Sri M.A. Shareef

.

1

sc.77 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE Spl. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRI

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT :: AT:: l<ARIMNA~Ai~FENCES

PRESENT:-SRI M.A.SHAREEF, B.Sc.LL.B

I ADDITIOI\J /~L SF.SSIONS JUDGE, .,

F/\C: Spl. SESSIONS JUDGE for trial of

Offences under SC~: & STs ( P0A) Act,

K A R I M r,J A G A R.

i'--'ionday, t he 17th d ay o-f Sep tember , 2012

SPECU\l SESSIONS CASE No" 77 OF 2010

On committal rnade by the Judicial Magisti-ate of First Cl ass, Vemulawada v ide nzc l\io .60/2010 Sub-Div isional Police The State th rnu gh N~me of the Compl ,::-:- in ar.t Office1·, Peddap alli. (Ci-.No. 72/2010 of P.S. Gangadhara)

S/o.Pochaiah, Age: 42 Name of t he t.\cc use d Sa illa Komui-aiah, yea1·s, R/o.Gattu Bhoothku1- of Gangadflara [Vl;::i nclal , Karimnagar.

u/Sec ;.3 23 IPC a11cl Sec. 3(1,J-~f SCs & STs

CH A RG ES

! ·'

(POA) ,t,cc, 1989.

Plea of t he l\ccu s ed

Fi,ndin g of the Cou rt 111 U1 2 ;·esult, cicc usecl is fou11d not guilty of Sente nc e or or der the CJ ffc nces pu n:sllable u/ Sccs.323 IPC and S0c .J (1 )( x ) of SCs & STs (POA) /'.\ct i.989 with w hic h he is cha1-ged. Accor._:!ing 'y, he is acqu ittr~d U/Sec.23 5(1) Cr.P.C His bail bond sl1a ll slands cance lled. Trfe unmarked case jY0 pe1ty, if any, sha ll be destroyed after· expi i"y of appeal t irn e.

Sri M.B ic happa , ,l\c!ditional Pu blic P1·csecutor, cond u ct e d Prose cu t:on K.a ri 1Trn;::i 1;i a r. by: s i-i E'. .Ha rshava1-dhan Reddy, Advoc-ite . t\c cu se d de f -21,d ed by :

This case is corni11g on 11 .09 .2 012 before rne for fina : h t~aring in the p:-esen ce of Sri M ,Bi chapp a , Adci l. Publi c Prosecutor, for· the State- Complainant and of Sri B.H arshavardh an R eddy, Cou nse l_ for the acc used; and having :Jee r1 heard and having stood over for cuns1derat1on tU th is cia y , tile Coml cle !i vei-ed th2 following:-

• ; • n -~, ~ N T ·' ·

,...-.'· :·.,'· :~ :/}'i.c:-, :> .... _ ,..~:.··, · -; : : ..

, __

.iJ b c •• - 0 1 • i --~-- -t-1,t~~-D.P.O., Pedclapa lli ha d filed charge sheet ,·igainst the ~

. , -- :i; \

I

:--iri_ u,~e,~ irSJCrirne No. 72/2010 of P.S., Gangadhara for- tile offences .! ~ ... I "( •' / / ' / '

2

3,l)( x) of scs & STs (POA) A.

\PC ano Sec. ,

1 . hable u/Secs .323

punlS

1989.

1 ~ 06.2010 at 4.00 p.m., the

. s e is that on - ~ · The prosecution ca ,-

h went to P.5 ., u angadhara

Kamoa\ly Nages

I

complainant name Y, 1 •

. '-h . hP is working as filte r bed pump

and gave a complaint stat ing L at,

---

._ o e·

Gattu Bhoothkur vill ag e and

operator in Gram Panch ayaLh ,, ice, . 1der 5r On 8. 6. 2010 he belongs to Madiga caste which comes u1

,_,.

When he was aoing to his house fro m v ill ?ig e bus at 8. 10 p .m. , ~ stand , th e accused abused hirf1 in fi lthy 1-=inguage in the na m e of hi s ca ste by sa yin g "O1 Py Nageshaa, r~eellu Vrndaga End uku

Pon istu nn avu1 u" 0 11 lhal lhe cornplainc.rn\: staled lo ask the Sa rp a11cl1 011 t hal th e accusecl 0huc:;c"cl h1111 111 fi llhy la n guage in the .

or ca slc 11 r:rn10 by sayrng " Nuvvu E11clukura Unc!l , Mad iga

La nj <1kodL 1ka, Nee Nouh-c11 i Peekesll1c1". crnrl c.a ught : .old of hi s co llu1. bt:al hi m w ilh l1anclc; 011 Lh,: : ,1ucl.

t3a::,i ng 0 11 tl1e l.Ornplc1mt, 11olice registe r·ecl a case in c ri m e

No .7/,':2010, u/Sec. .:3(1 )( :-,.J c~: SCs & STs (P OA) Act, 1989 a nd

Sec.] :J lf'C. Tilt:"' S. D.P.O., Pel1ci?.pc1 ll1 took up inv estigation, visited tlw ~-1..."r1e 0f l1ffe nce, p1c?parec! C. D F. in the p resence of witnesses 1-ecoi·L:t:'ci state rn e1,Ls oi w,u1ess2s rn acle requisit ion to t he TJ l1 c.~-:.ilcl3i· to issue caste c•~rti f cates of the com pl ainan t a nd ,1 ccu s2c.i :=:1:d after cornpJ.:::ti crn cf investig ation he f iled ch arge shE.'C'. a~7c1ins t the accused fo r· the offence pun ishable u/Secs. 32 3

;~~"'t cl St_·c.3~ l ) ( x) OT SCs f:, S's ( ?OA) Act 1989 .

. . ·~"'

\ \ µpPJ rancl._?. of the accused, the learn ed Jud icial • 1,, ;l,f r:1rs t Class, Ve rnu l:.1 w acla on comp ly in g with th e

SC.77 of 2010 @__

3 U/Secs.208

& 209

Cr.P.C., ~ C,'~ p.R .C. No.60/2010 to the Cour -committed .c . t o1 Sp!. Sessions Judge for tri . offences under- SCs & STs (POA . al of .· . ) /\ct, wherem it was taken .

I c: c 7

on file

as S pl. _. . . . 112 010 for- disp

osa accord ing to law. . 1

On appea ra nce of the ac cu secl and on hearing the learned counsel for the accused and !ear· , Ad . . neo di. Publ ic Prosecutor for the

State, charges u/Secs. 323 !PC and S 3(1)( · , ec. x ) of SCs & STs (POA)

Act, 1989 have been fra m ed , to wh ich the accused pleaded not I j:'

guilty and claimed to be t ried .

·.i:. I' I In ord er- to est ab lish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution J ! I ' • ·1 i ·had ex am ined P.Ws. 1 to 9 a11cl r,u rked Ex .P-1 to P-13 . , •I , !' I I

Afre 1-clos ing t he prnsec:utio11 evidence, accused was exam ined U/Sec.3 13 Cr.fJ _C. with the incriminating circumstances appc;::i 1-ing aga i11st hirn f1 n :11 rh C?. ,~viclcnu: of prnsecution witnesses and l1 e cl e: nie:d t il e sclrn e . He did 1wt prnpose Lo lead any evidence on his tiel 1z.,1-i-.

A1-gun1ents of le>a rned Adel l. Public Pro secutor and learned

I

I

,j

coun sel for· th e c.KC llS l -ci we r-e hecHd.

·i

Now the point for co nsideration is :

\ /\Jhether t he pro se cution cou ld bri ng

hor ne the guil t o-r t he accu se d beyon d all

b.... fo r th e char ges

re asona b, e a ou , l 1. · -__

-..., ....... 'PC ~,,d cer V1H x:) ot :.,C s &

ll :::, e cs . .:>~.:5 c" • .., _..., , _ ,-, • · /1 STs ( POA) Act 1 1.989 ?

.. - --:-,--......__ -....

Poi-rtt\-

D \fl/ 1 wos-a-e h t t d · 1n h1·s _______ ).. _ • , The co1-r1pla inant was exc. rnin eo as '· ·--, - ,,; r1,,ncc/ th.1l ' ,,l; 2n i-,,~ was al Gattubl1oothkur bus stand along

4

. d asked hirn as to how 1

ed came to h1rn an

with Lws.2 to 8, accus

Y frorn there.

. . b then he went awa

was doing the JO ,

.PW.3 namely U.Kanu ka iah , PW.4

PW.2 namely Ch.Srinivas,

P\N 6

narnely P.Chand raia h,

r.:: PW namely B.Chanc\raiah, . ..J

d PW 8 namely

G.Shankaraiah, PW.7 namely t:; .Ma ll esh am an .

l-h t ti do not know 21nything . : ,I R.Su resh, stated in their evi dence L a i ey I (·1:,; I about this case. I

The pro secution case is th at when the com pla inant wa s going from village bus stand to his house , on the way th e accused abused him in fil t hy language in' th e name of caste and ai so bea t him with ha nds.

Before the Cou 1-t th e ccrn plainan t hi mself did no t say anythin g th at the accused abused and bec.Jt him , he just stated thc1t the accuse d asked hin1 as to how he was doing his job. The prosecuti on cited Pws.2 to 8 as eye witn esses to the incid ent but non of th en1 suppor1-ed the prosecuti on case by saying ,hat th ey do not know anythi ng about tl1 is case . PW.1 to 8 were trea ted as l1ostile ancl cross examined by the prosecution. The on ly witness i.e. C I. Of police wh o was exarnined as PW. 9 in his evid ence stated thut ~1e received co mpl aint fro m PVV. l, registered the case, then

So , it is cl ea r frorn the above evidence refe rred the fi le to SDPO. that the comp lainant himself die.I not support the prosecuti on case and no e11e witnesses stJted :i:·: ythin g about the alleged offence,

/ ~

tile pr'O'\ecution could no t 2sta;.:;i ish t:rl-=: alleoed offenc"'c · ,/ · . c._, agamst :J : \ th e a_cc_us·td as such the 2accuse r_; !·~ ~nwecl not guilty. l .I ..

5 ' -. . ' ,: ,sc.n of 2~10 ' · ' ~~ 1

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty of th · · --

. . · . .· e offences \ i . punishable u/Secs.323 IPC and Sec.3(l}(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act -.

· · : \g89_ with which he is charged. Accordingly, he is acquitted

• \J1$ec.235(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bond shall stands cancelled. The 1 • '" ,•I :. ' .. '. ,,, _.F , • ,.1! :t "::--. :'.:· Linniarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of , ,/, I ,, .,\ :rt ·: ·;'· :.· appeal time.

Dictated to the P.-6-., tr-anscribed by him, corrected and pronounced

• I ,,l' b.y me in open Court, on this the 17th Day of Se tember, 2012. ~ I ~ ' ( • <: ' ,, ;,

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS J OGE,

;,i FAC: Spl. SESSIONS JUDGE for trial of OHence s under SCs & STs ( POA) Act, ' K A R I M N A G A R. ,_', i ' ' . •·! , ' ,•, ' ' , APPEND IX Of E VIDENCE

WI T NES SES EXA MINED

F OR THE PRO S ECU TIO N : FOR THE DEFENCE : ~~!....!...!.!::.....!~==-:':'--:--;--h --NONE -- PW-1 Kampally Nag es PW-2 Ch .Srinivas PW-3 U.Kanu kaiah PW-4 B.Chanad ,-aiah PW-5 P.Cila1,draiah PW-6 G.Sha 11 ka 1·a iah PW-7 c;.Mallesham PW-8 R.Suresh PW-9 E.Prabhakar EXH IBIT'.) MARKED FOR TH E PROSEC U TIO N : Ex.P-l Compla inL/ .,,,.,.,- Ex.P-2 161 Cr.P.C. staternent o~ PW.l Ex.P-3 161 Cr.P.C. statement ot PW.~~ Ex.P-4 161 o·. P.C. statement o~ ~W . .:i .,,... Ex.P-5 161 Cr.P.C. stc:,terneN o~ i: W.4,-- ~. X'.P-6 101 Cr.P .C. staten: eI1t or iJvV.5 ,_ r r.·u\/ 6 / 161 er-. P.C. st.=1ternen~ o1 ~.v:,·7..,-~ Ex.P-7 161 C . p c c:,i•:=1'-ernent of 'r v\ . . Ex.P-8 --, I • - 1 :. l r~··p· ,... ,::'··c,ternentof P\/IJ.8 L l , ' .,,,,,..- b . __ , .. \.. .. _l_ll Ex.P-9

FIR ,-

Ex.P-10 SP Proceedings..., Ex.P-11 Crime Details Form' Ex.P-12 caste Certificate -' Ex.P-13 .EQB_J'HE DEFENCE:-

- .~<-"~'--J~;'\~:('

MATERIAL 08J~CTS MARKED

/;.{: :s.~ -.-~ ~-c~\~ '"'" '-•·

. \-~~. '-~ NIL ... .,,,.\:'/ ,c.!t

::··

i ADDITIONAL SESSIONS GE! ' · ·•'. J ~--.. ; ~ ' . ~ .. ! ~'--, S I SESSIONS JUDGE for tnal .

. .. :•.,~_., • I

FAC: P · ST (POA) · .. of Offences under SCs & s . . . _. Act, - . ~ K A R I M N A G A R •

r

r'

~

E coURT OF THE Spl. SESSION UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACTS ~-u o~_E FOR TRIAL OFFENCES 0"1

./

I - -~-;,J<i rH

,\ V

.. AT .. KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:-SRI M A SH , I ADDITION AL s· ES0REEF, s. sc. LL.B .,

~) IONS JUDGE

FAC : Spl. SESSIONS JU DGE for trial of

Offences under SCs fii: STs (POA) Act

KA R I M N AG A R.

I Thursday, the 6 th day 1: 5

eptemb er, 2012

0

46 OF

SPECIA L SESSIONS CASE N

20~~

t o. f F'

On committal made by th e Judicial Mag.ist Irst Class, S1rc1lla vid e ra e o ' PRC No.157/2006 Tl st ate through Sub-Divisional Police

Name of the Complainant

1e Officer, Sircilla. (Cr.No.5/2006 of P.S. Kon araopet)

A-1 : Gangula Ramesh, S/o.Parsha iah,

Name of the Accused

Age: 25 years, Golla, A-6: Pittala Rajalingu, S/o.Chennaiah, Ag e: 36 years, Tenugu; A-8: Japa Chandraiah, S/o .Balamalla iah, Ag e: 30 years, Kurma ; All are R/o.Dharmaram (V) of Konaraopet mand al.

u/Sec.38L!. IPC and Sec.3(1)(xi) & Sec.3 (2)

CHARGES

(vi) of SCs & STs (POA) Act "Not gui 1 ty".

Plea of the Accused

"Not guitty".

Finding of the Court

In the result, A-1, A-6 and A-8 are found Sentence or order not guilty of the offences punishable Secs.3(1)(xi) & IPC and u/Sec. J84 Sec.3( 2)(vi) of SCs & STs (POA) Act with Accordingly, which th ey are charged . they are cire acquitted u/Sec.232 Cr.P.C., Their bail bonds stands cancelled . The shall be if any property unmarked destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Public

Additional

fvl. Bichappa, conducted Sri

Prosecution

Prosecutor, Karimnagar.

by:

Kumar, K.Shravan R..Srikanth, Sri Counsels for the accused 1 \ ., S.C,No '1ri nr 20 . tri . 1 l)cfore nw for fln cil hearing In th . g on \.OC ay , . . \ This case is cornrn LOI' f:o. LI Addi . P111JHc Pr oscc:u f\ , r i c Sten~ of Sri M.BichaPPak,

th K Shravan Kumar, Counsc+, '"•

presence S .1 R Sri an , · rt 0 ·1 1 . 1 1_r1v no Complainant and of 1 . • br.c11 I, car d ;:i ncl .J O c over for the accused; and, hnvrn~,c ( 011rl dcllvcrccl I.IH~ lollowlllq : consideration till t1,rs day, ti ·

-:: J U D_ G _M E N T : :"

. . . 1 Police Officer, Sircilla had filed charge The Sub-Drv1s1ona

A-l, A-6 and A-B and some others in Crime sheet against

Konaraopet for the offences No.5/2006 of P.S. pun ishable d Secs 3(1)(xi) & Sec.3 (2)(vi) of SCs & STs u/Sec.384 IPC an d an · · (POA) Act 1989.

The prosecution case is that, on 17.07.2006 at 4.30 p.m ., the complainant namely, Kuthacli Chandr·avva went to Konaraopet police station and gave a written complaint stating that, she belongs to Erukala caste, which comes under S.T., she was making baskets for A.l and used to attend to labour work at A.l's agriculture. On 14.01.2006 her husband left house to graze goats, then at 3 p.m., while she was alone in the house A.l went there, enquired about baskets, then A.l dragged into her into her house by catching her hand and tried to commit rape . The victim struggled, pushed him aside and made hue and cries, then her mother-in-law and fellow daughter came there fron1 neighbou ring houses and on seeing them, A. l ran away from there. She informed the same to her husband . On the next day she along with her husband went to Sarpanch of the vill age to complain .,~;; 1..:/.~out the matter who assured to settle the matter. She deposited ' )·. i:; ;-· ,,: ,,.,~ -t~~·-.. ·or~;·~ula gold and A.l deposited Rs.10,000/- and on 16.01.2006 in i, / .. 5r~~(1 ~ I •) '• -. ' "t[f· · thy· ~ nchayath before the elclers it was proved th at A.1 c i ugli t ' \' '.,,. ·'. ~2(-.:,., /.:: ,' / ..._ __ ---·} - ' ' l \ ,, .. ,.....__,___.... 1n 1•~: ,· , \... •• ;. / ( ~ ' ·••.-!t. 1>,, , . ,,,,,,

I

I i ' ) , I 1-.. -1 S,C,l\l,1.'lfi r,r " r11 r1

... complainant's hand for

._''~ 'I I . / ~--r·' hold of w 'Heh a fine of R '~.9.ooo1. w,:r1 1 "' ~: l 1~osed, out of that the Sa rpanch gave only t.hrc,~ t housancJ ... - rupees to her. The A. 2 to A 10 r'lc tccl as rrnnrhas who trJov

Rs.6000/- in the panchayath.

Basing on th e compl aint, police registered u case in cri rne

No.S/2006, u/Sec.384 IPC and Secs.3 (1)( xi) & Sec. 3(2)( v i) of SCs 0

STs (POA) Act 1989. The S.D p O Sircilla to k · · . · · •, o up 1nvest1gat1on, visited the scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of witnesses, recorded statements of witnesses, made requisition to Tasildar to issue caste certificate of complaina nt and accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against accused for the offences punishable u/Secs.384 IPC and Secs.3(1)(xi) & Sec.3(2)(vi) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

This is a split up case from PHC.111 of 2006 on the file of

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla vide SC.1168 of 2006.

Now this case is against A.l, A.6 and A.8 .

On appearance of A.l, A.6 and A.8, the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sircilla on complying with the provisions

U/Secs.208 & 209 Cr.P.C. committed the P.R.C.No .157/2006 to the

Court of Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act, wherein it was taken on file as Spl. S.C.46/2010 for disposal according to law.

On appearance of A.l, A.6 and A.8 and on hearing the counsel for the accused and learned Addi. _. P_ublic ',.( .fl(J/tf, ()f /() • ti 1,, 384 1PC and Secs.3(l)(xi) t

harges u/ ec. S

. e state, c Prosecutor for th . 1 A t were framed, to which ,. ,, ,~:

STS (POA) . C I

') f scs &

Sec.3(2)(vi O ~ 1_. (lr• 10 be LriecJ . 'lty ..., ncJ c. r.11rn . J t (ll ll . accused pleacled no ~ r,1 'It r I he accused, I.he pro~r~cut.ion I. I the QUI O In ord er to estab is 1 k d Ex P-1 to P-8. . to 9 ancl mar e . had exa mined P.Ws.l . . mstan ces appea red against . ·ncriminating c1rcu As there 1s no 1 . f prosecution wit nesses, the ti e evidence o the accused from 1 S 313 Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. examination of accused U/ ec.

bl ' Prosecutor and learned Arguments of learned Addi. Pu ic counsel for the accused were heard .

Now the point for conside1·ation is:

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all or any reasonable doubt for the charges u/Sec.384 IPC and Secs.3(1}(xi) & Sec.3{2){vi) of SCs & STs (POA) Act?

Point :-

PW.l namely, Kuthadi Chandravva who is the complainant stated in her evidence that about six years back there was a galata with regard to baskets, A. l asked to supply good baskets.

There was no quarrel and no incident took place .

PW.2 namely, Kuthad i Devaiah, PW.3 namely K.Yell avva,

PW.4 namely K.Rajavva, PVV .5 namely Muthaiah, stated in tlieir with PW.l and they do not

I

5

~

\ :r

. fhe prosecution case is that, A. l entered • t in o the house of ~ """ r

Q~

.J. h lainant and attempted to rape her later a pa h nc ayath Was _) ' '·c.~ #c; r11P I held l·n which the elders decided that A. l had t 0 pay a fine of

RS-g,000/- to complainant, out of that they paid only Rs. 30001_ and kept Rs.6000/- with them .

The alleged victim was examined as PW.l who did not say anything that A. l attempted to rape her and a panchayath was held in which was paid only Rs.3000/- instead of Rs.9000/-. The other eye witnesses also did not support the prosecution case. All those witnesses were treated as hostile and cross examined by the prosecution.

Therefore, as no witnesses suoported the prosecution case the alleged offences against the accused are not established, as such they are proved not guilty.

In the result, A. l, A.6 and A. U are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/Secs.384 IPC and Secs.3(l)(xi) & Sec.3(2)

(vi) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, with which they are charged.

Accordingly, they are are acquitted u/Sec.232 Cr.P.C., Their bail bonds stands cancelled . The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the P.A., transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in open Court, on this the 6th Day of September, 2012.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS J GE,

FAC: Spl. SESSIONS JUDGE for trial of Offen c es under SCs & STs (POA) Act,

K A R I M N A G A R.

S . C.r✓ o.~

6

. ' \

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

~:jSES EXAMINED . d ·f the prosecution

Witnesses Examme or~

PW.1 Kuthadi Chandravva PW.2 Kuthadi Oevaiah PW.3 K.Yellavva PW.4 K.Rajavva PW.5 M.Muthaiah PW.6 V.Buggaiah PW.7 P.Anjaiah PW.8 A.Venkanna PW.9 R.Suryanarayana

Witnesses examined for the Defence NIL

EXHU31TS MARl<ED

FOR THE PROSECUTION.

_..,Ex.P.l Xerox copy of compl c1 inl 16 l Cr.P .C. Src11e111enl or pv, . I -Ex. P.2 -Ex.P.] .1 (-i] Cr.P .C:. Statement ol. PV, .2 ---Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C. Slcltcmcnl of PW3 - Ex.P.5 161 Cr.P.C. Statement ol Pv, 'A L61 Cr. P .C. Statemcnl of PY" .s-- Ex.P.6 Signaturc or PW.6 on Confc-::;ion c1 11cl rk covcry p,1 11ch.1nc1 111c1 - Ex.P. 7 / F.x.P.8 Caste Certi J"iGite.

FOR THE DEFENCE

N 11.. M/\'l'l~RI /\ ;. Ol3JEC'l'S 1\11 /\ IH~ 1:::D

NII ,.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS J

GE, FAC: Spl. SESSIONS JUDGE for trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act,

K A R I M N A G A R.

,~ ...... , ''~ --.·~\-,, --~ \J THE COURT OF THE Spl. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OFFENCES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT:: AT:: KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:-SRI M.A.SHAREEF, B.Sc.LL.B.,

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

F AC: Spl. SESSIONS JUDGE for trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act,

KA R I M N A G A R.

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE No. 74 OF 2010

Thursday the 7th day of June, 2012 .

On committal made by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad vide PRC No. 28/2010 Name of the Complainant The State through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapalli (Cr. No.72 /2010 of P.S. Julapalli.)

Name of the Accused ' Al :Surishetti Rajesham A2: Surishetti Sathaiah A3 : Gosukkula Kankaiah A4: Amirishetti Ram Reddy AS : Goskula Srinivas A6 : Goskula Santhosh A7 : Kandu kuri Mallaiha@ Mallesh AB :Goskula Rajaiah A9: Lakkakula Sathaiah Al0 : Thota Gangaiah

CHARGES u/sec.342, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act

Plea of the Accused "Not guilty" .

Finding of the Court "Not guilty"

Sentence or order Accused No. l to 10 are found not guilty of the offences punishable u/s 342, 323, 506 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act with which they were charged . They are acquitted u/Sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. , Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

conducted Sri M.Bichappa Additional Public Prosecutor, Prosecution

--~ by: Karimnagar.

used defended by: Sri K.Sudhakar Rao, Counsel for the accused 0, -'/' ·$" ~ C ! . 1) - !.\ ~ . al hearing in th\. ~ -2012 before me for fin for the State- . . cornin9 on 31-5 di. public prosecutor, e accused; and This cas~ ,s \111.Bichappa, Aiar Rao, counsel _for t~ion till this day, presenc_e of r~ of Sri K.S~dl1a tood over for cons1dera cornp\a1nant a~ard and hav1~9 ~- having been _l, d t\1e fol\ow1n9 • the court del1vere

G M E N T ::-

.. U D

-.. Iii had filed charge . . . I police officer, peddapa The sub o,v1s1ona f p.S. Julapalli for the din crime No.72/10 o sheet against the accuse d sec 3 (1) (x) of 42 323, 504, 506 \PC an offences punishable u/s 3 . , SC/ST (POA) Act.

7-6-2010 after midnight The prosecution case is that, on after 12-30 A.M., the complainant name y 1 M L ·ngaiah went to P.s. . a, . Julapalli and gave a compllant stating . th t n 3-6-2010 at about a o 10-00 A.\111., he along with his son M.Anjaiah were present in their house, then Al to Al0 went to his house enquired about his son

Anjaiah for which the complainant asked as to why they were searching his son for which the accused told that a panchayath was being held in which his son was called. Then the complainant along with his son went to attend a panchayath then the accused stated that one Mahesh informed them that the son of the complainant sent a SMS saying so all the accused attacked and beat the son of the complainant with hands and kicked and abused them in the name of caste in filthy language by saying "Madiga Lanjakodukullara". Al0 beat Mahesh with chappal, all the accused tied the hands of son of the complainant with a rope and confined to a Tamarind tree, again all the accused abused them by -~" ;!·;,~:· . ~-···---- '' ~~\-· . ;ii i .. r r 1~f • \ t.l6~ i;;,·"J· · .......... ~r-....... .,.-. \ " ,'

Entha Dhairyamra, Lanjakodukullara, meeku "Madiga kulam takkuva Lanj akodukullara , madiga pellala Oengutham,

Messagelu Goskula Rakai ah biddoku pamputharara " etc. One

L.Narsingam interfered and relQasecl them by unt.yinQ the rope .

Basing on the complaint police reg istered a case in

Cr.No.72/2010 U/s 342, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of

SC/ST (POA) Act. The S.D.P.O. Peddapalli took up investigation, visited scene of offence and prepared Crime Details Form in the presence of witnesses, recorded the statements of witnesses arrested the accused, made a requisition to the Tahasildar to issue caste certificate of defacto-complainant and the accused and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 342, 323, 504, 506 34 IPC and Sec. 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

On appearance of the accused, the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sultanabad on complying with the

provisions U/Secs.208 & 209 Cr.P.C. committed P.R.C.No.28/2010 to the Court of Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of Offences under SCs &

STs (POA) Act, wherein it was taken on file as Spl. S.C. 7 4/2010 for disposal according to law.

On appearance of the accused and on hearing the learned counsel for the accused and learned Addi. Public Prosecutor for _ t_~e .· :,.l~'.~,i,,::- ., ~ ""--. ..._ ,'- .. ' ;I . · .. . :·•. , r( >;;

u/s 3( 1 )(x) of scst:,.

5

te charges u/s 342, 323, 506 !PC and ec.

, d d not

Stato which the accused plea e

515 (POA) Act were framed, guilty and claimed to be tried.

\

In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.l to 7 and marked Ex.P-1 to Pl3. After completing the prosecution evidence, accused were examined

U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. with the incriminating circumstances appea ring against then from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same.

Arguments of learned Addi. Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused were heard.

Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the •

of the accuse:r::ye;~!'~7, could establish the guilt

r easonable doubt?

Point :-

The complainant was examined as PW 1 h .d · · , w o stated in his ev, ence that th e accused never beat h. abused him . im at any time and never in the name of caste . b , intact there was no quarrel etween him and th e accused.

Pw.2-M.Anjaiah, Pw 3-M M · • ahesh, Pw 4_ M.Kethamma stated in th . . . M.Durgamma, Pw.5- e,r evidence that

/ ...

1 & 2 and n the accused ne . .,. ,. ~• ,. r ·,' ./ r, -....:. ::., ~ ~-~. {1-1E1Ci4t ever abused th . ver beat /4,; . , "":~ "<t ,q,.~ · em in the nam ;v.,·~i£ , · ... ~~,

I t, . I e of caste

• ~ .,,·; ,· .... ,· ;1:i. -~·~ · -:- . :r \'!~~:~-. " . , 1• , ·• ·t · fl (,, < } C , . · I ·'l_i -: .; I .J ' , ~I ··ri.;,--C; '- ,_!J, ~ f,.. } :t, . .. . , \ :" It .;, • ,I,'\ ' . ' ~ ' -~ " ~:-- ·--,(·· w ··.'. ;'-: )(, :: . .-} . , ; 'II-> • .,. ' I. .,, •

S'0, ..,. ~~ o~ --~,~

-v

"' o ',-'&

The prosecution case is that all the accused called the

~

complainant's son in the night to the village school stating that a

/

Panchayath was being held and when they reached there all the

accused threatened and beat the complainant and his son and

also abused him in filthy language in the name of caste. The

complainant was examined as Pw.1 before the Court stated that

the accused never beat him or his son and never abused them. All

the eye witnesses who were examined as Pws 2 to 5 also did not

support the prosecution case by saying that the accused never

beat and abused Pw.l and Pw.2. As Pws 1 to S did not support the

prosecution case they were treated as hostile and cross examined

by the prosecution . From the evidence of Pws 1 to s it is clear that

even if any incident took place they might have compromised in

between them as they belong to the same village and in

pursuance of the same they •did not want to support the

prosecution case, so, they turned hostile.

The S.D.P.O., Peddapalli is the only witness who supported

the prosecution case but his evidence is helpful only to the extent

of his investigation. For all the above said reasons the prosecution

could not establish the alleged offences against the accused, as

such the accused are proved not guilty.

" f\. (!

--\

lf-\\u2022 •·

eo"

\ Yo

In the resull, ~ccusrd No.1 10 10 MC found not guilty of ti ff\ \ 4'

offences punish~llle u/s 3/42, 323. 506 ll'C ;ind 5cc. 3(l)(x) of SCs ~

/

& STs (POA) Act with which they were ct1~rqcd. They ure acquitted u/Scc.235(1) Cr.P.C., Their bail bonds shall stand eoncelled. The unniarked case properly, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time .

Court on this the 7 1h d . ··r Dictated lo the PA transc -· b d b 1 " e Y 1c 1, correcl ed and pronou nced by rne ,n ow~n

\j~-A

· ay o June, 2012.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JU1 GE, FAC: Spl. SESSIONS JUDGE for trial of Offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act KAR IM NAG AR . '

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE DEFENCE : FOR THE PROSECUTION · - Nil - PW-l M. Lingaiah . PW-2 M.Anjaiah PW-3 M.Mahesh PW-4 M.Durgamma PPW-S M.Kethamma PW-W-6 AN · agabushanam 7 T.Janardhan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: Ex. P-1 Complaint by Pw 1 161 . Ex. P-2 161 ~~-~-~-,statement of Pw.l Ex. P-3 161 . . . Statement of Pw 2 Ex.P-4 161 ~~ : ~t Statement of Pw:3 Ex.P-5 161 Cr Pc· Statement of F'N.4 Ex.P-6 .. · · • Statement of F Ex. P-7 Cert1f1cate issued b w.5 Sp p . Y Pw.6 Ex.P-8 : · roceedings Ex.P-9 First Information R Ex.P-10 Crime Details form eport Ex.P-11 Cast_e certificate of P Ex.P-12 Med~cal certificate w. l and accused Ex.P-13 Medical certificate.

IADD ~ ;i

FOR THE DEFENCE:- -Nil- " MATER'.~~L? B/ECTS MARKED 6~~n~~I~ ~ESdSIO~~SJ~g~f{ DG_E, O tnal of n er SCs & ST K A R I M N A s ( POA) Act GAR. '

TSKA000010692010

Presented on : 29-07-2010 Registered on : 06-09-2010 Decided on : 31-05-2012 Duration : 1 years, 10 months, 2 days

IN THE COURT OF

V Addl District and Sessions Judge

AT KARIMNAGAR ,KARIMNAGAR

(Presided Over by Sri M.A. Shareef)

SC.SPL/400045/2010

Exhibit No. (PROSECUTION): The State through S.H.O.P.S.Pothkapalli Through Police Station Officer Pothkapalli PS 111 , The State through S.H.O.P.S.Pothkapalli

KARIMNAGAR KARIMNAGAR

The State through S.H.O.P.S.Pothkapalli VERSUS

Raavikanti Ravi Odela 2:Cheekatla Mondaiah ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: Addl.P.P, Advocate for S.Ramesh and G.Srihari appearing for Raavikanti Ravi Advocate S.Ramesh and G.Srihari appearing for S.Ramesh and G.Srihari , 2 respectively. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 307,342r/w34IPC of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 3ixiiofSCs/STsPOAAct of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, of , of ,

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 31-05-2012)

ORDER

ACCUSED PRESENT A1 AND A2 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN

COURT VIDE SEPARATE ONE IN THE RESULT THE ACCUSED ARE FOUND

NOT GUILTY OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U.SEC. 307 342 R.W 34 IPC AND SEC. 3 XII OF SC STS POA ACT 1989 WITH WHICH THEY ARE CHARGED ACCORDINGLY THEY ARE ACQUITTED U.SEC. 235 1 CRPC

THEIR IS BAIL BONDS SHALL STAND CANCELLED THE UNMARKED

PROPERTY IF ANY SHALL BE DESTROYED AFTER EXPIRY OF APPEAL

TIME

Date : 31-05-2012 (Sri M.A. Shareef)

V Addl District and Sessions Judge

KARIMNAGAR KARIMNAGAR

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :

(Sri M.A. Shareef) V Addl District and Sessions Judge

KARIMNAGAR

KARIMNAGAR

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS

IN THE COURT OF THE V Addl District and Sessions Judge: KARIMNAGAR

Present: Sri M.A. Shareef,

V Addl District and Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR .

12-07-2012

OS/400015/2009

TSKA000005912009

Between:-

Khairunnisa Begum Address: H.No.19-7-168, Godavarikhani, District Karimnagar 2: Syed Farooq ADVOCATE: K.Srinivas Rao … Plaintiff/Petitioner

AND

Ameerunnisa Begum Address: Gouthaminagar, Godavarikhani, Q.No.A-26, District Karimnagar 2:Meerunnisa Begum

ADVOCATE: M.A.Saleem … Defendant/Respondent

ORDER

DISPOSED OFF

V Addl District and Sessions Judge

KARIMNAGAR