Sri.M. Nageswar Rao

1

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday the 2nd day of April, 2024

SC ST SC No.63 of 2017 Between: The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram. … Complainant

And

1.Mamillapalli Narayanamurthy @Abbulu, S/o. Satyanarayana, 58 years, Kapu, D No. 3-114, Samanasa Village, Amalapuram.

2.Urrinki Narayanarao S/o. Ramakrishna Rao, 35 years, Gowda, D No.4-216, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

3. Rajulapudi Gangadhararao, S/o. Ramarao, 55 years, Gowda, , D No.4-241, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

4. Rajulapudi Ganesh Kumar @Veera Vinayaka Venkateswararao S/o. Gangadhararao, 25 years, Gowda, D No.4-241, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

5. Rajulapudi Naresh S/o. Satyanarayana, 39 years Gowda, D No.4-243, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

6. Vaka Venkata Naga Durga Prasad @ Prasad, S/o. Subbarao, 27 years, Gowda D no.6-26, Rangapuramh/o. Samanasa village Amalapuram Mandal.

7.Kamana Durgarao S/o.Subrahmanyam 45 years, Gowda, D No. 3-208 Kamanagaruvu Village, Amalapuram Mandal.

8. Vaka Gopi S/o. Subbarao, 24 years, Gowda D No.6-26, Rangapuram, h/o. Samanasa Village Amalapuram Mandal. … A1 to A.8.

2

This sessions case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri.S.S.Prakasa rao, Advocate for all the Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Divisional Police officer, Amalapuram filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 341,324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.

.3(1)( r)(s),3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act in Cr No.89 of 2016 of

Uppalaguptam Police Station.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on 8.08.2016 at About 16.30 hours a pregnant cow belongs to Pw9 died due to electrocution.

Then Pw9 made a phone call to Pw1 to take away the same for disposal. Pw1 informed the same to his co worker Pw5 and asked him to attend the work and that Pw5 stated that he has to take his grand daughter to Hospital for her ill health. Then Pw1 engaged a TATA ACE vehicle bearing No.AP 05 TU228 along with Pw3 and P.w6 who are the driver and cleaner on the said vehicle went to the area where the cow lay dead and brought the same to the burial ground at Sudhapalem h/o. Bhimanapalli village, Uppalaguptam Mandal along with his younger brother Pw2.When they were peeling the skin of the cattle, the accused and others who are searching for their stolen cows, thought that they might have stolen their live cows and peeling them after causing death, came there and uttered that they have killed the cattle and were peeling the skin of the cattle and abused Pw1 to 3 and Pw6 uttering “ Madiga lanjakodukullara” and otherwise in filthy language.

They tied back hands and tied Pw1 to the coconut tree in the coconut garden of Lw8 Kasi Viswanatham, in S No. 269 /2 situated beside burial ground at Sudhapalem h/o Bhimanapalli village and beat Pw1 to 3 and Pw6 with sticks and stones indiscriminately and cruelly and caused them to sustain bleeding injuries. On coming to know of it, Pws 4, ,Lw6 M.Vijyakumar, and Pw7 who are the relatives of Pw1 came there all the accused abused them by raising their caste name and humiliate them in public view. Pw8 who witnessed the occurrence of offence and informed the same to Amalaopuram Taluk police over mobile phone, then Lw12 G. Venkanna, Lw13, Chaganti Venkata

Srinivasarao, Lw.14 K. Yedukondalu who are the staff of Amalapuram 3

Taluk Police station came there. On noticing the police, all the accused absconded from there then Lw12 G. Venkanna, Lw13, Chaganti

Venkata Srinivasarao, Lw.14 K. Yedukondalu shifted injured Pws1 to

Pw3 to the Area hospital, Amalapuram and admitted for treatment. Pw 6 who fled from the scene of offence due to fear and himself admitted in Area hospital, Amalapuram on 11.09.2016 for treatment.

3. Basing on the report of Pw1, Lw23 S.V.N.Janardhan, ASI

Uppalaguptam registered a case in Cr No.89 of 2016 U/sec.341,324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act.

and due investigation was conducted by Pw16 as per the proceedings vide C No.1302/C3/16 dt. 9.8.2016. He visited the scene of offence at

Sudhapalem in the presence of mediators Lw15 Petta Balajirao, Lw16

Banda Anuradha inspected the same minutely, got photographed the scene of offence with station Camera, got prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, seized the sari pieces, two stout sticks and two black stones under the cover of mediators report. Lw17 N.Chittibabu,

Tahsildar, Amalapuram issued caste certificates in respect of Pws 1,

Pw2 and Lw5 M. Chittibabu, Lw6 M. Vijay kumar, Lw7 S. Eswararao, and A1 to A.8 stating that Pws1, 2 and Lw5 M. Chittibabu, Lw6 M. Vijay kumar, Lw7 S. Eswararao,belongs to SC Madiga which comes under scheduled caste. A.1 belongs to Kapu and A./2 to A.8 belongs to

Gowda by caste. Lw18 DY Tahsildar, Ainavilli certified that Pw3 belongs to SC Madiga by caste. Lw19 Tahsildar, Ainavilli certified that Pw6 belongs to SC Madiga which comes under Scheduled caste. Lw20 medical officer, Area Hospital, Amalapuram who treated and examined injured Pw1 and Pw2 and issued wound certificates with his opinion that the injuries are simple in nature. Lw21 Medical officer, Area hospital, Amalapuram who examined Pw6 and issued wound certificate with her opinion that Pw6 have no external injuries. Lw22 Medical officer, Area hospital, Amalapuram who examined and treated injured

Pw3 and issued wound certificate with his opinion that the injury is simple in nature. On 10.08.2016 at 11.00 hours A.1 to A.7 on 11.08.2016A.8 was arrested by Pw16. The FIR is registered

U/sec.341,324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act after thorough investigation added Sec.307 IPC in addition to the existing sec. of law and informed the same to Court by filing memo.

4

4. After filing charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance and furnished copies to Accused as required under sec. 207 Cr.P.C and after appearance of Accused and on hearing, charges under sections U/sec.

342,324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(i) (s) ,3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act are framed against the accused and read over the said charges and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution examined PW1 to 16 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.25 and Mo1 are marked. On behalf of accused none were examined and Ex D.1 to D.3 are documents are marked.

`

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. from the incriminating material found against the accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same.

7. Now the point that arise for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of all the Accused for the charged offence U/sec. 342 R/W 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of all the Accused for the charged offence under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of all the Accused for the charged offence under Section 3(i)(s) of SCs and STs POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

8. Points 1 to 4 :

The learned Special Public prosecutor submitted that this is a case for the offence U/sec.341,324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act against A.1 to A8. Pw1 is belongs to

SC Madiga by caste, whereas A1 belongs to Kapu by caste, A2 to A.8 belongs to Gowda by caste. On 08.08.2016 at about 4.30 pm P.W.9 cow died due to electrocution. Then he made a phone call to Pw1 to take away the same for disposal, when Pw1 informed the same to his co worker Pw5 and asked him to attend the work and that Pw5 stated 5 that he has to take his grand daughter to hospital and he will joined subsequently, then P W.1 engaged a TATA ACE vehicle bearing No. AP 05 TU 228 along with Pw3 and P.W.6 who are driver and cleaner on the said vehicle went to the Area hospital where the cow lay dead and brought the same to the burial ground at Sudhapalem along with his brother Pw2 and they were peeling the skin of the cattle, all the accused who are searching for the stolen cow thought that they might have stolen their cows and peeling them after causing death, came there and uttered that they have killed the cattle and were peeling the skin of the cattle and abused Pw1, Pw2, P.W.3 uttering “Madiga

Lanjakodukullara” and accused tied back hands of the Pw1 to the

Coconut tree in the Coconut garden of Lw8 K.Viswanatham, situated by the side of the burial ground at the Sudhapalem and beat Pw1 to P.W.3 and Pw6 with sticks and stones indiscriminately and cruelly and caused them to sustain bleeding injuries. Upon coming to know the incident

Pw4, Lw6, Pw7 who are the relatives of Pw1 came to the spot all the accused abused them also by raising their caste in the public view. Pw8 who witnessed the occurrence of offence and informed the same to

Amalapuram Taluk Police came there and on seeing the police the accused escaped then the Amalapuram Taluk police shifted the injured

Pws1 to 3 to the Area hospital, Amalapuram admitted for treatment.

On 9.08.2016 Pw1 presented Ex.P.1 report to the police and the same was registered as case in Cr No.89 of 2016 U/sec. 341,324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. Pw1 to 7 clearly and categorically stated about the occurrence, Pw1 to P.W.3 who are injured clearly stated that A.1 and other accused tied the

P.W.1 to the Coconut tree in the Coconut garden of Lw8 situated by the side of the burial ground. In fact Pw9 asked the P.W.1 to take away his dead cow for disposal. Accordingly PW1 take away the said cow near by burial ground at Sudhapalem. Pw1 being the schedule caste member received a phone call from Lw11 Aravind and he asked him to take away the dead cow for disposal. Accordingly Pw1 take away the cow for disposal. The accused are nothing to do with the dead cow which is taken away by the Pw1 for disposal. Therefore, all the accused are liable for punishment.

9. The learned for the accused submitted that the accused are innocent and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the 6 prosecution. Pw1 said to have been given Ex.P.1 report to the police. As per the evidence of Pw1 after the alleged incident himself and P.W.2 And

P.w3 were shifted to the hospital by Amalapuram Taluk police for treatment and while he was in the hospital his son scribed Ex.P.1 report and he signed the same to police station through his son at about 6.00 Am on 9.8.2016. In fact there is no mention either in Exp1 report or in Ex.P.12 printed FIR that Ex.P1 report sent to the police station through his son. But surprisingly in Ex.P.12 FIR the signature of

Pw1 is not found in Colum No.14. Therefore, the presentation of Ex.P.1 by Pw1 is doubtful. The names of accused mentioned in Ex.P.1, but

Pw1 or other alleged injured have no knowledge and prior acquaintance with the accused. But surprisingly the names of accused mentioned in

Ex.P.1 report not tallied with the charge sheet and the identification of the accused is fatal to the case of prosecution. The accused and Pws 1 to Pw3 are different villages. Pws 1 to Pw3 clearly and categorically stated that they do not know the names of the accused and they are no prior acquaintance with the Accused. More over the identification of accused is doubtful by Pws1 to 3 because the alleged incident had taken place at about 11.00 am at Sudhapalem village where no lights are available. According to the scene observation report and rough sketch also clearly indicates that lights are available at Sudhapalem burial ground. So the identification of accused before the court directly by Pw1 to PW7 is fatal to the case of prosecution. Even according to the medical evidence and wound certificates the names of persons who caused injuries to the Pw1 to P.W.3 and P.W.6 is silent. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that P.Ws 1 to 7 belongs to schedule caste Madiga . Pw1 clearly and categorically admitted in his evidence that himself along with Pw2, Pw3 Savarapu Premkumar Lw4,

Lw5 M. Chittibabu and L.W.6 MO. VijayaKumar profess Christianity and attending church.During cross examination of Pw1 Ex D.1 photos marked, the said photos with CD clearly indicates that Pw1 is Christian but not schedule caste. Pw1 is organizing the Christian meetings by inviting the Christian pastors for prayer meetings. Therefore, Pw1 is not entitled to initiate the proceedings under SC and ST (POA) Act because he does not belongs the schedule caste for that preposition he relied upon a decision reported in 2003 (Crl) 2204. Papatala John Veeranna vs state of AP and another.

7

10. The learned counsel for the accused further submitted that this case is foisted against the accused as counter blast. A2 and some others cows found missing thereby they are searching for the same in their searching they found the accused at Sudhapalem village peeling the skin of the accused after causing death, they enquired about the cows they did not give proper reply and thereby A2 gave report to the police, then the police registered the case as Cr No. 98/16 U/sec.379 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 5,6, 10 r./w 11 of AP Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animals preservation At. 1977. After registering that case Pw1 filed this false case against the accused as counter blast. No identification parade conducted to identify the accused through Pw1 to Pw7 because

Pw1 to Pw7 have no prior acquaintance with the accused and without conducting identification of accused is fatal to the case of prosecution.

Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

11. The prosecution mainly depending upon the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 7.Pw1 /Miokati Elisha is victim injured complainant deposed that he belong to SC Madiga. A1 belongs to Kapu, A2 to A.8 belongs to Gowda.

On 8.8.2-16 at about 7.30 or 8.00 pm he received phone call and when he questioned him who is he and on that he replied that he was Lw11

Aravind and his cow died due to current shock near Gowthami school,

Challapalli road, Amalapuram and asked him to take that cow. On that he called Lw3 Lakshman for goods van. He also called Lw9 Yesubabu, who is his co worker and he informed to him that his grand child is not well and asked him to go there and he will follow later. On that he along with Lw2 Lazar went near Gowthami school and shifted the died cow to Sudhapalem burial ground. While he was removing the skin of that Cow, A1 came there at about 10.30 or 11.00 pm and abused him as “Maa Avuni Champesi Charmam valichi Vesthunnara madiga lanja kodukullara “ and beat him with sticks and stones and A.1 tied him to tree by bending his hands. Lakshman was also tied to the Coconut tree, to which tree he was tie. He do not remember, who tied LW3

Lakshman to the tree. He received injury on his above right eye brow and blood oozed from that injury. He also received injuries all over his body. On coming to know about the incident, Chittibabu and his brother’s son Vijayakumar, Eswararao came there, All the above persons beat above Chittibabu, Vijayakumar and Eswararao with sticks.

Amapalapuram police came there and released them and taken them 8 to Amalapuram Taluk Police station. On seeing them with injuries on body they were shifted to area Hospital, Amalapuram. They were tied ropes and saree pieces. Mo1 is the rope pieces. They were treated as inpatient at Amalapuram hospital for one week. He gave report to the police on 9.8.2016. in ther cross examination he deposed that accused are residents of Amalapuream and he has no prior acquaintance with them. They used to call Christian pastor, when they arranged special prayers. Some times, he called Sunil Kumar and sometimes Rajesh

Bontha as pastors for the prayers, whenever they offer special prayers.

Ex.D1 photos 3 in number along with CD reveals the same. He attending church situated at Janakipeta. Pw2 Venkateswarao also attended to the same church. His name Elisha is Christian name. He along with Pw2, Pw3 Savarapu Premkumar Lw4, Lw5 M. Chittibabu and

L.W.6 MO. VijayaKumar profess Christianity and attending church. He know the name of A.1 is Abbulu. He do not know the names of other accused. No test identification parade was conducted to identify the accused. He did not mention the names of A.2 to A.8 either in the report or stated before police in his statement.

12. Pw2/ M.Venkateswararao deposed that on 8.8.2016 at about 8.00 pm Pw1 came to his house and informed to him that one Cow died at school near Yerrvanthena of Challapalli Road of Amalapuram. On that he along with Pw1 went there and taken that died cow in a Van/vehicle and L.W.3 Lakshman kumar was the driver of the said van and taken that died cow to the burial ground and at about 11.00 or 11.30 pm while they wee removing the skin of that cow, A.1 came there and abused them as “ Maa Avulu pothe Dongathanam chesi charmam

Valusthunnara madiga Lanja Kodukullara “. Mean while, A.2 and A.8 and others reached there and A.1 beat him with stick and hands on his back side. A 2 also beat him on his back with stick and hand. A1 tied

Pw1 and Lw3 Lakshman to Coconut tree with cloth and ropes.

Subsequently, Lw5 Chittibabu, Vijaya Kumar and Lw7 Eswar reached there. The above 3 persons were beaten in that incident. Police untied the ropes and clothes and taken to the Police station and admitted them in hospital. Pw1 sustained injury on his right eye brow.

9

13. Pw3 S. Lakshman kumar deposed that he is TATA ACE Goods van driver and he never saw any of the accused. 3 years back Pw1 engaged his Van to shift Van near from Gowthami Nagar school to Sudhapalem burial ground for Rs.1000/-. Accordingly, at about 10.30 pm he shifted that cow dead body along with his brother Lw4 Premkumar, Pw1 and

P.W.2 while Pw1 was removing the skin of that cow, eight members came there and out of them he remember only A.1. A1 dragged him and Pw1 by caught hold of their collar shirt and tied to Coconut tree by bending their hands and A.1 abused them as “Brathikunna Avuni

Champesi Charmam Valusthunnara Madiga Lanja Kodukullara “ A1 beat him and Pw1 with sticks and stones. He sustained injuries on hs both lips and Pw1 sustained injuries on his right eyebrow. Mean while

Cittibabu, Vijayakumar and Eswararao reached there and A1 made them to Kneel down since they are their men. They were also attacked by A1 with sticks and stones. Subsequently, Amalapuram

Taluk Police came there and released them and sent to the Government hospital, Amalapuram.

14. Pw4 M. Chittibabu deposed that on 8-08-2016 his father /Pw1 informed to him that he along with Pw2 were proceeding to take dead body of Cow and went away along with Pw3 to Sudhapalem burial ground. On that day at about 11.00 or 11.30 pm he received a phone call from one person informing that Pw1 and P.W.2 were beating by tying them to Coconut tree near Sudhapalem burial ground. On that he along with his cousin, Lw6 Vijaya Kumar and his relative Lw7

Eswararao went there and observed injury on right eye brow of Pw1 by tying to a coconut tree and also observed Pw3 tied to Coconut tree and both of them were tied to the same coconut tree. He also observed that Pw2 was beating by A.1 and A.2 and A2 pushed him, Lw6 Vijaya

Kumar and Lw7 Eswararao by stating that “Vallani Vidipinchukovadani

Vachara Madiga Lanja kodukullara” A1 and A. 2 beat them with hands.

15. Pw5 Y. Yesubabu deposed that on 8.8.2016 at about 7.00 pm

Pw1 called him over phone and informed him about the death of the

Cow in Electric shock at Amalapuram and asked him to come there. On that he stated to the Pw1 that his grand daughter is in serious condition at hospital and he cannot attend and asked him to proceed.

At about 11.00 pm he returned from Amalaspuram hospital to 10

Sudhapalem village. His house is situated near Sudhapalem burial ground. While he was returning to his house, he observed that Pw1 to

P.W3 were tied to the tree and on that he intimated the same to LW.10

Vaenkateswararao, who is his brother by courtesy and after taking him. He went to the scene of offence and taken the phone number of his son from Pw1 and Lw10 Venkatesrarao informed the same to Pw4 over phone. On that Pw1 and another came there. After arrival of Pw4, he went out from that place. Within 15 minutes, police reached there,

Galata has taken place there. He did not observe who beat whom. He observed blood oozing from the above right eye brow of Pw1.

16. PW.6 S. Premkumar deposed that he know A1 and he saw A2 to

A.8 at Police Station. 3 years back P.W3 while attending work to shift died cow from Amalapuram to Samanasa burial ground, taken him along with him at about 9.30 or 10.00 pm. Pw1 and P.W.2 were also boarded in the Van and reached to burial ground at about 10.30 pm.

While skin was peeling out with the help of lights, 10 members came there and abused Pw1 to Pw3 as “Aavuni Tesukuvelli Charman

Valustunnara Madiga Lanja Kodukullara “ . The accused who stood in the Court hall were among the ten persons, who abused Pw1 to Pw3 on that day. The accused while beating Pw1 and Pw3 taken out from burial ground and tied Pw1 and Pw3 to Coconut tree with cloth pieces which were available in the burial ground and beat Pw1 with hands and sticks. A1 and others beat Pw1. Pw1 sustained injury on his Above eyebrow. Pw3 sustained injuries on his lips. Pw4 and two others reached there at 12.00 mid night and accused also abused them as “Madiga Lanja Kodukullara” and beat them and made them to kneel down.

17. Pw7 S.Eswararao deposed that on 8.8.2016 at about 11.30 pm, Pw4 and L.W.6 Vijaya Kumar came to him and asked him to accompany them by stating that Pw1 was beating at Sudhapalem burial ground. On that they went on two bikes. They reached

Sudhapalem burial ground at about 12.00 mid night. By that time Pw1 and P.W.3 were tied to Coconut tree and observed 10 persons were beating Pw2, but he did not observe who are there. Pw1 sustained injury on his right eye brow. Pw3 sustained injury on his lips. When - they tried to rescue them and on that they stated that they are all one 11 and abused them in filthy language and beat them with hands and made them to kneel down. A1 pushed them and he do not remember who pushed them and made them to kneel down. 10 minutes thereafter, police came there and the above persons ran away. Police taken to the injured to the hospital.

18. Pw8 D.Venkateswararao deposed that on 08.08.2016 at about 9.00 hours while he was at his house Pw5 came to him, he being ward member asked him to intimate the same to the police about the disputes that was taken place at burial ground. After calling to the police station he along with Pw5 proceeded towards burial ground. He stood at a distance outside the canal and mean while Police came there and police taken somebody to the police station.

19. Pw9 B. Aravind Gosh deposed he know Pw1 and he is cobbler.

He do not know anything about this case, but 3 years back he called

Pw1 and informed to Pw1 that his cow was died due to Electrification and asked him to take away and accordingly he has taken that Cow in the vehicle.

20. Pw10 G.Venkanna the then Head constable, Amalapuram Taluk

Police station had deposed that during that period on 08.08.2016 while he was night incharge to the Amalapuram Taluk Police station at about 12.00 mid night he received phone call intimating that three or four persons were beating at Sudhapalem while tying them to the tree.

On that he along with PC 3861 and P.C 3667 of Amalapuram Taluk PS reached to Sudhapalem burial ground and observed three persons were found with injuries and by the time they reached there, the neighbours who gathered there went away and after releasing them he asked Pw1 about the incident and on that he narrated the incident. On that they shifted the injured to the Area hospital, Amalapuram.

21. Pw11 Petta Balajirao, deposed that on 9.08.2016 Deputy

Superintendent of police, Amalapuram called him to stand as mediator to the observation of scene of offence and on that they reached to the scene of offence and observed the same and got prepared Ex.P.3 observation report.

12

22. Pw12/ V.Suswagatham the then Tahsildar, Ainavalli Police station had deposed that during that period on receiving requisition from Sub-Divisional police officer, Amalapuram he issued caste

Certificate of Pw6 and he belongs to SC Madiga. He issued Ex P.4 caste certificate of Pw 6.

23. Pw13 /Dr. B.Sireesha deposed that he is working as Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Area hospital, Amalapuram. On 11.08.2016 at about 11.00 am he examined Pw6 and found the following injuries. No external injuries were found on him. She issued Ex.P.5 wound certificate of Pw6.

24. Pw14/ Dr.V.Ramakrishna Murthy deposed that he is working as

Civil Asst. Surgeon, Area Hospital, Amalapuram had deposed that on 09.08.2016 at about 3.20 pm he examined Pw3 and found the following injuries.

1.Laceration on the inner side of both hips.

2.A blunt injury on right side of chest

The injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P.6 wound certificate of Pw3.

25. Pw15/S.S. Amarendrababu the then Civil Assistant surgeon,

Area hospital, Amalapuram had deposed that on 9.8.2016 he examined

Pw1 and found the following injuries.

1.5 X 1 cm laceration over right eyebrow

2.Patterned abrasions of size 7 x 2 cm and 5 x 2 cm on right chest wall.

3.4 x 2 cm patterned abrasion over right shoulder.

The above injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P7 wound certificate of Pw1.

On the same day he examined P.w2 and found the following injuries.

1.6 x 2 cm patterned abrasion over back.

2.Complaining of pain in left ear.

The above injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P.8 wound certificate of PW.2.

13

26. Pw16 /L. Ankaiah who is investigating officer in this case deposed that he has taken up investigation the same day. He visited area hospital, Amalapueram and secured the presence of Pw1, Pw2,

Pw3 and P.w4 and examined them and recorded their statements under

Sec. 161 Cr.P.C he left area hospital, Amalapuram and proceeded to the scene of offene along with sub Inspector of police of Allavaram and ASI of Uppalaguptam and secured the presence of Pw11 and another and observed the scene of offence in their presence under Ex.p.11 photos 18 in number along with the CD from the scene of offence and he seized Mo.1 saree pieces. He secured the presence of Pw5, Pw8 and another and examined them and recorded their statements U/sec.161

Cr.P.C. He visited Amalapuram where he secured the presence of Pw9,

Pw10 and two others and examined them and recorded their statements under section 161 Cr.PC on 9.8.2016 he secured the presence of Pw6 and Pw7 and examined them and recorded their statements under sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. He issued requisition to the

Tahsildar for issuance of caste certificates of accused and victims on 10.08.2016 he arrested A1 to A7 and sent them to Judicial custody. He arrested A.8 on 11.8.2016. After receiving the wound certificates of victim and after receiving caste certificates of accused and victim and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet in this case.

27. A perusal of the evidence it is very clear that Pw9 informed to the Pw1 over phone about his one of his cow dead due to electrocution and asked him to take away the dead cow and accordingly Pw1 had taken the dead cow in the vehicle. Pw1 evidence is also very clear that on 08.08.2016 at about 7.30 or 8.00 Pm he received phone call from

Pw9 and Pw9 asked him to take away his dead cow which was lying near Gowthami School road, Amalapuram. Accordingly himself along with Pw2 went to the school and shifted the dead cow of Pwe9 in the goods Van to the Sudhapalem burial ground. Therefore the case of the prosecution is very clear that Pw1 was asked by Pw9 about taken away the dead cow belongs to the Pw9. It is very clear from the evidence of

Pw 9 the dead cow which was taken by Pw1, 2 and other to the

Sudhapalem burial ground and peeling the skin of the dead cow, the said cow belongs to PW.9. Therefore, it is very clear that the dead cow 14 was taken away by Pw1, Pw2 and others belongs to the Pw9. Pw9 clearly and categorically deposed in his evidence he informed to the

Pw1 over phone and asked him to take away one of his dead cow which was lying near Gowthami school. Pw3 who is owner and driver of TATA

ACE van bearing No. AP 05 TU 22 82 in which the dead cow shifted to the burial ground to the Gowthami school, he deposed that Pw1 engaged his TATA ACE Van for shifting the dead cow from Gowthami school to Sudhapalem burial ground for a sum of Rs.1000/-. Pw6 also clearly stated that he is also boarded in the Van at the time of shifting the dead cow to the burial ground. Pw2 is also another injured victim his evidence is also very clear that on 8.8.2016 at about 8.00 pm Pw1 came to his house and informed him that one Cow died at school near

Yerravanthena of Challapalli road of Amalapuram. Then he accompanied

Pw1 and they taken the dead cow in the Van of Pw3 to the burial ground. So in view of the above evidence of P.Ws1 to 7 it is very lcear that Pw9 informed to the Pw1 over phone on the date of incident one of his cow died near Gowthami school and asked Pw1 to take away the died cow for disposal. Accordingly Pw2, PW3 and P.W.6 engaged the

Van of P.W.3 and shifted the died cow of Pw9 to the burial ground.

Therefore the alleged incident had taken place at the scene of offence at

Sudhapalem burial ground. Therefore, the plea taken by the accused that the accused committed theft of Cows of Pw2 and others is false.

28. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that Narayana

Rao, Rajulapudi Gangadharam and Bhupathirajuj venkata Subbaraju whose cows are found missing and in search of their Cows at about 10.00 pm they found three persons ie, Pw1 to 3 at Sudhapalem burial ground peeling the skin of the cow after killing them and they enquired about the cows , the said three persons did not give proper reply. Then they themselves thought that the said three persons committed theft of

Cows is appears to be false. The fact remains is that Pw1 to P.W.3 found at the Sudhapalem burial ground peeling the skin of the cow , the said cow belongs to P.W.9.

29. As per the case of prosecution on 08.08.2016 at about 10.30 or 11.00 Pm while Pws1 to Pw3 who involving in peeling the skin of the died cow at Sudhapalem burial ground, the accused came there and abused Pws1 to 3 by touching their caste “ Maa Avulu pothe 15 dongathanm chesi charmam valusthunnara madiga lanja kodukullara” and they beat PWs 1 to 3 with sticks and stones and also they tied

P.W1 to a Coconut tree in the Coconut garden situated by the side of burial ground with MO1 rope pieces and caused injuries to the Pws1 to

3. Pw1 deposed in his evidence on the date of incident ie, on 08.08.2016 at about 10.30 or 11.00 pm while he was peeling the skin of died cow, A1 came there and abused him as “ Maa Avulu pothe dongathanm chesi charmam valusthunnara madiga lanja kodukullara” and beat him with sticks and stones and A.1 tied him by bending his hands to a tree. Pw3 was also tied to a coconut tree he do not remember who actually tied Pw3 to a tree. As per the evidence of P.W.1 , A.1 beat him with sticks and stones and tied him to a coconut tree by bending his hands with Mo.1 rope pieces. Pw1 did not state the specific overacts against the other accused. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 carefully A1 came to the spot and abused him by touching his caste and beat him with sticks and stones and tied him to a tree by bending his hands. As a result he received injury on his right eye brow and blood oozing from that injury. Pw1 did not state the presence of A2 to A.8 and role played by A.2 to A.8. Pw2 who is another injured belongs to the same caste of Pw1 and brother of Pw1, he deposed that on 08.08.2016 at about 11 or 11.30 pm while they were peeling the skin of dead cow A.1 came there and abused them as “Maa Avuni Champesi

Charmam Valichi vesthunnara madiga kodukullara” mean while A2 and

A.8 and others came there and A.1 beat him with sticks and hands on his back side, A.2 also beat him on his back with stick, A.1 tied Pw1 and

Pw3 to a coconut tree with cloth and rope. Pw2 deposed A2 and A.8 and others came there with A.1 and A.1 beat him with hands on his back side and A2 beat him with stick on his hand. But P.W.1 did not state about the presence of A.2, A.8 and others and A1 also beat Pw2 with a stick on his hands and back side. Pw3 evidence is that he is TATA

ACE goods Van driver , he deposed that his van was engaged by Pw1 for Rs.1000/- for shifting the dead cow from Gowthami school to

Sudhapalem burial ground. Accordingly, he placed his Van for shifting the dead cow from Gowthami school to Sudhapalem burial ground on the same day at about 10.30 pm while Pw1 peeling the skin of the dead cow eight members came there and A1 abused Pw1 as “BRATHIKUNNA Avuni champesi charmam valusthunnara madiga lanja kodukullara so saying A.1 dragged him and Pw1 by caught hold of their 16 shirt collar and tied them to coconut tree by bending their hands and

A.1 beat him Pw1 with sticks and stones . So as per the evidence of

Pw1 also A1 dragged Pw1 and P.W3 to the coconut tree near by the coconut garden and tied them to the coconut tree and beat them with sticks and stones and caused injuries to them. Therefore, the evidence of Pw3 is also very clear that A1 beat Pw1 and Pw3 and caused injuries.

30. Pw6 who is brother of Pw3 he deposed that he accompanied Pw3 in the van Pw3, the van is engaged for shifting the dead cow, while they are shifting died cow Pws1 to Pw3 boarded the said van and reached to burial ground at about 10.30 pm while skin was peeling out with the help of lights, 10 members came there and abused Pw1 to P.W3 as “Aavuni Tesukuvelli charmam valustunnara Madiga lanja kodukullara” the accused who stood in the Court hall were among the ten persons, and he stated the accused pushed Pw1 to Pw3 on that day.

31. Pw4 the son of Pw1 his evidence is that upon receiving the information about the incident he along with his cousin Lw6

Vijayakukmar , Lw.7 Eswararao came to the spot and observed Pw1 and Pw3 were tied to the coconut tree and they also observed A.1 and

A.2 beat P.W.2 and pushed P.W.2. When they try to rescue, the accused abused him, and beat him with hands mean while police came there.

So Pw4 is only hear say witness his evidence is also that by that time he along with his relatives Vijayakumar, Eswararao reached the spot and noticed P.W1 and P.W3 were tied to the coconut tree and A.1 and A.

2 beat them also with hands and legs.

32. Pw5 evidence is that while he was returning from the hospital at about 11.00 pm he observed that Pw1 to P.W.3 tied to a tree then he intimated the same to Lw10 and also intimated to the son of Pw1 about the incident over phone. Thereafter Pw4 came to the spot thereafter he left the spot. So Pw.5 is only hear say witness who gave information to the Pw4 over phone he observed about the Pw1 and Pw3 were tied to the tree at the scene of offence.

33. Pw7 who accompanied Pw4 to the spot deposed that they reached the Sudhapalem burial ground at about 12 mid night by that 17 time Pw1 and P.W.3 tied to coconut tree and they observed 10 persons beating P.W.2. So the evidence of Pw7 is they came to the spot and observed Pw1 and Pw3 were tied to coconut tree and 10 persons beating Pw2 to his evidence is not clear who beat Pw2 with which weapon but he further stated in his chief examination A.1 pushed them.

34. In the light of above evidence it is very clear that while Pw1 is peeling the skin of the died cow at Sudhapalem burial ground along with the help of Pw2, Pw3 , A.1 came to the spot and abused the Pw1 by touching his caste and also he dragged the Pw1 and Pw.3 near by coconut tree by caught hold of their shirt collar and tied them to coconut tree with that Sari piece and rope available there and A1 beat the Pw1 and P.W.2 with their hands and legs and caused injuries to the

Pw1 and P.W.2.So in view of the above evidence A.1 dragged the Pw1 and P.W.3 by caught hold of their shirt collar to the near by coconut tree and tied them to the Coconut tree with available sari pieces and rope and beat them and caused injuries to the Pw1 and P.W.2.

35. As per the evidence of Pw1, A.1 beat him with sticks and stones, as a result he sustained injuries on his right eye brow and the blood oozed from that injury and he also received injuries all over his body. As per the evidence of doctor Pw15 who treated Pw1 deposed that on 9.8.2016 at about 11.00 or 11.30 pm he examined Pw1 and found the following injuries.

1.5X 1 cm laceration over right eyebrow 2.Patterned abrasions of size 7 x 2 cm and 5 x 2 cm on right chest wall.

3.4 x 2 cm patterned abrasion over right shoulder.

The above injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P7 wound certificate of Pw1.

On the same day he examined P.w2 and found the following injuries.

1.6x 2 cm patterned abrasion over back.

2.Complaining of pain in left ear.

36. The above injuries are simple in nature and he issued Ex.P.8 wound certificate of PW.2. Therefore, the evidence of Pw15 doctor who 18 treated the P.W1 and P.W.2 is very clear that Pw1 received injury laceration over right eyebrow and also patterned abrasions. Therefore, the medical evidence is also corroborated with the oral evidence of Pw1 with regard to the injuries. Pw3 and Pw6 were also treated by the doctors. But Pw2, Pw3 and Pw6 did not state who caused injuries to them. Even no evidence who caused injuries to the Pw2, Pw3 and

P.W6.Pw2 stated in his evidence A1 caused injuries to him on his back.

Therefore, it is very clear that A.1 caused injuries to the Pw1 and

P.W.2. During examination of scene of offence Mo.1 rope pieces seized at the scene of offence under Ex.P.3 scene observation report in the presence of Pw11 by the investigating officer. As per the evidence of

P.W11, Mo.1 was seized at the scene of offence. Upon the information

Pw10 who is the then head constable of Amalapruam Taluk Police station he received phone call intimation that 3 or 4 persons were beating at Sudhapalem while tying them to the tree on that he along with other police constable reached the Sudhapalem burial ground and observed three persons were found with injuries by that time he reached, the neighbours who gathered there went away thereafter they released them and he asked Pw1 about the incident and the Pw1 narrated the entire incident to him. Then they shifted Pws 1 to Pw3 to the Area hospital, Amalapuram. Pw 16 who is investigating officer in this case he is also clearly stated about the investigation and visited the scene offence and examined the witnesses. Therefore, in view of the above evidence it is very clear that on 08.08.2016 during night at about 11 or 1.30 pm while P.W.1 with the assistance of Pw2 and P.W.3 shifted the dead cow to the Sudhapalem burial ground in the Van of Pw3 and the said cow belongs to P.W.9, at the same time while Pw1 peeling the skin of dead cow at the burial ground, A.1 and some others came to the spot and A.1 abused Pw1 by touching his caste and beat P.W.1 and

Pw2 and A.1 dragged the Pw1 and P.W.3 by caught hold of their shirt collar to the near by coconut tree and tied them by bending their hands on the back side with the rope pieces available there and beat them with sticks and stones and caused injuries to Pw1 to P.W.3. It is fact that the incident had taken place during night and there are no lights at the scene of offence. It is also fact that the accused are not known to

Pws1 to Pw3. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that none of the witness identified the accused. Even the names of the accused not known to the Pw1 to P.W.7 and no identification parade conducted 19 to identify the accused by Pw1 to Pw7. Therefore, the identification of accused is not correct.

37. A perusal of the evidence of Pw1 to Pw7 it is very clear that they identified them and also stated the name of A1 as Abbulu. In the light of above facts and circumstances and evidence it is held that the prosecution able to prove the guilt of A1 for the offence U/sec.342,324 r/w 34 IPC against A.1

38. Coming to the charge Under SC and ST (POA) Act ie, 3(i)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. As per the case of prosecution

Pw1 belongs to schedule caste Madiga , whereas A 1 belongs to Kapu by caste which is other than the schedule caste and schedule tribe and other accused A.2 to A.8 belongs to Gowda by caste they also other than the schedule caste and schedule tribe. During the course of investigation Pw16 obtained the caste certificates of Pws1 to Pw4 and accused. As per the caste certificate issued by Pw12 Tahsildar Pws 1 to

Pw4 belongs to schedule caste Madiga community which comes under the schedule caste, whereas A1 belongs to Kapu by case, A.2 to A.8 belongs to Gowda by caste. As per the caste certificate issued by Pw12

Tahsildar, The caste certificates marked as Ex.P.14 to P.25 respectively ie,Pw1 to P.w4 and A.1 to A.8.

39. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that Pw1 is not belongs to the schedule caste he belongs to BC C Christian.Pw1 clearly admitted in his cross examination that he is attending church situated at Janakppeta Village, Pw2 also attending the same church and the name of Pw1 is Elisha which is a Christian name. Pw1 further admitted that himself Pw2, Pw 3, Pw4 and Pw6 profess Christianity and attending churches . Pw 1 further admitted that they are organizing the prayer meetings by inviting the pastors. During cross examination of Pw1 Ex .D1 marked D.1 is three photos with CD. As per the said three photographs Pw1 organizing the prayer meetings by inviting pastors. As can be seen from the evidence of Pw1 he clearly admitted that he is profess Christianity but whereas the case of prosecution and evidence of Pw12 the Tahsildar it is clear that Pws 1 to P.W.4 belongs to

Schedule caste. Even the evidence of Pw1 to Pw4 that they belongs to schedule caste. In view of the oral evidence of P.Ws 1 to 4 , 16 and 20 other witness evidence also including the Investigating office4r, Pws1 to

Pw4 schedule caste Madiga by caste , Madiga caste is comes under the schedule caste. In view of Ex.D.1 photographes and admission of the

Pw1 and other witness they are attending church.

40. Coming to the charge framed against the accused is under section 3(i)(s) abuses any member of schedule caste or schedule tribe by the caste name in any place within the public view.

Sec.3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act commits the offence specified the schedule , against the person or property knowing that such person is member of schedule caste or a schedule 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 offence and also liable to fine.

A perusal of the entire evidence the incident had taken place near the Sudhapalem burial ground at about 10.30 or 11.00 pm during night and the victim were dragged to the near by Coconut tree and tied

Pws1 to Pw3 to the coconut tree by bending their hands on the back. It is not the evidence of Pws1 to 4 the public witnessed the incident and abusing.

41. As can be seen from Ex P1 report there is no mention the actual abusive words uttered by the accused in Ex.P.1 report it is mentioned that the accused abused them by touching their caste, the actual abusive words uttered by the accused not mentioned in Ex.P.1 report. It is carefully mentioned “Madiga Lanjakodukullara “so it is well established law by naming out the caste is not attracted the Sec. 3 of

SC and ST (POA) Act. It is well established law mere mentioning the caste of a person does not attract sec. 3(i)(s) of SC and ST (POA) Act. it is also well established law simply addressing a person by his caste without any intention to insult or intimating does not constitute an offence U/sec. 3 of SC and ST (POA) Act.

42. As per the evidence of P.Ws1 to Pw7 they do not have prior acquaintance with the accused and they belongs to different villages.

Even Pw1 to P.W7 not known the names of accused and their villages, likewise the accused also not known Pws1 to P.W.4. So by the time of offence no prior acquaintance between Pw1 to P.w4 and accused, but 21 the accused abused Pw1 by touching his caste as “Madiga

Lanjakodukullara” there is no evidence that the accused have knowledge about the caste of Pws1 to Pw4 at the time of offence. To made out the offence U/sec.3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act the accused abused Pw1 to Pw4 in the public place knowing that Pws1 to Pw4 belongs to member of schedule caste or schedule tribe. It is well established law the prosecution expected to prove that the accused abused P.W.1 to Pw4 on the ground that Pw1 to Pw4 members of schedule caste or schedule tribe. It is well established law that the injured person should be a member of schedule caste or schedule tribe.

Further it is required to be proved the offence has been committed on the ground of injured being a member of schedule caste. In the absence of this material, merely because, the injured person happens to be a schedule caste the offence not made out automatically. In view of the above facts and evidence of Pw1, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence U/sec.3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act.

43. A1 is found guilty for the offence U/sec.342,324 r/w 34 IPC.

Accordingly he is convicted U/sec.235(2) Cr.P.C.

A.1 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of

SCs and STs (POA) Act. Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

A2 to A.8 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec.342,324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA)Act. Accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I),transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2ND day of April, 2024. Sd/M.Nageswararao

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- X Addl.

District JudgeRajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

44. Heard the quantum of sentence

A1 stated that he is having four children, out of four children he performed the marriages of two daughters and he has to perform the marriages of 2 daughters. He is aged about more than 60 years and he 22 has been suffering from knee pains, back ache and he is only bread winner of his family and entire family depending upon his earnings and requesting the Court to take lenient view. Considering the above facts and circumstances and on hearing the accused and to meet the ends of justice A1 is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-indefault of payment of fine he shall sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC. A1 is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- , indefault of payment of fine he shall sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence

U/sec. 342 r/w 34 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.p.c.

A1 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and

STs (POA) Act. Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. A1 is informed that he has right to file appeal under Sec.374(2) Cr.P.C against this Judgement before the Hon’ble High Court of AP,

Amaravathi.

A2 to A.8 are found not guilty for the offence U/secs. 342,324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of of SCs and STs (POA) Act. Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.p.c.Mo1 shall destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending A.2 to A.8 Bail bonds shall in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I),transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 2ND day of April, 2024. Sd/M.Nageswararao

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- X Addl.

District Judge,Rajamahendravaram

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses examined.

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : M.Alisha. P.W.2 : M.Venkateswara Rao. P.W.3 : S.Lakshmana kumar. P.W.4 : M.Chittibabu, P.W.5 : Y.Yesubabu. P.W.6: S.Parem Kumar, P.W.7: S.Eswararao, P.W.8: D.Venkateswararao, P.W.9: B.Aravind Ghosh. p.w.10:G.Venkanna. P.W.11: P.Balaji rao.

23

P.W12: V.Suswaghatam, P.W.13: Dr.B.Sirisha. P.W.14: Dr.V.R.K. Murthy, PW.15 : Dr.S.S. Amarendra babu. PW.16: L.Ankaiah. For Defence : Ex.D.1: Three photos along with CD. Ex.D.2: One photograph along with CD Ex.D.3: Certified copy of FIR along with Report.

Documents marked

For Prosecution: For defence: nil Ex.P.1: Complaint. Ex.P.2: Marked portion in 161 Cr.P.C statement. Ex.P.3: Scene observation report. Ex.P.4: Caste certificate of P.w6. Ex.P.5: Wound certificate of LW.4. Ex.P.6: Wound certificate of P.w3. Ex.P.7: Wound certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P.8: Wound certificate of PW.2. Ex.P.9: SP Proceedings. Ex.P.10: Rough sketch of scene of offence. Ex.P.11 Photos. Ex.P.12: Printed FIR. Ex.P.13: Attested copy of accident register. Ex.P.14: Caste certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.15: Caste certificate of P.W.2 Ex.P.16: Caste certificate of P.W.3 Ex.P.17: Caste certificate of P.W4 Ex.P.18: Caste certificate of A1 Ex.P.19: Caste certificate of A2 Ex.p.20: Caste certificate of A.3 Ex.P.21: Caste certificate of A4. Ex.P.22: Caste certificate of A.5 Ex.P.23: Caste certificate of A.6. Ex.P.24: Caste certificate of A.7 Ex.P.25: Caste certificate of A.8.

Material objects marked Mo1 Saree pieces. Sd/M.N.R. Spl.Judge, //true copy//

Spl. Judge, 24

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday the 2nd day of April, 2024

SC ST SC No.63 of 2017 Between: The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram. … Complainant

And

1.Mamillapalli Narayanamurthy @Abbulu, S/o. Satyanarayana, 58 years, Kapu, D No. 3-114, Samanasa Village, Amalapuram.

2.Urrinki Narayanarao S/o. Ramakrishna Rao, 35 years, Gowda, D No.4-216, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

3. Rajulapudi Gangadhararao, S/o. Ramarao, 55 years, Gowda, , D No.4-241, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

4. Rajulapudi Ganesh Kumar @Veera Vinayaka Venkateswararao S/o. Gangadhararao, 25 years, Gowda, D No.4-241, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

5. Rajulapudi Naresh S/o. Satyanarayana, 39 years Gowda, D No.4-243, Kamanagaruvu village, Amalapuram Mandal.

6. Vaka Venkata Naga Durga Prasad @ Prasad, S/o. Subbarao, 27 years, Gowda D no.6-26, Rangapuramh/o. Samanasa village Amalapuram Mandal.

7.Kamana Durgarao S/o.Subrahmanyam 45 years, Gowda, D No. 3-208 Kamanagaruvu Village, Amalapuram Mandal.

8. Vaka Gopi S/o. Subbarao, 24 years, Gowda D No.6-26, Rangapuram, h/o. Samanasa Village Amalapuram Mandal. … A1 to A.8.

Date of offence : 08-08-2016 Report/Complaint : 09-08-2016 Apprehension of accused 10-08-2016 25

Committal Order : --- Commencement of trial : 16-10-2019 Close of trial : 27-03-2024 Sentence or Order : 02-04-2024

Plea of the accused : Not guilty. Finding of the judge : A1 found guilty Explanation for delay and remarks.

This case was taken on file in this court on 14-06-2017 disposal according to Law and accused appeared before this Court on 18-07- 2017 and trial in this case was commenced on 16-10-2019 and closed on 27-03-2024and pronounced Judgment on 02-04-2024. Hence there is no unavoidable delay in this case.

Sentence of order:

In the result, A1 is found guilty for the offences U/sec. 342, 324 r/w 34 IPC. Accordingly he is convicted U/sec.235(2) Cr.p.C. and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-indefault of payment of fine he shall sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence U/sec.324 r/w 34 IPC. A1 is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- , indefault of payment of fine he shall sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence U/sec. 342 r/w 34 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be set off U/sec.428 Cr.p.c.

A1 is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. A1 is informed that he has right to file appeal under Sec.374(2) Cr.P.C against this Judgement before the Hon’ble High Court of AP, Amaravathi.

A2 to A.8 are found not guilty for the offence U/secs. 342,324 r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3(i)(s), 3(2)(va) of of SCs and STs (POA) Act. Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.p.c.Mo1 shall destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending A.2 to A.8 Bail bonds shall in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Sd/M.Nageswararao, Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum X Addl. District Judge, //True copy //

Spl. Judge, 26

1

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram Tuesday the 16th day of April, 2024 SC ST SC No. 42 of 2022 Between: State rep by its Deputy Superintendent of police, SC ST Cell-1 East Godavari District. Kakinada. … complainant

And

Vadla Mallesham s/o. late Srihari, A/28 years, C/Vadka-BC-B, China Kanjarla village, Pathancheruvu Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana state

2. Vadla Satyamma w/o. Late Srihari A/68 years, C/Vadla BC –B, China Kanjarla Village, Pathancheruvu Mandal.Telangana state.

3. Kammari Balamani w/o. Late Brahmachari A/48 years C/BC –B, Kammari, Sivampeta, Chowtakur Mandal Sangareddy District, Telangana state … Accused

Date of offence : 20-12-2021 Report/Complaint : 15-02-2022 Apprehension of accused 15-02-2022 Committal Order : --- Commencement of trial : 12-03-2024 Close of trial : 12-04-2024 Sentence or Order : 16-04-2024

Plea of the accused : Not guilty. Finding of the judge : Found not guilty Explanation for delay and remarks. This case was taken on file in this court on 09-03-2022 disposal according to Law and accused appeared before this Court on 12-04- 2022 and trial in this case was commenced on 12-03-2024 and closed on 12-04-2024and pronounced Judgment on 16.04.2024. Hence there is no unavoidable delay in this case.

Sentence of order:

In the result, A1 to A. 3 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 498-A,323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1) ( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act . Accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case properties shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending.The Bail bonds of accused shall in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum X Addl. District Judge, 2

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday the 16th day of April, 2024

SC ST SC No. 42 of 2022 Between: State rep by its Deputy Superintendent of police, SC ST Cell-1 East Godavari District. Kakinada. … complainant

And

Vadla Mallesham s/o. late Srihari, A/28 years, C/Vadka-BC-B China Kanjarla village, Pathancheruvu Mandal, Sangareddy District, Telangana state

2. Vadla Satyamma w/o. Late Srihari A/68 years, C/Vadla BC –B, China Kanjarla Village, Pathancheruvu Mandal. Telangana state.

3. Kammari Balamani w/o. Late Brahmachari A/48 years C/BC –B, Kammari, Sivampeta, Chowtakur Mandal Sangareddy District, Telangana state … Accused

This sessions case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri.M.Ramakrishna, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

The Deputy Superintendent of police, SC ST Cell-1, Kakinada filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act in Cr No.307 of 2021 of Thondangi Police Station.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that Pw1 is a resident of

Gopalapatnam village. Thondangi Mandal and she belongs to SC Mala by caste. While Pw1 was working as Staff Nurse in Mallareddy hospital,

Suraram, Hyderabad, A1 who was working as x ray technician in the same hospital acquainted to Pw1 followed her by stating that he loved her and he will marry her. When Pw1 told him to talk with her mother.

3

A.1 along with his elders and relatives approached Pw2 who is mother of Pw1, talked with her and both agreed for to perform the marriage between Pw1 and A.1. Accordingly marriage of Pw1 was performed with A.1 at Aryasamajam, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad on 28.07.2017 in the presence of both sides elders. After the marriage Pw1 and A.1 lead marital life in a rented house belongs to Lw6 Narasimhareddy. Pw2 provided house hold articles and cooking utensils to Pw1. A1 and L.W1 lead marital life happily for some period. By that time A1 and Pw1 were working in Mallareddy hospital. By that time A2 who is mother of A.1 was residing with A1 and P.w1 . When Pw1 conceived, due to weakness, she stopped working her job. On that A1 abused the Pw1 with her caste name by showing caste discrimination. A.2 who is mother of A1 and A.3 who is sister in law of A1 also abused Pw1 with her caste name as ee mala Danni vaddanna chesukunnavu mana paruvu poyindi by showing caste discrimination. On that P.w1 came to her parental home at Gopalapatnam Village, Thondangi Mandal. Later

A.1 also came to the parental home of Pw1. There A.1 demanded to

Pw1 to sell her house and give money to him. Later they were blessed with a son. After that A.1 has joined as lab technician in Satya

Scan centre, Kakinada. A.1 and Pw1 performed first birth day to their son. When they invited A2 and A3, they attended the birthday function and harassed Pw1 by abusing with her caste name . When A.1 demanded to Pw1 to sell her house and give money, Pw1 did not agree for which A.1 left Pw1 at her parental home and went away by demanding to sell the house and give money otherwise he will not allow her to lead marital life with her. Thereby Pw1 lodged a report at

Thondangi police station on 20.12.2021. Basing on the complaint given by Pw1, Pw9 registered FIR in Cr No. 307 of 2021 U/s.498-

A,323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act. As per the proceedings of the Superintendent of police,

Kakinada Lw15 B. Apparao took up investigation in this case.

3. After filing charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance and furnished copies to Accused as required under sec. 207 Cr.P.C and after appearance of Accused and on hearing, charges under sections U/sec.

498-A,323, 506 R/W 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r) ( s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act has been framed read over and explained to them in

Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4

4. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution examined PW1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.17 and on behalf of accused none were examined and no documents are marked.

`

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. from the incriminating material found against the accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same.

6. Now the point that arise for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence U/sec.498-A r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 323 R/W 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 506 R/W 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 3(1)( r)(s) of SCs and STs (POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

7. Points 1 to 5 :

The learned counsel for the accused submitted that Pw1 is a resident of Gopalapatnam village. Thondangi Mandal and she belongs to

SC Mala by caste. While Pw1 was working as Staff Nurse in Mallareddy hospital, Suraram, Hyderabad, A1 who was working as x ray technician in the same hospital acquainted to Pw1 followed her by stating that he loved her and he will marry her. When Pw1 told him to talk with her mother. A.1 along with his elders and relatives approached Pw2 who is mother of Pw1, talked with her and both agreed for to perform the marriage between Pw1 and A.1. Accordingly marriage of Pw1 was performed with A.1 at Aryasamajam, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad on 28.07.2017 in the presence of both sides elders. After the marriage Pw1 and A.1 lead marital life in a rented house belongs to Lw6

Narasimhareddy. Pw2 provided house hold articles and cooking utensils to Pw1. A1 and L.W1 lead marital life happily for some period. By that 5 time A1 and Pw1 were working in Mallareddy hospital. By that time A2 who is mother of A.1 was residing with A1 and P.w1 . When Pw1 conceived, due to weakness, she stopped working her job. On that A1 abused the Pw1 with her caste name by showing caste discrimination.

A.2 who is mother of A1 and A.3 who is sister in law of A1 also abused

Pw1 with her caste name as ee mala Danni vaddanna chesukunnavu mana paruvu poyindi by showing caste discrimination. On that P.w1 came to her parental home at Gopalapatnam Village, Thondangi

Mandal. Later A.1 also came to the parental home of Pw1. There A.1 demanded to Pw1 to sell her house and give money to him. Later they were blessed with a son. After that A.1 has joined as lab technician in Satya Scan centre, Kakinada. A.1 and Pw1 performed first birth day to their son. When they invited A2 and A3, they attended the birthday function and harassed Pw1 by abusing with her caste name . When A.1 demanded to Pw1 to sell her house and give money, Pw1 did not agree for which A.1 left Pw1 at her parental home and went away by demanding to sell the house and give money otherwise he will not allow her to lead marital life with her. Thereby Pw1 lodged a report at

Thondangi police station on 20.12.2021. Basing on the complaint given by Pw1, Pw9 registered FIR in Cr No. 307 of 2021 U/s.498-A,323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act. As per the proceedings of the Superintendent of police, Kakinada Lw15 B.

Apparao took up investigation in this case. In view of the above facts and evidence the accused are liable for punishment.

8. The learned counsel for accused submitted that the accused are innocent and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Pw1 the victim deposed that prior to her marriage with accused No.1 she worked as staff Nurse in Mallareddy Hospitals,

Suraram, Hyderabad and in the same hospital the accused No.l1 worked as X ray Technician. While she was working in the hospital as staff Nurse she got acquaintance with the accused No;1 and they both fell in love and they both agreed to marry. Her parents and parents of accused No.1 also agreed for their marriage, accordingly her marriage with accused No.1 was performed on 28.07.217 at Jeedimetla,

Hyderabad. The other witnesses also did not state anything against the accused. Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

6

9. This is a case of subjecting a woman to cruelty, criminal intimidation and insulting a member of scheduled castes by abusing with caste name within public view that occurred on 2.12.2021 at

Gopalapatnam village, Thondangi Mandal and reported on 2.12.2021 at 14.3 hours in which it is reported by the complainant that complainant and A1 loved each other and performed inter caste marriage. Later the complainant and A.1 were blessed with a son. A.2 and A.3 went to the parental home of the complainant for attending first birthday function of son of complainant and A1 abused the complainant with her caste name.

10. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused examined as Pw1.

Pw1 V. Theresa deposed that she is resident of Gopalapatnam village of Thondangi Mandal and she is a house wife. . Accused No.1 is her husband, accused No.2 is her mother-in-law and accused No.3 is the sister of accused No.1. She belongs to schedule caste-Mala by caste. Accused belongs to Vadla by caste (B.C-B). Prior to her marriage with accused No.1, she worked as staff nurse in Mallareddy

Hospitals, Suraram, Hyderabad and in the same hospital the accused

No.1 worked as X-ray Technician. While she was working in the hospital as staff nurse she got acquaintance with the accused No.1 and they both fell in love and they both agreed to marry. Her parents and parents of accused No.1 also agreed for their marriage, accordingly her marriage with accused No.1 was performed on 28.07.2017 at

Jeedimetla, Hyderabad in Aryasamajam. After marriage she joined accused No.1 to lead marital life and they put up their family in a rented house belongs to L.W.6 T. Narasimhareddy in Suraram,

Hyderabad. They resided in Hyderabad for about 6 months and she became pregnant, 6 months of pregnant at that time herself, accused

No.1 returned to their parents house Gopalapatnam village of

Thondangi Mandal and they lead marital life and shegave birth to a male child on 10.09.2018 at her parents house. Subsequently some trivial disputes arose in between me and accused No.1 in view of their family affairs and the said disputes are placed before elders, their elders obtained her signature on some written paper, She put her signature without reading the contents of the said paper. The accused 7 never harassed her both mental and physically at any time and they did not demand anything from her parents. The witness was confronted with the report, dt.20.12.2021 on seeing the same she identified her signature only and she denied the contents of the report.

11. Pw2 K.Krishna veni deposed that Previously P.W.1 joined as a nurse in Mallareddy Hospitals, Suraram, Hyderabad. During that period accused No.1 also worked in the same hospital as X-Ray Technician.

Two months prior to the marriage i.e. 28.07.2017 she was informed that P.W.1 and accused No.1 fell in love with each other and they agreed to marry and then accused No.1 to accused No.3 and their relatives came to her village to her house and accused No.1 agreed to marry P.W.1 despite they belongs to different lower caste. After negotiations herself, P.W.1 and their well wishers and relatives also expressed their willingness to perform the marriage of P.W.1 with accused No.1. Accordingly the marriage of P.W.1 and accused No.1 was solemnized on 28.07.2017 at Aryasamajam, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad as per Hindu rites and caste customs.

12. Pw3 P.Mani deposed that she was informed that P.W.1 and accused No.1 were fell in love with each other, while they were working in a hospital at Hyderabad and subsequently P.W.1 and accused No.1 got married and after marriage P.W.1 and accused No.1 came to the house of P.W.2 and they are living in the house of P.W.2, out of wedlock

P.W.1 gave birth to one male child. She did not witness any galata in between P.W.1 and accused at any time. She used to attend coolie works from morning to evening as such she did not witness any quarrel in between P.W.1 and accused No.1

13. Pw4 Mahalakshmi deposed that she is resident of Gopalapatnam village of Thondangi Mandal and live by coolie works. She was informed that P.W.1 and accused No.1 were fell in love with each other, while they were working in a hospital at Hyderabad and subsequently

P.W.1 and accused No.1 got married and after marriage P.W.1 and accused No.1 came to the house of P.W.2 and they are living in the house of P.W.2, out of wedlock P.W.1 gave birth to one male child. She did not witness any galata in between P.W.1 and accused at any time.

She used to attend coolie works from morning to evening as such she 8 did not witness any quarrel in between P.W.1 and accused No.1 while they were resided in the house of P.W.2. Except that she do not know other facts of the case. Police not examined me.

14. Pw5 M.Kameswari deposed that she is resident of Gopalapatnam village of Thondangi Mandal and live by stitching works She was informed that P.W.1 and accused No.1 were fell in love with each other, while they were working in a hospital at Hyderabad and subsequently

P.W.1 and accused No.1 got married and after marriage P.W.1 and accused No.1 came to the house of P.W.2 and they are living in the house of P.W.2, out of wedlock P.W.1 gave birth to one male child. She did not witness any galata in between P.W.1 and accused at any time.

She used to attend stitching works from morning to evening as such she did not witness any quarrel in between P.W.1 and accused No.1 while they were resided in the house of P.W.2. Except that she do not know other facts of the case.

15. Pw6 J. Chandu deposed that the marriage of P.W.1 and accused

No.1 was performed in Aryasamajam at Jeedimetla, Hyderabad. He attended the marriage of P.W.1 and accused No.1 along with other relatives of both sides. The marriage of P.W.1 and accused No.1 is a love marriage. P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste-Mala by caste and accused No.1 belongs to Vadla by caste. After marriage accused No.1 and P.W.1 put up their family in the house of L.W.6 T. Narasimhareddy as tenants. He do not know other facts of the case, while they are residing in the house of L.W.6 T. Narasimhareddy as tenants, they were lived happily without differences, subsequently what happened he do not know. After six months P.W.1 and accused No.1 vacated the house of L.W.6 T. Narasimhareddy.

16. Pw7 S.Viswa Manikanta deposed that he is resident of Annavaram village and he is a photographer by profession. He is running a photo studio under name and style of M.R. Photo studio at Annavaram for the last 5 years. On 28.12.2021 at request of the Police he took the photographs of the scene of offence i.e. house of P.W.1 in

Gopalapatnam village and handed over the photos along with C.D. to the Police.

9

17. Pw8 S. Srinu deposed that he has been working as Village

Revenue Assistant of Gopalapatnam village of Thondangi Mandal for the last 10 years. He know L.W.9 Y. Satyanarayana who is Village Revenue

Officer of Gopalapatnam village. On 28.12.2021 the Dy. Superintendent of Police SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada called him and L.W.9 Y.

Satyanarayana to the office and asked them to act as mediators accordingly himself and L.W.9 Y. Satyanarayana accompanied L.W.15 B.

Apparao, Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada to the scene of offence which is situated in Gopalapatnam village at the house of P.W.1. In their presence L.W.15 B. Apparao, Dy. Superintendent of

Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada examined the scene of offence. During examination of scene of offence no incriminating material found at the scene of offence. The Dy. Superintendent of Police photographed the scene of offence and prepared Scene Observation Report. He scribed the Scene Observation Report. Ex.P9 is the Scene Observation Report.

Himself, L.W.9 Y. Satyanarayana and L.W.15 B. Apparao, Dy.

Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada signed on the Scene

Observation Report.

18. Pw9 M. Mohan Kumar the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Thondangi

Police Station from 28.05.2021 to 08.04.2022. On 20.12.2021 at about 2.30 p.m. while he was present in the Police Station P.W.1 came to the

Police Station and presented a written report to him and he registered the same as a case in Crime No.307/2021 under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA)

Act and submitted First Information Report to all the concerned. Since this is a case for the provisions under the SCs & STs (POA) Act, L.W.15

B. Apparao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1,

Kakinada was appointed as investigating officer in this case as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada vide C.No.5467/C3/2021, dt.20.12.2021. Ex.P12 is the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada, dt.20.12.2021.

He assisted the L.W.15 B. Apparao, the then Dy. Superintendent of

Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada in investigation. On 28.12.2021 L.W.15

B. Apparao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1,

Kakinada took up investigation having received C.D. file from me. On 10 the same day L.W.15 B. Apparao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police,

SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada secured the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in the Thondangi Police Station examined them and recorded their statements. On the same day L.W.15 B. Apparao, the then Dy.

Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada secured the presence of mediators i.e. P.W.8 and L.W.9 Y. Satyanarayana and in their presence he examined the scene of offence and he also photographed the scene of offence with the help of P.W.7 and he also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. No incriminating material found at the scene of offence. Ex.P13 is the rough sketch of the scene of offence. On the same day at the scene of offence itself,

L.W.15 B. Apparao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell- 1, Kakinada secured the presence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 examined them and recorded their statements. On 30.12.2021 L.W.15 B. Apparao, the then

Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada visited the

Ameenapur, Hyderabad there he secured the presence of P.W.6 and

L.W.6 T. Narasimha Reddy examined them and recorded their statements. Subsequently L.W.15 B. Apparao, the then Dy.

Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada sent a requisition to the Tahsildars, Thondangi Mandal, Patancheruvu Mandal, Chowtakur

Mandal with a request to issue Caste Certificates of P.W.1 and accused

No.1 to accused No.3 respectively. Accordingly L.W.11 K. Keerthi,

Tahsildar, Thondangi Mandal issued the Caste Certificate of P.W.1.

L.W.12 Mahipala Reddy, Tahsildar, Patancheruvu issued the Caste

Certificates of accused No.1 and accused No.2. L.W.13 M. Kistaiah,

Tahsildar Chowtakur issued the Caste Certificate of accused No.3. As per Caste Certificate issued by L.W.11 K. Keerthi, P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste- Mala by caste. As per the Caste Certificates, accused

No.1 to accused No.3 belongs to B.C-B Vadla by caste. Ex.P14 is the

Caste Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P15 is the Caste Certificate of accused

No.1. Ex.P16 is the Caste Certificate of accused No.2. Ex.P17 is the

Caste Certificate of accused No.3. On 27.01.2022 L.W.15 B. Apparao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada served 41-A Cr.P.C notices on accused No.1 to accused No.3 and they complied the same. After completion of investigation L.W.15 B. Apparao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Kakinada filed charge sheet against the accused.

11

19. In the light of above facts and circumstances and evidence this is a case of subjecting a woman to cruelty, criminal intimidation and insulting a member of scheduled caste by abusing with caste name within the public view. Pw1 and A1 loved each other and performed their marriage. Then A. 1 lead martial life with the complainant in a rented house at Hyderabad . A1 looked after the complainant well for some period. When the complainant conceived, the complainant stopped working her job. Thereby A1 abused her with her caste name by showing caste discrimination. A2 and A.3 who are mother and sister of A.1 also abused the complainant by showing caste discrimination.

Absolutely there is no convincing evidence that the accused harassed the complainant both physically and mentally by abused her by touching her caste. In the light of above facts and circumstances this

Court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.498-A,323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1) ( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act

20. In the result, A1 to A. 3 are found not guilty for the offence

U/sec. 498-A,323, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1) ( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of

SCs and STs (POA) Act . Accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.235(1)

Cr.P.C. The unmarked case properties shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending.The Bail bonds of accused shall in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I),transcribed by her, corrected

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

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- X Addl. DistrictJudgeRajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : V. Therisha. P.W.2 : K.Krishnaveni. P.W.3 : P.Mani. P.W.4 : M.Mahalakshmi. P.W.5 : M.Kameswari, 12

P.W.6: J.Chandu. P.W.7: S.Viswamanikanta. P.W.8: P.Srinu. P..W9: M. Mohan kumar. For Defence : none.

Documents marked

For Prosecution: For defence: nil Ex.P.1: Report. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.w.1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4.l Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P.7: Marked portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6. Ex.P.8: 4 photos . Ex.P.9: scene observation report. Ex.P.10: report. Ex.P.11: FIR Ex.P.12: SP proceedings Ex.P.13 Rough sketch. Ex.P.14: Caste certificate of Pw1 Ex.P.15: Caste certificate of A.1 Ex.P.16: Caste certificate of A.2 Ex.P.17: Caste certificate of A.3 For defence: Nil Material objects marked -Nil-

Spl.Judge, 13

1

Calender and Judgment

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Thursday the 18th day of April, 2024

SC ST SC No.99 of 2020 Between: State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of police, SC and ST Cell-1, East Godavari District, Kakinada. … Complainant

And

Puppala Rambabu s/o. Venkatarao, A/36 years, C/Kapu, R/o. Hussainpuram Village, Samalkota Mandal. … Accused Date of offence : 24-12-2017 Report/Complaint : 24-12-2017 Apprehension of accused 24-12-2017 Committal Order : --- Commencement of trial : 15-04-2024 Close of trial : 18-04-2024 Sentence or Order : 18-04-2024

Plea of the accused : Not guilty. Finding of the judge : Found not guilty Explanation for delay and remarks.

This case was taken on file in this court on 12-11-2021 disposal according to Law and accused appeared before this Court on 18-03- 2021 and trial in this case was commenced on 15-04-2024 and closed on 18-04-2024and pronounced Judgment on 18-04-2024. Hence there is no unavoidable delay in this case.

Sentence of order:

In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.506 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked worthless case properties if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending. The bail bonds of accused shall in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum X Addl. District Judge, 2

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Thursday the 18th day of April, 2024

SC ST SC No.99 of 2020 Between: State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of police, SC and ST Cell-1, East Godavari District, Kakinada. … Complainant

And

Puppala Rambabu s/o. Venkatarao, A/36 years, C/Kapu, R/o. Hussainpuram Village, Samalkota Mandal. … Accused

This sessions case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri.M.D.M.Chisti, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

The Deputy Superintendent of police, SC ST Cell-2, Kakinada filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 506 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act in Cr No. 326 of 2027 of Samalkot Police Station.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that Pw1 is resident of

Hussainpuram village, Samalkot Mandal and living by doing business of

Supplying tents and articles. The accused is also a resident of

Hussainpuram village, Samalkot Mandal he is also doing the same business. On 24.12.2017 at about 10.30 hours, Pw1 erected tent, fixed sound system and handed over the tent articles by sending through his assistants/ Lw2 P.Srinu and P.W.2 on the request of Pw5 who is pastor of Christhu Sangham Church located at Kothapeta of

Hussainpuram village, Samalkot Mandal in the eve of Christmas festival. The accused removed the tent by saying that he has to be erected the tent etc, on that Pw1 stated that on the request of Pw.5 3 he erected the tent,fixed sound system and given tent articles. On that

Pw1 and the accused quarreled each other. Then the accused abused

Pw1 by touching his caste name as “Mala Lanja Koduku Samanlu

Ikkada Veyyadam Emiti Na Samanlu Undaga and threated with dire consequences to kill him. On that the Pw1 brought the matter before elders but the accused did not turn up. Thereby Pw1 gave a report to the SHO, Samalkot police station on 31.12.2017. Basing on the report given by Pw1, LW15 L.Srinu Sub-Inspector of police, Samalkota registered FIR in Cr No. 326 of 2017 U/sec. 506 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r) and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act. Lw16 M.Venkateswarao the then

Deputy Superintendent of police, Kakinada took up investigation in this case as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of police, E.G

District, Kakinada During the course of investigation, as per the statements of witnesses it is proved that the accused has committed the offence on the Pw1 who is a member of scheduled castes by abusing Pw1 by touching his caste name and threatening Pw1 with dire consequences to kill him. Lw14 V. Jithendra, Tahsildar, Samalkot

Mandal issued caste certificate of Pw1 and the accused on 19.8.2020 by certifying that P.W1 belongs to SC Mala caste and the accused belongs to Kapu caste. Lw18 G.Eliyasagar, SC and ST Cell- I Kakinada served notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C to the accused.

3. After filing charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance and furnished copies to Accused as required under sec. 207 Cr.P.C and after appearance of Accused and on hearing, charges under sections U/sec.

506 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r )(s), 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act are framed against the accused and read over the said charges and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution examined PW1 to 9 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.19 are marked and on behalf of accused none were examined and no documents are marked.

`

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. from the incriminating material found against the accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same.

4

6. Now the point that arise for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence U/sec. 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 3(1)( r)(s) of SCs and STs (POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

7. Points 1 to 3 :

The learned Special Public prosecutor submitted that Pw1 is resident of Hussainpuram village, Samalkot Mandal and living by doing business of Supplying tents and articles. The accused is also a resident of Hussainpuram village, Samalkot Mandal he is also doing the same business. On 24.12.2017 at about 10.30 hours, Pw1 erected tent, fixed sound system and handed over the tent articles by sending through his assistants/ Lw2 P.Srinu and P.W.2 on the request of Pw5 who is pastor of Christhu Sangham Church located at Kothapeta of

Hussainpuram village, Samalkot Mandal in the eve of Christmas festival. The accused removed the tent by saying that he has to be erected the tent etc, on that Pw1 stated that on the request of Pw.5 he erected the tent,fixed sound system and given tent articles. On that

Pw1 and the accused quarreled each other. Then the accused abused

Pw1 by touching his caste name as “Mala Lanja Koduku Samanlu

Ikkada Veyyadam Emiti Na Samanlu Undaga and threated with dire consequences to kill him. On that the Pw1 brought the matter before elders but the accused did not turn up. Thereby Pw1 gave a report to the SHO, Samalkot police station on 31.12.2017. Basing on the report given by Pw1, LW15 L.Srinu Sub-Inspector of police, Samalkota registered FIR in Cr No. 326 of 2017 U/sec. 506 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r) and 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act. Lw16 M.Venkateswarao the then

Deputy Superintendent of police, Kakinada took up investigation in this case as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of police, E.G

District, Kakinada During the course of investigation, as per the statements of witnesses it is proved that the accused has committed the offence on the Pw1 who is a member of scheduled castes by abusing Pw1 by touching his caste name and threatening Pw1 with dire 5 consequences to kill him. The prosecution examined the victim – complainant as P.W.1. He deposed that he is resident of Hussainpuram village of Samalkota Mandal and he is running tip top supply company. He know the accused. He belongs to Schedule caste-Mala by caste. Accused belongs to Kapu by caste. The accused is also doing same business ie., tent house business. Himself and accused belongs to same village. In view of their business some trivial disputes arose in between him and accused and he approached the elders of their village to resolve the dispute, by that time the elders obtained his signature on a blank white paper. Hence the accused are liable for conviction.

8 The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is innocent and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The accused has nothing to do with the Pw1. Pw1 clearly and categorically deposed on oath before this Court that he know the accused. He belongs to schedule caste mala by caste. Accused belongs to Kapu by caste. The accused is also doing same business ie, tent house business. Himself and accused belongs to same village. Pw2 to 8 did not state anything against the accused and they turned hostile.

Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

9. This is a cased of Criminal intimidation and intentionally insulting with intent to humiliate of a member of scheduled caste within public view that occurred on 24.12.2017 at about 10.30 hours at Kothapeta of

Hussainpuram village, Samalkota Mandal that the complainant is doing supply of tent house articles business. But the accused who is doing same business has been causing obstruction to the complainant. While so on 24.12.2017 when Pastor of Christhu Sangham Vardanapu

Somaraju asked the complainant to supply tent and articles to his church at Kothapeta of Hussainpuram village in the eve of Christmas festival, the complainant erected tent and supplied tent articles.

Witnessing the same, the accused abused the complainant with his caste name, removed the tent and threatened to kill him. The complainant placed the matter before elders but the accused did not care them. Thereby the complainant lodged a complaint in the Police station.

6

10. In order to prove the guilt of accused the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.19.

11. Pw1 Y.Chandrasekhararao deposed that he know the accused. He belongs to schedule caste - Mala by caste. Accused Belongs to Kapu by caste (O.C.). The accused is also doing same business i.e. tent house business. Himself and accused belongs to same village. In view of their business some trivial disputes arose in between him and accused and he approached the elders of their village to resolve the dispute, by that time the elders obtained his signature on a blank white paper. Witness is confronted with the report, dt.31.12.2017. The witness identified his signature and denied the contents of the report. Ex.P1 is the signature on the report, dt.31.12.2017.

12. Pw2 K. Bhanu kiran deposed that he is resident of Hussainpuram village of Samalkota Mandal and he live by coolie works. He know P.W.1,

L.W.2 P. Srinu, L.W.4 N. Nagesh, L.W.5 M. Chakram, L.W.6 S. Venkata

Ramamna, L.W.7 V. Somaraju, L.W.8 P. Appalaraju, L.W.9 M.

Venkataratnam, L.W.10 Y. Chakram and L.W.11 P. Manoj Kumar. He know the accused. P.W.1 and accused doing tent house business separately.

P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste - Mala by caste. Accused Belongs to Kapu by caste (O.C.). He do not know anything about the case facts. He did not witness any galata in between P.W.1 and accused.

13. Pws3 N. Nagesh deposed that he is resident of Hussainpuram village of Samalkota Mandal and he is doing business. He know P.W.1, P.W.2,

L.W.2 P. Srinu, L.W.5 M. Chakram, L.W.6 S. Venkata Ramana, L.W.7 V.

Somaraju, L.W.8 P. Appalaraju, L.W.9 M. Venkataratnam, L.W.10 Y.

Chakram and L.W.11 P. Manoj Kumar. He know the accused. P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste- Mala by caste. Accused Belongs to Kapu by caste (O.C.). HeI do not know anything about the case facts. He did not witness any galata in between P.W.1 and accused at any time.

14. Pw4 S. Venkata Ramana deposed that he is resident of Hussainpuram village of Samalkota Mandal and live by coolie works. He know P.W.1 to

P.W.3, L.W.2 P. Srinu, L.W.5 M. Chakram, L.W.7 V. Somaraju, L.W.8 P.

7

Appalaraju, L.W.9 M. Venkataratnam, L.W.10 Y. Chakram and L.W.11 P.

Manoj Kumar. He know the accused. P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste -

Mala by caste. Accused Belongs to Kapu by caste (O.C.). He do not know anything about the case facts. He did not witness any galata in between

P.W.1 and accused at any time.

15. Pw5 V.Somaraju deposed that he is resident of Vetlapalem village of

Samalkota Mandal and he is running Church in Hussainpuam village Christ sangham. He know P.W.1 to P.W.4, L.W.2 P. Srinu, L.W.5 M. Chakram,

L.W.8 P. Appalaraju, L.W.9 M. Venkataratnam, L.W.10 Y. Chakram and

L.W.11 P. Manoj Kumar. He know the accused. P.W.1 and accused are doing business in supplying tents and other items in Hussainpuram. His father used to run the Church in Hussinpuram village, after death of his father, he is running the same Church in Hussainpuram village. P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste- Mala by caste. Accused Belongs to Kapu by caste (O.C.). In the month of December, 2017 he asked the P.W.1 to arrange the pendals at the Church, accordingly P.W.1 arranged the pendals at my Church. He do not know about the galata in between P.W.1 and accused.

16. Pw6 P. Appalaraju deposed that accused belongs to Kapu by caste. Pw5 is running church in their village. He used to attend the church. Pw1 and accused are doing business supplying the tents and other items. He do not know anything about the case facts. .

17. Pw7 M.Venkataratnam deposed that accused belongs to Kapu by caste.P.W5 is running church in their village. He used to attend the church. Pw1 and accused are doing business supplying the tents and other items. He do not know anything about the case facts. He did not witness any galata in between Pw1 and accused.

18. Pw8 Y. Chakram deposed that he used to attend the Church. Pw1 and accused are doing business supplying the tents and other items.

He do not know anything about the case facts. He did not witness any galata in between Pw1 and accused.

8

19. Pw9 A.B.G Tilak the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell- 1, East Godavari District, Kakinada from February, 2018 to February, 2020.

He was appointed as investigating officer in this case as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada vide

C.No.3518/C3/2017, dt.30.01.2019. Ex.P10 is the proceedings of the

Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada, dt.30.01.2019. On 02.02.2019 he took up investigation, on seeing the record his predecessor

L.W.16 M. Venkateswararao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC &

ST Cell - 1, Kakinada was appointed as investigating officer as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada, vide

C.No.3518/C3/2017, dt.31.12.2017. Ex.P11 is the proceedings of the

Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada, dt.31.12.2017. His predecessor L.W.16 M. Venkateswararao, the then Dy. Superintendent of

Police, SC & ST Cell - 1, Kakinada took up investigation in this case on 31.12.2017 and as per the record L.W.15 L. Srinu, the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, Samalkota Police Station received the report from P.W.1 on 31.12.2017, basing on the said report L.W.15 L. Srinu, the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, Samalkota Police Station registered the same as a case in Cr.No.326 of 2017 under Section 506 of I.P.C and 3(1)(r), 3(2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act . Ex.P12 is the report submitted by the P.W.1 to the

L.W.15 L. Srinu, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Samalkota Police Station, dt.31.12.2017. Ex.P13 is the First Information Report, dt.31.12.2017. On 02.01.2018 L.W.16 M. Venkateswararao, the then Dy. Superintendent of

Police, SC & ST Cell - 1, Kakinada his predecessor visited the scene of offence, there he secured the presence of P.W.1 examined and recorded his statement. On the same day L.W.16 M. Venkateswararao, the then Dy.

Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell - 1, Kakinada secured the presence of mediators L.W.12 Mohd. Khadar Vali and L.W.13 P. Rajasekhar in their presence, he observed the scene of offence and prepared Scene

Observation Report and also photographed the scene of offence and also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Ex.P15 is the rough sketch prepared by the L.W.16 M. Venkateswararao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell - 1, Kakinada. Ex.P16 is the two photographs along with C.D.

20. On the same day at the scene of offence L.W.16 M.

Venkateswararao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell - 1, 9

Kakinada secured the presence of L.W.2 P. Srinu, P.W.2, P.W.3 and L.W.5

M. Chakram examined them and recorded their statements. On 03.02.2018

L.W.16 M. Venkateswararao, the then Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC &

ST Cell - 1, Kakinada again visited the scene of offence which is situated at

Hussainpuram village near Christsangham Church there he secured the presence of P.W.4 to P.W.8 and L.W.11 P. Manoj Kumar examined them and recorded their statements. Later L.W.16 M. Venkateswararao, the then Dy.

Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell - 1, Kakinada got transferred and he took up investigation as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of

Police, East Godavari, Kakinada in this case. On 02.02.2019 he sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, Samalkota Mandal with a request to issue the

Caste Certificates of P.W.1 and accused. Again he issued a requisition to the Tahsildar, Samalkota Mandal for four times for issuance of the Caste

Certificates of P.W.1 and accused, due to elections the Tahsildar took time to enquire. Subsequently he got transferred, his successor L.W.18 G. Eliya

Sagar, Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell -II, Kakinada was appointed as investigating officer in this case as per the proceedings of the

Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada vide C.No.

C.No.3518/C3/2017, dt.08.02.2020. Ex.P17 is the proceedings of the

Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada, dt.08.02.2020. L.W.18

G. Eliya Sagar, Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell -II, Kakinada received the Caste Certificates of P.W.1 and accused from the Tahsilar. As per the Caste Certificate P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste-Mala by caste where as accused belongs to O.C-Kapu by caste. Ex.P18 is the Caste

Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P19 is the Caste Certificate of accused. On 21.08.2020 L.W.18 G. Eliya Sagar, Dy. Superintendent of Police, SC & ST

Cell -II, Kakinada served 41-A Cr.P.C notice on accused and he complied the same. After completion of investigation L.W.18 G. Eliya Sagar, Dy.

Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell -II, Kakinada filed charge sheet against the accused.

21. A perusal of the entire material in between the lines it is manifest that except the evidence of Pw9 who is investigating officer no other evidence is available against the accused for the charges framed against him. Pw1 who is the victim –complainant turned hostile and the other eye witnesses also not support the case of prosecution. It is well established law in a case like this, without the evidence of Pw1 who is the victim it is unsafe to proceed 10 against the accused. Considering the above facts and circumstances and evidence this Court is of view that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec. 506 IPC.

22. Coming to the charge U/sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. it is no doubt true that Pw1 belongs to schedule caste member, whereas the accused belongs to Kapu by caste other than the schedule caste and schedule tribe. During investigation the investigating agency obtained the caste certificate of Pw1 and accused. Pw1 deposed in his evidence that he belongs to schedule caste Mala. A perusal of evidence of

Pw1 does not inspire confidence to made out the offence U/sec. 3(1)( r)(s) , 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. It is well established law Sec. 3(1)( r)(s)

SC and ST (POA) Act is tobe attracted when the schedule caste member being insulted and threatened in the public place in public view. A perusal of the evidence including Pw1 being victim did not state anything that the accused abused Pw1 by raising his case or insulted him in the public place.

Even there is no evidence on record when a person were present at the time of alleged abusive words uttered by the accused. Therefore mere because of Pw1 belongs to schedule caste member it does not made out the offence U/sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act. In the light of above facts and circumstances this Court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (POA) Act

23. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.506 IPC and Sec. 3(1)( r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act.

Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked worthless case properties if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending. The bail bonds of accused shall in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I),transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of April, 2024.

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- X Addl.

District JudgeRajamahendravaram.

11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : Y.Chandra Sekhar rao. P.W.2 : K.Bhanu Kiran. P.W.3 : N.Nagesh. PW.4 : S.Venkata Ramana. P.W.5 : V.Somaraju. P.W.6: P.Appalaraju. P.W.7: M.Venkata Ratnam. P.W.8: Y.Chakram. P.W.9: A.B.G.Tilak,

For Defence : none.

Documents marked

For Prosecution: For defence: nil Ex.P.1: Signature of Pw1.. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.c Statement of Pw3. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw4. Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw5. Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6. Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7. Ex.P.9: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8. Ex.P.10: SP proceedings. Ex.P.11: SP Proceedings. Ex.P.12: Report. Ex.P.13: FIR. Ex.P.14: Scene observation report. Ex.P.15: Rough sketch. Ex.P.16: 2 photos. Ex.p.17: SP Proceedings. Ex.P.18: Caste certificate of Pw1. Ex.P.19: Caste certificate of accused.

For defence:nil Material objects marked. Nil Spl.Judge, 12

1

RTGVCALENDER AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday the 16th day of April, 2024

SC ST SC No.176 of 2018 Between: Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram. … complainant

And

Adduri Veerababu S/o. Chinnarao A/35 years C/ Kapu, Lingamparthi village Yeleswaram Mandal. … accused

Date of offence : 04-10-2018 Report/Complaint : 04-10-2018 Apprehension of accused 04-10-2018 Committal Order : --- Commencement of trial : 12-04-2024 Close of trial : 12-04-2024 Sentence or Order : 16-04-2024

Plea of the accused : Not guilty. Finding of the judge : Found not guilty Explanation for delay and remarks.

This case was taken on file in this court on 27-11-2018 disposal according to Law and accused appeared before this Court on 27-12- 2028 and trial in this case was commenced on 12-04-2024 and closed on 12-04-2024and pronounced Judgment on 16.04.2024. Hence there is no unavoidable delay in this case.

Sentence of order:

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/sec.324, 506 IPC and Sec.3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. Mo1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending. Bail bonds of Accused shall in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum X Addl. District Judge, 2

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday the 16th day of April, 2024

SC ST SC No.176 of 2018 Between: Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram. … complainant

And

Adduri Veerababu S/o. Chinnarao A/35 years C/ Kapu, Lingamparthi village Yeleswaram Mandal. … accused

This sessions case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri.P.A. Chowdary, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.324,506 IPC and Sec.

3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act in Cr No. 120 of 2018 of SHO

Yeleswaram Police station.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that Pw1 is resident of

Lingamparthi village of Yeleswaram Mandal and he belongs to SC Mala by caste and living by cooli work. The accused is also resident of the same village and he belongs to Kapu by caste and living by running a pan shop at Nandi Centre of the village of which he is also selling liquor bottles for the last few days clandestinely at high prices against its prescribed prices. While so, on 4.10.2018 night around 8.00 pm Pw1 went to the pan shop of the accused and when he asked him a liquor bottle, then the accused informed him the price, then when Pw1 asked him for selling the same at high price against its prescribed price, for which both of them entered into an argument and then the accused flared up against Pw1 and beat him with a coconut at his fore-head and caused a bleeding injury and threatened him with dire 3 consequences knowing fully well that the Pw1 is socially oppressed by caste ie., SC Mala by caste. After completion of investigation Pw8

SDPO Peddapuram filed charge sheet in this case

3. After filing charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance and furnished copies to Accused as required under sec. 207 Cr.P.C and after appearance of Accused and on hearing, charges under sections U/sec.

U/sec.324,506 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act are framed against the accused and read over the said charges and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution examined PW1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.14 and Mo.1 are marked and on behalf of accused none were examined and no documents are marked.

`

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. from the incriminating material found against the accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same.

6. Now the point that arise for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence U/sec. 324 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

7. Points 1 to 3 :

The learned Special Public prosecutor submitted that Pw1 is resident of Lingamparthi village of Yeleswaram Mandal and he belongs to SC Mala by caste and living by cooli work. The accused is also resident of the same village and he belongs to Kapu by caste and living by running a pan shop at Nandi Centre of the village of which he is also selling liquor bottles for the last few days clandestinely at high prices against its prescribed prices. While so, on 4.10.2018 night around 8.00 pm Pw1 went to the pan shop of the accused and when 4 he asked him a liquor bottle, then the accused informed him the price, then when Pw1 asked him for selling the same at high price against its prescribed price, for which both of them entered into an argument and then the accused flared up against Pw1 and beat him with a coconut at his fore-head and caused a bleeding injury and threatened him with dire consequences knowing fully well that the Pw1 is socially oppressed by caste ie., SC Mala by caste. After completion of investigation Pw8 SDPO Peddapuram filed charge sheet in this case.

Pws 1 to 4 clearly and categorically deposed about the incident and also received injury in the hands of accused and their evidence is corroborated with the medical evidence. Therefore the accused are liable for punishment.

8. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused is innocents and he did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Pw1 deposed while he was in the hospital some of his known persons came to the hospital and obtained his signature on a blank white paper. He did not give any report against the accused.

Witness was confronted with the report dt. 4.10.2018. He identified his signature only and he denied the contents of the report. Pw2 deposed at about 6 years back on one day at about 8.30 pm while he was present near the fancy store of accused by that time, Pw1 proceeding on the road with injuries on his head. Except that he do not know other facts of the case. Pw3 deposed that at about 6 years back on one day at about 8.30 pm he came out from his fancy shop and noticed Pw1 proceeding on the road with injuries on his head. Therefore, there is no evidence to proceed against the accused for any of the charges.

Even there is no evidence for the offence of SC and ST (POA) act because no specific abusive words stated by Pw1 mere because of calling the Pw1 with his caste name it does not attract the offence

U/sec. 3(2)(va ) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

9. This is a case of voluntarily causing hurt and criminal intimidation coupled with SC and ST (POA) Act that occurred on 4.07.2018 night around 8.00 pm at Lingamparthi village in which it was reported by the complainant that on 4.10.23018 night around 8.00 pm when he asked the accused at his belt shop owner at Nandi- centre of 5

Lingamparthi village for selling liquor bottles for more prices against its prescribed rates, for which he flared up against the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences.

In order to prove the guilt of accused the prosecution examined

Pw1 to 8.

10. Pw1 S. Suribabu deposed that he is a carpenter by profession. At about 6 years back on one day at about 8.00 p.m. while he was returning to his house from brandy shop after consuming liquor, on the way he, himself fell on the road in intoxication state as a result, he sustained injuries on his left side forehead and he lost conscious due to the injury. He regain the conscious in the Government Hospital, Yeleswaram, He do not know who shifted him to the hospital. While he was in the hospital some of his known persons came to the hospital and obtained his signature on a blank white paper. He did not give any report against the accused. Witness was confronted with the report, dt.04.10.2018. He identified his signature only and he denied the contents of the report. Ex.P1 is the signature on the report, dt.04.10.2018.

11. Pw2 at about 6 years back on one day at about 8.30 p.m. while he was present near the fancy store of accused by that time, P.W.1 proceeding on the road with injuries on his head. He do not know how P.W.1 received injuries, even he did not ask the P.W.1 how he received injuries. Except that he do not know other facts of the case.

12. Pw3 S. Mani deposed that at about 6 years back on one day at about 8.30 p.m. He came out from his fancy shop and noticed P.W.1 proceeding on the road with injuries on his head. He do not know how P.W.1 received injuries, even he did not try to ask the P.W.1 how he received injuries.

Except that he do not know other facts of the case.

13. Pw4 G.Srinu deposed that he is resident of Lingamparty village of

Yeleswaram Mandal and he is running a fancy store in his village. At about 6 years back on one day during night hours P w1 received injuries and proceeding on the road with injuries near his shop. In fact he did not witness any incident and also he did not enquire the Pw1 how he received injuries. Except that he do not know other facts of the case.

6

14. Pw5 N. Satyanarayana deposed that he is working as Village

Revenue Assistant, Lingamparthy village since 1997. On 05.10.2018 at about 8.00 a.m. himself and L.W.7 S. Rangarao accompanied the Dy.

Superintendent of Police, Peddapuram to the fancy stores of accused in their village, in their presence the Dy. Superintendent of Police examined the scene of offence and prepared Scene Observation Report and he also photographed the scene of offence. At the scene of offence they noticed one dried coconut and the Dy. Superintendent of Police seized the said dried coconut in their presence under the cover of Scene Observation

Report. L.W.7 S. Rangarao scribed the Scene Observation Report. Myself and L.W.7 S. Rangarao and the Dy. Superintendent of Police signed on the

Scene Observation Report. Identity slips affixed on the seized dry coconut duly containing signatures of mine and L.W.7 S. Rangarao.

15. Pw6 Dr.A.V. Ramana the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Community

Health Centre, Yeleswaram from 2014 to 2021. On 04.10.2018 at about 8.00 p.m. he examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries

1) A cut injury on left side forehead obliquely in a line measuring 6 x ½ cms., scalp deep, edges are irregular, bleeding marks present.

He is of the opinion that the above injury is simple in nature caused by blunt object, the age of injury is one hour prior to my examination.

Accordingly he issued the Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P7 is the Wound

Certificate of P.W.1.

`16. Pw7 M.Appala Naidu the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Yeleswaram

Police Station from 24.04.2017 to 25.05.2019. On 04.10.2018 at about 9.30 p.m. while he was present in the Police Station, P.W.1 came to the Police

Station and presented a written report and basing on the same he registered the case in Cr.No.120/2018 under Sections 324, 506 of I.P.C and Section 3(2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and submitted First Information Report to all the concerned. Ex.P8 is the report, dt.04.10.2018. Ex.P9 is the First

Information Report. He forwarded the P.W.1 to the Government Hospital for treatment as he is received bleeding injury and I intimated the same to the

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram about registration of case.

7

17. Pw8 Ch.V. Ramarao the then Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Peddapuram from 12.07.2017 to 30.06.2019. He has been appointed as investigating officer in this case as per the proceedings of the

Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada vide

C.No.2637/C3/2018, dt.04.10.2018. Ex.P10 is the proceedings of the

Superintendent of Police, East Godavari, Kakinada, dt.04.10.2018. On 05.10.2018 he took up investigation having received the C.D. file and visited the Yeleswaram Police Station and on the same day he visited the scene of offence which is situated at Lingamparthy village infront of the shop of the accused at Nandi centre, there he secured the presence of P.W.1 examined him and recorded his statement. On the same day there he secured the presence of mediators P.W.5, L.W.7 S. Rangarao and in their presence he examined the scene of offence, at the scene of offence he seized one dry coconut and also photographed the scene of offence and also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. he seized the M.O.1 dry coconut under cover of Scene Observation Report. Ex.P11 is the rough sketch.

Ex.P12 is the three photographs along with C.D.

18. Pw8 further deposed that on the same day at the scene of offence itself, he secured the presence of P.W.2 to P.W.4, L.W.2 K. Srinu, L.W.6 J.

Sattibabu examined them and recorded their statements. On the same day he sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, Yeleswaram Mandal with a request to issue Caste Certificates of P.W.1 and accused. Accordingly, L.W.10

Ravinder Kumar, Tahsildar issued the Caste Certificates of P.W.1 and accused. As per the Caste Certificates issued by the L.W.10 Ravinder

Kumar, Tahsildar, P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste-Mala by caste, where as accused belongs to O.C.-Kapu by caste. Ex.P13 is the Caste Certificate of

P.W.1. Ex.P14 is the Caste Certificate of accused. On 08.10.2018 at about 10.30 a.m. he arrested the accused and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. He received the Wound Certificate of P.W.1 from P.W.6.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused.

19. A perusal of the above evidence, Pw1 deposed while he was in the hospital some of his known persons came to the hospital and obtained his signature on a blank white paper. He did not give any report against the accused. Witness was confronted with the report dt. 4.10.2018. He 8 identified his signature only and he denied the contents of the report.

Pw2 deposed at about 6 years back on one day at about 8.30 pm while he was present near the fancy store of accused by that time, Pw1 proceeding on the road with injuries on his head. Except that he do not know other facts of the case. Pw3 deposed that at about 6 years back on one day at about 8.30 pm he came out from his fancy shop and noticed Pw1 proceeding on the road with injuries on his head. The other witness also did not support the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of investigating officer no other evidence is available against the accused. So there is no evidence against the accused for the charges framed against him. Pw5 N. Satyanarayana deposed that he is working as Village Revenue Assistant, Lingamparthy village since 1997. On 05.10.2018 at about 8.00 a.m. himself and L.W.7 S. Rangarao accompanied the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Peddapuram to the fancy stores of accused in their village, in their presence the Dy. Superintendent of Police examined the scene of offence and prepared Scene Observation

Report and he also photographed the scene of offence. At the scene of offence they noticed one dried coconut and the Dy. Superintendent of

Police seized the said dried coconut in their presence under the cover of

Scene Observation Report. L.W.7 S. Rangarao scribed the Scene

Observation Report. Himself and L.W.7 S. Rangarao and the Dy.

Superintendent of Police signed on the Scene Observation Report. Identity slips affixed on the seized dry coconut duly containing signatures of mine and L.W.7 S. Rangarao. Pw6 Dr.A.V. Ramana the then Civil Assistant

Surgeon, Community Health Centre, Yeleswaram from 2014 to 2021. On 04.10.2018 at about 8.00 p.m. he examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries. A cut injury on left side forehead obliquely in a line measuring 6 x ½ cms., scalp deep, edges are irregular, bleeding marks present. He is of the opinion that the above injury is simple in nature caused by blunt object, the age of injury is one hour prior to my examination. Accordingly he issued the

Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P7 is the Wound Certificate of P.W.1. Pw7

M.Appala Naidu the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Yeleswaram Police

Station from 24.04.2017 to 25.05.2019. On 04.10.2018 at about 9.30 p.m.

while he was present in the Police Station, P.W.1 came to the Police Station and presented a written report and basing on the same he registered the case in Cr.No.120/2018 under Sections 324, 506 of I.P.C and Section 3(2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and submitted First Information Report to 9 all the concerned. Ex.P8 is the report, dt.04.10.2018. Ex.P9 is the First

Information Report. He forwarded the P.W.1 to the Government Hospital for treatment as he is received bleeding injury and he intimated the same to the

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Peddapuram about registration of case. The other witness also did not support the case of prosecution. Except the evidence of investigating officer no other evidence is available against the accused. In the light of above facts and circumstances this Court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.324,506 IPC.

Coming to the offence U/sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act.

It is fact that Pw1 belongs to schedule caste Mala, whereas the accused belongs to Kapu (oc) by caste. During the course of investigation the investigating officer obtained the caste certificates of

Pw1 and Accused. So there is no dispute with regard to the castes of

Pw1 and accused. None of the witnesses stated that the accused with an intention to insult and humiliate Pw1 and by abusing him in public place. So it is well established law mere because of naming the caste it does not made out the offence U/Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA)

Act . Considering the above facts and circumstances this Court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to the guilt of accused for the offence U/sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act.

20. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.324, 506 IPC and Sec.3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act.

Accordingly he is acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. Mo1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending.

Bail bonds of Accused shall in force for a period of six months

U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I),transcribed by her,

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

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- X Addl.

District JudgeRajamahendravaram.

10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : S.Suribabu. P.W.2 : G. Rajababu, P.W.3 : S.Mani. P.W.4 : G.Srinu. P.W.5 : N.Satyanarayana, VRA. P.W.6: Dr.A.V.Ramana. P.W.7: M.Appala Naidu, P.W.8: Dr.V.P. Karuna. P.W.9: Ch.V.Ramarao.

For Defence : none.

Documents marked

For Prosecution: For defence: nil Ex.P.1: Statement of Pw1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw3. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6: Scene observation report. Ex.P.7: Wound certificate. Ex.P.8: Report . Ex.P.9: FIR. Ex.P.10: SP proceedings. Ex.P.11 Rough sketch. Ex.P.12: 3 photos. Ex.P.13: Caste certificate of Pw1 Ex.P.14: Caste certificate e of Accused.

Material objects marked Mo1 dry coconut.

Spl.Judge, 11 12

1

CALENDER AND JUDGMENT

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A)

Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram. PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram. Tuesday the 16th day of April, 2024 SC ST SC No.122 of 2020 Between: State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Central ZONE, Rajamahendravaram. … complainant

And

Maganti Sai Raj @Bhikshu s/o. Chintha rao, A/19 years, C/Gollalu, Dr No. 66-12-9, Venkatapuram Ramdasupeta,Near quarry market, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Maganti Bhavani w/o. Chintha rao, A/35 years, Gollalu, Venkatapuram, Ramdasupeta, Rajamahendravaram.

3. Pattapagalu Sridevi d/o. Venkateswararao, A/33 years, C/Gollalu, Dr No. 66-12-9, Venkatapuram Ramdasupeta, near quarry market, Rajamahendravaram.

4. Pattapagalu Krishnaveni (died) Accused

Date of offence : 24-01-2020 Report/Complaint : 24-01-2020 Apprehension of accused 24-01-2020 Committal Order : --- Commencement of trial : 12-03-2024 Close of trial : 12-04-2024 Sentence or Order : 16-04-2024

Plea of the accused : Not guilty. Finding of the judge : Found not guilty Explanation for delay and remarks. This case was taken on file in this court on 18-03-2021 disposal according to Law and accused appeared before this Court on 18-03- 2021 and trial in this case was commenced on 12-03-2024 and closed on 12-04-2024and pronounced Judgment on 16.04.2024. Hence there is no unavoidable delay in this case.

Sentence of order:

In the result, A1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec. 448,326,427 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. Accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case properties shall be destroyed shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending. Bail bonds of Accused shall in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act cum X Addl. District Judge, 2

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Sri.M.Nageswararao,Special Judge, SCs & STs Court – Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Tuesday the 16th day of April, 2024

SC ST SC No.122 of 2020 Between: State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Central ZONE, Rajamahendravaram. … complainant

And

Maganti Sai Raj @Bhikshu s/o. Chintha rao, A/19 years, C/Gollalu, Dr No. 66-12-9, Venkatapuram Ramdasupeta,Near quarry market, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Maganti Bhavani w/o. Chintha rao, A/35 years, Gollalu, Venkatapuram, Ramdasupeta, Rajamahendravaram.

3. Pattapagalu Sridevi d/o. Venkateswararao, A/33 years, C/Gollalu, Dr No. 66-12-9, Venkatapuram Ramdasupeta, near quarry market, Rajamahendravaram.

4. Pattapagalu Krishnaveni (died) Accused

This sessions case is coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri.M.Siva Subbarao, Advocate for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:

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

The Deputy Superintendent of police, Central Zone,

Rajamahendravaram filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec. 448,326,427 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and

STs (POA) Act in Cr No. 66 of 2020 of III Town L&O Police Station,

Rajamahendravaram.

2. The brief case of the prosecution is that on the night of 23.1.2020 at 10.30 pm there was quarrel took place in Revathi’s house in connection with her extra marital relationship with Pw1. On the next day ie, on 24.01.2020 in the morning, Revathi made a phone call to

Pw1 and alerted him to be careful as her family members knew their 3 affair and they wanted to wreck vengeance.

On 24.01.2020 at 9.00 am Pw1 went to attend his duty of driving a car in the Hon’ble Governor’s convoy. At about 2.30 pm Pw1 returned to his house on a car bearing Reg No. AP 05 DM2737. After parking his car in front of his house, when Pw1 was getting down from his car, A.1 who is the nephew of Revathi armed with an iron rod came to Pw1 and suddenly hit the car glasses and broke them with iron rod uttering as to why Pw1 moves closely with his aunt. Later A.1 dragged Pw1 from his car and hit him with an iron rod on his left forearm and caused him bruise injury. Pw1 ran over to his house. Then A.1 accompanied with

A.2 to A.4 chased Pw1 pushed the doors, trespassed into his house and again beat Pw1 with hands. By that time, his mother and grand mother stood stupefied due to fear. The neighbors interfered and questioned the accused about their assault on Pw1. Then all the accused left Pw1 and escaped. Pw1 lodged a complaint in III Town P.S

Rajamahendravaram. Basing on the statement given by Pw1, WSI

Added Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act. In accordance with the above authorization Lw12 J.V. Santhosh, Deputy Superintendent of police, Central zone, Rajamahendravaram took up investigation in this case. As per the medical opinion it is thus evident that the accused caused grievous injury to complainant by using a deadly weapon ie, iron rod. Basing on the medical opinion Lw12 altered sec.324 IPC to 326 IPC.

3. After filing charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance and furnished copies to Accused as required under sec. 207 Cr.P.C and after appearance of Accused and on hearing, charges under sections U/sec.

448,326,427 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act are framed against the accused and read over the said charges and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to prove it’s case, prosecution examined PW1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P.18 and on behalf of accused none were examined and no documents are marked.

`

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused are 4 examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. from the incriminating material found against the accused from the evidence of prosecution witnesses and they denied the same.

6. Now the point that arise for consideration is;

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of all the accused for the charged offence U/sec. 448 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 326 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 427 r/w 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt ?

Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of Accused for the charged offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act beyond reasonable doubt ?

7. Points 1 to 4 :

The learned Special Public prosecutor submitted that on the night of 23.1.2020 at 10.30 pm there was quarrel took place in Revathi’s house in connection with her extra marital relationship with Pw1. On the next day ie, on 24.01.2020 in the morning, Revathi made a phone call to Pw1 and alerted him to be careful as her family members knew their affair and they wanted to wreck vengeance. On 24.01.2020 at 9.00 am Pw1 went to attend his duty of driving a car in the Hon’ble

Governor’s convoy. At about 2.30 pm Pw1 returned to his house on a car bearing Reg No. AP 05 DM2737. After parking his car in front of his house, when Pw1 was getting down from his car, A.1 who is the nephew of Revathi armed with an iron rod came to Pw1 and suddenly hit the car glasses and broke them with iron rod uttering as to why

Pw1 moves closely with his aunt. Later A.1 dragged Pw1 from his car and hit him with an iron rod on his left forearm and caused him bruise injury. Pw1 ran over to his house. Then A.1 accompanied with A.2 to

A.4 chased Pw1 pushed the doors, trespassed into his house and again beat Pw1 with hands. By that time, his mother and grand mother stood stupefied due to fear. The neighbors interfered and questioned the accused about their assault on Pw1. Then all the accused left Pw1 and escaped. Pw1 lodged a complaint in III Town P.S Rajamahendravaram.

Basing on the statement given by Pw1, WSI Added Sec. 3(2)(va) of

SCs and STs (POA) Act. In accordance with the above authorization

Lw12 J.V. Santhosh, Deputy Superintendent of police, Central zone, 5

Rajamahendravaram took up investigation in this case. As per the medical opinion it is thus evident that the accused caused grievous injury to complainant by using a deadly weapon ie, iron rod. Basing on the medical opinion Lw12 altered sec.324 IPC to 326 IPC. Hence the accused are liable for punishment.

8. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that the accused are innocent and they did not commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Pw1 deposed he belongs to Schedule caste mala, whereas the accused belongs to Kapu by Caste. On one day in the year 2020 when he returned to his house along with the car after parking the car infront of his house, some unknown persons armed with iron rod came and broken the car glass with iron rod and they raised some loud voice, he did not heard the voice clearly. Pw2 deposed that at about 3 years back during his absence at his house, there was a galata at the house of Pw1 and in that galata car glass broken. When he returned to the house on the same day evening, on enquiry he came to know that some unknown persons broken the car glass. Pw3 deposed at about 3 years back he came to know the car of the Pw1 glasses damaged by unknown persons. He was not present in his house on the date of incident. Pw4 deposed that he do not know accused No.1 to Accused No. 3. He do not know anything about the case facts. Hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

9. This is a case of alleged trespass, assault coupled with mischievously causing damage of property of a man who is the member of a schedule caste in furtherance of common intention that occurred on 24.01.2020 at 2.3 pm at Venkatapuram near quarry market centre, Rajamahendravaram. Pw1 is having relationship with a married woman Smt. Pattapagalu Revathi who is a resident of his locality. Having been learnt about their affair, the accused who are the relatives of Revathi bore grudger against him and attacked him with iron rod when he reached his house on a car after attending his duty.

10. In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution examined Pw1 to 8. Pw1 deposed that he belongs to Schedule caste mala, whereas the accused belongs to Kapu by Caste. On one day in the year 2020 when he returned to his house along with the car after 6 parking the car infront of his house, some unknown persons armed with iron rod came and broken the car glass with iron rod and they raised some loud voice, he did not heard the voice clearly. Pw2 deposed that at about 3 years back during his absence at his house, there was a galata at the house of Pw1 and in that galata car glass broken. When he returned to the house on the same day evening, on enquiry he came to know that some unknown persons broken the car glass. Pw3 deposed at about 3 years back he came to know the car of the Pw1 glasses damaged by unknown persons. He was not present in his house on the date of incident. Pw4 deposed that he do not know accused No.1 to Accused No.4.

11. Pw5 N.Siva Kumar deposed that on 27.1.2020 the Deputy

Superintendent of police, Central zone, Rajamahendravaram called him and Lw8 P.V.V. Satynarayana and asked them to act as mediators in this case, accordingly himself, Lw8 P.V.V. Satyanrayana accompanied the deputy Superintendent of policed and his staff to the house of Pw1 which is situated at quarry centre Ramadaspeta. In their presence the

DSP examined the scene of offence ie infront of the house of pw1 on the road, there they noticed one Innova car which is damaged front and back side of the glasses. The Deputy Superintendent of police note down all the particulars of the scene of offence and also damaged car and the Deputy Superintendent of police also photographed the damaged car in their presence. Himself and Lw8 P.V.V. Satyanrayana signed on the scene observation report as mediators.

12. P.w6 Dr. Mary Lydia Suchita the then Civil Assistant Surgeon

District Government hospital, Rajamahendravaram had deposed that on 24.01.2020 at 7.40 pm he examined Pw1 and found the following injuries.

1.No external bleeding injuries.

2. Patient complainining of pain in left forearm with mild swelling

3. LC X rays were taken.As per the radiologist opinion there is fracture upper 1/3rd shaft of radius. Patient was treated on OP Basis. He is of the opinion that the Above injury is grievous in nature and might be caused by blunt object. Accordingly he issued the wound certificate of Pw1.

13. P.W.7.V. Suswagatham the then Tahasildar, Rajamahendravaram 7 had deposed that on 27.1.20220 he received a requisition from the

Deputy Superintendent of police, Central Zone , Rajamahendravaram with a request to issue the case certificate of Pw1 and accused, then he instructed the concerned Revenue Inspector and Village Revenue officer to enquire about the castes of Pw1 and accused and submit report basing on the report of Revenue inspector And Village revenue officer he issued the case certificates of Pw1 and accused. As per their enquiries Pw1 belongs to schedule caste Mala by caste, whereas accused belongs to Yadava by caste.

14. Pw8 J.V. Santosh the then DY. Superintendent of police, Central zone, Rajamahendravaram had deposed that he was appointed as investigating officer in this case as per the proceedings of the

Superintendent of police, Rajamahendravaram and on 27.1.2020 he received the CD file from concerned PS from Lw11 K. Prameela,

Woman Sub-Inspector of police On perusal of the CD file it is brought to his notice that Lw11 K. Prameela, Woman sub-Inspector of police received the report from Pw1 and basing on the said report Lw11 K.

Prameela, woman Sub-Inspector of police registered the case in Cr No.

66/202 U/sec. 427, 324, 448, r/w 34 IPC . After registering ther case ,LW11 k. Prameela , Woman sub-Inspector of police secured the presence of Pw1 examined and recorded his statement and basing on the statement of P w1, she added the section 3(2)(va) of SCs and

STs (POA) Act. On 27.1.2020 he visited the scene of offence which is situated at near QUARRY Centre, Ramadasupeta, Rajamahendravaram near D No.66/12/13 and he xamined the sene of offence, at the scene of offence he secured the presence of Pw1, Lw2 N. Suryakantham, Lw3

N. Ruthamma and Pw2 to Pw4 examined them and recorded their statements. He also prepared the rough sktch and on the same he sent a requisition to the Tahsildar, Rajamahendravartam with a request to issue the case certificates of Pw1 and accused. On 5.3.2020 he served 41-A Cr.P.C notices on all the accused And they complied. He received the wound certificate of Pw1 from Pw6. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused

15. As per the case of prosecution Pw1 deposed that he belongs to schedule caste mala. Whereas the accused belongs to Gollalu by caste.Pw1 deposed on one day in the year 2020 when he returned to 8 his house along with the car after parking the car infront of his house, some unknown persons armed with iron rod came and broken the car glass with iron rod and also they raised some loud voice, he did not heard the voice clearly. Pw2 deposed at about 3 years back during hiks absence at his house, there was a galata at the house of Pw1 and in that galata car glass broken. When he returned to the house on the same day evening, on enquiry he came to know that some unknown persons broken the car glass. Pw3 deposed about 3 years back he came to know the car of the Pw1 glasses damaged by unknown persons. He was not present in his house on the date of incident. Pw5 deposed that on 27.1.2020 the Deputy Superintendent of police,

Central zone, Rajamahendravaram called him and Lw8 P.V.V.

Satyanrayana and asked them to act as mediators in this case, accordingly himself, Lw8 P.V.V. Satyanrayana accompanied the Deputy

Superintendent of police and his staff to the house of Pw1 which is situated at Quarry centre, Ramadaspeta. Pw6 the then Civil Asst.

Surgeon, District Hospital, Rajamahendravaram and as per the radiologist opinion there is fracture upper 1/3rd shaft of radius. Patient was treated on OP basis. Except the evidence of investigating officer there is no other evidence against the accused. In the light of above facts and circumstances this Court has no hesitation to say that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence U/sec.448,326,427 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and

STs (POA) Act.

16. In the result, A1 to A.3 are found not guilty for the offence U/sec.

448,326,427 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs and STs (POA) Act.

Accordingly they are acquitted U/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. The unmarked case properties shall be destroyed shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time, after confirming that no appeal is pending. Bail bonds of Accused shall in force for a period of six months U/sec.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I),transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the16th day of April, 2024.

Special Judge

SCs & STs Court – cum- X Addl.

District JudgeRajamahendravaram.

9

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: P.W.1 : N.Kiran. P.W.2 : P.Durga. P.W.3 : R.Devi. P.W.4 : B.Gangamma. P.W.5 : N.Siva Kumar. P.W.6: Dr. Mary Suchitra. P.W.7: V.Suswagatham. P.W.8: J.V. Santosh. For Defence : none.

Documents marked

For Prosecution: For defence: nil Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1 Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2 Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3. Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4. Ex.P.7: Signature of Pw5 Ex.P.8: Wound certificate of Pw1.. Ex.P.9: Caste certificate of P.w1 Ex.P.10: Caste certificate of A1. Ex.P.11 Caste certificate of A2. Ex.P.12: Caste certificate of A3 . Ex.P.13: Sp proceedings. Ex.P.14: Report. Ex.P.15: FIR. Ex.P.16: Altered FIR. Ex.P.17: Rough sketch. Ex.P.18: Four photos.

Material objects marked --Nil ---

Spl.Judge, 10 11