Sri M. Suneel Kumar

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU

PRESENT: SRI M.SUNEEL KUMAR,

I Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru. FAC/Principal Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Wednesday, the 16th day of April, 2025

SESSIONS CASE No.198/2019

(Crime No.208/2018 of I Town Police Station, Eluru)

Complainant: Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Eluru.

Represented by : Public Prosecutor.

Accused : Katumala Raviteja, S/o.Benerji, SC Mala, 35 years, Mekavari Street, near Kothagudem Center, 10 Division, Eluru.

Represented by : Sri P.V.N. Muneswara Rao, Counsel for Accused (LADCS).

This case has come on this the 4th day of March, 2024 for hearing and disposal and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Inspector of Police, I Town Police Station, Eluru, filed the

Charge Sheet against the accused for the offenses punishable U/s.302 of

I.P.C., in Crime No.208/2018 of I Town Police Station, Eluru.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused and defacto complainant/P.W.1 are wife and husband. They are residents of

Mekavari Street, near Kothagudem Centre, 10th Division, Eluru. The deceased, Rufeena, is the daughter of the accused and P.W.1, and she 2 was 5 years old. On 1-9-2018 at 4 p.m., there was a quarrel between the accused and P.W.1. The accused insisted that P.W.1 call her mother, i.e.,

P.W.2. As P.W.1 refused to call her mother, because of earlier grouse or grudge and the accused suspecting the fidelity of P.W.1 and paternity of

Rufeena, their daughter. As such, he hit the deceased Rufeena with his hands and kicked with his legs on her abdomen. Due to this, she fell unconscious. P.W.1 raised cries, and on hearing her cries, L.W.8/Yallapu

Mozes and L.W.9/Shaik Khadar rushed to the house of the accused, and on seeing them, the accused ran away. Then P.W.1, P.W.2, and mother of

P.W.2 and neighbors L.W.4/Thirlangi Damodara Rao, L.W.5/Kakarla Gopi,

L.W.6/Thirlangi Kumaraswamy and L.W.7/Thirlangi Jeevaratnam shifted the deceased to Government Hospital, Eluru. The doctors examined her and declared that she was in a critical position and advised her to shift to

Andhra Hospital, as there was no ventilator. They shifted her to Andhra

Hospital, and doctors examined her and declared she was dead, and she was taken back to the Government Hospital.

3.On the report of P.W.1, a case in Cr. No.208/2018, under Section 302 of I.P.C., was registered by the Inspector of Police, I Town P.S.,

Eluru, and submitted FIR to the court and copies to all officials concerned and investigated.

4.The C.I. of Police shifted the dead body to the Post Mortem Shed,

Government General Hospital, Eluru. Some unknown persons beat the accused with a blade, and he received injuries. He was shifted to ASRAM

Hospital by ambulance through public and admitted for treatment. The

Inspector of Police posted a guard at ASRAM Hospital to see that the accused did not escape from the hospital. The Inspector of Police visited the scene of the offense, examined it in the presence of mediators

L.W.17/Shaik Basha Inthiyaz and L.W.18/Gudivaka Sambasiva Rao, prepared an observation report, drew a rough sketch, took photographs of the scene of the offense. He returned to the mortuary at Government 3

Hospital, Eluru, and held an inquest over the dead body of Rufeena in the presence of panchayatdars and blood relatives, i.e., L.W.17/Shaik Basha

Inthiyaz, L.W.18/Gudivaka Sambasiva Rao, L.W.1/K.KanakaDurga,

L.W.2/T.Nageswaramma,L.W.3/T.Subramanyam, L.W.4/T.Damodara

Rao, L.W.5/K.Gopi, LW.6/T.Kumaraswamy, L.W.7/T.Jeevaratnam,

L.W.8/Y.Mozes and L.W.9/Shaik Khadar sent the dead body for postmortem examination. When the accused was discharged, the

Inspector of Police arrested him and recorded his confession statement in the presence of mediators. After receipt of the P.M. Certificate, F.S.L.

Report, and final report and upon completion of the investigation, the

Inspector of Police filed the Charge Sheet against the accused.

5.The learned II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Eluru, took cognizance of the case for the offense U/s. 302 of I.P.C numbered

P.R.C.No.08/2018 and issued summons to the accused. On the appearance of the accused, the trial Court furnished copies of case records to him as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offense against the accused is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the trial Judge had committed this case to the Court of Sessions as contemplated

U/s.209 Cr.P.C. The sessions court numbered it as SC No.198/2019 and made it over to this court for disposal according to law.

6.This court issued a summons to the accused. The accused made his appearance before this court. The accused was examined U/s.228(2) of Cr.P.C. Charges U/s. 302 of I.P.C. has been framed, read over, and explained to him in Telugu. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The court fixed the trial schedule and issued summons to the witnesses.

7.The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 14, exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.16, and M.Os.1 to 2. The learned A.P.P. has given up evidence of

T.Subramanyam, T.Jeevaratnam, Sh. Khadar, K.Basha Inthiyaz,

Dr.Chatradi Surya Chakraveni (L.Ws.3, 7, 9, 17, 19). The evidence of 4

T.Damodara Rao, T.Kumaraswamy, Sh. Baji (L.Ws.4, 6, and 10) was closed by this court as they died. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused was examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C., so as to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the evidence.

8.The arguments of P.P. and defense counsel have been heard.

9.Now, the points for determination are:

1.Whether the prosecution proved that the accused suspected paternity of the deceased and kicked her indiscriminately on 1-9-2018,

due to which she died?

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offense punishable Under Section 302 of I.P.C.

beyond reasonable doubt?

10. POINT No.1:- Whether the prosecution proved that the accused

suspected paternity of the deceased and kicked her indiscriminately

on 1-9-2018 and, due to which she died?

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offenses punishable

U/s.302 of I.P.C., the prosecution should prove that the accused, being the husband of defacto complainant/P.W.1, suspected her fidelity and quarreled with P.W.1 and beat and kicked the deceased on 1-9-2018 at about 4 p.m., at the house of accused and killed her. To prove the same, the prosecution examined P.W.1/defacto complainant, mother of P.W.1 as

P.W.2, maternal uncle of P.W.1 as P.W.3, and neighbors as P.W.4, to

P.W.7.

11.P.W.1 deposed that the accused is her husband, the accused, deceased, and she used to reside at Kothagudem Center, Mekavari

Street, Eluru, in a rented house of L.W.10/Shaik Baji and P.W.05/Shaik

Jubeda Begum. Her marriage with the accused was an arranged marriage 5 and was performed in the year 2013 at Kanumolu Village of Bapulapadu

Mandal, Krishna District. They started their marital life at Kanumolu Village and lived there for 5 months. The accused used to beat her in a drunken state. After 5 months, her parents took her to Eluru, as the accused used to harass her physically by consuming liquor. By the time her parents took her, she was pregnant. The accused suspected her and claimed that he was not responsible for her pregnancy. The accused came to Eluru and requested her parents to stay with her in Eluru, and her parents agreed to it. They started their marital life at Kothagudem. He used to change residence because of the nuisance of the accused of consuming alcohol.

12.By the date of the incident, they were living at the house of

L.W.10/Shaik Baji and P.W.05/Shaik Jubeda Begum. Out of their wedlock, in the year 2014, they were blessed with a female child, and she was named Rufina. A son in the year 2016 was named Jaswanth. The accused used to beat her, claiming that the children were not born to him. In July 2018, the accused beat her and their daughter and pressed her neck.

Then she reported to the Police a case in Cr. No.165/2018 under Section 325 of I.P.C. was registered, and it was compromised before Lok Adalat.

13.On 1-9-2018 in the morning hours, the accused made a galata with her and the deceased. On the same day, at 4.00 p.m., he returned to the house, had Galata with her, and asked her to call her mother P.W.2.

However, she did not call P.W.2, as the accused was angry and if she left the house, he would have beat the deceased. The accused beat the deceased on both cheeks, and then she raised huge cries. On her cries,

P.W.4 and L.W.9/Sk. Khadar came to their house, and on seeing them, the accused forcibly kicked the deceased in her stomach, and she received a severe injury and fell down. In the meantime, her parents and other neighbors came, and on seeing them, the accused ran away. P.W.2 resides in the opposite lane from her house on Eluru to Kaikaluru Road, and they took the minor girl to the government hospital. P.W.2 also 6 accompanied them. The doctor asked them to take her to another hospital, as the hospital did not contain an oxygen facility at that time.

Then they took her to Andhra Hospital, Eluru, and the doctors at Andhra

Hospital, Eluru, declared that her daughter had died.

14.Then they took the dead body to P.W.2's house and then went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P-1 report at 8.00 p.m. Police came to her house and shifted the dead body to a mortuary, Government Hospital,

Eluru. On the next day morning, they conducted an inquest. Police examined her and the deceased, wearing the top and inner garments, and they were identified and marked as M.Os.1 and 2. The rented house consists of four portions. They used to reside in the 4th portion. The 3rd portion was vacant. In the 2nd portion, the landlords, i.e., L.W.10/Shaik

Baji and P.W.5, husband and wife, were staying. The 1st portion was let out.

15.P.W.2, the mother of P.W.1, corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to marriage and their starting marital life at Kanumolu Village and accused assaulting P.W.1 and shifting to Eluru and blessing of daughter and son. After two months of P.W.1 coming to Eluru, the accused came down to Eluru and requested her husband with a promise he would take care of P.W.1 properly. Then they started their marital life opposite their house, and he used to suspect P.W.1 and beat her and claimed that the baby girl was not born to him. Due to these quarrels, they shifted their houses twice/thrice. P.W.1 and the accused used to reside in the house of L.W.10/Shaik Baji and P.W.5. She also corroborated the earlier incident and presentation of the report and registration of the criminal case and its compromise. She corroborated the entire evidence of

P.W.1. When they rushed to the house of P.W.1 upon hearing cries, they found the deceased lying on the land. Then they took her to the

Government Hospital, and the doctors advised them to take them to a private hospital as they had no equipment. They took her to another 7 hospital in Eluru, and the doctor examined them and declared her dead.

Then they went to the Police Station and presented a report.

16.P.W.3, who is the brother of P.W.2, corroborated the marriage of

P.W.1 with the accused, and they had a daughter and son, and they led marital life at Kanumolu for six months. Thereafter, they shifted their family to Eluru. They are living at Mekavari Street, etc., and also corroborated that the accused used to suspect P.W.1 and claimed that his children were not born to him. He also deposed about the earlier dispute, which was settled before Lok Adalat. By the time he reached the accused running, the baby girl was lying. Then they took her to Government

Hospital and from there to another hospital, where they declared she died.

Then they took her to their house and reported it to the Police.

17.P.W.4, who claimed to be a neighbor residing near the house of one

Anchuri Nagaraju, Kothagudem Center, Mekavari Street, deposed that the accused and P.W.1 were having disturbed marital life. The accused used to consume alcohol and beat P.W.1 with suspicion, and he used to cause a nuisance in the center. When they admonished him, he kept calm for some time and later started to quarrel again.

18.On 1-9-2018 at about 4.00 p.m., when he was at his house, he heard cries of P.W.1 and their daughter, then he went along with

L.W.9/Shaik Khadar to the home of the accused. By the time he reached the accused, he was kicking the minor with his legs. Due to the kick of the accused, she flew and came out from the main door of the house and fell down. He tried to stop the accused, but as the girl child fell down, he took up her. Meanwhile, the accused ran away. At that time, the family members of P.W.1 came to the house of P.W.1, and they took her to the

Government Hospital. The doctors advised them to take them to a private hospital, and the doctors declared that the girl had died.

8

19.P.W.5, who is the owner of the rented house of the accused and

P.W.1, deposed that they let out a portion to P.W.1 for rent of Rs.1,500/- per month on the request of P.W.2 and they used to pay Rs.50/- for water charges. On the date of the incident, she went out and returned to the evening, and she came to know that the baby girl was beaten and she died.

20.P.W.6, who is the neighbor of P.W.2, deposed that P.W.2 is their immediate neighbor. P.W.1 used to reside opposite their house at

Mekavari Street, Eluru. He knew the accused was the husband of P.W.1, and on 1-9-2018, the child of P.W.1 died. He came to know that the girl child was brought to the Government Hospital through third parties after he returned from duties. He saw the dead body of the girl child at the house of P.W.2.

21.P.W.7, who claimed to be the neighbor of P.W.2, deposed about the living P.W.1 with the accused and their children in Mekavari Street. On 1-9-2018, there was a quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused. In the said quarrel, the child was beaten by the accused, and she became unconscious and was taken to the hospital. She died and was brought to the house of P.W.2.

22.P.W.8/doctor, who conducted a postmortem examination over the deceased Rafina, deposed that he conducted a postmortem at 11.10 a.m.

on 2-9-2018 and found the following external injuries:

23.(1) Abrasion of 2 x ¼ x ¼ cms., on left leg; (2) Abrasion of 1 x ¼ x ¼ cms., on left side of abdomen; (3) Abrasion of ½ x ¼ x ¼ cms., on right cheek; (4) A small hematoma 2 x ½ cms., on left side of ear; (5) A bruise of 2 x ½ x ¼ cms., on left leg; (6) Hematoma 1 x ½ ¼ cms., on left side of abdomen. He had preserved the following viscera for RFSL examination:

(1) stomach with its contents, part of the liver and one kidney, and blood.

The postmortem report was marked as Ex.P-2, and the final opinion was marked as Ex.P-3 and opined that external injuries 3 and 4 were the 9 cause of death of the deceased. A minor girl aged 5 years with the above injuries may have succumbed to death due to the above-mentioned inju- ries.

24.P.W.9/VRO deposed that on 2-6-2018 at 6.00 a.m., Eluru I Town

P.S., C.I. of Police, Eluru called him and L.W.17/Shaik Basha Imtiyaz and they went to Mekavari Street, Eluru. The scene of offense is at the house bearing D.No.7-49. It is four portions house of L.W.10/Shaik Baji. Police observed the scene and prepared an Ex.P-4 observation report. The me- diator L.W.17/Shaik Basha Imtiyaz signed on the mediator's report, and the C.I. of Police signed. On the same day, at 8.00 a.m., they went to the

Government Hospital at the request of the Inspector of Police. An inquest was conducted on the dead body of the daughter of the accused. They found injuries on the right cheek and left cheek and on the left ear. The

Panchayatdars opined that the minor died as the accused beat her on her cheeks, and she died with injuries, and the inquest report was marked as

Ex.P-5. L.W.17/Shaik Basha Inthiyaz and L.W.19/Dr.Chatradi Surya Cha- kraveni, District Child Welfare Officer, Women Welfare Department, West

Godavari, Eluru, acted as Panchayatdars. The Panchayatdars opined that she died due to injuries on her cheeks. Ex.P.5 inquest report was pre- pared, and L.W.17, L.W.19, and C.I. of Police signed the inquest report.

25.He further deposed that on 2-9-2018 at 12.30 p.m., at Government

Hospital Eluru, at the request of the Police, they went to Eluru Govern- ment Hospital. There, the accused was found as he was discharged from the hospital, and the Police took him into custody. He admitted the offense and sustained injuries at the hands of unknown persons. He was in a pri- vate hospital and thereafter admitted to a Government Hospital. He signed on the report. His signature was marked as Ex.P-6.

26.P.W.10/Chodem Pothu Raju, Head Constable, deposed that on 2-9- 2018, the C.I. of Police instructed him to escort the dead body of Rufina, aged 5 years. Thereafter, they handed over the dead body to family mem- 10 bers after conducting an inquest and P.M. Examination, and they seized

M.Os.1 and 2.

27.P.W.11/P. Srinivasa Rao, Inspector of Police, who was in charge of

I Town P.S., Eluru, deposed that on 02-09-2018, he received information about the accused and that he was undergoing treatment. He deposed that he went to Government Hospital along with staff and mediators P.W.9 and L.W.17/Shaik Basha Inthiyaz, and the accused was arrested from the hospital when he was coming out from the hospital at about 12.45 p.m., after ascertaining his address particulars. After the alleged incident, the accused ran away, and some persons beat him, and he sustained injuries.

Initially, he was admitted to ASRAM Hospital, thereafter shifted to Gov- ernment Hospital. Ex.P-6 and P-7 are the signatures of the accused. Then he arrested him and sent him to court for remand.

28.P.W.12/A. Naga Murali, Inspector of Police, who investigated the case, deposed about his receiving Ex.P1 report at 8.00 p.m. on 1-9-2018 through P.W.1 and registered it as a case in Cr. No.208/2018 under

Section 302 of I.P.C., and issued Ex.P-8 FIR., based on Ex.P-1 report.

Then he went to the place where the dead body of the minor was kept at the house of P.W.2, which is situated near the scene of the offense, and sent the dead body for P.M. examination, and it was kept in the mortuary.

As it was the night, he reported to the Police Station and then A.S.I. Veda

Kumari informed that they received a report from ASRAM Hospital, Eluru, that Katumala Ravi Teja/accused was said to be injured by unknown persons, and an FIR was registered. He was deposed about his visit to the house of P.W.2 on 2-9-2018 at 6.00 a.m. He observed the scene of the offense. He visited the Government Hospital and examined P.Ws.1 to 4,

L.W.3/T.Subramanyam, L.W.4/T.Damodara Rao, L.W.6/T.Kumaraswamy,

L.W.7/T. Jeevaratnam and L.W.9/Shaik Khadar recorded their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements. P.W.1 informed about the registration of Cr. No.165/2018 under Section 325 of I.P.C., and it was settled before Lok Adalat. He also 11 deposed about conducting an inquest in the presence of P.W.9 and

L.W.17/Shaik Basha Inthiyaz and L.W.19/Dr. Chatradi Surya Chakraveni.

After the Post Mortem examination, the dead body was handed over to blood relatives, and they took photographs at the scene of the offense.

Eight photographs along with C.D. were marked as Ex.P-10, and Viscera was sent to RFSL examination.

29.P.W.13/G. Satyanarayana, Inspector of Police, who filed a charge sheet after receipt of the RFSL Report, deposed that the case in Cr.

No.165/2018 against the accused, which was settled before the Lok

Adalat, and P.W.1 was the complainant. It was marked as Ex.P-12, along with the report of the wound certificates and Ex.P-13 charge sheet and

Ex.P-14 Lok Adalat Award dated 14-7-2018, and intimation, FIR, and the statement of the accused was marked as Ex.P-15.

30.P.W.14/Darivemula Chaitanya Varma, Civil Assistant Surgeon deposed that on 1-9-2018, the accused was admitted to ASRAM Hospital.

He sent an intimation to the Police on the same day. Police came to their hospital and recorded the accused's statement. He also issued a wound certificate to the Police, and Ex.P-15 is FIR, Statement of Accused, Police

Intimation, and Wound Certificate.

31.In the cross-examination of P.W.14, nothing was elicited contrary to the evidence of the chief of P.W.14.

32.In the cross-examination with regard to injuries 4 and 7 are grievous in nature, and a group of people assaulted him. It was mentioned in the wound certificate and as well as in the police intimation.

33.The Defence Counsel vehemently argued and contended that the witnesses and the report specifically mentioned that the accused kicked the deceased on her stomach, fell, became unconscious, and died. But as per the wound certificate and evidence from the doctor, the injuries on both ears are the reasons for the death. So, the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 does not corroborate the doctor's evidence, and there is no force in 12 the said argument. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and Ex.P-1 report, the accused beat P.W.1 and the deceased indiscriminately. When she went to rescue her, he pushed her aside and kicked her on her stomach, and she fell down and cried. They did not depose them due to those kicks.

She died, and it was the doctor who opined about the cause of death.

34.The prosecution exhibited Exs.P-13 and P-14 charge sheet and Lok

Adalat Award of C.C.No.495/2018 under Section 324 of I.P.C., wherein it was alleged that the accused consumed alcohol and beat P.W.1 and her daughter indiscriminately with a stick. The witnesses also deposed that the accused used to quarrel with P.W.1 in a drunken state and beat her. If, really, someone beat or assaulted the daughter and caused for death, we would not expect any mother to escape and implicate the husband, who might be a drunken person. While cross-examining P.Ws.1 to 3, the defense counsel suggested that P.W.1 pushed the girl. She fell down, received injuries, and died, and she is responsible for it. If so, we would expect that the accused would approach the Police and give a report to the Police, but he did not take any such steps. Even if it is true, the accused would remain in the house and look after his daughter and attend to her to take her to the hospital, but we do not expect to run away or not attend to the daughter, which is against the natural conduct of the parent.

So, his conduct in not attending to her daughter when she received injuries itself falsifies the reasons for the injuries and the death of their daughter. The previous conduct of the accused in assaulting P.W.1 and her daughter, which was compromised before Lok Adalat, proves that the accused used to beat them in a drunken state. P.Ws.1 to 5, who are neighbors, also deposed that the accused used to consume alcohol and used to quarrel with them and beat them.

35.The Defence Counsel relied upon decisions reported in 2018(1)

ALT (Crl.) 397 (SC) Between Sudhakar @ Sudharasan And. State rep.,

by the Inspector of Police, Srirangam Police Station, Trichy, 13

Tamil Nadu, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, while deciding the case punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C., considered the interested witnesses, related witnesses, relationship, credibility of relationship.

Wherein it was alleged that the accused/grandson killed his maternal grandmother by pressing her neck, and the son-in-law of the deceased, who was sleeping in another room, came and found the mother-in-law on the floor in an unconscious state and going the accused took the money bag and left the place. Then she was shifted to hospital, and there she died. The Sessions Court, as well as the 1st appellate court, convicted the accused and upheld the conviction. Against which the SLP filed and

Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the evidence of son-in-law of the

deceased and her daughter are inconsistencies, and medical report when the eye witness disbelieved and the accused convicted based on circumstantial evidence, the Hon'ble Apex Court relying on Sarwan Singh

And. State of Punjab (1) (1976) 4 SCC 369, Para 10; and also State of

U.P. And. Kishanpal and others, 2008 (3) ALT (Crl.) 359, the conviction is not proper; and Latesh And. State of Maharastra (Criminal Appeal

No.1301 of 2015), with regard to interested witnesses, a burden that would be cast upon the Courts, and relationship, credibility of witnesses and evaluating the evidence of interested witnesses and related witnesses and set aside the conviction. In the said case, partition suits were pending between the accused and wife of P.W.1, who was examined as P.W.5.

There was no intimation from the hospital to the Police with regard to medico-legal case and also an accidental report, which was maintained when the deceased was admitted in the hospital, it was mentioned that she fall accidentally and received injuries.

36.But in the case on hand, there are no such discrepancies. The incident occurred in the presence of her mother, i.e., P.W.1, and neighbors corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to quarrels between wife and husband and also his fleeing away from the house and 14 admission to the hospital with injuries. If really, the accused did not cause the injuries to the deceased, and, on the other hand, it was caused by

P.W.1, he would have shifted her to the hospital, accusing P.W.1. But it did not happen. So, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand.

37.They also relied upon a decision reported in 2018(3) ALT (Crl.) 58

(DB) (AP) Between Pathlavath Devamma And. State of Telangana,

rep. by the Public Prosecutor, Hyderabad, with regard to motive, last seen theory, delay in lodging report, etc. Wherein the deceased married 1st wife, who was a defacto complainant, and she had two daughters. As she has no male issue, the 2 nd marriage between the deceased and the appellant was performed. However, the appellant remained issueless. The brother of the appellant used to quarrel over property. In that course, on 20-4-2007 at 7.00 p.m., she consumed her husband's liquor. The deceased and appellant went to the thrashing yard to guard Paddy. There, he was killed by chopping the neck of the deceased, wherein the 2 nd wife was convicted of killing her husband. The Hon'ble High Court, when considering the evidence when the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence, considered motives, which played a vital role. It is not possible to kill the way the prosecution explained by a woman as the deceased was a well-built person. The saree, which was seized by the Police, did not contain any blood stains, and the last scene theory is found to be seen under a cloud of doubt. While considering the said aspect, the Hon'ble

High Court set aside the conviction. But here, in the case on hand, it is not based on the circumstantial evidence, but it is based on the eyewitnesses.

So, the question of the last scene theory or motive doesn't arise, and they are irrelevant.

38.He also relied upon the decision report in 2023(2) ALT (Crl.) 380 (SC) between Indrajit Das And. State of Tripura, wherein the Hon'ble

Apex Court discussed the motive and chain of circumstances, which starts 15 with motive, last scene theory, recovery, medical evidence, expert opinion, if any, and any other additional link that may be part of the chain of circumstances. In the said case, the dead body was not recovered, and part of the limb was recovered, and no DNA Test was conducted. There is an inconsistency between extra-judicial confession and the last-scene theory. However, the said decision is not applicable to the present case, as the facts and circumstances of the case on hand were quite different from the judgment referred.

39.He also relied upon the decision reported in 2023(2) ALT (Crl.) 359 (SC) Between Pradeep And. State of Haryana, with regard to the child witness, but the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

40.He also relied upon the decision reported in 2023(3) ALT (Crl.) 13

(SC) Between Anbazhagan And. State rep., by the Inspector of Police,

wherein it was discussed when a culpable homicide amounts to murder and when not amounts to murder. It was held when Clause (1) to (4) of

Section 300 of the I.P.C. if the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clause (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC., the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. The first part of the section would apply when there is guilt of intention, whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention but there is guilty knowledge. Even if a single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause thirdly to Section 300 of the I.P.C. are fulfilled, and the offense would be murder. For the purpose of holding an accused guilty of the offense punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the I.P.C., the accused need not bring his case within one of the exceptions to Section 300 of I.P.C. Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to 16 cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and the intention to cause such injury or injuries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury of injuries. The

Hon'ble Apex court discussed with regard to intention, knowledge, and

culpable homicide amounting to murder and not amounting to murder

Sections 299 and 300 of I.P.C. When a homicide amounts to murder when it falls under 304 part i and part ii in detail with case law and held in para 30 and 31,33 and 34. In para 60 the Hon’ble Apex Court formulated principles as follows:-"

60. Few important principles of law discernible from the aforesaid discus- sion may be summed up thus:—" (1) When the court is confronted with the question, what offence the accused could be said to have committed, the true test is to find out the intention or knowledge of the accused in doing the act. If the intention or knowledge was such as is described in Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act will be murder even though only a single injury was caused. To illustrate:‘A’ is bound hand and foot. ‘B’ comes and placing his revolver against the head of ‘A’, shoots ‘A’ in his head killing him instanta- neously. Here, there will be no difficulty in holding that the intention of ‘B’ in shooting ‘A’ was to kill him, though only single injury was caused. The case would, therefore, be of murder falling within Clause (1) of Section 300 of the IPC. Taking another instance, ‘B’ sneaks into the bed room of his enemy ‘A’ while the latter is asleep on his bed. Taking aim at the left chest of ‘A’, ‘B’ forcibly plunges a sword in the left chest of ‘A’ and runs away. ‘A’ dies shortly thereafter. The injury to ‘A’ was found to be sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. There may be no difficulty in holding that ‘B’ intentionally inflicted the particular injury found to be caused and that the said injury was objectively sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. This would bring the act of ‘B’ within 17

Clause (3) of Section 300 of the IPC and render him guilty of the offence of murder although only single injury was caused.

(2) Even when the intention or knowledge of the accused may fall within

Clauses (1) to (4) of Section 300 of the IPC, the act of the accused which would otherwise be murder, will be taken out of the purview of murder, if the accused's case attracts any one of the five exceptions enumerated in that section. In the event of the case falling within any of those exceptions, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, falling within Part 1 of Section 304 of the IPC, if the case of the accused is such as to fall within Clauses (1) to (3) of Section 300 of the IPC. It would be offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case is such as to fall within

Clause (4) of Section 300 of the IPC. Again, the intention or knowledge of the accused may be such that only 2nd or 3rd part of Section 299 of the

IPC, may be attracted but not any of the clauses of Section 300 of the

IPC. In that situation also, the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 of the IPC. It would be an offence under Part I of that section, if the case fall within 2nd part of Section 299, while it would be an offence under Part II of Section 304 if the case fall within 3rd part of Section 299 of the IPC.

(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC., it is punishable under the first part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention,’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’.

(4) Even if single injury is inflicted, if that particular injury was intended, and objectively that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the requirements of Clause 3rdly to Section 300 of the IPC, are fulfilled and the offence would be murder.

18 (5) Section 304 of the IPC will apply to the following classes of cases : (i) when the case falls under one or the other of the clauses of Section 300, but it is covered by one of the exceptions to that Section, (ii) when the in- jury caused is not of the higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression ‘sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death’ but is of a lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury ‘likely to cause death’ and the case does not fall under Clause (2) of

Section 300 of the IPC, (iii) when the act is done with the knowledge that death is likely to ensue but without intention to cause death or an injury likely to cause death.

To put it more succinctly, the difference between the two parts of Section 304 of the IPC is that under the first part, the crime of murder is first estab- lished and the accused is then given the benefit of one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC, while under the second part, the crime of mur- der is never established at all. Therefore, for the purpose of holding an ac- cused guilty of the offence punishable under the second part of Section 304 of the IPC, the accused need not bring his case within one of the ex- ceptions to Section 300 of the IPC.

(6) The word ‘likely’ means probably and it is distinguished from more ‘possibly’. When chances of happening are even or greater than its not happening, we may say that the thing will ‘probably happen’. In reaching the conclusion, the court has to place itself in the situation of the accused and then judge whether the accused had the knowledge that by the act he was likely to cause death.

(7) The distinction between culpable homicide (Section 299 of the IPC) and murder (Section 300 of the IPC) has always to be carefully borne in mind while dealing with a charge under Section 302 of the IPC. Under the category of unlawful homicides, both, the cases of culpable homicide amounting to murder and those not amounting to murder would fall. Culp- able homicide is not murder when the case is brought within the five ex- 19 ceptions to Section 300 of the IPC. But, even though none of the said five exceptions are pleaded or prima facie established on the evidence on record, the prosecution must still be required under the law to bring the case under any of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC to sustain the charge of murder. If the prosecution fails to discharge this onus in estab- lishing any one of the four clauses of Section 300 of the IPC, namely, 1stly to 4thly, the charge of murder would not be made out and the case may be one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as described under

Section 299 of the IPC.

(8) The court must address itself to the question of mens rea. If Clause thirdly of Section 300 is to be applied, the assailant must intend the partic- ular injury inflicted on the deceased. This ingredient could rarely be proved by direct evidence. Inevitably, it is a matter of inference to be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case. The court must necessarily have regard to the nature of the weapon used, part of the body injured, extent of the injury, degree of force used in causing the injury, the manner of attack, the circumstances preceding and attendant on the attack.

(9) Intention to kill is not the only intention that makes a culpable homicide a murder. The intention to cause injury or injuries sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death also makes a culpable homicide a murder if death has actually been caused and intention to cause such injury or in- juries is to be inferred from the act or acts resulting in the injury or injuries.

10) When single injury inflicted by the accused results in the death of the victim, no inference, as a general principle, can be drawn that the accused did not have the intention to cause the death or that particular injury which resulted in the death of the victim. Whether an accused had the required guilty intention or not, is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case.

(11) Where the prosecution proves that the accused had the intention to cause death of any person or to cause bodily injury to him and the in- 20 tended injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then, even if he inflicts a single injury which results in the death of the vic- tim, the offence squarely falls under Clause thirdly of Section 300 of the

IPC unless one of the exceptions applies.

(12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under

Section 304 Part II of the IPC.”

41.Here, in the case on hand, in a drunken state, he quarreled with the wife and asked PW1 to call her mother. But as she did not call her and refused to call, he beat their daughter to threaten her. PW.1, in her report to the Police in this case or the case settled before Lok Adalat, did not mention that he suspected her fidelity. She simply mentioned he was addicted to liquor and quarreling and beating her and their daughter. In a drunken state, in the rage of anger, he kicked his daughter on her stomach. Due to this, she fell on the floor and received injuries 4 and 6 (4)

A small hematoma 2 x ½ cms. on the left side of the ear; (6) Hematoma 1 x ½ ¼ cms. on the left side of the abdomen and fell unconscious, Then he ran away. The said injuries caused death to the deceased. The prosecution did not adduce any evidence that the accused disputed paternity. So, we can safely conclude that the accused bet his daughter in the heat of anger while quarreling with his wife. Neither does he have the intention to kill or cause deadly injuries to their daughter. Hence, in the circumstances stated above and in the light of said principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court, the case on hand falls under part ii of section 304 of I.P.C. The prosecution proved that the accused committed culpable 21 homicide not amount to murder and under clause 3 of section 299 of

I.P.C.

42.Since 304 part ii of I.P.C. is a minor offense to 302 of I.P.C., though a separate charge was not framed, the accused can be convicted u/s 304

Partii of I.P.C. as per Section 222 of Cr.P.C.

43. POINT No.2:- Whether the prosecution proved that the guilt of

the accused for the offense punishable U/s.302 of I.P.C., beyond

reasonable doubt?.

As a result, the accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C., and as such, he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of

Cr.P.C. for the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C., but the accused is found guilty of the charge under Section 304 (Part II) and as such, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the charge under Section 304 (Part-II) of I.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court on this the 16 th day of April, 2025.

I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, W.G.DIST.,

ELURU.FAC/PRINCIPAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, W.G. DIST., ELURU

Having considered the case facts and since the offence under

Section 304 Part-II of I.P.C., is a serious one carrying up to 10 years imprisonment, the benevolent Provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, cannot be invoked.

It is the mandatory to hear the accused in respect of sentence to be imposed. When the accused was questioned by the court in respect of quantum of sentence to be imposed, he submitted that he did not commit any offence and prays to take lenient view to impose sentence.

22

Judgment in a criminal case is the end product of trial. A punishment must fit the crime. It is the duty of the Court to impose proper punishment depending upon the degree of criminality and desirability to impose such punishment. The punishment always must be proportionate to the crime committed by the offender.

Having considered the case facts and the accused caused death of his own daughter, who was aged about 5 years, this Court is of opinion imposing rigorous sentence of 5 years is justified.

Hence, the accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (Five) Years for the charge under Section 304 (Part-II) of I.P.C.

The period of imprisonment already had undergone by the accused during the remand period and trial from 10-09-2018 to 11-12-2018, from 06-06-2022 to 11-08-2022 and from 12-08-2024 to 15-04-2025 (Total 404

Days) is ordered to be set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal and he is entitled for legal aid from Legal Services Institutions for filing appeal and he is also entitled a free copy of judgment and being furnished.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 16 th day of April, 2025.

Sd/-M.Suneel Kumar

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU

FAC/PRINCIPAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, W.G., ELURU

LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

P.W.1 K.Kanaka Durga. Complainant.

23

P.W.2 T.Nageswaramma. Spoke about the motive, witnessing aftermath of the occurrence, shifting the victim to hospital. P.W.3 Kakarla Gopi. Spoke about the witnessing aftermath of the occurrence, shifting the victim to hospital. P.W.4 Yallapu Mozes. Spoke about the occurrence of incident.

P.W.5 Shaik Jubeda Begum. Spoke about the letting out of one portion of house to the accused on rent. P.W.6 Golaparthi Mani. Spoke about beating of P.W.1.

P.W.7 Karri Guru Murthy. Spoke about the occurrence of incident, beating deceased and caused her death. P.W.8 Dr.A.Hari Krishna. Spoke about the conducting autopsy on the dead body of deceased. P.W.9 G.Sambasiva Rao. Spoke about his presence at the time of drafting scene observation report and inquest on the dead body of the deceased etc. P.W.10 Chodem Pothu Raju. Spoke about the escorting the dead body of the deceased and handing over the dead body after P.M. examination.

P.W.11 P.Srinivasa Rao. Spoke about the arrest of the accused.

P.W.12 A.Naga Murali. Spoke about his part of investigation.

P.W.13 G.Satyanarayana. Spoke about the filing of charge sheet.

P.W.14 D. Chaitanya Varma. Spoke about sending hospital intimation to the police and recording the statement of accused.

LIST OF DEFENCE WITNESSES

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

-NONE -

LIST OF COURT WITNESSES

RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE

-NONE-

24

LIST OF DOCUMETNS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P.1 01.9.2018 Report of P.W.1 given to Police.

Ex.P.2 03.9.2018 Postmortem Report.

Ex.P.3 22.3.2019 Final Opinion.

Ex.P.4 02.9.2018 Scene observation report.

Ex.P.5 02.9.2018 Inquest Report.

Ex.P.6 09.9.2018 Signature of accused on the confession report. Ex.P.7 09.9.2018 Signature of P.W.11 on the confession report. Ex.P.8 1.9.2018 F.I.R. in Cr.No.208 of 2018 of I Town P.S., Eluru. Ex.P.9 2.9.2018 Rough sketch of the scene of offence.

Ex.P.10 -- Photographs (8 in number) along with C.D.

Ex.P.11 28.2.2019 F.S.L. Report.

Ex.P.12 8.7.2018 F.I.R. in Cr.No.165/2018 of Eluru I Town P.S., along with report and wound certificate. Ex.P.13 -- Charge Sheet.

Ex.P.14 14.7.2018 Lok Adalat Award.

Ex.P.15 1.9.2018 F.I.R. in Cr.No.209 of 2018 of Eluru I Town P.S., along with statement, police intimation and wound certificate. Ex.P.16 31.5.2019 Letter from SDPO., Proceedings and

Case Diary.

LIST OF DOCUMETNS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-N I L - 25

MATERIAL OBJECTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

M.O.1 : Coffee colour frock.

M.O.2 : Panty.

Sd/-M.Suneel Kumar

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU

FAC/PRINCIPAL DISTRICT

JUDGE, W.G., ELURU

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).

2. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.

4. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.

5. The Public Prosecutor, West Godavari, Eluru.

26

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.No.198/2019

ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST

GODAVARI, ELURU UNDER RULE 354 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES OF

PRACTICE.

Date of: Offence : 01.09.2018.

F.I.R. : 01.09.2018.

Charge sheet : 23.02.2019.

Framing of charges : 29.02.2024.

Commencement of evidence : 07.10.2024.

Judgment reserved : 04.03.2025.

Judgment : 16.04.2025.

Sentencing order, if any:

In the result,the accused is found not guilty of the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C., and as such he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., for the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C., but the accused is found guilty of the charge under Section 304 (Part II) and as such, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the charge under Section 304 (Part-II) of I.P.C., and he shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 (Five) Years for the charge under Section 304 (Part-II) of I.P.C. The period of imprisonment already had undergone by the accused during the remand period and trial from 10-09-2018 to 11-12-2018; from 06-06-2022 to 11-08-2022; and from 12-08-2024 to 15-04-2025 (Total 404 Days), is ordered to be set of under Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.Os.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused is informed about his right to prefer an appeal and he is entitled for legal aid from Legal Services Institutions for filing appeal and he is also entitled a free copy of judgment and being furnished.

27

Accused Details

Rank Name of Date of Date of Offences Whether Sentence Period of of the the arrest release charged acquitted imposed detention or accu-accused on bail with undergone convicted sed during trial for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C.

R.I. for 5

1. Katumala 10.09.18 12.12.18 U/s.302 Convicted 10.09.2018 to years Raviteja. of IPC 11.12.2018; 06.06.2022 to 11.08.2022; 12.08.2024 to till date.

Sd/-M.Suneel Kumar

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SES-

SIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,

JUDGE’S COURT, WEST GODAVARI,

ELURU. Dt.16.04.2025. ELURU.

FAC. PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

W.G., ELUGU

28

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI:: ELURU.

PRESENT: SRI M.SUNEEL KUMAR,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, this the 23rd day of January, 2024

SC. ST. SESSIONS CASE No.42/2017

Name of the Accused : 1.Sabbarapu @ Sabbarapu Sateesh s/o and particularsChina Satyanarayana, 28 years, K.Velama, Computer operator,Gothami Travels (MVR), Flat No.36, Indiramma Colony, Kovvur Town.

2.Bontha Syam Ravi Prakash s/o Kannayya, 48 years, S.C., mala, moving in Mala Mahanadu, Indiramnma Colony, Kovvur Town.

3.Koli Kondalarao @ Satish Babu, B.C.C, Christian, Christian Peta, Kovvur.

4.Bontha Venkatarao s/I late Gopalam, 48 years, S.C., Mala, Coolie, Near BC Hostel, Christian Peta, Kovvur.

5.Bontha Syam Kumar s/o Venkatartao, 22 years, S.C., Mala, working Near BC Hostel, Christian Peta, Kovvur.

Charges : Under Sections 420, 306, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of SCs., and STs., (POA) Act, 1989.

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the judge : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order : As a result, the Accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable U/s. 417, 306, 420, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of SCs., and STs., (POA) Act, 1989 The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall stand cancelled as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property, if any shall be disposed off after expiry of appeal time.

2

Counsel for the : Public Prosecutor, W.G. District, Eluru. prosecution Counsel for defence : Sri K.S.R., and of Sri E.Srinivasa Babu, Counsels for Accused.

This case is coming on this the 04th day of December, 2023 for hearing and disposal and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC., & ST., Cell-I, Eluru, filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offenses alleged

U/s.417, 306, 420, 506 Part-II of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x) and 2(2)(v) of S.C.s., and S.T.s., (P.O.A.) Amendment Act, 2015 in Crime

No.43/2016 of Kovvur Town Police Station.

2.The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the deceased,

Gummadi Vijaya Kumari @ Sony, used to work as a Computer

Assistant in the M.P.D.O. Office. On 26.02.2016, in the early hours, she came to know that A.1, with whom she has a love affair, is going to marry some other girl, and she tried to report to the Police; in the meantime, A.2 to A.4 who claimed to be the elders of Mala Mahanadu contacted them on behalf of A.1, and they will inquire into the matter and do justice to them, and they also assured that if not, they will ask an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from A.1 and offered to give

Rs.1,00,000/- Lakh to the deceased Vijaya Kumari and she refused it and sought marriage with him.

3.Then they threatened her daughter that if she preferred to report to the Police, they would kill her. Due to their acts, she suffered from depression, consumed kerosene and Nail Polish, hanged herself to a fan on 27.02.2016, and committed suicide.

4.On coming to know about the death of her daughter, A1 to A4 entered their home and searched for the suicide note, but they did not found as the defacto complainant had already taken the said suicide note, and they came to know the same, they threatened her that they would see her end if she did not handover the said suicide 3 note to them. But she stated to them that she did not have any suicide letters.

5.Then A.1 abused her in filthy language, touching her community, and they also threatened to bury the dead body of the deceased immediately without the knowledge of the Police. As such, as per their custom, they buried the dead body of the deceased due to fear. Hence, the defacto complainant went to the Police Station along with the suicide note.

6.P.W.17 registered the same as a case in Crime

No.43/2016U/s.420, 306, 201 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of SC., &ST., (P.O.A.) Act, 1989 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. of Kovvur

Town P.S., on 03.03.2016, submitted the F.I.R. to the Court and copies to the officials concerned.

7.The Superintendent of Police appointed P.W.19 as the

Investigation Officer, and he took up the investigation. On 04.03.2016, he visited the scene of the offense, examined the witnesses, drafted the scene observation report with P.W.13 and

L.W.20 and drafted the scene observation report, drew a rough sketch, seized the light blue color flower design Saree, Flora Nail

Enamel Nail Polish Bottle, Cococola Bottle with kerosene, Celkon

Company white color cell phone, sample writing notebook and got photographed the scene.

8.On 05.03.2016, P.W.19 exhumed the dead body from the tomb in the burial ground, held an inquest over the corpse in the presence of Panchayatdars P.W.13, L.Ws.26 and 28, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the corpse, examined the witnesses and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

9.During the investigation, P.W.19 arrested accused No.1 on 13.06.2016, A.4 on 22.03.2016, and A.5 produced on the execution of P.T. Warrant and A.2 and A.3 obtained bail from the Hon'ble High

Court of Andhra Pradesh. P.W.19 sent the suicide note to the F.S.L.,

Hyderabad, and received the opinion of the Expert on 18.05.2016.

10.P.W.19 forwarded the seized cell phone, which was seized from the scene of the offense, belonging to the deceased to A.P.F.S.L., 4

Hyderabad vide No.160/FSL/PEU/RJP/2016 date 06.04.2016. He forwarded the viscera contents preserved by the doctor at the time of autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and other material objects seized from the scene of an offense to A.P.F.S.L., Hyderabad vide F.S.L.No.TOX/1004/2016 dated 07.05.2016 and received final opinion.

11.P.W.18 exhumed the dead body from the tomb in the burial ground, held an inquest over the corpse, and also issued caste certificates of P.W.1, the deceased, and the accused. After completion of the investigation, P.W.11 filed the charge sheet against the

Accused.

12.This Court took cognizance of the case U/s.417, 420, 506(ii) and 306 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C.s., and S.T.s., (P.O.A.)

Amendment Act, 2015, issued summons to the accused. On the appearance of the Accused 1 to 5, copies of case records were furnished to them as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C., and they were examined U/s.228 of Cr.P.C. Charge U/s. 417, 420, 506(ii) and 306 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.C.s., and S.T.s., (P.O.A.) Amendment

Act, 2015, have been framed, read over, and explained to them in

Telugu. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial schedule was fixed, and issued summons to the witness.

13.In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 19 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.39. The evidence of

P.Mani, G.Bhagyamma, P.Mary Ratnam, P.Deepa, K.Bala,

Y.Bhanumathi, B.Tatarao, R.Chandrarao, Y.Vidya Sagar, A.Venkata

Reddy, B.Mary Suvartha, M.Nagalakshmi and Dr.M.Rajesh (L.Ws.1, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 13, 19, 24, 26 to 28 and 31)was given up by the learned A.P.P. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the Accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. so as to enable them to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the evidence.

14.The prosecution and defense counsels have been heard on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The defense counsel reported no defense evidence. Exs.D.1 to D.3 marked on behalf of the defense.

5

15.The arguments of A.P.P. and defense counsel have been heard.

16.Now, the points for determination are:-

1.Whether A.1 cheated the deceased under the guise of love and marriage and abetted the

deceased to commit suicide.

2.Whether A.2 to A.5 threatened L.W.1 with dire consequences and tried to bury the dead body of the deceased to cause the disappearance of evidence and attempted to screen the offender.

3.Whether A.2 to A.5 received Rs.2,50,000/- from A1 and offered Rs 1,00,000/- to the deceased and induced A1 to deliver the cash.

4.Did the prosecution prove that the accused insulted and intimidated the defacto complainant to humiliate her, who is a member of Schedule Caste, in a public place within

public view on 27.02.2016?

5.Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable U/s.420, 417, 306, 506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Amended Act,

2015, beyond all reasonable doubts?

17. POINT Nos.1 to 4: Whether A.1 cheated the deceased under

the guise of love and marriage and abetted the deceased to

commit suicide, whether A.2 to A.5 threatened L.W.1 with dire

consequences and tried to bury the dead body of the deceased to

cause disappearance of evidence and attempted to screen the

offender, whether A.2 to A.5 received Rs.2,50,000/- from A1 and

offered Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased and induced A1 to deliver

the cash, and did the prosecution prove that the accused

insulted and intimidated the defacto complainant to humiliate

6

her, who is a member of Schedule Caste, in a public place within

public view on 27.02.2016?

18.Since Points Nos.1 to 4 are interrelated with each other, germinating in the same incident to avoid repetition of evidence and facts, they are discussed together.

19.To bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offense punishable U/s.417, 420, 506(ii) and 306 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)

(x) and 3(2)(va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Amendment Act, 2015, the prosecution should prove that A.1 promised to marry P.W.1 and later refused to marry her and cheated her, later, A.2 to A.5 threatened

L.W.1 with dire-consequences and tried to bury the dead body of the deceased to cause the disappearance of evidence and attempted to screen the offender, insulted and intimidated the defacto complainant to humiliate her who is a member of Schedule Caste in a public place within public view, the prosecution examined the mother of the deceased as PW.1, her younger sisters as P.W.2, P.W.14 and the neighbor of deceased as PW.5.

20.As per the evidence of P.W.1, after the death of his sister, he came to know through the villagers that she loved A.1, and he refused to marry her on the ground that she belongs to S.C. Community.

P.W.2 deposed that after the death of the deceased, L.W.1 informed her that the deceased had a love affair with A.1 for the last two years, and then her deceased sister came to know that A.1 was going to marry another girl, and then she rushed to the Police Station. P.W.3 did not depose anything about the love affair of the deceased with

A.1, and P.W.14 also did not depose anything about the love affair of the deceased with A.1.

21.To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offense punishable U/s. 417 of I.P.C., the prosecution should prove that A.1 has promised the deceased to marry her, and with that promise, he made her love him, and later, he refused to marry her. But, in this case, there is no evidence to prove that A.1 has promised the deceased to marry her, and with that promise, he made her love him, and later, he refused to marry her.

7

22.Even in Ex.P.1, they did not mention that A.1 dishonestly induced the deceased to fall in love with him under the guise of marriage and later refused to marry the deceased. In the absence of any particulars of cheating, we cannot say that the accused cheated the deceased under the guise of love and marriage. Hence, in the circumstances stated above, there is no evidence to show that A.1 cheated the deceased under the guise of love and marriage.

23.To bring home the guilt of the accused No.1 to the offense punishable U/s.306 of I.P.C., the prosecution should prove that A.1 abetted the deceased from committing suicide. To prove the same, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3, 6, and 14.

24.As per the evidence of P.W.1, who is the brother of the deceased, on 27.02.2016 at 3.30 PM, he received a phone call from his friends, and they informed him that the deceased died. Then he returned to the village at about 6.30 or 7.00 PM. On inquiry, he came to know through the villagers that she loved A.1/Satish, and he refused to marry her on the ground that she belonged to the S.C.

community. The deceased used to work in the Devarapalli M.D.O.

Office as a Computer Assistant. Her friends shared the wedding card of A.1 in a WhatsApp group. Then, she immediately rang up A.1 and questioned why he was not marrying her. Then he informed him that marrying S.C., the girl, was not like his mother, and as per his wish, his mother married a girl of her choice, and he would also marry her.

Then, the deceased went to Kovvuru Town Police Station to present a report. The S.I. advised her to bring the elders of her family. Then, the S.I. of the Police secured A.1. In the meantime, the elders of A.1 came to the Police Station and threatened the deceased by saying that A.1 marriage would be performed the next day and asked why she preferred a report to the Police. In the meantime, his mother also went to the Police Station. The elders who came for A.1 tried to give money to withdraw the case. Then, the deceased refused to receive money and returned home. On the next day, she went to duty. On

Friday, she went to duty, and the persons belonging to A.1 threatened her for an hour for preferring to report to the Police against A.1. Then she returned home in the evening. On the next day, she did not go to 8 duty; his mother went to Church, and she was alone at home. He rang up the deceased at 11.30 AM or 12.00 Noon, but she did not pick up the phone. His mother came home at about 1.00 PM or 2.00

PM. When she came home, she found that the deceased was hanging from the ceiling fan in her bedroom and committed suicide, and she also kept a suicide note. The milk vendor shifted the deceased, but by then, she had died. Then, the neighbors gathered, and his friends called him. When the death of his younger sister came to the knowledge of A.1, four persons belonging to A.1 came and threatened to cremate her body and also enquired whether she had written any suicide notes. His family members did not inform him about all these things, and as usual, her dead body was buried. When he went to the water tank center after the burial of the dead body of his younger sister, his friends Murali, Chilaka Ashok, and Marlapudi Rajesh asked him if his sister Vijaya Kumari loved someone and got pregnant and also received Rs.1,00,000/- as such she committed suicide. Then he returned home, questioned his mother, quarreled with her, and informed her about the rumors in the village. Then his mother informed him that he would quarrel with them. As such, she did not inform him, and she handed over a suicide note. In the said suicide note, she wrote that she loved A.1 and he cheated on her, and she feared him and, due to which she did not inform me and asked to take care of him. Then he went to the Superintendent of Police and preferred a report to him, and then he got a re-postmortem of the deceased. After 6 months, a postmortem report came, which disclosed she was not pregnant and died due to hanging. Ex.P.1is the report given by his mother, which contains the signature of his mother, and he also signed it as a scribe along with him. Ex.P.2is the suicide note. In Ex P2, she mentioned that she believed A1 and would treat her family as his family. But he cheated her; he intentionally cheated her; he made her believe him; she made her attempts till the end to get it solved but failed. In that course, she went to the police station without her mother's knowledge. But she failed in her trials.

all supported A1 and valued her life for Rs.1,00,000/- etc. But nowhere did she mention the deception A1 played on her, or he 9 abetted her to commit suicide. He married another girl, and he may live happily, but she can't, and as such, she decided to die.

25.But, the evidence of P.W.1 is quite contrary to Ex P1 and P2. At the beginning of his chief examination itself, he deposed that he returned to the village at about 6.30 or 7.00 PM, and on inquiry, he came to know through the villagers about the love affair of the deceased. But, in the end, he was deposed, and he came to know all these things after the burial of the deceased.

26.As per suicide note Ex.P.2, the mother of the deceased did not know about the love affair of the deceased with A.1 and A. 1's marriage with another girl, the deceased approached the Police, etc., facts. It appears that the mother of the deceased came to know all these things after the death. If she knows about the love affair between A1 and her daughter by the date of death of her daughter, there is no point in waiting for a period of one week after the burial of the dead body.

27.The contents of Ex.P.1 report do not corroborate with Ex.P.2 suicide note. In the Ex.P.1 report, it was mentioned as if L.W.1 had knowledge about the love affair, and they went to the Police Station and interference with A.2 to A.5 and also threatened, etc., facts.

When she does not know about the entire love affair of the deceased with A.1 and subsequent events, the questions of A.2 to A.5 approach

L.W.1 and offer money and threaten them by abusing them in filthy language by mentioning the caste etc., facts also not believable and

Ex.P2 falsify Ex.P1 and evidence of PW.1 to 3 and 14.

28.P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased. She deposed that on 27.02.2016 at 5.00 PM, her mother rang her and informed her that the health condition of the deceased was serious and asked her to come. They started immediately and came to Kovvuru by morning, and thereafter, the burial of the dead body of the deceased had taken place. On the next day, she asked her mother what had happened, and she informed her that the deceased had a love affair with A.1 for the last two years. She further informed her that her sister Vijaya

Kumari came to know that A.1 was going to marry another girl, then she rushed to the Police Station, and her mother also went to the 10

Police Station. The persons belonging to A.1 attempted to compromise the matter and were prepared to offer money. Her sister got offended and returned home by leaving the money there, and on 27.02.2016, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. On 05.03.2016, a re- postmortem of the dead body of her sister Vijaya Kumari took place.

The handwriting in Ex.P.2 suicide letter is that of her sister.

29.P.W.3 claimed to be the homemaker deposed that about 5 or 6 years back, she heard loud cries of P.Mani; they went to her house and found Vijaya Kumari hanging. Then, the milk vendor, Sudhir

Kumar, got down and put on her cot. Then she returned to her home.

On the next day, the dead body of the deceased was cremated. Two days before the death of Vijaya Kumari, she and her mother roamed around the Police Station. After the death of Vijaya Kumar, she enquired with her mother, and she informed that her daughter loved

A.1, and he valued her love at Rs.1,00,000/-; as such, she offended and committed suicide. In the cross-examination, She deposed that she did not remember whether she stated before the Police that the deceased and her mother, L.W.1, roamed around the Police Station for two days before her death. She had no knowledge about the love affair of the deceased till her mother revealed it. She did not state

before the Police as per Ex.D.2. She did not remember whether she

did not state before the Police that L.W.1 informed her that the deceased loved A.1 and he valued her love at Rs.1,00,000/- being hurt for it, she committed suicide when Police examined her. If her mother had informed her about the love affair of her sister with A1, she ought to have stated the same to the Police.

30.P.W.14 deposed that she is a resident of Bhimadole Village. On the morning of 27.02.2016, she went to school, and by then, the health of her maternal aunt was not good. One Kannem Murali friend of P.W.1 called her and informed her that the health of the deceased was not good and asked her to come home. Then she returned home at about 4.00 PM and found the dead body of the deceased on the cot. At about 7.00 PM, P.W.1 came to home. At about 7.30 PM, four persons went into the house, and she went into the home. The said four persons asked L.W.1 whether the deceased left any suicide notes 11 and if any such suicide notes were handed over to them.A.2 is Syam

Prakash, and A.3 is the said persons. On the following day morning, the dead body of Vijaya Kumari was buried. P.Mani informed them that Vijaya Kumari loved A.1, and he married another girl. As such, she felt that she was cheated, and she committed suicide.

31.In the cross-examination, she deposed that the Police did not visit the house of L.W.1 on the date of the suicide of Vijaya Kumari.

On 28.02.2016, the Police seized the Saree, nail polish, and Vijaya

Kumari's mobile phone. The deceased, Vijaya Kumari, had suffered from vomiting, motion, and slight fever on 26.02.2016. She further deposed that she did not state before the Police that on 27.02.2016, when she was going to school, the health of Vijaya Kumari was not good, and she received a phone call from Murali, a friend of P.W.1 and he informed her that the health of L.W.1 was not good and asked her to come to the home and she reached the home at 4.00 PM. P.W.1 went out of home at about 7.30 PM on 27.02.2016, and thereafter, the said four persons came to the house of L.W.1. She also deposed that she did not state before the Police that the said four persons asked L.W.1 whether the suicide note was left by the deceased then

L.W.1 informed no such suicide note left by the deceased. She did not state before the Police that the said four persons left the place by scolding L.W.1. She did not state before the Police as per Ex.D.3.

Shewent there, and at that time, she saw A.2 at the police station. On 25.02.2016, they remained in the police station till 10.00 PM. She identified A.2 and A.3 at Kovvuru Court in the identification parade.

After placing them in Court, you can now see them in Court. Since

P.W 14 happens to be the daughter of the deceased's elder sister, she gave her evidence after a week days of examination of PW1 to PW3 in consonance with PW1 to PW3.

32.P.Ws.4, 5, and 12 did not support the prosecution case. They resailed from their earlier statements.P.3, P.4, and P.5 and turned hostile.

33.P.W.6 is the milk vendor. He deposed that in February 2016, at about 2.00 PM, he went to the house of P.W.3 to deliver milk, then after giving milk, he heard loud cries from the house of Mani calling 12 loudly "Soni""Soni" her. The persons present there went to the house of Mani and found the deceased hanging from the ceiling fan. Then he removed Chunny's knot and got down her. Then he laid her on the cot at the entrance.

34.P.W.7 deposed that about 3 or 4 years back, he came to know that the daughter of P.Mani committed suicide by hanging. He visited the house of said Mani and extended his condolence. On the next day, the burial of the deceased took place. Somebody informed him that S.C. & S.T. cell D.S.P. came and called him, and in their presence, the exhumation of the deceased took place; Panchanama was conducted, and he was also present. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he stated before the Police that he did not know anything about the reason for the suicide of the deceased, he did not understand what was meant by Panchanama, and he did not know what the Police did there. His evidence in no way helped the prosecution with regard to the reasons for the death and allied matters.

35.P.W.8 is the Municipal worker; he deposed that about six years back, M.R.O. and Police took one G. Subbarao and himself to the burial ground for the exhumation of deceased Soni @ Vijaya Kumari.

They dug the tomb and removed the dead body, and the Police conducted Panchanama. Then they again re-buried the dead body.

36.P.W.9 is a Pastor, and he deposed that on 27.02.2016, he came to know that the deceased died, and he visited her house and expressed his condolences. On the next day, burial was conducted.

Later, he came to know that she loved someone, and he cheated on her; as such, she committed suicide. His evidence proves that they belong to Christianity and practice.

37.P.W.10 claimed to be the mother-in-law of A.1. She deposed that A.1 is his son-in-law. On 26 February, in the early hours, about 6 or 7 years back, the marriage of her daughter Devi was performed with A.1, and she presented Rs.2,00,000/- dowry, but they presented gold equal to the said amount. After a week of marriage, the Police called them to the Police Station and asked whether they knew that

A.1 loved someone and the girl died, then she said she did not know.

13

38.P.W.11 claimed to be the Photographer. He deposed that on 04.03.2016 and 05.03.2016, the Police called him and photographed and videographed the exhumation of the dead body of the deceased and re-postmortem, and he handed over the D.V.Ds. to the Police.

39.P.W.13 is the V.R.O. He deposed that on 04.03.2016 at about 9.30 AM; when she was at the V.R.O. Office, the D.S.P., SC & S.T. cell called her and another V.R.O. to come to the Police Station. Then

L.W.26 and herself went to the Police Station by 9.45 AM, and from there, they went to the house of P.Mani at Merakaveedhi, Kovvuru, bearing D.No.1-9-9. Said Mani/L.W.1 showed one room and informed that in the said room, her daughter hung up and committed suicide.

On examination, they found a Saree under the cot and nail polish on the dressing table, a 2 liter Coca-Cola bottle with ½ liter kerosene, and a cell con company white mobile phone. The D.S.P. seized the items and obtained their signatures, and she prepared

Ex.P.6Mahazarnama. M.O.1 was the Saree, M.O.2was the nail polish bottle, M.O.3 was 2 liters Coca-Cola bottle with ½ liter kerosene,

M.O.4 was the cell phone. The D.S.P. enquired L.W.1 Mani about books of the deceased, and she gave M.O.5 notebook. On the same day, at 4.00 PM, the D.S.P. took them to a Christian burial ground at

Godavari Gattu. The photographs of the tomb were taken and kept by two police constables as guards, and she prepared an

Ex.P.7observation report, on which L.W.26, ward member, D.S.P., and herself signed on the said observation report. On the following day, an inquest was conducted by Tahsildar, R.I, L.W.26. The family members of the deceased and herself were present. In the cross- examination, he deposed thatM.O.4 does not contain any I.D. slip affixed. She did not observe whether it had a cover or not on the back of the cell phone. They did not note down the cell phone number or

IME number. The I.D. slips were not affixed on the M.O.2 nail polish.

The I.D. slip attached to M.O.2 did not contain the information that it was seized. She did not know to whom the handwriting of the I.D. slip annexed to M.O.2 belongs. The I.D. slip was not affixed to the M.O.1

Saree. She cannot say to whom the handwriting of I.D. slips affixed on the M.Os.1 to M.O.4.His cross-examination is contrary to his 14 evidence, as well as other witnesses who acted as attestors of scene observation mahzor name and seizer of MO's.

40.P.W.15 claimed to be the worker in the Municipality. He deposed that about seven years back, he and P.W.8 dug the tomb and removed the dead body of the deceased, and the S.I. saw it, and thereafter, they buried it again.

41.The doctor was examined as P.W.16. She deposed that on 05.03.2016, from 12.00 PM to 2.00 PM, she conducted a postmortem of Gummadi Vijaya Kumari at the burial ground, Kovvuru, along with

Dr.Rajesh/L.W.31. Burial: 2 feet width, 6 feet 9-inch length, ground level to bone 1 ½ width, 9 x 1 x 7 cm, body length 5 feet and body is decomposed, tongue is protruded. Head and neck: Hanging marks are not seen as the body is highly decomposed. Head: the brain is liquefied, and the right side of the head bone was fractured. Chest and thorax. The heart and lungs are congested. Abdomen: The Liver,

Kidney, Stomach with intestine, and uterus on both side tubes and oversee are preserved for R.F.S.L., Vijayawada. All organs are congested. The time of death is more than 7 days prior to postmortem examination. The mud is preserved on the burial ground. Right side east and right side west, Left north and left south. Mud on the burial ground, mud below the body, and mud above the body. Ex.P.8is thepreliminary postmortem report. As per the R.F.S.L. Report,

Hyderabad file No.Tox.1004/2016, dt.07.05.2016 No positions substance found in stomach, kidney, and liver, head and neck hyoid bone right side fractured. Cause of death Aspasia due to hanging.

Time of death more than 7 days prior to postmortem examination.

Ex.P.9was the final opinion. Ex.P.10 was the R.F.S.L. report. L.W.31 also signed on Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.9.

42.In cross-examination, she deposed that admitted that she did not mention in Ex.P.8 that hyoid bone was fractured. Ex.P.8 she mentioned that the right head bone was fractured. Further admitted that in hanging, there would not be a fracture in the head. She also admitted deposed that due to a highly decomposed body, the cause of death is not known. Further deposed in Ex.P.10 R.F.S.L. report, the cause of death was not mentioned. She further deposed that she 15 cannot say whether a person would die due to vomiting, loose motions caused by dehydration." Her evidence ruled out about the cause of death of the deceased as hanging.

43.The Sub Inspector of Police was examined as P.W.17. He deposed that on 03.03.2016 at 10.30 PM, when he was in Police

Station, L.W.1 Mani came to P.S. and presented Ex.P.1 written report along with Ex.P.2 suicide note, he registered the same as a case in

Cr. No.43/2016, U/Sec.420, 306, 201, 506 r/w 34 I.P.C., Sec.3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of SC ST (P.O.A.) Act, 1989, submitted original F.I.R. Ex.P.11 to Court and copies to all officials concerned and he also assisted

D.S.P. in the investigation. In the cross-examination, he deposed that he did not remember whether he stated before D.S.P. that L.W.1 handed over a suicide note along with the Ex.P.1 report. When he was confronted with the 161 Cr.P.C. statement and after going through it, he stated that it was not mentioned in the 161 Cr.P.C.

statement that Ex.P.2 suicide note was also given to him. He further deposed that he did not remember whether he stated before D.S.P.

that he registered Cr. No.54/2016, U/sec.448, 195(a), 506 r/w 34 of

I.P.C. and it was numbered as C.C. No.242/2016. He cannot say whether he stated before D.S.P. that the case was registered against

Masa Anand, Taripe Bangarayya, Bontha Brahmandam, and Bontha

Syam Kumar unless he verify the record. He further admitted that there was a delay of seven days in giving a report. He further admitted that the column No.8 of F.I.R. he mentioned that there was no delay. In the report the place of offence dt.25.02.2016 was not mentioned. He registered F.I.R. as per Ex.P.1 report. As per Ex.P.1 report, as there was caste abuse, he mentioned the provision of Law under sections SCST POA Act.

44.He further admitted that in Ex.P.1 report, the caste of L.W.1 or the accused was not mentioned. Since LW.1 died there is no evidence about abusive words alleged to be uttered by the accused A1 on 27- 02.2016. He did not know where the Ex.P.1 report was prepared.

Ex.P.2 suicide note hand writings are in Pink Colour. He did not submit a suicide note to the Court along with F.I.R. He further admitted that he did not mention in column No.5 of F.I.R. the specific 16 place of suicide. He did not register any cognizable offence on 25.02.2016 on the report of L.W.1 and deceased Vijaya Kumari. He did not remember whether they came to the police station on 25.02.2016. On 27.02.2016 L.W.1 did not visit the police station and did not prefer any report. Even on 28.02.2016 or 29.02.2016 either

L.W.1 or P.W.1 came to police station and not preferred any report." the cross examination of PW17 falsify the evidence of PW1.

45.P.W.18 Tahsildar deposed that on 04.03.2016, he received a letter from D.S.P., Kovvuru, for the exhumation of Gummadi Vijaya

Kumari @ Soni. On 05.03.2016, he went to a Christian burial ground near Andhra Sugars, Kovvuru, beside Godavari Bank. By the time he went to the burial ground, two doctors, Police, blood relatives of the deceased, two V.R.O.s, and a videographer were present. In his presence, the tomb of Vijaya Kumari @ Soni was opened, and he found a box, which was opened. The doctors informed him that the dead body belonged to a woman. The body color changed, and both doctors conducted a postmortem, which took two hours, and again buried the dead body as it was with the consent of blood relatives.

The entire exhumation of the dead body of Vijaya Kumari @ Soni was videographed and they closed the same by 12.00 Noon. He examined

L.W.1, her brother, and some other relatives, and he came to know that the deceased loved one, Satish A.1, had gotten married to another girl, and on the following day morning, she committed suicide. At the time of the exhumation, the D.S.P. scribed the entire process, and he signed on it.

46.The learned A.P.P. requested the Court to declare the witness/P.W.18 as hostile and permission accorded. In his cross- examination by learned A.P.P.he admitted "It is true that after the exhumation of the dead body of Vijaya Kumari @ Soni, we conducted an inquest in the presence of blood relatives and Panchayatdars.

Ex.P.12 was the inquest report, dated 05.03.2016, contains his signature. It is true we recorded the statements of L.W.1, P.W.1,

P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.14, L.W.4, L.W.5. Ex.P.13 to Ex.P.19were the statements of L.W.1, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.14, L.W.4, L.W.5. It is true that I also issued caste certificates of L.W.1, deceased Viajya 17

Kumari and also A.1 to A.5. Ex.P.20 to Ex.P.26caste certificates of

L.W.1, deceased Vijaya Kumari and A.1 to A.5 respectively".

47.P.W.19 is the Investigation Officer in this case. He deposed that on 03.03.2016, he received a copy of F.I.R. from P.W.17 in Cr.

No.43/20162016, U/sec.420, 306, 201, 506(2) r/w 34 of I.P.C. and

Sec.3(1)(x), 3(2)(v) of SC ST (P.O.A.) Act and the same day he received

Ex.P.27 proceedings of S.P. in C.No.724/C2/Auth/S.C., and

S.T./2016, dated.03.03.2016, he was appointed as an investigating officer for the above-mentioned crime. On 04.03.2016, he took up an investigation in this case and left office and reached the Town P.S.

and examined L.W.1 and P.W.1 in the police station and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Then he secured the presence of mediators, i.e., P.W.13, L.W.26, and L.W.27, P.W.11 proceeded to the 1st scene of offense, i.e., the house of the complainant and inspected the scene of offense minutely and shown by L.W.1 and prepared scene observation report. The scene of offense is at D.No.1-9-9, beside the street of Pushkarnagar Road, Canal Bund, 2nd ward,

Merakaveedhi, Kovvuru Town. Under the observation report, he seized a blue color flowers design Saree/MO1, Flora Nail Enamil nail polish bottle, Coco Cola bottle with kerosene, Cellkon company white color phone kept in a cover and affixed I.D. slips duly signed by mediators P.W.13, L.W.26, and L.W.27.

48.P.W.19 further deposed that then he seized one notebook packed in a plastic cover, Photographed and Videographed the entire proceedings, and handed over the seized material to the S.I. of Police.

Then, he prepared Ex.P.28rough sketch. Then he secured the presence of P.W.2, L.W.4, L.W.5, P.W.14, L.W.7, P.W.3, L.W.9,

L.W.10, P.W.4, P.W.5, L.W.13, P.W.6 examined them and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. Then he left the scene of offense and proceeded to the Christian burial ground along with P.W.1, P.W.11,

P.W.13, L.W.26, and L.W.27 in front of Andhra Sugars Factory at

Kovvuru and inspected the 2nd scene. He observed it, noted the particulars, photographed and videographed it, drew Ex.P.29rough sketch, and posted two Constables to safeguard it. The mediators prepared a scene observation report duly attested by the mediators 18 and himself. Then he sent a requisition to Executive

Magistrate/P.W.18 to exhume the dead body of Vijaya Kumari @ Soni

for an autopsy to know the exact cause of death. He gave requisition to Tahsildar, Kovvuru, to issue caste certificates of L.W.1, deceased

Vijaya Kumari, and A.1 to A.5. On 05.03.2016, as per the orders of

P.W.18/Executive Magistrate, P.W.15 and L.W.17 dug the tomb and lifted the dead body in the presence of the medical officer/P.W.16,

L.W.31, P.W.18/Tahsildar and other mediators and family members i.e., P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.14, L.W.1, L.W.4 and L.W.5 and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased. During the inquest P.W.18 recorded the statements of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7, P.W.14, L.W.1, L.W.4 and L.W.5.

49.P.W.19 further deposed that then again he re-examined P.W.1,

P.W.2, P.W.14, L.W.1, L.W.4 and L.W.5 and recorded their 161

Cr.P.C. statements. Then, he secured the presence of P.W.15 and

P.W.8, examined them, and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

During the inquest, the dead body of the deceased was got photographed. The inquest was concluded, and P.W.18 handed over the inquest report to him. He sent a requisition to the Medical Officer to depute doctors to conduct postmortem examination. P.W.16 and

L.W.31 conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased.

Then he sent Viscera, seized notebook, suicide note, and cell phone to

F.S.L. under a letter of advice. Ex.P.30was theletter of advice under which Viscera and nail polish, Coco Cola bottle with kerosene was sent to R.F.S.L. Ex.P.31was thecovering letter and he also sent cell phone along with SIM under Ex.P.32letter of advice with a covering letter Ex.P.33. Healso sent notebook and suicide note to F.S.L. under

Ex.P.34letter of advice under Ex.P.35 covering letter. He filed a memo to add A.5 in this case. On 22.03.2016, he arrested A.4 at Railway

Station, Kovvuru, and sent him to Court for remand. On 20.03.2016, he filed a requisition P.T. warrant of A.5 in Cr.No.43/2016 on the file of Additional Junior Civil Judge's Court, Kovvuru. A.2 and A.3 got anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh and were released by producing sureties. After receipt of caste certificates,

P.M. Certificate, and R.F.S.L. report Ex.P.36 handwriting expert and 19

Ex.P.37 is the R.F.S.L. report with regard to cell phone. On 23.03.2016, he examined P.W.9, P.W.10, and L.W.19 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. On 26.03.2016, he examined P.W.12,

L.W.23, and L.W.24 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C., statements. On 13.06.2016, he arrested A.1 and sent him to Court for remand. In

Ex.P.37 R.F.S.L. report with regard to cell phone. Where in it was mentioned that mobile phone touch pad not working and mobile phone is protected with pass word. Therefore there is no evidence with regard to sharing of whatsapp messages etc.

50.In cross-examination of P.W.19 he deposed that he cannot give any reason for not showing the C.I. was a witness in this case, though he assisted me in the investigation. I did not affix any seal with wax on M.O.1 to M.O.5. I do not know whether L.W.1 and P.W.1 approached S.P. of Eluru and presented a report to S.P. and he endorsed the same to D.S.P., Kovvuru, and P.W.1 and L.W.1 went to

Kovvuru D.S.P. Office and handed over the same etc. He do not know whether the deceased presented any report prior to her committing suicide. He admitted that the handwriting of Ex.P.28 and Ex.P.26 1st scene observation reports were not that of him. He did not investigate the case of the caste of L.W.1, P.W.1, and the deceased. He did not investigate in respect of the property value mentioned Rs.2,50,000/- in column No.9 of printed F.I.R. I do not remember why he seized

Saree and did not remember whether she committed suicide, whether

Saree or Chunny. He did not enquire about the health condition of the deceased before the date of the alleged committing of suicide. He admitted that P.W.3 and P.W.14 stated before him as in Ex.D.2 and

Ex.D.3. He further deposed that P.W.2 did not state before him that "thereafter, the burial of my sister's dead body had taken place". On 27.02.2016, she committed suicide by hanging. On coming to know the same, P.W.1 wanted to report to the police". He further admitted that P.W.3 did not state before him that "Two days before the death of

Vijaya Kumari, Vijaya Kumari and her mother roamed around the police station". He do not remember whether he asked anyone at the 1st scene of the offense to act as mediators".

20

51.The evidence official witnesses no way help the case of the prosecution its falsify the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and PW.14. Hence, in the circumstances stated above there is no evidence to prove that prior to 03.03.2016 the A.1 abetted the deceased to commit suicide,

A.2 to A.5 threatened L.W.1 with dire consequences and tried to bury the dead body of the deceased to cause disappearance of evidence and attempted to screen the offender and they received Rs.2,50,000/- from A1 and offered Rs.1,00,000/- to the deceased and induced A1 to deliver the cash and the accused insulted and intimidated the defacto complainant to humiliate her who is a member of Schedule Caste in a public place within public view on 27.02.2016.

52. POINT No.5:-Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

the accused for the offences punishable U/s.420, 417, 306,

506(ii) of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts.

(P.O.A.) Amended Act, 2015, beyond all reasonable doubts?

Because of my findings to points 1 to 3, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused 1 to 5 for the offence punishable

U/s.417, 306, 420, 506(ii) of I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of

S.C.s. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Amended Act, 2015 beyond reasonable doubts and A.1 to A.5 are found not guilty.

53. As a result, the Accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted U/s. 235(1) of

Cr.P.C., for the offenses punishable U/s.417, 306, 420, 506(ii) of

I.P.C., and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (P.O.A.)

Amended Act, 2015. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall stand cancelled as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be disposed of after the expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by I in

the open Court, this the 23 rd day of January, 2024.

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

21

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 P.Kiran Kumar.

P.W.2 K.Nirmala Jyothi.

P.W.3 M.Kanaka Ratnam.

P.W.4 P.Gangadhararao.

P.W.5 M.Srirama Murthy.

P.W.6 L.Adinarayana.

P.W.7 N.Atchutarao.

P.W.8 N.Timmaraju.

P.W.9 B.Krishna Murthy.

P.W.10 R.Rajeswari.

P.W.11 V.Sukumar

P.W.12 K.Koteswararao.

P.W.13 Ch.P.Surya Kumari.

P.W.14 T.Sushma.

P.W.15 G.Subbarao.

P.W.16 Dr.C.Aruna.

P.W.17 S.S.S.Pavan Kumar.

P.W.18 M.Gangaraju.

P.W.19 S.Vijay Sekhar.

FOR DEFENCE : - NONE -.

DOCUMETNS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 05.09.2023 Report.

Ex.P.2 05.09.2023 Suicide Note.

Ex.P.3 08.09.2023 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.4 08.09.2023 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.5 12.09.2023 161 Cr.P.C. statement P.W.12.

Ex.P.6 12.09.2023 Scene observation report.

Ex.P.7 12.09.2023 Scene observation report.

Ex.P.8 13.09.2023 Postmortem Report.

22

Ex.P.9 13.09.2023 Final opinion.

Ex.P.10 13.09.2023 R.F.S.L.Report.

Ex.P.11 14.09.2023 F.I.R.

Ex.P.12 29.09.2023 Inquest Report.

Ex.P.13 to 29.09.2023 Statements of P.W.1, L.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.7, P.19 L.W.4, L.W.5 and P.W.14.

Ex.P.20 29.09.2023 Caste Certificate of L.W.1.

Ex.P.21 29.09.2023 Caste Certificate of deceased.

Exs.P.22 29.09.2023 Caste Certificates of A.1 to A.5. to P.26

Ex.P.27 29.09.2023 Proceedings.

Ex.P.28 29.09.2023 Rough Sketch.

Ex.P.29 29.09.2023 Rough sketch.

Ex.P.30 29.09.2023 Letter of advise.

Ex.P.31 29.09.2023 Covering letter.

Ex.P.32 29.09.2023 Letter of advise.

Ex.P.33 29.09.2023 Covering letter.

Ex.P.34 29.09.2023 Letter of advise.

Ex.P.35 29.09.2023 Covering letter.

Ex.P.36 29.09.2023 R.F.S.L. Report.

Ex.P.37 29.09.2023 R.F.S.L. Report.

FOR DEFENCE :-

Ex.D.1 05.09.2023 Deposition of L.W.1 in C.C.NO.242/2016.

Ex.D.2 08.09.2023 Admissible portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of L.W.8.

Ex.D.3 13.09.2023 Admissible portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.14.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-N I L -

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

23

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).

2. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.

4. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.

5. The Special Public Prosecutor, West Godavari, Eluru.

24

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN SC ST

S.C.No.42/2017 ON THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM- VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT

AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU UNDER RULE 354 OF

THE CRIMINAL RULES OF PRACTICE.

1. Sessions Case No. : SC ST S.C.No.42/2017.

2. Name of the Police : Kovvur Town Police Station, Station and Crime Cr.No.43/2016. No.

3. Description of the : 1.Sabbarapu @ Sabbarapu Sateesh s/o Accused: China Satyanarayana, 28 years, K.Velama, Computer operator,Gothami Travels (MVR), Flat No.36, Indiramma Colony, Kovvur Town.

2.Bontha Syam Ravi Prakash s/o Kannayya, 48 years, S.C., mala, moving in Mala Mahanadu, Indiramnma Colony, Kovvur Town.

3.Koli Kondalarao @ Satish Babu, B.C.C, Christian, Christian Peta, Kovvur.

4.Bontha Venkatarao s/I late Gopalam, 48 years, S.C., Mala, Coolie, Near BC Hostel, Christian Peta, Kovvur.

5.Bontha Syam Kumar s/o Venkatartao, 22 years, S.C., Mala, working Near BC Hostel, Christian Peta, Kovvur.

4. Date of Offence : 25.02.2016 & 27.02.2016.

Complaint : 03.03.2016.

Apprehension : Section 41-A Cr.P.C., notice Release on bail : --

Commitment : --

Commencement of : 05.09.2023. trial Close of Trial : 04.12.2023.

Sentence or Order : 23.01.2024.

As a result, the Accused Nos.1 to 5 are acquitted U/s. 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable U/s. 417, 306, 420, 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of SCs., and STs., (POA) Amended Act, 2015 The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 to 5 shall stand cancelled 25 as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property, if any shall be disposed off after expiry of appeal time.

5. Explanation for the delay : No avoidable delay.

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UN-SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES DER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII ADDI-UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

TIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

GODAVARI, ELURU. Dt.23.01.2024.

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

AGAINST WOMAN CUM V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Present: SRI M.SUNEEL KUMAR,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs.& STs.(POA) Act-cum-

VIII Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

FAC/Special Judge for trial of offences against Woman cum V Addl. District & Sessions Judge, W.G., Eluru.

Tuesday, the 08th day of August, 2023.

SESSIONS CASE No.217/2017.

C/w. SESSIONS CASE No.117/2018.

Name of the Accused : 1.Undrajavarapu Kiran s/o and particularsMangadhararao, 28 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

2.Undrajavarapu Vajramma w/o Mangadhararao, 58 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

3.Undrajavarapu Challarao s/o Mangadhararao, 35 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

4.Kommara Vijaya Kumari w/o David Raju, 40 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

5.Kommara David Raju s/o George, 45 years, Arundatiya, Alamuru Village of Penamantra Mandal.

6.Chatla Mariyamma w/o Raju, 45 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

Charges : Under Sections 376(2)(n), 323, 448, 506 and 417 of IPC.

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the judge : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order : As a result, the Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable U/s. 376(2)(n), 323, 448, 506 and 417 of IPC. The bail bonds of the 2

Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Case against A.2 is abated as died.

Counsel for the : Public Prosecutor, W.G. District, Eluru. prosecution

Counsel for defence : Sri V.Amar Srinivas, Counsel for Accused.

This case is coming on the 01st day of August, 2023 for hearing and disposal and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the

Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, PalakoleCircle filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 363, 376, 448m 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry

Prohibition Act, in Crime No.90/2009 of VeeravasaramPolice Station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that A.1 and prosecutrix belongs to Konithiwada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

While the prosecutrix was studying X Class, she used to go tuition and she has to pass to reach the tuition thought the lane situated the house of A.1.

3. A.1 used to tease her and comment her and thereafter, they fell in love. While she was studying Intermediate, A.1 used to met her at her College and used to move in the village on motorcycle of A.1 and later she joined in the Degree College at Penugonda. By then, A.1 worked at Hyderabad and used to talk with prosecutrix over phone regularly and visited Penugonda.

4. While the prosecutrix was in 2nd year Degree, he took her to the house of one Ramesh at Tadepalligudem, had sexual intercourse with her forcibly with a promise to marry her. Since then, A.1 and P.W.1 3 frequently had sexual intercourse on several occasions even in her house also.

5. Later, the prosecutrix joined Bhimavaram C.S.N. College for

Postgraduation and after completion of 1st year in vacation, she went to Hyderabad for spoken English. At that time, A.1 working at

Kukatpalli. The victim used to stay in the hostel. A.1 used to visit the hostile, took her to his room and had sexual intercourse against her

Will with a promise to marry her. They used to move as wife and husband.

6. Then the prosecutrix returned to her village when her II Year

P.G. graduation classes are started. Thereafter, she questioned A.1 to marry her. And, he promised that he would marry her very soon.

When A.1 informed that his parents and brother are looking after marriage alliance in their relatives, she insisted him to marry her. Due to her pressure, on 30.07.2009 A.1 sent his friend at 11.00 P.M., by name Rajesh to the prosecutrix and in the said motorcycle, the said

Rajesh took her to Nowduru center and then A.1 and his friend Rajesh came on motorcycle and took her to Jangareddigudem to marry her and took her to the house of one Chinni and on the said day night,

A.1 forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.

7. On 31.07.2009 at about 4.00 P.M., A.1 informed that he received phone call from home and he they have go to urgently and started to

Attili and left her at her house and he got her boarded in an Auto.

When her parents enquired, she informed the love affair with A.1.

8. On 01.01.2009 the parents of prosecutrix asked about the marriage with A.1, at 06.00 P.M., A.1, his brother Challa Rao,

Bhimavarao, Venkateswararao and Apparao came to her house and stated that will discuss about the marriage. At about 10.00 P.M., A’1 mother Vajramma, her sister, Junior paternal uncle of A.1 and his junior paternal aunt and his brother Challarao came upon her house and threatened her that they would kill her if she did not forgot A.1.

4

9. The matter was referred to Ex.M.P.P. V.Chandrasekhar. The elders China Babu, Chanti, President and others. At the first instance they agreed for their marriage and thereafter, the accused informed that already marriage alliance of A.1 was fixed and received dowry.

Then the parents of prosecutrix informed that they would give the said amount. The accused agreed for the same before the elders, but later, they did not agree.

10. As such, the prosecutrix went to Police Station on 17.08.2009 and filed report before the Police and they registered the same as a case in Crime No.419, 376, 506(ii) r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of

Dowry Prohibition Act in Crime No.90/2009 of Veeravasaram Police

Station and submitted the FIR to the Court and copies to the concerned officials and investigated into.

11. During the course of investigation, P.W.11 Inspector of Police examined P.Ws.1 to 6, L.Ws.2, 4, 6 and 11 and recorded their 161

Cr.P.C. Statements. He observed the scene of offence and in the presence of P.W.7 and L.W.13 prepared the observation report and drawn rough sketch. The C.I., of Police added Sections 448 IPC to

Sections 419, 376 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w 34 of IPC and Section 4 of

D.P. Act. He arrested A.1 on 19.08.2009 and sent him to Court for remand. A.1 surrendered before the Court on 24.08.2009. P.W.11 arrested A.2, A.4 and A.5 on 16.09.2009 at 1.00 P.M., at

Veeravasaram P.S., when they surrendered before him and sent them for judicial custody. A.6 absconding by then.

12. P.W.11 sent the victim woman and A.1 to Government Hospital for medical examination. After completion of investigation and after verification of medical certificates and R.F.S.L. Report, the

Investigation Officer filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.419, 376, 363 IPC against A.1 and U.s.448 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act against A.2 to A.6.

13. The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Bhimavaram, took cognizance for the offence U/s. 419, 376, 363 448 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act against A.1 to A.5, assigned 5

P.R.C.No.128/2010 and issued summons to the Accused. On appearance of the Accused 1 to 5, the trial Court furnished copies of case documents to them as required U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

14. After observing all the legal formalities, the case against A.1 to

A.5 was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned trial Judge

U/s.209 Cr.P.C. proceedings. The District Court assigned the case as

S.C.No.217/2017 and made over to Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Bhimavaram, for trial and disposal according to Law.

15. Later, on appearance of A.6 before the trial Court, it took cognizance for the offence U/s. 419, 376, 363 448 and 506(ii) r/w 34

IPC against A.6, assigned P.R.C.No.24/2012 and issued summons to the Accused. On appearance of the Accused No.6, the trial Court furnished copies of case documents to her as required U/s.207 of

Cr.P.C.

16. After observing all the legal formalities, the case against A.6 was committed to the Court of Sessions by the learned trial Judge U/s.209

Cr.P.C. proceedings. The District Court assigned the case as

S.C.No.117/2018 and made over to Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Bhimavaram, for trial and disposal according to Law.

17. Subsequently, as per the Orders of the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of

Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in ROC No.179/E1/2013 dated 15.09.2013 both the Sessions Cases 217/2017 and 117/2018 are withdrawn from the file of Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Bhimavaram, and transferred to the Court of V Additional District

Judge, Eluru, for trial and disposal according to Law. Later, the

S.C.No.117/2018 is clubbed with S.C.No.217/2017, recorded the common evidence in S.C.No.217/2017, as the offences in both the cases arising one and the same incident and crime. This Court closed the proceedings in S.C.No.117/2018. Later, A.2 died and case against her was abated.

6

18. After appearance of the Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6, they were examined U/s.228(2) of Cr.P.C. Charges for the offences punishable

U/s. 376(2)(n), 323, 448, 506 and 417 of IPC have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was adjourned for fixing of trial schedule and trial schedule was given and issued summons to the witnesses.

19. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.12.

20. The evidence of K.Satyavathi, S.Apparao, Y.V.S.R.Raju,

P.Subbaiah, K.Chinnayya and A.V.S.Subrahmanya (L.Ws.2, 4, 6, 9, 11 and 13) was given up by the learned A.P.P.

21. After the closure of prosecution side evidence, the Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. so as to enable them to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the evidence.

22. The prosecution and defence counsels have been heard on the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The defence counsel reported no defence evidence.

23. The arguments of Special A.P.P. and defence counsel have been heard.

24. Now, the points for determination are : -

1) Whether A.1 with false promise of marriage had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and alter refused to marry her and cheated her?

2) Whether the prosecution proved whether

A.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and wish under the guise of marriage?

3) Whether the prosecution proved that A.1,

A.3 to A.6 criminally trespassed in to the 7 house of P.W.1, abused them and threatened them with dire consequences?

4) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 for the offences punishable U/s.376(2)(n), 323, 448, 506 and 417 of IPCbeyond all reasonable doubts or not?.

25. POINT Nos.1 to 3 :-Whether A.1 with false promise of

marriage had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and alter

refused to marry her and cheated her, whether the prosecution

proved whether A.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim

against her will and wish under the guise of marriage, and whether

the prosecution proved that A.1, A.3 to A.6 criminally trespassed

in to the house of P.W.1, abused them and threatened them with

dire consequences?

Since Point Nos.1 to 3 are interrelated with each other, to avoid repetition of evidence on the same facts, all the points are discussing together.

26. To bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable

U/s. 376(2)(n), 323, 448, 506 and 417 of IPCthat A.1 with false promise of marriage had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and alter refused to marry her and cheated her, A.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and wish under the guise of marriage, later A.1, A.3 to A.6 criminally trespassed in to the house of P.W.1, abused them and threatened them with dire consequences, the prosecution altogether examined P.Ws.1 to 11.

27. P.W.1 is the victim woman in this case. She deposed that she is a resident of Konethivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal, studied up to M.B.A. While she was studying 10th Class, she used to go to the house of one Kandelli Bhimarao in their village for 10th Class tuition.

On the way to her tuition, the house of A.1 was situated. A.1 used to tease her and used to abuse her in filthy language. Later, she got acquaintance with A.1 and it turn into love affair that after completion of her 10th class, she joined Intermediate in V.E.C. Junior College at 8

Veeravasaram. By that time, A.1 was doing lab technician and after completion of their respective work, they used to move outside of the village on the motorcycle of A.1. After completion of Intermediate,

P.W.1 joined Degree in S.V.K.P. College at Penugonda and by that time

A.1 used to work at Hyderabad as a car driver. Whenever A.1 comes to village from Hyderabad, they both used to move together on the motorcycle of A.1.

28. P.W.1 further deposed that while she was 2nd year degree, on one day A.1 came to her took her to his relatives house situated at

Tadepalligudem, introduced them as he was going to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage so also in the house of Ramesh and did the said act as and when he used to visit her village and he also sexual intercourse with her in their house in the absence of inmates. After completion of degree, she joined in PG in CSN college at Bhimavaram, where also A.1 used to visits her and took her outside and contacted her physically. After completion of 1st year M.A. course, during summer vacation, A.1 asked her to come to

Hyderabad to join in a spoken English institution and accordingly she joined in the said course at Ameer Peta by staying in a hostel. There also, A.1 who was residing in Kukatpallim, used to come to her and perform sexual act with her on the pretext of marriage. When P.w.1 questioned about the marriage, A.1 used to tell her that after convinced his family members, he will marry her. Later, she left from

Hyderabad and came down to Bhimavaram to continue her PG studies. A.1 used to came down to Bhimavaram and had sexual intercourse with her and when she asked him about the marriage, A.1 used to told the same version and later she came to know that the family members of A.1 making efforts to perform his marriage with another woman and when she questioned, A.1 replied that his family members are not accepting for their marriage, on that she asked A.1 to marry her somewhere else.

29. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that on 30.07.2009 at about 11.00 P.M., A.1 informed her that he will send one Rajesh and asked 9 her to come along with on his motorcycle, so that he will marry her.

The said Rajesh took her to Navuduru and dropped her there and then

A.1 along with family friend Appalaraju came there. Later, A.1 took her to the house of his friend Chinnaiah and told her that he will marry her. On 31.07.2009 at about 4.00 P.M., A.1 came to the said house and told her that he will going to marry her. On 01.08.2009 A.1 married her and took her on his motorcycle and dropped her at Attili and went away and when her family members asked about the same, she narrated the entire things. When her father made a phone call to

A.1 and asked about the same, A.1 and A.3 came to their house along with one Advocate, and others came to her house and when her father questioned A.1, he told that he will discuss the issue later. On 01.08.2009 at about 10.00 P.M., A.1 to A.6 came to the house of

P.W.1, behaved high-handedly and threatened her to forget A.1 or else they will kill her stating that they will perform the marriage of A.1 with another woman so that they will receive dowry and they are not willing to perform her marriage with A.1.The matter was placed before the elders, the accused stated that they are not agreeing the marriage of P.w.1 with A.1 and when the elders tried to pacify the matter but the accused did not agree for their marriage. Later, P.W.1 went to

Veravasaram P.S., and presented a report and Police sent her to

Government Hospital, Tanuku for medical examination.

30. The evidence of P.W.1 prosecutrix is not believable because as per the evidence of P.W.1, herself and A.1 were in love when she was in

X Class and they used to roam around the village and the accused

No.1 used to visit her College and also Degree College. When she was studying II year Degree, A.1 had sexual intercourse with her forcibly under the guise of marriage and later, he continued the same. But, for all these years, she did not complained to anyone that A.1had sexual intercourse with her against her will.

31. If really, the intention of A.1 is to enjoy the prosecutrix against her will and wish, he would not evaded her from Intermediate to

Degree for about 3 to 4 years though they were fell in love while she was studying X Class itself. If the prosecutrix and A.1 had sexual 10 intercourse, it is only out of love and it is a consensual sex, otherwise, she would not go with A.1 whenever she called or whenever he visited and if his intention is to cheat her, there is no point in continue their relationship till she completed her P.G. Course.

32. As per the complaint of the prosecutrix, on 30.07.2009 they went to Jangareddigudem to get the marriage on 30.07.2009 and they made their arrangements and stated that the marriage would be performed in the Church on 01.08.2009. The version of prosecutrix that they went to night of 30.07.2009 they went to said place and making arrangements is not impossible and it is improbable.

33. So, A.1 had no intention to marry her. There is no point him to bring the prosecutrix. P.W.1 did not depose in her evidenced that on 30.07.2009 A.12 had sexual intercourse with her. The defence Counsel suggested to P.W.1 that when the father and brother of A.1 filed SC & ST Case against the father of P.W.1 and others, as a counter blast, they preferred this false report. It appears that when the accused filed the case against P.W.1 and others under the provisions of SC &

ST Act, on 06.08.2009 after eight days they preferred this report

before the Police as an afterthought as a counterblast to the SC & ST

Case.

34. As per the evidence of P.W.1, A.1 did Lab Technician and worked as Car Driver and he belongs to SC community, whereas,

P.W.1 belongs to B.C. community and she did P.G. and also M.B.A.

There is no possibility of general refusal of marriage alliance of P.W.1 who is a daughter of R.M.P. doctor and in all aspects in higher pedestrian.

35. If really the incident had occurred as deposed by P.w.1, immediately they would file the case against the accused since they already prepared the marriage of A.1 with some other girl and they would not kept quite for such a long period even after filing of criminal case against them.

36. The father of the prosecutrix is examined as P.W.2. he deposed that on 30.07.2009 during night time P.W.1 missing from the house 11 and on the next day she returned back to home and when they questioned, she stated that herself and A.1 loved with each other, A.1 took her to various places, had sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage with deceitful words. On 30.07.2009 in the midnight A.1 took her daughter to Jangareddigudem on his motorcycle stating that he will marry her in a Church, had intercourse with her, but without marrying her A.1 sent her back, when they questioned the accused refused to marry and when the matter placed before the elders they called the accused and advised accused to perform marriage of

P.W.1 with A.1. A.1 to A.6 demanded for dowry of Rs.1.0 Lakh and they agreed for the same. On 01.08.2009 at about 10.00 P.M., A.1 to

A.6 came to his house and trespassed into the house stating that to forgot the marriage of P.W.1 with A.1 and went away, as such, they again raised the issue before the elders , when they called the accused they sated that they already settled the marriage of A.1 with another woman and demanded Rs.1.00 Lakh cash as dowry to marry P.W.1 for which they agreed for the same but the accused did not turn up as such, PW1 presented the report before Veeravasaram P.S.

37. The evidence of P.W.2 is not at all believable because the prosecutrix turned up to house on 31.07.2009 night. When P.W.2 informed the matter to elders and when they convened a meeting what prevented him to inform the elders about the marriage of A.1 already fixed with other woman. As per the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the first instance when the accused agreed for dowry of Rs.1.00 Lakh before the elders, there is no point fort them to come to their house and made galata with them and threatened them with dire and deadly consequences.

38. P.W.3/K.Venkateswararao deposed that P.W.1 is his cousin. In the month of July, 2009 he came to know that A.1 and P.W.1 loved with each other and they were about to get married and later he came to know that A.1 was marrying another girl, on that the family members of P.W.1 made galata with A.1 family and P.W.1 also got registered a criminal case against the accused. The evidence of P.W.3 is only hearsay evidence.

12

39. The elders who are examined as P.Ws.4 and 6. But, they turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.

40. P.W.5/V.Chandra Sekhar deposed that he came to know that

P.w.1 and A.1 loved with each other and had physical contact and when P.W.1 and her family members demanded the accused to perform the marriage of P.W.1 with a.1, they refused to do so. On 01.08.2009 all the accused high handedly came to the house of accused, made a galata with the family of P.W.1, refused to perform the marriage of P.W.1 with A.1, and threatened them. The family members of P.W.1 put the matter before him and a panchayat was conducted at the open area of the house of P.W.4 on 07.08.2009.

Himself, Y.V. Rama Krishnam Raju, L.W.6, and P.W.4 were present and they advised the accused to perform the marriage of P.W.1 with

A.1 but they did not agree for the same as they settled the marriage of

A.1 with another girl and saying so, they went away and later P.W.1 approached to Police.

41. In the cross-examination, it is elicited that he is not a resident of

Konithiwada. A.2 registered a c criminal case against P.W.2, his son and others under the provisions of SC & ST Act.

42. P.W.7/N.S.Dikshithulu is the VRO in whose presence the C.I. of

Police inspected the scene of offence deposed that on 18.08.2009 the

C.I. of Palakollu requested him to act as mediator. C.I. of Police observed the house and took photographs and prepared observation report with them vide Ex.P.5. On 30.08.2009 the Police called him to

Police Station, where A.1 gave confessional statement vide Ex.P.6 and he reduced the same in writing.

43. It is well settled Law that the confession before the Police is inadmissible in evidence. Visiting of the scene of offence, preparing the observation report and rough sketch would not prove the case against the accused. So, the evidence of P.W.7 is not taken into consideration for any purpose.

44. P.W.8worked as Deputy Civil Surgeon, Tanuku Area Hospital.

She deposed that on 18.08.2009 at 4.00 P.M., she examined P.w.1 and 13 found no external injuries. Local examination Mons pubis well developed, pubic hair half inch old, tears of hymen at 3 and 7 ‘0’ clock positions. Vezina admitting two fingers easily. Swabs are not preserved as the victim says last intercourse is on 31.07.2009. She issued

Ex.P.7 medical certificate to that effect.

45. The evidence of P.W.8 doctor is quite contrary to the evidence of

P.W.1 victim woman. Though as per the evidence of P.W.8 doctor, the victim was habituated to sexual intercourse, it does not mean it is against her will and wish. Since, the alleged first instance occurred while she was studying Degree 2nd year and by then she was aged about 19 years old.

46. P.W.9 another doctor who examined A.1 deposed that he worked as Deputy Civil Surgeon, Bhimavaram C.H.C.On 29.08.2009 he examined A.1 and issued Ex.P.8 medical certificate and after receiving

R.F.S.L. Report, he issued Ex.P.9 report and Ex.P.10 is his final opinion. It is not the defence of A.1 that he is an impotent.

47. P.W.10 is the Head Constable. He deposed that on 17.08.2009 at about 6.00 P.M., P.w.1 came to P.S., and presented a report, basing on that he registered the Cr.No.90/2009 U/s.419, 376, 506(ii) r/w 34 of

IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act. Ex.P.11 is the FIR and submitted the same to the concerned.

48. P.W.11deposed that previously he worked as CI of Police,

Palakollu. On 17.08.2009 at about 6.00 P.M., P.W.10 informed about the registration of this case, then he took up further investigation in this case, secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements and added Sections 363 and 448 of IPC that on 18.08.2009 he along with staff proceeded to scene of offence situated at Konithivada Village of Veeravasram Mandal, observed the scene and prepared rough sketch vide Ex.P.12, examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and sent the victim to hospital for medical examination. On 19.08.2009 he arrested A.3 at

Nouduru junction, on 24.08.2009 A.1 and the remaining accused surrendered before the Court. He sent the material objects to R.F.S.L., 14 through Sub-Divisional Police Officer. After receipt of RFSL, he laid the charge sheet against the accused.

49. In the cross-examination of P.W.11 the defence counsel elicited that :

“I did not investigate when Pw1 studied 10th class and in which school she studied 10th class. I did not go to colleges where Pw1 did her intermediate and Degree and ascertained her educational status. I did not go to Hyderabad along with Pw1 and enquired about the alleged scene of offence. It is true that Pw1 did not state before me that while she was studying 10th class when she was going to the house of one Kandelli Bhima Rao of their village for tuition on the way, the house of A-1 is situated and A-1 used to tease her and used abusing language while she was proceeding to tuition. Pw1 did not state before me that A-1 when he was working as card river at Hyderabad when she was studying Degree whenever A-1 visits the village he used to come to her village and took her on motor cycle and moved together closely.

It is true that Pw1 did not state before me later while she was in 3rd year Degree, A-1 whenever came to village he used to took her outside and had forcible sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. It is true that Pw1 did not state before me A-1 also used to came to her house on the absence of inmates of the house and had forcible sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage and similarly she did not state before me that when she joined PG M.A. English in CSN college at Bhimavaram, A-1 used to visit the college now and then in the car and used to take her outside and had physical contact with her.

It is true that the accused did not state specifically, while

A-1 was residing in Kukutpally, Hyderabad A-1 used to come to her institute to take her in car to his room regularly and had forcible physical contact with her on the pretext of marriage.

15

It is true that Pw1 did not state before me while she was

Hyderabad she questioned A-1 about marriage,A-1 told her that he will convince his family members for our marriage. It is true that Pw1 did not state before me after she returned back to

Bhimavaram from Hyderabad to continue her PG and while she was studying 2nd year PG, A-1 used to come to her house and had physical contact with her on the pretext of marriage. It is true that Pw1 did not state before me that during phone conversation with A-1 she asked him about his marriage proposal with another girl by his family members and he accepted the said version that she questioned A-1 has to why they were marking marriage proposals with another as he had already physical relation with her since long time on the pretext of marriage then she forced him for marriage and informed him that she would place the matter before elders.

It is true that Pw1 did not state before me that on 30.07.2009 at 11.00 PM A-1 told her over phone that he would send his friend Rajesh and asked him to come along with him to

Nouduru that then A-1 would marry her that the said Rajesh came to her house on motor cycle Hero Honda Passion Plus and took her to Nouduru and dropped her there she found A-1 along with his family friend Appalaraju.

It is true that Pw1 did not state before me A-1 took her to the house of his friend Chinnaiah @ Chinni and told that he would marry her on 01.08.2009 at Church and would make arrangements for the marriage that on 31.07.2009 at about 4.00

PM he came to the house of Chinnaiah told that he would go to their respective houses, his family members phoned him that he would convince his family members and marry her on 01.08.2009, then he took her on his motor cycle and dropped her at Attili and went away to his house and asked her to go to house in auto.

16

It is true that Pw1 did not state before me on the same day night her father phoned to A-1 and questioned him why he took his daughter then A-1 came to her house along with A-3 one

Bhima Rao, Advocate,Lw5 Katta Rajeswara Rao, Lw4 Apparao then her father questioned A-1, A-1 why he took her with him then A-1 told before them that they would discuss the issue later. It is true that Pw1 did not state before me A-1 to A-6 stated that he would perform of A-1 with another woman and they also received dowry from the family members of said woman and they are not willing to performed the marriage with her and made galata with them and went away thereafter the village elders approached the village elders of Undi. It is true that Pw1 did not state before me that the elders tried convince the accused as A-1 spoiled her life and they would dowry amount which was given by other party initially they agreed for marriage they continued marriage arrangements of A-1 with another woman.

I do not know whether A-1 to A-6 belongs to SC community. I did not remember whether A-2 the mother of A-1 preferred report against Pw2 and his son and other two members under the provisions of S.Cs., & S.Ts., (POA) Act and other penal provisions in Cr.No.91/2009 under Section 448,323,506 r/w 34

IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of S.Cs., & S.Ts., (POA) Act.

It is true that Pw2 did not state before me that himself and his wife along went to the house of Accused and questioned about not performing the marriage of Pw1 with A-1. It is true Pw2 did not state before me that he agreed to pay Rs.1 lakh as a dowry to marry Pw1 and accused did not agree for it. It is true

Pw5 did not state before me that he came to know about relationship of Pw1 and A-1 through villagers. It is true Pw5 did not state before me that on the following day Pw1 and her family members approached him.

It is true that Pw5 did not state before me that the panchayat was having in open area at the house of YVS 17

Raju/Pw4 and Y.V. Siva Rama Krishna Raju present in the panchayat. It is true that in Ex.P5 observation report of scene of offence the name of scribe is not found. I secured Pw7 mediator through my SI of police. I did not secure any document to show that the scene of offence house belongs to Pw2. I cannot say whether I sent Pw1 to medical examination through woman constable or male or female constable. It is true in Ex.P6 the signatures of accused, witnesses or me are not found.”

50. The learned defense counsel relied upon a decision reported in

Criminal Appeal No.264 of 2020 arising out of SLP (Criminal)

No.3780/2018 Between Santoshi Prasad @ Santosh Kumar Vs.

The State of Bihar, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that when there were previous disputes, and cases pending the solitary testimony of prosecutrix is not sufficient to convict the accused.

51. He relied upon another decision reported in 2023 Live Law (S.C.) 66 in Criminal Appeal No.257/2023 arising out of SPL (Criminal)

No.8586 of 23017 Between Naim Ahamed Vs. State wherein the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that promising of marriage, breaching of

said promise cannot say that it is a cheating.

52. So, in the case on hand, the said decisions are squarely applicable. Hence, the evidence of prosecutrix is not believable.

53. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused

No.1 that A.1 with false promise of marriage had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix and alter refused to marry her and cheated her and A.1 had sexual intercourse with the victim against her will and wish under the guise of marriage, further, A.1, A.3 to A.6 criminally trespassed in to the house of P.W.1, abused them and threatened them with dire consequences.

54. POINT No.4:-Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

the accused for the offences punishable U/s. 376(2)(n), 323,

448, 506 and 417 of IPCbeyond all reasonable doubts or not?.

In view of my findings to Point Nos.1 to 3, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the Accused for the offence punishable U/s.

18 376(2)(n), 323, 448, 506 and 417 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

55. As a result, the Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable U/s. 376(2)(n), 323, 448, 506 and 417 of IPC. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under

Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Case against A.2 is abated as died.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by

in open Court on this the 08 th day of August, 2023.

Sd/- M. Suneel Kumar,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

FAC/Special Judge for trial of offences against Woman cum V Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 K.Padmaja.

P.W.2 K.Brahmanudu.

P.W.3 K.Venkateswararao.

P.W.4 Y.V.Subrahmanyaraju.

P.W.5 V.Chandra Sekhar.

P.W.6 S.Subbaraju.

P.W.7 N.S.Dikshtulu.

P.W.8 Dr.K.Satyavathi.

P.W.9 Dr.S.Anand Kumar.

P.W.10 M.Ramakrishna.

P.W.11 J.Seetharamaswami.

FOR DEFENCE : - NONE -.

19

DOCUMETNS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 05.05.2022 Report of P.W.1.

Ex.P.2 23.09.2022 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.3 07.10.2022 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.4 04.01.2023 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P.5 04.01.2023 Scene observation report.

Ex.P.6 04.01.2023 Confessional statement.

Ex.P.7 21.03.2023 Mediators report.

Ex.P.8 31.03.2023 Medical certificate.

Ex.P.9 31.03.2023 R.F.S.L. Report.

Ex.P.10 31.03.2023 Final opinion.

Ex.P.11 31.03.2023 FIR.

Ex.P.12 11.04.2023 Rough sketch.

FOR DEFENCE :- -N I L-.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-N I L –

Sd/- M. Suneel Kumar,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

FAC/Special Judge for trial of offences against Woman cum V Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).

2. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.

4. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, West Godavari, Eluru.

20

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN

S.C.No.217/2017 c/w. S.C.No.117/2018 ON THE FILE OF

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES AGAINST WOMAN

CUM V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST

GODAVARI, ELURU, UNDER RULE 354 OF THE CRIMINAL RULES

OF PRACTICE.

1. Sessions Case : S.C.No.217/2017 c/w.S.C.No.117/2018. No.

2. Name of the : Veeravasaram Police Station, Police Station Cr.No.90/2009. and Crime No.

3. Description of : 1.Undrajavarapu Kiran s/o Mangadhararao, the Accused: 28 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

2.UndrajavarapuVajramma w/o Mangadhararao, 58 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

3.UndrajavarapuChallarao s/o Mangadhararao, 35 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

4.Kommara Vijaya Kumari w/o David Raju, 40 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

5.Kommara David Raju s/o George, 45 years, Arundatiya, Alamuru Village of Penamantra Mandal.

6.ChatlaMariyamma w/o Raju, 45 years, Arundatiya, Church Road, Konithivada Village of Veeravasaram Mandal.

4. Date of Offence : Prior to 17.08.2009

Complaint : 17.08.2009.

Apprehension : -- Release on bail : --

Commitment : -- 21

Commencement : 05.05.2022. of trial Close of Trial : 11.04.2023.

Sentence or : 08.08.2023. Order

As a result, the Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 are acquitted U/s.235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable U/s. 376(2)(n), 323, 448, 506 and 417 of IPC. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1, 3 to 6 shall remain in force for a period of six months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Case against A.2 is abated as died.

5. Explanation for the delay.:No avoidable delay.

Sd/- M. Suneel Kumar,

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

Dt.08.08.2023.

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

FAC/Special Judge for trial of offences against Woman cum V Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, West Godavari, Eluru.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI :: ELURU.

PRESENT: SRI M.SUNEEL KUMAR,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge.

Tuesday, this the 23rdday of January, 2024.

SC. ST. SESSIONS CASE No.14/2017.

(Crime No.222/2015 of Pedapadu Police Station).

Complainant:Sub-DivisionalPoliceOfficer,EluruSub Division, Eluru.

Represented by:Additional Public Prosecutor.

Accused:Bezawada Veera Venkata Siva Sankar @ Sivakumar s/o late Koteswararao, 24 years, Gowda, owner cum driver if Indica Vista Car bearing No.AP 37 TV 1777, Hanuman Junction,BapulapaduMandal,Krishna District.

Represented by:SriB.V.KrishnaReddy,Counselfor Accused.

This case has come on this the 04thday of December, 2023 for hearing and disposal before me and, after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.TheSub-DivisionalPoliceOfficer, EluruSub Division,

Eluru, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offenses alleged U/s.302 and 201 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T.

(P.O.A.) Act, 1989 in Crime No.222/2015 of Pedapadu Police Station.

2

2.Thebrieffactsoftheprosecutioncasearethatthe deceased Allada Durga w/o late Narasimham (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') is the daughter of the defacto complainant/ P.W.1

P.Jhansi. The marriage of the deceased was performed about eight years back, and they were blessed with a son, and he died. Since then, she used to reside with P.W.1 (mother) and P.W.3 (sister).

3.The deceased had an acquaintance with the accused, and it led to a live-in relationship. They used to quarrel now and then. On 13.12.2015 at 6.00 AM, P.W.1 went to Hanuman Junction market to sell vegetables, and P.W.3 went to sell the Sarees, and the deceased remained in the house. At about 11.30 AM, when P.W.1 was going home, on the way, the accused came opposite to her in a hurried manner;shewenthomeandfoundherdaughterinstanding possession, and the Saree was around her neck. Then P.W.1 made the deceased lie on the Cot. By then, she had died.

4.Theaccusedwasunmarried;heintendedtomarry someone and to get rid of her deceased daughter; he killed her by pressing her throat and closing her nose and mouth or by beating her.

5.Then P.W.1 went to the Police Station and preferred the report. P.W.11 registered the same as a case in Crime No.222/2015 for the offenses U/s. 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of S.C.

& S.T. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989 of Pedapadu Police Station and submitted

Ex.P.10 F.I.R. to the Court and copies to the concerned officials.

6.TheSuperintendentofPoliceappointedP.W.14as

Investigation Officer as per Ex.P.12 proceedings, and she took up the investigation, visited the scene of the offense, observed it in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.18, and seized the Saree, Chunny, and broken bangle pieces under the cover of Ex.P.10 mediators report. She 3 photographed the scene of offense through P.W.7 and conducted an inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediatorsPW.8,P.W.9,L.W.20,andL.W.21andrecordedthe statements of P.Ws.1 to 7 and L.Ws.2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and

P.W.10.

7.P.W.14 arrested the accused on 20.12.2015 and seized the motorcycle under cover of the mediator report in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.18. Recorded the statement, sent him to Court for remand and also sent the dead body for postmortem examination.

8.P.W.15 took up the investigation as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, examined the Tahsildar, and recorded the statement. After receipt of the caste certificates and Postmortem

Report and after completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

9.This Court took cognizance of the cases U/s. 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989 against the Accused. Issued summons to Accused.

10.On the appearance of the accused, copies of case records were furnished to him as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C. The Accused was examined U/s.228 (2) of Cr.P.C. Charges U/s. 302 and 201 of

I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989, have been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial schedule was fixed, and summons was issued to the witness.

11.In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.17 and M.Os.1 to 4.

4

12.TheevidenceofP.Raja,P.Joji,A.V.S.Ramprasad,

S.Padmaja, P.Sanyasi Rao, P.Satyaathi, P.Gopi, D.Subrahmanyam,

K.JhansiRani,G.J.S.S.Kumar,K.GopalaKrishnaand

G.Venkateswararao (L.Ws.2, 4, 7, 10, 13, 14, 20, 21, 23, 24 and 27) were gave up by the learned A.P.P. The evidence of O.Kumari and S.

Seethamahalakshmi (L.Ws.9 and 11) was closed by this Court as they died.

13.After the closure of prosecution side evidence, the Accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. so as to enable him to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the evidence.

14.The prosecution and defense counsels have been heard on theevidenceadducedbytheprosecution.Thedefensecounsel reported no defense evidence.

15.The arguments of A.P.P. and defense counsel have been heard.

16.Now, the points for determination are: -

1) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused throttled and smothered the deceased and killed her and showed it as suicide by tying Saree around her neck on 13.12.2015.?.

2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the

Accused for the offenses punishable U/s. 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(x) of S.C. & S.T.

(P.O.A.) Act, 1989, beyond all reasonable doubts?.

5

17. POINT No.1:- Whether the prosecution proved that the

accused throttled and smothered the deceased and killed her and

showed it as suicide by tying Saree around her neck on 13.12.2015.?.

To bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 and 201 of IPC the prosecution should prove that the accused throttled the deceased on 13.12.2015 and placed the Saree around the neck and tied to Saree as if it is death by hanging. To prove the same the prosecution examined P.W.1, the mother of the deceased; P.W.2, the sister of the deceased; the maternal aunt of the deceased; P.W.3; and the neighbors, P.Ws.4 to 6.

18.P.W.1 deposed that she is a vegetable vendor, belongs to

S.C. Mala Community, and the deceased is her daughter. The accused belongs to the Gowda community. The deceased is a widow, staying with her for three years before her death. The accused used to have a live-inrelationshipwiththedeceased.Thedeceasedaskedthe accused to marry her, and he refused on the grounds that they belonged to different communities. The deceased used to quarrel with the accused, and she informed the same to her. The accused also used to quarrel with the deceased that he would marry some other girl. On 13.12.2015, at about 6.00 AM, she went out to sell vegetables, and

P.W.3 also went out to sell Sarees, and the deceased was alone in the house. At about 11.30 AM, she returned home, and then the accused came out from her house and went hurriedly. Then she found her daughter Durga in standing possession with a Saree attached to her neck attached to a pillar-like hanging. By the time she entered the house, the deceased had died, and then she cried, holding her. On hearing her cries, the neighbors came and kept her on the floor. Then, she preferred to report to the Police the accused.

6

19.As seen Ex.P.1 report, it was given at 3.30 P.M., wherein it was mentioned that the accused and the deceased are in a live-in relationship, and they used to quarrel with each other. On 13.12.2015 at about 6.00 A.M., P.W.1 went to Hanuman Junction fruit vending market to sell vegetables; by that time, the deceased was alone in the house, and at about 11.30 A.M., when she was returning to her house, on the way, the deceased came opposite to her in a hurried. When

P.W.1 came to the house and saw the deceased was killed, the body was found in a standing position with a Saree attached to the cradle to her neck linked with the Pillar of the roof hanging. Since the accused is not a married person, he thought to marry to get rid of the deceased, pressed her throat and nose, and killed her by smothering her. Hence,

P.W.1 gave a report to the Police to take action.

20.P.W.1 gave Ex. P1 report at 3.30 P.M., on 13.12.2015, and it was sent to the Court on 14.12.2015 at 12.15 P.M. By then, the postmortem Examination had not been conducted, and it commenced only at 1.55 P.M. There is no opportunity for P.W.1 to say that the accused murdered the deceased and project it as it is a suicide. The

PostmortemExaminationreportwasmarkedasEx.P.9;itwas mentioned that the deceased would appear to have died due to

Asphyxia, which may be due to smothering. It was also mentioned in the Postmortem Report that the mandible was present on the opening of the neck, the hyoid bone was normal, and no blood clots were present in the trachea. On opening the cross-section of all major vessels, i.e., lungs, liver, spleen, both kidneys are congested.

21.P.W.10 The doctor deposed that on examination, he found (1) Bruising over and around the neck. (2) Bleeding from right nostril present. (3) Nail snatch marks are present in the front right ear. (4) 7

Thereisbruisingjustbelowtherightmandible.Inthecross- examination, he deposed that the possibility of hanging is completely ruled out because of the non-visibility of the ligature mark. While cross-examining P.W.1, the learned defense counsel suggested that the deceased used to suffer from abdomen pain, and she took her to

Dr.D.RamaChandraraoonseveraloccasions;assuch,she committed suicide by hanging herself due to unbearable abdomen pain. The evidence of the doctor completely ruled out the said suggestion because of the non-appearance of ligature marks on the neck, and the hyoid bone was normal. In case of death due to hanging, a ligature mark would be found on the neck, and the hyoid bone would be fractured, which is absent in this case. Absolutely, there is no probable evidence to say that the deceased committed suicide.

22.P.W.2,Thesisterofthedeceased,deposedthaton 13.12.2015, at about 11.30 A.M., her mother P.W.1 rang up and informed that his sister died, then she rushed to Hanuman Junction along with Lw7. Then she asked her mother what had happened, and she said that at about 6.00 A.M., she went to the market to sell vegetables, and P.W.3 also went to the market to sell Sarees, and the deceased was alone in the house. She further informed that at about 11.30 AM, she was going home; at that time, the accused came opposite to her in perturbed condition, and she went to the house and found the deceased was in a standing position and died and Saree was around the neck of the deceased like hanging. Then she raised cries, and neighbors came and laid her on the floor. According to P.W.2, the accused used to visit their house for her sister. The deceased informed her over the phone that the accused refused to marry her as he belongs to the Gowda community and she belongs to the S.C.

8

Community, and in that regard, a quarrel was going on. The accused was responsible for the death of the Deceased.

23.While cross-examining P.W.2, it was suggested that there is no live-in relationship between the accused and the deceased, and they foisted a false case against the accused at the instance of L.W.7

A.V.S. Ramprasad and other village elders, which is not at all probable.

Ifreallythedeceasedcommittedsuicide,thereisnopointin implicatingtheaccusedinthiscasebyattributingalive-in relationship to the deceased person. As the deceased is the daughter and sister of P.Ws.1 and 2. Such attributions would certainly bring disrespect to the family members of P.W.1, and for the political differences, nobody would venture to attribute a live-in relationship to the deceased person. If, really, someone murdered the deceased, there is no point leaving the real culprit and implicating the accused in this case. The evidence of P.W1 and P.W.2 cannot be doubted and discarded. Their evidence is corroborated by the neighbors.

24.P.W.3,whoisP.W.1'ssister-in-law,corroboratedthe evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4, who is the neighbor of the deceased, deposed that the accused used to visit the house of Pw1 for the deceased. In the year 2015, at about 10.30 or 11.30 A.M., P.W.1 was weeping loudly; he went to the house of P.W.1 and found that Durga had died and then Pw.1 informed them that the person who was coming for Durga killed her. Pw1 also informed that the deceased

Durga asked the accused to marry her, and he refused to marry her and killed her if she were alive; it is not possible for him to marry any other girl.

25.P.W.5 and 6 turned hostile and deposed that P.W.1 used to sell vegetables and the deceased used to reside with her mother P.w.1, 9 and his house is situated four houses after the house of P.W.1. On that day, he went to coolie works and on return, in the evening, he came to know that the deceased died by hanging. P.W.6 turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.

26.P.W.7 The Photographer deposed that on 13.12.2015, at about 4.00 PM, the S.I. of Police, Pedapadu, called him over the phone and informed him that photos had to be shot at Hanuman Nagar,

Epuru. Accordingly, he went to the house of Pw.1, and as per the instructions of S.D.P.O., Smt. K.G.V.Saritha shot Ex.P4 consisting of 12 photographs, and Ex.P5 is the C.D. of photographs.

27.P.W.8 is the V.R.O. He deposed that on 13.12.2015, at about 4.00 PM, the S.D.P.O. called him over the phone; accordingly, he went to Hanuman Nagar, Epuru, along with L.W.18 to the scene of offense situated in the house of Pw1. The S.D.P.O. inspected the scene of offense in their presence and seized M.O.1 light green chutney,

M.O.2 Yellow color bangle pieces, M.O.3 Black color Saree, and he prepared Ex.P.6 scene observation report. On 20.12.2015, at about 6.00 A.M., the Police arrested the accused at Santha Market. he confessed to the offense, stating that he was a private driver, he developed an acquaintance with deceased Durga, and he is having a live-in relationship with deceased Durga, the deceased used to compel the accused to marry her as such he wanted to get rid of her and killed her. On 13.12.2015, at about 10.30 A.M., he went to the house of the deceased by parking his motorcycle at a distance; when the deceased was talking with him, he closed her mouth and nose by sitting on her chest, then he placed a Saree to her neck and projected it as a suicide, then he came out from the house. Then he met his friend/Peerla Ramakrishna and informed him about his killing of the 10

Durga. Again, he came back, took his motorcycle, and went away. He prepared his confessional statement that the Police seized motorcycles bearing No. A.P. 16 CG 1132. Ex.P7 extracted from mediators report

dated 20.12.2015. M.O.4 is the motorcycle produced by the accused.

28.P.W.9 who conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 13.12.2015, at about 5.00 PM, at the house of P.W.1 he conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of village elders, Police, and V.R.O./Pw8. In the inquest, it was opined that the accused killed the deceased as he was having a relationship with her. Ex.P8 is the inquest report.

29.P.W.11 is the S.I. of Police, who registered the F.I.R. has deposed that on 13.12.2015, at 3.30 PM, Pw1 came to the Police

Station along with Pw2 and presented a written report; based on that, he registered the same as a case in Cr. No.222/2015 under Section 302, 201 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs., & S.Ts., (P.O.A.) Act and submitted Ex.P10 FIR to the Court and copies to all officials concerned.

The defense counsel suggested to P.W.11 with regard to the dispatch of F.I.R. on the next morning at 12.15 PM.

30.P.W.12, a resident of Hanuman Junction of Pedapadu

Mandal, went to see the dead body of the deceased and came to know that the deceased loved the accused, and he refused to marry her. As such, she died. P.W.13 deposed in his chief that he had a kirana shop beside the road and the house of P.W.1. In the year 2015, the accused came to his hop, and he saw him while going through the lane and on 11.12.2015,P.W.1informedhimthattheaccusedhangedher daughter and killed her. The defence counsel vehemently argued and contended that the evidence of PW1 is not believable and its with developments to bring the accused to the last seen theory. But there is 11 no force in the said argument .since Pw1 in her report itself mentioned that the accused came opposite to her in hurried manner. PW13 also deposed that on the said day he came to his shop and had purchased a pan. Though he turned hostile to that extent his evidence cannot be discarded.

31.P.W.14, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer who investigated the case deposed that the Superintendent of Police, Eluru, appointed herasinvestigationofficeraspertheEx.P12proceedingsvide

C.No.5196/C.2/ AUTH/S.C.S.T./2015. She visited the scene of the offense along with Pw11 at Epuru village of Pedapadu Mandal. She observed the scene of offence, which is the house of Pw1 situated at

Epuru village. She prepared a scene observation report in the presence of mediators, i.e., Pw.8 and Lw18 P.Gopi, and drawn Ex.P13 rough sketch and collected material objects, i.e., the cloth used for screening of evidence showing that the deceased committed suicide, the silk

Saree/M.O.3, Chunney/ M.O.1 and broken pieces of bangles/M.O.2 already marked as M.O.s 1 to 3. She conducted an inquest over the dead body of the dead body of deceased before the mediators. After completion of the inquest, she sent the dead body to P.M. examination at the Government Hospital, Eluru. On the same day, at the scene of the offense, she examined Pws1 to 3 and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C.

statements.

32.She further deposed that on 20.12.2015, she arrested the accused at Epuru Village in a cattle shandy market along with a bike and seized. The accused confessed the offense in the presence of mediators.On24.12.2015,sheagainvisitedEpuruVillageof

Hanuman Nagar, secured the presence of the neighbors of the scene, i.e., Pws4 to 6, and recorded their 161 Cr.P.C. statements. On 12 27.12.2015, she received a P.M. Certificate from Pw10, examined him, and recorded his 161 Cr.P.C. statement. On 06.01.2016, she was transferred, and her successor carried out further investigation.

33.The evidence of P.W.14 is corroborated with the evidence of other witnesses in all the material aspects, such as her visiting the scene of the offense, observing the same, conducting an inquest and seizure of material objects, and sending the dead body for postmortem examination.

34.P.W.15 is the another Investigation Officer deposed that on 08.01.2016hereceivedEx.P.14authorizationlettervide

C.No.703/Auth/S.C.s., & S.Ts., (P.O.A.) Act/2016 dated 8.1.2016 and also received C.D. file and received certificates of P.w.1 and the deceased vide Exs.P.15 and P.16 and also received the caste certificate of the accused vide Ex.P.17 and after completion of investigation, he laid the charge sheet.

35.ThedefenseCounselvehementlycontendedthatthe prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offenses punishable U/s. 302 and 201 of I.P.C. and Sections 3(2)(v) of

S.C. & S.T. (P.O.A.) Act, 1989, and there is no evidence to prove that the accused has a live-in relationship with the deceased as on the date of the incident and on the alleged date of murder, he went to the house of the deceased and returned from the house after the death of the deceased and the 164 Cr.P.C., Statements of the witnesses are not recorded which are the mandatory.

36.The learned defense counsel relied upon a decision in

Doongar Singh and others Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018(1) A.L.T. (Criminal) 90 (S.C.) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the statements of eyewitnesses should invariably be recorded 13

U/s.164 Cr.P.C. and the said directions were given while confirming the conviction of several accused and it only find fault with the procedure followed the trial Court without examining the eyewitnesses but did not set aside the conviction because of non-recording of 164

Cr.P.C. Statements. So, the said Judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case on hand, the trial was conducted, andtherewerenounnecessaryadjournmentsoncethetrial commenced.

37.The defense counsel relied upon another decision reported in 2018(1) A.L.T. (Criminal) 3 (A.P.) between Mandadapu Srinivasa

Rao and another Vs. State of A.P., represented by P.P., with regard to 319 of Cr.P.C., and regarding prima facie finding while deciding I.A., and showing the accused based on the mere presence at the place of offense is not at all sufficient to array him as an accused. But, the said decision is also not applicable to the facts of the present case.

38.The learned defense counsel also relied upon another decision reported in 2022(2) L.S.33 (S.C.) between Jafarudheen &

Others Vs. State of Kerala with regard to delay in sending FIR and recoding of 161 Cr.P.C. statements. But, the said decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Even in the said decision, the conviction with regard to some of the accused was upheld and only the conviction with regard to A.1 to A.13 only was set aside. In the case on hand, there is no inordinate delay in giving the report to Police.

In this case, the report was given at 3.30 P.M., on 13.12.2015 and it was sent toCourt on14.12.2015at 12.15 P.M.Henceinthe circumstances stated above the prosecution proved that the accused throttled and smothered the deceased and killed her and showed it as 14 suicide by tying Saree around her neck on 13.12.2015 at the house of

PW1.

39.POINT No.2:- Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

the Accused for the offences punishable U/s. 302 and 201 of IPC and

Section 3(2)(x) of SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, beyond all reasonable

doubts?.

In view of my findings to point No.1, the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/s.302 and 201 of IPC and

Section3(2)(v)ofS.Cs.,&S.Ts.,(P.O.A.)Act,1989,beyonda reasonable doubt.

40.As a result, the Accused/Bezawada Veera Venkata Siva

Sankar @ Sivakumar is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs., &

S.Ts., (P.O.A.) Act, 1989. Accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Grade-I Stenographer directly on Computer Device, corrected and pronounced by me in

the open Court, this the 23 rd day of January, 2024.

Sd/- M.Suneel Kumar,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

41.Accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence to be imposed against him, he pleaded innocence, having 80 years old aged mother, he is the sole bread winner of the family, a false case is foisted against him and prayed to take lenient view.

42.Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, theaccuseddoesnotdeserveanylesserpunishmentthanlife 15 imprisonment. Though capital punishment is one of the alternative punishments for the offence of this nature, this case does not come under the category of rarest of rare cases. Therefore, the other alternativepunishmenti.e.,sentencingtheaccusedtoLife

Imprisonment is the only justifiable punishment that can be imposed on the accused.

43.The accused is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for

Life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of S.C., & S.T., (POA) Act, 1989, and he is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for the said offence, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer

Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months.

44.The Accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for 3 (Three) years for the offence punishable under

Section 201 of IPC, and he is further sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for thesaid offence, in default of payment of fine amount, he shallsuffer Simple

Imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months.

45.Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand periodalreadyundergonebytheaccusedfrom20.12.2015to 10.03.2016 shall be set off as contemplated under Section 428 of

Cr.P.C.

46.The accused is informed as to his right to prefer appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by this Court before the

Hon’ble High Court.

16 47.The accused further asked as to whether he got means to engage Counsel to prefer appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, he informed he has got means to engage Counsel to defend hiscase

before the Hon’ble High Court.

48.M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., Chunny, broken bangle pieces and Silk

Saree shall be destroyed and M.O.4 Discovery Motorcycle bearing No.

AP 16 CG 1132 shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over.

Sd/- M.Suneel Kumar,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

LIST OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

P.W.1P.Jhansi.To speak the facts of FIR and her presence at the time of inquest.

P.W.2Y.Suneetha.Bloodrelativeofthedeceased. Witness to speak to the facts of occurrence and their presence at the time of inquest.

P.W.3I.Nirmala.Blood relative of the deceased. Witness to speak to the facts of occurrence and their presence at the time of inquest.

P.W.4Ch.Venkayamma.Neighbouring witness at the scene of offence and to speak to the facts of occurrence and her witnessing the scene of offence. P.W.5K.Bala Kumari.Neighbouring witness at the scene of offence and to speak to the facts of occurrence and her witnessing the scene of offence.

17

P.W.6M.Venkateswararao.Neighbouring witness at the scene of offence and to speak to the facts of occurrence and her witnessing the scene of offence.

P.W.7B.Srinivasarao.To exhibit the photos taken by him.

P.W.8Sk.Syed Sahib.To exhibit the scene observation report and confession made by the accused at the time of arrest of the accused drafted by him.

P.W.9K.Nagendera Babu.Toexhibittheinquestreport drafted by them along with L.W.17 and to speak its facts.

P.W.10Dr.A.P.A.R.S.Srinivas.To exhibit the P.M. Report of the deceased and to give his opinion.

P.W.11M.Vijay Kumar.To speak the facts of his registering the F.I.R., and his assistance to I.Os.

P.W.12P.Satyavathi.Neighbouring witness at the scene of offence and to speak to the facts of occurrence and her witnessing the scene of offence.

P.W.13P.Durgarao.Bloodrelativeofthedeceased. Witness to speak to the facts of occurrence and their presence at the time of inquest.

P.W.14K.G.V.Saritha.To speak about the facts of her investigation,arrestingthe accused.

P.W.15G.Venkateswararao.Tospeaktothefactsofhis investigationandfilingofthe charge sheet.

LIST OF DEFENCE WITNESSES

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

-NONE -

18

LIST OF COURT WITNESSES

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

-NONE-

LIST OF DOCUMETNS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

Ex.P.101.03.2023Report to Police.

Ex.P.206.03.2023161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.306.03.2023161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P.407.03.2023Photographs.

Ex.P.507.03.2023One C.D.

Ex.P.607.03.2023Scene observation report.

Ex.P.707.03.2023Mediators report.

Ex.P.807.03.2023Inquest Report.

Ex.P.909.03.2023Postmortem Report.

Ex.P.1009.03.2023F.I.R.

Ex.P.1124.03.2023161 Cr.P.C., statement.

Ex.P.1204.04.2023Proceedings.

Ex.P.1304.04.2023Rough sketch.

Ex.P.1418.04.2023Proceedings.

Ex.P.1518.04.2023Caste Certificate.

Ex.P.1618.04.2023Caste Certificate.

Ex.P.1718.04.2023Caste Certificate.

LIST OF DOCUMETNS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE

-N I L -

MATERIAL OBJECTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF PROSECUTION

19

M.O.1:Chunny.

M.O.2:Broken bangle pieces.

M.O.3:Silk Saree.

M.O.4:Discovery Motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 CG 1132.

Sd/- M.Suneel Kumar,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Copies to:-

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).

2. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.

4. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.

5. The Additional Public Prosecutor, West Godavari, Eluru.

TABULAR FORM ANNEXED TO THE JUDGMENT IN S.C.No.14/2017 ON

THE FILE OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs

(POA) ACT, 1989-CUM- VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU UNDER RULE 354 OF THE CRIMINAL

RULES OF PRACTICE.

20

Date of: Offence:13.12.2015.

F.I.R.:13.12.2015.

Charge sheet:14.06.2016. Framing of charges:29.10.2021.

Commencement of evidence:01.03.2023.

Judgment reserved:04.12.2023.

Judgment:23.01.2024.

Sentencing order, if any:

As a result, the Accused/Bezawada Veera Venkata Siva Sankar @

Sivakumar is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs., & S.Ts., (P.O.A.) Act, 1989.

Accordingly he is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

The accused is sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of S.C., &

S.T., (POA) Act, 1989,and he is further sentenced to pay fine of

Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) for thesaid offence, in default of payment of fine amount, he shallsuffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months.

The Accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (Three) years for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, and he is further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand only) for thesaid offence, in default of payment of fine amount, he shall suffer Simple Imprisonment for a period of 3 (Three) months.

Both the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period already undergone by the accused from 20.12.2015 to 10.03.2016 shall be set off as contemplated under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

21

The accused is informed as to his right to prefer appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by this Court before the Hon’ble High

Court.

The accused further asked as to whether he got means to engage

Counsel to prefer appeal before the Hon’ble High Court, he informed he has got means to engage Counsel to defend hiscase before the Hon’ble High

Court.

M.Os.1 to 3 i.e., Chunny, broken bangle pieces and Silk Saree shall be destroyed and M.O.4 Discovery Motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 CG 1132 shall be confiscated to the State after appeal time is over.

(Total Fine amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) not paid.

Accused Details

RankName ofDate ofDate ofOffencesWhetherSentencePeriod of of thethearrestreleasechargedacquittedimposeddetention accusaccusedon bailwithor convictedundergone edduring trial for purpose of section 428 Cr.P.C. Imprisonment

1.Bezawa-20.12.201508.09.2016U/s.302,Convictedfor Life for theFrom da201 IPCfor theoffence20.12.2015 andoffencespunishableTo Veera SectionpunishableU/s. 302 of10.03.2016. Venkata 3(2)(v)ofU/s.302,IPC r/w. Siva S.Cs., &201 IPCSection Sankar S.Ts.,and Section3(2)(v) of @ (P.O.A.)3(2)(v)ofS.Cs., & Sivaku- Act, 1989.S.Cs.,&S.Ts., (P.O.A.) mar S.Ts.,Act, 1989 (P.O.A.) Act, 1989

Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 (Three) years for the offence 22 punishable U/s. 201 of IPC.

Sd/- M.Suneel Kumar,

SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASESSPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIIIUNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT CUM VIII

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU. Dt.23.01.2024.

JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs & STs (POA) ACT, 1989-CUM-VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND

SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI:: ELURU

PRESENT: SRI M.SUNEEL KUMAR,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-

VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Eluru

Friday, the 31st day of January, 2025

SPL. SESSIONS CASE No.77/2018

Name of the Accused : 1. Kantamsetti Laxmana Rao, and particulars S/o.Venkatesulu @ Peda Venkanna, 31 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

2. Kantamsetti Venkatesulu @ Peda Venkanna, S/o.Laxmaiah, 56 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

3. Mudunuri Nageswara Rao @ Nagu, S/o.Ramakrishna, 44 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

4. Chowtapalli Satyanarayana (Deleted)

5. Sunkara Yedukondalu S/o.Adinarayana, 32 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

6. Balam Chandra Rao @ Chandraiah, S/o.Rattaiah, 39 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

7. Balam Chandra Sekhar @ Boby, S/o.Dharma Raju, 34 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

8. Pathi Ramesh @ Boby, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, 32 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

9. Pathi Venkateswara Rao @ Venkatesu, S/o.Rama Rao, 61 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

10. Pathi Srinivasu @ Vasu, S/o.Krishna, 25 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

2

11. Kondeti Babu Mahesh @ Babu Mohan, S/o.Subrahmanyam, 25 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

12. Kantamsetti Krishna, S/o.Durga Rao, 48 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

13. Kantamsetti Sreenu, S/o.Surya Rao, 41 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

14. Nagireddi Venkata Sairam @ Sairam, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, 27 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

15. Nagireddi Veera Venkata Surya Chandra Durga Prasad @ Prasad, S/o.Venkateswara Rao, 29 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

16. Kodi Naga Venkata Subrahmanyam @ Kolla Nagu (Died).

17. Maddala Nageswara Rao @ Maddi Nageswara Rao, S/o.Rama Rao @ Ramana, 45 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

18. Cheekatla Satish, S/o.Nageswari Rao, 27 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

19. Kantamsetti Uma Maheswara Rao @ Uma, S/o.Suribabu, 25 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

20. Sunkara Vinay (Deleted).

21. Velamarthi Bhanu Srinivas @ Kanna, S/o.Venkata Krishna, 30 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

22. Gonimadathala Venkata Durga Rao @ Pandu, S/o.Satyam, 42 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

23. Saladi Padda Raju @ Peddi Raju, S/o.Subba Rao, 46 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

24. Nagireddi Siva Ramakrishna, S/o.Krishna, 27 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

3

25. Kalla Prasad @ Kolla Prasad, S/o.Sreeramulu, 44 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

26. Chowtupalli Nageswara Rao, s/o.Satyanarayana (late), 31 years Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

27. Kantamsetti Ramalaxmanulu (Deleted).

28. Chowtupalli Rambabu, S/o.Surya- chandra Rao, 41 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal.

29. Yanala Satyanarayana @ Yanadi Sathiyya, S/o.late Tatabbai, 61 years, Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal. Charges : Under Sections 354(A), 354, 143, 324, 506 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against A-1; Sections 354, 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against A-2 and A-3; Sections 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against A-5 to A-15, A-17 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28 and A-29.

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the judge : Found not guilty.

Sentence or Order : As a result, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty of the charges U/Secs. 354(A), 354, 143, 324, 506 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, Accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty of the charges U/Secs. 354, 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and Accused Nos.5 to 15, 17 to 19, 21 to 26, A-28 and A-29 are found not guilty of the 4 charges U/Secs. 354, 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges. The case against A-16 was abated and A-4, A-20, A-27 were deleted, since they died. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 15, 17 to 19, 21 to 26, 28 and 29 shall be in force for 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Counsel for the : Spl. Public Prosecutor, W.G. District, Eluru. prosecution Counsel for defence : Sri E.Srinivasa Babu, Legal Aid Counsel.

This case is coming on this day the 31.01.2025 for hearing and after hearing both sides and after perusing the material on record, having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kovvur Sub-Division, Kovvur filed the Charge Sheet against the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 354(2)(D), 352, 323, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and

Sections 3(1)(r)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, in Crime No.90/2016 of Kovvur Rural Police Station.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that P.Ws.1, 9, 10 and

L.W.7/Bonthu Rama Swamy are the defacto complainants and residents of Kapu, Kapavaram Village, Kovvur Mandal and they belong to SC Mala Community.

3. The Kapu community and SC Community people are living in the same locality in Simhapuripet, Kapavaram Village; there are some ill feelings existed between the two groups for simple things; the Kapu 5 community people used to sit on the cement bench located near the public water tap, near the house of L.W.15/Ainaparthi Raju in the village; the SC Community women used to go to the above public water tap for taking drinking water; recently, whenever P.W.1 went to the public tap, A-1 teasing her by asking her to fulfill his sexual desire and also started touching her with sexual intention.

4. On 23-9-2016 at about 7.00 P.M., A-1 repeated the above abusive acts against P.W.1 and that she informed the same to her family members; on that, her mother in law P.W.5 along with P.W.6,

L.W.24/Ampolu Appayamma, L.W.25/Gollapalli Sudha Rani and

L.W.26/Perumalla Narasamma and others went to the house of A-1 and picked up a quarrel with him, beat him and his parents with hands and abused them in filthy language. Then A-1 to A-3 had abused P.W.5,

P.W.6, L.W.24/Ampolu Appayamma, L.W.25/Gollapalli Sudha Rani and

L.W.26/Perumalla Narasamma in filthy language by touching their caste name.

5. On that on 24-9-2016 at about 11.00 P.M., A-1 to A-3 A-5 to

A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28 and A-29 along with some other unknown had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks and stones, went to the houses of P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.10 and L.W.7/Bonthu

Rama Swamy, pelted stones against their houses, caused damage to the panchayat water tap in the house of P.W.2, beat P.W.5 and P.W.6 with stones, caused simple injuries, abused them by touching their caste name, and threatened to kill them on the pretext that, their family members went to the house of A-1 on the night of 23-9-2016 and beat him; then P.W.4 intervened and admonished the accused and drove them out of the scene of offence. On 25-9-2016 after consulting their caste elders, the defacto complainants presented a report to the police.

6

6. Based on the report given by defacto complainants, L.W.32/Sub

Inspector of Police, Kovvur Rural P.S., registered the same as a case in

Crime No.90/2016 U/Sections 143, 147, 354(2)(D), 352, 323, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, on 25-09-2016, and submitted original

FIR to the Court and copies to the officials concerned.

7. As per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, West

Godavari District, Eluru, vide C.No.821/C2/Auth/SC.ST/2016, dated 25.9.2016, L.W.33/Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kovvur took up investigation on 26-9-2016.

8. During the course of investigation, he inspected the scene of offencein the presence of L.W.28/Sheik Abdul Nazeem,

L.W.29/Akkabathula Atchibabu, seized stones under cover of scene observation report, prepared rough sketches, examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and L.Ws.7, 8, 14 to 27 and recorded their statements.

9. On 26-9-2016, he arrested A-1 to A-3 and A-6 to A-10, A-12,

A-14, A-15, A-18, A-21 and A-23 and sent them to Court for remand and released on bail. As per the orders of the Hon’ble High Court of

Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and Andhra

Pradesh vide Crl.P.No.17150 of 2016, he served notices to the

Accused Nos.5, 11, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24 to 26, 28 and 29 under

Section 41-A Cr.P.C. Since the accusation not proved the charges not framed against A-4, A-20 and A-27. After receipt of wound certificates and caste certificates, and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet against A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28 and

A-29.

10. This Court took cognizance of the case U/Sections 143, 147, 354, 323, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs &

STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to them as required U/s.207 7 of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, A-16 died and the case against A-16 was abated. Later, the A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-15, A-17 to A-19, A-21 to A-26,

A-28 and A-29 were examined U/s. 228(2) of Cr.P.C., Charges

U/Sections 354(A), 354, 143, 324, 506 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against A-1; Sections 354, 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against

A-2 and A-3; Sections 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against

A-5 to A-15, A-17 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28 and A-29, have been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu. The Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was adjourned for fixing of trial schedule and issued trial schedule.

11. In order to bring home the guilt of the Accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.14.

12. The evidence of B.Rama Swamy, B.Ramulu, K.Laxmi, A.Raju,

T.Rambabu, B.Krupamani, K.Suryanarayana, T.Hanumantha Rao,

G.Laxmana Rao, J.Subba Rao, Sk.Khasim Saheb, S.Appa Rao,

A.Appayamma, G.Sudha Rani, P.Narasamma, B.Ramesh, Sk.Abdul

Nazeem, A.Atchibabu, K.Vijaya Kumar, Dr.K.Sarada Prasoona,

M.Soma Sundara Rao, N.Venkateswara Rao (L.Ws.7, 8, 14 to 33) was given up by the learned Spl. P.P., in view of the evidence spoken by

P.Ws.1 to 11.

13. Since there is no incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Section 313 Cr.P.C., examination of the

Accused is dispensed with.

14. Heard the prosecution and defence. The defence counsel reported no defence evidence.

15. Now, the points for determination are : - 8

1) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused No.1 repeatedly harassed P.W.1, who belongs to SC Community, by intentionally touching her with sexual nature since prior to and on 23-9-2016 at Simhapuri Peta, Kapavaram

Village?

2) Whether the prosecution proved that A-1 to A-3 assaulted and used criminal force against P.W.5, Ampolu Appayamma, Gollapalli Sudha Rani and Penumalla Narasamma, who belongs to SC Community on 23-9-2016 at the house of A-1?

3) Whether A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-15, A-17 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28, A-29 formed into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object, voluntarily caused hurt to P.W.5 and P.W.6, who belong to SC Community by means of with stones on 24- 9-2016 at 11.00 p.m., at Simhapuri Peta Kapavaram

Village?

4) Whether the prosecution proved that A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-15, A-17 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28, A-29 formed into an unlawful assembly in prosecution of common object, threatened P.W.1 and others, who belongs to SC Community and intentionally insulted and intimated with intent to humiliate them, who belongs to S.C. Community, and abused them by touching their caste name in public place within public view?

5) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of A-1 to A-3, A-5 to 9

A-15, A-17 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28, A-29 for the offences punishable Under Sections 354(A), 354, 143, 324, 506 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, beyond reasonable doubt?

16. POINT Nos.1 to 4 :-

To bring home the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354(A), 354, 143, 324, 506 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against A-1; Sections 354, 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against

A-2 and A-3; Sections 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against

A-5 to A-15, A-17 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28 and A-29, the prosecution should prove that whenever P.W.1 went to the public tap to fetch water,

A-1 teasing her by asking her to fulfill his sexual desire and also started touching her with sexual intention, On 23-9-2016 at about 7.00 P.M.,

A-1 repeated the above abusive acts against P.W.1 and that she informed the same to her family members; on that, her mother in law

P.W.5 along with P.W.6 and others went to the house of A-1 and A-1 to

A-3 had abused P.W.5, P.W.6 and others in filthy language by touching their caste name, and on 24-9-2016 at about 11.00 P.M., A-1 to A-3 A-5 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28 and A-29 along with some other unknown had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks and stones, went to the houses of P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.10 and

L.W.7/Bonthu Rama Swamy, pelted stones against their houses, caused damage to the panchayat water tap in the house of P.W.2, beat

P.W.5 and P.W.6 with stones, caused simple injuries, abused them by 10 touching their caste name, and threatened to kill them, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11.

17. P.W.1 is the victim/defacto complainant. She deposed that on 26-9-2016 at about 9.00 p.m., 150 persons came upon their house and taken away one Pustulathadu (gold chain) and cell phone; she did not identify the said persons and she did not know why they came upon their house; a constable came and obtained her signature on white paper; Ex.P-1 is her first signature and she did not know the contents of report dated 25-9-2016 and police did not examine her.

18. P.Ws.5 and 6 are the injured/victims. They deposed that they did not know anything about the case and police did not examine them.

P.W.6 further deposed that she did not receive any injuries and did not go to Government Hospital, Kovvur.

19. P.W.9 is the alleged eye witness/defacto complainant. He deposed that Ex.P-10 is his signature; the elders obtained his signature about 8 years back on white paper; he does not know the contents of report dated 25-9-2016 and police did not examine him.

20. P.W.10 is the alleged eye witness/defacto complainant. He deposed that Ex.P-12 is his signature; the elders obtained his signature about 9 years back on white paper; he does not know the contents of report dated 25-9-2016 and police did not examine him

21. P.Ws.2 to 4 and 7, 8, 11 are the alleged eye witnesses, but they turned hostile and stated that they did not know anything about the case and Police did not examine them.

22. As stated above, since the very victims/P.Ws.1, 5, 6 and P.Ws.9 and 10 who are the main and material witness did not support the prosecution case, they were declared as hostile. The learned Spl.P.P., 11 during the course of cross-examination, placed the entire prosecution case, they denied the same and their alleged 161 Cr.P.C., statements are marked as Exs.P.2, P.6, P.7, P.11, P.13.

23. Admittedly, P.Ws. 2 to 4 and 7, 8, 11 also did not support the prosecution case. The learned Spl.P.P., during the course of cross- examination, placed the entire prosecution case, they denied the same and their alleged 161 Cr.P.C. statements are marked as Exs.P.3, P.4,

P.5, P.8, P.9, P.14.

24. In view of the evidence spoken by P.W.1 to P.W.11 the learned

Spl.P.P., has given up the evidence of remaining witnesses as no purpose would be served if they are examined.

25. There is no evidence to show against the accused to show that on whenever P.W.1 went to the public tap to fetch water, A-1 used to teas her by asking her to fulfill his sexual desire and also started touching her with sexual intention, and A-1 to A-3 had abused P.W.5,

P.W.6 and others in filthy language by touching their caste name, and on 24-9-2016 at about 11.00 P.M., A-1 to A-3 A-5 to A-19, A-21 to A-26,

A-28 and A-29 along with some other unknown hand formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, armed with sticks and stones, went to the houses of P.W.1, P.W.9, P.W.10 and others pelted stones against their houses, caused damage to the panchayat water tap in the house of P.W.2, beat P.W.5 and P.W.6 with stones, caused simple injuries, abused them by touching their caste name, and threatened to kill them.

26. POINT No.5:- Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of

A-1 to A-3, A-5 to A-15, A-17 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28, A-29 for

the offences punishable Under Sections 354(A), 354, 143, 324, 506

of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs

(POA) Amendment Act, 2015, beyond reasonable doubt?

12

Hence, in the circumstances stated above, the prosecution failed to prove that A-1 repeated harassed P.W.1 sexually and abused her filthy language, A-1 to A-3 abused and assaulted P.Ws.5 and others by using criminal force and A-1 to A-3 A-5 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28 and A-29 had formed into an unlawful assembly and went to the house of P.W.5 and others, pelted stones and caused injuries to P.Ws.5 and 6 and threatened them with their consequences, and abused them in filthy language by touching their caste, and the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of the accused for the offences punishable U/ Sections 354(A), 354, 143, 324, 506 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against A-1;

Sections 354, 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against A-2 and

A-3; Sections 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, against A-5 to

A-15, A-17 to A-19, A-21 to A-26, A-28 and A-29, beyond reasonable doubts.

27. As a result, the Accused No.1 is found not guilty of the charges

U/Secs. 354(A), 354, 143, 324, 506 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015,

Accused Nos.2 and 3 are found not guilty of the charges U/Secs. 354, 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and Accused Nos.5 to 15, 17 to 19, 21 to 26, A-28 and A-29 are found not guilty of the charges

U/Secs. 354, 143, 324, 506 r/w.149 of IPC., and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said charges. The case against A-16 was abated and A-4, A-20, A-27 were deleted, since they died. The bail bonds of the Accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 to 15, 17 to 19, 13 21 to 26, 28 and 29 shall be in force for 6 months as contemplated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Ty ped to my dictation by Grade-I Stenographer directly on Computer Device, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 31 st day of January, 2025.

Sd/- M.Suneel Kumar,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT

CUM VIII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT &

SESSIONS JUDGE, WEST GODAVARI,

ELURU.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

P.W.1 G.Lakshmi.

P.W.2 B.Baby.

P.W.3 B.Lakshmi.

P.W.4 V.Venkateswara Rao.

P.W.5 G.Rama Lakshmi.

P.W.6 N.Rama Lakshmi.

P.W.7 G.Suma.

P.W.8 B.Nageswara Rao.

P.W.9 B.Mahesh.

P.W.10 N.Laxman Rao.

P.W.11 P.Nagamma.

FOR DEFENCE : - NONE -.

DOCUMETNS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1 25-9-2016 First signature of PW1 on the report.

14

Ex.P.2 26-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P.3 26-9-2016161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P.4 26-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P.5 26-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P.6 26-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P.7 26-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P.8 27-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7.

Ex.P.9 26-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.8.

Ex.P.10 25-9-2016 Signature of PW9 on the report.

Ex.P.11 27-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9.

Ex.P.12 25-9-2016 Signature of PW10 on the report.

Ex.P.13 27-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10.

Ex.P.14 27-9-2016 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.11.

FOR DEFENCE :- -N I L-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- N I L –

Sd/- M.Suneel Kumar,

SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA)

ACT CUM VIII ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

WEST GODAVARI, ELURU.

Copies to:

1. The Registrar (Judl.) High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapdu, Guntur District (through C.D).

2. The Director of Prosecution, Hyderabad.

3. The District Collector, West Godavari District, Eluru.

4. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari, Eluru.

5. The Special Public Prosecutor, West Godavari, Eluru.