Sri M. Krishnappa

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRAIL OF OFFENCES UNDER

SCs AND STs (POA) ACT 1989-Cum-V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE

Dated this the 17th day of September, 2016

Present: Sri M. Krishnappa

Special Judge for trail of offences

Under the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 Cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore.

SESSIONS CASE No.4/2011

(P.R.C.No.13/2009 of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur connected to Cr.No.40/2009 of Kaluvoy Police Station )

Name of the Complainant:State: Sub Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur

Name of the Accused: 1) Shaik Masthan @ Moghal Masthan @ Moddu Mallik, son of Bikari Saheb, aged 40 years,

2) Bathala Venkateswarlu, S/o.Kondaiah, aged 40 years, Kamma by caste,

Both are r/o Vedanaparthi village, Kaluvoy mandal

Offences:U/Sec.323, 324 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989

Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order: In the result, A-1 is found not guilty for the offences u/s.3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and u/s.323 and 324 IPC and A-2 is found not guilty for the offence u/s.323 IPC and they are acquitted of the same u/s.235(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled forthwith.

Prosecution conducted by:Additional Public Prosecutor

NELLORE

Name of the Defence Sri. P. Gopal Reddy, Advocate, Nellore counsel:

This case was committed to this Court by Smt.S. Sujatha, Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District as per Orders in

P.R.C.No. 13/2009 dated 23.12.2010 in Crime No. 40/2009 of Kaluvoy Police Station, SPSR Nellore District. This Sessions Case coming up before this Court on 16.09.2016 for hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of Sri P. Gopal Reddy, advocate for accused and this matter having stood 2 over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Atmakur filed a charge sheet against the accused in crime No.40 of 2009 of Kaluvoy police station on the file of the learned Judl. Magistrate of First Class court, Atmakur for the offences u/s.324, 323 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

Pw3, K. Venkata Narasaiah belongs to Scheduled caste and the accused not belongs to Scheduled caste or Scheduled Tribe. Hence Pw3 is entitled for the benefits and protection under the provisions of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989.

On 24.04.2009, on the even of Tirunallu at Sri Rama temple,

Vedanaparthil village, Pw3 along with Pw4, K. Eswaramma and Lw5/K.

Penchalaiah went to Vedanaparthi village. At about 2.00 PM, Pw3 sent his his wife Pw4 and his elder brother's son Lw5 to the temple and he went to community hall, where A-1 and A2 were sitting and chatting there. On seeing

Pw3, A-2 gave Rs.500/- note to Pw3 and asked him to get cigarettes. Pw3 requested A2 that he would purchase beedies with that amount and A2 agreed for the same. The same was witnessed by Lw3/N. Masthanaiah @

Guddayana. A2 also asked Pw3 to get the cigarettes to the pial near

Ramalayam. Then, Pw3 went to get cigarettes. A1 and A2 went to the pial near Ramalayam. Pw3 purchased the cigarettes and beedies at the shop of

Pw2 for Rs.20/-. In that connection there was a delay in obtaining the amount of Rs.480/- from Pw2, since the note of Rs.500/- was given to Pw2.

Pw3 went to the accused who were present near the house of

Pw1 situated near Ramalayam at about 4.20 PM on 24.4.2009 and handed over the cigarettes and Rs.480/- to A2. A1 who grew wild against Pw3 for causing delay in getting the cigarettes and with an intention to abuse Pw3 3 and to humiliate him, abused Pw3 in the name of his caste as “NEE YAMMA

MADIGA PUKULO NAA MADDA, INTHASEPU YEMIRA ALASYAM” and kicked him over his chest within public view. As a result, Pw3 fell on the ground. Then, A1 caught hold of the tuft of Pw3 and forcibly hit the head of

Pw3 to the stone which was on the ground. As a result, Pw3 sustained bleeding injury over the back of his head. On hearing the cries of Pw3, Pw2,

Pw4 and Lw5 rushed to the scene of offence and witnessed the occurrence.

Pw1 chastised the accused and asked them to leave that place. Then, A2 kicked Pw3 with his leg, abused Pw3 in filthy language, took A1 and went away. Pw3 who got first aid at his village and requested the village elders of

Vedanaparti village to do justice to him. But no action was taken by the village elders.

On 27.4.2009 Pw3 went to Kaluvoy police station and gave a report. Pw5, the Asst. S.I. of Police, Kaluvoy PS registered the report of Pw3 as a case in crime No.40/2009 u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 of Kaluvoy PS and submitted the copies of FIR to all the officers concerned. Lw10, M.V. Ramarao, the Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Atmakur who received authorization letter from the Superintendent of Police,

Nellore vide C.No.87/AL-C/09 dated 27.4.2009 took up investigation, visited the scene of offence and examined the witnesses. The accused with an intent to escape from the arrest by police, surrendered before this court and released on bail vide this court's CrlMP No.69 of 2009 dated 5.6.2009.

Lw8, T. Parasuram, Medical Officer, who examined Pw3 issued wound certificate and opined that the injury of Pw3 is simple in nature.

The investigation reveals that on 24.4.2009, Pw3 went to

Vedanaparti village along with Pw4 and Lw5. A2 gave a note of Rs.500/- to

Pw3 and asked him to get the cigarettes. Pw3 brought the cigarettes and the accused who grew wild against Pw3 in causing delay in getting cigarettes, assaulted Pw3 and abused him in the name of his caste within public view. As 4 the investigation reveals that accused committed the above offence and after completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the accused under the above sections of law.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Atmakur took cognizance against the accused for the offences u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989, and numbered the case as

P.R.C.No. 13/2009.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Atmakur after going through the material on record noticed that the offences u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989 in the charge sheet filed against the accused were exclusively triable by this Court. Accordingly PRC 13/2009 was committed to this Court to take the matter to its logical end.

5. This Court on appearance of the accused who engaged an

Advocate to defend their case examined them U/Sec. 228(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

6. Charges U/Sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and u/s.323 and 324 IPC against A-1 and charge u/s.323 IPC against A-2 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, examined Pws 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 and closed its side evidence

8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. where the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence available on record were explained to the accused for which the accused pleaded not guilty and denied the same. However the accused did not examine any witnesses and did not mark any documents on their behalf.

9. After closing the evidence on both sides this Court heard the arguments advanced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and learned

Advocate for accused.

5

10. After hearing the arguments on both sides the point for consideration is –

Whether the prosecution could able to made out the case against the accused for the offences u/s.3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and u/s.324 and 323 IPC against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

P O I N T:

11.During the course of arguments, the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor contested the case against the accused stating that though prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses in this case, Pws 1 to 4 who are material witnesses are not supporting the case of the prosecution. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor further would submit that Pw3 who is the victim and defacto complainant failed to say anything against the accused.

When Pws 1 to 4 failed to support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of Pw5 Sri.N. Ramamurthy, ASI of Police, Kaluvoy police station who registered this case against the accused, can not be treated as a basis for conviction. As such the Addl. Public Prosecutor openly stated that the evidence of Pw1 on record has not established the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

12.The learned advocate for the accused left the matter to the discretion of the court stating that when Pws 1 to 4 who are material witnesses failed to support the case of the prosecution, the evidence of Pw5 who is the police officer alone can not be taken to consideration to believe the entire case of the prosecution as narrated in the charge sheet against the accused.

13.After hearing the arguments on both sides, it is to be seen whether prosecution could able to made out the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the charges framed against the accused.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused successfully 6 examined as many as 5 witnesses and marked Exs.P1 to P13 and closed its side evidence . Out of the witnesses examined, except Pws 1 to 4 nobody is supporting the case of the prosecution. Pw5 Sri.N. Ramamurthy is the only police officer who supported the case of the prosecution. When material witnesses turned hostile, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of Lws 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 and reported no further evidence on behalf of the prosecution.

14.When coming to the evidence available on record, Pw3 Sri.K.

Venkata Narasaiah, resident of Verubotlapalli village of Kaluvoy mandal, belonging to Madiga (SC) community which comes under the category of

Scheduled Caste, says that Pw4 is his wife and he knows Pw2 Sri.K.

Hazaraiah. Pw3 further stated that no incident took place in between him and accused at any point of time and there was no occasion for the accused either to insult him or abuse him by referring to his caste at any point of time and as such he had no occasion to lodge any complaint against the accused with SHO, Kaluvoy police station. Pw3 further stated that about 7 years back,

Kaluvoy police had obtained his LTI on white paper marked as Ex.P3 and subsequently police did not examine him. Pw3 specifically stated that he never lodged any complaint with police stating as in Ex.P4. As such Pw3 being a victim, defacto complainant and material witness failed to support the case of the prosecution. When Pw3 failed to support the case of the prosecution, at the request of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, he was treated as hostile witness . The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross examine him. During the course of cross examination by learned

Addl. Public Prosecutor, Pw3 categorically denied the suggestion that on 24.4.2009 at about 4 PM near pial at Ramalayam in their village, the accused scolded him by referring to his caste with an intention to insult and humiliate him in public view and assaulted him and so he lodged a complaint with police stating as in Ex.P4 and subsequently police had examined him and he 7 had stated before police as in Ex.P5 and at present he had compromised the matter with the SHO and speaking falsehood. In the same manner Pw4 wife of Pw3 stated that no incident took place in between Pw1 and accused at any point of time and accused never assaulted Pw1 or abused him by referring to his caste at any point of time and as such there was no occasion for Pws 1 and 3 to lodge any complaint against the accused with SHO,

Kaluvoy police station. Pw4 further stated that she does not know anything in this case and police never examined her. When coming to the evidence of

Pw1 Smt.T. Eswaramma, Pw2, Sri.T. Hazaraiah, residents of Vedanaparti and

Budanaparti villages, respectively stated that they do not know anything in this case and police never examined them. When Pws 1 ,2 and 4 failed to support the case of the prosecution, at the request of the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, they were treated as hostile witnesses and learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine them. During the course of cross- examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Pw1, Pw2 and Pw4 categorically denied the suggestion that police had examined them and they have stated before the police as in Exs.P1, P2 and P6 respectively and at present they are speaking falsehood at the instance of the accused.

15.As seen from the case of the prosecution stated in the charge sheet on 24.4.2009 at about 2 PM while A1 and A2 were sitting at community hall, Pw3 had gone there and at the same time accused gave

Rs.500/- to Pw3 asking him to get cigarettes. Subsequently Pw3 went to the shop and purchased cigarettes and beedies for Rs.20/- and gave a Rs.500/- note to Pw2 who was the shop owner. There was a little bit delay in getting change from Pw2 and Pw3 came to Ramalayam where accused were present and handed over the cigarettes and Rs.480/- to A2. At the same time, A1 got angry against Pw3 for the delay he committed in getting cigarettes from the shop and abused him by referring to his caste as “NEE YAMMA MADIGA

PUKULO NAA MADDA, INTHASEPU YEMIRA ALASYAM” and kicked him 8 on his chest within the public view with an intention to insult and humiliate him in public view. When Pw3 fell down, A1 and A2 also again assaulted him.

In the said transaction, A1 caught hold the tuft of Pw3 and forcibly hit his head to the stone on the ground causing bleeding injury. A2 also assaulted

Pw3. On hearing the cries of Pw3, Pw1, Pw4 and Lw5 Sri.K. Penchalaiah rushed to the spot , witnessed the incident and Pw1 chastised the accused and rescued Pw3. The above said facts are not elicited in the evidence available on record by the prosecution. Though the Pws 1 to 4 are examined to prove the main incident, nothing is elicited in their evidence to prove the above said facts. As such Pws 1 to 4 are not at all supporting the case of the prosecution.

16.When coming to the evidence of Pw5 Sri.N. Ramamurthy, he says that while he was working as ASI, Kaluvoy PS from 2.2.2009 to 3.5.2010, on 27.4.2009 at about 4.30 PM while he was incharge of Kaluvoy police station, Pw3 met him with injuries and lodged a written complaint with him containing Ex.P3 LTI of Pw3 and contents are marked as Ex.P4 and he registered the said complaint as a case in crime No.40 of 2009 of Kaluvoy police station against the accused u/s.3(1)(x) of SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989 and u/s.324 r/w 34 IPC and submitted FIRs to all the concerned officers. Ex.P7 is the FIR submitted to the court. Pw5 further submitted as follows:- “As offence u/s.3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989 was registered against the accused, I informed the matter to our the then SDPO, Lw.10

Sri.M.V. Ramarao, Atmakur and submitted copy of FIR to him. Subsequently,

Lw10 obtained the authorization from the then SP, Nellore vide C.No.87/C3-

AL/208 dated 27.4.2009 marked as Ex.P8 and took up investigation in this case. I being concerned Sub Inspector of Police incharge of Kaluvoy PS assisted him during the course of investigation. Lw.10 visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch of the same marked as Ex.P9, secured the presence of Pws. 1 to 4, Lw3 Sri.Nagella Masthanaiah, Lw.5 Sri.Kadiri 9

Penchalaiah examined them and recorded their statements u/s.161 CrPC. Pws 1 to 4 stated before Lw10 as in Exs.P1,P2, P5 and P6 respectively. During the course of investigation, the accused themselves surrendered before this court and subsequently obtained bail. Lw10 collected the wound certificate of

Pw3, caste certificate of Pw3 marked as Ex.P10, caste certificates of accused marked as Exs.P11 and P12 respectively and from Lw7 Sri.Nagineni

Krishnakanth, the then Tahsildar, Kaluvoy mandal and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet in this case. Lw10 also collected wound certificate of Pw3 marked as Ex.P13 from Lw.8 Dr.P. Parasuram, Medical

Officer, Government Hospital, Podalakur.”

17.As such as seen from the evidence of Pw5, it was Pw3 who lodged a complaint with him, basing on which he had registered the above said crime and started investigation but Pw3 being the victim and material witness did not say anything in his evidence to support the evidence of Pw5.

Pw3 says that he never lodged any complaint with police against the accused at any point of time. As seen from the evidence of Pw5, Lw10, the then SDPO,

Atmakur, Sri.M.V. Ramana Rao, took up investigation in this case examined

Pws 1 to 4 and recorded their statements u/s.161 CrPC and Pws 1 to 4 stated

before Lw10 as in Exs.P1, P2, P5 and P6 respectively. But Pws 1 to 4 clearly

stated that police never examined them at any point of time and as such there was no occasion for them to state before police as in Exs.P1, P2, P5 and

P6 respectively. When Pws 1 to 4 are not at all supporting the case of the prosecution, the evidence of Pw5 who is the police officer alone can not be looked into to believe the entire case of the prosecution against the accused.

Nothing is elicited in the evidence of Pws 1 to 4 by learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor to believe that they are speaking falsehood during the course of trial. Lw10 who is the Investigating Officer in this case collected evidence and filed charge sheet is not examined in support of the case of the prosecution.

10

Moreover the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor during the course of arguments categorically submitted that prosecution utterly failed to made out case against the accused beyond reasonable doubts.

18. In the aforesaid circumstances, this court did not find any reliable evidence against the accused to believe the charges framed against the accused in this case . Hence it is very clear that the prosecution is not coming forward with true facts and suppressing the truth and ultimately failed to made out case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Hence the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt and accordingly benefit of doubt is extended in favour of the accused.

19.In the result, A-1 is found not guilty for the offences u/s.3(1)(x) of

SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and u/s.323 and 324 IPC and A-2 is found not guilty for the offence u/s.323 IPC and they are acquitted of the same u/s.235(1) CrPC. The bail bonds of the accused, shall stand cancelled forthwith.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 17th day of September, 2016.

Special Judge for trail of offences

under the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 -cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: Smt.T. Eswaramma

PW2: K. Hazaraiah

PW3: K. Venkata Narasaiah

PW4: Smt.K. Eswaramma

PW5: N. Ramamurthy, the then ASI of Police, Kaluvoy

FOR DEFENCE: NONE 11

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1: 161 CrPC statement of Pw1

Ex.P2: 161 CrPC statement of Pw2

Ex.P3: LTI of Pw3 on complaint

Ex.P4: Contents of complaint

Ex.P5: 161 CrPC statement of Pw3

Ex.P6: 161 CrPC statement of Pw4

Ex.P7: FIR

Ex.P8: Authorization from SP, Nellore

Ex.P9: Rough sketch

Ex.P10: caste certificate of Pw3

Ex.P11: Caste certificate of A1

Ex.P12: Caste certificate of A2

Ex.P13: Wound certificate of Pw3

For Defence:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

Special Judge

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRAIL OF OFFENCES UNDER

SCs AND STs (POA) ACT 1989-Cum-V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

NELLORE

Dated this the 28th day of September, 2016

Present: Sri M. Krishnappa

Special Judge for trail of offences

Under the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 Cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore.

SESSIONS CASE No.44/2015

(P.R.C.No.7/2015 of Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, connected to Cr.No.241/2013 of Sullurpet Police Station )

Name of the Complainant:State Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur

Name of the Accused:Venati Rajasekhar Reddy, son of Raghurami Reddy, aged 23 years, Pallireddy by caste, Native of Karikadu village, D.V. Satram mandal, now resident of Sullurupet

Offence & Section ofU/Secs.3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs Law:(POA) Act, 1989 and u/s.376, 323 and 506 IPC Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty Finding of the Judge:Found not guilty

Sentence of Order: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and u/s.376, 323 and 506 IPC and he is acquitted of the same u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.

Prosecution conducted by:Additional Public Prosecutor

NELLORE

Name of the Defence Sri. T. Kotaiah, counsel:Advocate, Nellore

This case was committed to this Court by Sri.T. Haritha, Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet, SPSR Nellore District as per Orders in

P.R.C.No.7/2015, dated 30.7.2015 in Crime No. 241/2013 of Sullurpet Police

Station, SPSR Nellore District.

This Sessions Case coming up before this Court on 23.09.2016 for hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for Complainant and of Sri. T. Kotaiah, advocate for accused and this matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

J U D G M E N T

2

1.The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gudur filed charge sheet against the accused on the file of learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Sullurpet in connection with Crime No.241/2013 of Sullurpet PS U/Sec.376, 506, 323 IPC and u/s.3(1)(XII) and 3(ii)(V) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989.

2. The brief facts of the charge sheet are as follows:

The accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled

Tribe. Pw1 belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is entitled for the provisions of SCs and STs (POA) Act,1989.

It is further stated in the charge sheet that on 14.12.2013 at 9 AM

Pw1 started from Sullurpet and reached to Chengalamma temple and telephoned to Pw2 and asked him to come to Sullurpet. He agreed for the same so she stayed there. Pw2 reached there at 8 PM and both of them chit chat for some time and on suspicion that known persons would come there on that they went to canal bund opposite to the temple and chit chatting there. In the meantime one person came there with a stick in his hand and questioned them who are they and why they were there. He also told them his name is Rajasekhar Reddy and he is police and threatened them to come to police station. On that they felt fear and weeped. On that he told him if he come along with him he would not take them to police station. Pw1 not accepted the same. On that he slapped her and caught hold of her neck and dragged her to some distance. There he removed his clothes and so also removed her clothes also and sexually enjoyed her forcibly. He also threatened them with dire consequences. It was happened at 12 PM. They waited for some time there after attaining courage then he came outside and informed the same to the police who was on duty at the temple, he took them to police station. Basing on the complaint of Pw1, Lw14, B. Ankama

Rao, SI of Police, Sullurpet registered a case in crime No.241/2013 u/s.376, 506, 323 IPC and u/s.3(1)(xii) and u/s.3(ii)(v) of SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989 and submitted copies of express FIR to all the concerned officers. On the 3 directions of Lw15, K. Choudeswari, SDPO, Lw14 sent Pw1 to medical examination. Lw15 received express FIR visited Government hospital,

Sullurpet and secured the presence of Pws 1 and Pw2 and enquired about the incident and examined them in detail and visited the scene of offence along with Pw2 and identified the same and posted guard at the scene of offence and found a hand kerchief and a silver coloured G-5 mobile phone.

It is further stated in the charge sheet that Lw15 got authorization from the Superintendent of Police, SPSR Nellore district vide

C.No.216/C3-AL/2013, dated 15.12.2013 and she took up investigation in this case. Lw15 visited Government hospital, Sullurpet and secured the presence of Pw1 and Pw2 and recorded their detailed statements and visited the scene of offence along with Lw7 D. Subrahmanyam and Lw8 J. Vijayagopal got prepared scene observation report seized material objects and prepared rough sketch. Then Lw15 returned to Sullurpet police station and secured the presence of Lw3, K. Ajit, Pws 3 to 5 and examined them and recorded their detailed statements. On 15.12.2013 Lw15 received credible information about the accused and secured the presence of Lws 9 and 10, Eepuru

Rajagopal and Lw10 Mamuduru Chandraiah and reached to Vinayaka temple at Karikadu along with Lw14 and his staff and arrested the accused and got prepared arrest cum confessional mahazar. As per the confessional statement of the accused they reached to the house of grandfather of the accused at

Sullurpet and secured clothes of the accused and got prepared seizure mahazarnama by Lws 9 and 10.

It is further stated in the charge sheet that Lw15 brought the accused to Sullurpet police station and showed the hand kerchief and mobile phone seized at the scene of offence and he identified them as his articles.

Then she got prepared identification mahazarnama by the Lws 9 and 10 and sent him to judicial custody.

It is further stated in the charge sheet that Lw12 Dr.G.

4

Priyadarshini, Deputy Civil Surgeon examined Pw1 and collected material objects from her and handed over to Lw15 and issued wound certificate.

Lw15 sent material to RFSL, Hyderabad for chemical analysis. Lw13, Dr.Z.

Sasikanth, Asst. Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government

Medical college, Nellore examined the accused and issued potency certificate. Lw11 S.Munilakshmi, Tahsildar, Sullurpet issued caste certificate of Pw1 and the accused. Lw15 received RFSL report, wound certificate of

Pw1, potency certificate of the accused and caste certificate of Pw1 and the accused. During the investigation, it reveals that the accused committed the offences u/s.376, 506, 323 IPC and u/s.3(1)(xii) and 3(ii)(v) of SCs & STs (PoA)

Act, 1989. Hence the charge sheet.

3.The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet took cognizance against the accused for the offences u/s.376, 506, 323 IPC and under Section 3(1) (xii) and u/s.3(ii)(v) of SCs and STS( PoA) Act, 1989 and numbered the case as P.R.C.7/2015 and summoned the accused to appear

before the said Court .

4.On appearance of the accused before the learned Addl. Judicial

Magistrate of 1st Class, Sullurpet, copies of documents basing on which

police filed charge sheet against the accused were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sullurpet after going through the material on record noticed that the offences levelled against the accused in the charge sheet were exclusively triable by this Court and so the case was committed to this Court U/Sec. 209(c) Cr.P.C. to take the matter to its logical end.

6.On appearance of the accused before this court, hereinafter called as accused in this case,who engaged an Advocate to defend his case, examined him U/Sec. 228(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. for which the accused pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations in the charge sheet.

5

7. After hearing both sides this Court framed charges U/Sec. 3(1)

(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and u/s.376, 323 and 506 IPC against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu. The accused understood the charges framed against him pleaded not guilty and denied the offences and claimed for trial.

8. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused examined Pws 1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 and closed its side evidence.

This court closed the evidence of Lws 3 and 7 to 15 as learned Additional

Public Prosecutor expressed no objection to close their evidence.

9. After closing the evidence on prosecution side this Court find no incriminating material in the evidence available on record for examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. Hence, the examination of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C is not done. Accused did not examine any witnesses on their behalf and did not mark any documents and closed his side evidence. After closing the evidence on both sides, arguments advanced are heard.

10. After hearing the arguments on both sides, it has to be seen

W hether the prosecution could able to made out the case against accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

P O I N T:

11. When coming to the evidence available on record, Pw1, Kumari

Hanumanthu Kanyakumari, resident of Jangalagunta village of Sullurpet mandal, an employee belonging to Mala community which comes under the category of Scheduled caste says that she does not know Pw2 Sri.K.

Srinivasulu, Lw3 Sri.K. Ajith and Pw3 Sri.D. Munuswamy. Pw1 further stated that Pw4 Smt.H. Subbamma is her mother and Pw5 Sri.H. Munuswamy is her brother and she does not know the accused. Pw1 further stated that the accused raped her or assaulted her or threatened her at any point of time and no incident took place in between herself and accused at any point of time and as such she had no occasion to lodge complaint against accused 6 with Sullurpet police. At the same time, Pw1 admitted her signature marked as Ex.P1 on the complaint dated 15.12.2013 basing on which police registered the above said crime against the accused. At the same time Pw1 says that she could not say when she had put her signature marked as Ex.P1 on the said complaint and she never lodged any complaint with Sullurpet police stating as in Ex.P2. As such Pw1 being a victim, material witness and educated girl who studied 10th class did not say anything against the accused. In the evidence of Pw1, she further stated that police never examined her and sent her to Government hospital, Sullurpet. When Pw1 being defacto complainant and material witness failed to support the case of the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet and also in the complaint, at the request of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor she is treated as hostile witness and learned Addl. Public Prosecutor was permitted to crossexamine her. During the course of cross-examination by the learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor, Pw1 categorically denied the suggestion that on 14.12.2013 at about 5 PM while herself and Pw2 were chitchatting on canal bund near

Sullurpet the accused had gone there introduced himself as police constable and asked them to accompany him to the police station and when Pw1 refused to follow the accused, the accused had slapped her, threatened her and raped her and in the said connection, Pw1 had lodged complaint with

SHO, Sullurpet police stating as in Ex.P2. In the same cross-examination,

Pw1 denied the suggestion that police had examined her and she had stated as in Ex.P3 and at present she had compromised the matter with the accused and speaking falsehood. Pw1 being an important witness in this case did not say anything against the accused. When coming to the evidence of

Pw2, Sri.K.Srinivasulu who is an eyewitness to the incident as per the charge sheet allegations in this case, he says that he does not know Pw1 and accused and anything in this case and police did not examine him. In the same manner, Pw3 Sri.D.Munuswamy, resident of Yerrabalem village of 7

Sullurpet mandal, Pw4 Sri.H. Subbamma, mother of Pw1, Pw5 Sri.H.

Manuswamy, brother of Pw1, they categorically stated that they do not know anything in this case and police never examined them. When Pws 1 to 5 failed to support the case of the prosecution as stated in the charge sheet against the accused, at the request of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, they were treated as hostile witnesses in this case and learned Addl. Public

Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine them. During the course of cross- examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Pws 2 to 5 categorically denied the suggestion that they were examined by the police and they have stated before the police as in Exs.P2 to P4 and P7 respectively and at present they have compromised the matter with the accused and speaking falsehood.

Pws 1 and 2 being important witnesses not at all supported the case of the prosecution. Further Pw4 being mother of Pw1 and Pw5 being brother of Pw1 also did not say anything against the accused in this case. Though the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine Pws 1 to 5, nothing is elicited in their evidence in support of the case of the prosecution against the accused as narrated in the charge sheet in this case. When Pws 1 to 5, more particularly Pw1 being victim failed to support the case of prosecution, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor given up the evidence of Lws 3, 7 to 11. When police failed to produce Lws 12 to 15 before this court, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor reported no objection to close their evidence and this court closed the evidence of Lws 12 to 15. After closing the evidence on the side of prosecution, this court did not find any incriminating material in the evidence available on record even for examination of the accused u/s.313 CrPC. Moreover during the course of arguments, the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor openly conceded the case against the accused stating that

Pws 1 and 2 being material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution in this case. As per the case of the prosecution itself, Pw1 who lodged complaint with police stating that on 14.12.2013 at about 5 PM while 8 herself and Pw2 were chitchatting on the tank bund near Sullurpet, the accused met them introduced himself as a police constable asked them to accompany them and when Pw1 refused to follow the accused, the accused assaulted her and subsequently enjoyed her sexually without her consent.

But Pw1 did not say anything against the accused when she is examined as a witness in this case. Further Pw2 also did not support the case of the prosecution. As such this court did not find any incriminating material against the accused in the evidence available on record. Moreover the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor also openly conceded the case against the accused.

12.In the aforesaid circumstances, this court find no evidence against the accused to believe the charges framed against him. Hence it is very clear that prosecution failed to made out the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

13. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Sections 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and u/s.376, 323 and 506 IPC and he is acquitted of the same u/s. 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.

9

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 28th day of September, 2016.

Special Judge for trail of offences

under the SCs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 -cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: NONE

PW1: H. Kanya Kumari

PW2: K. Srinivasulu

PW3: D. Muniswamy

Pw4: H. Subbamma

Pw5: H. Munuswamy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On Prosecution side:- On defence side: NIL

Ex.P1: Signature of Pw1 on complaint

Ex.P2: Contents of Complaint

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW1

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW2

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW3

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW4

Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW5

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Special Judge

1

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

SCs & STs (PoA) ACT, 1989-CUM-V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE

Dated this the 14th day of September, 2016

Present: Sri.M. KRISHNAPPA, Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989- cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore

CrlMP No.1020 of 2016

Crime No.335 of 2016

G. Chandraiah (A-3)

... Petitioner/A-3

Vs.

State: Station House Officer, Nellore Rural PS, Nellore

.. Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 12.09.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.T. Kotaiah, advocate for the petitioner and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the record, this court made the following:-

ORDER

1.This is the petition filed by the petitioner/A-3 in the above said crime No.335 of 2016 u/s.438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2.Notice given to Addl. Public Prosecutor.

3.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4.Now the point for consideration is :-

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for anticipatory bail? POINT:

5.The above said crime No.335 of 2016 was registered by the respondent police against this petitioner and others u/s.406 and 420 IPC on the complaint lodged by Sri.G. Venkateswarlu, Tahsildar, Nellore. In the complaint, the defacto complainant who is Tahsildar, Nellore says that the

Joint Collector, Nellore has informed that the AP State Civil Supplies

Corporation Limited (APSCSCL), Nellore has procured paddy through

IKP/PACS groups in the district under KMS 2014-2015 assuring minimum 2 support price (MSP) to farmers. The procured paddy was handed over to rice mills for delivery of custom milling rice (CMR) to APSCSCL, Nellore/

Food Corporation of India, Nellore under the same season. But some of the millers though the date of delivery of CMR was extended thrice failed to deliver the CMR since 6.11.2015. Further it was found that the millers named in the complaint i.e. this petitioner and others submitted affidavits stating that they would deliver the CMR by March, 2016 and in case of their failure to do so, a legal action could be initiated against them. In view of the said circumstances the Joint Collector, Nellore has directed the defacto complainant, Nellore to file criminal cases against this petitioner and others for non delivery of CMR and evading the payment of huge money to the Government for the last 7 months. In the said circumstances, the above said complaint was lodged by the defacto complainant which was registered under the above said crime.

6.The learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that this petitioner never committed any offence muchless offence u/s.420 and 406

IPC. Due to some mechanical defects in the rice mill and also problems with workers, he could not deliver CMR rice on time and at the same time there is no willful disobedience. The learned advocate further would submit that this petitioner is respectable person in the society and he is ready to oblige the conditions of this Hon'ble Court and to cooperate with the respondent police to complete the investigation in this case.

7.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the bail stating that the investigation is still going on in this case.

8.As seen from the allegations in the complaint, this petitioner can not influence either the witnesses or the police during the course of investigation. Moreover when public property was entrusted to this petitioner, this petitioner have to dealt with the same with all sincerity and would have delivered CMR rice on time. Considering the facts and 3 circumstances, there is no necessity to arrest this petitioner during the course of investigation and respondent police can complete their investigation freely. In the said circumstances, this petition could be allowed.

9.In the result, this petition is allowed and petitioner /A-3 is directed to surrender before the Hon'ble IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First

Class, Nellore within a week from the date of this order and on such surrender, he shall be enlarged on bail on his executing a bond for

Rs.10,000/- with two sureties for a liksum each to the satisfaction of the learned IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore. However, this petitioner, after his release, shall attend before the respondent police on every day in between 9 AM and 10 AM until further orders.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 14th day of September,

2016.

Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989- cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore

To

1. Sri.T. Kotaiah, advocate for the petitioner

2. The S.H.O., Nellore Rural PS, Nellore

3. The learned IV Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

4. The Chief Administrative Officer, Prl. District Court, Nellore

1

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

SCs & STs (PoA) ACT, 1989-CUM-V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE

Dated this the 15th day of September, 2016

Present: Sri.M. KRISHNAPPA, Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989- cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore

CrlMP No.262 of 2016

Crime No.68 of 2016

1) Sk. Khadar Basha, son of Khaja Mohiddin, aged 32 years (A3)

2) Sk. Khaja Mohiddin, son of Raja Saheb, aged 72 years (A4), r/o. Mahamadeeya street, Kovur

... Petitioners/Accused

Vs.

1) State: Station House Officer, Kovur PS

2) The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore Rural

.. Respondents/Complainants

This petition coming on 14.09.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.G. Rajagopal Reddy, advocate for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, advocate for the respondents, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the record, this court made the following:-

ORDER

1.This is the petition filed by the petitioners/A3 and A4 in the above said crime No.68 of 2016 of Kovur police station u/s.439 CrPC seeking regular bail.

2.Notice given to Addl. Public Prosecutor.

3.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4.Now the point for consideration is :-

1) Whether the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on bail? POINT:

5.As per the office note, these petitioners are in judicial custody since 6.09.2016 in connection with the above said crime. The respondent police registered the above said crime against these petitioners for offences u/s.323 IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989 and subsequently altered to Section 323 r/w 34 IPC and u/s.3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & 2

STs (PoA) Act, 1989. On 17.8.2016 notice given to Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Heard both sides. The main case of the prosecution against these petitioners is that the defacto complainant who is cobbler lodged complaint against these petitioners stating that the VROs while executing their work at Railway feeders road, Nellore, the shop of the defacto complainant was damaged and it was pushed back. Behind the shop of the defacto complainant, the shop of A1 was situated and so she objected the defacto complainant and at the same time, A1 abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and the relatives of A1 i.e. present petitioners/ A3 and A4 and others assaulted the defacto complainant and abused him by referring to his caste as “ENDIRA MADIGA NA KODAKA”.

The accused also damaged the shop of the defacto complainant. Hence the defacto complainant lodged complaint with respondent police against these petitioners and others. In this connection the respondent police arrested these petitioners and produced them before the court and subsequently the Hon'ble Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kovur remanded these petitioners on 6.9.2016. The allegations in the complaint itself reveals that there is some civil dispute in between the A1 and defacto complainant. As seen from the CD, the respondent police already examined four witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared a rough sketch of the same. As such major part of investigation is completed in this case.

6.The learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that these petitioners are innocents and due to civil dispute between the defacto complainant and the A1, the defacto complainant lodged false complaint against these petitioners and others only to made them to oblige to his conditions. However major part of investigation is completed in this case. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor also admitted that major part of investigation is completed. At the same time the Addl. Public 3

Prosecutor would submit that there is every possibility for these petitioners to threaten the defacto complainant during the course of investigation. In order to provide protection to the defacto complainant, it is just and necessary to enlarge these petitioners with certain conditions. Accordingly this petition could be allowed.

7.In the result, the petition is allowed and these petitioners / A3 and A4 are enlarged on bail on their executing bonds for Rs.10,000/- by each with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the learned

Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kovur. However, these petitioners, after their release, shall attend before the respondent police on every

Sunday and Wednesday in between 9 AM and 10 AM until further orders.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 15th day of September,

2016.

Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989- cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore

To

1. Sri.G. Rajagopal Reddy, advocate for the petitioners

2. The S.H.O., Kovur PS, Nellore

3. The learned Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Kovur

4. The Chief Administrative Officer, Prl. District Court, Nellore

1

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

SCs & STs (PoA) ACT, 1989-CUM-V ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, NELLORE

Dated this the 16th day of September, 2016

Present: Sri.M. KRISHNAPPA, Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989- cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore

CrlMP No.1002 of 2016

Crime No.106 of 2016

1) Shaik Sadhik Basha, son of Shaik Shamsuddin, aged 47 years, r/o 21-442, Bapikalavari street, Chinna Bazar, Nellore (A1)

2) Shaik Saleem alias Ahamad Saleem, son of Shaik Shadik Basha, aged 20 years, r/o 21-3-8 Basikarlavari street, Pedda Bazar, Nellore (A2)

... Petitioners/A-1 and A-2

Vs.

State: Station House Officer, I Town PS

.. Respondent/Complainant

This petition coming on 15.09.2016 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.D. Damareswar, advocate for the petitioners and the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, advocate for the respondent, upon hearing both sides and upon perusing the record, this court made the following:-

ORDER

1.This is the petition filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 in the above said crime No.106 of 2016 of I Town police station, Nellore u/s.438

CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2.Notice given to Addl. Public Prosecutor.

3.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

4.Now the point for consideration is :-

1) Whether the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail? POINT:

5.The respondent police registered the above said crime No.106 of 2016 against these petitioners on 18.6.2016 on the complaint lodged by one K. Kranthi Kumar for offences u/s.332, 353 r/w 34 IPC. The main allegation against these petitioners is that on 18.6.2016 at about 1 PM on the directions of Assistant SI of Police, Mahila police station, Nellore, the 2 defacto complainant and another Police constable byl name Praveen who are working in women police station, Nellore gone to the shop of these petitioners to get them to the police station for enquiry on the complaint lodged by one Shaik Noorin alias Supriya and at the same time, these petitioners did not agree to follow the defacto complainant and talked to him in indecent manner and also assaulted him and another constable.

7.The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor opposed the petition. The learned advocate for the petitioners submitted copy of FIR in crime

No.107 of 2016 of Nellore-I town police station stating that the 1st petitioner herein lodged a complaint against the defacto complainant herein on 18.6.2016 which was registered under sections 448, 323, 341 r/w 34 IPC. As that complaint was filed by A-1, the defacto complainant lodged false complaint against these petitioners, as a counter blast.

8.As seen from the above said records, the defacto complainant herein and 1st petitioner lodged a complaint against each other and both complaints were registered and investigation is going on. Moreover the defacto complainant in this case is a police man and there is no possibility for these petitioners to involve in the investigation. As defacto complainant herein and 1st petitioner lodged complaints against each other, it is just and necessary to enlarge these petitioners on anticipatory bail in the interest of justice to avoid further complications. Accordingly this petition is to be allowed.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed and these petitioners / A1 and A2 are directed to surrender before the learned II Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of First Class, Nellore within a week from the date of this order

and on such surrender, they shall be enlarged on bail on their executing bonds for Rs.10,000/- by each with two sureties for a likesum each to the satisfaction of the learned II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore.

However, these petitioners, after their release, shall report before the 3 respondent police on every Monday and Thursday in between 9 AM and 10 AM until further orders.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of September,

2016.

Spl. Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989- cum-V Addl. Sessions Judge, Nellore

To

1. Sri.D. Damareswar, advocate for the petitioners

2. The S.H.O., I Town PS, Nellore

3. The learned II Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Nellore

4. The Chief Administrative Officer, Prl. District Court, Nellore