Page 1 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SCS/STS (POA) ACT – CUM – V ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT ADILABAD
Present: Sri. M. Satish Kumar, Spl.Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-V Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Adilabad.
Wednesday this the 01st day of June, 2022
SPL.SC.NO.18 OF 2018
Name of the Complainant State represented by Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Asifabad.
Name of the Accused Korvi Mallesh, S/o. Rajaram, Age: 38 years, Caste: Padmashali (BC), Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Gambhirraopet Village of Tiryani Mandal.
Offence under section 294(b), 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)
(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused.
Plea of the accusedNot Guilty
Finding Found Guilty
Sentence or OrderIn the result, the accused is convicted
U/Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C for the offence
U/Sec.294(b) of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two (2)
Months for the said charge.
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 2 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018
Further, the accused is convicted
U/Sec.506 Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06)
Months, and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Further, The accused is convicted
U/Sec. 3(1)(r) of SCs/STs (POA)
Amendment Act-2015 and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06) Months, and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five
Hundred only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Further, The accused is convicted
U/Sec. 3(1)(s) of SCs/STs (POA)
Amendment Act-2015 and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06) Months, and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-(Rupees Five
Hundred only), in default of payment of
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 3 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 fine, the accused shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period One Month.
All the sentences imposed against the accused shall be run concurrently.
Convict is informed of his right to appeal to the Hon'ble High Court and he is also furnished with free copy of this
Judgment. He is also informed that he can take assistance of Legal Services
Authority in case he is not able to engage advocate.
Name of the counsel forSri. E. Kiran Kumar Reddy, prosecution Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Name of the counsel for Sri. T. Venkat Kumar, Advocate. Defence
This case coming before me on 01.06.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri E. Kiran Kumar Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. T. Venkat Kumar, Advocate and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by the Sub
Divisional Police officer, Asifabad in Cr.No.54/2017 of Tiryani for the
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 4 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 offences punishable U/Secs.294(b), 506 of I.P.C. and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against accused.
02. The brief case of the Prosecution as per the charge sheet is that on 14.12.2017, at 1800 hours, the defacto complainant/
Lw.1/Madavi Laxmibai came to police station and lodged complaint
before the police stating that on 12.12.2017, evening at about 04.00
PM, while she along with her daughter-in-law Srilatha/Lw.2 and her aunt Kudmetha Rajubai/Lw.3 were present at her house, one Korvi
Mallesh/accused went to her house by yielding an Axe and abused her in filthy language uttering obscene words by beating the Axe on their fencing alleging that she placed the lemon pieces, paper plates and glasses at his field and the same were placed by the Lw.1 and she practicing sorcery on him. The accused abused the Lw.1 by taking her caste name as “ILANTI MANTHRALU MEE GOND
NEECHAPU KULAPOLAKE VASTAYI, NEEVENDI, NEE JAATHI ENDI”, also he abused as “KULAM TAKKUVA DAANA, MANTRALU MEE
GONDULAKU TAPPA EVVARIKI RAAVE”. The accused has threatened her with dire consequences by stating that he will kill her and he very well know how to kill her, the Lw.1 further stated that she and her daughter-in-law are having threat with the accused. Due to his
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 5 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 threat they did not come out from the house to report the matter immediately and after arrival of his elder son Gunavanth Rao, she visited the Police Station and reported the matter to Police. This incident was witnessed by Thumram Gourubai/Lw.6, Naitham
Rambai/Lw.4, Thumram Jugadhi Rao/Lw.8, Naitham Venkatrao/Lw.7 and Bhagya Laxmi/Lw.5. Finally, she requested to take necessary action.
03. Basing on the above complaint, Lw.13/B. Srinivas, SI of
Police, Tiryani PS registered a case in Crime No.54/2017 for the offences punishable U/Secs.294(b), 506 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(r)(s) of
SCs/STc (POA) Amendment Act 2015 and issued FIR. Thereafter, as per the order of Superintendent of Police Kumrambheem
Asifabad/Lw.14/A. Satyanarayana/SDPO, Asifabad appointed as investigation officer and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the Lw.14/SDPO visited the place of offence situated at Dondla village of Tiryani Mandal, and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements under videography with the help of the Lw.9/V. Naresh, and he also examined the witnesses under videography and recorded their statements. The Lw.14/SDPO secured the presence of two mediators i.e. Lw.10/A. Chandra Shekar
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 6 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 and Lw.11/T. Raghupathi, conducted scene of offence panchanama in crime details form and drawn the rough sketch of place of offence.
Thereafter, on the requisition Lw.12/Tahsildar/A. Amruth Sagar,
Tiryani has issued caste particulars of victim/Lw.1 and accused in which he stated that the victim/Madav Laxmibai, belongs to ST-Gond and the accused/Korvi Mallesh is belongs to BC-Padmashali community.
04. As per the orders of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature
Hyderabad the Lw.14/SDPO, Asifabad served a notice U/Sec.41-A of
Cr.P.C on the accused through SI of Police, Tiryani. After completion of investigation, the Lw.14/SDPO filed charge sheet.
05. This Court taken cognizance for the offences punishable
U/Sec.294(b), 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015 against Accused and registered as Spl.SC
No.18/2018.
06. On appearance of the Accused and on hearing the learned counsel and additional public prosecutor charges were framed for the offences punishable U/Sec.294(b), 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 7 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 accused, and read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, accused was pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
07.In order to prove its case, the Prosecution has examined
PWs.1 to 11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9 on its behalf.
08. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. confronting the incriminating evidence found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses against accused, for which, he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.
09. Heard the arguments of both sides perused the material on record.
10. Basing on the contentions on both the parties, now the point for determination before this Court is:
“Whether the Prosecution has proved the guilt of
the charges U/Sec.294(b), 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of
SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against accused
beyond all reasonable doubt?”
11. To prove its case, prosecution examined (11) witnesses.
PW.1 is the defacto complainant and victim, Pw.2 is the daughter in law of Pw.1, Pw.3, Pw.5 to 7 are the neighbors of the victim and eye
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 8 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 witnesses, Pw.4 is the Aunt of Pw.1, Pw.8 and Pw.9 are the panch witnesses for the scene of offence, Pw.10 is the videographer and
Pw.11 is the Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet.
12. M. Laxmi Bai is the defacto complainant and victim examined as Pw.1. Pw.1 deposed that she belongs to ST-Gond community and the accused belongs to BC-Golla community. She further deposed that on 13.12.2017, 04.00 PM, while she and her daughter-in-law/Pw.2 and her maternal aunt/Pw.4 were at her house, the accused came to her house armed with an axe hit on their thatched fencing and abused her in the name of the caste in filthy language stating that “You were practicing sorcery and had throne lemons and leave plates (Istharakulu) in his fields and that you Gond people only can do manthras, which will not work on him and he will kill her (PW.1) on some day and also the uttered lanja, boddi” and the said incident witnessed by Pw.2, Pw.3, Pw.4, Pw.5,
Pw.7, Pw.8, Pw.10 and Lw.11/T. Raghupathi, thereafter, the accused left. On the next day after arrival of her son she lodged Ex.P1 report.
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 9 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018
In the cross examination, Pw.1 deposed that she got Ac.
6-00 of Agriculture land and she knew her neighbour landlord/
Geethanjali. She further deposed that her son is village sarpanch, she working as MPTC. She further deposed that the said Geethanjali sold her land then they intended to purchase the same. She further deposed that the accused is having agriculture land abutting to her land. She further deposed that she does not know from whom the accused purchased his land she admitted that the accused purchased Ac.1½ land in Sy. No.13/38 from said Geethanjali, she pleaded ignorance that they got held a panchayath that the land of said Geethanjali must be sold to them. She denied suggestions that she got held a panchayath with Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao and Chandu
Patel, Jummadi Kistaiah and Pabbula Rajalingu, and threatened the accused that is how he could purchased the land from said
Geethanjali, she also denied suggestion that across the purchased land of the accused she planted fencing stones. She admitted that the accused and N. Venkat Rao measured the land of the accused and caused the notice served on them and in the survey it was found that ½ acre land of the accused is in her possession and she also denied suggestion that after the said survey she hold a panchayath
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 10 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 with elders and she also denied the suggestion that she threatened the accused that she will file a false case against the accused, if he does not leave said ½ acre of his land found in her possession. She also denied suggestion that she and her son demanded the accused over phone of Rs.10,00,000/- beside leaving of ½ acre land of the accused found in her possession. She denied the suggestion that due to property disputes she filed this false case against the accused and the accused never came to her house by armed weapon with axe and he never abused them in filthy language referring her caste stating that they know sorcery and kept lemon in his agriculture field.
13. M. Srilatha daughter-in-law of the Pw.1 examined as
Pw.2. Pw.2 deposed that on 13.12.2017, at 04.00 PM, she along with Pw.1 and Pw.4 present in their house, the accused came to their house with the armed weapon axe and abused Pw.1 and hit on thatched fencing and stated that Pw.1 thrown the lemons and leave plates by practicing sorcery in his field and accused also abused
Pw.1 as “lanja boddi uttering caste name gonda jathi also stated that gonda jathi people only know the manthralu and practice sorcery and Pw.1 have throne the lemons and leave plates in his fields by
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 11 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 practicing sorcery, and he will kill her on any day and threatened
Pw.1” and it was witnessed by Pw.3 to 8, Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao and
Lw.11/T. Raghupathi. She denied the suggestion that the accused never came her and never abused Pw.1 as said by her and she admitted that the accused is having agriculture land abutting to the land of the Pw.1, she also admitted that there were disputes between Pw.1 and accused in connecting with land property she denied the suggestion that due to land dispute this false case filed.
She also admitted that prior to this alleged dispute the land of the
Pw.1 and accused was surveyed and found that ½ acre of the land of the accused found in possession of Pw.1. She denied the suggestions that the accused demanded to return of his ½ acre land, then this case is filed.
14. N. Rambai is the neighbour and said to be eye witness examined as Pw.3. Pw.3 deposed that on 13.12.2017, on 04.00 PM while she was at her house which is situated by the side of house of
Pw.1, the accused came to the house of the Pw.1 quarreled with her and the accused abused Pw.1 “Lanja boddi and the you people of the
Gond community only know sorcery” and the accused threatened to
Pw.1 to kill her and further accused stated that it is only Pw.1 had
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 12 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 thrown the lemon leaves plates in his field and inspite of denied by the Pw.1 the accused abused Pw.1 in filthy language referring on caste. She further deposed that as accused hit on thatched fencing of Pw.1 with axe then she came out and asked the accused not to quarrel with ladies and if anything he can ask when men of the house come back, so she tried to pacify the accused and at the time
Pw.5 to 7 and Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao also present and witnessed the same.
In the cross examination, she deposed that Pw.1 is her close neighbor. Pw.3 pleaded ignorance about the property disputes between the accused and Pw.1. She deposed that Pw.1 MPTC of their village and son of the Pw.1 is village Sarpanch. She denied the suggestion that the accused never came to the house of the victim and never quarrel with her and never abused Pw.1 in the name of the caste.
15. K. Rajubai is the maternal aunt of the Pw.1 examined as
Pw.4. Pw.4 deposed that Pw.1 and 2 are her relatives and about 4 years ago at about 04.00 PM the accused came to the house of the
Pw.1 and stated to abused the Pw.1 in filthy language stating that
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 13 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 “Lanje boddi you (Pw.1) belongs to lower caste and your (Pw.1) community people practices black magic”. She further deposed that the accused stated that lemons, plates thrown in field of the agriculture of the accused and blamed Pw.1 for it. She further deposed that she lost her eye site so so cannot identify the accused
before the Court.
In the cross examination of Pw.4 plead ignorance about the land disputes between Pw.1 and accused. She deposed that there are six to seven houses in her village and there are three houses intervening her house and Pw.1 house. She admitted that she cannot identified the persons from long distance and at the time of the incident she was in the house. She admitted that she was no eye site, so she cannot say what was happened. She denied the suggestions that the accused never came to the house of Pw.1, never made galata and never abused Pw.1.
16. A. Bhagya Laxmi is another neighbour and said to be eye witness examined as Pw.5. Pw.5 deposed that in the year 2017 at about 4.00 PM there was a galata in between Pw.1 and accused and the accused abused Pw.1 by stating that she belongs to low
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 14 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 caste and gond caste and they are only know of black magic, lanja and boddi etc. and further the accused stated that Pw.1 thrown the lemon, plates (vistharakulu) were in his agriculture field and he blamed the Pw.1 only responsible for throwing the said lemon peaces and plate in his agriculture land and Pw.5 also identified the accused before the Court.
In the cross examination of Pw.5, she deposed that Pw.1 is not her relative, but she is her villager. She is also deposed that
Pw.1 is MPTC member and her son is a sarpanch. She further deposed that there may be six houses in their village. The house of the Pw.1 is visible from her house. She denied the suggestion that the Sarpanch came along with her to the court, as such she giving false evidence and she denied the suggestion that the accused never came to the house of Pw.1 and never abused her in the name of her caste. She plead ignorance that there were land disputes between
Pw.1 and accused.
17. P. Gourubai is another neighbour and said to be eye witness examined as Pw.6. Pw.6 deposed that about 4 years ago at about 4.00 PM the accused came to the house of the Pw.1 by
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 15 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 carrying one axe and he beat the compound wall (Dhadi) with axe and he threatened to kill her and he also said that her/Pw.1 life is in his hands. She further deposed that Pw.2 to 5, Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao,
Pw.7 and Pw.8 witnessed the incident.
In the cross examination of Pw.6, she deposed that they used to go to their agriculture field morning 10.00 am and return to 5.00 or 6.00 pm. She further deposed that Pw.1 is her relative and belongs to her caste. She plead ignorance about the land disputes between Pw.1 and accused. She denied suggestion that the accused never came to the house of Pw.1 with axe and never beat to the compound wall and never threatened to Pw.1 to kill her.
18. T. Jegathi Rao is another neighbour and said to be eye witness examined as Pw.7. Pw.7 deposed that about 4 years ago at about 4.00 PM when he was returning from his agriculture field to his house to Dondla village he observed the galata between Pw.1 and accused. He further deposed that the accused blamed Pw.1 by stating that lemon pieces and plates (vistharakulu) thrown in his agriculture field and also blamed her stating that she is doing black magic and he requested the accused not to quarrel with Pw.1 and if
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 16 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 anything is there he can talk with male members. At the time, Pw.1 to 6 and Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao also present.
In the cross examination, Pw.7 deposed that Pw.6 is his wife. He is further deposed that he is patel in his village and there are four or five villages in their gram panchayath and Pw.1 is MPTC and her son is Sarpanch. He admitted that Pw.1 is residing at
Dondla village and he residing at Patuguda village and he further deposed that there may be distance of 2.00 kms. in between Dondla villag and Patuguda village. He further deposed that at the time of incident his wife/Pw.6 is plucking cotton in their field and he is also admitted that he used to go to outside at 10.00 am and return to home at 05.00 or 06.00 PM and he also admitted that on that day also he return back home at 05.00 or 6.00 pm. He denied suggestion that the accused never came to the house of Pw.1 and never blamed the Pw.1 by stating that lemon pieces and the plates (Vistarakulu) thrown in his agriculture fields and never blamed Pw.1 that she doing black magic.
19. A. Chandra Shekar is the one of the mediator for CDF examined as Pw.8. Pw.8 deposed that about 4 years ago at about
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 17 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 10.00 AM, Police called to the house of Pw.1 at Dondal village and they called him and Lw.11/Raghupathi to the house of the Pw.1 and prepared the panchanama and rough sketch and obtained their signatures.
In the cross examination, he denied the suggestions that the police obtained their signatures at Police station.
20. A. Amruth Sagar, is the then Tahsildar of Tiryani examined as Pw.9. Pw.9 deposed that on the requisition of the
SDPO Asifabad he furnished the caste particulars of Pw.1 and accused under Ex.P4 and P5 respectively as per it Pw.1 belongs to
ST and sub caste is Gond community and the accused belongs to BC and sub caste Padmashali.
21. V. Naresh is the videographer examined as Pw.10.
Pw.10 deposed that on 15.12.2017, at 10.00 or 11.00 AM the Police called him to the Dondla village and asked to videography statement of victim while they recording the statement accordingly he videorgraphed the statement and hand over the same to Police.
22. A. Satyanarayana is the investigating officer and the then SDPO, Asifabad examined as Pw.11. Pw.11 deposed that on
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 18 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 14.12.2017, at 1800 hours, Pw.1 came to Police station and lodged report basing on that their Lw.13/B. Srinivas/S.I of Police registered a case and issued FIR and thereafter, he was appointed as investigation officer as per the proceedings under Ex.P8 of the
Superintendent of Police, Komaram Bheem Asifabad, then he took up the investigation, visited the scene of offence at Dondla village examined the witnesses under video graphy/Pw.10 and conducted
CDF and drawn the rough sketch in the presence of the mediators on his requisition Pw.9 furnished the caste particulars of the Pw.1 and accused stating that the accused belongs to BC-Padmashali and Pw.1 belongs to ST-Gond. Thereafter, he served 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice to the accused as per the order of Hon'ble High court after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.
In the cross examination, Pw.11 deposed that Dodla village not a gram panchayath hamlet of Gambirraopet and admitted that there is a distance of 2.00 kms. in between Dondla villag and
Gambeeraopet. He further deposed that he did not found lemon and turmeric in the land of the accused, so he did not seized the same.
He denied the suggestion that due to land disputes in between Pw.1 and accused Pw.1 lodged false report.
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 19 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018
23.The case of the prosecution is that the victim/Pw.1 belongs to ST-Gond community and the accused belongs to BC-
Padmashali community. Pw.1 is the residents of Dondla village and accused resident of Gambeeraopet. The agriculture land of the accused is situated at the outskirts of Dondla village. On 13.12.2017, the accused went to his agriculture field and found some lemon pieces, Paper plates and plastic glasses at his field.
Then, the accused became angry and went to the house of the Pw.1 by holding an axe in his hand and abused the Pw.1 in filthy language as “ILANTI MANTHRALU MEE GOND NEECHAPU KULAPOLAKE
VASTAYI, NEEVENDI, NEE JAATHI ENDI”, also he abused as “KULAM
TAKKUVA DAANA, MANTRALU MEE GONDULAKU TAPPA EVVARIKI
RAAVE” and alleged that Pw.1 is practicing sorcery over him and hit his axe on the thatched fencing of Pw.1 and threatened Pw.1 with dire consequences to kill. Thereby, the accused charged for the offence punishable U/Secs. 294(b), 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)
(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
24. The defacto complainant examined as Pw.1 and she deposed that she belongs to ST-Gond community and the accused belongs to BC-Golla community. To prove the caste particulars of
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 20 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 accused and victim/Pw.1 the prosecution examined Pw.9/the then
Tahsildar, Tiryani, he deposed that as per requisition of SDPO,
Asifabad, he issued Ex.P4 and P5 caste particulars of Pw.1 and accused respectively and as per Ex.P4 Pw.1 belongs to ST-Gond and as per Ex.P5 the accused belongs to BC-Padmashali. Though, Pw.1 deposed that the accused belongs to BC-Golla community, but it is not fatal. Therefore, as per the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.9 coupled with Ex.P4 and P5 the prosecution proved that the accused belongs to BC i.e. other than SC and ST community and Pw.1 belongs to ST community.
25. Pw.1 deposed that on 13.12.2017, 04.00 PM, while she and her daughter-in-law/Pw.2 and her maternal aunt/Pw.4 were at her house, the accused came to her house armed with an axe hit on their thatched fencing and abused her in the name of the caste in filthy language stating that “You (Pw.1) were practicing sorcery and had throne lemons and leave plates (Istharakulu) in his fields and that they (Pw.1) Gond people only can do manthras, which will not work on him and he will kill her (Pw.1) on some day and also the uttered lanja, boddi” and the said incident witnessed by Pw.2, Pw.3,
Pw.4, Pw.5, Pw.7, Pw.8, Pw.10 and Lw.11/T. Raghupathi, thereafter,
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 21 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 the accused left. On the next day after arrival of her son she lodged
Ex.P1 report.
26. Pw.2 is the daughter-in-law of the Pw.1 deposed that on 13.12.2017, at 04.00 PM, she along with Pw.1 and Pw.4 present in their house, the accused came to their house with the armed weapon axe and abused Pw.1 and hit on thatched fencing and stated that Pw.1 thrown the lemons and leave plates by practicing sorcery in his field and accused also abused Pw.1 as “lanja boddi uttering caste name gonda jathi also stated that gonda jathi people only know the manthralu and practice sorcery and Pw.1 have thrown the lemons and leave plates in his fields by practicing sorcery, and he threatened Pw.1 that he will kill her on any day” and it was witnessed by Pw.3 to 8, Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao and Lw.11/T.
Raghupathi. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.1 is corroborate with the evidence of Pw.2. Pw.3 who is the neighbour of the Pw.1, she also deposed that on 13.12.2017, on 04.00 PM while she was at her house which is situated by the side of house of Pw.1, the accused came to the house of the Pw.1 quarreled with her and the accused abused Pw.1 “Lanja boddi and the you (Pw.1) people of the Gond community only know sorcery” and the accused threatened to Pw.1
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 22 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 to kill her and further accused stated that it is only Pw.1 had thrown the lemon leaves plates in his field and inspite of denied by the Pw.1 the accused abused Pw.1 in filthy language referring on caste. She further deposed that as accused was hit on thatched fencing of Pw.1 with axe then she came out and asked the accused not to quarrel with ladies and if anything he can ask when men of the house come back, so she tried to pacify the accused and at the time Pw.5 to 7 and Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao also present and witnessed the same.
Therefore, the evidence of Pw.1 and 2 also corroborated with the evidence of Pw.3.
27. Though, Pw.4 deposed that at about 4 years ago at about 04.00 PM the accused came to the house of the Pw.1 and started to abused the Pw.1 in filthy language by stating that “Lanje boddi you (Pw.1) belongs to lower caste and your community people practices black magic”. She further deposed that the accused stated that lemons, plates thrown in field of the agriculture of the accused and blamed Pw.1 for it, but in the cross examination, Pw.4 deposed that there are three houses intervening her house and Pw.1 house. She admitted that she cannot identified the person from long distance and she further deposed that at the time of the alleged incident, she
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 23 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 was at her house and she admitted that as she has no eye sight, as such she cannot say what was happened. Hence, this court opines that it is not safe to rely on the evidence of the Pw.4. Hence, this court not believing the evidence of the Pw.4. PW.5 also deposed that in the year 2017 at about 4.00 PM there was a galata in between Pw.1 and accused and the accused abused Pw.1 by stating that she belongs to low caste and Gond caste and they are only knew of black magic, lanje and boddi etc. and further the accused stated that thrown the lemon, plates (vistharakulu) were in his agriculture field and he blamed the Pw.1 only responsible for throwing the said lemon peaces and plate in his agriculture land and
Pw.5 also identified the accused before the Court. But Pw.5 not stated in his evidence that the accused came with axe and hit thatched fencing of the Pw.1. Therefore, the evidence of Pw.1 to 3 also corroborate with the evidence of Pw.5 to the extent that the accused abuses Pw.1 in filthy language by reflecting her caste name.
Though in this case, Pw.6 deposed that about 4 years ago at about 4.00 PM the accused came to the house of the Pw.1 by carrying one axe and he beat the compound wall (Dhadi) with axe and he threatened to kill her and he also said that her/Pw.1 life is in his
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 24 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 hands. She further deposed that Pw.2 to 5, Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao,
Pw.7 and Pw.8 witnessed the incident. But Pw.6 not stated in her evidence that the accused abused Pw.1 in the name of the caste.
Moreover, in the cross examination, she deposed that she goes to agriculture land at morning 10.00 am and return by 05.00 or 06.00 pm and Pw.1 belongs to her relative. Whereas, the husband of the
Pw.6 examined as Pw.7 and in his chief examination he deposed that about 4 years ago at about 4.00 PM when he was returning from his agriculture field to his house to Dondla village he observed the galata between Pw.1 and accused. He further deposed that the accused blamed Pw.1 by stating that lemon pieces and plates (vistharakulu) thrown in his agriculture field and also blamed her stating that she is doing black magic and he requested the accused not to quarrel with Pw.1 and if anything is there he can talk with male members, at the time, Pw.1 to 6 and Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao also present. But in the cross examination, he deposed that Pw.1 is the resident of Dondla village and he is the residents of Patuguda village and there may be distance of 2.00 kms. in between Dondla village and Patuguda village and further admitted that he used to go to outside 10.00 am and return to house at 05.00 or 06.00 pm and on
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 25 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 that day also return to his home on 05.00 or 06.00 pm and at the time of incident, Pw.6 was plucking cotton in the field. Therefore, admittedly, Pw.1 and Pw.6 and 7 belongs to different villages and admittedly, as per evidence of Pw.1 the alleged incident occurred at 04.00 PM and admittedly the village of Pw.1 and Pw.6 and 7 are different and the alleged incident held at the house of the Pw.1 as per her evidence, and as per the evidence of Pw.7, Pw.6 was at her agriculture field. Though, Pw.7 deposed that he requested the accused not to quarrel with Pw.1 and advised the accused if anything is there he can talk with male members. Pw.7 not claimed that at the time of the alleged incident, he was at the house of Pw.1.
Hence, this court is not believing the evidence of Pw.6 and 7. As
Pw.6 deposed that Pw.1 is her relative it appears that as Pw.1 is the relative of the Pw.6 and 7, as such to support the Pw.1, Pw.6 and 7 deposed in favour of the Pw.1. Moreover, Pw.7 also not stated in his evidence that the accused abused the Pw.1 in the name of her caste.
28. The counsel for the accused argued that Pw.1 and 2 admitted in their cross examination that after survey the land it was found that the ½ acre of the land of the accused is in the possession of the Pw.1. When the accused asked to return of his land, Pw.1
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 26 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 foisted this false case against the accused. No doubt, Pw.1 and 2 admitted in the cross examination, after survey it was found that the ½ acre of land of the accused found in the possession of the Pw.1 and Pw.2 also admitted that there were land disputes in between accused and Pw.1, but in this case, not only Pw.1 and 2 the independent witnesses Pw.3 also categorically deposed that the accused came to the house of the Pw.1 and quarreled with her and abused Pw.1 in filthy language and in the name of the caste as “lanje boddi, you (Pw.1) people of Gond community only knew sorcery and accused threatened to Pw.1 to kill her and further stated that only Pw.1 had thrown lemon and plate in his field and also the accused hit the thatched fencing of Pw.1 with axe. Moreover, she deposed that her house is the situated at the side of the house of the Pw.1 and she also deposed that she asked the accused that not to quarrel with ladies, and if anything he wanted, he can ask the men after they return to the house and she tried to pacify the accused. Therefore, Pw.3 is an independent witnesses and though the accused counsel cross examine the Pw.3, but nothing elicited to discard the evidence of the Pw.3 except giving suggestions and Pw.5 also independent witness and Pw.5 evidence also corroborate with
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 27 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 the evidence of Pw.1 to 3. Though, Pw.11 deposed that he is not found the lemon and turmeric in the land of the accused, so he did not seize anything, but it is not fatal to the case of prosecution. As per Pw.8, police visited the scene of offence and prepared the CDF and drawn the rough sketch. Though, in the rough sketch and CDF, the investigation officer not shown the houses of the neighbours of
Pw.1 i.e. Pws.3, 5, 6 and Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao. Though as per prosecution, Pws.3, 5, 6 and Lw.7/N. Venkat Rao are the neighbours of the Pw.1.
29. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Swaran Singh & Ors.
Vs. State through standing Counsel & Anr. In Criminal Appeal
No.1287/2008 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.
987 of 2007] Judgment dated:18.08.2008, wherein, discussed the public place in para No.28 as under; “It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a `Chamar') when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 28 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression `place within public view' with the expression `public place'. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view.
On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies”.
30. As per the evidence of the Pw.1 to 3, the accused came to the house of the Pw.1 with possession of axe and hit thatched fencing of house of the Pw.1 with axe and as per the evidence of
Pw.1 to 3 and Pw.5 the accused abused Pw.1 in filthy language alleging that she practicing sorcery on him by thrown the lemon and leaves plates in his agriculture field and abused in the name of the caste as lanje boddi you (Pw.1) people of the Gond community only knew sorcery. The accused abused Pw.1 not inside of Pw.1 house,
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 29 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 but the accused abused Pw.1 and thatched fencing of Pw.1 at her house, hence certainly it is place within public view. Moreover, it was witnessed by the neighbor of Pw.1. Therefore, the prosecution proved that the accused abused Pw.1 in the name of the caste in public place within public view and also intentionally insulted with intention to humiliate the Pw.1 as she belongs to ST-Gond community. Therefore, the prosecution proved Section 294(b) of
I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Pw.1, 2, 3 categorically deposed that the accused threatened the Pw.1 to kill. Moreover, at the time of the incident the accused possessed the axe and Pw.1 in he Ex.P1 complaint also expressed life threat to her and Pw.2 in the hands of the accused as accused threatened to kill. Therefore, the prosecution also proved the charge for the offence punishable U/Sec. 506 of I.P.C. Against the accused.
No doubt, in this case there was a delay in lodging Ex.P1 complaint, whereas incident was occurred on 13.12.2017 at 04.00 PM and the
Police report lodged on 14.12.2017 at 1800 hours. But, Pw.1 in
Ex.P1 complaint and in her evidence explained the reasons for delay stating that after arrival of her son from the another village they lodged report. Hence, delay in giving Ex.P1 report properly
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 30 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 explained by the prosecution. Hence, it is not fatal to the prosecution. Therefore, as per above discussion, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the charges punishable
U/Sec.294(b), 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs/STs (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015.
31. In the result, accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 506 of Indian Penal Code, and
Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act-2015, accordingly he is convicted of the charges under section 235(2)
Criminal Procedure Code.
Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, and after correction
pronounced by me in open court this the 01 st day of June, 2022.
Spl.Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
HEARING ON SENTENCE:
32.Heard the accused counsel and Addl.P.P. on sentence.
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 31 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018
33. When questioned the accused, regarding quantum of sentence in the presence of his Advocate, he represented that he is having one son aged 6 years and one daughter aged 4 years and his wife, his wife suffering with ill health, he further stated that his mother is suffering with paralysis and old aged and requested the
Court to take lenient view. But, considering the nature of the offence committed by the accused this Court opinions that he is not entitled to any lenient view.
In the result, the accused is convicted U/Sec.235(2) Cr.P.C for the offence U/Sec.294(b) of Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Two (2)
Months for the said charge.
Further, the accused is convicted U/Sec.506 Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
Six (06) Months, and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five
Hundred only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of One Month.
Further, The accused is convicted U/Sec. 3(1)(r) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act-2015 and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06) Months, and also to pay fine
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 32 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018 of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of
One Month.
Further, The accused is convicted U/Sec. 3(1)(s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act-2015 and he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of Six (06) Months, and also to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only), in default of payment of fine, the accused shall undergo Simple imprisonment for a period
One Month.
All the sentences imposed against the accused shall be run concurrently.
Convict is informed of his right to appeal to the Hon'ble High
Court and he is also furnished with free copy of this Judgment. He is also informed that he can take assistance of Legal Services
Authority in case he is not able to engage advocate.
Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, and after correction
pronounced by me in open court this the 01 st day of June, 2022.
Spl.Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Page 33 of 33 Judgment in Spl.SC No.18 of 2018
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
PW1:M. Laxmi Bai -None- PW2:M. Srilatha PW3:N. Rambai PW4:K. Rajubai PW5:A. Bhagyalaxmi PW6:T. Gourubai PW7:T. Jugathirao PW8:A. Chandrashekar PW9:Amruth Sagar PW10:V. Naresh PW11:A. Satyanarayana
EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.P1:Report. - NIL - Ex.P2:Scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3:Rough Sketch. Ex.P4:Caste Certificate of Pw.1. Ex.P5:Caste Certificate accused. Ex.P6:C.D. Ex.P7:First Information Report. Ex.P8:Proceedings. Ex.P9:Order of Hon’ble High Court.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- NIL -
Spl.Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad