 30 X 45 X8 capsules). A.3 denied the above 2 transaction vide their letter dt. 13- 12-2006. PW.1 prepared inspection report there i.e, Ex.P.6 and the statement by way of letter given by A.3 is marked as Ex.P.7. On the same day the PW.1 addressed a letter to M/s.

Vijaya Vasavi Traders, Narsaraopet calling for the particulars with regard to the sale of the above capsules under the said invoices which are marked as Ex.P.25 and P.26. Accordingly they received the reply from

M/s.Vijaya Vasavi Traders, Narsaraopet ie. Ex.P.10 confirming the sale of the above capsules to A.3 and also it is brought before the court that m/s. Sita medicals , Gajuwaka also sold same drug to A.3. Basing on the said information, P.W.1 along with LW.2 and mediators conducted raid at M/s. Sai Balaji Medicals, Akkayyapalem on 16-12-2006 and observed that A.1 was transacting business and found 30 X 45 X 8 ( total 10800 capsules) of Spas Pokran capsules with batch No. SPK 006 with manufacturing date 8/2006 , expiry date July, 2009 manufactured by

Noel Pharma, unit No.II, Gullarwala village, Karuna (Post0, Nalgarah,

Tetali, Solan District, Himachal Pradesh . The proprietor of the firm ie.,

A.1 failed to produce bills for the above stocks and however he has disclosed that they purchased 60 X 45 X 8 ( 21600 Capsules) from M/s.

Pavan medical agencies in the month of November, and the said stocks were delivered in person by A.3 without purchase bill. A.1 further stated that they sold 30 X 45 X 8 ( 10800 Capsules) out of 21600 capsules without issuing sale bill. Therefore, the inspection team had issued Form -16 to A.1 for the remaining capsules.

3. On 18-12-2006 , Pw.1 along with the same team and punch witnesses again conducted raid and seized the above stock under form No.16 under the cover of panchanama and the seizure was informed to this court vide

Memo RC No.266 (2) UB/B1/Visakhapatnam dt. 19-12-2006. Accordingly the said panchanama is marked as Ex.P.16 dt. 18-12-2006 containing three pages.

3

4. The same team also conducted raid at Ravi medicals ie., A.2 but did not find any property . However on 12-2-2007 the complaint addressed the letter under Sec. 22 (1) (CCS) of the Act and requested A.1 to produce the attested copies of purchase or sale of Spas Pokran and A.1 vide letter dt. 25-2-2007 requested time and subsequently gave another letter dt. 1-3-2007 that they purchased stocks from Pavan Medical

Agencies through delivery challan and the same was misplaced and further stated that the above firm had not given any bill. On the basis of the statement given by A.3, PW.1 with the same team on 16-12-2006 inspected Ravi Medicals, Near Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam and observed A.2 and his wife are conducting business and on questioning the purchase and sale of Spas Pokran capsules, A.2 confessed as if he purchased the same from M/s. Pavan Medical agencies without purchase bill and he further stated that he supplied all the capsules to unidentified persons without issuing sale bill. On 12-2-2007 PW.1 addressed letter to A.2 to purchase the attested copies of the record for which A.2 has given reply letter dt. 21-2-2007 without producing any record. On 18-4-2007 the complainant has issued show cause notice to

M/s. Ravi Medicals with regard to submit the information of purchase and sale records of Spas Pokran capsules and Mr.N.Ravi Prasad, proprietor of

A.2 medicals given explanation dt. 23-4-2007 that they submitted information vide their letter dt. 16-12-2007 and 21-2-2007 regarding information. Therefore, basing upon the above information and documents secured from the accused M/s. Viajaya Vasavi Traders and

Sita Medicals they came to the conclusion that A.3 had supplied Spas

Pokran capsules to A.1 and A.2 without any purchase or sale bill and they were sold by A.1 and A.2 and they were sold to unidentified people without having any license or permission and without any prescription, and hence they are said to be liable for punishment for the above offence.

4 Therefore, basing upon the letter dt. 19-12-2006 ie., Ex.P.31 from

Pw.1, sanction as given by Director General Drugs and Copy Rights,

Drugs Controller Administration, Hyderabad vide memo 1406 dt. 24-2- 2007 under Ex.P.32 sanction as given to launch prosecution. Therefore this complaint.

5. The case is taken on file for the offences U/Sec 65(4) (4), Rule 65 (4) (3) and 65 (9) IF Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 and Sec. 18 (a) (VI) of

Durgs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sec. 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics

Act

6. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them as required U/sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

7.On their examination U/sec. 251 Cr.P.C. for the offences U/Sec 65(4) (4), Rule 65 (4) (3) and 65 (9) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 and

Sec. 18 (a) (VI) of Durgs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sec. 27 (d) of

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In support of the case of prosecution, PWs 1 to 3 are examined and marked Ex.P.1 to P.32 and MO.1 on its behalf.

9.After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined U/sec.

313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material made available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard both sides.

11.Now the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused 1 to 3 for the offences U/Sec 65(4) (4), Rule 65 (4) (3) and 65 (9) of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules 1945 and Sec. 18 (a) (VI) of Durgs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sec. 27 (d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

12.POINT :The learned APP has argued that by examining the above witnesses PWs 1 to 3 and the documents placed before the court, they 5 could establish the guilt of all the accused for stocking and sale of habit forming drugs ie., MO.1 to the unidentified people without any purchase or sale bills and therefore they are liable for conviction. The learned APP further argued that though some of the other witnesses are not examined and though they are essential witnesses, the evidence adduced before the court through PWs 1 to 3 and documents would clearly show the guilt of all the accused.

13. The learned APP further argued that though the mediators pressed into service in this case are running medical shops and under the supervision of Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam , they cannot be termed as independent and responsible mediators and their evidence cannot be rejected on account of their familiarity with the Drugs. It is also argued by the learned APP that as far as practicable , the drugs inspector has to follow the procedure as contemplated under Sec.. 100 (4) Cr.P.C while conducting search and merely because the above mediators are not an independent witnesses, we cannot say the search and seizure as invalid.

He also relied upon the citations of the Honourable Supreme Court and

High Courts. It is also argued that the PW.1 is appointed as Drugs

Inspector, for the entire state of Andhra Pradesh under Ex.P.1 and he is also authorized to conduct raid in the local area as per the Gazette

Notification Ex.P.2. Therefore, PW.1 has got every right to conduct any search in the license premises. Therefore, the contention taken by the accused has no validity. It is also argued that they did not find any stocks from the forms of A.2 and A.3 but the material on record including the statements and letter given by the accused would support the case of the prosecution in any manner.

14. It is also argued by the learned APP that there is no need to get expert opinion relating to the material objects seized from the possession of

A.1. Therefore, basing upon the above material on record, the learned 6 APP tried to impress upon the court that all the accused are liable for conviction.

15. The learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that it is a false case foisted against all the accused at the influence of the PW.1, LW.2 and mediators because of business rivalry and therefore the entire record was prepared and fabricated for the purpose of this case. It is further argued that there is no expert opinion relating to the drugs seized from the possession of the accused and without any such information we cannot come to any conclusion relating to the contents of MO.1. It is also argued that the evidence is completely inconsistent with each other and therefore basing upon the above material on record the learned APP tried to impress upon the court that all the accused are liable for conviction.

He further argued that there is no sufficient piece of evidence placed

before the court to convince the case of the prosecution. Therefore,

basing upon the above arguments, the learned defence counsel has prayed this court to extend benefit of doubt.

16.Perused the entire record and it shows as if the prosecution examined the witnesses as PWs 1 to 3, among whom the pW.1 is the Drugs inspector who conducted raid along with PW.2 and other witnesses and found the above lapses with A.1 to A.3 in violation of the Rules of the said Act. The PW.1 has given evidence by corroborating the case of the prosecution on the same lines in support of the complaint and case of the prosecution. P.W.1 has confirmed before the court about the raids conducted at the shops of A.1 to A.3 and also about confirmation from

Vijaya Vasavi Traders and Sita Medicals about the supply of the same drug to A.3 from where they were supplied to A.1 and A.2 without any purchase bill. It is also the main argument from the accused that PW.1 has no authority or license to conduct raid and it is not supported by any documentary evidence. At the time of evidence, the prosecution 7 submitted a copy of Gazette Notification which is marked a sEx.P.1 in which PW.1 was appointed as Drugs Inspector to the entire state of Andhra Pradesh and also submitted another copy of the Gazette notification which is marked as Ex.P.2. Therefore, basing upon the above information the PW.1 established before the court that he is authorized person by having license to visit any shop within his jurisdiction. They also relied upon a citation of the Honourable Supreme

Court in the case between BHARAT DAMODAR KALE AND ANOTHER ..VS.. STATE OF A.P on 8th Day of October, 2003 . Therefore, basing upon the above material on record, the objections raised by the defence counsel challenging the appointment of PW.1 and seizure of MO.1 are not tenable.

17.As seen from the evidence of PW.1 , originally a raid was conducted initially at the shop of A.3 and then they conducted raid at the shops of

A.1 and A.2 and found their involvement in the sale of Spas Pokran capsules which is a habit forming drug. The record shows that the said drug is shown in “H” of schedule drugs and it is a habit forming drug and therefore it is a prescription drug.

18.On going further the raid was conducted on 16-12-2006 at the shops of A.1 and A.2 and again conducted another raid at the shops of A.1 and

A.2 on 18-12-006 and seized MO.1 Spas Pokran 10,800 capsules in quantum from the possession of A.1. So far A.2 and A.3 are concerned, no seizure was effected in the shops of A.2 and A.3 as they did not find any stocks therein. But however, basing on the statements and letters given by M/s. Vijaya Vasavi traders and M/s. Sita Medicals, A.2 and A.3 can be made to be liable for conviction. A.3 said to have purchased the same from M/s. Vijaya Vasavi Traders and also M/s. Sita Medicals under

Ex.P.25 to P.27 invoices dt. 29-11-2006, 6-11-2006 and 6-9-2006 where under it clearly shows the purchase of the same by A.3 from them.

8 Admittedly no stock of the said Drug is found in the possession of A.3 and though the above documents ie., Fax invoices marked as EX.P.25 to

P.27 and also the statements as well as the acknowledgments from the above accused show sale of the said drugs to A.3 but the prosecution examined only PW.3 who has been working in Lalitha Medicals,

Gajuwaka, but failed to examine the Proprietor of Sita medicals.

According to the prosecution A.3 purchased ( 30 X 45 X 8 = 10800 capsules) and also said to have purchased said drug from Vijaya Vasavi Traders under Ex.P.25 and P.26, but on coming to the evidence of PW.3, it is found to have examined the owner of Lalitha

Medicals but failed to examine the proprietor of Sita medicals . It is also to be noted that the prosecution failed to examine the Proprietor of Vijaya

Vasai Traders though he is cited as witness, and though this court has given sufficient time, they failed to produce him before the court for the purpose of evidence . Therefore, through the prosecution relied upon

Ex.P.25 and P.26, tax invoices which said to have been seized but they cannot be admitted in evidence to be relied upon as they were not confronted to Vijaya Vasavi traders from whom they were said to be secured. Therefore, under the above facts and circumstances, we cannot come to any conclusion whether A.3 was supplied with the above stocks by Vijay Vasavi traders and Sita Medicals in the absence of any stock seized from them.

19. On coming to the A.2 who is Proprietor of Ravi medicals, he also said to have sold the said drug to some unknown people without any sale bill and also failed to produce before the court any purchase bill. As earlier said , though the raid was conducted at his shop, the pW.1 also did not find any stock in his shop and in the absence of any such stock of Spas Pokran, we cannot come to any conclusion.

20. On coming to the A.1 , Admittedly he is the proprietor of M/s. Sai Balaji 9 medicals, Akkayyapalem and all the above accused including A.1 are having valid license under EX.P.3 to P.5 respectively to do their business. According to the evidence of PW.1, they conducted raid on 16- 12-2006 at the shop of A.1 and found 10800 Spas Pokran capsules on 18-12-2006 and they have seized the same under Ex.P.16 Panchanama

dt. 19-12-2006.

21. The main case of the prosecution is that A.1 without having any license or purchase bill or sale bill is found to have sold some of the capsules to the extent of 10800 capsules and the remaining 10800 capsules are found in his shop. Therefore, after seizure of the same under Ex.P.16 it was intimated to the concerned but the learned defence counsel relied upon the admissions of pW.1 at the time of cross examination. On careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW.1, it is true that the pW.1 in page No.1 at line NO.9 admitted as follows “ it is true that the above drug comes under schedule . The 1 st accused is having a valid license of sale of the said drug. It is true that the license possessed by A.1 clearly disclose to sell, stock or exhibit or offer for sale or distribute by retail.” It is also admitted by the same witness at Line no.20 “ in this case no samples were sent to expert”. Therefore, by way of the above admissions , it is true that the above drug was not sent for analysis for expert opinion and as a counter blast to the said allegation, the learned APP has submitted that in such cases of this state there is no need for any analysis since the contents of the ingredients indicated on the paper of the above capsules could establish the nature of the drug and therefore it is not necessary to send the same for expert opinion. It is true that though it is mentioned as if it is Spas Pokran capsules but at the same time, the burden is on the prosecution to establish the contents of the same and basing upon the details of ingredients mentioned on the tablet cover we cannot bluntly come to the conclusion in support of the prosecution. Further PW.1 10 himself admitted that the accused is having valid license of sale of the said drug and it infers the right of A.1 under the said license. Therefore, the above admission from PW.1 would go long way as against the case of the prosecution and when the prosecution alleged that A.1 has no license or permission for sale of the drug but contra to the same, PW.1 has admitted at the time of cross examination as if the accused is having a valid license of sale of the said drug. Therefore, after careful scrutiny of the entire evidence and material on record, the prosecution failed to establish the chain of events to connect the accused to the offence and when the prosecution failed to establish all the events of the chain , it is not safe to base conviction basing on the said material on record.

Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

22. In the result, I find the accused 1 to 3 not guilty for the offence under

Rules 65 (4) (4), Rule 65 (4) (3) and 65 (9) of Drugs and Cosmetics s

Rules, 1945 r/w. sec. 18 (a) (vi) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable U/secs. 27 (d) of Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 and accordingly, accused 1 to 3 are acquitted U/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 1st

day of May, 2015.

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE: Names of witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution:Defence: P.W.1 : R.Uday BhaskarNone. P.W.2 : K.Venkata Bhupathi P.W.3 : K.Sriram No.of documents marked for Prosecution:Defence: Ex.P.1: Copy of Gazette Notification of PW.1Nil.

11 Ex.P.2: Copy of Gazette notification dt. 6-8-1959. Ex.P.3: Drug Licenses in Form 20 and 21 of Sai Balaji Medicals, Akkayyapalem Ex.P.4: Drug Licenses in Form 20 and 21 of Ravi medicals, Akkayyapalem. Ex.P.5: Drug Licenses in Form 20 and 21 of Pavan Medicals, Kailapuram Ex.P.6: inspection report of Pavan Medicals dt. 13-12-2006. Ex.P.7: Statement dt. 13-12-2006. Ex.P.8: O/c of letter dt. 13-12-2006 to M/s. Vijaya Vasavi Traders. Ex.P.9: Statement of A.3 dt. 14-12-2006. Ex.P.10: Reply letter dt. 18-12-2006 of m/s. VV.Traders. Ex.P.11: inspection report dt. 16-12-2006. Ex.P.12: Inspection report of M/s. Sri Balaji Medicals. Ex.p.13: Form -15 issued to A.3. Ex.P.14: Statement of A.1 Ex.P.15: Panchanama Dt. 18-12-2006 Ex.P.17: inspection report of M/s. Ravi medical Stores, Akkayapalem. Ex.P.18: Statement of A.2 Ex.P.19: office letter addressed to A.2 Ex.p.20: Reply letter of A.2. Ex.P.21: show cause notice issued to m/s. Ravi medicals Stores. Ex.P.22: Reply notice of A.2. Ex.p.23; Office letter addressed to Pavan Medical stores. Ex.P.24: Reply letter of A.3 Ex.p.25; Tax invoice of M/s. V.V.Tradeers, Narsaraopet. Ex.P.26: Tax invoice of M/s. V.V.Tradeers, Narsaraopet. Ex.P.27: Tax invoice of M/s. V.V.Tradeers, Narsaraopet. Ex.P.28: Show cause notice to M/s. Pavan Medical Agencies. Ex.P.29: Acknowledgment of A.3 Ex.P.30: Statement of A.3. Ex.P.31: office letter to Director General, Drugs Control Administration, Hyderabad. Ex.P.32: memo No.1406 dt. 24-2-2007.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

MO.1 – Spas Pokran Capsues ( 30 X 45 X 8 Capsules) .

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.

12

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT OF VISAKHAPATNAM.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM.

C.C.No.1264/2007

Dates of OffenceExplanation for delay & : 18-12-2006 remarks

Filing: 18-12-2006Delay in non production of witnesses and no witness is Appearance: 18-4-2011 detained. Release on bail: On bail

Commencement of trial : 23-12-2011 Close of trial: 24-7-2014 Sentence or order: 1-5-2015

CC No. 1264/2007 on the file of I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam.

COMPLAINANT:-

The State Represented by The Drugs Inspector, Visakhapatnam District.

Accused:-

1. M.V.Raghava Reddy, S/o. M.Dharma Reddy, 48 years, proprietor, M/S.Sai Balaji medicals, D.no.49-34-15/1A, Opp. Venu Gopalaswamy Temple, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam .

2. N.Ravi Prasad, S/o. late Venkata Raju. 40 years, Proprietor, Ravi medical Stones, D.No.49-34-1/26, Devi Towers, Akkayyapalem High Way Bus stop, Akkayyapalem, Visakhapatnam .

3.B.S.,Sudhakar Rao, S/o. Nagamayya, 37 years, R/o. Pavan Medial Agen- cies, D.No.44-1-22/1, Lakshminarayanapuram, Kailaspuram Road, Visakhapatnam .

Offence:Rules 65 (4) (4), Rule 65 (4) (3) and 65 (9) of Drugs and Cosmetics s Rules, 1945 r/w. sec. 18 (a) (vi) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable U/secs. 27 (d) of Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940.

Finding:Accused 1 to 3 found not guilty.

Sentence :In the result, I find the accused 1 to 3 not guilty for the offence under Rules 65 (4) (4), Rule 65 (4) (3) and 65 (9) of Drugs and Cosmetics s Rules, 1945 r/w. sec. 18 (a)

(vi) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable U/secs. 27

(d) of Drugs and cosmetics Act, 1940 and accordingly, accused 1 to 3 are acquitted U/sec. 255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused 1 to 3 shall stand cancelled. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Visakhapatnam.

1

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT VISAKHAPATNAM PRESENT: SRI M.SRIDHAR, LL.B.,

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS,

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE.

VISAKHAPATNAM

FRIDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY, 2012

C.C. 589/2008

This case coming on 17.07.2012 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. Chiranjeevi Kumari for the state-complainant and of Sri A.RAMA MOHANA RAO, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

a.The Serial No. of the case:C.C.No.589/2008 b.The date of offence: 19-10-2004 c.The name of the : State represented by the Inspector of Police, KancharapalemPoliceStation, complainantVisakhapatnam city. d.The name of the accused: A-1: Majji Lakshmanarao S/o late Thoudu, 23 years, Kapu, Srinivasanagar colony, S.Kota, Vizianagaram Dist. Resident of A-1: Separated as in Padmanabhapuram colony, Venkatapuram, C.C.252/2008 and nearLGPolymers,Gopalapatnam, disposed on 08-08-2008 Visakhapatnam. A-2: Devarika Sarojini W/o Paparao, 30 years, SC by caste Resident of D.No.38-14- 12,Maharaniveedhi,Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. A-3: Gowripattapu Sambamurhy S/o late Sanyasi, 68 years, Viswabrahmin, D.No.21- 51-19/6/2, Chandana Krishna Electronic Dharmakata,Townhallroad, Visakhapatnam. A-4: Gowripattapu Tataji S/o Sambamurhy, 32 years, Viswabrahmin by caste, Krisha Vamsi Dharma Kata, Kurupa market, R/o D.No.36-93-336, Alluri Seetharamaraju colony Visakhapatnam. e.The offence complained of: Punishable under section 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. f.The plea of the accused & : A2 to A4 Pleaded not guilty his examination, if any

1.The Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station,

Visakhapatnam City has filed charge sheet in Cr.No.430/07 for the offence punishable under sections 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code against the A1 to

A4 with the following allegations:

2. That on 19-10-2004 P.W.1 and L.W.2 J. Bhavani locked up their house and went to the house of L.W.4 Mattaparthi Ramanamma and slept there for the 2 night. On 20-12-2004 at 7.00 A.M. P.W.1 returned to her house along with L.W.2 and found the doors in opening condition and the lock put to the door broken.

P.W.1 and L.W.2 Bhavani entered inside the house and found the steel cup board in the bed room open. P.W.1 checked up and found gold Chandraharam chain wg. 2 tuals, gold plain chain wg.1/2 tula, gold locket wg.1/4 tula, gold necklace wg. 1 ½ tula, 3 pairs of ear jumkas wg. 2 tuals, one pair of gold hangings wg.1/4 tula, two gold rings wg.1/2 tula, a pair of silver anklets and five tuals of silver bowl and cash Rs.3,400/- missing. Immediately P.W.1 gave report to the police, basing on the report of P.W.1, P.W.5 Inspector of Police registered the same as case in Cr.No.430/06. During the course of investigation, P.W.5 arrested A1 in the presence of meditors. Basing on the confessional statement made by A1, they led to the house of A1 at Venkatapuram village where A1 concealed one plain gold chain at his house and also kept two pairs of gold ear studs with M.B.Laxmi and sold two gold rings and a pair of ettugolusulu to A2 and also sold three rows gold chandraharam chain and gold locket to A3 and a gold necklace to A4. In pursuance of the confessional statement made by A1, led by him, P.W.5 and mediators proceeded to his house on 16-12-2007, P.W.5 seized the same under the cover of mediators report. Later A1 led them to the house of A2, A3 and A4 at Marripalem, Kurapam market, ASR colony,

Visakhapatnam respectively. On 10-01-2008 P.W.5 obtained A4 to police custody and interrogated him based on the disclosure statement made by A1.

A4 admitted having purchased the gold ornament from A1 and volunteered to show the place where he concealed the properties purchased from A1. A4 volunteered to show the gold ornaments concealed by him in a pit near Lord

Venkateswaraswmay temple, Muralingar, Visakhapatnam which were purchased from A1 and seized the same under the cover of mediators report. On 18-12- 2007 P.W.5 handed over the gold ornaments seized in this case to L.W.7

M.Kumar and P.W.3 with instructions to hold a test identification parade with

P.W.1. After completion of investigation P.W.5 filed charge sheet.

7. Cognizance of the offence was taken for the Offence Under Sections 380 or 411 Indian Penal Code against the accused. On production of A1 from the 3

Central Prison and on appearance of the A2 to A4, copies of documents were furnished as per Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

8.The A1 to A4 were examined Under Section 239 of Criminal Procedure

Code. Charge was framed for the Offence Under Section 411 Indian Penal Code and read over to the accused in telugu, for which (A1 pleaded guilty and admitted the offence) and A2 to A4 did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. To prove the case of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 5 were examined and marked Exs. P.1 to P.13. M.Os. 1 to 6. After completion of prosecution evidence

A2 to A4 were examined Under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure code, all the incriminating material evidence was read over and explained to them in telugu, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard arguments of both sides.

11.Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution witness i.e the evidence of Investigating Officer is fully supported by the independent witnesses in this case, as such the seizure of stolen properties were recovered from the possession of all the accused under the cover of mediators report and the prosecution is able to establish that stolen properties were recovered soon after the theft.

12.Learned counsel for the accused argued all the accused are falsely implicated in this case and the police persons foisted false case against all the accused. Hence, accused are entitled for acquittal.

13.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of all the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

14. The substantiate its the case of prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5.

P.W.1 deposed that on 19-10-2004 she went to her mother's house after locking doors of the house, on the next day she found doors of their house were break opened, some unknown offenders gained entrance into their house and committed theft of gold ornaments and silver anklets, silver bowel, cash of Rs.3,400/-, on that she gave report to police under Ex.P.1. She further deposed that after two years, 4 police informed her that some of their gold ornaments were recovered, she took the same for interim custody i.e. gold chandraharam, gold necklace, two gold rings, two pairs of ear ornaments, one pair of maateelu and those were marked as M.Os.1 to 6.

15.P.W.2 deposed that on 11.01.2008 at about 2.20 PM while he was going towards NAD one constable called her to the Police station, then he went to

Kancharapalem Police Station along with constable, there Inspector of police requested him to act as mediator, then Inspector of Police called A4 and questioned

before him, Accused gave voluntary confession that crime and he secreted gold

ornaments near NGGO's colony and by the side of Venkateswara temple, he further confessed that Majji Laxmanarao handed over the same to him after committed theft and the same was recorded under mediators report, it was marked as Ex.P.2, thereafter A4 led them to NGGO's colony near Venkateswara Swamy temple near to bushes, accused picked up polythene cover from the bushes and handed over to

Inspector of police, on verification it contains gold ornaments i.e. gold chain, black beeds chain, black beed ear studs, gold bangles and gold rings, and those were seized by the Inspector of police in his presence under the cover of mediators report.

He further deposed that he signed on carbon copy of mediators report, he read over the contents of it and it was marked as Ex.P.3, he was present at the time of identification of property in the police station and he signed on it under Ex.P.4.

16. P.W.3 deposed that on 16-12-2007 while he was going in front of the

Kancharapalem Police Station one constable called him and that he went to P.S from there he and another mediator , Inspector of police, SI of police, constables went to

Gnanapuram Railway station on Zeep, there one person i.e A1 in C.C.252/2008 on seeing the police tried to abscond from there, on suspicion police caught hold A1 then police questioned the accused and seized gold ornaments from accused. He further deposed that he confessed that he committed theft of various places, he also picked out one packet from his pocket which contains gold ornaments and the same were also seized, arrested A1 in C.C.252/08, he also gave confession that he handed over the thefted gold ornaments to A2, and two other persons, mediators report was marked as Ex.P.2, from there accused led them to accused house at Venkatapuram and there police also recovered some of the gold ornaments in C.C.252/08 from A1 and his wife, under the cover of mediators report and those were marked as Ex.P.6 and 7 under separate mediators report. He further deposed that thereafter A1 led 5 them to the house of A2, on questioning there A2 handed over gold ornaments from her house, on enquiry she gave voluntary confession that she has received the gold ornaments from A1, those gold ornaments were seized under the cover of mediators report and he has signed on the same, under Ex.P.8, from there A1 in C.C.252/08 led them to the house of A3, there also police seized some gold ornaments from the possession of A3 under the cover of mediators report, on inquiry A3 gave voluntary confession that he purchased the gold ornaments from A1, he signed on the mediators report and he know its contents under Ex.P.9, from there A1 led them to the house of the Butchiraju (A4 in CC 594/08 and 592/08), he signed on the same under Ex.P.10 and 11, he signed on all mediators reports after read over the contents.

17. P.W.4 Sub Inspector of police, deposed that on 22-08-2006 Inspector of police registered a case in Cr.No.430/06, u/s 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code and endorsed the same to him for investigation, then he took up investigation and visited the scene of offence, he prepared the crime detailed form under Ex.P.12, his Inspector of police took up further investigation.

18. P.W.5 deposed that on 07-11-2006 while he was present in the Police Station,

P.W.1 came to Police Station and presented a report, the same was registered as case in Cr.No.430/06, under section 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code under Ex.P.13 First

Information Report, he entrusted the investigation to his Sub Inspector of police, on 16.12.2007 on receipt of information, he secured mediators and proceeded to

Gnanapuram Rly station at 1.00 PM and there they found one person on suspicious and immediately apprehended accused with the assistance of his staff, he searched

A1 and found a gold ring to his left hand ring finger, he also found a paper packet in his left hand pant pocket, he examined the gold articles and found the gold bracelet chain having letter in English letter a 'A.M' the gold ring is with Venkateswara idol and inside the ring contained English letter as A.M. and a gold plain chain, he identified the above three items as part of stolen properties. He further deposed that the accused he along with staff, mediators proceeded to the house of accused situated at

Venkatapuram village, there they recovered some stolen property i.e. cash of

Rs.1,20,000/-, he identified the cash as part of the stolen properties and the seized the same under the cover of mediators report and there found gold ornaments, he identified the same and those ornaments are concerned in various crimes, he got affixed the slips containing signatures of him ad mediators. He further deposed that 6 accused produced three screw drivers and one testing stone and informed that they were supplied to them by accused, to use in commission of offences, one auto also produced by accused, and he has no driving license, he seized above all gold articles, implements and up to under the cover of mediators report under Ex.P.7, when he questioned the wife of accused about the stolen articles given to her by accused, and those items are two pairs of two pairs of gold plain duddulu with buttalu, one pair of gold plain duddulu, one pair of gold ear duddulu with stars and having hangings stars, he identified them these items are in Cr.Nos.430/06, 462/07 of Kancharapalem

Police Station, he seized above three items under the cover of mediators report on 16.12.2007 under Ex.P.8, on confession of accused he along with his staff proceeded to the house of A2 Sarojini situated at Maharaniveedhi, Marripalem bearing D.No.38- 14-12, A2 produced a polythene cover before them and on verification he found the 8 items, identified the same as in Cr.No.693/07, 430/06, 462/06, 87/07, 247/07, he seized the same under the cover of mediators report under Ex.P.9. He further deposed that he along with his staff proceeded to the house of A3 situated at

Kurupam market, there A3 found, he ascertained his identify and he asked about receiving of stolen properties from accused, and accused produced gold and other articles, those are 15 numbers of gold items and those items were in Cr.Nos. 693/07, 430/06, 462/06, 42/07,75/07, 87/07, 144/07, 247/07, 337/07 and he seized the same under the cover of mediators report under Ex.P.10, He further deposed that A1 led to the house of A4, wife of A4, was there, he requested to co operate for the search of the house for stolen properties, and she refused the same, he asked A1 to show motorcycle which was given by A4 which is using for commission of various crime, he showed one Pulsar motorcycle bearing No. AP 31 AQ 2175 which was present there, he identified the same as crime vehicle used by the A1 and seized the same under the cover of mediators report. He further deposed that A1 led to ASR colony,

Indiranagar 5 and reached to the house of A5, A1 showed the house of A5 who purchased the stolen gold articles from him, A5 admitted the offence and voluntarily went to this house and produced one plastic box, one verification they found one gold chain and one gold ring, those items were identified as stolen properties concerned in

Cr.No.87/07, u/s 457, 380 of Indian Penal Code, the gold ring as stolen property concerned in Cr.No.389/07, as accused detained the stolen property, he arrested accused A5 and seized the same under the cover of mediators report under Ex.P.10.

7

19.It is the case of the prosecution that property was recovered soon after the theft from the possession of the accused. According to prosecution on confession of accused, P.W.5 seized M.Os.1 to 6 in the presence of P.W.3. According to P.Ws.3 and 5 the stolen property was seized from the A1 and in pursuance of confession some other property was seized from A2, A3 and also from A4 and Butchiraju (A4 in C.C.

594/08 and 592/08) admittedly A3, A4 said to have purchased the case properties, but nothing on record to say that A2, A3 and A4 having knowledge that M.Os.1 to 6 were stolen property and they intentionally received the same.

20. In order to bring home guilt of the accused under section 411 of Indian Penal

Code prosecution has to establish that the stolen property was in the possession of the accused and accused had knowledge that the property was stolen property and if one of aforesaid ingredients lacking it may go adverse to the case of prosecution, in the instant case it is on record that A2 received case property from A1 and A3, A4 purchased property from A1, the Learned counsel for the accused argued that no seizure was effected from all the accused and no one of the accused is having knowledge that the said property was stolen property.

21.No whisper from the prosecution that case property was recovered soon after commission of theft

22. On careful perusal of record entire evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 appears that

P.W.5 seized auto which were used for committing offences. According to him, he seized implements like screw drivers, testing stone, auto, gold articles under Ex.P.6 and also seized one Nokia Cell phone under Ex.P.7. He further stated that he seized one motorcycle. But surprisingly P.W.3 not stated about the seizure of implements, auto, motorcycle, gold articles. Hence evidence of P.Ws.3 and 5 are contradicting with each other on material aspects. Had P.W.3 really accompanied the P.W.5, he would have stated about the seizure of implements, Auto, gold articles under the cover of mediators report and also seizure of Motorcycle. Therefore a reasonable doubt arises whether P.W.3 accompanied the police officials at the time of seizure.

23.In view of aforesaid discussions I feel benefit of doubt given in favour of all the accused.

24.In the result, the A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted 8 under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. M.Os.1 to 6 was already given to defacto complainants i.e. P.W.1 for interim custody.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, Transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, this the 20th day of July,2012.

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RLYS,

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED: FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

P.W.1: J.Uma Maheswarai --NONE— P.W.2: H.Naresh P.W.3: T.Simhadri P.W.4: M.V.Ramanamurthy P.W.5: S.Venkata Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED:

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: -NIL- Ex.P.1: Report of P.W.1 in Cr.No.430/06 Ex.P.2: Carbon copy of mediators Report dated 11-01-2008 at 2.00 PM Ex.P.3: Carbon copy of mediators Report dated 11-01-2008 at 4.00 PM Ex.P.4: Identification Report dated 13.01.2008 at 10.00 a.m. Ex.P.5: Mediators report at 1.00 p.m. Ex.P.6: Mediators report at 4.00 p.m. Ex.P.7: Mediators report at 6.00 PM Ex.P.8: Mediators report at 6.45 PM Ex.P.9: Mediators Report at 8.00 PM Ex.P.10: Mediators report at 11.00PM Ex.P.11: Mediators report at 10.00 PM Ex.P.12: Crime details forms Ex.P.13: Original First Information Report

M.Os. Marked:

M.O.1 – Gold Chandraharam M.O.2 – Plain Gold chain M.O.3 – Two pairs of gold ear studs M.O.4 – Two Gold Rings, M.O.5 – One pair of mattilu M.O.6 – One gold necklace with thradu

II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE FOR RAILWAYS

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

9

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

DISTRICT :: VISAKHAPATNAM

IN THE COURT OF III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, VISAKHAPATNAM

C.C.NO.589/2008

Date of offences:19-10-2004 Date of release on bail:28-02-2008

Date of Filing:26-03-2008 Date of Apprehension:02-04-2008 Date of commencement of trial:19-07-2011 Date of Close of trial:12-07-2012 Date of Sentence or Order:20-07-2012 Explanation for delay:Delay due to non-appearnce of accused and witnesses. No witness is detained beyond three days.

C.C.No.589/2008on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam The name of the complainant :State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kancharapalem Police Station, Visakhapatnam city. The Name of the accused :A-1: Majji Lakshmanarao S/o late Thoudu, Parentage & Residence23 years, Kapu, Srinivasanagar colony, S.Kota, Vizianagaram Dist. Resident of A-1: Separated as in Padmanabhapuram colony, Venkatapuram, C.C.252/2008 and disposed nearLGPolymers,Gopalapatnam, offon 08.08.2008 Visakhapatnam. A-2: Devarika Sarojini W/o Paparao, 30 years, SC by caste Resident of D.No.38-14- 12,Maharaniveedhi,Kancharapalem, Visakhapatnam. A-3: Gowripattapu Sambamurhy S/o late Sanyasi, 68 years, Viswabrahmin, D.No.21- 51-19/6/2, Chandana Krishna Electronic Dharmakata,Townhallroad, Visakhapatnam. A-4: Gowripattapu Tataji S/o Sambamurhy, 32 years, Viswabrahmin by caste, Krisha Vamsi Dharma Kata, Kurupa market, R/o D.No.36-93-336, Alluri Seetharamaraju colony Visakhapatnam. Offences:Punishable under section 380 or 411 of Indian Penal Code. Finding:Accused found not guilty

Sentence:In the result, the A2 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code. The bail bonds of the accused and sureties shall stands cancelled after the expiry of appeal time. M.Os.1 to 6 was already given to defacto complainants i.e. P.W.1 for interim custody.

II Metropolitan Magistrate for Railways,

FAC III METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

VISAKHAPATNAM

1 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC

& ST (POA) ACT-CUM-XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: SRI LALAM SRIDHAR,

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Thursday the 28 th day of March, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.52/2017

(PRC.No.24/2016 on the file of IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.122/2012 of M.V.P Police Station,

Visakhapatnam)

Name of the Complainant : State represented by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-I, Visakhapatnam.

Name of the accused: Tetali Anil Kumar, S/o Subbireddy, 36 years, caste by Reddy, Business, D.No.50-102-3/3, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam City.

Date, time and Place of : On 2.03.2012 at 7-30 p.m at Dr.No.9-5-55/1, OffenceLakshmi Nagar, Isukhatotha, Visakhapatnam City Charges:Under Sections 448, 324, 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Plea of the accused :The accused pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court :Accused found not guilty.

Sentence or Order : In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences under Sections 448, 324, 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri Bandaru Venkata Ramana Murthy(Babu), Special Public Prosecutor Spl.Sessions Judge’s Court for trial of Cases 2 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, Visakhapatnam

Accused was defended by :Sri P.A.K.Kishore, Advocate for accused

This case is coming on 27.03.2024 for final hearing before me in presence of Sri Bandaru Venkata Ramana Murthy(Babu), Special Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri P.A.K.Kishore, Advocate for accused and the same having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The above case arises out of Charge Sheet filed by the Asst.

Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-I, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.122/2012 of

Muvvalavani Palem Police Station for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 324, 342 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x)(xi) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 against

Accused.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is mentioned as follows:-

(a). It is stated that the defaco complainant who is cited as LW.1 by name Adhada Chella Rao is resident of Peethalavanipalem, Visakhapatnam and he belongs to SC Mala by caste and he is husband of Adhada Lakshmi who is cited as LW.2. Both the LW.1 and LW.2 are no more now as they passed away subsequent to filing of this case. They were having site in flat

No. R4, S.No.40 at Lakshmi nagar, Isukathota, Visakhapatnam city and they were living in the site with their four children by erecting a thatched house and two tin sheeted sheds. Thereafter one T. Subbireddy, father of accused approached them and asked them to show their site papers as he had got site 3 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP adjacent to their site. They have shown him a gift deed, claiming that they were gifted the same by one Bakuru Panda Sarma Panthulu and the said thatched house was burnt and again they raised another shed. It is also said that one T.Subbireddy caused obstructions to them in peaceful enjoyment of their land and hence they filed O.S.No. 2419/2002 for the relief of injunction against Subbireddy and it was dismissed on 09.03.2005. Since both parties causing Law & Order problem with regard to rights on land, information was filed u/s 145 Cr.P.C before Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam by SHO, III Town P.S., vide FIR No. 296/2005 dt.01.07.2005.

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Visakhapatnam issued orders vide

MC.No.25/2005 dt. 18.03.2006 permanently restraining T.Subbireddy and

N.Suresh from entering into the said land covered by S.No.40 measuring 1025

Sq.yards. The said Subbireddy again approached them and exhibited high handed behavior against them and abused them in caste name. In this connection, a case in Cr.No.3/2006 u/s 3(1)(v) (x) of SC & ST POA Act, 1989 was registered on 02.01.06 at III Town P.S.. Visakhapatnam City and after due investigation, the case was referred as false on 06.09.06. Again LW1 lodged a complaint that Subbireddy and others kidnapped him and attacked him and a case in Cr.No. 558/2010 u/s 365, 324 r/w 34 IPC was registered on 02.10.2010 and it was referred as false. T. Subbireddy filed a criminal revision petition no. 41/2006 in the District Court, Visakhapatnam against the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate in MC No. 25/2005 and the Honorable

District Court set aside the orders of SDM dt.05.03.2008. T.Subbireddy made 4 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Nallari Suresh, Managing Director of M.S. Southern Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., to file a suit in the District Court vide OS.No.80/2006 to declare title and the recovery of possession of the disputed land and the same was dismissed on 13.01.2012. Hence, accused bore grudge against the complainants party and waited for the opportunity to grab their land.

(b)On 02.03.12 at about 07.30 pm, during temporary absence of

LWs.1 &2 and family, the accused along with some others damaged their thatched house and tin sheeted sheds and took away their belongings. LWs.

1 & 2 and their daughters returned their home and questioned the accused about their high-handed behavior, then the accused persons attacked them and beat them and four persons caught hold of LWI. The accused tried to poke LW2 with a crow bar and then LW1 interfered to save LW2 and he received injury on his fore head. The accused also beat PWs.2 & 3 by holding their hair and Accused abused them in their caste name and beat them. Both the complainants approached III Town P.S. on 2.03.12 midnight at 1.15 am and presented a report against some unknown persons and the Inspector of

Police i.e. PW.8 registered it as a case in Cr.No.121/12 บ/s 323, 448, 380, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC of III Town P.S.(MVP Zone), and again on the same day at 02.00 am, the same complainants presented another report mentioning some names of accused and caste abuse and the same was registered as a case in

Cr.No. 122/12 u/s 448, 427, 324, 342 IPC and sec.3(1)(v)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 of III Town Police Station (MVP Zone),

Visakhapatnam City. Both the cases were investigated into by the then ACP.

5 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

During investigation of cases, the complainants made allegations that Police forged their signatures, prepared FIR against one Nallari Suresh, who was not connected with the crime with intent to save T.Subbireddy, his son and followers. They circulated pamphlets and submitted representations to the then Commissioner of Police and other officials dt.12.03.12. The then CP made marginal remarks dt.17.03.12 that ACP(E) takes necessary action as per law and report. The then IO issued a notice to the complainant dt.

01.04.12 asking them to attend his office, for taking their signatures for comparison as they were making allegations that they had not lodged FIR in

Cr.No. 121/12. But they did not turn up.

(c)In the meantime, the accused approached the Hon'ble High Court and Honorable Court issued orders dt. 02.04.12 in Crl.P.No: 3279/12 (Cr.M.P.

no. 3457/12) that "there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in

Cr.No.122/12 of III Town P.S. for four weeks". Hence further investigation was stopped. Later the Hon'ble High Court vacated the stay order and directed to investigate the matter and file the final report.

(d)A separate charge sheet will be filed as when the involvement of other accused is established and caught. Later LWs. 1 & 2 & Nallari Suresh jointly sold away the disputed land the accused vide sale deed no. 2362/2012

dt. 18.04.12 after this incident.Since all the offenses are punishable with

imprisonment for a term of less than seven years and the arrest of the accused is not required under the provisions of sub-sections (1) of section 41 6 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP of Cr.P.C., notice u/s 41( A) of Cr.P.C was issued to the accused and after completion of entire investigation, PW.9 filed charge sheet against accused.

3.The learned IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistratet, Visakhapatnam has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 448, 427, 324, 342 IPC and

Section 3(1)(v)(x)(xi) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 against accused and registered PRC.No.24/2016 and issued summons to the accused.

4.On receiving the record, this court being the Special Sessions

Court for trial of the offences under SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 has taken cognizance under Section 193 of Cr.P.C and assigned SC.No.52/2017 and issued summons to accused, who appeared before the Court and engaged counsel.

5.On perusal of the record and on hearing the Special Public

Prosecutor and defence counsel, the accused was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C for which they denied. Hence charges under Sections 448, 324, 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 against accused were framed, read over and explained to them in telugu for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the time of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Adhada Chella Rao(died), Adhada Lakshmi(died), Kadavala Hari

Krishna (closed as not pressed), S.Venkata Rao and D.N.Mahesh.

7 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

7.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Sections 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution. The accused denied the same and took total denial. The accused did not choose to examine any witnesses and not marked any documents in his defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and posted for judgment.

9.The point arose for determination in this case is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt”?

10.POINT:-

The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued before this Court that the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with other witnesses is consistent and corroborated with each other and though they were cross examined at length, but nothing was elicited in their favour. It is also argued that the entire material on record and evidence of the witnesses clearly points out towards the guilt of the accused. Hence, they claimed to have established the guilt of the accused.

11. The learned defence counsel argued that this is a false case foisted against the accused. Therefore, there is no consistency and corroboration in between witnesses at the time of evidence and further argued that the admissions of PW.1 at the time of cross examination clearly shows that they have taken Baptism and therefore, the above case is filed 8 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP suppressing the real facts. He finally argued that accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

12.On perusal of record, this is a case of caste abuse coupled with beating and criminal intimidation in the hands of the accused. As seen from the material on record, there are disputes between both the parties since long time and it is also admitted that the father of the accused also filed cases against the family of PW.1. According to prosecution, on 2.03.2012 at about 7-30 p.m, when the defacto complainant and his wife i.e parents of PWs.1 and 2 along with their children went to the house of one of the daughters by name

Nagamani at Relli Veedhi and when they returned home, they found their thatched house and sheds dismantled by some people and when they questioned, the accused said to have reached them and beat LWs.1 and 2 with the help of his members by abusing in the name of their caste. PW3 is brother-in-law and PW.2 is sister of PW.1 and they also corroborated the version of PW.1.

13.At the very outset, this Court has to see whether the prosecution has got locus standi to file this case. According to prosecution, PW.1 belonged to SC-Mala while the accused belonged to Reddy community. The prosecution examined Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakahapatnam as PW.4 who issued the caste certificates of PW.1 and PW.2 stating that they belong to

SC Mala. Ex.P1 is the letter issued by them, sent to investigating officer with those findings. Therefore, there is no dispute from any of the parties with regard to the caste status. Therefore, prosecution claimed that PW.1 and 2 9 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP belonged to SC Mala and hence filed this complaint against the accused. This court has reserved the above point to be appreciated at the later stage.

14.On coming to the aspects of offence, according to prosecution, the accused along with his people came to the house of LWs.1 and 2 and dismantled the same and when they questioned, they did not care about their words and beat PW.1 and PW.2 and others and caused superficial injuries.

PW.8 is the Inspector who received Ex.P6 report from LW.1 and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.122/2012 and marked as Ex.P7. PW.9 is the investigating officer who said to have examined scene of offence by preparing rough sketch and filed charge sheet after effecting the notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. Therefore, out of the above witnesses, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would play an important role. Though the above incident took place on 2.03.2012 at about 7-30 p.m., but the report was filed on the next day.

15. The main argument of accused is that the above case is not maintainable as PW.1’s family has taken Baptism. There are judgments of

Honorable High Court of A.P. in Paptla John Veeranna vs. State of AP

and another reported 2003 Cr.L.J. page No.2204 and also the case

between Dr.Palika Srinivasa Kumar vs State of A.P. where in the

Honorable High Court of A.P. observed that when they are following

the christianity, they will not come under the purview of schedule

caste.

16.He also relied upon another judgment in a case between

Chinni Apparao and others Vs. State of A.P and others reported in

10 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

(LAWS (APH) 2015(12) 22 and M.Pratap Reddy Vs. State of

Telangana (LAWS(APH ) 2019(3) 96 of Honorable High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and tried to impress upon the court that the alleged

victims not being schedule group people are not entitled to

concession under SC & ST Atrocities Act . On coming to this case,

During the course of evidence it is admitted by PW.1 before this court that they have taken conversion into Christianity since childhood and they have been professing Christianity. Therefore, as seen from the evidence of PW.1, it is admitted that PW.1 family has already taken Christianity and inspite of that fact they approached the court with the above certificate as if they belong to

SC Mala.

17.Apart from the same they have also examined Medical Officer as

PW.6 who issued wound certificates of LWs.1 and 2 which are marked as

Ex.P3 and P4. But the prosecution did not examine the above witnesses, whose wound certificates were filed by the prosecution as they died.

Therefore, the important evidence of LW.1 and LW.2 is not available before the court. Further there is categorical admission from PW.1 that they do not belong to SC Mala and they have already taken Baptism and practicing

Christianity. Hence, by taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances, It is clear that PW.1 does not belong to SC and therefore, they are not entitled for any benefit on the said aspect.

18.On coming to the other evidence, there is no sufficient material brought before the court as against the accused. Further PWs.1 and 2 could 11 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP not identify the accused before this court because of the surgery undergone by him. Therefore, inspite of giving number of chances in trial, PW.1 failed to identify the accused in open court. Hence, on the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused.

19.In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences under

Sections 448, 324, 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this day 28 th day of March, 2024.

Sd/- Lalam Sridhar

Spl.Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on behalf of

Prosecution: Defence

P.W.1: P.Lalitha Eswari-None-

P.W.2: A.Mohini Swarnalatha

P.W.3: V.Kumar

P.W.4: B.T.V.Rama Rao

P.W.5: K.V.S.Ravi

P.W.6: Dr.H.R.K.Dora

P.W.7: P.Pothu Raju

P.W.8: S.Kiran Kumar

P.W.9: B.Mohan Rao 12 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Documents marked on behalf of

Prosecution:s

Ex.P.1/ – : Letter showing the caste status of LW.1, LW.2, PW.1 and PW.2.

dated 19.09.2015

Ex.P2 /- - : Letter showing caste status of accused dt.30.12.2015

Ex.P.3/ – : Wound certificate of LW.1.

Ex.P.4/ – : Wound certificate of LW.2.

Ex.P.5/ – : Copy of registration document bearing No.2362/2012 given by

SRO.

Ex.P.6/ - : Report

Ex.P.7/ – : FIR

Ex.P.8/ – : Proceedings vide RC 474/C4/2014 dt.17.11.2014

Ex.P.9/ – : Rough sketch

Documents marked on behalf of Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

Sd/- Lalam Sridhar

Spl.Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

Copy to: The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. The State represented by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-I, Visakhapatnam. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Spl. Sessions Judge’s Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam.

S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC & ST

(POA) ACT-CUM-XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: SRI LALAM SRIDHAR, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Thursday the 28 th day of March, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.52/2017

(PRC.No.24/2016 on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.122/2012 of M.V.P Police Station,

Visakhapatnam)

Name of the Complainant : State represented by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-I, Visakhapatnam.

Name of the accused: Tetali Anil Kumar, S/o Subbireddy, 36 years, caste by Reddy, Business, D.No.50-102-3/3, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam City.

Date, time and Place of offence: On 2.03.2012 at 7-30 p.m at Dr.No.9-5-55/1, Lakshmi Nagar, Isukhatotha, Visakhapatnam City

Date of complaint: 03.03.2012

Date of apprehension : 41-A Cr.P.C notice served

Whether the accused is in : On bail Jail or on bail

Date of Commitment: 17.04.2017

Date of commencement of trial: 19.02.2024

Date of Closure of Trial: 25.03.2024

Date of Judgment : 28.03.2024

Explanation for the delay: No unavoidable delay.

Sd/- Lalam Sridhar

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

1 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC

& ST (POA) ACT-CUM-XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: SRI LALAM SRIDHAR,

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Thursday the 28 th day of March, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.52/2017

(PRC.No.24/2016 on the file of IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.122/2012 of M.V.P Police Station,

Visakhapatnam)

Name of the Complainant : State represented by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-I, Visakhapatnam.

Name of the accused: Tetali Anil Kumar, S/o Subbireddy, 36 years, caste by Reddy, Business, D.No.50-102-3/3, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam City.

Date, time and Place of : On 2.03.2012 at 7-30 p.m at Dr.No.9-5-55/1, OffenceLakshmi Nagar, Isukhatotha, Visakhapatnam City Charges:Under Sections 448, 324, 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Plea of the accused :The accused pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court :Accused found not guilty.

Sentence or Order : In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences under Sections 448, 324, 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted by : Sri Bandaru Venkata Ramana Murthy(Babu), Special Public Prosecutor Spl.Sessions Judge’s Court for trial of Cases 2 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP under SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, Visakhapatnam

Accused was defended by :Sri P.A.K.Kishore, Advocate for accused

This case is coming on 27.03.2024 for final hearing before me in presence of Sri Bandaru Venkata Ramana Murthy(Babu), Special Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri P.A.K.Kishore, Advocate for accused and the same having stood over for consideration till this day and this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The above case arises out of Charge Sheet filed by the Asst.

Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-I, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.122/2012 of

Muvvalavani Palem Police Station for the offences under Sections 448, 427, 324, 342 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x)(xi) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 against

Accused.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief is mentioned as follows:-

(a). It is stated that the defaco complainant who is cited as LW.1 by name Adhada Chella Rao is resident of Peethalavanipalem, Visakhapatnam and he belongs to SC Mala by caste and he is husband of Adhada Lakshmi who is cited as LW.2. Both the LW.1 and LW.2 are no more now as they passed away subsequent to filing of this case. They were having site in flat

No. R4, S.No.40 at Lakshmi nagar, Isukathota, Visakhapatnam city and they were living in the site with their four children by erecting a thatched house and two tin sheeted sheds. Thereafter one T. Subbireddy, father of accused approached them and asked them to show their site papers as he had got site 3 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP adjacent to their site. They have shown him a gift deed, claiming that they were gifted the same by one Bakuru Panda Sarma Panthulu and the said thatched house was burnt and again they raised another shed. It is also said that one T.Subbireddy caused obstructions to them in peaceful enjoyment of their land and hence they filed O.S.No. 2419/2002 for the relief of injunction against Subbireddy and it was dismissed on 09.03.2005. Since both parties causing Law & Order problem with regard to rights on land, information was filed u/s 145 Cr.P.C before Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate,

Visakhapatnam by SHO, III Town P.S., vide FIR No. 296/2005 dt.01.07.2005.

The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Visakhapatnam issued orders vide

MC.No.25/2005 dt. 18.03.2006 permanently restraining T.Subbireddy and

N.Suresh from entering into the said land covered by S.No.40 measuring 1025

Sq.yards. The said Subbireddy again approached them and exhibited high handed behavior against them and abused them in caste name. In this connection, a case in Cr.No.3/2006 u/s 3(1)(v) (x) of SC & ST POA Act, 1989 was registered on 02.01.06 at III Town P.S.. Visakhapatnam City and after due investigation, the case was referred as false on 06.09.06. Again LW1 lodged a complaint that Subbireddy and others kidnapped him and attacked him and a case in Cr.No. 558/2010 u/s 365, 324 r/w 34 IPC was registered on 02.10.2010 and it was referred as false. T. Subbireddy filed a criminal revision petition no. 41/2006 in the District Court, Visakhapatnam against the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate in MC No. 25/2005 and the Honorable

District Court set aside the orders of SDM dt.05.03.2008. T.Subbireddy made 4 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Nallari Suresh, Managing Director of M.S. Southern Cylinders Pvt. Ltd., to file a suit in the District Court vide OS.No.80/2006 to declare title and the recovery of possession of the disputed land and the same was dismissed on 13.01.2012. Hence, accused bore grudge against the complainants party and waited for the opportunity to grab their land.

(b)On 02.03.12 at about 07.30 pm, during temporary absence of

LWs.1 &2 and family, the accused along with some others damaged their thatched house and tin sheeted sheds and took away their belongings. LWs.

1 & 2 and their daughters returned their home and questioned the accused about their high-handed behavior, then the accused persons attacked them and beat them and four persons caught hold of LWI. The accused tried to poke LW2 with a crow bar and then LW1 interfered to save LW2 and he received injury on his fore head. The accused also beat PWs.2 & 3 by holding their hair and Accused abused them in their caste name and beat them. Both the complainants approached III Town P.S. on 2.03.12 midnight at 1.15 am and presented a report against some unknown persons and the Inspector of

Police i.e. PW.8 registered it as a case in Cr.No.121/12 บ/s 323, 448, 380, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC of III Town P.S.(MVP Zone), and again on the same day at 02.00 am, the same complainants presented another report mentioning some names of accused and caste abuse and the same was registered as a case in

Cr.No. 122/12 u/s 448, 427, 324, 342 IPC and sec.3(1)(v)(x) of SC, ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 of III Town Police Station (MVP Zone),

Visakhapatnam City. Both the cases were investigated into by the then ACP.

5 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

During investigation of cases, the complainants made allegations that Police forged their signatures, prepared FIR against one Nallari Suresh, who was not connected with the crime with intent to save T.Subbireddy, his son and followers. They circulated pamphlets and submitted representations to the then Commissioner of Police and other officials dt.12.03.12. The then CP made marginal remarks dt.17.03.12 that ACP(E) takes necessary action as per law and report. The then IO issued a notice to the complainant dt.

01.04.12 asking them to attend his office, for taking their signatures for comparison as they were making allegations that they had not lodged FIR in

Cr.No. 121/12. But they did not turn up.

(c)In the meantime, the accused approached the Hon'ble High Court and Honorable Court issued orders dt. 02.04.12 in Crl.P.No: 3279/12 (Cr.M.P.

no. 3457/12) that "there shall be interim stay of all further proceedings in

Cr.No.122/12 of III Town P.S. for four weeks". Hence further investigation was stopped. Later the Hon'ble High Court vacated the stay order and directed to investigate the matter and file the final report.

(d)A separate charge sheet will be filed as when the involvement of other accused is established and caught. Later LWs. 1 & 2 & Nallari Suresh jointly sold away the disputed land the accused vide sale deed no. 2362/2012

dt. 18.04.12 after this incident.Since all the offenses are punishable with

imprisonment for a term of less than seven years and the arrest of the accused is not required under the provisions of sub-sections (1) of section 41 6 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP of Cr.P.C., notice u/s 41( A) of Cr.P.C was issued to the accused and after completion of entire investigation, PW.9 filed charge sheet against accused.

3.The learned IV Addl. Metropolitan Magistratet, Visakhapatnam has taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 448, 427, 324, 342 IPC and

Section 3(1)(v)(x)(xi) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 against accused and registered PRC.No.24/2016 and issued summons to the accused.

4.On receiving the record, this court being the Special Sessions

Court for trial of the offences under SC & ST (POA) Act 1989 has taken cognizance under Section 193 of Cr.P.C and assigned SC.No.52/2017 and issued summons to accused, who appeared before the Court and engaged counsel.

5.On perusal of the record and on hearing the Special Public

Prosecutor and defence counsel, the accused was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C for which they denied. Hence charges under Sections 448, 324, 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 against accused were framed, read over and explained to them in telugu for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the time of trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of Adhada Chella Rao(died), Adhada Lakshmi(died), Kadavala Hari

Krishna (closed as not pressed), S.Venkata Rao and D.N.Mahesh.

7 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

7.After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined under Sections 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating material available against the accused in the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution. The accused denied the same and took total denial. The accused did not choose to examine any witnesses and not marked any documents in his defence.

8.Heard arguments on both sides and posted for judgment.

9.The point arose for determination in this case is as follows:

“Whether the prosecution could establish the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt”?

10.POINT:-

The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued before this Court that the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with other witnesses is consistent and corroborated with each other and though they were cross examined at length, but nothing was elicited in their favour. It is also argued that the entire material on record and evidence of the witnesses clearly points out towards the guilt of the accused. Hence, they claimed to have established the guilt of the accused.

11. The learned defence counsel argued that this is a false case foisted against the accused. Therefore, there is no consistency and corroboration in between witnesses at the time of evidence and further argued that the admissions of PW.1 at the time of cross examination clearly shows that they have taken Baptism and therefore, the above case is filed 8 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP suppressing the real facts. He finally argued that accused is entitled for clean acquittal.

12.On perusal of record, this is a case of caste abuse coupled with beating and criminal intimidation in the hands of the accused. As seen from the material on record, there are disputes between both the parties since long time and it is also admitted that the father of the accused also filed cases against the family of PW.1. According to prosecution, on 2.03.2012 at about 7-30 p.m, when the defacto complainant and his wife i.e parents of PWs.1 and 2 along with their children went to the house of one of the daughters by name

Nagamani at Relli Veedhi and when they returned home, they found their thatched house and sheds dismantled by some people and when they questioned, the accused said to have reached them and beat LWs.1 and 2 with the help of his members by abusing in the name of their caste. PW3 is brother-in-law and PW.2 is sister of PW.1 and they also corroborated the version of PW.1.

13.At the very outset, this Court has to see whether the prosecution has got locus standi to file this case. According to prosecution, PW.1 belonged to SC-Mala while the accused belonged to Reddy community. The prosecution examined Tahsildar, Bheemunipatnam, Visakahapatnam as PW.4 who issued the caste certificates of PW.1 and PW.2 stating that they belong to

SC Mala. Ex.P1 is the letter issued by them, sent to investigating officer with those findings. Therefore, there is no dispute from any of the parties with regard to the caste status. Therefore, prosecution claimed that PW.1 and 2 9 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP belonged to SC Mala and hence filed this complaint against the accused. This court has reserved the above point to be appreciated at the later stage.

14.On coming to the aspects of offence, according to prosecution, the accused along with his people came to the house of LWs.1 and 2 and dismantled the same and when they questioned, they did not care about their words and beat PW.1 and PW.2 and others and caused superficial injuries.

PW.8 is the Inspector who received Ex.P6 report from LW.1 and registered the same as a case in Cr.No.122/2012 and marked as Ex.P7. PW.9 is the investigating officer who said to have examined scene of offence by preparing rough sketch and filed charge sheet after effecting the notice under section 41-A Cr.P.C. Therefore, out of the above witnesses, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would play an important role. Though the above incident took place on 2.03.2012 at about 7-30 p.m., but the report was filed on the next day.

15. The main argument of accused is that the above case is not maintainable as PW.1’s family has taken Baptism. There are judgments of

Honorable High Court of A.P. in Paptla John Veeranna vs. State of AP

and another reported 2003 Cr.L.J. page No.2204 and also the case

between Dr.Palika Srinivasa Kumar vs State of A.P. where in the

Honorable High Court of A.P. observed that when they are following

the christianity, they will not come under the purview of schedule

caste.

16.He also relied upon another judgment in a case between

Chinni Apparao and others Vs. State of A.P and others reported in

10 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

(LAWS (APH) 2015(12) 22 and M.Pratap Reddy Vs. State of

Telangana (LAWS(APH ) 2019(3) 96 of Honorable High Court of

Andhra Pradesh and tried to impress upon the court that the alleged

victims not being schedule group people are not entitled to

concession under SC & ST Atrocities Act . On coming to this case,

During the course of evidence it is admitted by PW.1 before this court that they have taken conversion into Christianity since childhood and they have been professing Christianity. Therefore, as seen from the evidence of PW.1, it is admitted that PW.1 family has already taken Christianity and inspite of that fact they approached the court with the above certificate as if they belong to

SC Mala.

17.Apart from the same they have also examined Medical Officer as

PW.6 who issued wound certificates of LWs.1 and 2 which are marked as

Ex.P3 and P4. But the prosecution did not examine the above witnesses, whose wound certificates were filed by the prosecution as they died.

Therefore, the important evidence of LW.1 and LW.2 is not available before the court. Further there is categorical admission from PW.1 that they do not belong to SC Mala and they have already taken Baptism and practicing

Christianity. Hence, by taking into consideration of the above facts and circumstances, It is clear that PW.1 does not belong to SC and therefore, they are not entitled for any benefit on the said aspect.

18.On coming to the other evidence, there is no sufficient material brought before the court as against the accused. Further PWs.1 and 2 could 11 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP not identify the accused before this court because of the surgery undergone by him. Therefore, inspite of giving number of chances in trial, PW.1 failed to identify the accused in open court. Hence, on the above facts and circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused.

19.In the result, Accused is not found guilty for the offences under

Sections 448, 324, 427 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 235(1) of

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court this day 28 th day of March, 2024.

Sd/- Lalam Sridhar

Spl.Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witness examined on behalf of

Prosecution: Defence

P.W.1: P.Lalitha Eswari-None-

P.W.2: A.Mohini Swarnalatha

P.W.3: V.Kumar

P.W.4: B.T.V.Rama Rao

P.W.5: K.V.S.Ravi

P.W.6: Dr.H.R.K.Dora

P.W.7: P.Pothu Raju

P.W.8: S.Kiran Kumar

P.W.9: B.Mohan Rao 12 S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

Documents marked on behalf of

Prosecution:s

Ex.P.1/ – : Letter showing the caste status of LW.1, LW.2, PW.1 and PW.2.

dated 19.09.2015

Ex.P2 /- - : Letter showing caste status of accused dt.30.12.2015

Ex.P.3/ – : Wound certificate of LW.1.

Ex.P.4/ – : Wound certificate of LW.2.

Ex.P.5/ – : Copy of registration document bearing No.2362/2012 given by

SRO.

Ex.P.6/ - : Report

Ex.P.7/ – : FIR

Ex.P.8/ – : Proceedings vide RC 474/C4/2014 dt.17.11.2014

Ex.P.9/ – : Rough sketch

Documents marked on behalf of Defence: NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS: NIL

Sd/- Lalam Sridhar

Spl.Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

Copy to: The Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Amaravathi. The State represented by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-I, Visakhapatnam. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, Spl. Sessions Judge’s Court for SC & ST Cases, Visakhapatnam.

S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP

C A L E N D A R

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SC & ST

(POA) ACT-CUM-XI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Present: SRI LALAM SRIDHAR, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-XI Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

Thursday the 28 th day of March, 2024

SESSIONS CASE No.52/2017

(PRC.No.24/2016 on the file of IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate

Court, Visakhapatnam in Cr.No.122/2012 of M.V.P Police Station,

Visakhapatnam)

Name of the Complainant : State represented by the Asst. Commissioner of Police, SC & ST Cell-I, Visakhapatnam.

Name of the accused: Tetali Anil Kumar, S/o Subbireddy, 36 years, caste by Reddy, Business, D.No.50-102-3/3, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam City.

Date, time and Place of offence: On 2.03.2012 at 7-30 p.m at Dr.No.9-5-55/1, Lakshmi Nagar, Isukhatotha, Visakhapatnam City

Date of complaint: 03.03.2012

Date of apprehension : 41-A Cr.P.C notice served

Whether the accused is in : On bail Jail or on bail

Date of Commitment: 17.04.2017

Date of commencement of trial: 19.02.2024

Date of Closure of Trial: 25.03.2024

Date of Judgment : 28.03.2024

Explanation for the delay: No unavoidable delay.

Sd/- Lalam Sridhar

Spl. Sessions Judge for Trial of Cases Under SC & ST (POA) Act-cum- XI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam

S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP S.C.No.52/2017 SC&ST (POA) ACT-cum-XI ADJ/VSP