M Kanaka Durga

1 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

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

SCs/STs (PoA) ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 1st day of February, 2024

Spl.SC.No.11 of 2017

(Cr.No.267 of 2016 of PS Nizamabad Rural)

1. Name of the ComplainantAssistant Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad Division (PS Nizamabad Rural).

2. Name of the accusedA1:Syed Ahmed S/o Syed Sadique, age 25 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o. Sirpur village, Nizamabad mandal, N/o. Gollapally village of Dichpally Mandal.

(*The accused No.2 was *A2:Yousuf Khan S/o Majeed Khan, age 35 years, died and the caseCaste: Muslim, Occ: Mason, R/o. Sirpur against A2 is abated).village of Nizamabad Mandal, N/o. Nizamcolony, Nizamabad.

3. Offence chargesU/s.302, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2)

(v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015.

4. Cr.No. & Name of Police 267 of 2016 of PS Nizamabad Rural. Station

5. Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty.

6. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty.

7. Prosecution conducted bySri B.Vasanth, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

8. Accused defended bySri Rajkumar Subedar, Advocate for the accused.

9. Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 302, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SCs/STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. As such, he is acquitted of the same Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 2 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. The Mos.1 to 9 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The case against A2 is abated, as he died.

This case coming on 24-01-2024 for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.Vasanth, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Rajkumar Subedar, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon’ble Court delivered the following:

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad Division (PS

Nizamabad Rural) laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.302, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of

SCs/STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred in short as ‘the

Act’), on completion of investigation of the case registered on the report lodged by the defacto complainant/LW1.

2.The conspectus of the prosecution case is follows as under:

a) On 25.07.2016, at 10.00 hours, the defacto complainant/LW1-

Madhapuram Chinnaiah came to PS Nizamabad Rural and lodged a complaint stating that they are two brothers and sister, about 20 years back, his elder brother Madhapuram Shyam was married to one Swarna and they were blessed with two daughters. Since two years, his brother was quarreling with his wife on petty issues, as such, his wife along with her children went to her parent’s house and started living there only, there is no support in the village, his elder brother is residing along with him and LW1 is providing him food etc., since three days, his brother was residing along with another person in his house. As usual, on 24.07.2016, at about 7.30 p.m., he arranged meals and sent to his brother through his younger daughter Keerthana/LW6. On 25.07.2016, at about 6.00 a.m., he 3 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

wake up and went to his elder brother’s house and noticed that his elder brother lying dead with head injuries caused with an axe and he tried to contact the person accompanied with his elder brother was found absconding. LW1 suspected that on the intervrning night of 24/25-07- 2016, the unknown person, who accompanying with his brother might have committed murder of his brother and fled away from there. Hence, he requested to take necessary action into the matter.

b)Basing on the said report, LW22-H.Venkateshwarlu, Inspector of Police, PS Nizamabad Rural, registered this case in Cr.No.267 of 2016 for the offence U/s.302 of IPC and took up investigation.

c)Later, LW22 examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence, situated at SC Wada, Sirpur village, examined LW2-Smt.M.Sujatha, LW3-Smt.M.Swarna, LW4-Kumari M.Divya,

LW5-Kumari M.Deepika and LW6-Kumari M.Keerthana and recorded their statements, took the photographs of the scene with the help of LW10-

A.Limbadri, conducted the scene of offence-cum-seizure panchanama and seized blood stained cotton gaze, sample cotton gaze, prepared the rough sketch in the presence of LW11-R.Praveen Madiga and LW12-

B.Bhoomaiah.

d)Thereafter, LW22 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of Lws 11 and 12, subjected the same for postmortem examination to Govt. Hqrs. Hospital, Nizamabad and seized blood stained cloths of the deceased i.e., white colour banian, gree colour drawer and dark green colour lungi under cover of seizure panchanama in 4 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

the presence of LW13-S.Chinna Reddy and LW14-A.Ramesh. Later, he examined LW7-Smt.K.Samitha and recorded her statement, who voluntarily disclosed about the identity of the accused.

e)On 02.08.2016, at 10.00 hours, on credible information, S.I. of

Police, PS Rural, Nizamabad, apprehended a1 and A2 at the house of LW9-

A.Shekar and intimated the same to LW22, who inturn rushed to

Gollapally village along with LW15-M.Srinivas and LW16-G.Chakradhar, interrogated both the accused, who confessed to have committed this offence, hence, LW22 recorded the confession statements of A1 and A2 individually before the above mediators, then, A1 and A2 led them to

Sirpur village outskirts, where, A1 got recovered one iron rod, one blue colour jeans pant having blood stains and one full shirt under cover of recovery panchanama and A2 got recovered one axe, one dark sandal wood colour tericot pant having blood stains and one whitish colour full shirt under cover of recovery panchanama before the above mediators.

Thereafter, they were brought the accused to PS and sent them to judicial custody. Later, he examined Lws 9 and 10.

f)The deceased belongs to SC-Madiga caste, for which, on 28.10.2016, LW22 added the Section of Law U/s.3 (2) (v) of “the Act” to the existing Section 302 of IPC and filed a memo before the Court.

g)Later, LW23-D.Anand Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Nizamabad Division, was took up the investigation as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad. He verified the investigation done by LW22, visited the scene of offence, examined and 5 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 9. On his requisition, LW17-

Smt.Sarita, I-AJFCM, Nizamabad recorded the statements of Lws 7 and 8

U/s.164 Cr.P.C., in which, they clearly stated that A1 and A2 were killed the deceased by attacking him with iron rod and beating with hands.

h)LW18-Dr.R.Sreedhara Chary conducted PME over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death is due to ‘head injury’. Later, LW19-M.Prabhakar Reddy, Tahsildar, Mugpal issued caste certificates of LW1 and the deceased mentioning that they belongs to SC-

Madiga caste. LW20-Y.Srinivas Rao, Tahsildar, Nizamabad Rural (North) issued caste certificate of A2 stating that he belongs to BC-Dudekula caste and LW21-A.Shekhar, Tahsildar, Dichpally issued caste certificate of

A1 stating that A1 belongs to Muslim community.

i)Later, LW23 forwarded the material objects to Forensic

Science Laboratory, Hyderabad and received the said report, which clearly established the link between the scene of crime, deceased and A1 and A2.

j)On completion of the investigation, LW23 laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.302, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of “the Act”.

3.Upon considering the material on record, this Court has have taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s.302, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and

Section 3 (2) (v) of “the Act” against the accused Nos.1 and 2 and registered the case as Spl.SC.No.11 of 2017.

4.On completion of formalities and on appearance of the accused 6 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

persons, furnished the documents to them as contemplated U/s.207 of

Cr.P.C.

5.Upon considering the material papers on record, at the stage of consideration of charges, the accused No.2 was died and the case against

A2 is abated. On hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned

Counsel for accused, this Court examined the accused No.1 U/s.228 (1)

(b) of Cr.P.C. and the charges for the offences punishable U/s.302, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of “the Act” were framed against the accused No.1 and the same were read over and explained to him in vernacular language as required under Sub-Sec.2 of Sec.228 of Cr.P.C.

6.To which, the plea of the accused complete denial and claimed to be tried.

7.This Court issued Trial Schedule U/s.230 of Cr.P.C., for the prosecution evidence.

8.In order to substantiate the charges against accused No.1, prosecution had examined the PW1 to PW13 and through them, got marked Exs.P1 to P13 documents and Mos.1 to 9. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence is closed.

9.On closure of evidence for the prosecution, the accused No.1 is examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused counsel having understood and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments for the learned Addl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the evidence and documents.

7 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

11. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences punishable U/s.302, 506 r/ w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of “the Act” beyond all reasonable doubt?” If so, to what extent the accused is liable for punishment?.

12. POINT:The accused No.1 is charged for the offences punishable

U/s.302, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of “the Act” since he along with A2 in furtherance of common intention, committed murder of the deceased Shyam (brother of PW1) by beating him with an iron rod and axe, knowingly that the deceased belongs to Scheduled Caste community and also committed criminal intimidation by threatening LW8 with dire consequences to kill him when he intervened to rescue the deceased.

13.In order to substantiate the charges against accused No.1, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW13 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 and Mos.1 to 9.

14.PW1 is the defacto complainant and younger brother of the deceased, who lodged the report with the police, PW2 is the witness and sister-in-law of the deceased, PW3 is the witness and wife of the deceased, PW4 is the witness and younger daughter of PW1, PW5 is the eye-witness, PW6 and PW7 are the mediators for scene and seizure panchanama of blood stains from the scene and inquest, PW8 and PW9 are the mediators for seizure of blood stained cloths of the deceased,

PW10 is one of the mediators for confession and recovery of A1 and A2,

PW11 is the doctor, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, PW12 and PW13 are the Investigating Officers in this case.

8 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

15.The documents exhibited through the prosecution witnesses are

Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1 against the accused, Ex.P2 is the statement U/s.164 Cr.P.C. of PW5, Ex.P3 is the scene observation panchanama, Ex.P4 is the rough sketch, Ex.P5 is the inquest panchanama, Ex.P6 is the seizure panchanama, Ex.P7 is the confession panchanama of A1, Ex.P8 is the confession panchanama of A2, Ex.P9 is the seizure panchanama of A1, Ex.P10 is the seizure panchanama of A2,

Ex.P11 is the postmortem examination report of the deceased issued by

PW11, Ex.P12 is the first information report and Ex.P13 is the caste certificate of thedeceased issued by LW19-M.Prabhakar Reddy, Tahsildar,

Mugpal. MO.1 is the white baniyan, MO.2 is the green colour drayer, MO.3 is the lungi, MO.4 is the rod, MO.5 is the blue colour pant, MO.6 is the yellow colour shirt, MO.7 is the axe, MO.8 is the blue colour pant and

MO.9 is the wheatesh cream colour shirt.

16.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor have argued that the evidence of PW1 is well supported by the evidence of PWs 2 to 13, by considering the said evidence, prayed the Court to punish the accused.

17.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 302, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and

Section 3 (2) (v) of “the Act”, sincethere is no material to hold that the accused herein is committed the saidoffences, the accused was not identified by the witnesses. As per Ex.P1 complaint, the alleged offence was committed by somebody and it was requested the police to take action, when the complaint was not certain about the commission of 9 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

offence by particular offence i.e., suspecting the persons without mentioning the names of the persons that who committed the offence, in such case, it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to conduct identification parade of the accused person. In the instant case, the police not conducted identification parade of the accused person. There are no eye-witness in this case. The circumstances in which the prosecution witnesses stated about the commission of murder of the deceased was not established that the accused persons committed the offence. None of the witnesses have witnessed the incident at the time of commission of offence and at the same time, there is no last seen theory established by the prosecution witnesses to presume that the alleged murder was committed by the accused persons. With that, prayed the

Court to acquit the accused in this case by giving benefit of doubt.

18.Now, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish that A1 and A2 committed the murder of the deceased and the said offence was must be established by the prosecution witnesses by way of circumstantial evidence, oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence.Now, it is to see that whether the prosecution witnesses able to establish the offence against the accused.

19.In the instant case, during pendency of case, A2 reported died, the police filed report along with death certificate of A2. In which, it is mentioned the name of the father of A2 was not tallied, as such, the

Court directed to file the correct name of the father of A2, for which, the police filed affidavit of wife of the deceased/A2, in which, it is mentioned 10 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

the name of the father of A2 as Muneer Khan @ Majeed Khan, hence, the case against A2 is abated and the trial is conducted against A1 only.

20.Now, coming to the prosecution witnesses, PW1-M.Chinnaiah, who is the defacto complainant and brother of the deceased, deposed that about 6 years ago, there was disputes in between the deceased and LW3, who is the wife of the deceased and LW3 went to her parents house and the deceased used to stay in his house, he used to take care of his deceased brother. About 6 years ago, on one day, he sent food through

LW6 to the deceased at 7.30 p.m., and on the next day in the morning hours, the deceased found dead and sustained bleeding injuries on back of his head due to sharp weapon and there are some scars on back of his head. Some Muslim men used to stay along with his deceased brother, he cannot say the name of the person and he came to know that, there are some disputes in between Muslim person and the deceased. He identified the accused, who is present in the Court hall. He further deposed that there is some disputes regarding the work/contract in between the accused and the deceased. He lodged Ex.P1/report.

During cross-examination, he stated that the deceased brother is elder to him and himself and the family of the deceased lived separately within the same neighborhood in Sirpur village. Himself and his brother have got two houses but, it is separated with small lane. He admitted that his deceased brother and PW3 are living separately since 6 years and till the death of the deceased, PW3 did not visit the deceased and

PW1 came to know about the death of the deceased on his information.

11 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

He further stated that he does not know the daily activities of his deceased brother. One Muslim person used to visit his deceased brother’s house very often and he does not know about the said Muslim person and he never interacted him.

He admitted that he sent food to the deceased through LW6 prior to the alleged incident and after delivering food LW6 returned to home, the doors of his brother’s house are opened and he is lying infront of the door. In the morning 6.00 a.m., he noticed that his deceased brother lying in a pool of blood and he informed the same to Sarpanch of their village, who came to know about the incident from the villagers and visited the scene of offence around 7.00 to 8.30 a.m., and the villagers are gathered.

Police inquired with him about the incident and examined him and recorded his statement, Ex.P1 is not scribed by him, some body scribed

Ex.P1 and he affixed his signature, he does not know what was written by the police, as he is an illiterate. The contents of Ex.P1 is read over to me.

He further stated that police were present upto 2 hours, subsequently, he was examined after 3 months at PS. He stated that in between the date of offence and his examination after 3 months, police came to inquire in their village. After receiving summons from Court, he appeared before this Court. He admitted that he did not mention in his statement before the police that he can identify the accused by name or by person and no identical description of the accused. He denied that at the instance of police, he identified the accused.

PW1 is the defacto complainant, he gave complaint to police, but he 12 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

was not scribed Ex.P1/report. In his cross-examination, he admitted that after giving complaint to police, he was examined and recorded the statement by police after three months at Police Station, but not at scene of offence. He further admitted that in between date of offence and his examination after three months, police came to enquire into their village.

I perused Ex.P1 complaint, in which, it is mentioned by PW1 that on intervening night of 24/25-07-2016, the person who accompanied the deceased, might have killed and ran away, but he did not specifically mentioned the name of the person, who killed his brother/deceased.

Further, PW1 in his cross-examination, categorically admitted that he did not mention in his statement before police that he can identify the accused by name or by person and no identical description of the accused person is mentioned either in complaint or 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

PW1 stated in his evidence that the deceased wife left him on account of matrimonial disputes and he started living separately in his own house.

21.PW2-M.Sujatha, who is the wife of PW1 and sister-in-law of the deceased, deposed that about 6 years ago, there was disputes in between the deceased and his LW3/wife since one year from the date of incident, LW3 went to her material house along with children and the deceased used to stay in his house. PW1 and herself used to take care of her deceased brother. About 6 years ago, on one day, she sent food through LW6 to the deceased at 7.30 pm., and on the next day in the morning hours at 6.00 to 6.30 a.m., the deceased found dead and sustained bleeding injuries and the deceased was lying in the pool of 13 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

blood. She further deposed that some Muslim men used to stay along with her deceased brother-in-law and she cannot say the name of the person, but after 2 days of the incident, she came to know that two persons A1 and A2 i.e., Yousuf Khan and Ahmed committed murder of her deceased brother-in-law. The accused persons used to construct bathroom and there were some disputes in between the deceased and the accused.

During cross-examination, she stated that her family and the deceased family live in separate houses. She admitted that the house of the deceased is not visible from their house, the deceased was living alone, as there was some family disputes with PW3 and PW3 never joined the matrimonial life of the deceased to till his death. She stated that when she herself and PW1 informed about the death of deceased, PW3 did not believe only on the information of the villagers, PW3 came to visit after his death at about 10.00 a.m., in the morning hours. She further stated that she came to know about the death of the deceased at about 6.00 a.m., PW1 went in search of one person one who are accompanying the deceased. When herself and her husband hues and cries, the villagers gathered and some of the villagers informed to the police, who were present at the scene of offence. She herself and PW1 were present at scene of offence, police came near about 10.30 a.m., police inquired about the incident and they informed same to police and obtained their signature and sent the dead body for PME examination. She cannot say how long the police stay at the scene of offence. She admitted that she 14 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

did not state before the police that and she can identify the accused in his statement. She does not know whereabouts of the accused person by names and later, she came to know about the name of the accused persons as Yousuf and Ahmed.

PW2 also stated that there are family disputes between the deceased and his wife, as such, the deceased has been living separately.

This witness also did not know about the commission of murder by somebody till morning 6.00 a.m., when her husband went in search of one person, who are accompanying the deceased, on hearing hues and cries of Pws 1 and 2, villagers were came and gathered and some of the villagers informed about the incident to police. She admitted that she did not state before police that she can identify the accused and she do not know whereabouts of the accused persons by names, later, she came to know about the names of the accused persons as Yousuf and Ahmed, but she did not state anywhere in her evidence, who informed about the names of the accused persons. PW2 evidence also not established the identity of the accused persons and her evidence is hearsay evidence and she is not an eye-witness.

22.PW3-M.Swarna, who is the wife of the deceased, deposed that about 6 years ago, at the time of death of her husband, she was staying at her material house, as there was disputes in between herself and the deceased. The deceased used to stay at their house in Sirpur village.

PW1 and PW2 used to take care of the deceased. On 25.07.2016, PW1, who is her brother-in-law, called and informed her about the death of her 15 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

husband/deceased saying that the doors were opened, somebody killed the deceased, as such, he succumbed to death and was lying in the pool of blood at their house and when she came from her maternal house and visited the scene of offence, the deceased was lying in the pool of blood.

Some person used to stay along with her deceased husband and she cannot say the name of the person and suspected the same person as to the cause of death of her deceased husband and later, she came to know that after 2 months of the incident, two Muslim men are responsible for the cause of death of her deceased husband. She further deposed that she cannot say the names of the accused persons.

During cross-examination, PW3 admitted that she was not continuing the matrimonial life with the deceased prior to 6 years from the date of incident, as he was habit of drinking and never used work and the deceased used pickup quarrel for money with several persons and unable to bear the torture meted out by the deceased, she left his matrimonial company and living separately and taking care of her children education at maternal house. She stated that PW1 informed her about the death of the deceased in the morning hours at about 7.30 a.m., she reached the scene of offence at about 10.00 a.m., when she reached scene of offence, PWs 1 and 2, others persons and police personals were present. She does not know the contents in 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

She admitted that she come for the first time before this Court after recording her statement by police and as on the date of alleged incident, she does not know cause of death of her deceased husband, only after 16 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

two months of the alleged incident, she came to know two persons committed murder of the deceased.

PW3 is wife of the deceased and she came to know about the incident through Pws 1 and 2 and she stated that she do not know the cause of death of her deceased husband, only after two months of alleged incident she came to know that two persons committed murder of her deceased husband. Her evidence also not established that the accused persons are the same persons, in their hands, her husband died.

The circumstances stated by PW3 that she has been living separately from her husband since six years prior to the incident.

23.PW4-Kumari M.Keerthana, who is the daughter of PWs 1 and 2 and witness to the alleged incident, deposed that she know the deceased, who died about 6 month ago. One day in the night hours, she served food to the deceased and went to her house and slept, at the time of giving food, anther person was present with the deceased and she does not know the name of said person.

During cross-examination, she denied the suggestion that she did not serve food to the deceased prior to one day and at the instance of

PW1, she deposed before the Court.

PW4 is the daughter of Pws 1 and 2, she stated that she gave food to the deceased on the previous day night. She also stated that one person was present at the time when she served food to the deceased, but she did not stated about the identity of the said person and name of the said person. PW4 evidence is also not established the identity of 17 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

person and the circumstances that was occurred prior to the death of the deceased.

24.PW5-K.Samitha deposed that about 6 years ago, she was out side of her house, in the night hours at about 9.00 p.m., she was waiting for her husband’s phone call, she heard hue and cries from the house of the deceased upto half-an-hour and the deceased came out of his house, deceased was shouting for help “CHINREDDI NANU KODUTHUNARU”, meanwhile, A1 and A2 took the deceased inside his house and thereafter, she heard hue and cries with loud voice, the deceased shouted twice loudly, as she was afraid, she went inside her house. After half-an-hour,

A1 and A2 came out of the house of deceased, while she was sitting

before her house, A1 and A2 threatened her that she witnessed the

incident, if she informed about the alleged incident to other person and threatened to kill her. Thereafter, she went inside her house after her brother-in-law entered the house. In the early hours of morning on the next day, at 6.00, PW1 was shouting saying that deceased is murdered.

Thereafter, she went to the house of deceased and saw the deceased, who sustained injuries on back of his head and was lying in pool of blood and she returned to her house and Ex.P2/her 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded at I-ADM, Nizamabad and she affixed her signature.

During her cross-examination, she stated that the deceased is her neighbour and the distance between her house and the deceased is about 10 yards. There is one hut belonging to agnets in between her house and the house of deceased. She stated that there is small road 18 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

which leading to Mupal and it’s a busy road and there are no other houses abutting to the house of the deceased, her in-laws house is a far long distance from the house of the deceased. She adds that the house of the deceased is about 20 to 30 yards distance from the house of in- laws from that house, deceased house is visible and there are some several houses of their agnets in the said area and there are many other persons in their own houses, no one was out of the house in the night hours. On hearing the shouting from the mouth of the deceased, she came to know the names of the accused as Ahmed and Yousuf and she does not know the names of the accused prior to the incident and never seen A1 and A2 moving with the deceased.She further stated that she did not inform about the alleged incident to any person, except her husband through cell phone. PWs 1 and 2 stayed adjacent to the deceased house and when the deceased was shouting by saying “CHINREDDI NANU KODUTHUNARU”, except herself, no one was present, though PWs 1 and 2 were present in their own house.

She admitted that the shouting of the deceased can be heard by

PWs 1 and 2, but still they did not come out of the house. She informed the names of A1 and A2 on the next day in between 9.00 to 10.00 a.m., to the police and except police, she did not inform about the alleged incident to the third person. She further stated that initially she did not disclose about A1 and A2 to police, only on their inquiry, she disclosed about the shouting of deceased and threatening of A1 and A2. She was inquired by the police and her statement was not recorded by police.

19 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

She denied that she never heard hues and cries of the deceased on the date of alleged date of incident, A1 and A2 never came to the house of the deceased and deceased never shouted for help by saying “CHINREDDI NANU KODUTHUNARU” and she deposing false at the instance of PW1 by falsely implicating the accused persons in this case and also on tutoring of police.

PW5 is an eye-witness as per charge-sheet, she stated that on the date of incident, she heard hues and cries from the house of the deceased upto half-an-hour, the deceased came out of his house and shouting for help as ‘CHINNAREDDY NANNU KODTUNNARU’. In the meanwhile, A1 and A2 took the deceased inside the house and thereafter, she heard hues and cries with loud voice, the deceased shouted twice loudly. As she was afraid, went inside of her house. After half-an-hour,

A1 and A2 came out of the house of the deceased, while she was sitting

before her house, A1 and A2 threatened her that if she inform about the

alleged incident to other person, they threatened to kill her, thereafter, she went inside the house, after her brother-in-law entered into the house, in the early hours of the morning on the next day at 6.00 p.m.,

PW1 was shouting saying that the deceased was murdered. Thereafter, she went to the house of the deceased and saw the deceased with injuries on back of his head and lying in pool of blood.

During cross-examination, PW5 categorically stated that the deceased is her neighbour, the distance between her house and the deceased is about 10 yards, in between the house of the deceased and 20 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

her house, there is a hut belonged to agnents. There is a small road, which leads to leading to Mopal and it is a busy road. There are no other houses abutting to the house of the deceased. Her in-laws house is a far long distance from the house of the deceased. She adds that the house of the deceased is about 20 to 30 yards distance from the house of in- laws from that house, deceased house is visible and there are some several houses of their agnets in the said area and there are many other persons in their own houses, no one was out of the house in the night hours. On hearing the shouting from the mouth of the deceased, she came to know the names of the accused as Ahmed and Yousuf and she does not know the names of the accused prior to the incident and never seen A1 and A2 moving with the deceased.

The evidence of PW5 is self-contradictory since she saw A1 and A2 are at the house of the deceased and they were threatened her to kill, if she revealed the matter to anybody. After hearing the cries of the deceased, she came out from her house and sat infront of her house.

After some time, A1 and A2 came out from the house of deceased. She stated that the deceased shouted ‘CHINREDDY NANNU KODUTUNNARU’, but she never stated who were beating the deceased, but she heard cries of the deceased and then, she saw A1 and A2. But during cross- examination, she stated that her house is situated 10 yards from the house of the deceased and she heard the voice of the deceased, but she did not know the names of the accused persons and later, she came to know. Further, she stated that she never informed about the incident to 21 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

any other person, except her husband, who was staying at Dubai and she further stated that she never informed to her in-laws also. When such a grave incident was happening, she might have informing to the neighbouring persons or even Pws 1 and 2, who are staying adjacent to the house of the deceased. When the house of Pws 1 and 2 situated adjacent to the house of the deceased, they might have heard the cries of the deceased, but they never stated about hearing the cries of the deceased and they saw the deceased was in pool of blood on the next day morning at 6.00 a.m., whereas, this witness says that she saw A1 and

A2 in the house of the deceased, but even she did not inform about the incident to anybody on the same day night that shows that she neither witnessed the incident nor afraid of the same, but she did not identified

A1 and A2. She even not informed the incident to Pws 1 and 2, though they were staying adjacent to the house of the deceased. She further stated that the cries of the deceased can be heard by Pws 1 and 2, but they did not came out. PW5 never informed the same immediately at the time of incident and she has been watching everything by sitting infront of her house. The evidence of PW5 raises doubt in the mind of Court that when the house of Pws 1 and 2 is adjacent to the house of the deceased and when she observed the incident, she might have informed the same to Pws 1 and 2 at the same time of the incident and she kept quite as she was threatened by A1 and A2. How far it is believable? Even on the next day also, she did not inform the same to Pws 1 and 2. She straight away stated that she informed to police, but she never stated anywhere that 22 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

the names of the accused persons were informed to the villagers even after completion of the incident. Hence, her evidence is doubtful about the commission of offence by A1 and A2 and her evidence is not credible and trustworthy.

25.PW6-R.Praveen deposed that he know LW12 and about 6 years ago, he was called by police to act as panch witness near to the house of the deceased and he went inside the house and observed the door is on the eastern side and the deceased body was lying ups and down, police obtained blood soaked cotton from the scene of offence in his presence and in another box white cotton. There is one cycle on the northern side of the dead body. Ex.P3/panchanama was conducted and Ex.P4/rough sketch was prepared in his presence and he identified his signature. He along with LW12 and other police officials went to Govt. Hospital,

Nizamabad, observed the dead body and identified that the deceased sustained injuries on his left eye, cheek lower part and ears, right side back portion of head of the deceased and on left hand (ring finger) of the deceased. The deceased was wearing white banyan and one lungi. Mos-1 to 3 are banyan, lungi and drawer which are in pool of blood, which were seized in his presence. Police conducted Ex.P5/inquest panchanama over the dead body in his presence and he identified his signature on it.

During cross-examination, he stated that the deceased and PW1 belong to his community and he hail from the same village; in between his house and the deceased’s house, there are about 5 to 6 houses; on the left side of the deceased house, the house of PW1 and the house of 23 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

M.Pushpa and the house of R.Sanjeev are located, on the right side of the house of the deceased, there is a road which leads to Mupal; after crossing the road, there is one some house of Theddu Muthyam; infront of the house of Shyam, the house of Perka Bhumanna is located, back side of the house of the deceased, K.Pedda Bhumaiah’s house is located. He further stated that as he was present at the scene of offence along with other villagers, when the police were present and he was asked to act as panch witness, the time of conducting panchanama was in between 12.00 to 1.00 p.m., afternoon hours. The alleged incident took place in the night hours on the previous day. He does not know the time of incident and LW2 was also present along with him. Panchanama was prepared in his presence, LW22 himself prepared panchanama as per his narration.

He affixed over four signatures and it took about one hour i.e., 12.00 to 1.00 p.m., for conducting panchanama at the house of deceased, thereafter, he went to the hospital, for inquest panchanama at 2.00 p.m., and concluded at 4.00 p.m., and it prepared in his presence by LW22. He does not know the content of panchanama either in the first scene of offence and at the hospital.

He denied the suggestion that police never conducted scene of offence panchanama and recovered Mos.1 to 3 in presence and he never went to Govt. Hospital and was deposing false to help PW1 by implicating the accused in this case.

PW6 is a panch witness, on the request of the police, he went to the scene and observed the scene of offence, the body of the deceased was 24 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

lying ups and downs and the police seized blood stained cloths from the scene of offence in his presence and in another box, white cotton. Police also conducted inquest panchanama at Govt. Hospital in his presence and he found injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Ex.P5 is inquest panchanama. During cross-examination, he stated about the houses situated near the house of the deceased, in between the house of the deceased and his house, there are about 5 to 6 houses. On the left side of the house of deceased, the house of PW1 and the house of M.Pushpa and the house of R.Sanjeev are located on the right side of the house of the deceased, there is a road, which leads to Mupal. After crossing the road, there is one some house of one person by name Teddu Muthyam, infront of the house of the deceased, one person by name Perka

Bhumanna house is located, backside of the house of the deceased, one person K.Pedda Bhumanna’s house is located.

I perused the rough sketch prepared in the presence of Pws 6 and 7, there are no houses mentioned by PW6 in the rough sketch, but one

Kaaki Bhumaiah’s house is situated on the backside of the house of the deceased. The house of PW5 is also not shown in the rough sketch. No other houses are situated in the rough sketch as per the Investigating

Officer as mentioned by PW6 in his evidence that Kaaki Bhumaiah,

Pushpa and Sanjeev houses were situated and they were not examined or not cited as witnesses by the prosecution.

26.PW7-B.Bhoomaiah, VRA of Mupal, deposed that he know PW6 and he was called by Police, Rural to the house of deceased in the year 2016, 25 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

at 1.00 p.m., and the deceased was lying in the pool of blood at main door of his house, who sustained injuries on left portion of the eyebrows, cheek and back portion of his head and the police obtained blood samples with socked cotton and white cotton in separate boxes and panchanama and rough sketch was prepared in his presence and he affixed his signatures on panchanama and rough sketch. Later, he went to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad for conducting inquest panchanama, police seized one white banyan/MO.1, green colour drayer/MO.2, one lungi/MO.3 and inquest panchanama was conducted and Mos.1 to 3 were seized in his presence and he affixed his signatures on inquest panchanama.

During cross-examination, he stated that at the time of alleged incident, he was working as VRA. Police called him for acting as panch witness and he know the police department with their hierarchy. He further stated that initially, he received a call from the Police Constable,

PS Rural at about 1.00 p.m., to act as panch witness, when he was at

Gram Panchayath, Sirpur and he went to the scene of offence and he does not know the distance between house of the deceased and PS. The distance between GP Sripur and the deceased house is 1 km. There is no office timings to VRA. Before proceeding to the scene of offence, he informed to VRO as on the date of incident.

He admitted that He did not inform the same to MRO. When he went to the house of deceased, about 50 villagers were present and he reached the house of the deceased within 5 minutes. Two Police

Constables were also present, police constable never recorded anything 26 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

in written. He was present upto half-an-hour at the scene of offence. On the left side of the deceased house PW1’s house is located, there is an open space, on the right side of the deceased house, there is road leads to Mupal and there is an open space after the road. There is an open space right and left side of the house of the deceased having agricultural fields. There is open space infront of the house. There is one house after 100 yards. There is one house of Bhoomaiah behind the house of the deceased at a distance of 100 yards. At the scene of offence, the blood was stagnated and it was not oozing and there is one cycle in first room, there is one bed in the second room and beside that one bed sheet was lying on the ground.

Thereafter, he went to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad along with PW6 and two constables at 2.00 p.m. PW1 to PW4 and other villagers took the body of the deceased in an auto and he along with police personal, he cannot say the designation. The dead body of the deceased was handed over to the mortuary ward and police conducted panchanama of the deceased in his presence. The police personals who came along with him were prepared inquest panchanama and he cannot say the designation of the police. At the time of conducting panchanama, police were present and he was present upto half-an-hour at the mortuary. He affixed his signatures at about 18 pages and he does not know the contents in the panchanama written by the police in 18 pages.

He admitted that he will be called by the police to act as panch witness in such type of cases. He denied that he did not act as panch 27 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

witness in this case and did not visit the scene of offence and did not visit

Govt. Hospital at time of conducting panchanama and nothing was seized in his presence and he signed panchanama at the instance of police.

PW7 is also one of the panch witnesses stated that there is an open space right side of the deceased house, there is road leads to Mupal and there is an open space after the road. There is an open space right and left side of the house of the deceased having agricultural fields. There is open space infront of the house. There is one house after 100 yards.

There is one house of Bhoomaiah behind the house of the deceased at a distance of 100 yards. At the scene of offence, the blood was stagnated and it was not oozing and there is one cycle in first room, there is one bed in the second room and beside that one bed sheet was lying on the ground. PW7 was accompanied by PW6 on the date when the police called them for conducting panchanama and inquest over the dead body of the deceased and both were signed on it.

Both panch witnesses i.e., Pws 6 and 7 evidence is not corroborated since both were present at the time when the police conducted scene of offence panchanama and preparing rough sketch. Police also conducted inquest of the dead body in their presence, but their evidence highly contradicting about the scene of offnece. Both Pws 6 and 7 stated that the panchanama was drafted by the police and they signed on it and they do not know its contents. Therefore, it can be presumed that the panchanama was not prepared at the scene of offence by the police.

Hence, their evidence is not at all supported the circumstances in which 28 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

the dead body was lying, when the incident was happened, there were many houses and persons would come out when there are any hues and cries. PW5 evidence is not corroborated by any of the witnesses.

27.PW8-S.Chinna Reddy deposed that on 25.09.2016, at about 5.50 p.m., he was called to Mortuary Ward, Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad by the police and he found Mos.1 to 3 blood stained clothes and seized in his presence and Ex.P6/seizure panchanama was conducted in his presence and he affixed his signature on it.

During cross-examination, he stated that at the time of alleged incident, he was Upa Sarpanch of Sirpur village and he came to know the death of the deceased through villagers. He know about the incident prior to the police asked him to act as panch witness, after receiving the phone call to act as panch witness, he went to mortuary ward, Govt.

Hospital, Nizamabad. Some police official and one Ramesh were present and he cannot say the names and designation of the police. He further stated that he was there at mortuary ward for about half-an-hour and police prepared panchanama in his presence and he affixed his signatures on papers. He admitted that he being the Upa Sarpanch of the village, whenever there is any disputes in the village, he approached the

PS regularly.

He denied that he did not act as panch witness, never visited mortuary ward at Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad and deposing false at the instance of police. The contents of panchanama were not read over to him and he does not know its contents.

29 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

PW8 is panch for seizure of blood stained cloths at Govt. Hospital.

28.PW9-A.Ramesh deposed that on 25.09.2016, at about 5.30 p.m., he was called to Mortuary Ward, Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad by the police and he found Mos.1 to 3 blood stained clothes belongs to deceased in his presence and Ex.P6/seizure panchanama was conducted in his presence and he affixed his signature on it.

During cross-examination, he stated that he know the deceased, as he is his villager and he affixed his signature on two papers. He know the contents of panchanama, which were read over to him by the C.I. and S.I.

of Police. The C.I. of Police prepared panchanama in his presence and police officials prepared panchanama. 3 to 4 police persons were present for recording panchanama and he was present at seizure panchanama for about 30 minutes, he along with police officials, relatives of the deceased were present. He denied that he never went to seizure panchanama conducted by the police and deposing false at the behest of police, as the deceased belongs to their village.

Pws 8 and 9 are panch witnesses for seizure panchanama, in whose presence, police seized the blood stained cloths.

29.PW10-G.Chakradhar Rao, VRO of Nyalkal, deposed that he was called by P.S. Rural, Nizamabad on 02.08.2016, at about 1.00 p.m., and on enquiry, he found A1/Syed Ahmed and he confessed before him that he killed the deceased Shyam, as he failed to provide coolie work and confessed that he murdered the deceased Shyam by hitting with rod and axe and also another person present with the accused, i.e., A2-Yousuf 30 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

confession panchanama was conducted in his presence, Ex.P7 is the panchanama of A1 and Ex.P8 is the confession panchanama of A2. Later, he along with LW15 and other police officials went to Nyalkal road, as police seized MO.4/rod, MO.5/A1’s blue colour pant and MO.6/yellow colour shirt and found bloodstains on Mos.4 to 6 and Ex.P9/seizure panchanama of A1 was conducted in his presence. Subsequently, A2 confessed and showed MO.7/axe, which was used for committing the murder of the deceased Shyam. MO.8/blue colour pant, MO.9/wheatesh cream colour shirt and Mos.7 to 9 are bloodstain and Ex.P10 is seizure panchanama of A2.

During cross-examination, he stated that he was present at his office when he was called by the police to act as panch witness and their office timings is morning 10.00 to evening 5.00 p.m. He admitted that without obtaining permission from his superior office, he went to act as panch witness, inquired with the accused at the instance of police and police personals were also present. He stated that one S.I. of Police and other constables were present and the writer of PS drafted panchanama.

He does not know about the designation of the police officers. He admitted that whenever such kind of offences are committed, he act as panch witness at the instance of police and they maintained official dairy for noting down the movements of the employees. He admitted that he did not mention about the visiting of PS at the instance of police when he was called to act as panch witness. He stated that initially he inquired with A1 and subsequently with A2 and he inquired and stayed in PS for 31 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

about 2 hours. The distance between PS and the place of seizure is at a distance of 7 kms. He along with S.I., C.I., and police constables and accused went to the place of seizure panchanama and he reached there at about 4.30 p.m. Police constable prepared panchanama and he affixed his signatures about 10 papers. He denied that he does not know about the contents of confession panchanama and seizure panchanama, which were conducted in his presence. This Court observed that Mos 4 to 9 are not having any panch chits.

He denied that A1 and A2 never confessed before him and Mos.4 to 9 are never recovered in his presence and that he deposed false at the instance of police as stock witness.

PW10 is a person in whose presence the police got recorded the confession panchanama of A1 and A2 and also seized Mos.4 to 6 under

Ex.P9/confession panchanama of A1 and also seized Mos.7 to 9 under

Ex.P10/confession panchanama of A2. This Court observed that Mos.4 to 9 are not having any panch chits, for that, the Investigating Officer in his evidence, stated that he cannot say whether after lapse of six years, the panch chits is still sticking on the MOs. Hence, PW10 evidence establishes that the seizure is doubtful since the Court itself is observed that the panch chits are not found on the MOs, therefore, the counsel for defence argued that the Court can presume that the MOs are planted one.

30.PW11-R.Sridhara Chary deposed that on 25.07.2016, he received requisition from P.S. Rural, Nizamabad to conduct PME of dead body of 32 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

the deceased/Madhapuram Shyam, accordingly, he conducted PME and found following antemortem injuries: 1) cut injury 8 x 1 cm skull bone deep obliquely placed, situated on the right temporal region of scalp, involving upper part of right ear, 2) cut injury 4 cm x 1 cm x skull bone deep–obliquely placed, situated on the right tranto partial region of scalp,

3) cut injury 4 cm x 1 cm x skull bone deep left partial region of scalp.

Obliquely placed, 4) cut injury 2 cm x 1 cm x skull bone deep (vertically placed) situated on the occipital region of scalp, 5) cut injury 3 cm x ½ cm x Muscle deep–Outer and above left eye, 6) abrasion contusion 4 cm x 3 cm–back of left shoulder, 7) on scalp reflection diffuse scarp contusion of left temporal region, mid occipital region, right temporal region, 8) diffuse subarachmoid and subdural hamarahage noted on right parito temporal region, occipital region and left temporal region of brain. The cause of the death is due to head injury and the time of death 12 to 18 hours before PME. On 25.07.2016, at 4.40 p.m., PME of the deceased started and concluded at 5.40 pm. He issued Ex.P11/PME report.

During cross-examination, PW11 admitted that he received requisition from H.Venkateshwarlu, S.H.O. P.S. Rural, Nizamabad at 4.30 p.m., after 10 minutes, he started PME over the deceased dead body. He denied that such type of injuries are possible while performing labour work/construction work with sharp edged objects and also possible due to fall of slab/log on the head of any person and Ex.P11 is created at the instance of police and that he deposed false. He also denied that such type of injuries are possible by falling on the wooden logs (Gadapa).

33 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

In support of the evidence of the doctor/PW11, there is no evidence on record whether A1 and A2 beat the deceased with sharp edged objects. None of the witnesses stated about the overt acts of the A1 and

A2 caused injuries to the deceased with the sharp edged object, as there were no eye-witness on record to establish the offence.

31.PW12-H.Venkateshwarlu, the then C.I of Police, deposed that on 25.07.2016 at about 10.00 hours, he received a complaint from PW1, basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No.267/2016 for the offence

U/s.302 of IPC, later, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 at

PS on the same day. He proceeded to scene of offence, situated at Sirpur village, examined and recorded the statements of PW2, LW3 to LW6, observed the scene of offence minutely and took photographs of the scene of offence with the help of LW10. He conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW6; he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of PWs 6 and 7. Later, he seized blood stained cotton gaze and sample cotton gaze, prepared a rough sketch on the same day at the scene of offence. He also took assistance of dog squad and clues team, later dead body sent to Govt. Hospital for conducting PME by sending the requisition to the duty doctor/Dr.Sridhara

Chary/PW11 and after PME, he seized the clothes of deceased in the presence of LW13 and PWs 8 and 9 under Mos.1 to 9. Thereafter, he handed over the dead body to the family members of deceased. On 26.7.2016, he examined and recorded the statement of PW5. He further deposed that on credible information on 02.8.2016, at 10 hours, S.I. of 34 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

Police, Rural apprehended A1 and A2 at LW9’s house at Gollapally village, then, he along with LW15 and PW10 proceeded to Gollapally village and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence, A1 and A2 lead the police along with panchas to Sirpur village outskirts and seized Mos.1 to 9 and then he took the photographs with the help of LW10/photographer and on completion of confession and seizure panchanama, he brought the accused to PS and sent for judicial custody. He examined the statements of Lws 9 and 10. On 19.8.2016, he sent the seized material to FSL for analysis and report. On receiving his letter, on 28.10.2016, LW19/Tahsildar issued Ex.P13/caste certificate of the deceased by mentioning that the deceased belongs to SC community. Then he filed a memo to the Court adding Section 3 (2) (5) of SC/ST Act in adjacent Section 302 of IPC. Later, he addressed a letter to CP, Nizamabad requesting to appoint officer for further investigation in this case, who in-turn appointed ACP, Nizamabad to conduct further investigation. Thereafter, he handed over the further investigation to

LW23. Ex.P12 is the FIR.

During cross-examination, PW12 stated that the place of offence from the PS is about 12 Kms., Ex.P12 was issued on 25.07.2016 and the complaint was drafted by PW1 and brought the same to PS. He denied that the writings of Ex.P1 last four lines are seems to be inserted and there is no signature on Col.No.14 in Ex.P12/FIR. He reached the scene of offence by 11.30 a.m., and was there upto 5.00 p.m. There is house on west side, north side house of brother, on south side, there is road and 35 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

east side there is wire fencing and then open place.

He admitted that there is house of one Kaki Bhoomaiah on western side, but he was not cited as witness. He informed to MRO orally for sending VRO and VRA to act as panch witness i.e., PWs 7 to 9 and 10 and

LW15. He called PW7 at about 11.30 a.m., and they came to there at about 1.00 p.m. He called PWs 8 and 9 at about 11 to 11.30 a.m., to PS and they accompanied with them to Gollapally village. He admitted that there are panch chits found on Mos.1 to 3, 5, 6 and 9 and there is no dates on it including Mos.1 and 2. There are no chits on Mos.4 and 7. He denied that the signature on Ex.P7 and panch chits are different, Ex.P7 was written by their PC on his dictation.

He admitted that the signature of panchas were obtained by the side of panchanama pages except last page. There is no need for taking permission for dog squad as it is part of investigation as they did not send any requisition, but it is not mentioned in charge-sheet about the out come of dog squad. He further admitted that they take assistance of

VRA, VRO for confession and seizure panchanama. The independent witness may not support the case of prosecution, as such, they are taking assistance of VRA, VRO though there is availability of independent witness. He denied that he did not conduct scene of offence panchanama and seizure panchanama at scene and drafted everything at PS and foisted false case against the accused though they are noway concerned with the offence.

I perused the evidence of PW12, who conducted investigation in 36 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

this case basing on Ex.P1/report, but he did not take any assistance of any dog squad, when complaint is lodged on suspicion, it is the duty of

Investigating Officer to take all precautions for establishing the offence against the accused, when a complaint was lodged on suspicion. He admitted that panchanamas were drafted by Police Constable on his dictation and the panch witnesses signed on it. Being Investigating

Officer, he did not examine Kaaki Bhumaiah, whose residence is situated on the backside of the house of the deceased, similarly, the deceased was a Mason, he might have enquired with other workers or other villagers, whether there are any enmity between the deceased and any other person including A1 and A2. There is no evidence on that aspect.

Further, there is no mention about the route cause for commission of offence by A1 and A2. It is for the Investigating Officer to establish an offence U/s.302 of IPC, there must be motive, preparation and conduct of the accused. There is no direct evidence as to the death of the deceased and the case entire rest upon the circumstantial evidence. The

Investigating Officer never stated anywhere in his evidence and his investigation did not speak about the route cause for the offence whether there is any disputes between the deceased and A1 and A2 pertaining to money or land disputes or any other disputes prevailing between the accused and the deceased, that should be known through the villagers or the persons, who are working with the deceased and accused. The investigation never reveals what is the enmity prevailing between the accused and the deceased, including PW1, who is none other than the 37 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

brother of the deceased, never stated about the disputes of the deceased with whom he is working. Further, the family disputes of the deceased is also not a route cause for the commission of this offence, since PW3, who is the wife of the deceased, has been living separately six years prior to the offence and there is no affinity between them to believe that she might have committed the offence through A1 and A2. The prosecution witnesses never shown any chain of circumstances to believe that there are reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.

32.PW13-D.Anand Kumar, the then ACP, Nizamabad deposed that he took up further investigation this case from PW12/Inspector of Police as per the proceedings of CP, Nizamabad, verified the investigation done by

PW12/LW22 on proper lines and he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of Lws 1 to 7/PWs 1 to 5 and Lws 4 and 5. Later, he examined PW5 and LW8/Shaik Khaja and LW9/Alison

Shekar and recorded their statements. On his requisition, the I Addl.

JMFC, Nizamabad recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statements of the witnesses

PW5 and Shaik Khaja/LW8 on 19.11.2016. After collecting all the relevant documents pertaining to this case, he filed charge sheet for the ofences

U/s.302, 506 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act (as amended by

Act No.1 of 2016).

During cross-examination, PW13 stated that he does not remember exact time, but it was on 8th November, 2016, he visited the scene of 38 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

offence at Sirpur village. The distance between PS and Sirpur village is about 12 kms., statements were recorded on his dictation by PW5 and

LW8 by writer. He did not conduct any detailed investigation, as his predecessor did everything and he verified the same and filed charge sheet, as it was found on correct lines. Some of the witnesses were neigbours and some of the witnesses were outers examined by PW12 and he re-examined them and they stated before him as earlier.

He admitted that as per rough sketch, there were houses situated in and around at scene of offence except one Khaki Bhoomaiah’s house, who was not there at the time, when he visited the scene of offence, but his daughter-in-law was present and examined her and recorded her statement. He does not know on what mode PW12 called VROs to act as mediators. He admitted that it is general practice that obtaining signatures by the side of paper on which confession panchanama was recorded. He denied that the confession panchanama was prepared at

PS, as such, they obtained signatures by the side of paper that is left side as there is no space underneath the paper. He verified all the MOs. He admitted that on MOs, there are no dates mentioned on panch chits and

Mos.4 and 7 have no panch chits. He adds that property was deposited in 2017 and now it 2023, due to six years gap, he cannot say whether panch chit is still sticking on MOs whenever they deposited the MOs, they assured that there will be a panch chit on MOs.

He denied that he did not go to the scene of offence and not examined anybody on his own and verified the investigation done by 39 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

PW12 and filed charge sheet.

PW13 did not investigate on his own to prove the guilt of the accused.

33.At the outset on perusal of entire evidence on record, this Court finds that there are no circumstances to draw the inference that the accused committed the offence and the evidence on record was not cogently and firmly established and the circumstances shown by the witnesses should be of no definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and there is no chain of circumstances to establish the offence and the evidence is incapable of explaining any other hypotheses than that of the guilt of the accused. In the absence of circumstantial evidence, the Court cannot find truth or made any inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established. The circumstantial evidence on record did not show any conclusion to draw the inference against the accused that he committed the offence. In the evidence of PW5, she never stated about the weapons used by the accused persons and the same were seized by the

Investigating Officer. Moreover, the time of offence is 9.00 p.m., as per the rough sketch, the road situated infront of the house of the deceased is a busy road, so if really, the deceased raised cries, somebody would have come and rescue, but it is highly unbelievable that nobody were there on the road. It is very much doubtful that she has seen both the accused as on the date of offence and both accused threatened her if she discloses the incident to anybody. The learned Addl. P.P. tried to 40 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

convince the Court that on account of threatening the A1 and A2 to PW5, she even did not disclose the same to her husband over phone, who is residing at Dubai. Her evidence is not corroborated by anyone of the witnesses.

34.The same has been disclosed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

2023 (2) ALD (Crl.). 211 (SC) in between Jabir and others Vs.

State of Uttarakhand in para 21 and 23, in which, the Hon’ble Apex

Court held that:

“A basic principle of criminal jurisprudence is that in circumstantial evidence cases, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, beyond reasonable doubt, as well the as the links between all circumstances; such circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability, the crime was committed by the accused and none else; further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence, in order to sustain conviction, must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence, these were so stated in Sarad Birdichand Sarda’s case (supra). A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an Accused can be said to be fully established: the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri.) p. 1047] Certainly, it is a primary principle that the Accused must be and not merely may be guilty 41 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

before a court can convict and the mental distance

between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the Accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the Accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of 5 Ibid 3 the Accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the Accused.” These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.” These panchsheel precepts, so to say, are now fundamental rules, iterated time and again, and require adherence not only for their precedential weight, but as the only safe bases upon which conviction in circumstantial evidence cases can soundly rest.

In Para 23, it is held that: “Apart from the above serious infirmities, there is no evidence, oral or any material object, which connects the appellant-accused with the crime. It has been repeatedly emphasized by this Court, that the “last seen” doctrine has limited application, where the time lag between the time the deceased was seen last with the accused, and the time of murder, is narrow; furthermore, the Court should not convict an accused only on the basis of the “last seen” circumstances. In Jaswant Gir Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court explained the soundness of such a rule: ‘Without probing further into the correctness of the "last- seen" version emanating from P.W. 14's evidence, even assuming that the deceased did accompany the accused in their vehicle, this circumstance by itself does not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the Appellant and his companion had killed him and thrown the dead body in the culvert. It cannot be presumed that the Appellant and his companions were responsible for the murder, though grave suspicion arises against the accused. There is considerable time-gap between the deceased boarding the vehicle of the Appellant and the time when P.W. 11 found the dead body. In the absence of any other links in the chain of 42 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

circumstantial evidence it is not possible to convict the Appellant solely on the basis of the "last-seen" evidence, even if the version of P.W. 14 in this regard is believed. In view of this, the evidence of P.W. 9 as regards the alleged confession made to him by the Appellant assumes importance’.

35.In Shaik Nazeer Ahmed @ Nazeer @ Bhayya Vs. State of

Andhra Pradesh in 2023 (2) ALD (Crl.) 323 T.S., in which the Hon’ble

High Court held that ‘chain of events not completed’ and ‘many missing links’, benefit of doubt extended to the accused and also held in para 32 that:

‘Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the Apex Court Judgment reported in Munikrishna alias Krishna Vs. State by Ulsoor, 2022 SCC Online SC 1449, wherein it is held as under: “In a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of an evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused. In other words, a very heavy duty is cast upon the prosecution to prove its case, beyond reasonable doubt. As early as in 1952, this Court in its seminal judgment of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, had laid down the parameters under which the case of circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated. It states: “…….. It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused …..” 43 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

In Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 2 SCC 748, dated 28.01.2010, this Court while discussing the nature of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof of prosecution stated as under: In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is “inferential evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances. Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed that ‘proof does not mean rigid mathematical formula’ since ‘that is impossible’. However, proof must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a definite conclusion. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, has been compared by Lord Coleridge ‘like a gossamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with the merest of touches’. The learned Judge also observed that such evidence may be strong in parts but is may also leave great gaps and rents through which the accused may escape. Therefore, certain rules have been judicially evolved for appreciation of circumstantial evidence. To my mind, the first rule is that the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If conviction rests solely on certified copy, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused (See Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs. State of U.P. AIR 1963 SC 74 = (1963) 1 Cri. LJ 70). The second principle is that all th elinks in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused (See State of U.P. v. Dr.Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 = 1992 SCC (Cri.) 642 – 1992 Crl LJ 3693, SCC P.309, Para 20). While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali v. Kind Emperor, 21 CWN 1152 = 43 IC 241, (IC at Para 14) that 44 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

when in a criminal case there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail. The next principle is that in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and are incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypotheses except his guilt. When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. Nibaran Chandra Roy v. King Emperor 11 CWN 1085, it was held that the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising under Section 106 of the Evidence Act may have in civil or in less serious criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence. The same principles have been followed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Govinda Reddy vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1960 SC 29 – 1960 Cri. LJ 137, where the learned Judges quoted the principles laid down in Hanmant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 = 1953 Cri. LJ 129. The ratio in Govind’s case (supra), quoted in AIR Para 5, P.30 of the Report in Govinda Reddy’s case (supra) are; “5…...’10….. in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances (which lead to the conclusion of guilt should be in the first instance) fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be (shown) that within all human probability the act must have been (committed) by the accused. (As observed in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another vs. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343 at Pp.345-46, Para 10).

45 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

The same principle has also been followed by this Court in Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P. (1974) 4 SCC 607 = 1974 SCC (Cri.) 643.”

36.In the instant case, PW5’s evidence is not corroborated by any of the witnesses on record. The ‘last-seen’ theory is also not established in this case. As per the evidence of PW10, the material objects seized by the police basing on the confessional statement of the accused Nos.1 and

2. Complaint was given on 25.07.2016, the alleged offence was took place on 24.07.2016, the accused apprehend on 02.08.2016, at 10.00 a.m., on the same police got recorded the confessional statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2 at 13.00 hours and recovered the material objects at 17.20 hours. The police completed the entire investigation on the same day i.e., 02.08.2016. The police recorded the statement of PW1 after three months of the incident as per his evidence. The charge-sheet is filed on 07.02.2017.

37.At the outset, on perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution entirely rests on the circumstantial evidence, but failed to prove that the chain of circumstances not established and also ‘last-seen’ theory is also not established. There are no cogent and coherent reasons to believe that the accused persons committed the offence as

Investigating Officer failed to establish the nexus between the accused and the deceased as mentioned in supra that the Investigating Officer never investigated the case about the enmity between the accused and the deceased whether it is professional rivalry or any monitory rivalry or even family disputes prevails between them. None of the witnesses 46 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

stated about the relation between A1 and A2 and the deceased and they have seen earlier when they are attending any of the works, in the absence of such evidence, this Court cannot come to conclusion that the accused Nos.1 and 2 committed the offence. Hence, benefit of doubt shall rightly be to the accused persons.

38.With the above discussion, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused

No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/s.302, 506 r/w 34 of

IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of “the Act” and the benefit of doubt shall be rightly given to the accused No.1. As there is no conclusive evidence, as such, the accused No.1 can not be found guilty for the said charged offences. The point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 302, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of

SCs/STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. As such, he is acquitted of the same Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The accused No.1 shall be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other cases. The Mos.1 to 9 shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The case against A2 is abated, as he died.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 1st day of February, 2024.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

47 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

: : APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

:Witnesses examined:

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:M.Chinnaiah (LW1).Defacto complainant & younger brother of deceased. PW2:M.Sujatha (LW2).Witness & sister-in-law of deceased. PW3:M.Swarna (LW3).Witness & wife of the deceased. PW4:Kumari M.Keerthana (LW6).Witness & younger daughter of PW1. PW5:K.Samitha (LW7).Eye-witness. PW6:R.Praveen (LW11).Panch for scene & seizure of blood stains from the scene & inquest. PW7:B.Bhoomaiah (LW12).Panch for scene & seizure of blood stains from the scene & inquest. PW8:S.Chinna Reddy (LW13).Panch for seizure of blood stained cloths of deceased at Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad. PW9:A.Ramesh (LW14).Panch for seizure of blood stained cloths of deceased at Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad. PW10:G.Chakradhar Rao (LW16).Panch for confession & recovery of A1 and A2. PW11:Dr.R.Sreedhara Chary (LW18). Conducted autopsy & issued opinion. PW12:H.Venkateshwarlu, Inspector1st I.O. & arrested the accused. of Police, PS Rural, Nizamabad (LW22). PW13:D.AnandKumar,ACP,2ndInvestigating Officer and laid Nizamabad Division (LW23).charge sheet. FOR DEFENCE:

- None - : EXHIBITS MARKED : FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1:Report. Ex.P2:Statement U/s.164 Cr.P.C. of PW5. Ex.P3:Scene observation panchanama. Ex.P4:Rough sketch.inquest panchanama, Ex.P5:Inquest panchanama. Ex.P6:Seizure panchanama. Ex.P7:Confession panchanama of A1. Ex.P8:Confession panchanama of A2. Ex.P9:Seizure panchanama of A1. Ex.P10: Seizure panchanama of A2. Ex.P11: PME report of the deceased issued by PW11, Ex.P12: First information report.

48 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

Ex.P13: Caste certificate of thedeceased issued by LW19- M.Prabhakar Reddy, Tahsildar, Mugpal.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

:: MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ::

MO.1: White baniyan. MO.2: Green colour drayer. MO.3: Lungi. MO.4: Rod. MO.5: Blue colour pant. MO.6: Yellow colour shirt. MO.7: Axe. MO.8: Blue colour pant. MO.9: Wheatesh cream colour shirt.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

49 of 48 Spl.SC.11 of 2017. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Syed Ahmed.Dt: 01.02.2024.

:: CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT ::

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs/STs (PoA)

ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 1st day of February, 2024

Spl.SC.No.11 of 2017

(Cr.No.267 of 2016 of PS Nizamabad Rural)

Between: The State of Telangana through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad Division (PS Nizamabad Rural).

.. Complainant

A N D

A1:Syed Ahmed S/o Syed Sadique, age 25 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Labour, R/o. Sirpur village, Nizamabad mandal, N/o. Gollapally village of Dichpally Mandal. *A2:Yousuf Khan S/o Majeed Khan, age 35 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Mason, R/o. Sirpur village of Nizamabad Mandal, N/o. Nizamcolony, Nizamabad. (*The accused No.2 was died and the case against A2 is abated).

.. Accused

1Date of offence. 24.07.2016. 2Date of report or complaint. 25.07.2016. 3Date of apprehension of accused.02.08.2016. 4Date of release on bail.A1 on 19.11.2016. A2 on 28.09.2016. 5Date of commitment.--- 6Date of commencement of trial.30.08.2023. 7Date of close of trial.13.12.2023. 8Date of Judgment. 01.02.2024. 9Explanation of delay and remarks.-- Encl: Copy of Judgment.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. To, The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

1 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs/STs

(PoA) ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024

Spl.SC.No.41 of 2019

(Cr.No.6 of 2019 of PS.Nandipet)

1. Name of the ComplainantAsst. Commissioner of Police, Armoor (PS Nandipet).

2. Name of the accusedA1: Surukanti Srinivas @ Gangaram S/o Surukunti Gangaram, age 43 years, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agriculture, A2: Loka Dinesh Reddy @ Dinesh S/o Loka Nadipi Gangareddy, age 28 years, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agriculture, A3: Doddikindi Narsa Reddy S/o Narsimloo, age 48 years, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agriculture, A4: Argula Ravi S/o Mallareddy, age 33 years, Caste: Gudarikapu, Occ: Agriculture, A5: Maggidi Gangareddy S/o Gangaiah, age 37 years, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agriculture, A6: Baddam Subbareddy @ Rajanna S/o Sayanna, age 49 years, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agriculture, A7:BaddamBhumaReddy S/o Chinna Reddy, age 28 years, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agril., A8: Kashapuram @ Kachakayala Chinna Reddy S/o Kachakayala Pedda Rajanna, age 45 years, Caste: Guradikapu, Occ: Agril., A9:Kashapuram Bakkanna S/o Pedda Rajanna, age 45 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Agril., 2 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

A10: Jangidi Bhumesh S/o Jangidi Ramulu, age 43 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Yadav, A11: Gadchanda Suman S/o Poshanna, aged 41 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occ: Agrl., A12: Kachakayala Rakesh @ Gajam Rakesh S/o Linganna, age 25 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Agril., *A13: Kachakayala Nadipi Rajeshwar S/o Kachakayala Nadipi Rajanna, age 44 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Agril., (DIED). A14: Guddolla Narsaiah S/o Pedda Narsaiah, age 40 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Agril., A15: Smt.Doddolla Gangamani W/o Sayanna, age 36 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agril., A16: Gorrepally Nadipi Sayanna S/o Nadipi Mallu, age 56 years, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Agril., A17: Putta Sayanna S/o Odiselu, age 36 years, Caste: Nayakpodu (ST), Occ: Agril., A18: Madavedi Sayanna @ Chinna Sayanna S/o Madavedi Gangaram, age 53 years, Caste: Gundla, Occ: Fisherman, *A19: Chakali Bhojanna @ Meerolla Bhojanna S/o Narsimloo @ Sayanna, age 70 years, Caste: Chakali, Occ: Agril. (DIED). A20: Smt.Kanur Savitha W/o Ramesh, age 30 years, Caste: Kummari, Occ: Beedi Roller, A21: Smt.Mothkuri Anuradha W/o Babagoud, age 35 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Beedi Roller, A22:Smt.Marripally Muthemma W/o Sadanandam, age 37 years, Caste: Kummari, occ: Beedi Roller, A23: Smt.Kathula Deepika W/o Limbadri, age (*A13 died and the case 25 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occ: Beedi against A13 is abated Roller, on 01.02.2024).

A24: Smt.Taida Laxmi W/o Baburao, age 45 years, Caste: SC-Madiga, Occ: Beedi Roller, 3 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

A25: Madhunala Shekar Goud S/o Ganga Narsagoud, age 39 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Toddy Tapper, (*A19 died and the case All are R/o. Marampally village of Nandipet against A19 is abated mandal. on 09.01.2020).

3. Offence chargesUnder Sections 384 of IPC and Section 3 (1)

(r) (zc), (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against A1, A3 to A8, A10 to A18, A20 to A24.

Under Sections 3 (1) (r) (zc), (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against A1 to A10, A12 to A16, A18, A20 to A22 and A25.

4. Crime No. & Name of Police 6 of 2019 of PS Nandipet. Station

5. Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty.

6. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty.

7. Prosecution conducted bySri. B.Vasanth, Addl.Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad

8. Accused defended byM/s.M.RajenderReddy,M.Suryachary, M.Ramgopal and J.Rajashekar, Advocates, Nizamabad.

9. Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 8, 10 to 12, 14 to 18, 20 to 24 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.384 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and the accused Nos.1 to 10, 12, 14 to 16, 18, 20 to 22 and 25 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. As such, they are acquitted of the same Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this Judgment. The MO.1-Rs.50,000/- cash shall be confiscated to Government after the appeal time is over.

4 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

The unmarked non valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over. The accused No.19 was died and the case against A19 is abated on 09.01.2020. The accused No.13 was died and the case against A13 is abated on 01.02.2024.

This case coming on 01.02.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Vasanth, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of M/s.M.Rajender Reddy, M.Suryachary, M.Ramgopal and J.Rajashekar, Advocates for the accused persons and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon’ble Court delivered the following:

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

The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Armoor (PS Nandipet) laid charge sheet against A1, A3 to A8, A10, A12 to A16 and A18 to A22 for the offences punishable U/s.384 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act, 2015 (in short hereinafter referred as “the Act”) and against A11, A17, A23 and A24 for the offence punishable U/s.384 of IPC and against A2, A9, A25 for the offence punishable U/s.3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the Act” on completion of investigation of the case registered on the report lodged by LW1.

2.The conspectus of the prosecution case is follows as hereunder :

a) On 02.01.2019, at 7.00 p.m., the defacto complainant/LW1-Are

Rajeshwar came to PS and lodged a report before the police, in which, he stated that they are 80 members of Scheduled Caste Mala Community submitted a petition stating that the Mala community persons dug and laid pillars in the open land situated adjacent of village tank at village shivar in 5 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

18½, 26½ feet land to construct Ambedkar Sangam building. The Village

Development Committee (in short hereafter referred as ‘VDC’) members without having any power, threatened them that not to construct anything in the said place, if constructed they will impose village boycott, but they did not heed their warnings. On that, since 04.12.2018, the VDC members imposed social boycott. LW1 along with his community persons when enquired with the VDC members, they told to deposit an amount of

Rs.50,000/- as advance, otherwise, they will impose boycott. On that, LW1 and his caste persons gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to VDC members, but so far, boycott is continuing on them. The above persons threatened them to impose village boycott, if they inform to police, as such, since 24.12.2018 harassing them in the village.

b) Basing on the said report, LW28-P.Raghavender, SI of Police,

Nandipet P.S. registered a case in Cr.No.6/2019 for the offence U/s.384 of

IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the Act” and issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation.

c)Later,LW29-A.Ramulu, Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Armoor Division, was took up the investigation as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad. During the course of investigation, he he visited Marampelly village on 05.01.2019, examined

LWs 1 to 12 i.e., LW1-Are Rajeshwar, LW2-Are Rajender, LW3-Are

Ravindranath, LW4-Puli Raju, LW5-Kachakayala Rajasekhar, LW6-Madavedi

Srinivas, LW7-Kachakayala Tirupathi, LW8-Thaida Sayanna, LW9-Thaida 6 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

Sayanna, LW10-Bantu Rajeshwar, LW11-Are Rajanna and LW12-Are

Rajendhar and recorded their statements, later, he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of LW23-

Kadem Rajender and LW23-Bantu Rajeshwar. He filed requisition before

LW27-Smt.L.Alivelu, Tahsildar, Nandipet for issuance of caste certificate of the complainant and accused persons. Accordingly, she issued caste certificates to them.

d) On 06.01.2019, at 6.00 hours, on reliable information LW28 along with his staff, rushed to Marampally village and apprehended the accused persons near Hanuman Temple and produced them before ACP Office,

Armoor. Later, LW29 interrogated them in the presence of LW25-

Pembarthi Rahul and LW26-Shatigar Mahesh and on interrogation, they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence and he seized an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the possession of A1 under cover of panchanama. After recording confession and recovery panchanama, effected the arrest of the accused persons and sent them for judicial remand.

e)On 07.01.2019, LW29 examined the witnesses Lws 13 to 17 i.e., LW13-Bantu Sayanna, LW14-Bantu Devid, LW15-Smt.Bantu Ammai,

LW16-Putti Kodaiah and LW17-Smt.Are Gangamani and on 08.01.2019, he examined LW18-Are Gangadher, LW19-Thalari Narsaiah, LW20-Bandi

Rajanna, LW21-Talari Rajanna and LW22-Are Prasanth.

f)As per the statements of the witnesses, the accused persons 7 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

known the petitioner’s caste, though A1, A3 to A18, A10 to A24 threatened the complainant and his Sangam members to pay an amount of

Rs.50,000/- as deposit, otherwise, they will impose social boycott on them.

Due to fear, the complainant and his Sangam members paid an amount of

Rs.50,000/- to A1. On 24.12.2018 A1 to A25 without discussing about the

Ambedkar Sangam building and imposed social boycott on the complainant and his caste persons total 80 members. The accused persons instructed LW5/Kachakayala Rajashekar that not to sell the pesticides to the SC community members; instructed to LW7/K.Tirupathi that not to provide and purchase milk to the SC community members; instructed to LW8/T.Sayanna that not to take the cattle for grazing and also instructed LW9/T.Sayanna that not stitch the clothes and not to deliver the stitched clothes to SC community members. When the complainant and his caste persons asked them they informed the same to them that if they provided their necessities, the accused persons will impose fine of

Rs.10,000/-. After completion of investigation, LW29/Asst Commissioner of

Police, Armoor filed charge sheet against A1, A3 to A8, A10, A12 to A16 and A18 to A22 for the offences punishable U/s.384 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the Act” and against A11, A17, A23 and A24 for the offence punishable U/s.384 of IPC and against A2, A9, A25 for the offence punishable U/s.3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the Act”.

3.Upon perusal of the charge sheet and documents filed, this Court had taken cognizance against A1, A3 to A8, A10, A12 to A16 and A18 to 8 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

A22 for the offences punishable U/s.384 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the Act” and against A11, A17, A23 and A24 for the offence punishable U/s.384 of IPC and against A2, A9, A25 for the offence punishable U/s.3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the Act”. Thereafter, this Court assigned the case as Spl.SC.No.41 of 2019.

4.After appearance of the accused persons, furnished the case documents to them as contemplated Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. During the stage of appearance, the accused No.19 was died and the case against

A19 was abated on 09.01.2020.

5.Upon considering the material papers on record, at the stage of consideration of charges, the accused No.19 was died and the case against A19 is abated on 09.01.2020. On hearing the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused persons, this Court examined the accused U/sec.228 (2) of Cr.P.C., the charges for the offences punishable U/s.384 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the

Act” against A1, A3 to A8, A10, A12 to A16 and A18 to A22 and the charges for the offence punishable U/s.384 of IPC against A11, A17, A23 and A24 and the charges for the offence punishable U/s.3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the Act” against A2, A9, A25 were framed. The same were read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language as required under Sub-Sec.2 of Section 228 of Cr.P.C.

6.To which, the plea of the accused persons are complete denial and claimed to be tried.

9 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

7.This Court issued Trial Schedule Under Section 230 of Cr.P.C., for the prosecution evidence.

8.In order to substantiate the charges against accused persons, prosecution had examined PW1 to PW11 and through them, got marked

Exs.P1 to P7 and MO.1. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence is closed.

9.On completion of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined

U/sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against accused persons in the evidence of prosecution. The accused persons having understood the evidence, denied the same and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

10.Heard on both sides and perused the evidence on record and posted for Judgment. At the stage of Judgment, the accused No.13 was died and the case against A13 is abated on 01.02.2024.

11. Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of A1, A3 to A8, A10, A12, A14 to A16 and A18 to A22 for the offences punishable U/s.384 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the Act” and the guilt of A11, A17, A23 and A24 for the offence punishable U/s.384 of IPC and the guilt of A2, A9, A25 for the offence punishable U/s.3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of “the Act” beyond all reasonable doubt?. If so, to what extent the accused are liable for punishment ?.

12. POINT:-The prosecution says that there is an Ambedkar Yuvajana

Sangam in Marampally village, the said Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam was registered vide No.201/96. The complainant is the President of said

Sangam. In the month of August, 2018, Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam 10 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

members started the construction of building, dug the pits and laid pillars at the open place, situated by the side of village Tank. While the construction work is under progress, the A1, A3 to A18, A10 to A24 went to the said under construction building and informed the complainant and his

Sangam members to stop the construction work, as there is obstruction to pass the Lorries and Tractors to go to agricultural Godown. After three days, A1 to A25 called the complainant and Sangam members to open place situated adjacent of the village Tank and inform to construct Sangam building just back side, for which, the complainant and his Sangam members informed that it is not possible. On that, A1, A3 to A18, A10 to

A24 threatened the complainant and his sangam members to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as deposit otherwise they will impose social boycott on them. Due to fear, the complainant and his Sangam members paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to A1. On 24.12.2018, A1 to A25 without discussing about the Ambedkar Sangam building and imposed social boycott on the complainant and his caste persons total 80 members. The accused persons instructed the LW5-Kachakayala Rajasekhar that not to sell the pesticides to the SC Community members. The accused persons instructed the LW6-Madavedi Srinivas that not to run the Tractors to SC Community members. The accused persons instructed the LW7-Kachakayala Tirupathi that not to provide and purchase milk to the SC community members. The accused persons instructed the LW8-Thaida Sayanna that not to take the cattle for grazing. The accused persons instructed the LW9-Thaida 11 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

Sayanna that not to stitch the cloths and not to deliver the stitched clothes to SC Community members. When the complainant and his caste persons asked the LWs 5 to 9 about the said issues, on that, they informed that the accused persons instructed them that if they provided their necessities, the accused persons will impose fine of Rs.10,000/-.

13.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor have argued that Pws 1 to 11, except PW10, all the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated the evidence, the panch witness turned hostile. So far, the recovery of fine amount, other than SC members, none of the witnesses supported and prosecution proved the guilt of the accused, therefore, all the accused shall be punished according to law.

14.The learned counsel for the accused argued that when the witnesses were stated about the social boycott, they might have inform to the Dist.

Collector and he would have taken steps against them, but none of the witnesses stated about the issue bring to the notice of the Collector and there is no evidence on record. Section 3 of SC/ST Act also not attracted.

The construction is itself illegal and without obtaining any permission from the Grampanchayath, they started construction, for which, the village people questioned about the construction and tried to stop the construction, for which, the witnesses on record admitted that they have not obtained any permission from the G.P. for construction of library adjacent to Mahila Bhavan. Further, they failed to prove the title of the property they are intended to construct. The recovery of cash of 12 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

Rs.50,000/- was not proved. The witness on record themselves admitted that they have not paid any fine amount as alleged by the prosecution and not collected from them. In view of the admissions made by the prosecution witnesses, the benefit of doubt shall rightly be given to the accused persons and they are liable to be acquitted. With that, prayed the

Court to acquit the accused persons in this case.

15.Now, the point is that whether the prosecution witnesses establishes the offence U/s.384 of IPC, which reads as follows:

“Whoever commits extortion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

Extortion described in Section 383 of IPC, which reads as follows:

“Whoever, intentionally, puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits ‘extortion’”.

16.Section 3 (1) (r) of “the Act” reads as follows:

“Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe, intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view”.

17.Section 3 (1) (zc) of “the Act” reads as follows:

“Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a 13 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

Scheduled Tribe, imposes or threatens a social or economic boycott of any person or a family or a group belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe”.

18.Section 3 (2) (va) of “the Act” reads as follows:

“Whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe, commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine”.

19.Now, coming to the prosecution witnesses, PW1-Are Rajeshwar, who is the defacto complainant, deposed that he is the President of Ambedkar

Sangam, Mamidipally, in the month of August, 2018, they laid pillars in the open land, situated adjacent to the village tank to construct Ambedkar

Bhavan, while construction was in progress, the members of Village development Community came there, asked them not to proceed with the construction, requested them to settle the issue amicably and the members of VDC asked them to deposit an amount of Rs.50,000/-, as such, they deposited the said amount with you-A1, thereafter, the VDC members left the place without making settlement of issue and without doing justice to them. He further deposed that on the same day, in the evening hours, VDC members made an announcement in loud speaker 14 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

stating that no one should speak to SC Mala Community people; no one should give milk to them; no one should work for the Mala community as cattle herder; no one should supply pesticide to the persons of SC Mala

Community; the stitched clothes belonging to SC Mala community people should not return to them and should not stitch the clothes of SC Mala community; no one should engage the tractor to work in the fields of SC

Mala community; no one should engage Mala community people in work and no one should talk to them. Thereafter, he approached the police and lodged Ex.P1-report with the police. He further deposed that all the accused boycotted them socially. The Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Armoor examined him and recorded his statement.

During cross-examination, PW1 stated that the Gram Panchayat

Sarpanch has given permission to construct building and they did not obtain any written permission from the Gram Panchayat. Further, he stated that he do not know the survey number in which, he raised the pillars. Without giving any permission from Gram Panchayat, PW1’s

Sangam raised construction. He do not know the survey numbers also, in which, the building was raised. He further stated that the land in which, he raised pillars is adjacent to Mahila Bhavan and he do not know the said land is situated in Sy.No.191.

The prosecution alleges that A1, A3 to A18 and A10 to A24 threatened the complainant and his sangam members to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as deposit, otherwise, they will impose social boycott on 15 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

them, due to fear, the complainant and his sangam members paid an amount of Rs.50,000/-, for which, PW1 stated that he did not state the denomination of Rs.50,000/- deposited before VDC and also do not remember at what date. He denied the suggestions given by the counsel for defence about the making of announcement in the loud speakers stating that no one speak to SC Mala community people etc., as they were boycotted from the village and no one should milk to them, no one should work for the Mala community as cattle herders and no one should supply pesticides to the persons to the SC Mala community and also denied about the constructions made unauthorizedly. He further denied that there was no social boycott of SC Community people and that there was no such announcement made in the loud speaker in the village.

20.PW1 in his evidence, admitted that they did not obtained permission from G.P. for construction of building and he did not deposit any amount of

Rs.50,000/- before the VDC. He further deposed that the amount of

Rs.50,000/- was collected from the caste people, but he never stated about social boycott by the accused on the date of incident. As per Ex.P1, the SC caste people were boycotted by VDC and the VDC demanded

Rs.50,000/- towards fine amount or else, they would boycott the caste people, as such, they gave amount to Surukunta Sreenu and still the social boycott is going on. Further, the VDC members threatened them, if they informed to police about social boycott.

He further admitted that he did not gave any document showing the 16 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

land, where alleged constructions were going on and basing on that, this case was arosed.

21.PW2-Are Render, who is one of the eye-witnesses, deposed that there is Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam in their village and he was a Cashier of said Sangam. As per the permission of members of Mahila Bhavan, in the month of August, 2018, they started construction of Ambedkar

Bhavan, situated adjacent to Mahila Bhavan, which belongs to Mahila

Bhavan and raised pillars. The members of VDC came there and stopped the construction, as there was a godown, the VDC members asked them to raise construction by leaving some land for way to godown, there is already way. As such, they stopped the construction. The members of

VDC took Rs.50,000/- from Mala community with an intention to settle dispute, though there were discussion in that regard, no solution was suggested to them. In this regard, the VDC members socially boycotted them on 24.12.2018, as such, they made a complaint to the police on 02.01.2019 against the members of VDC. He further deposed that VDC members boycotted them stating that no one should work for Mala

Committee as cattle harder; should not allowed to give milk in the milk centre; should not allow the tractor drivers to work their community people and their community drivers were also not allowed to work to other community people. If any one violates the decision of VDC, he shall be imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-.

During cross-examination, PW2 admitted that they did not give any 17 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

memorandum to the Dist. Collector in Praja Vaani stating that village elders boycotted the SC community people regarding Ambedkar Library on 24.12.2018 and seeking permission to construct the Ambedkar Library.

Mahila Bhavan members orally instructed them to construct Ambedkar

Bhavan in the said land situated adjacent to Mahila Bhavan. One Tirupathi resident of Marampally village running the milk centre. He denied the suggestions given by the counsel for the defence that they started construction without obtaining any permission from Gram Panchayat and the VDC members did not collect an amount of Rs.50,000/- from them and there was no social boycott as stated by him and that the VDC members did not proclaim to impose fine of Rs.10,000/- on the persons who violated the social boycott. He further denied that the VDC members did not obstruct anyone to work for the SC Mala community and they did not stop

Mala community persons from working for other community people and that he is deposing false.

22.PW2 never specifically stated about the names of the persons from whom the amount of Rs.50,000/- was collected. The defence counsel questioned this witness whether they gave any memorandum to the Dist.

Collector in Praja Vaani that village elders boycotted SC community people regarding Ambedkar Library on 24.12.2018 and seeking permission to construct Ambedkar Library. Mahila Bhavan members orally instructed them to construct Ambedkar Bhavan in the said construction situated adjacent to Mahila Bhavan. One Tirupati resident of Marampally village 18 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

running Milk Centre, but he nowhere stated about the social boycott as mentioned in Ex.P1/report. This witness did not state about the alleged incident that was occurred on 24.12.2018, but the complaint was given on 02.01.2019.

23.PW3-Are Ravindranath, who is the eye-witness, deposed that there is Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam in their village and he was a Secretary of said Sangam. In the month of August, 2018, they dug the pillar pits in the land, situated adjacent to Mahila Bhavan, Marampally village, while they were digging the pillar pits, the members of VDC i.e., A1 to A18, A20 to

A25 along with A19 came there and stopped the work and asked them to construct the building by leaving some land to facilitate the passage of vehicles, but they informed to you that it is not possible. After some days, the VDC members called them to discuss about the construction of

Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam and said that to deposit Rs.50,000/- with VDC to discuss the same and threatened to deposit the said amount, as such, they deposited Rs.50,000/- to VDC, but they left the meeting place by taking the said amount of Rs.50,000/-. He further deposed that VDC members socially boycotted them on 24.12.2018 and they did not listen to them, on the next day, when they went to milk collecting centre, they did not collect the milk from them, on questioning, they stated that the VDC imposed fine if they collect milk from them. On the same day, the cattle harder refused to take their cattle, as he also informed the same, no villager calling SC committee people for attending labour work and also 19 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

stopped from attending the tractor driving work by SC community tractors drivers and the tailors also did not stitch cloths belongs to SC Mala community people with a fear that VDC may impose fine. On 02.01.2019, they made a complaint to police.

During cross-examination, PW3 stated that for making any construction in the village one has to take permission from the Gram

Panchayath in writing and no permission was taken by them from the

Gram Panchayath for construction of Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam Bhavan.

He adds that the then Sarpanch Loka Sattavva permitted them orally to construct Yuvajana Sangam Bhavan. He stated that the place in which they started construction of Bhavan belongs to Government. Neither they made any application to the concerned authority seeping permission to construct Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam Bhavan nor permission was granted. After stopping the construction work at first instance in the month of August, 2018, they did not resume work again.

He denied that on the complaint made by the legal heirs of Kummari

Gangaram with the village elders stating that they are illegally constructing a building in their land and the village elders decided and told to them to stop the illegal construction and they bore-grudge against them and lodged this false report by him. He adds that earlier it was belongs to

Kummari Gangaram, thereafter, the said land was allotted to SC community people. He stated that no allotment letter was handed over to the police. He denied that the VDC members neither collected Rs.50,000/- 20 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

from them not socially boycotted them and the VDC socially boycotted them on 24.12.2018 as they did not listen to them and on the next day, when they went to milk collecting centre, they did not collect the milk from them and when they questioned about the same, they stated that VDC imposes fine if they collect the milk from them.

He denied that on the same day, cattle harder also refused to take their cattle as he also informed that fine will be imposed if the cattle belonging to SC Mala community were taken for grazing and that no villager calling SC committee people for attending labour work and also stopped from attending tractor driving work by the SC community tractor drivers and the tailors also did not stitch cloth belong to SC Mala community people with a fear that VDC may impose fine. He denied that he did not state in his stated that on 25.12.2018, they had been to mil collecting center to give milk and they refused to collect from them and when they questioned, they informed to them that VDC imposed fine on them.

24.PW3 also reiterated that no permission was obtained from G.P. for construction of Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam Bhavan, but on oral instructions of the then Sarpanch, they started construction. Further, he admitted that the place where they started construction belonged to

Government. He stated that the place in which they started construction of Bhavan belongs to Government. Neither they made any application to the concerned authority seeping permission to construct Ambedkar 21 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

Yuvajana Sangam Bhavan nor permission was granted. Therefore, it can be understood that the construction where allegedly taking place is belonged to Government, for which, it is necessary to obtain permission for construction of Bhavan and admittedly, they have not taken any permission. In the month of August, 2018, the construction was stopped and they did not resume the work again. But, the incident was happened and was not explained by Pws 1 to 3 after long lapse of four months? He further adduced that the said land was belonged to Kummari Gangaram, thereafter, it was allotted to SC community people, but no documentary proof was handover to police. As per his evidence, it can be understood that on account of village politics, this case might have foisted against all the accused, since these three witnesses never stated about the social boycott allegedly made by all accused on 24.12.2018 and collected

Rs.50,000/- towards fine amount.

25.PW4-Bantu Rajeshwer, who is the eye-witness, deposed that that there is Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam in their village and he was a member of said Sangam. As per the permission of Sarpanch Loka Sathavva, in the month of August, 2018, they started construction of Ambedkar

Granthalayam in the place, which is situated adjacent to Mahila Bhavan in

SC colony, Marempally, while the construction was at pillars stage, the members of VDC, Marampally i.e., A1 to A18, A20 to A25 came there and stopped the construction, on their question, the accused stated that if the construction is undertaken, it would cause obstruction to the passage to 22 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

go to Godown and they informed to them that the width of said place is about two lorries can pass at a time and they proceed with the construction. On that, the accused (VDC members) decided to deposit

Rs.50,000/- by them for discussion about construction of Ambedker

Granthalayam and the accused (VDC) and they also deposited Rs.50,000/- each with A1, though held talks, VDC members left the panchayath by informing that they will decide and intimate, but they did not decide anything. They stopped the said construction. He further deposed that on 24.12.2018, all the other community elders decided to boycott the SC

Mala community people and A1 informed the same to them. The accused boycotted them and did not allow to give milk to collection centre; did not allow them to purchase pesticide from the shops of other community people; stopped the cattle herders; did not allow the tailors from stitching their cloths; did not allow them to collect stitched cloths from his village tailors; did not allow the tractor drivers to attend the work in their fields and also not allowed the labours to work in their fields. A1 further informed that if any body violates the social boycott call, shall be penalized by imposing fine of Rs.10,000/-. On 05.01.2019, police examined and recorded his statement.

During cross-examination, PW4 admitted that he did not state in his statement to the police stating that they started construction of Ambedkar

Grandalayam; the VDC consists it members from all communities. He stated that godown belongs to Primary Agricultural Cooperative Society 23 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

and in it, the pesticides are stores for consumption by all the agriculturist on that area, the reason for boycotting them because they did not listen to

VDC members regarding the construction of a building in the place adjacent to Mahila Bhavan. He admitted that for a construction of a house or a building, permission from the concerned authority is necessary. In the village, Gram Panchayath Secretary is the authorized person to issue permission for the construction of a building. He admitted that the Gram

Panchayath Secretary stops the illegal construction by issuing a prior notice. He adds that their construction is not an illegal construction as such, no permission is required and he denied that he is deposing false.

26.PW4 as per his evidence, stated that as per VDC, consists of its members from all the communities and the godown belonged to primary agriculture co-op. Society and the pesticides are stored for consumption by all agriculturists of that area. In such case, one of the ground mentioned in Ex.P1 that these people are not provided with any pesticides, proves false. He further admitted that the reason for boycotting them that they were not listen to VDC members regarding construction of building in the place adjacent to Mahila Bhavan. Admittedly, the place where started construction belonged to Government, therefore, it is the duty of VDC to stop any illegal constructions belonged to government land. He too admitted that for any construction, permission from Gram Panchayat is very much necessary. The Gram Panchayat Secretary also issued notice to stop illegal construction by issuing prior notice. His evidence is self- 24 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

contradictory, so far as the construction of building illegally in the government land.

27.PW5-Are Rajanna is also the eye-witness, who deposed that about three years ago, on one day, Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam members dug the pillar pits for construction of Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam Bhavan in a vacant place, situated adjacent to Mahila Bhavan in Marampally village, laid the pillars. The members of VDC, Marampally asked them to construct the building by leaving some place to freely passage of vehicles to godown and they informed to them there is a more place, they stopped Ambedkar

Yuvajana Sangam building construction work, as they asked to stop construction. On request of members of VDC, they i.e., Ambedkar

Yuvajana Sangam people and VDC members deposited Rs.50,000/- each with VDC for discussion about the matter, but the issue was not resolved, they left the place without any decision. He further deposed that five days thereafter, he came to know that SC community people were boycotted and his daughter-in-law Sattemma informed that the tailor Taidha Sayanna was not returning the stitched cloths, as such, he approached T.Sayanna to know about the reason, then, he informed that VDC members asked him not to return the cloths, as they were boycotted. The VDC members also not allowed them to purchase pesticide from other community people; not allowed them to give milk in the milk collecting centre; not allowed the cattle herder for grazing their cattle; stopped the tractor driver to plough their lands and also proclaimed in the village if any body violates the 25 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

social boycott, they shall be penalized.

During cross-examination, PW5 stated that previously, he worked as as a Sarpanch of Marampally village. He admitted that the VDC members first asked them to construct Bhavan by leaving some place and they did not ask them not to construct the Bhavan, for raising a construction of building one has to take permission from concerned authority. There was no permission from the Panchayath Secretary of DPO in writing to make a construction of Bhavan and he adds that the then Sarpanch orally permitted them to constructed the Bhavan. He admitted that Gram

Panchayath sarpanch has no power to issue permission for construction of building without the resolution of Gram Panchayath and the people from

Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam made a complaint in Prajavani before the

Collector, Nizamabad stating that SC community boycotted and seeking permission for construction of Ambedkar Library.

He stated that he do not remember when Ambedkar Yuvajana

Sangam people and VDC members sat together to discuss with the issue.

They stopped the construction in August itself when the villagers asked them to construct the building by leaving some place.

He denied that neither his daughter-in-law went to tailor/T.Sayanna and he did not refuse to return the stitched clothes to his daughter-in-law nor he went to the said tailor to know about the fact and he did not state to him that the VDC members impose fine on him if he violates their order 26 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

of social boycott. He also denied that the VDC members never boycotted them and they deposing false stating that they also not allowed them to purchase pesticide from other community people, not allowed them to give milk in the milk collecting center and they also not allowed the cattle herder for grazing their cattle and stopped the tractor driver to plough their lands and they never proclaimed in the village if anybody violates the social boycott, they shall be penalized.

He also denied that that this case has been foisted against the VDC members in order to threat them to proceed with their illegal constructions as they asked them to leave some place and the said land belongs to some other persons and that it was not a government land and the construction of the building is illegal and he is deposing false.

28.PW5 also reiterated that construction of building one has to take permission from Panchayath Secretary of DPO in writing and they started construction on the oral instructions of the then Sarpanch. He further admitted that Sarpanch had no power to issue permission for construction of building without resolution of Gram Panchayat. He further admitted that they never made any representation before the Collector about social boycotting the SC community and seeking permission for construction of

Ambedkar Bhavan. He too admitted that they stopped construction in the month of August, when the villagers asked them to construct the building by leaving some place. He denied about the social boycott pertaining to stopping the tailoring work, supplying of milk, supplying of pesticides and 27 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

rendering services to them, that all the accused committed the same as mentioned in Ex.P1. If really, the social boycott was done, they ought to have made complaint before the Collector for taking necessary against the people, but they have not done so far. PW5 is also one of the witnesses admitted that out of 25 accused, there were some other persons, who do not belonged to VDC. He also denied for the suggestions given by the counsel for defence pertaining to social boycott allegedly made by the all the accused.

29.PW6-Are Rajender is also the eye-witness, who deposed that there is

Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam in Marampally village and he is the Vice

President of said Sangam. In the month of August, 2018, they started construction of Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam Bhavan in the land adjacent to Mahila Bhavan in SC colony, they laid pillars of said land, which belongs to Government, with the oral permission of Sarpanch. While the construction was in progress, the VDC members asked them to leave some land, as it was obstructing the road, but they leave some land and there was no obstruction to pathway. The VDC members asked to stop construction, but they informed them that they proceed with construction as already some place was left. In this connection, the VDC members asked them to deposit Rs.50,000/- to discuss about the matter, as such, they deposed Rs.50,000/- with VDC Marampally, but there is no solution, as such, they started construction work and again the VDC members asked them to stop the construction, then they filed a case. He further 28 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

deposed that on 24.12.2018, VDC members boycotted the SC community people, when he called the Srinivas, who was the tractor driver to attend the work, but he refused to the same on the ground that he will be penalized by imposing fine of Rs.10,000/- by VDC if he attends the work for SC community people. The VDC members did not allow to purchase pesticide from other community people; did not allow them to give milk in milk collecting centre; did not allow the cattle herders for grazing their cattle; stopped the tractor driver to plough their lands; did not allow them to stitch their clothes with the tailors of Marampally village and also proclaimed in the village that if anybody violates the social boycott, they shall be penalized.

During cross-examination, PW6 admitted that out of 25 accused, there are some other persons, who do not belongs to the VDC. He denied the following suggestions that: he did not state in his statement before the police stating that they did not stop the construction of the building as already they left some land, there was no solution they proceeded with the construction of a building and again the VDC members came and stopped the building construction work, the said land situated in SC colony and it belongs to government and that also the then Sarpanch orally gave permission to construct the building before starting the construction itself.

It is denied that he never called Srinivas Tractor driver to attend the work and he never refused to work for them and he did not state that VDC members imposed fine of Rs.10,000/- if he attends the work and that no 29 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

such incident occurred and this case has been foisted against the accused the village elders stopped their illegal construction and the land in which they started the construction belongs to Kummari Gangaram and fall in

Sy.No.191 and they were not boycotted by anyone.

30.PW7 also admitted the VDC consists of members from all community villagers. He admitted that there were seven members belonged to his community in VDC. All communities will used to participate in the VDC meetings and the VDC will not take any decision which is not agreed by all the members of VDC against any issue or person. There is no evidence on record that pertaining to social boycott whether the VDC has taken any decision are agreed by all the members before implementing the social boycott against this community people. He too admitted that the land is government land and necessary to obtain permission. He stated that he do not know whether family members of Kummari Gangaram made a complaint before VDC and in Praja Vaani programme to the Collector against the constructions were started by them in their land. Admittedly, the said land is belonged to Kummari Gangaram. But, nowhere stated that

Kummari Gangaram belonged to SC community or not. He also denied about the suggestions given by the defence counsel that the accused never social boycotted them as mentioned in Ex.P1.

31.PW7-Bantu Devid, who is also the eye-witness, deposed that in the year, 2018, they started construction of Ambedkar Bhavan in the land situated adjacent to Mahila Sangam Bhavan in his village, they erected the 30 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

pillars in the said land, at that time, the VDC members raised objection for the same, the VDC members informed to them to raise construction by moving inside, as it was obstructing the way, they informed to VDC members that there are other constructions and encroachments after removing them, they also remove the said constructions. The VDC members agreed to settle the issue in meeting by depositing Rs.50,000/- each and a meeting was convened and they deposited Rs.50,000/- with A1 and when the discussion was in progress, the VDC members left there without deciding the issue, thereafter, the VDC members have decided to boycott all his community people. When they approached the people in village to meet their requirements, they refused to sell milk, fertilizers etc., and the VDC members also stopped sending the tractors for attending the agriculture works and they were also not called to attend the agriculture labour work, later, they approached the police against the VDC members.

During cross-examination, PW7 admitted that the VDC consists of members from all the communities of the village; there were seven persons in the VDC from his community; the people from all the communities participate in the VDC meetings; the VDC will not take any decision which is not agreed by all the members of the VDC against any issue or person; and one to reach the godowns, one has to pass through the place, where they started constructions. He stated that the land in which they raised the pillars belongs to Government and he does not know whether the said land was allotted for construction of Ambedkar Bhavan 31 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

and there was no written permission for raising that constructions from

Gram Panchayath. The lorries and tractors will pass through that way to reach the said godown. He stated that he does not know whether the family members of Kummari Gangaram made a complaint to VDC and in the Praja Vani Programme to the Collector against the constructions started by them in their land.

He also denied that the VDC requested them not to raise constructions as it is a private land and the same in the knowledge of VDC and also requested them to stop the constructions and not to create any unnecessary disturbance in the village. He denied that in order to create in the mind of the accused as they requested them not to proceed with the constructions, they filed this false case against the accused and the accused never boycotted them in any respect and all the activities were continued without any restrictions.

32.PW7 also admitted the VDC consists of members from all community villagers. He admitted that there were seven members belonged to his community in VDC. All communities will used to participate in the VDC meetings and the VDC will not take any decision which is not agreed by all the members of VDC against any issue or person. There is no evidence on record that pertaining to social boycott whether the VDC has taken any decision are agreed by all the members before implementing the social boycott against this community people. He too admitted that the land is government land and necessary to obtain permission. He stated that he 32 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

do not know whether family members of Kummari Gangaram made a complaint before VDC and in Praja Vaani programme to the Collector against the constructions were started by them in their land. Admittedly, the said land is belonged to Kummari Gangaram. But, nowhere stated that

Kummari Gangaram belonged to SC community or not. He also denied about the suggestions given by the defence counsel that the accused never social boycotted them as mentioned in Ex.P1.

33.PW8-Putti Kondaiah, who is also another eye-witness, who deposed that in the month of August, 2018, they raised pillars for constructing a building i.e., Ambedkar Bhavan in the vacant land, which is situated adjacent to Mahila Bhavan near to the village tank band, the VDC,

Marampally raised objections and asked them to not to construct the building, as it causes obstruction to road way, when they left sufficient place for road and started construction. On 24.12.2018, all the villagers including VDC members sat together to discuss about the matter and the

VDC members asked their community people to deposit Rs.50,000/-, as such, they deposited Rs.50,000/- to A1 and after depositing the amount, the VDC members left the place without any discussion. He further deposed that on the next day, when they went to tender milk, they did not receive on the ground that they were boycotted and also said that a fine of

Rs.10,000/- would be imposed if the milk is collected; they were not allowed to attend agriculture work; their clothes were not stitched at tailoring shop and he came to know that VDC members boycotted 80 Mala 33 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

families and if anybody cooperate with Mala community people, they would impose Rs.10,000/- as fine.

During cross-examination, PW8 admitted that he did not state in his statement to the police that he came to know that VDC members would impose Rs.10,000/- as fine whoever cooperate with Mala community people. It is denied that he did not state in his statement to the police that on 24.12.2018, all the community members sat together to discuss the issue of construction of Ambedkar Bhavan and they deposited

Rs.50,000/- with A1 on their demand and the VDC members left the place without any discussion. He stated that he neither made an application to the Gram Panchayath seeking permission for construction of Ambedkar

Bhavan nor the Panchayath Secretary issued written permission for the said construction and he does not know in which survey number the said land is situated.

34.PW8 admitted that he did not state in his statement to the police that he came to know that VDC members would impose Rs.10,000/- as fine whoever cooperate with Mala community people. He stated that he neither made an application to the Gram Panchayath seeking permission for construction of Ambedkar Bhavan nor the Panchayath Secretary issued written permission for the said construction and he does not know in which survey number the said land is situated. He too denied about the suggestions given by the social boycott by all the accused that they were never not made any social boycott as alleged.

34 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

35.PW9-Bantu Rajeshwar, who is one of the mediators for scene of offence, deposed that on 05.01.2019, he was called by the police at

Cherukatta, Marampally village regarding the disputes to Ambedkar

Bhavan Construction, he along with LW23 went to scene of offence and disputes regarding the construction of Ambedkar Bhavan, police came and ascertain PW1 informed about the incident, there was a disputes arose regarding to construction of Ambedkar Bhavan. Panchanama was conducted and drawn rough sketch and he affixed his signature in panchanama, Ex.P2 is his signature on panchanama. The boundaries of scene offence is western side there is pond, on the eastern side there is a road, on the southern side there is Anakatta and on the Northern side there is Mahila Bhavan.

During cross-examination, PW9 admitted that PWs 1 and 2 did not inform to him he is deposing at the instance of police and for construction of any building, the permission of Gram Panchayath is required. He stated that no survey number was mentioned in the complaint and he did not know whether the construction is illegal or illegal and he has not verified regarding the construction of Ambedkar Bhavan and also not verified any document whether the disputes site belongs to Government or a private land and PW1 belongs to his caste.

36.PW9 clearly admitted that he deposed at the instance of police.

37.PW10-P.Rahul, who is one of the mediators for confession and 35 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

recovery panchanama, deposed that in January, 2019, at about 8.45 a.m., he was called to ACP Office, Armoor, as he went to there for another work.

He further deposed that he does not know whether any other person called along with him and he was asked to affix his signature on blank papers under Ex.P3. He did not support the prosecution and was declared as hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. During his cross- examination, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution.

38.PW11-Andhe Ramulu, who is the the then ACP, Nizamabad, deposed that he know LW28-P.Raghavender, S.I. of Police, PS Nandipet, as he worked during his tenure. On 02.01.2019, at 7.00 p.m., LW28 received a report, basing on it, LW28 registered this case in Cr.No.16/2019 for the offences U/s.384 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act against you-accused persons and issued Ex.P4/FIR and as per

Ex.P5/proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad, he took up the investigation in this case. He further deposed that, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 6, Lws 3 to 9, on 05.01.2019, visited the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama under the crime details form/Ex.P2 and drawn rough sketch in the presence of PW9 and LW23. On his requisition, LW27 issued community certificate of you-accused and PW1 under Ex.P6 along with annexures. On 07.01.2019, he examined Lws 13 to 17 and on 08.01.2019, he examined Lws 18 to 22. He further deposed that on 06.01.2019, he apprehended the accused persons and recorded A1’s confession 36 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

statement and seized Mo.1-Rs.50,000/- (Rs.500/- x 100) from A1’s possession in the presence of LW26 and PW10 under Ex.P7. On completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused persons.

During cross-examination, PW11 stated that, he does not know whether every village has Mala Sangam, he has not verified the disputed land whether it belongs to Government or private property. After verification of record of Gram Panchayath no permission is obtained for construction of disputed structure. Similarly, no government proceedings were available for construction building in the disputed site. He further stated that he has not seized any account books of VDC pertaining to fine amount allegedly collected from PW1 and he is not aware whether

Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam filed any requisition before the Praja Vani on 24.12.2018 for seeking permission of Ambedkar Library.

He admitted that he is not aware whether any inspection was conducted by MRO, Nandipet and that he filed a report the land in question is a patta land in Sy.No.191 admeasuring Ac.0-30 guntas. He is not aware whether a phani was enclosed along with report wherein the total extent of land in Sy.No.191 is Ac.0-30 guntas and PW1 did not state

before him that in the evening hours VDC members made an

announcement in loud speaker saying that no one speak SC community people as they boycotted no one should give milk to them, and no one should work as cattle herds for Mala community and no one should supply 37 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

to Mala community. He stated that PW1 did not depose before him that the land in disputes belong to him.

He admitted that an amount of Rs.50,000/- is collected jointly by all the members of the community for payment of alleged fine amount and

VDC shall consist including Malas and as per his investigation, an amount of Rs.50,000/- collected by the VDC. He stated that his investigation does not reveals dissent by any of the members regarding the resolution. It is admitted by PW11 that no persons by Mala community as accused in this case and A11, A23, A24 belong to Madiga Community, A17 belongs to ST community. He stated that PW2 did not state before the police that alleged disputed site belong to Mala community, PW3 stated to him that they were constructing Ambedkar Yuvajana Building, but not Ambedkar

Granthalayam. It is admitted that PW3 did not stated that there is sufficient road/land for passing of two lorries at a time. He stated that

PW3 did not mentioned in his statement about collection an amount of

Rs.10,000/- as fine if any persons violets the resolution, PW6 did not state that has there was not solution from VDC as they left some lands as no objection to path way, PW6 did not state that the land belongs to SC community and it is government land, oral permission was obtained for the construction of the building.

He admitted that PW8 state the VDC said that they will collect fine.

He denied that no panchanama was conducted in the presence PW9, LW23 and similarly no panchanama was conducted in the presence of PW10 and 38 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

LW24 and obtained signatures on white papers and filed false charge sheet against accused persons. It is denied that no investigation was conducted in fair manner and no boycott of Mala community members and no body stopped cooperating members and no amount was collected from Mala community members and false case was registered against the accused persons.

39.PW11 admitted that he did not verify the land belonged to government or private property. PW1 omitted to state before the

Investigating Officer as well as in his statement about the social boycott announcement made by the VDC members in a loud speaker. PW11 stated that after verification of record of Gram Panchayath no permission is obtained for construction of disputed structure. Similarly, no government proceedings were available for construction building in the disputed site.

He further stated that he has not seized any account books of VDC pertaining to fine amount allegedly collected from PW1 and he is not aware whether Ambedkar Yuvajana Sangam filed any requisition before the Praja Vani on 24.12.2018 for seeking permission of Ambedkar Library.

He admitted that he is not aware whether any inspection was conducted by MRO, Nandipet and that he filed a report the land in question is a patta land in Sy.No.191 admeasuring Ac.0-30 guntas. He is not aware whether a phani was enclosed along with report wherein the total extent of land in

Sy.No.191 is Ac.0-30 guntas and PW1 did not state before him that in the evening hours VDC members made an announcement in loud speaker 39 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

saying that no one speak SC community people as they boycotted no one should give milk to them, and no one should work as cattle herds for Mala community and no one should supply to Mala community. He stated that

PW1 did not depose before him that the land in disputes belong to him.

He admitted that an amount of Rs.50,000/- is collected jointly by all the members of the community for payment of alleged fine amount and VDC shall consist including Malas and as per his investigation, an amount of

Rs.50,000/- collected by the VDC. He stated that his investigation does not reveals dissent by any of the members regarding the resolution. It is admitted by PW11 that no persons by Mala community as accused in this case and A11, A23, A24 belong to Madiga Community, A17 belongs to ST community. He stated that PW2 did not state before the police that alleged disputed site belong to Mala community, PW3 stated to him that they were constructing Ambedkar Yuvajana Building, but not Ambedkar

Granthalayam. It is admitted that PW3 did not stated that there is sufficient road/land for passing of two lorries at a time. He stated that

PW3 did not mentioned in his statement about collection an amount of

Rs.10,000/- as fine if any persons violets the resolution, PW6 did not state that has there was not solution from VDC as they left some lands as no objection to path way, PW6 did not state that the land belongs to SC community and it is government land, oral permission was obtained for the construction of the building. He admitted that PW8 state the VDC said that they will collect fine.

40 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

40. As per the evidence on record and in view of omissions and contradictions, the prosecution witnesses miserably failed to establish that all the accused persons committed offence against them and they were socially boycotted and fine was collected. The fine was collected from the

VDC members, but whom the entire amount was collected by the I.O. was not stated in his evidence to return the same to the owner of the amount.

There is no evidence on record that the said VDC members collected the amount from SC/ST community people in lieu of fine. Since MO.1 is not established by anyone of the witnesses that they paid the amount belonged to them and it was collected by the VDC members so as to return the same to the persons who paid the amount. Under such circumstances, it is the duty of the Court to confiscate the same to

Government as the amount belonged to whom was not established by the prosecution witnesses.

41.With the above discussion, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused Nos.1, 3 to 8, 10 to 12, 14 to 18, 20 to 24 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/s.384 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of SCs/STs (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 and accused Nos.1 to 10, 12, 14 to 16, 18, 20 to 22 and 25 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/s.3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and the benefit of doubt shall rightly be given to the accused persons. As there is no conclusive evidence, as such, the accused Nos.1 to 12, 14 to 18, 20 to 25 can not be 41 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

found guilty for the said offences, with which they charged. The point is answered accordingly.

42. In the result, the accused Nos.1, 3 to 8, 10 to 12, 14 to 18, 20 to 24 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.384 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and the accused Nos.1 to 10, 12, 14 to 16, 18, 20 to 22 and 25 are found not guilty for the offences U/s.3 (1) (r) (zc), 2 (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

As such, they are acquitted of the same Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this Judgment. The MO.1-Rs.50,000/- cash shall be confiscated to Government after the appeal time is over. The unmarked non valuable case property, if any, shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

The accused No.19 was died and the case against A19 is abated on 09.01.2020. The accused No.13 was died and the case against A13 is abated on 01.02.2024.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 2nd day of February, 2024.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

: : APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses examined :: ::

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Are Rajeshwar (LW1). Complainant.

42 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

PW2:Are Rajender (LW2).Witness. PW3:Are Ravindranath (LW3).Witness. PW4:Bantu Rajeshwar (LW10).Witness. PW5:Are Rajanna (LW11).Witness. PW6:Are Rajender (LW12).Witness. PW7:Bantu Devid (LW14).Witness. PW8:Putti Kondaiah (LW16).Witness. PW9:Bantu Rajeshwar (LW24).Panch for scene of offence. PW10:P.Rahul (LW25).Panch for confession and recovery. PW11:AndheRamulu,ACP,I.O and laid charge sheet. Armoor, (LW29).

FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

: : EXHIBITS MARKED : :

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1:Report. - Nil - Ex.P2: Signature of PW9 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3:Signature of PW10 on confession and recovery panchanama. Ex.P4:First information report. Ex.P5:Proceeding issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad to PW11. Ex.P6:Caste certificate along with annexures of PW1 and accused persons issued by LW27-Smt.L.Alivelu, Tahsildar, Nandipet. Ex.P7:Confession panchanama of A1.

:: MATERIAL OBJECTS ::

MO.1: Rs.50,000/- cash.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

43 of 42 Spl.SC.No.41/2019 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nandipet Vs Surukanti Srinivas & others, Dt: 02.02.2024.

:: CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT ::

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs/STs

(PoA) ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024

Spl.SC.No.41 of 2019

(Cr.No.6 of 2019 of PS.Nandipet)

Between:

The State represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armoor Division (PS Nandipet).

.. Complainant

A N D

Surukunti Srinivas @ Gangaram and twenty four others.

(*A19 died and the case against A19 is abated on 09.01.2020).

.. Accused

1Date of offence 24.12.2018. 2Date of report or complaint 02.01.2019. 3Date of apprehension of accused06.01.2019. 4Date of release on bail06.01.2019. 5Date of commitment--- 6Date of commencement of trial26.09.2022. 7Date of close of trial13.07.2023. 8Date of Judgment 02.02.2024. 9Explanation of delay and remarks-- Encl: Copy of Judgment.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. To, The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT

FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE & PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES, NIZAMABAD.

PRESENT:SMT. M.KANAKA DURGA, I Additional Sessions Judge, Nizamabad FAC: (SPL. JUDGE, POCSO COURT, NIZAMABAD)

Dated this the 24th day of June, 2025

P/SC No.61 of 2021

[Cr. No.367 of 2020 of P.S. Town-I, Nizamabad]

Between: The State through PS Town-I, Nizamabad represented by Inspector of Police, PS Town-I, Nizamabad. …Complainant

A N D

Pothu Shiva Prasad, S/o. Later Ashaiah, Age:45 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Journalist, Akshara Patrika News Paper at Jawhar Road Pusalagalli, Nizamabad & Heredity RMP Doctor, R/o. H.No.2-4-104, Jandagalli near Gole Hanuman Temple opposite Women Police Station, Nizamabad.

...Accused

Plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Court: a Found not guilty and acquitted qFFo This case coming on 23.06.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Spl. Public Prosecutor, for the complainant, and of Sri Yerram Ganapathi, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, PS Town-I, Nizamabad filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 376(3) Amendment Act-2018, sec.420, 506 of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of 2/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

POCSO Act, 2012 in Cr.No.367/2020 of PS Town-she, Nizamabad alleging as under:

(a).The facts of the case are that on 13.10.2020 at 12:45 hrs, the LW.19/Inspector of Police, PS Town-I, Nizamabad visited the Govt.

General Hospital Nizamabad along with women staff and recorded the statement of the complainant/Rampally Mounika/Mother of the victim girl in which she contended that she is a resident of Metpally village

Jagityal District, her daughter Anusha/victim girl aged about 14 years is suffering with ill health, so her relative Raju/LW.3 informed that

Anusha’s health will be cured through Meditation at Nizamabad, on that on 13.07.2020, they went to Nizamabad along with victim on the suggestion of LW.3 and met one Pothu shiva Prasad/Accused for the treatment of Meditation, after examination the accused informed that they need to visit for 09 weeks on every Tuesday and Saturday for treatment, expenditure will be Rs.1,00,000/-, on that they accepted his demand and paid an amount of Rupees one lakh to him. So far they visited (07) Saturdays during which he took her daughter inside alone with him, kept her daughter for two hours, after two hours he would go out side and give some tablets to them and advised to use it. They trusted him as their daughter will be cured. But, on 08.10.2020 their 3/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 daughter suffered stomach ache, as such they visited Adya Hospital situated at Metpally, on examination the lady doctor Padma/LW.5 informed that their daughter was physically assaulted and private parts got damaged. On enquiry with their daughter, she informed that, the said accused took her inside the room in the name of treatment and arranged intoxicate smoke and given some medicine, later he physically participated intercourse with her and threatened to not to disclose the matter with her parents, if disclosed to anybody he will kill her. Due to lack of knowledge, today they went to Nizamabad and met with LW.4/Latha, Mahila Sangam District Secretary and disclosed the facts to her. Later they all went to the Aksharam Patrika office, where the accused resides and questioned him why he has done such thing, on that he replied that this is his way of treatment and he had physically participated in the intercourse and do whatever they want to do, threatened that they are ladies and they cannot do anything. Later they took victim to Govt. Hospital for treatment and informed the matter to police. The statement was written by women police and read over and explained in vernacular language and found it was true, then he had signed on the statement, the said statement concluded at 13:30 hours and he returned to PS on the same day at 13:45 hrs.

4/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

(b). Basing on the contents of the statement, the LW.19 registered a case in Cr.No.367/2020 U/sec.376 (3) Amendment act 2018, sec.420,506 IPC, Sec 5(L) r/w 6 of POSCO Act 2012 and dispatched the FIR to the concerned and took up further investigation into this case during which, he visited the PNC ward situated at 1st

Floor of Govt. General Hospital Nizamabad along with Women staff and deputed WASI/LW.07 to record the statement of victim Girl/LW.2.

The WASI/LW.07 recorded the statement of victim Girl/LW.2 under videography through LW.8. Thereafter the LW.19 filed requisition

before the LW.5 with a request to examine the victim and preserve the

semen and swabs etc., under the escort of WPC-2452 and PC-606.

Later the LW.19 visited the Scene of offence situated at Jawahar road

Poosalgally Nizamabad along with LW.1 and observed the scene of offence minutely and secured the presence of LW’s.10/Shankur

Narsaiah & 11/Gujjeti Naresh and conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized 1) Mixed oil 5 liters can contains 3 liters oil, 2)

Mugale azam 3x cap for Heart & sex 40 box each box 10 capsules, 3)

Chandra Prabavathi 2 box tab Ayurvedic, 4) 1 box steel contains some ayurvedic medicines-coins Tavidulu, black magic materials, 5) one book

Kshudara, 6) Book of Vedangi Sridhran kanduri, 7) Lal kitab remedies,

B) Some photographs of male & female, 9) Some receipts by Name 5/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 shiva Sai Jaganatmaka yoga Ashrayam-50, 10) Ayurvedic medicine boxes -5, 11) Ashika doop cups one packet, 12) Tiger symbol mat, 13)

Atar bottles -2 drawn rough sketch, photographs of the scene.Later, he secured the presence of witnesses LW’s.3 & 4 and examined and recorded their statements.

(c). While efforts on afoot to trace out the accused, on 13.07.2020 at 21:00 hrs, the accused went to Police Station and surrendered himself before the LW.19, as such the LW.19 secured the presence of LW’s.12/Karrolla Srinivas & 13/Janepally Sathyanarayana and recorded the confessional statement of accused, in which he reveled his particulars and confessed that he is native of Dubbagally,

Matpally village of Jagityal District and studied upto 10 class at Govt.

High School Metpally, his father used to practice Ayuvedic treatment to needy people, through that, he learned treatment as heredity, he had completed Journalist Certificate Course. Thereafter, he joined as

Journalist in the LAND News paper and worked with few years, after that he joined in the Media News in Hyderabad. Thereafter, he worked in the TELUGU BHAUTA News Paper stringer. In the year 1998, he got married with one Aparna and blessed with two children, one daughter namely Himaja of 22 yrs and one son namely Varun 20 years. In the 6/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 year 2010, he personally started AKSHAARA Daily News Paper at

Jawahar road Nizamabad in the Laxmaiah complex 1st floor of building by paying rent Rs. 4000/- per month. Under the cover of the Daily

News paper office he started Ayurvedi treatment to the needy persons, most probably he secured the needy persons his close near and dears by treating childless, weakness of nerves and body pains, weight loss and immunity booster enquiring and most of the treatment provided to the believers of black magic. He further confessed that he is providing treatment to the patients every staurday and Tuesday only by giving timely appointments on his convenience and fulfilling his sexual desires. In his treatment, he secured the Ood from Saibaba

Temple, Madhavanagar and Ayuvedic Medicines i.e., Ashwaganda,

Chandra Prabhavathi, Safi Tonic and Simkada from Ahmed &

Company, Nehru Park, Nizamabad. He collects amount from 50,000/- to 1,00,000/-from each patient. In the mean time he also ask the patients to meditation in his office room lonely. Most of the patients are from Nizamabad and Jagityal Districts. During the time of meditation, he used to lit Doop sticks and cups. The patients who may ever on meditation, he used to prepare special oil to apply to patients during his treatment and also he does black magic, as usually he treated the Anusha, age 14 years after removing the cloths he applied 7/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 the oil over her body and also same things to other patients, he also treated many of the patients and participated sexual intercourse in the past. He further confessed that about 3 months back one Jinam

Vanamala approached him for treatment, black magic to get her relief along with her son Rajkumar, he taken 1 lakh rupees for treatment charges, upon which he spent 20,000/- for his expenses and remaining 80,000/- kept in his cash drawer, who may ever participated intercourse he used to put point of treat to there husbands or parents by using his extraordinary powers, as he may kill them by making hypnosis. Most of the times he used to call the patients over his cell phone numbers 1) 9491188859, 2] 9059497590 and 3) 9491187771. As he is doing this work since long time, he does not remember the patient's names who were treated by him. One of his childhood friend

Raju contacted him and given reference of their relatives

Mounika/LW.1 and her minor daughter Anusha/Victim who was suffering with nervousness deceass and uncontrol of her natural call during night hours and she needed treatment and requested him to provided treatment, upon which in the month of July second week,

LW.1 and victim went to his office, met with him, requested to provide treatment, accordingly he had examined victim girl namely Anusha aged about 14 years and informed to visit [09] weeks i.e., on every 8/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

Tuesday and Saturday for treatment expenditures will be Rs.1,00,001/.

On that LW.1/Mounika accepted to pay the demand fees and paid an amount of Rupees one lakh to him and under gone treatment for (07) weeks of Saturdays. While he was providing treatment, he desired to have intercourse with the minor Victim girl, took her to his office room and closed the door arranged intoxicate smoke and mustard oil to her body after removing her cloths and he had forcibly participated in intercourse physically with her and threatened to not to disclose the matter with her parents, if disclosed to anybody he would kill her parents by using extraordinary powers through hypnosis. While he was participating in intercourse, he consume viagra stumilated tablets for get extra enjoyment and strength, so far he had participated in sexual Intercourse 4-5 times with the victim girl and also collected lakhs of amounts and some amounts were utilized for her personal expenses, among them he concealed some of the amount back side of the Goddes photos at his office, and he also kept the medicines and other materials which are used by him at the time of treatment in his office room.

(d). Further, the accused took out one small liquid bottle from his pocket by saying that he used the liquid to the patients and 9/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 applying their heads for sleepiness to patients, took out net cash rupees 1,00,000/- from his pant pocket and shown, on the instructions of Inspector of Police, the mediators observed and counted the currency notes and found Rs. 1,00,000/-[500/-x 200] under cover of confessional and seizure panchanama before the mediators. Further, the accused got seized 1] Kamasutra condums- [03], 2] Ozomon tablest-04, 3) Bee-Gra tablet -03, 4] Net cash Rs. 2. 20,000/-, found back side of the goddess photographs. The LW.19 seized the above under cover of seizure panchanama before the mediators. After completing the Seizure panchanama, the accused was brought to Police Station at 02:00 hrs. Thereafter the LW.19 affected the arrest of the accused by issuing arrest memo against him, after informing the grounds of their arrest to his relatives U/Sec. 50(A) Cr.P.C and followed the guidelines of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Further the arrested accused was produced before the Professor Forensic Department for his medical checkup to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad and also potency test. The

LW.17 conducted potency test on the accused and opined that "there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual intercourse.” Later, the arrested accused sent to Govt. General

Hospital Nizamabad for Covid test on examination he was Negative.

10/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

(e). Thereafter the LW.19 visited the Metpally and secured the presence of Lady doctor Dr.Padma/LW.5 and examined and recorded her statement. On requisition of LW.19 the LW.06/Head master of the school issued Bonofide certificate of the victim girl as per the Bonofide certificate the victim girl is 14 years 09 months 04 days as on date of incident (Date of Birth is 09.01.2006) vide Admn.No.689/2016 issued

date 14.10.2020. Further, the LW.19 examined and recorded the

statements of witnesses she.e., Lw’s 7 to 9 who assisted him in the investigation. Later, he obtained FSL report from the TSFSL Hyderabad.

The LW.14 analyzed the Material objects and furnished FSL report Vide.

No. ΤΟΧ/2874/2020, dated: 19.11.2020 which was received that, the item No.1 is analyzed and benzodiazepine a group of drug a sedative substance is found in it. Later he obtained FSL report from the TSFSL

Hyderabad. The LW.15 analyzed the Material objects and furnished FSL report Vide. No. SER/1616/2020, dated: 04.12.2020 which was received that, the item No. 1 to 6 are examined. Semen and spermatozoa are not detected on item No.s 1 to 6. Blood is not detected in item nos 5.

Blood and Foreign Material is not detected in item no 6. On the basis of FSL report, the LW.6 furnished final Opinion and opined that semen and spermotozoz are not detected on sent items, so there is no medical evidence of record sexual intercourse and nothing is 11/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

Suggestive of that she is not participated in sexual intercourse. The

LW-17 conducted potency test of the accused and examined him and furnished potency certificate and opined that it can be concluded that there is nothing to suggest that accused, is not capable of performing sexual of sexual intercourse vide SO.No.39/FMT/GMC-NZ8/2020 dated 14-10-2020. Further, the LW.19 filed requisition before the Hon’ble court on 12.12.2020 as the LW.2 is minor, in view point of investigation, the U/sec.164 Cr.P.C. statements of the victim girl was got recorded by the Hon'ble LW.18 on 19.12.2020. The item No.1 to 18 as per the list of property through form-60 n deposited in the Hon”ble court Ist ADJ court Nizamabad vide CPR. No. 25/2021. After collecting all the material evidence and objects, the LW.19 laid the charge sheet against the accused.

2.The charge-sheet was taken on file against the accused for the offences punishable U/sec.376(3) Amendment Act-2018, sec.420, 506 of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012.

3. On appearance of the accused, he was furnished with the copies of documents relied on by the prosecution, as required under

Sec.207 of Criminal Procedure Code.

4. Having heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and 12/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 learned Counsels and on considering the material on record, charges for the offences punishable under sec.376(3), 420 and 506 of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, are framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, wherein the accused denied the charge and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined

PWs.1 to 14, marked Exs.P1 to P14, Exs.D1 to D5 and also MO’s.1 to 18.

The accused did not examine any witnesses on his behalf.

6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the contents of incriminating evidence adduced against him by the prosecution witnesses, for which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides and perused the entire material on record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused for the

offences U/sec.376(3), 420 and 506 of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act ?

POINT:-

9. The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the offences u/sec.

13/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

Sec.376(3) of IPC: Punishment for rape Whoever, commits rape on a woman under sixteen years of age shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine : Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim : Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim.

Sec.420 of IPC: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also beliabletofine.

506 of IPC: Punishment for Criminal Intimidation

Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Sec.5(l)(j)(m) of POCSO Act, 2012: Aggravated penetrative sexual assault 14/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

(l) whoever commits penetrative sexual assault causing grievous hurt or causing bodily harm and injury or injury to the sexual organs of the child;

Sec.6 of POCSO Act, 2012:Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault (1) Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person and shall also be liable to fine, or with death.

(2) The fine imposed under sub-section (1) shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.

To substantiate the case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.14 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 and also MO’s.1 to

18. The prosecution says that on 13.07.2020 the LW.1/Complainant and

LW.2/victim Girl approached the accused for the treatment LW.2, on examination the accused given assurance to the LW.1 and suggested to visit (09) weeks on Saturday or Tuesday for the treatment and also demanded to pay rupees one lakh as fee, the LW-1 trusted his words and paid an amount of rupees one lakh to the accused and visited (07) weeks. While providing treatment, the accused took the victim Girl in 15/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 to the office room lonely and closed the door, arranged intoxicate smoke and applied mustard oil to her body after removing her cloths and consumed viagra stumilated tablest and forcibly participated intercourse physically on her against her ill and threatened to not to disclose the matter with her parents. The accused forcibly participated sexual intercourse 4-5 times with the minor victim girl against her ill.

10. PW.1/Rampally Mounika, Mother of the Victim girl, deposed that her daughter was not feeling well and suffering from Psychotic problem for that her brother-in-law informed that the accused, who is

Journalist then herself and her husband took their daughter to

Nizamabad from Metpally to Aksharam news paper office the accused advised them to bring their daughter every Tuesday and Saturday for 9 weeks and one lakh one rupee towards expenses, accordingly they gave amount to him. Further, they took their daughter to treatment for 9 weeks, the accused used to keep the girl in a room and used to keep smoke in the room in the form of meditation for 2 hours and her husband and herself used to be outside of the room, after two hours when their daughter would come back from room and gave tablets and asked them to come every weekend, they continued seven weeks, her daughter complained about stomach pain, they took her to Aadya 16/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

Hospital to Dr. Padma examined her daughter and told that she is suffering from infection in private parts and she was repeatedly raped her due to which she suffering from vaginal infection, the accused removed her clothes when she was taken into room and repeatedly committed rape on her further the accused threatened her that if she reveals the facts he would kill her parents.

She further deposed that her daughter informed that he used to penetrate your penis and committed sexual assault repeatedly. On the next day morning herself, her husband and her brother-in-law/Raj

Kumar went to Nizamabad Mahila Sangam President Sabbani Latha and informed about incident and went to Aksharam News Paper belongs to the accused and they all questioned to the accused for which he replied that he would do such a manner and report whom so ever concerned as he is influenced person and reporter. Then they all went to she-town PS Inspector of Police and recorded her statement by WSI basing on that police registered case against the accused and obtained her signature.

During cross examination, she submitted that he had taken his daughter to Doctor at Metpally and Karimnagar, after taking her daughter to psychologist doctor and to the accused only for treatment, 17/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 she took her daughter to several RMP doctors and Karimnagar

Psychologist doctor, she do not know the name of the doctor place of hospital and her husband was known name of the doctor place of hospital 5 to 6 RMP doctors and several hospitals, she do not know the names of the doctors and place of the hospitals, her brother-in-law’s name is Andhe Raj Kumar, he do not know how many times said Raj

Kumar, how many days he went to jail, she do not know whether he has taken amounts from public for sending them to gulf. Witness says that she do not know Raj Kumar personal affairs, said Raj Kumar advised them to take victim girl to accused as she is behaving due to black magic as such it can be cured by accused believing his words they brought her daughter to Nizamabad to accused, she do not know exact location of Akshara News Papers office but it was beside of flexi board at Pusalagally, she do not know whether many flexi shops were are situated at Pusalagally, she do not know Sabbani Latha Mahila

Sangam President, her brother in law by name Raj Kumar took them to

Latha who is Idwa Mahila Sangam, she do not know latha is working in

CPM party, she do not know whether said latha used to extract money falsely implicating the case against the public. She further submitted that her daughter was also taken along with them to Latha, she do not know who is having chilli powder, she was not at the scene and she do 18/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 not know who damaged office of Akshara news paper. She admitted that the said Raj kumar used to send people to Gulf countries. She submitted that she had not stated before the police about the instant that was replaced at office of Aksharam, on 13.10.2020 the accused threatened they were afraid and got frightened at the incident that was took place as such they took her daughter to Nizamabad Govt.

Hospital for treatment, on 13.10.2020 recorded her statement at noon but she do not remember exact time. She further admitted that after consulting Latha they went to office of the accused, she stated before police that accused that one lakh one rupee to accused, on 13.07.2020 when they visited the accused at first. She do not know whether latha suspended from CPM party. Originally neither herself nor her husband have no acquaintance with accused but on advice of her brother in law

Raj kumar took their daughter to latha. No certificate was given by Dr.

Padam during the examine of her daughter except oral say. Her

Daughter used to go to school only but not anywhere but near 2020 she never attended the school as such they took her to doctor for treatment. She further denied all the suggestions given to her by the defence counsel.

19/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

11. PW.2/Victim girl, deposed that in the year 2019 and 2020 she used to pass urine during night times unknowingly, her mother and father to Psychotic to Karimnagar where the doctor prescribed medicines but it was not cured. Then they went to Lw3 and his wife house and informed them that his friend residing at Nizamabad will cure the health issues and gave his phone number. In the month of

July, 2019 or 2020 she along with her parents went to one Pothu Shiva

Prasad then he enquired her details, her uncle advised them to go to

Pusalagalli, Aksharam Newspaper editor. Accordingly they went there and met with him. she can identify him. Then he advised them to come to him on every Saturday and Tuesday for nine weeks. Then they went to him for first week on Tuesday and he administered some fume and sent her parents outside and closed the door and asked to close her eyes and administered fume due to which she was fell unconsciousness and removed clothes and bite on her chest and between legs and committed rape on her. she cried for that and refused to do so. Then he also threatened her to kill if she reveal the same to her parents. He further informed to her parents Rs.1 lakh is incurred for treatment to continue treatment for nine weeks.

20/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

She further deposed that Then on next Saturday in the same week her father gave Rs.1 lakh to him and asked her father to put Rs.1 lakh before Maa Goddess Durga and again he sent her parents outside and closed the doors and applied oil to entire body after removing the clothes forcibly and committed rape on her on every time. He committed 12 times rape on her. After seven weeks she got stomach pain. Then her parents along with Lw3 and his wife went to Adya

Hospital, Metpally and the doctor after testing her informed to her parents that she got infection and swelling inside. Doctor further informed that somebody committed rape on her and enquire about the matter. Then she informed to her parents about commission of rape by accused at Nizamabad after applying oil over her body. Then they went to Mahila Sangam, Nizamabad to Lw3 and they all went to the Aksharam office and questioned the accused and all parents and other persons confronted with him and took her to Govt. Hospital,

Nizamabad and got admitted her . Police came to Govt. Hospital,

Nizamabad where she was examined and conducted various tests including DNA. Police examined her and recorded her statement.

Police also got recorded her 164 statement before the Magistrate. she can identify her signature on 164 statement.

21/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

During cross examination, she submitted that she was taken to

Prashanthi Hospital at Karimnagar but she do not know the colony name where it is situated. One month prior to the visit of Karimnagar hospital in June she used to pass urine during nights and the said disease was one month old. She do not know after how many days of the suffering of the said disease she was taken to Karimnagar hospital, she have no idea when she visited her uncle/Lw4 in the month of July, she do not remember whether she have mentioned the date when she stated before the police. For the first time they visited the Nizamabad at Aksharam office at 9 or 9.30 am. her parents are running a kirana shop. she do not know from where her parents brought the amount.

She do not know the place where the Mahila sangam is situated, she have no idea about location and features of Mahila Sangam.

Lw.4/Sabbani Latha used to help the people to whom injustice was done to them. She do not know the avocation of Lw4, they never gave any complaint to police directly. Lw3 referred his friend’s name to contact Lw4. Lw3 do not know the phone number of the person to whom he advised to contact. Herself, her parents, Lw3 and his wife went to Lw4, she along with some people all together went to

Aksharam office. Nothing was happened at the office of Aksharam as alleged that the chilli powder was sprinkled over the face of the 22/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 accused. Lw4 questioned accused about the commission of offence against her as she was very much younger in age and trusted him to cure her disease by saying so her parents brought her for treatment to him. The witness says that the accused gave some tablets and tonic after mediation and advised her to take regularly. She stated before the police that the accused committed rape against her for 12 times.

She did not tell to police that accused committed rape for four times.

Ex.D2 is relevant portion in 161 statement that he committed rape for four or five times. she have not stated before the police that she was taken to so many hospitals at Karimnagar. Ex.D3 is relevant portion in 161 statement that she was taken to so many hospitals at Karimnagar.

Lw4 also came to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad after taking her to hospital by her parents and Lw3 and his wife. she was admitted by her parents in Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad. she have not stated before the police that police admitted her in hospital. Ex.D4 is relevant portion of her 161 statement that police admitted her in Govt. Hospital,

Nizamabad. she cannot say the date when she visited the hospital at

Metpally. The doctor prescription given by doctor at Metpally was not filed into the court. She further denied all the suggestions given to her by the defence counsel.

23/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

As per the evidence of PW.2, the accused committed rape on her for four times but she should have informed about the behaviour of the accused to her parents, when the accused did the penetrative offence against her. Even for assumption, she might have afraid of stating about the offence against her by accused to her parents, she might have informed for second or third time but she kept quiet. The

Doctor when examined by the prosecution, never stated about the mental abnormality of the victim girl during evidence given by her and also did not mention in Medical report which is marked as Ex.P8. The doctor herself admitted that there are no external injuries found by her during examination on victim girl and admitted that whenever sexual assault was done against the minor girl there would be external injuries for many days. FSL report also did not state anything as alleged by the prosecution witnesses. The evidence of material witness did not supported with medical evidence except allegation nothing was shown in the record by the prosecution against the accused for committing penetrative offence repeatedly against the victim girl.

12.PW.3/Dr. S. Padma, MBBS DGO, Obstrics and Gynecologist at

Sai Hadya Hospital, Women and Obstetrician Hospital, Metpally of

Jagityal, deposed that as per prescription on 9.10.2020, mother and 24/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 victim came to her hospital on a complaint that the victim has been suffering from white discharge. Generally because who attained puberty the white discharge is common in girls if it is in excess they would give treatment, she gave treatment to the victim and issued prescription by suggesting medicines and the victim complained about the motions are not in proper as such she prescribed one syrup. As per

Court observation Prescription not filed.

During cross examination, she submitted that usually puberty period starts in girls from 10 to 16 years of age. Most of the females are facing the white discharge problems. Police not recorded her statement but they enquired her over phone. Witness says that she do not know whether the police recorded whatever she stated in phone.

She admitted that police never went to her hospital and recorded her statement on 14.10.2020 as stated in 161 statement. she know the name of the victim’s mother, the general condition of the victim is normal. She further denied all the suggestions given to her by the defence counsel.

The evidence of PW.1 with regard to the injuries sustained by the victim girl at her vagina as accused was repeatedly assaulted her.

Therefore, her evidence did not establish the offence.

25/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

13. PW.4/Raj Kumar, deposed that in October, 2020, Pw2’s health was not good as such they brought her to Nizamabad. On that day himself, her wife and Pw1, Pw2 went to Nizamabad and taken her to Aksharam Newspaper, Pusalagalli, Nizamabad which was run by the accused , who used to give ayurvedic medicines and also do black magic. After examining Pw2 the accused advised to bring her for nine weeks on every Tuesday and Saturday, accordingly Pw1 and Pw2 and himself attended at your office. Further, he once went along with Pws 1 and 2. On the first day when they attended he given treatment to

Pw2 and directed them to come on every Tuesday and Saturday.

Accordingly Pws.1 and 2 attended along with father of Pw2. Then Pw2 complained about stomach pain and accordingly they took her to Pw3 hospital Hadya. Doctor informed them that Pw2 was sexually assaulted. Then they went to Mahila Mandal in the same month and went to Lw4 and informed the facts to Lw4. Then himself, along with

Lw4, Pw1 and Pw2 and his father all went to the accused and questioned about the treatment with he for which he replied that his type of treatment is like that only and report to whomsoever concern.

In the meanwhile police came as there was a galata was taken place 26/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 and police took Pw2 to hospital at Nizamabad, the accused taken

Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) for treatment.

During cross examination, he submitted that he himself went to gulf. He had stated before the police that Pw2’s father is her co-brother in law. He do not know the name of the hospital at Karimnagar where

Pw2 was taken by her parents. Pw2 informed them that she is witnessing bad dreams as ghost are coming and somebody are coming. Witness says that the doctor informed about sexual assault on

Pw2. Whenever problem comes it is duty of the citizen to give complaint to police but in this case the problem is belonged to girl as such they went to Mahila Mandal. He know Lw4 since five years, he do not know the cases pending against him and his personal affairs. He cannot say the phone number of the accused orally at present. Police recorded his statement at the PS on the same day at about 2 pm. He further denied all the suggestions given to him by the defence counsel.

14. PW.5/Sabbani Latha, deposed that on 12.10.2020 the victim along with her family members approached her and informed that the accused is friend of Pw4, the accused is an expert in black magic as such he advised Pws 1 to 3 to take the victim girl to him for victim’s ill health and the accused will be cure the said ill health. Further, the 27/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 accused informed that he would give treatment by way of mediation to the victim girl for which he used to charge Rs.1 lakh for curing her defect. Accordingly the victim girl was joined at the accused . Further in the course of treatment the accused administered the pills for sleeping and also applied the toxic powder over her body in the name of massage and committed rape on her and the same was informed to her by the parents of the victim.

She further deposed that the parents of the victim further informed that if reveals the said fact the accused threatened the victim with dire consequences. On hearing this they involved on behalf of organization as the accused committed rape over the victim. They went to the office of the accused which is running in the name and style of Aksharam daily paper where he used to attend black magic also. Then she along with her people went to the office of the accused by that time the accused sat in a chair and questioned he about your acts for which the accused tried to beat her. Then they also had a talk with the accused that about the acts which are done by he in the name of newspaper, for which the accused replied that he would do according to his wish in his own office and asked her to go away from his office. Then the victim gave compliant to the police and police went 28/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 there. Then they referred victim to Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad, then victim also informed to police that the acts done by the accused towards her and her health was badly retreated. The doctors also informed that the rape was committed on the victim girl.

During cross examination, she submitted that she is doing social work. She have no source of income on her, her husband and her parents are look after her, her parents are living at America. She informed to police that she is working as General Secretary to IDWA and Dist. President to CPM Party. IDWA means All India Democratic

Women Association. Her association is registered association and its number is mentioned in letter head but at present she cannot say. The

IDWA has got legal powers to take action for any legal acts. Our activities are enlightening the rights of women and they see the rights of women be implemented through appropriate authority. The victim along with her parents and her paternal uncle and maternal aunt

Lalitha all together come to her house. They have got acquaintance with her. Myself and the victim family belonged to same community and the paternal aunt of the victim are related to her. Some body informed her about the black magic done by the accused prior to the incident. Nearly nine persons informed her. She do not know 29/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 remember the names of informants at present. She came to know about the activities of the accused through one Jyothi later through the victim girl. She have not stated before the police about the relevant portion of her 161 statement which is marked as Ex.D5. She informed to the police that the accused trying to attack her when she questioned him about the activities. The accused never beat her but he tried to attack her. They went to his office at 10.30 am. She is not carrying any chilli powder. No body is carrying chilli powder. There are cases pending against her on behalf of our organization. She further denied all the suggestions given to her by the defence counsel.

15.PW.6/Induri Srinivas, Head Master, at Bharathi

Vidhyanikethan High School, at Metpally, deposed that on the information of their correspondence, he issued bonafide certificate of

Rampally Anusha, by that time she was studying 10th class after pursuing the registers available at the school. The date of birth of the victim girl is 09.01.2006. Police informed to their correspondent that the accused had committed rape on Anusha/Victim girl when her parents consulted he for treatment of their daughter for health issues as he are doing black magic.

30/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

During cross examination, he submitted that Nobody approached her directly. He admitted that neither police nor parents of the victim girl approached him. Police did not examine him and recorded his statement. In general they used to record the date of the birth of the student on the oral information given by the parents. He further denied all the suggestions given to him by the defence counsel.

16. PW.7/Seetharamma, WASI, Town-I, Nizamabad, deposed that on 13.10.2020, Inspector of police requested her to record the statement of the victim girl and her mother and accordingly she recorded the statement of mother of the victim at Nizamabad hospital and later he recorded the statement of the victim girl at Nizamabad.

PW.1 stated that the internal parts of the abdomen belongs to victim girl were damaged as such, they joined Nizamabad hospital. PW1 stated that the accused were administered loban fumes for conducting meditation to victim girl towards her treatment.

Thereafter, he committed rape over the victim girl. On 08.10.2020 the doctor at Metpally Aadhya hospital informed her that the internal parts of the abdomen of the victim girl was damaged. On that parents of the victim girl went to the accused Aksharam Pathrika office at

Pusalagally, Nizamabad for which he replied that he would do 31/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 whatever. Thereafter, he examined and recorded the statement of victim girl she also stated that the accused forcibly had sexual intercourse with her despite her request.

During cross examination, she along with CI went to Govt.

Hospital, Nizamabad at about 3:00 p.m., both victim and mother of the victim stated before her. At the time of recording of statement of the victim, herself, mother of victim and victim were present and none other present. She further denied all the suggestions given to her by the defence counsel.

17. PW.8/A. Rajani, WPC-2452, Town-I, PS Nizamabad, deposed that on 13.10.2020, on the instructions of SHO, Town-I, Nizamabad, she went to the Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad along with PW.7 to record the statement of the victim girl to take video graph of the recording of statement of victim girl by Pw.7. At the time of recording of statement of victim girl she was present and she video graphed through phone belongs to Pw.7. Later, she handed over the same to SHO, Town-I,

Nizamabad.

During cross examination, she video graphed the statement recorded by Pw7 but she do not know anything about the contents of the statement of the victim. She further admitted that the SHO did not 32/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 record her statement. She further denied all the suggestions given to her by the defence counsel.

18. Pw.9/Gaini Sayanna, PC at Town-I PS, Nizamabad, deposed that on 13.10.2020, on the instructions of SHO, Town-I, Nizamabad that himself and SHO went to Pusalagally at Laxmirajam Complex where some public nuisance was going on and found some women gathered. Later, himself and SHO went to Akshara Office situated at

Pusalagally, where the SHO found 2 Lakhs 20 thousand kept on the backside of photos in an Alarmah and seized the same in the presence of two panchas and some allopathic medicines and ayurvedic medicines and Oils and he photographed and video graphed the same through cell phone belong to SHO. At that time, the accused was not found. Further, the accused said to have used the said medicines and oil to the women patients under the guise of treatment. Further, he used to charge an amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- for treatment.

Similarly, the accused also charged One Lakhs rupees towards treatment from victim and spent Rs.20,000/- for his personal expenses.

Further, he maintained physical relation with victim girl. He had sent the video graphs and photographs to SHO, Town-I, Nizamabad.

33/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

During cross examination, he submitted that his SHO instructed him to take photograph according to the situation revealed over at the scene of offence. He took photograph of the ladies who were present at the Akshara office. There were nearly (50) ladies were present at

Akshara Office where they damaged the furniture situated in the

Akshara Office. The said incident was took place 2nd floor of

Laxmirajam complex. He do not know the number of the office. On 13.10.2020 himself and SHO went to Akshara Office at about 1.00PM.

Out of the women, he can say the name of the women who were present there one of them as Sabani Latha/Pw5 alongwith her some many women were there. He do not remember the God’s photo where the amount was kept by accused. The photo was hanging to the wall.

Panchas were counted the rupees notes. The denomination of rupee notes were 100 & 500. he took photographs and video graphs except that she did nothing at Akshara Office. He further denied all the suggestions given to him by the defence counsel.

19. Pw.10/Shankur Narsaiah, deposed that about four years back police called him to come to Akshara Patrika Shop belonged to the accused. Lw1 was also present. The Police shown one room in which all the articles in the room are in pelmel condition. At that time 34/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 two police personnel were present along with the accused and prepared a panchanama on which they obtained his signature. Police seized some of the articles from the room. He further deposed that he can identify the articles if shown to him. One Oil can, some books, tablets, one steel box contains medicines, one mat, ayurvedic medicines in plastic tins total five in number, one carton box containing the problems written papers, Mughal-e-azam capsules in small paper boxes and photos total 13 articles were seized in his presence in which the panch chits were also pasted and obtained signatures on panch chits. The contents of panchanama were read over to him and he signed on it. The other panch witnesses Lw.11 also signed on it. He cannot say the designation of the police personnel who drafted the report.

During cross examination, he submitted that there is no signature on the panch chits attached to MO5. The panch chit was not pasted on MO5 but it was plastered with white plaster and the signature was found on the reversed side of the panch chits. Himself and another witness/Lw11 who is no more now were signed on panch chits. No panch chit was pasted on MO3. He do not remember the name of the police officer who signed on panch chit inserted in the 35/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

MO3 cover which is not sealed with panch chits. The total of MO2 items were 13. The material items MO2 is counted in the open court is found 40. He do not know the contents of MO2 but they were tablets.

He do not know MO2 items contains in which box or paper. Panch chits was inserted in item NO.3 cover. He do not know what item No.3 contains. Panch chits was not pasted on MO12 but it was inserted.

MO11 contains panch chits in which the constable were signed. He do not know MO10 and what it contains. He do not know the name of the contents of Item No.15. He do not know what contains on item No.16.

MO13 is scent bottle. Panch chits was not pasted on MO13 but it was inserted. He do not know MO4 and nothing is pasted on it. He admitted that the panch chits were not pasted on any of the items, the

MOs are available in the market. All the items were thrown in the room. All the items were in the room but she cannot say which room.

He do not know Pw5 thrown all the material. He do not know Pw5 did all the things to extract money from accused and the accused is falsely involved in this case. The scene of offence is situated at Pusulagally,

Jawahar Road. she cannot say the scene of offence situated at which direction. The steps which are situated in the midst of the building. The steps were wrongly mentioned in the rough sketch. He had not seen when the police prepared the sketch. she signed on the rough sketch 36/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 after preparation. He do not remember the date, month and day of when police conducted panchanama and prepared rough sketch but she remember only year. Witness adds that it was prepared four years back and it was happened 7AM to 8 AM. He do not know the contents of panchanama. He further denied all the suggestions given to him by the defence counsel.

20. Pw.11/J. Satyanarayana, Social Worker, deposed that about 4 years back Police called him to Police Station for conducting panchanama and asked him to question the accused who was present at Police station by then. Police informed that they brought the accused who is running Akshara Press and he also running Ayurvedic

Hospital. Further, the accused got doing meditation through patients and also giving treatment to mentally suffered patients. One Vanamala who belongs to Rampur was got treated by the accused . Further, he took Rs.1,00,000/- towards mediation and spent Rs.20,000/- out of

Rs.1,00,000/- and remaining Rs.80,000/- were kept with the accused .

He also gave treatment to one Mounika/Pw1. He took Mounika/Pw1 into his room and gave treatment. In connection with the treatment the accused used to apply oil to Pw1 and used “Dhupam” (fumes from

Loban) and collected Rs.1,00,000/- from Mounika/Pw1. Further the 37/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 accused possessed condom packets, Ozomen Tablets and Oil. The small bottles containing some tablets but it does not contain any oil.

Further, the accused also gave Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.500/- notes, total 4 bundles) from his pant pocket. Police drafted the report but he do not know the number of the rupee notes mentioned or not. The Police obtained his signature on panch chits. MO.17 is the Rs.1,00,000/- cash.

Police drafted panchanama and obtained his signatures. Along with him one Srinivas/Lw12 also signed on it.

He further deposed that the contents of the confessional panchanama was written by police was read over and explained to him when it was typed in English. Witness identified the accused who stood in accused dock. On the next day, police again called him to

Jawahar road, Pusalagally, Raja Laxmi Complex in the office of Akshara, situated at 1st floor of Raja Laxmi Complex. He had seen the Akshara

Office. By the time, the accused was also went along with police. There were 3 rooms in the said office and it was opened. In 3rd room the locker was situated and it was opened and collected an amount of

Rs.2,20,000/-(Rs.500/- notes). He did not see how many bundles the said cash was. The total bundles for 4 of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.20,000/- separate bundle. He can identify the bundles if shown to him. Police 38/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 obtained signature on panch chits pasted to Rs.2,20,000/- bundles.

Panchanama was drafted in English and he signed on it. One Srinivas also signed on it. Witness identified his signature confession-cum- seizure panchanama.

During cross examination, he admitted that he had been living at Sainagar since 20 years. His house door No.10-9-514. It is not true to suggest that the said house is not situated at Sainagar. He is running a barbar shop. At about 11.00AM, he do not remember the date but it was about 4years back. He do not know the name of the police.

Witness explained the way to go to Jawahar Road towards right side of the said road Akshara Office situated. The said building is facing towards eastern side. The steps of the said building is situated by the side of main gate. He cannot say the said steps are situated whether is left, right or straight. There are 3 doors in the Akshara Office. He know

Sabbani Latha. But he do not know Vanamala. Sabbani Latha along with Mahila Sangam members came to Akshara office. He do not know all the Mahila Sangam was broke open the Akshara Office. He do not know Vanamala is the follower of Sabbani Latha. 1st panchanama was conducted in P.S. Town and 2nd panchanama was conducted at Akshara

Office. He do not remember the mode of dress worn by accused.

39/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

MO16 pocket contains 2 or 3 bottles. He do not see whether MO16 has got more than 2 bottle. The panch chits were separately kept in sachets of MO16. Himself and other panch witness signed on it. MO16 was not sealed and pasted. There is not mentioned about date and time on panch chits. He do not know anyhow tablets contains MO15.

Similarly, MO15 was not sealed and pasted. There is not mentioned about date and time on panch chits. Similarly, MO14 was not sealed and pasted. There is not mentioned about date and time on panch chits. He further admitted that MO14, MO15 is available in market.

The panch chits were tagged to the MO17. MO17 is brand new notes.

He signed on one panchanama at Police Station and the other at

Akshara Office. Nearly, 20 signature made by him. He signed on by the side of the confessional panchanama. He do not know the meaning of

Telugu Bhauta. The accused never revealed from he came and what he was doing but he revealed that he came from Metpally. The name of the land new paper is not mentioned. He did not stated from he was educated. The accused expressed that he an RMP Doctor. The accused never stated that from where he got RMP Certificate and learned RMP.

Further, stated that the accused father was RMP doctor at Metpally. He never stated about his educational qualification and he is having wife and children. The accused never revealed his wife’s and children’s 40/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 name and never revealed his identity. The accused never stated anywhere that when he started Akshara Newspaper. There is no mention of week days and name of the week. The accused never stated about Anusha whose daughter she belongs. By 11.30 AM the drafting of panchanama was over.

21. Pw.12/B. Sudha, Associate Professor at Govt. General

Hospital, Nizamabad, deposed that she had received an requisition on 13.10.2020 from P.S. Town-she, Nizamabad to examine victim girl.

Accordingly, she had examined the victim girl and found the following injuries. No external injuries found on victim girl’s body and external genitalia area, hymen was torn and samples were taken from the genitalia area and sent for forensic examination. Based on forensic report there was no semen and spermotozoa was not detected on the said items and her final opinion was no medical evidence of recent sexual intercourse and nothing is suggestive of that she has not participated in sexual intercourse. Accordingly, she had given final opinion. The victim girl reported that the accused had sexual intercourse previously many times at his meditation center and his home also. On that day when they examined and there is evidence of 41/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 sexual intercourse but as per FSL report there was no evidence of semen and spermotozoa.

During cross examination, she admitted that if a girl is assaulted repeatedly there would be injuries. She have not found any external injuries at the time of examination, FSL report does not refers any assault. No previous records were shown to her about her physical condition and if a minor girl was assaulted repeatedly there would be external injuries for many days.

22. Pw.13/B.V. Nagamohan Rao, Professor and Head Forensic

Medicine Government Medical College, deposed that on 14.10.2020, he received a requisition from SHO Town-she PS, Nizamabad with a request to conduct potency test of the accused , accordingly, on the same day he conducted his general and physical examination and issued potency certificate opining that there is nothing to suggest that individual is not capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse.

During cross examination, he admitted that he did not find any abnormal sexual character. He further denied all the suggestions given to him by the defence counsel.

23. Pw.14/A.Anjaneyulu, Inspector of Police, SHO PS Town-she,

Nizamabad, deposed that on 13.10.2020 at 12:45 pm, he received 42/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 information from Blue Clots team with regard to the sexual offence committed on a woman, on that he rushed to the government hospital, Nizamabd along with woman staff and he directed

PW.7/WASI to record the statement of Mother of the victim girl/PW.1 and accordingly she recorded her statement. On that he returned to the Police station along with the statement of PW.1 and basing on the statement of PW.1, he registered a case in Cr.No.367/2020 for the offence punishable U/sec.376(3) amendment act of 2018 and sec.420, 506 of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and issued FIR.

Immediately, he forwarded the FIR to the concerned court and a copy of FIR to his superior authority. Thereafter, he visited PNC ward at

Government hospital, Nizamabad and deputed PW.7 to record the statement of Victim girl/PW.2 and accordingly PW.7 recorded the statement of Pw.2 and the same was videographed. He also filed requisition with PW.3 to conduct medical examination of victim girl/PW.2, after medical examination of victim girl, he collected her clothes for the purpose of sending them to FSL for chemical analysis.

He further deposed that he visited the scene of offence at

Jawahar Road Pusala Gally, Nizamabad along with PW.1, he secured in the presence of PW.10 and LW.11/Naresh and in their presence he 43/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized mixed oil 5 liters can containing 3 liters oil, Mugale Azam 3 X capsules for heart and sex 40 box each box ten capsules, Chandran Prabhavathi 2 boxes tablets

Ayurvedic, 1 steel box containing some Ayurvedic medicines and black magic material, One book Kshudara, Book of Vedangi Sridharan

Kandri, Lal Kithab remedies, some photographs of male and female, some receipts by name Shiva Sai Jaginatmaka Yoga Ashrayam-50,

Ayurvedic Medicine boxes 5, Ashika dhoop cups one packet, tiger symbol mat, Athar Bottles 2 from the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch map and also obtained the photographs of scene. Thereafter, he examined and recorded the statement of PW’s.3 & 5. Further, on 13.10.2020 at about 9:00 p.m., the accused went to police station and surrendered before him.

He further deposed that he secured the presence of PW.4 and

PW.5 examined them and recorded their statements. While the efforts are made to trace out the accused person, on 13.10.2020 at 21:00 hours, the accused went to police station and voluntarily surrendered himself before him. On enquiry, when the accused were ready to confess about the commission of offence. He immediately secured the presence of two mediators PW.11 & LW.12/Karrolla Srinivas and 44/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 recorded confessional panchanama of the accused . Later, they also seized MO.16 & MO.17 from the possession of the accused . Later, they also seized Mo.18 which was found backside of the goddess photograph at scene of offence. After completion of seizure panchanama, the accused was brought to police station at 02:00 hours. Thereafter, he affected the arrest of the accused by issuing arrest memo duly informing the grounds of your arrest. Further, the accused was produced before the FSL for medical checkup at Govt.

Hospital, Nizamabad and also conducted potency test over the accused . Pw.13 conducted potency test on the accused who opined that “nothing is there to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sexual intercourse”. Thereafter, Covid test was also conducted on the accused . On examination the accused found negative.

He further deposed that he visited Metpally and secured the presence of PW.3, examined her and recorded her statement. Then, she filed requisition before PW.6 to issue Bonafide Certificate of Victim girl, accordingly, PW.6 issued Bonafide Certificate of victim girl and as per bonafide certificate the victim girl is about 14 years, 09 months, 04 days on the date of alleged incident. Later, he secured the presence of 45/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

PW.7 to PW.9, examined them and recorded their statements. Further, he obtained FSL report from TSFSL, Hyderabad in which

LW.14/Dr. Shaik Hasees Parvin, who analyzed the material objects and furnished FSL report vide TOX/2874/2020 dtd.19.11.2020 stating that the item No.1 is analyzed and benzodiazepine a group of drug a sedative substance is found in it. Later, he had obtained FSL report from TSFSL, Hyderabad in which LW.15/K. Rama Devi, who analyzed the material objects and furnished FSL report vide SER/1616/2020 dtd.04.12.2020 stating that the item No.1 to 6 are examined. Semen and Spermatozoa are not detected on Item No’s.1 to 6. Blood is not detected in Item No.5. Blood and Foreign Material is not detected in item No.6. On the basis of the FSL report, PW.12 furnished final opinion who opined that semen and spermatozoa are not detected on sent items, so there is no medical evidence of record sexual intercourse and nothing is suggestive of that he is not participated in sexual intercourse.

He further deposed that he filed requisition before the Hon’ble

Court on 12.12.2020 to record the statement of Victim girl U/sec.164

Cr.P.C., accordingly, LW.18 recorded the statement of victim girl

U/sec.164 Cr.P.C. The property under item No.1 to 18 shown in Form- 46/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 60 is deposited before the Hon’ble Court vide CPR. No.25/2021. After collecting all the material objects and evidence he filed the charge sheet against the accused . During his investigation, basing on collected evidence, he found that there is a sexual assault on the victim girl by the accused .

During cross examination, he submitted that on 13.10.2020 at 12.45 Noon, he received information, visited the hospital at 12.45 noon. Himself recorded the statement of victim girl in the presence of

Pw7/Seetharamana, WASI. He further admitted that he had not visited

PNC ward, he given requisition to Doctor for medical examination.

Date and time was not mentioned that Pw1 has given Rs.1,00,000/- to the accused. On 13.10.2020 at 13.45hours, she registered FIR. The FIR was received by the Magistrate on 13.10.2020 at 9.30hours. Victim and complainant never visited the police station before lodging the complaint. Pw5 never gave any complaint against accused who is journalist before this complaint. Pw5 never stated before her that they went to office of the accused and cause damage to the office. Pw5 never mentioned in her 161 statement that she along with her company went to the office of accused and beat the accused. He do not know how complainant gets in contact with Pw5. As per case diary 47/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 the victim girl has been suffering from stomach pain. He do not know whether the victim girl has been suffering from any other diseases. By the time when they received information the scene of offence is seen as pelmal condition disturb by public mentioned in

Ex.P12/confessional-cum-seizure panchanama. The alleged offence was took place at 1st floor. The office of the scene of offence is situated on the north-east corner of the building in the 1st floor. Only one shutter is there for the accused shop.

The allegation levelled against the accused is a false allegation.

No documentary supportive evidence is filed by the prosecution to establish the offence u/sec. 376(3), 420 and 506 of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act of law against the accused. The material witness i.e.,

PW.1 and PW.2, father and mother of victim did not take her to any hospital soon after the incident to establish that he committed against the girl through evidence. They stated that they have taken the girl to

Bodhan Hospital but they did not file any document to show that the girl has been suffering mental abnormality. Further, they did not file any medical evidence to establish that due to the acts of accused against the victim girl, the victim became mentally abnormal.

As per omissions and contradictions by the prosecution 48/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 witnesses, the entire prosecution story creates doubts on the part of defacto-complainant. The Victim in her cross examination admitted that she stated before police that the accused committed rape against her for 12 times and did not tell the police that the accused committed rape against her for four times but as per Ex.D2, she stated that the accused committed rape against her for four or five times. Similarly, in

PW.2 cross examination, she stated that she was admitted in hospital by her parents but she did not stated the same before police in her

U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement but as per Ex.D4, the victim stated that she was admitted in hospital by her parents. Basing on her statement as there were no eye witnesses present in the room at the time of alleged assault committed against her by the accused.

The evidence of PW.1 to 4 and PW.5 who are the material witness in this case not supported the case of prosecution with the evidence of doctors who examined PW.3, PW.12 and PW.13.

In view of the admissions made by Investigating officer, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses not corroborated and failed to prove the ingredients of the offence punishable under sections 376(3), 420 and 506 of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of POCSO Act against the accused by coherent and inconsistent name of the accused and evidence on 49/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021 record. The entire evidence of record does not establish the offence against accused U/sec.363 & 376(2)(n) of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act 2012.

24. At the outset on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the material witnesses PW’s.1 and 2 not supported the case of prosecution and failed to establish the essential ingredients of offences U/sec. 376(3), 420 and 506 of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act against the accused to bring home the guilt of the accused.

Therefore, without any hesitation, it can be held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Point is determined accordingly.

25. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/sec. 376(3), 420 and 506 of IPC and sec.5(l) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act and the accused is acquitted for the said offences under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand canceled after six months, as per section 437 (A) Cr.P.C.MO’s.1 to 16 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period and MO's 17 and 18 shall be returned to the accused after expiry of appeal period.

50/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

Typed on her dictation, corrected and pronounced by her in the open Court on this the 24th day of June, 2025

Sd/-

SPECIAL JUDGE,

POCSO COURT,

Nizamabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Prosecution: For Defence: PW.1: Rampally Mounika(LW.1) -None-

PW.2: Victim Girl(LW.2)

PW.3: Dr. S. Padma(LW.5)

PW.4: Raj Kumar(LW.3)

PW.5: Sabanni Latha(LW.4)

PW.6: Induri Srinivas(LW.6)

PW.7: Seetharamma(LW.7)

PW.8: A. Rajani(LW.8)

PW.9: Gaini Sayanna(LW.9)

PW.10: Shankur Narsaiah(LW.10)

PW.11: J. Satyanarayana(LW.11)

PW.12: B. Sudha(LW.16)

PW.13: Dr. B.V. Nagamohan Rao(LW.17)

PW.14: A. Anjaneyulu(LW.19)

Exhibits marked for Prosecution:- For Defence:

Ex.P1: U/sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 - Nil-

Ex.P2: Signature of PW.2 on her U/sec.164 Cr.P.C. statement

Ex.P3: Bonafide Certificate

Ex.P4: Signature of PW.10 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P5: Confessional-cum-seizure panchanama 51/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

Ex.P6: Final Opinion

Ex.P7: FSL Report

Ex.P8: Medical Examination report

Ex.P9: Potency certificate of accused

Ex.P10: FIR

Ex.P11: CDF including Rough Sketch map

Ex.P12: Scene observation cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P13: Confessional-cum-seizure panchanama-II

Ex.P14: FSL report

Exhibits marked for Defence:-

Ex.D1: Relevant portion in U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Complainant

Ex.D2: Relevant portion in U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Victim Girl that accused committed rape for four times

Ex.D3: Relevant portion in U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Victim girl that she was taken to so many hospitals at Karimnagar

Ex.D4: Relevant portion in U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Victim girl that police admitted her in Govt. Hospital, Nizamabad

Ex.D5: Relevant portion in U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5

MOs marked :

MO.1: 5 litre plastic can MO.2: Moghul-e-azam 3x capsules in (40) small boxes

MO.3: Ayurvedic Medicine MO.4: One small steel box MO.5: Book

MO.6: Another Book

MO.7: Lal Khitaab

MO.8: Some photos

MO.9: One cartoon box containing the problems written papers

MO.10: Ayurvedic Medicine in plastic tins total five 52/52 PSC.No.61 of 2021

MO.11: One box contains asika doop

MO.12: One mat

MO.13: Attar two small bottles

MO.14: Kamasutra Condon Packet

MO.15: Ozomen Tablets

MO.16: Oil

MO.17: Rs.1,00,000/- cash

MO.18: Cash of Rs.2,20,000/-

Sd/-

SPECIAL JUDGE,

POCSO COURT,

Nizamabad.

1 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

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

SCs/STs (PoA) ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024

Spl.SC.No.12 of 2020

(Cr.No.386 of 2019 of PS Armoor)

1. Name of the ComplainantAssistant Commissioner of Police, Armoor Division (PS Armoor).

2. Name of the accusedEnoch Paul Boyalapally S/o Santhosh Paul, age 32 years, Caste: Indian Christian, Occ: Teacher of St. Paul’s School, R/o. Mamidipally village of Armoor Mandal.

3. Offence chargesU/s.324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of SCs/STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015.

4. Cr.No. & Name of Police Station386 of 2019 of PS Armoor.

5. Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty.

6. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty.

7. Prosecution conducted bySri B.Vasanth, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

8. Accused defended byM/s. M.Rajendar Reddy, M.Suryachary and J.Rajashekar, Advocates for the accused.

9. Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of SCs/STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015. As such, he is acquitted of the same Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this Judgment. The MO.1-stick shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

This case coming on 22-01-2024 for final hearing and disposal before me in the presence of Sri B.Vasanth, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of M/s. M.Rajendar Reddy, M.Suryachary and J.Rajashekar, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon’ble Court delivered the following:

2 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

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

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armoor Division (PS Armoor) laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of SCs/STs (PoA) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred in short as ‘the Act’), on completion of investigation of the case registered on the report lodged by the defacto complainant/LW1.

2.The conspectus of the prosecution case is follows as under:

a) On 04.12.2019, at 5.00 p.m., the defacto complainant/LW1-

Smt.Penda Vijaya came to PS Armoor and lodged a complaint stating that since two years, her son Penda Sanjay, aged 14 years is studying 9th class at St. Pauls High School, Armoor by staying in hostel. On 02.12.2019, at 9.00 hours, her son requested her to provide treatment for his Ringworm infection, as such, in the afternoon hours, she went to St. Pauls School, took her son to a hospital, where, all of a sudden, she touched the back of her son, but he denied touching. Upon which, she observed his back side by lifting his shirt and noticed injuries. On enquiry, her son replied that on 01.12.2019, at 9.00 p.m., at the time of tuition, his school owner’s son namely Yenakpaul (Babloo) laid down him on the ground on prone position and beat him with a stick for not writing the letter properly.

Then, LW1 took her son to her house and tried to inform the same to her husband by phone, but it was not reachable, as he was in abroad, due to which, she was not aware of filing the petition. She consulted her husband and came to PS and lodged the petition. Hence, she requested 3 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

to take necessary action against the accused.

b)Basing on the said report, LW12-P.Raghavender, Inspector of

Police, PS Armoor, registered this case in Cr.No.386 of 2019 for the offences U/s.324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of “the Act” and issued first information report.

c)Later, LW13-V.Raghu, Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Armoor Division, was took up the investigation as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Armoor. During the course of investigation, examined LW1 and her son/LW2-Penda Sanjay and recorded their statements, took the photographs of the injuries of LW2, later, referred

LW2 to the Govt. Civil Area Hospital, Armoor for treatment.

d)On 05.12.2019, LW13 visited the scene of offence, situated at

Conference Hall of Saint Pauls High School, Mamidipally, conducted scene of offence panchanama by means of rough sketch under crime details form in the presence of LW7-Battu Ramesh and LW8-Rajula Limbadri. On 11.12.2019, LW13 examined LW3-Master Nara Pedda Vamshi, LW4-Master

Thippalavina Raj Kumar, LW5-Sardar Shashank and LW6-Kumari Ullenga

Aishwarya and recorded their statements, in which, LW6 told that the accused abused LW2 by touching his caste.

e)LW9-G.Rajendhar, Tahsildar, Bheemgal issued caste certificates of Lws 1 and 2 certifying that they belongs to SC-Madiga caste and LW10-P.Sanjay Rao, Tahsildar, Armoor issued caste certificate of accused stating that the accused belongs to Indian Christian (OC). Later,

LW11-Dr.Amruthram Reddy issued injury certificate of LW2 opining that 4 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

he sustained simple injuries.

f)While so, the accused filed a Writ Petition U/s.482 of Cr.P.C.

before the Hon’ble High Court, Hyderabad, praying to quash this case, in

which, on 10.12.2019, the Hon’ble High Court ordered vide

Crl.MP.No.8030/2019 directing to the investigation agency to follow the

procedure prescribed U/s.41-A of Cr.P.C. As per the said order, on 19.12.2019, the accused came to the ACP Office, Armoor and surrendered

before LW13, as such, he issued notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C. to the accused.

g)On completion of the investigation, LW13 laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.324 of IPC and

Section 3 (1) (r) of “the Act”.

3.Upon considering the material on record, this Court has have taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s.324 of IPC and Section 3 (1)

(r) of “the Act” against the accused and registered the case as

Spl.SC.No.12 of 2020.

4.On completion of formalities and on appearance of the accused, furnished the documents to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.Upon considering the material papers on record, on hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for accused, this

Court examined the accused U/s.228 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. and the charges for the offences punishable U/s.324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of “the Act” were framed against the accused and the same were read over and explained to him in vernacular language as required under Sub-Sec.2 of

Sec.228 of Cr.P.C.

5 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

6.To which, the plea of the accused complete denial and claimed to be tried.

7.This Court issued Trial Schedule U/s.230 of Cr.P.C., for the prosecution evidence.

8.In order to substantiate the charges against accused, prosecution had examined the PW1 to PW13 and through them, got marked Exs.P1 to

P12 documents and MO.1-stick. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence is closed.

Ex.D1 is the contradictory portion of statement of PW2, which is got marked on behalf of the accused during the cross-examination of PW2.

9.On closure of evidence for the prosecution, the accused is examined Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material found against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused counsel having understood and reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments for the learned Addl.P.P. and the learned counsel for the accused. Perused the evidence and documents.

11. Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/s.324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of “the Act” beyond all reasonable doubt?” If so, to what extent the accused is liable for punishment?.

12. POINT:The accused is charged for the offences punishable

U/s.324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of “the Act” since he voluntarily caused hurt to PW2 by beating him with stick on his back and intentionally insulted him by abusing him on caste name with intent to 6 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

humiliate him, knowingly that he belongs to Scheduled Caste community.

13.In order to substantiate, the charges against accused, the prosecution relied on the evidence of PW1 to PW13 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and MO.1.

14.PW1 is the defacto complainant and mother of victim, who lodged the report with the police, PW2 is the victim and injured, PWs 3, 6 and 10 are the eye-witnesses and co-students of PW2, PWs 4 and 5 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama, PW7 is the eye- witness, PW8 is the Tahsildar, Bheemgal, who issued caste certificate of

PWs 1 and 2, PW9 is the Tahsildar, Armoor, who issued caste certificate of the accused, PW11 is the doctor, who treated PW2, PW12 and PW13 are the Investigating Officers in this case.

15.The documents exhibited through the prosecution witnesses are

Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1 against the accused, Ex.P2 is the portion of statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. of PW3, Ex.P3 is the scene and seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is the rough sketch of the scene, Ex.P5 is the portion of statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. of PW6, Ex.P6 is the portion of statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. of PW7, Ex.P7 is the letter addressed by PW8 to the ACP, Armoor, Ex.P8 is the letter addressed by PW9 to the ACP,

Armoor, Ex.P9 is the wound certificate of PW2 along with OP ticket,

Ex.P10 is the FIR, Ex.P11 is the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad to PW13, Ex.P12 is the News item published in the

Dist. Edition of Sakshi Daily Newspaper. MO.1 is the stick.

16.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor have argued that the evidence 7 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

of PW1 is well supported by the evidence of PWs 2, 4, 8 to 13, by considering the said evidence, prayed the Court to punish the accused.

The evidence of PW2, who is the victim in this case, can be considered and the accused shall be punished according to law.

17.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the the alleged offence took place on 01.12.2019 and the complaint lodged on 04.12.2019. There is no mention in complaint as they belonged to SC/ST community, the boy was not abused in the name of the caste, even according to Ex.P1. Prosecution examined Pws 1 to 10, PW1 is the mother, PW2 is the student, who reported that he received bleeding injuries, but the medical evidence shows that there is no bleeding injuries, only contusion injury. No doctor was examined to show that he was sustained injuries. The route cause for the offence is that when the accused being a Teacher, dictated the term ‘Aakali’, but PW2 written as ‘Akali’, for which, the accused grew wild and beat him indiscriminately on the back of PW2. But, the police did not seize the notebook allegedly written by PW2 at the time of incident. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the alleged incident was took place on Sunday. The eye-witnesses turned hostile. There is a discrepancy about the seized of MO.1-stick.

The counsel for the defence argued that after 5 days of the incident, PW2 taken by PW1 to the hospital. Even after five days, the age of injury would be more than 24 hours and the colour of injury was completely changed, if injuries examined by the doctor, the colour should be purple or blue marks on the back of PW2, if at all injury sustained by him within 8 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

24 hours. About MO.1, the evidence shows that it is a bamboo stick, if the injuries sustained by bamboo sticks, there would be rings on the bamboo stick, if the injuries sustained by PW2 with bamboo stick, there would not be any straight injuries. The charge-sheet is filed with a delay of 1 ½ year and the delay was not properly explained. There is no clarity of delay in lodging the FIR after three days of the incident. Moreover, the alleged incident was took place within the School, which is not a public place as per SC/ST Act, the incident should be done in public place, then only, the Act will apply, the School is not a public place. Moreover, nearly more than 50 students were present at the time of incident. In such case, any of the students can say about the incident, but the students examined by the prosecution, turned hostile. Further, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of “the Act”, sincethere is no material to hold that the accused herein is committed the saidoffences, hence, the accused cannot be found guilty for the said offences. With that, prayed the Court to acquit the accused in this case.

18.Now, coming to the prosecution witnesses, PW1-P.Vijaya, who is the defacto complainant and mother of victim, deposed that her son LW2-

P.Sanjay was studying in 9th Class in St. Paul School, Armoor and was staying in Hostel. On 02.12.2019, in the morning hours, LW2 made a phone call to her and informed that he had wring worm (Kanchuka) to his left hand, as such, she went to the hostel and took him to B.V.R. Hospital for treatment in the afternoon hours. When she touched on the back of 9 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

her son, he felt pain, then, she lifted his shirt and found the injuries on his back and on enquiry, LW2 informed that Babloo sir beat him on his waist with a stick by laying him down on the ground on 01.12.2019, at about 7.00 p.m., as LW2 was unable to write the word “Akruthi”. From the hospital, she took her son to home and after contacted her husband (who is residing at Dubai) and with her in-laws, she lodged Ex.P1 report with the police Armoor on 04.12.2019. She further deposed that she is the informant in this case, lodged report with the police against the accused and the incident was reported in the print and electronic media on the day, when she lodged report, later, the said news was published in the paper. Ex.P12 is the news item published in the Dist. Edition of Sakshi

Daily Newspaper.

During cross-examination, PW1 got treatment of her son on the day when she had taken him to BVR hospital, they reached to home on 02.12.2019 at 10.00 p.m., from the hospital, she made a phone call to her husband at 12.00 noon on 03.12.2019. On the information given by her to her husband over phone, he instructed her to lodge a report against

Babloo sir and LW2 was present along with her at that time and on the next day, they went to PS. She further stated that she along with LW2, her in-laws, brother of her husband and her mother went to PS, Ex.P1 was scribed by one police personal at PS at 5.00 p.m., and she subscribed her signature on Ex.P1 after reading over its contents and she cannot say about the designation of said person, said police personal scribed Ex.P1 report when she was narrating to him about the incident.

10 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

She denied that she did not state in his statement to police that accused abused LW2 on his caste name; that accused neither beat LW2 with a stick nor he abused LW2 on his caste name and she deposed false at the instance of elders. She deposed that on 03.12.2019, no person came to her house with with instruction to lodge report with police as LW2 was beaten. She stated that the new items was published in all the newspapers. She admitted that she did not produce other newspapers, in which this news was published; that the news was covered when they staged Dharna infront of PS Armoor. She also denied that the members of

CPI and BJP were also participated in said Dharna; that the news was published in Daily newspaper only on their request; that she deposed falsely that news was not published only on their request.

During further cross-examination, PW1 stated that PW2 received injuries on his back which were caused by using stick (Vedaru katte), she had given her and her husband phone numbers at the time of lodging report before the police. She admitted that she did not depose before police that PW2 received injuries which was caused by using stick (vedaru

Katte), she has not filed any proof pertaining treatment of PW2 at BVR hospital and she was in a confused state of mind. She further stated that the time taken for reaching PS from her house about two hours journey, her house is situated within the limits of Bheemgal PS.

She denied that neither approach the PS Armoor for lodging complaint and PW2 was never beaten by the accused and she filed false complaint on the influence of local MLA, as accused did not support local 11 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

MLA, as such they filed false case against the accused; that only on the request of local police and local MLA, she deposing false against the accused. She stated that at the time of alleged incident, her village

Sarpanch was Rajeshwer, she could not recollect the name of Upa-

Sarpanch at the time of incident. The Sarpanch house is quite opposite to her house, the Sarpanch belongs to SC-Madiga community and they do not have close relationship with each other; that no such incident has taken place and that they have filed a false complaint against the accused.

19.It is mentioned in Ex.P1 that they belonged to SC-B (Madiga) community. Now, it is to see whether the place where the alleged incident was took place at Conference Hall in the School comes under the purview of Section 3 (1) (r) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. It reads as follows:

“Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe:

intentionally insults or intimidate with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view”.

20.It is not a public place as per the evidence on record. Therefore, the Section of SC/ST Act would not apply. Moreover,the alleged offence was took place during night time in the mid-est of the children when they are giving tuition at the time by the accused being a Teacher of their

School. The alleged offence was took place on 01.12.2019, but it is 12 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

informed by PW2 on 02.02.2019 and the complaint was given on 04.12.2019, hence, there was a delay of three days, for which, PW1 explained that after contacting her husband at Dubai over phone, she lodged complaint. Further, she observed that there were injuries on the back of PW2 (kamilina gaayaalu i.e., contusion), there is no mentioned about the bleeding injuries. The prosecution marked Ex.P12 is news item published in the newspaper in the Dist. Edition of Saakshi Daily

Newspaper. During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that Ex.P1 report was scribed by the police personnel at 5.00 p.m., then, she put her signature on the report. On 03.12.2019, no person came to her house with an instruction to lodge report with the police as LW2 was beaten.

After giving complaint to the police, the news came into Newspapers, when they staged Dharna before Police Station Armoor. As per PW1’s evidence, she did not given any complaint to anybody in the village i.e.,

Sarpanch and Upasarpanch about the incident and after consulting her husband, who is in Abroad, she gave complaint to the police i.e., the explanation given in causing delay in lodging FIR.

21.PW2-P.Sanjay, who is the victim, deposed that on the date of incident, he was studying in St. Paul School, Mamidipally and on 01.12.2019, during the study hours period 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 p.m., the accused gave a dictation to students, he wrote the word ‘Aakali’ wrongly as ‘Akali’, then the accused beat him with a stick on his waist by laying down him on prone position and abused him on the name of his caste. At that time, Lws 3 to 6 were present and witnessed the incident and after 13 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

completion of night study hours, he along with his friends went to room, there, he removed his shirt and his friends found bleeding injuries on his waist and his friends washed the injuries. He further deposed that on 01.12.2019, he made a phone call to PW1 that he suffered with ring worm (Kanchuka), as such, PW1/his mother came to hostel on 02.12.2019 and took him to B.V.R. Hospital for treatment and when his mother/PW1 touched on his back, he asked her not to touch his back, then, his mother lifted his shirt and on seeing the injuries, she asked about the injuries, then, he informed his mother that the accused beat him with a stick, from there, his mother took him to his home and after contacted his father (who is residing at Dubai) on 03.12.2019, they approached police on 03.12.2019 and his mother lodged a report. MO.1 is the stick with which the accused beat him (CPR.No.2/2020) on the file of this Court.

During cross-examination, he stated that he does not know at what time, his mother made a telephone call to his father and he had been to

PS along with his mother. He admitted that he was not present along with his mother, when she made a phone call to his father. He denied that accused did not beat him with MO.1/stick and MO.1 is planted by the police he suffered with ring worms all over his body and also suffered the said injuries on his back; and at the instance of police, he identified MO.1 as the stick, which was used to beat him.

During cross-examination, he stated that he received bleeding injuries. He denied that he did not state before police as in Ex.D1.

(Portion of statement). There are about 60 to 70 students at the time of 14 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

incident. He admitted that police examined and recorded his statement.

He denied that he has not given the names of other students who were present at the time of alleged incident. At the time of alleged incident

School Principal was the mother of accused. He has not lodged any complaint before the Principal. The incident occurred on Sunday, on the next day of incident i.e., Monday, he went to BVR hospital for treatment.

He obtained permission from the school authorities for treatment. There was not written permission and he has not filed before this Court.

He denied that he has not filed any document to show that he was suffering from Ring warm and was treated at BVR hospital; that on the request of PW1, accused has worked against the local MLA and false complaint filed against accused and the accused never beat him. At the time of alleged incident he was taking dictation in his notebook and he gave the notebook to the police.

22.PW2 in his cross-examination, denied that he never stated before police that the accused beat him with Rulla Karra by lying down on the floor and beat him on his back indiscriminately, due to which, he sustained bleeding injuries and that was witnessed by Shashank,

Rajkumar and Vamshi. The evidence of PW2 is sufficient to establish that he was not beaten by the accused as alleged. Further, he stated that the incident was taken place during night time and he never reported the matter to the Principal or even on the next day of incident, since it was happened on Sunday. He went to BVR hospital on the next day, after taking permission from the authorities, but he did not taken permission in 15 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

writing and the Investigating Officer did not enquire about the written permission obtained by PW2 to visit the hospital.

23.PW3-S.Shashank deposed that he studied 9th Class in St. Pauls High

School, Mamidipally, Armoor and the accused was his teacher. He came to know that the accused beat PW2, who is his classmate and he also came to know that on 11.12.2019, the parents of PW2 have took him to his house. He further deposed that at that time, he had been to washroom. He was turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. During cross-examination, nothing has been elicited by the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor, except marking of his portion of statement

U/s.161 Cr.P.C. under Ex.P2. He did not support the evidence of PW2.

24.PW4-Battu Ramesh deposed that on 05.12.2019, at 3.00 p.m., police Armoor called him and Rajula Limbadri to St. Paul’s School,

Mamidipally, there the police conducted Ex.P3-scene and seizure panchanama and drawn Ex.P4-rough sketch of the scene in their presence, he found one person in the classroom, on enquiry, he revealed his name as Sanjay and informed that he was beaten with a stick by his teacher by name Babloo and the police seized one stick from the scene of offence.

During his cross-examination, he stated that when he was called to the scene of offence, there he found S.I. of Police, Inspect of Police and

ACP, Armoor were present and he cannot say from which place of the class room, stick was seized by the police.

He denied that when he went to St. Paul’s School called by the 16 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

police, PW2 was not there in the class room; police neither called him to the St. Paul’s School, not conducted Exs.P3 and P4 in his presence and he do not know its contents, without going through the contents, he subscribed his signatures. He stated that police read over the contents of

Ex.P3/scene and seizure panchanama.

25.In his cross-examination, PW4 stated that he cannot say from which place the classroom stick was seized by the police, but in his chief- examination, he stated that the police seized one stick from the scene of offence, which is marked as MO.1, but the MO.1, which is shown to him, was not identified the same by him and he stated that he was not sure that MO.1 is the same stick or not. In his presence, seizure panchanama and rough sketch were prepared by the police.

26.PW5-Rajula Limbadri deposed that in the year 2019, in the evening hours, at about 5.00 or 6.00 p.m., police called him and PW4 (who worked as VRO, Mamidipally) to St. Paul’s School, Mamidipally, took them into a hall, there the police informed them that the boy was beaten by his teacher with a stick and the police prepared panchanama and drawn the rough sketch of the scene. He identified his signatures appearing on

Ex.P4. He further deposed that he has no idea whether MO.1 stick seized by the police in their presence or not and he denied the signature appearing on Ex.P3.

He did not support the prosecution and was declared as hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. During his cross-examination, nothing has been elicited by the prosecution.

17 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

27.PW5 did not stated in his evidence that rough sketch and scene of offence panchanama and seizure of stick was made by the police at the scene of offence i.e., 2nd floor, in which, the Conference Hall is situated.

28.PW6-Nara Pedda Vamshi deposed that about two years ago, on one day, he was informed by his friends that there was a fighting in between the outsiders and the student of his school and he had been to PW2 and found the injury on his back. He further deposed that he does not know the person, who beat PW2. He was turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. During cross-examination, nothing has been elicited by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, except marking of his portion of statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. under Ex.P5. He also did not support the evidence of PW2.

29.PW7-U.Aishwarya deposed that she does not know the facts of the case. She was also turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. During cross-examination, nothing has been elicited by the learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor, except marking of her portion of statement

U/s.161 Cr.P.C. under Ex.P6. She also did not support the evidence of

PW2.

30.PW8-G.Rajender, the then Tahsildar, Bheemgal, deposed that on the requisition received by him from the ACP, Armoor, he issued the community information to ACP, Armoor. Ex.P7 is the letter addressed by him to ACP, Armoor informing that PWs 1 and 2 belongs to SC Madiga

Community.

During his cross-examination, PW8 stated that after due verification 18 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

through the staff of Bheemgal Tahsildar Office, he issued Ex.P7 and he denied that he issued Ex.P7 at the instance of police.

31.PW9-P.Sanjay Rao, the then Tahsildar, Armoor, deposed that on the requisition received by him from the ACP, Armoor, he issued the community information to ACP, Armoor. Ex.P8 is the letter addressed by him to ACP, Armoor informing that the accused belongs to Indian

Christian comes under the OC Category.

During his cross-examination, PW9 stated that the accused is Indian

Christian and he verified through the Village Revenue Officer, Mamidipally village as to the caste of the accused and he did not file the report of said

VRO before this Court. He denied that the Indian Christian is not a caste but, it is a religion and without verifying the community of the accused, he issued Ex.P8 and the accused belongs to SC Madiga.

32.PW10-T.Raj Kumar deposed that in the year 2019, on one day during night study hours, the accused gave Telugu dictation to all the students of 9th class, in that dictation, PW2 had written one word wrongly, then, accused beat PW2 with a stick on his back when PW2 wrote and word wrongly, as a result, the PW2 received bleeding injuries. PWs 3 and 6 took away the PW2 to bathroom for washing the injury received by PW2.

PW7 was also present in the classroom and the parents of PW2 came to the school and took away PW2 along with them.

During cross-examination, PW10 stated that the incident occurred during the study hours in between 6.00 p.m., to 9.00 p.m. and he do not remember exact time. He admitted that he has taken treatment for ear 19 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

pain in a hospital for a period of three months by staying in a room. He denied that he suffered mental illness, for that reason only, he stopped his education and was not present in the classroom during the study hours on the day of alleged incident. He also denied that PWs 2, 3, 6 and 7 were not present in the classroom during the study hours.

33.As per his evidence, he is not a direct witness, as he stopped education for a period of three months for mental illness.

34.PW11-Dr.Amruth Ram Reddy deposed that on 05.12.2019, he examined PW2 at Area Hospital, Armoor, as an outpatient at 3.30 p.m., on his enquiry, he found contusions over the back measuring 10 x 2 Cms., 11 x 2 Cms., and 12 x 2 Cms., and the said injuries are simple in nature.

The age of injury is more than 24 hours and he treated the injured as outpatient and issued Ex.P9 wound certificate along with OP ticket.

During his cross-examination, PW11 stated that PW2 came to the hospital along with Constable and he did not mention in Ex.P9 for how much time, he treated PW2 and he cannot say whether the age of injury is less than 48 hours. He denied that he did not examine PW2 and issued

Ex.P9 at the request of police. He stated that he has mentioned the age of injury is more than 24 hours because of colour of injury and he did not mention the colour. He further stated that at present he cannot say because after long gap of time what was the colour of injury and there were no bleeding injury. He also stated that after three days of injury, the colour of injury is blue or purple colour. He admitted that if MO.1 stick was un even, there would have been abrasion and there are no abrasion 20 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

in Ex.P9. He denied that he gave Ex.P9 without verification at the instance of police.

35.As per the evidence of PW11-doctor, the colour of injury was not mentioned, he assertively stated that there was no bleeding injury.

Further, he admitted that if MO.1-stick was un even, there would have been abrasion in Ex.P9. The medical evidence of PW11 is not supported with the ocular evidence of Pws 1 and 2, so far as the injuries sustained by PW2 allegedly in the hands of the accused.

36.PW12-P.Raghavender, the then Inspector of Police, Armoor, deposed that on 04.12.2019, at about 5.00 p.m., he received Ex.P1/report from

PW1, basing on it, he registered this case in Cr.No.386/2019 for the offence U/s.324 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (r) and 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act and issued Ex.P10-FIR, since the case is registered under the provisions of

ST/ST (POA) Act, he handed over the CD file to LW13-ACP, Armoor for investigation.

During cross-examination, he admitted that the incident was occurred on 01.12.2019 during night hours; he received report from PW1 on 04.12.2019. The reason for lodging report with a delay is mentioned in Ex.P.1 report by the informant. He denied that the reason for delay in lodging report is not mentioned in Ex.P10 F.I.R.; that he falsely registered

Ex.P10 F.I.R. for the offence under SC/ST (POA) Act though there are no allegations against the accused stating that accused abused PW2 on his caste name; that people staged Dharna in Armoor Town for not registering the case against accused though the report was lodged with 21 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

the police and thereafter, this case was registered on the pressure of political leaders and local people and also the Student Union. He admitted that there are no abusive words mentioned in report Ex.P.1 abusing on the caste name of PW2.

37.PW12 in his cross-examination, he admitted that the incident was occurred on 01.12.2019 and the report was given on 04.12.2019. He further admitted that there is no abusive words mentioned in Ex.P1/report abusing the caste name of PW2.

38.PW13-V.Raghu, the then ACP, Armoor, deposed that he took up the investigation in this case from PW12 as per the proceedings of

Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad, dt: 04.12.2019, Ex.P11 is the appointment order issued to him by the Commissioner of Police,

Nizamabad. During investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 3, 6, 7, 10, later, he visited the scene of offence, conducted Exs.P3 and P4/scene of offence and seizure panchanama and drawn rough sketch respectively in the presence of PWs 4 and 5 under

CDF and seized MO.1-stick under Ex.P3. On his requisition, PWs 8 and 9 issued caste information pertaining to PWs 1 and 2 and the accused. As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court, he served Section 41 (a) Cr.P.C.

notice on the accused and after completion of investigation and after collecting Ex.P9 wound certificate, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. PWs 3, 6 and 7 stated before him as in Exs.P2, P5 and P6.

22 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

During cross-examination, he stated that he does not know the contents of the report lodged by PW1 before registering F.I.R. It is denied that accused does not know the community of the students. He admitted that PW1 stated in her statement before him that accused assaulted on

PW2 with a stick; that PW2 stated in his statement stating that accused beat him with a rule karra (rule stick).

He denied that bettemu and stick are not one and the same; that he did not conduct panchanama in the presence of mediators and that panch slips with their signatures are not pasted on MO.1. As per his investigation, this accused is an administrator of the case. He did not collect any documentary proof to show that accused is an Administrator of St. Paul’s School.

He denied that after the occurrence of this incident, left parties, student organization staged Dharna infront of Armoor PS with a demand to register this case and to apprehend the culprit. He denied that on the pressure of said persons, this case has been registered against accused; that the investigation conducted by him is false and filed charge sheet against the accused with false accusation.

During further cross-examination, PW13 admitted that as per Ex.P1 and as 161 statement of PW1, there is no whisper of specific abuse in the name of caste by accused; that class room is not a public place as per the definition of public view under the act; that charge-sheet is filed within 26 days. He cannot remember the date of filing of charge-sheet.

He denied that charge-sheet is filed with a delay of more than 1 ½ 23 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

years; that charge-sheet is filed without complying Rule 7 of SC/ST Act.

He admitted that he did not gave any report to the Commissioner of

Police, Nizamabad or DGP, Hyderabad; that bamboo stick/MO.1 is commonly available; that there is no mention of place of recovery of

MO.1/stick in rough sketch; that the distance between Armoor PS and

Nizamabad Court is an half-an-hour.

He denied that there is a delay in filing the case and also delay in submitting documents before the Court and case is concocted, created, fabricated for this case; that Section 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST Act does not apply to the present case due to over enthusiasm and pressure from the

Student Organization, lodged false case against the accused and filed false charge-sheet by conducting table investigation.

39.PW13 also admitted in his cross-examination, that there is no specific abusive words mentioned in Ex.P1/report and 161 Cr.P.C.

statement of PW1 and the alleged incident was happened not in the public place. He too admitted that there is no mention of place of recovery of MO.1-stick in the rough sketch. The remaining questions put- forth by the defence counsel with regard to the SC/ST Act and delay in submitting documents were denied by this witness.

40.At the outset on perusal of the evidence on record, the learned

Addl. P.P. relied on the citation in 2023 Live Law (SC) 225 in between

Ravasaheb @ Ravasahebgouda etc., Vs. State of Karnataka, the Hon’ble

Apex Court held that:

“This Court has on numerous occasions considered cases 24 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

imilar in nature, and, from such consideration emanated various principles in deciding the cases. Some of the principles essential for the instant lis to be dicided are –

Evidence of hostile witnesses:

a) Corroborated part of the evidence of a hostile witness regarding the commission of offence is admissible.

Merely because there is deviation from the statement in the FIR, the witness’s statements cannot be termed totally unreliable;

b) The evidence of a hostile witness can form the basis of conviction.

c) The general principle of appreciating the evidence of eye-witnesses is that when a case involves a large number of offenders, prudently, it is necessary, but not always, for the Court to seek corroboration from at least two more witnesses as a measure of caution. Be that as it may, the principle is quality over quantity of witnesses (Mrinal Das

Vs. State of Tripura (2011) 9 SCC 479).

Effect of commissions, deficiencies:

Evidence examined a s a whole, must reflect/ring of truth. The Court must not give undue importance to omissions and discrepancies which do not shake the foundations of the prosecution’s case. [Rohtash Kumar Vs.

State of Haryana (2013) 14 SCC 434; Bhagwan Jagannath

Markad Vs. state of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537; and

Karan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 52]

Reliance on single witness:

If a witness is absolutely reliable then conviction based thereupon cannot be said to be infirm in any manner. [Karunakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (1976) 1

SCC 434; and Sadhuram Vs. State of Rajasthan (2003) 11

SCC 231].

25 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

Testimony of a close relative:

A witness being a close relative is not a ground enough to reject his testimony. Mechanical rejection of an even “partisan” or “interested” witness may lead to failure of justice. The principle of “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” is not one of general application. [Bhagwan

Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 10 SCC 537].

41.But, the above said citation is not applicable to this case, as the eye-witnesses turned hostile, the medical evidence is not supported by the ocular evidence, the eye-witnesses turned hostile, the seizure of

MO.1-stick is also suspicious one and there is a delay in lodging FIR, the alleged incident took place in the Conference Hall of the School building, therefore, the SC/ST Act would not come in the operation, as it is not a public place and the Investigating Officer himself admitted that there is no specific abusive words in the name of caste mentioned by PW1 either in Ex.P1 or in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. There is no corroboration and also there are no cogent reasons to believe that the alleged offence is took place, the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt shall rightly be given to the accused.

42.With the above discussion, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/s.324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of “the Act”. As there is no conclusive evidence, as such, the accused can not be found guilty for the said charged offences. The point 26 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

is answered accordingly.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

Under Sections 324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) of SCs/STs (PoA)

Amendment Act, 2015. As such, he is acquitted of the same Under

Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this Judgment.

The MO.1-stick shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 2nd day of February, 2024.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

: : APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

:Witnesses examined:

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1:P.Vijaya (LW1).Defacto complainant & mother of victim. PW2:P.Sanjay (LW2).Victim and injured. PW3:S,Shashank (LW5).Eye-witness & co-student of PW2. PW4:Battu Ramesh (LW7).Panch for scene of offence. PW5:Rajula Limbadri (LW8).Panch for scene of offence. PW6:N.Pedda Vamshi (LW3).Eye-witness & co-student of PW2. PW7:U.Aishwarya (LW6).Eye-witness. PW8:G.Rajendhar, Tahsildar,Issued caste certificate of PWs 1 & 2. Bheemgal (LW9). PW9:P.Sanjay Rao, Tahsildar, Issued caste certificate of accused. Armoor (LW10). PW10:T.Raj Kumar (LW4).Eye-witness & co-student of PW2. PW11:Dr.Amruth Ram ReddyTreated PW2. (LW11). PW12:P.Raghavender, Inspector of1st Investigating Officer and issued Police (LW12).FIR. PW13:V.Raghu, ACP, Armoor (LW13). 2nd Investigating Officer and laid charge sheet.

27 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

FOR DEFENCE:

- None - : EXHIBITS MARKED : FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1:Report. Ex.P2:Portion of statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. of PW3. Ex.P3:Scene of offence and seizure panchanama. Ex.P4:Rough sketch of the scene. Ex.P5:Portion of statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. of PW6. Ex.P6:Portion of statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. of PW7. Ex.P7:Letter addressed by PW8 to the ACP, Armoor. Ex.P8:Letter addressed by PW9 to the ACP, Armoor. Ex.P9:Wound certificate of PW2 along with OP Ticket. Ex.P10: First information report. Ex.P11: Proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad to PW13. Ex.P12: News item published in the Dist. Edition of Sakshi Daily Newspaper.

FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1: Contradictory portion in statement U/s.161 Cr.P.C. of PW2.

:: MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED ::

MO.1: Stick.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

28 of 27 Spl.SC.12 of 2020. PS. Armoor Vs. Enoch Paul Boyalapally.Dt: 02.02.2024.

:: CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT ::

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs/STs (PoA)

ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2024

Spl.SC.No.12 of 2020

(Cr.No.386 of 2019 of PS Armoor)

Between: The State of Telangana through the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Armoor Division (PS Armoor).

.. Complainant

A N D

Enoch Paul Boyalapally S/o Santhosh Paul, age 32 years, Caste: Indian Christian, Occ: Teacher of St. Paul’s School, R/o. Mamidipally village of Armoor Mandal.

.. Accused

1Date of offence. 01.12.2019. 2Date of report or complaint. 04.12.2019. 3Date of apprehension of accused.41-A Cr.P.C. notice. 4Date of release on bail.--- 5Date of commitment.--- 6Date of commencement of trial.27.09.2022. 7Date of close of trial.10.10.2023. 8Date of Judgment. 02.02.2024. 9Explanation of delay and remarks.--

Encl: Copy of Judgment.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

To, The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.), High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.

1 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

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

SCs/STs (PoA) ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 1st day of February, 2024

Spl.SC.No.15 of 2020

(Cr.No.175 of 2019 of PS Nizamabad Rural)

1.Name of the ComplainantAsst.CommissionerofPolice, Nizamabad Division (PS Nizamabad Rural).

2.Name of the accusedA1: Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh S/o Satnam Singh, age 39 years, Caste: Sikh, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.9-6-124/B, Gajulpet, Quilla Road, Nizamabad. A2: Ranjith Kour W/o Sheru Singh @ Sardar Satpal Singh, age 34 years, Caste: Sikh, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No. 9-6-124/B, Gajulpet, Quilla Road, Nizamabad.

3.Offence chargesUnder Sections 447, 434 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

4.Crime No. & Name of Police 175 of 2019 of PS Nizamabad Rural. Station

5.Plea of accusedPleaded not guilty.

6.Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty.

7.Prosecution conducted bySri B.Vasanth, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nizamabad.

8.Accused defended bySriN.SrinivasRaju,Advocate, Nizamabad.

9.Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 447, 434 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. As such, they 2 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

are acquitted of the same Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this Judgment. MO.1- JCB No.AP36 AL 6236 is already returned to its owner as per the Orders in

Crl.MP.No.1934/2019, dt: 18.11.2019,

shall be made absolute after the appeal time is over.

This case coming on 30.01.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri B.Vasanth, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State, and of Sri N.Srinivas Raju, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon’ble Court delivered the following:

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

The Asst. Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad Division (PS Nizamabad

Rural) laid charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.447 and 434 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (in short hereinafter referred as “the Act”) on completion of investigation of the case registered on the report lodged by the defacto complainant/LW1.

2.The conspectus of the prosecution case is follows as hereunder :

a)On 06.07.2019, at 8.00 p.m., the defacto complainant/LW1-

Kethavath Amar Singh came to PS Nizamabad Rural and lodged report, in which, he stated that the government has sanctioned agriculture land admeasuring Ac-4-00 in Sy.No.423/1, situated in the outskirts of Mallaram village to Lambadi Komati Bai, who is his mother. Since 15 years, the said land is in possession of LW1 and his mother, at present they cultivating 3 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

maize crop in the said land. On 06.07.2019, at about 1.30 p.m., the accused persons together along with JCB No.AP36 AL 6236, trespassed into the lands of LW1, caused damage by removing the border stones, which demarcated by the surveyor. His friend LW2-Jagan was informed the said incident over phone, on that, LW1 along with LW2, LW3-B.Laxman and LW4-C.Ganesh were went to his fields, on seeing them, the accused persons left from there by leaving JCB in the fields itself. On observation,

LW1 found damage of border stones and fencing around his fields. He further stated that about one month prior to this incident, a case has been booked against the above said accused persons for damaging his fields. Hence, he requested to take necessary legal action against the accused persons.

b) Basing on the said report, LW14-P.Prabhakar, S.I. of Police,

Nizamabad Rural has registered the case in Cr.No.175/2019 for the offences U/s.447 and 434 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of “the Act” and issued first information report and took up the investigation.

c)Later, LW15-G.Srinivas Kumar, Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Nizamabad Division, was took up the investigation as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad. During the course of investigation, LW15 examined Lws 1 to 8 and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, situated in the outskirts of

Mallaram village, conducted scene of offence panchanama in CDF and seized JCB bearing No.AP36 AL 6236 under cover of seizure panchanama 4 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

in the presence of LW9-A.Santosh and LW10-S.Ramakrishna.

d)Later on 13.12.2019, LW15 served notices U/s.41-A Cr.P.C.

against A1 and A2, who appeared on 18.12.2019 and admitted their guilt and also gave undertakings. LW11-P.Venu Gopal, Tahsildar, Nizamabad (South) issued caste certificate of LW1 by mentioning that LW1 belongs to

ST-Lambada caste and LW12-P.Anand Kumar, Tahsildar (FAC), Nizamabad

South issued caste certificates of A1 and A2 by mentioning that they belongs to BC-A Sikliger community. Later, LW13-B.Prashanth Kumar,

Tahsildar (FAC), Nizamabad Rural issued a letter vide Lr.No.C/1543/2019 stating that the land to an extent of Ac.4-00 gts., in Sy.No.423/1 is belongs to Smt.Komati Bai W/o Gangaram.

e)On completion of the investigation, LW15 laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable U/s.447, 434 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of “the Act”.

3.Upon perusal of the charge sheet and documents filed, this Court had taken cognizance against the accused for the offences U/s.447, 434 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of “the Act”. Thereafter, this Court assigned the said case as Spl.SC.No.15 of 2020.

4.After appearance of the accused persons, furnished the case documents to the accused persons as contemplated Under Section 207

Cr.P.C.

5 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

5.Upon considering the material papers on record, on hearing the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and learned Counsel for the accused, this

Court examined the accused Nos.1 and 2 U/s.228 (2) of Cr.P.C., the charges for the offences punishable U/s.447, 434 r/w 34 of IPC and

Section 3 (2) (va) of “the Act” were framed against the accused Nos.1 and 2. The same were read over and explained to the accused persons in vernacular language as required under Sub-Sec.2 of Section 228 of Cr.P.C.

6.To which, the plea of the accused persons are complete denial and claimed to be tried.

7.This Court issued Trial Schedule Under Section 230 of Cr.P.C., for the prosecution evidence.

8.In order to substantiate the charge against accused persons, prosecution had examined Pws 1 to 7 and through them, got marked

Exs.P1 to P8 and MO.1-JCB bearing No.AP36AL6236. Accordingly, the prosecution evidence is closed.

9.On completion of the prosecution evidence, accused Nos.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution.

The accused having understood the evidence, examined the accused

No.2 as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D10 documents.

10.Heard on both sides and perused the evidence on record.

6 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

11. Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences U/s.447, 434 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of “the Act” beyond reasonable doubt?. If so, to what extent the accused are liable for punishment ?.

12. POINT:-The burden lies on the prosecution to establish the offences U/s.447, 434 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of “the Act”. To substantial case of the prosecution, prosecution examined PW1 to PW7 and Exs.P1 to P8 and MO.1 are marked. The case of the prosecution is that in furtherance of common intention, committed criminal trespass into the land of LW1-Kethavath Amar with JCB No.AP-36-AL-6236 and committed mischief by destroying a land mark i.e., border stones and fencing around the fields of LW1 and humiliated LW1, knowingly that he is a member of Scheduled Tribe.

13.PW1 is the defacto complainant, who lodged the report with the police, PWs 2 to 5 are the eye-witnesses, PW6 is one of the mediators for scene of offence and seizure panchanama and PW7 is the Assistant

Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad Division, who investigated into the case and filed the charge-sheet.

14.The documents exhibited through the prosecution witnesses are

Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1 against the accused, Ex.P2 is the crime details form, Ex.P3 is the JCB seizure panchanama, Ex.P4 is the FIR, Ex.P5 is the proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad to

PW7, Ex.P6 is the letter addressed by LW11-P.Venu Gopal, Tahsildar, 7 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

Nizamabad (South), dt: 17.07.2019 to PW7, Ex.P7 is the letter addressed by LW12-P.Anand Kumar, Tahsildar (FAC), Nizamabad South, dt:

21.12.2019 to PW7, Ex.P8is the letter addressed by LW13-B.Prashanth

Kumar, Tahsildar (FAC), Nizamabad Rural to PW7, dt: 09.12.2019 along with survey report and location sketch map. MO.1 is the JCB No.AP36-AL- 6236.

15.The documents exhibited through DW1 are Ex.D1 to Ex.D10 i.e.,

Ex.D1 is the pattedar passbook, Ex.D2 is the pattedar pahani, Ex.D3 is the plaint copy, Ex.D4 is the order copy, Ex.D5 is the adangal pahani copies from 2004-2005, Ex.D6 is the adangal pahani copies from 2006- 2007, Ex.D7 is the adangal pahani copies from 2010-2011, Ex.D8 is the adangal pahani copies from 2011-2012, Ex.D9 is the adangal pahani copies from 2013-2014 and Ex.D10 is the adangal pahani copies from 2016-2017.

16.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor have argued that in the year 2004, one Komati Bai, who is the mother of LW1, has been sanctioned four acres of land in Sy.No.423/1 under rehabilitation to the Scheduled

Tribe persons, since then, she has been in possession of the said land.

LW1 cultivating the said land, since three months creating problems to him by both the accused, who belongs to Sikh community non members of SC/ST community has by claiming the government allotted land, for which, LW1 got surveyed with the Surveyor, who surveyed the land and submitted survey report to Tahsildar, Nizamabad Rural in favour of the 8 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

mother of LW1, but the accused did not digest the survey report, threatened LW1 to kill, if he did not leave the said lands. On 06.07.2019, at 1.30 p.m., the accused persons trespassed into the land of LW1 along with JCB No.AP36 AL 6236 and plough the land. On noticing the same,

LW2 informed to LW1 over phone and criminal law set into motion and the evidence of PW1 is well supported by the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW5 to

PW7 by considering the said evidence, prayed the Court to punish the accused Nos.1 and 2.

17.The learned counsel for the accused persons argued that the route cause for the offence is that a Civil Case is pending against LW1 and his mother as a counter blast, this case was foisted against these accused.

Since the LW1 and his mother belonged to Scheduled Tribe, hence, it comes under purview of Section 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015 and this case was registered U/s.447 and 434 of IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Sections 447, 434 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of “the Act”, sincethere is no material to hold that the accused Nos.1 and 2 herein are committed the said offences, hence, they cannot be found guilty for the said offences. The learned counsel further argued that the alleged offence was took place as per prosecution in Sy.No.423/1, whereas the witnesses stated that the alleged offence was took place in the said survey number and the

Investigating Officer prepared rough sketch in Sy.No.431/1. With that, prayed the Court to acquit the accused Nos.1 and 2 in this case.

9 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

18.Now, the burden lies on the prosecution that on the date of incident, both accused trespassed in the land allegedly belonged to PW1 and committed mischief by destroying the land mark and fencing around the fields of PW1. Further, the prosecution to establish that PW1 and his mother belonged to Scheduled Tribe community, so as to bring home the guilt of accused U/s.3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

19.Coming to the prosecution witnesses, PW1-Kethavath Amar Singh, who is the defacto complainant, deposed that he is having agricultural land in Sy.No.423/1 to an extent of Ac.4-00 of land in Mallaram shivar on the name of his mother Lambadi Komati Bai, which is allotted by the

Government in the year 2004, as his mother hales from scheduled tribe community, since then, the said land is under the possession of his mother, which is under cultivation of him. On 06.07.2019, in the noon hours, the accused entered into the above said land illegally damaged the boundaries stones and fencing by using the JCB bearing No.AP 36-6236, which is informed to him by his friend LW2-Jagan over phone, immediately he rushed to Gram Panchayat Office, informed the same to

Sarpanch, from there, he along with Sarpanch, Lws 2 and 3 or 4 other persons went to the scene of offence, observed the accused, who damaged boundaries stones and also fencing. On his enquiry, the driver of JCB informed that accused asked him to remove the boundary stones and fencing, accused left the scene of offence and thereafter, he approached the police and lodged Ex.P1/report.

10 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

During cross-examination, he stated that he does not know whether the father of A2 i.e., Sardar Rajender Singh is having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.7.30 guntas out of Sy.No.423/4 and also he does not know whether it was purchased by the father of A2 in a Court auction and he does not know whether the said land is under cultivation of accused. He also stated that he does not know whether the father of A2 filed a suit in

OS.No.167/2019 before Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad against him and

his mother seeking the relief of perpetual injunction. He adds that father of A2 filed the above said OS after filing this criminal case against the accused and he contested the said case.

He admitted that in the said suit, the Prl. Junior Civil Judge,

Nizamabad passed an order to maintain status-quo till the disposal of main suit. He stated that Lws 2 to 4 belongs to his community, LW2 resides opposite to his house, the wife of LW3 is Sarpanch of his village, he filed two cases against this accused. He admitted that these two cases Lws 2 and 3 are the witnesses; that the land in Sy.No.423/1 was taken over by Telangana Government for establishment of Dathri township. He adds that it was about 3 or 4 months back only and no compensation is paid. He further admitted that he did not state in his statement to the police that after survey of land in Sy.No.423/1, he took the possession of his land. He stated that he did not lodge any report with the police, when the accused tried to interfere in their possession of land earlier to this incident.

11 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

20.During cross-examination, PW1 he stated that he does not know A2 is having land in Sy.No.423/4 and also not known about the land purchased by the father of A2 in the Court Auction, but in support of the contention of this witness, he even admitted that he did not file any document to show that the land in Sy.No.423/1 and further he admitted that a Suit is pending on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, in which, status-quo was ordered. The Government was taken away the said land in Sy.No.423/1 by Telangana Government for establishment of

Dhatri Township. Witness adds that it was about 3 or 4 months back only and no compensation paid. The alleged incident was took place on 06.07.2019. PW1 says that the land was allotted to his mother, he has been cultivating the said land after death of his mother. It is the duty of

Investigating Officer to file that the land belonged to the mother of PW1, as such, the alleged incident was took place, but in the instant case, the

Investigating Officer did not file any ownership/government allotment letter. PW1 further says that he got surveyed the land through Surveyor and he took the possession of the land and the same was also not filed to prove that the said land is belonged to him.

21.PW2-Badavath Jagan deposed that this incident occurred after 12 to 15 days of occurrence of first incident, about 4 years ago, on one day, he along with his brother went to Nursery, situated at Mallaram village shivar for getting plants and he has sent his brother with plants from Mallaram shivar village Nursery. He observed running of a JCB in the agricultural 12 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

land of PW1 over phone, thereafter, he along with PW1, Sarpanch and others went to the scene of offence, there, he observed the fencing was removed and on seeing them, the accused persons left the scene of offence and when PW1 questioned the driver of JCB, the driver of JCB had removed the fencing as per the instructions of the accused and on information, the police came to the scene and took away the JCB and JCB driver along with them.

During his cross-examination by the counsel for the accused,he denied that he neither proceeded to the Nursery at Mallaram village shivar nor observed the ploughing of land by the accused with the tractor, he neither made a phone call to PW1 nor PW1 came to the scene of offence. He admitted that his house is situated infront of the house of

PW1 and he belongs to the community of PW1 and he himself and PW1 are the childhood friends. He also stated that he did not see the documents for the land in Sy.No.423/1 on the name of mother of PW1.

22.PW3-Badavath Laxman, who is one of the eye-witnesses, deposed that 15 days after the first incident, on one day, PW1 and his mother came to Gram panchayat by weeping and informed that at about 11.30 a.m., to 12.00 noon, accused were removing the fencing kept to their land by using JCB, then, he along with three other persons went to scene of offence and PW1 and his mother also came to there and he observed the fencing and boundary stones were removed with the help of JCB and he found the accused and the driver of JCB and on questioning, the driver 13 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

of JCB stated that he removed the fencing and boundary stones as per the instruction of the accused and he pleaded that he does not know about the existence of a dispute in between you-accused and PW1. The accused was there at scene and on information, the police came to scene and took away the JCB along with them.

During his cross-examination, he admitted that the accused are cultivating the land belonging to Sardar Rajender Singh, as he became old; that A.P. Rajeev Swagruha Corporation have taken the lands in the scene of offence area and he does not know whether the land of LW2 was also taken away by the A.P. Rajeev Swagruha Corporation. He also admitted that he did not state in his statement to police that PW1 and his mother came to Gram Panchayath by weeping 15 days after the first incident and the JCB driver informed that he does not know about the dispute between the accused and PW1.

23.PW4-K.Gangaram, who is also one of the eye-witnesses, deposed that he know the accused and he was having agricultural land adjacent to the land of accused. He further deposed that he does not know the facts of the case. He did not support the case of prosecution and was declared as hostile by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.

During cross-examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, he admitted that he stated in his statement to the police that the accused persons damaged the boundary stones and fencing in the land of PW1 by using JCB and earlier to this incident also, the accused threatened PW1 to 14 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

kill, when the accused ploughed the land by using the tractor.

During cross-examination by the counsel for the accused, he admitted that he was not visiting the agriculture land since 4 or 5 years.

He adds that due to fear of accused, as they intimidated him an dhe did not lodge any report against the accused and that he is deposing false stating that the accused criminally intimidated him.

24.His evidence is self-contradictory evidence, by taking advantage the community, PW1 foisted a false against A1 and A2.

25.PW5-M.Parameshwar, who is another eye-witness, deposed that about 3 years ago, on one day, he came to know his in-laws house at

Mallaram, PW4, who is his father-in-law took him to his agricultural field, at Chintala cheruvu area and PW4 brought one tractor for leveling his agricultural land, accordingly, leveled the land. By the side of land of

PW4, one person is having agricultural land, he fixed the boundary stones for his land, while PW4 leveling his agricultural land, the accused brought one JCB, removed the boundary stones fixed in the agricultural land situated beside the land of PW4 and the accused also stopped the work of

PW4 and demanded to show the papers and quarreled with them and also neighbouring land owner. He saw JCB bearing No.6236 with which the accused damaged the boundary stones and on enquiry of land owner, the driver of JCB stated that he removed the boundary stones as per the instructions of the accused.

During cross-examination, he stated that he does not know the 15 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

survey number of the land of his father-in-law, the Government assigned the said land to his father-in-law and he does not know the names of the persons who are owning land at the scene of offence.

26.PW4 though he turned hostile, but alleges that the accused persons damaged the boundary stones and fencing in the land of PW1 by using

JCB and earlier to this incident also, the accused threatened PW1 to kill when the accused ploughed the land by using the tractor.

27.PW3 admitted during his cross-examination he stated that he know

Sardar Rajender Singh, who is the father of A2, who is having agricultural land, but he does not know its extent. He also admitted that the accused are cultivating the land belonging to Sardar Rajender Singh, as he became old; that A.P. Rajeev Swagruha Corporation have taken the lands in the scene of offence area. He further stated that he does not know whether the land of LW2 was also taken away by A.P. Rajeev Swagruha

Corporation.

28.As per the evidence of Pws 1 to 5, admittedly the land belonged to

Government and has been taken away by the Government from PW1.

Therefore, it can be understood that the said land is not belonged to the mother of PW1 and she is not owner of the said land. If really, the accused Nos.1 and 2 cultivating the land belonged to Government, it is for the Tahsildar to give complaint against A1 and A2 for cultivating the land unauthorizedly. When there is no ownership of Komati Bai, who is the mother of PW1 and PW1, it cannot be believed that the accused 16 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

ploughing the land by trespassing into the land allegedly belonged to the mother of PW1 and PW1.

29.PW6-S.Rama Krishna, who is one of the panch witnesses to the scene of offence panchanama and seizure panchanama of JCB, deposed that on 07.07.2019, police called him and LW9-A.Santosh to scene of offence area, at there he found the damage of fencing and also boundary stones and were made at one place by using the JCB. The police drafted the panchanama in their presence and drawn the rough sketch of the scene and also seized JCB bearing No.6236 in their presence under the cover of Ex.P3/JCB seizure panchanama. Ex.P2 is the crime details form and after preparing Exs.P2 and P3, police obtained their signature.

During his cross-examination, he stated that as on the date of conducting Exs.P2 and P3, he was not working in Municipality on outsourcing basis, at that time, he was attending his agriculture work. He further stated that PW1 is hie neighbour, police obtained two or three signatures of him, conducting panchanama started at 9.00 a.m., and completed by 1.30 p.m. and the map of land drawn by the police on CDF is an extent of Ac.6-00, he cannot say the engine and chasis number of

JCB and also does not know its owner.

30.As per PW6, the scene of offence land falls under Sy.No.423/1 and he cannot say its boundaries.

31.PW7-G.Srinivas Kumar, the then ACP, Nizamabad, deposed that he know LW14-P.Prabhakar, SI of Police, Nizamabad Rural P.S., as he worked 17 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

during his tenure as ACP Nizamabad, as such, he can identity his signature and handwriting. On 06.07.2019, at 8.00 p.m., LW14 received

Ex.P1/report from PW1, basing on it, he registered this case in

Cr.No.175/2019 for the offence U/s.434, 447 of IPC and Sec.3 (2) (va) of

SC/ST (POA) Act and issued Ex.P4/FIR. As per the orders of the

Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad under Ex.P5, he took up the investigation of this case, during the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of Pws 1 to 5, Lws 4, 6 and 8, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators PW6 and

LW8 under Ex.P2/Crime details form and seized JCB under cover of the seizure panchanama/Ex.P3. On 13.12.2019, he served notices U/s.41 (A)

Cr.P.C. against the accused, who appeared before him and admitted their guilt. On his requisition, LW11 furnished the community information of

PW1-Ketavath Amar Singh under Ex.P6 stating that PW1 belongs to ST

Lambada and on his requisition, LW12-T.Anand Kumar, Tahsildar,

Nizamabad South furnished the community particulars of the accused under Ex.P7 stating that accused belongs to BC-A community. On his requisition, LW13 Tahsildar FAC: Nizamabad Rural furnished the ownership particulars of land in Sy.No.423/1 and Ex.P8 is the letter addressed by LW13, dt: 09.12.2019 along with Survey report and location sketch map. On completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the above mentioned offences. MO.1 is the JCB seized by him and produced before the Court vide CPR.No.130/2019 on 18 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

the file of II Addl. JFCM, Nizamabad, which was returneod to its owner as per the orders in Crl.MP.No.1934/2019, dt: 01.11.2019.

During cross-examination, he stated that PW1 lodged a written report. In this case, he did not collect any document to show that the disputed land was allotted to Komati Bai and he cannot say the total extent of land situated in Sy.No.423/1. He did not examine the Mandal

Surveyor, who conducted the survey of the land in Sy.No.423/1. He had no idea whether the father of A2 filed a civil suit against PW1 and Komati

Bai when they tried to occupy the land of father of A2. He did not seize the damaged boundary stones and fencing material from the scene of offence and the owner of JCB was not maintained any record to show that to whom the JCB was given on rent and did not examine the driver of JCB.

He adds that the driver of JCB fled away. PWs 2 and 3 in this case were also witnesses in Spl.SC.No.11/2020.

He admitted that in Ex.P8, the Tahsildar mentioned that Sardar

Rajender Singh was also holding the land to an extent of Ac.7-13 guntas in Sy.No.423/4 and he denied that the land of father of A2 is situated adjacent to the land of PW1.

He denied that Komati Bai had no land at all as on the date of this incident and her land was acquired by A.P. Rajiv Swagruha Corporation and paid compensation. He has no idea at what distance the nursery is situated from the scene of offence, he does not know the distance between nursery and scene of offence is about 2 Kms., he has no idea 19 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

whether PW1 or Komati Bai lodged any report against the accused before police, Nizamabad Rural earlier to lodging these two reports. He did not collect the call data record belonging to mobile phone of PW2. He denied that PW4 did not give any statement to him and he does not know the facts of the case.

32.As per the evidence of PW7, A1 and A2 allegedly ploughing the land with JCB, but the Investigating Officer did not examine the driver of the

JCB and its owner. It can be understood that PW7’s cross-examination that there are criminal cases pending against A1 and A2 and PW1.

There is a lot of discrepancies in between the survey numbers of the alleged land. The prosecution witnesses did not establish that the offence was took place in Sy.No.423/1. Further, the witnesses failed to prove that both accused trespassed into the land allegedly belonged to

PW1 and his mother and threatened them with dire consequences.

33.During the examination U/s.313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that the civil case is converted into criminal case and examined DW1 on their behalf.

34.The accused No.2 is examined as DW1. She deposed that she is A2 in the present case. A1 is her husband. Sardar Rajender Singh is his father purchased a land in the year 1991 admeasuring to an extent

Ac.7.30 guntas in Sy.No.423/4, situated at Mallaram village and purchased the same from the vendor Shivaji Raju and said Shivaji Raju purchased the same property through Court Auction in the year 1986.

20 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

Since the date of purchase of land, his father is cultivating the same and his name is entered in the pattedhar passbook on 25.08.2006. Ex.D1 is the pattedhar passbook, Ex.D2 is the pattedhar pahani, Ex.D3 is the plaint copy, Ex.D4 is the order copy, Ex.D5 is the adangal phani copies from 2004-2005, Ex.D6 is the adangal phani copies from 2006-2007,

Ex.D7 is the adangal Phani copies from 2010-2011, Ex.D8 is the adangal pahani copies from 2011-2012, Ex.D9 is the adangal pahani copies from 2013-2014 and Ex.D10 is the adangal pahani copies from 2016-2017.

She herself and A1 are cultivating the said land from 2017, as his father is bedridden. PW1 is habitual land grabber and used to create fake documents. His father Sardar Rajender Singh filed suit against PW1 vide

O.S.No.167/2019 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and the

same is pending in the Court and the Court was pleased to issue status- quo order directing his father and PW1 to maintain status-quo. The mother of PW1 was holding a land in Sy.No.423/69 admeasuring Ac.3.00 situated at Mallaram village and the same was sold to Government under

Rajiv Swagruha Scheme for an amount of Rs.3,90,000/- and they received the payment. She further deposed that on 21.06.2019, she along with A1 never tried to occupy the lands of PW1 by trespassing into the lands of

PW1, with tractor and she never hired a tractor and she has noway concerned with the alleged incident.

She also deposed that as on the date of alleged incident 21.06.2019 no land/title in favour of mother of PW1. They have managed the police 21 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

got instituted the false complaint against her and A1/husband. She herself and A1 never threatened or damaged the agriculture field of PW1 and never committed any offence on the guise of civil dispute and the same is coloured as criminal complaint and lodged false complaint against her and her husband/A1. PW1 and his henchmen treated to interfere the possession of their land on 16.06.2019 and 30.06.2019.

After filing of civil suit against PW1 and his mother, after that this criminal complaint was lodged against her and A1 by misusing SC/ST Atrocities

Act. She has filed a copy of Civil Suit filed before Prl. Junior Civil Judge’s

Court, Nizamabad and was noway concerned with the alleged offence and false case foisted against her and A1 with an intention to grab our property.

During cross-examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, she stated that her land is situated in Sy.No.423/4, the land of PW1 is situated in Sy.No.423/69. She denied that mother of PW1 was issued patta in Sy.No.423/1 and the same was allotted by the Government; that they have encroached and grab the land of PW1 with JCB and there upon abused the PW1 in the name of caste; that the documents Exs.D1 to D10 filed by her does not pertains to the present case and they are fabricated documents; that her father never purchased the land in Sy.No.423/4 and falsely claiming the land of PW1; that as per Ex.P9 the survey conducted by PW7 the land belongs to PW1; that tractor was hide by them from the owner to remove the boundaries of land in Sy.No.423/1; that only to 22 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

escape from this case, they filed Exs.D1 to D10 and it is not part of the present case as PW1 intervened from removing the boundaries of his land and she and A1 abused in the name of caste and that she deposed false to escape from this criminal case.

35.As per DW1, the documents, which are marked on their behalf stands in the name of father of A2 and the same is cultivating by A1 and

A2. Moreover, the land belonged to A1 and A2 is situated in Sy.No.423/4 and PW1’s land is situated in Sy.No.423/69. As per Ex.D1, D2, D5 to D10, the land belonged to LW2 stands in Sy.No.423/69, whereas, the prosecution instituted the case alleging that the alleged offence was took place in Sy.No.423/1.

36.Now, as per the evidence of defence along with documents filed by the defence and the land belonged to the mother of PW1 and A1 and A2 are different in survey numbers, therefore, the alleged offence took place is highly unbelievable. It is admittedly that civil cases are pending between A1 and A2 and PW1, this case was foisted against A1 and A2 and the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of A1 and A2

U/s.447 of IPC. Further, the prosecution witnesses failed to establish that both A1 and A2 committed mischief by destroying the land mark i.e., the border stones and fencing around the fields of PW1. There are no cogent and coherent evidence to believe the offence took place in Sy.No.423/1 and the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of A1 and A2 U/s.434 r/w 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, though the accused 23 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

persons charged U/s.3 (2) (va) of “the Act”, but no evidence is produced

before this Court to prove that the accused persons herein with an

intention to humiliate PW1 and knowing well that he belongs to

Scheduled Tribe community.

37.With the above discussion, this Court has arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilty of the accused

Nos.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences U/s.447, 434 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of “the Act” and the benefit of doubt shall rightly be given to the accused persons. As there is no conclusive evidence, as such, the accused Nos.1 and 2 can not be found guilty for the said charged offences. The point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences Under Sections 447, 434 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. As such, they are acquitted of the same Under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused persons shall stands canceled after six months from the date of this Judgment. MO.1-JCB No.AP36 AL 6236 is already returned to its owner as per the Orders in Crl.MP.No.1934/2019, dt: 18.11.2019, shall be made absolute after the appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 1st day of February, 2024.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

24 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

: : APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

Witnesses examined :: ::

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1:Kethavath Amar SinghComplainant. (LW1). PW2:Badavath Jagan (LW2).Eye witness. PW3:Badavath Laxman (LW3).Eye witness. PW4:K.Gangaram (LW5).Eye witness. PW5:M.Parameshwar (LW7).Eye witness. PW6:S.Rama Krishna (LW10).Panch for scene of offence panchanama and seizure of JCB. PW7:G.Srinivas Kumar, ACP,I.O. and laid charge sheet. Nizamabad Division (LW15).

FOR DEFENCE:

DW1: Ranjith Kour.

: : EXHIBITS MARKED ::

:: FOR PROSECUTION ::

Ex.P1:Report. Ex.P2: Crime details form. Ex.P3:JCB seizure panchanama. Ex.P4:First Information Report. Ex.P5:Proceedings issued by the Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad to PW7. Ex.P6:Letter addressed by LW11-P.Venu Gopal, Tahsildar, Nizamabad (South), dt: 17.07.2019 to PW7. Ex.P7:Letter addressed by LW12-P.Anand Kumar, Tahsildar (FAC), Nizamabad South, dt: 21.12.2019 to PW7. Ex.P8:Letter addressed by LW13-B.Prashanth Kumar, Tahsildar (FAC), Nizamabad Rural to PW7, dt: 09.12.2019 along with survey report and location sketch map.

:: FOR DEFENCE ::

Ex.D1:Pattedar passbook.

Ex.D2:Pattedar pahani, Ex.D3:Plaint copy. Ex.D4:Order copy. Ex.D5:Adangal pahani copies from 2004-2005.

25 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

Ex.D6:Adangal pahani copies from 2006-2007. Ex.D7:Adangal pahani copies from 2010-2011. Ex.D8:Adangal pahani copies from 2011-2012. Ex.D9:Adangal pahani copies from 2013-2014. Ex.D10: Adangal pahani copies from 2016-2017.

:: MATERIAL OBJECTS ::

MO.1: JCB No.AP36-AL-6236 (which is marked on perusal of photographs filed along with Form No.60 and subject to objection).

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

26 of 25Spl.SC.No.15/2020 II ADJ Court, Nzb. PS. Nizamabad Rural Vs. Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh & another, Dt: 01.02.2024.

:: CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT ::

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

SCs/STs (PoA) ACT-CUM-II ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NIZAMABAD

Present:- Smt.M.Kanaka Durga, I Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad.

Dated this the 1st day of February, 2024

Spl.SC.No.15 of 2020

(Cr.No.175 of 2019 of PS Nizamabad Rural)

Between: The State represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Nizamabad Division (PS Nizamabad Rural).

.. Complainant

A N D

A1:Sardar Satpal Singh @ Sheru Singh S/o Satnam Singh, age 39 years, Caste: Sikh, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.9-6-124/B, Gajulpet, Quilla Road, Nizamabad. A2:Ranjith Kour W/o Sheru Singh @ Sardar Satpal Singh, age 34 years, Caste: Sikh, Occ: House Wife, R/o. H.No. 9-6-124/B, Gajulpet, Quilla Road, Nizamabad.

.. Accused

1Date of offence 06.07.2019. 2Date of report or complaint 06.07.2019. 3Date of apprehension of accused41-A Cr.P.C notice 4Date of release on bail--- 5Date of commitment--- 6Date of commencement of trial01.11.2022. 7Date of close of trial17.08.2023. 8Date of Judgment 01.02.2024. 9Explanation of delay and remarks--

Encl: Copy of Judgment.

FAC: Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. Sessions Judge, Nizamabad. To, The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Telangana, Hyderabad.