Sri. Mohd Abdul Rafi

1 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

S.Cs. AND S.Ts. (P.O.A.) ACT-CUM-VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KHAMMAM

Friday, this the 18th day of October, 2019

Present: Sri Mohd. Abdul Rafi, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs., and S.Ts., (P.O.A.) Act-cum-VII Addl., District and Sessions Judge, Khammam.

SESSIONS CASE No.80 OF 2017

1.Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Paloncha.

2.Name of the accused:Badarla Nageswar Rao, S/o.Ammaiah, age:50yrs,caste:MunnuruKapu, occu:Chicken shop, r/o.Jagannadhapuram opposite of Peddammathalli temple, Paloncha (M)

3.Crime Number :28 of 2016 of P.S., Paloncha Rural

4.Section of law:u/Secs.323, 306 of IPC, Sec.3(1)(r) (s), Sec.3(2)(v) and Sec.3(2)(va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

5.Prosecution conducted by:Sri R.Upender Rao, Spl. Public Prosecutor.

6.Defence conducted by:Sri K.Babji, Advocate for the Accused.

7.Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty.

8.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

9.Result: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.323, 306 of IPC, Sec.3(1)(r)(s), Sec.3(2)(v) and Sec.3(2)(va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts (P.O.A.) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from this day. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 11-10-2019 in the presence of Sri R.Upender Rao, Special Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri Kilaru Babji, Advocate for the Accused; upon perusing material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

J U D G M E N T

1.The State represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Paloncha has laid a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.28 of 2016 of P.S.,

Paloncha Rural, charged u/Secs.323, 306 of IPC, Sec.3(1)(r) (s), Sec.3(2) (v),

Sec.3(2)(va) of S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, with the following allegations:

(i).That the deceased-Dharavath Naresh is a resident of

Jagannadhapuram village of Paloncha Mandal and he used to eke out his livelihood by means of running an Auto. Dharavath Swapna (P.W.9) is the wife of the deceased and she used to go for coolie work. The deceased by name, Dharavath Naresh belongs to Schedule Tribe-Lambada community.

The accused is a resident of Jagannadhapuram village of Paloncha Mandal and he belongs to Munnuru Kapu community, which is other than

Schedule caste or Schedule Tribe.

(ii).About three years ago prior to the lodging of the report, P.W.9 on the request of the accused went to his agricultural land to attend coolie work. Then, the accused harassed her by catching hold of her tuft, forced to outrage her modesty under the pretext that her husband/deceased was a drunkard, he would keep her as a concubine. P.W.9 after returning to her house informed the matter to her husband i.e. the deceased-

Dharavath Naresh and lodge a report against the accused in P.S. Paloncha

Rural on 8.3.2014 at 8.00 p.m., which is the subject matter of Cr.No.30 of 2014 u/Secs.354-A (1)(ii) (D), 509, 294(b) of IPC and the said case was charged on 16.6.2014 vide CC No.304 of 2014.In this regard, the accused used to influence the deceased by name, Dharavath Naresh in several means and came forwarded to give Rs.20,000/- to the deceased, if 3 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 he would compromise in the case lodged against him, but the deceased did not heed for the request made by the accused, for which, the accused bore grudge against the deceased.

(iii).On 6.2.2016 during morning at about 10.00 a.m., the accused sent

Bhukya Lalu (P.W.8) to the house of the deceased to bring the deceased to settle his case. Accordingly, P.W.8 went to the house of the deceased and took him to the house of the accused. There, the accused threatened the deceased to effect compromise in the case lodged against him, for which, he would give Rs.20,000/-, otherwise, he would kill him and his wife and abused him by taking his caste name as “Lambadi Lanja Kodaka”. He would give Rs.15,000/- to discard his wife, then he would tie wed knots to

P.W.9 and keep her as his concubine and beat the deceased.

(iv).Due to humiliation and shame, the deceased consumed alcohol and came to his house in intoxication at 5-00 p.m. on 6.2.2016, for which, P.W.9 questioned the deceased as to where, he went, but the deceased did not reply, upon which, P.W.1 left the house under the pretext of going to Fair

Price shop and returned to the house at 6-00 p.m. and found her husband hanging to the iron rod of the house with saree, upon which, she made hues and cries. On hearing her cries, Dharavath Bodi (P.W.2) and

Dharavath Veeranna (P.W.3) rushed to the spot and all of them released the body of the deceased from hanging and shifted the deceased to the hospital of Dr. B.Lalu (P.W.18), who examined and declared that the deceased has died.

(v).On the basis of report lodged by P.W.9, a case in Cr.No.28 of2016 u/Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. was registered at P.S., Paloncha Rural and investigated into. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Paloncha Rural by name, 4 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

B.Satyanarayana (P.W.19) visited the scene of offence, drafted rough sketch for the scene of offence and incorporated in the crime details form by securing the presence of the mediators namely, Dharmasoth Krishna (P.W.13) and Nunavath Bhaskar (P.W.14). Further, the said Sub-Inspector of Police held Inquest over the dead body of the deceased by securing the presence of the mediators namely, Dharavath Bhadru (P.W.12) and Bhukya

Naresh (L.W.14) and later, he got conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased through the Medical Officer, Government Hospital,

Paloncha and completed all formalities as per the norms.

(vi).On 24.2.2016, P.W.19 had filed a requisition before the II Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class Court, Kothagudem with a request to record the

statement of Dharavath Swapna (P.W.9) u/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, on 5.3.2016, the learned Judl. Magistrate has recorded the statement of

P.W.9 u/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. P.W.9 in her statement recorded u/Sec.164 of

Cr.P.C. stated that the accused was responsible for the death of her husband. Basing on the said statement of P.W.9 recorded u/Sec.164 of

Cr.P.C., P.W.19 filed an Alteration Memo before the Magistrate court concerned with a prayer to alter the Section of Law from Sec.174 of Cr.P.C.

and read section of law as Sec.306 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and forwarded the CD file to the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Kothagudem by name, B.Surender Rao (P.W.20) for conducting investigation. Accordingly, on 1-4-2016 P.W.20 took up further investigation in this case and verified the investigation done by P.W.19 and proceeded to the scene of offence i.e., the house of P.W.9, secured the presence of the witnesses, re-examined them and recorded their statements.

5 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

(vii). Further, V.Srinivasulu, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Paloncha (P.W.17) was authorized for conducting further investigation in this case by the Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Bhadradri Kothagudem dt.31-1-2017. Accordingly, P.W.17 took up the investigation in this case.

While the investigation was in progress, on 15.7.2017 at 1-00 p.m., on reliable information, the accused was arrested at his house at

Jagannadhapuram. After interrogation, P.W.17 effected the arrest of the accused and got him remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure. The Medical Officer, Government Headquarters Hospital,

Paloncha by name, Dr.M.Mukkanteswara Rao (P.W.15), who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, issued a detailed

Postmortem Examination Report, wherein, he opined that the cause of death of the deceased due to Cordio Respiratory arrest, due to “asphyxia” secondary hanging. Hence, the charge.

2.This case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Secs.323, 306 of IPC, Sec.3(1)(r)(s), Sec.3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 against the Accused. On appearance of the Accused

before this court, all the case documents, on which, the prosecution has

relied upon, were furnished to him, as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

3. On 8.7.2009 the accused was examined u/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein, he denied the commission of offence, whereupon, charges u/Secs.323, 306 of IPC, Sec.3(1)

(r) (s), Sec.3(2)(v) and Sec.3(2)(va) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in

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

6 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

4.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.21. The prosecution has given up the evidence of

Bhukya Naresh (LW.14).

5.On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, for which, he denied the incriminating circumstances, did not prefer to adduce any oral or documentary evidence on his behalf.

6. Heard the Arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.

7. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable u/Secs. 323, 306 of IPC, Sec.3(1)(r)(s) , Sec.3(2)(v) and Sec.3(2)(va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, beyond all reasonable doubts?

8.The prosecution story, in brief, is that:

Due to humiliation made by the accused, the deceased-Dharavath

Naresh felt ashamed and under frustration committed suicide by hanging himself in his house in the absence of the inmates of the house and as such, the accused is liable for punishment, for the offences punishable u/Secs.323, 506 of IPC, Sec.3(1)(r)(s), Sec.3(2)(v) and Sec.3(2)(va) of S.Cs and

S.Ts (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. On the other hand, the defence of accused is one of the total denial of the prosecution case.

9.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 20 witnesses, out of them, the parents of the deceased Dharavath Ganya and Dharavath Bodi were examined as P.Ws.1 7 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 and 2 respectively. Three elder brothers of the deceased namely,

Dharavath Veeranna, Dharavath Ramesh and Dharavath Suresh were examined as P.Ws.3 to 5 respectively. The friends of the deceased namely,

Pottapinjara Jyothi Basu, Adapala Nagendra Babu and Palapolu Prathap

Naik were examined as P.Ws.6, 7 and 10 respectively, Bhukya Lalu, to whom the accused sent to the house of the deceased was examined as P.W.8, wife of the deceased namely, Dharavath Swapna, who is the defacto complainant in this case, was examined as P.W.9, the Private Photographer namely, Yeruva Srinivasa Rao, who has taken the photographs of the dead body of the deceased was examined as P.W.11. Dharavath Bhadru, who is said to be mediator at the time of conducting Inquest over the dead body of the deceased was examined as P.W.12, Dharmasoth Krishna and

Nunavath Bhaskar, who are said to be present at the time of preparing

Crime Details Form were examined as P.Ws.13 and 14 respectively.

Dr.M.Mukkanteswar Rao, Medical Superintendent, Area Hospital, Paloncha, who conducted Postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased was examined as P.W.15, B.Ganya, the then Tahsildar, Paloncha

Mandal, who issued Exs.P.16 and P.17 caste certificates of the deceased and the accused was examined as P.W.16, V.Srinivasulu, the then Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Paloncha, who conducted part of the investigation in this case and filed a charge sheet against the accused was examined as P.W.17.

Dr. Banoth Lalu, who examined the deceased and declared him as died was examined as P.W.18, B.Satyanarayana the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Paloncha Rural, who conducted investigation in this case at the first instance was examined as P.W.19, B.Surender Rao, the then Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Kothagudem, who conducted part of the investigation in this case was examined as P.W.20.

8 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

10.In support of oral evidence, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the following documents. Exs.P.1 to P.8 are respectively Sec.161 Cr.P.C.

statements of P.Ws.1 to 8 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.9 is the report, dt.6.2.2017 lodged by P.W.9 to the police concerned, Ex.P.10 is the

Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 recorded by the police concerned,

Ex.P.11 are 4 positive photographs along with CD, Ex.P.12 is the Inquest report, dt.7.2.2016, Ex.P.13 is the signature of P.W.13 on Crime Details form, dt.7.2.2016, Ex.P.14 is the signature of P.W.14 on Crime Details form, dt.7.2.2016, Ex.P.15 is the Postmortem Examination report issued by

P.W.17, Ex.P.16 is the Caste certificate of P.W.9, dt.3.3.2017 issued by

P.W.16, Ex.P.17 is the caste certificate of the accused, dt.3.3.2017 issued by

P.W.16, Ex.P.18 is the xerox copy of common proceedings of the

Superintendent of the Police, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, dt.31-1-2017,

Ex.P.19 is the First Information Report issued by P.W.19, Ex.P.20 is the Crime

Details Form, dt.7.2.2016, Ex.P.21 is Section Alteration Memo.

11.In order to establish the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 20, among them, P.W.9 is the main witness on whose testimony, the entire case of the prosecution is relied upon. In addition to the oral testimony of P.Ws.1 to20, the prosecution is seeking to rely upon the documentary evidence. The oral evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 20 and the documentary evidence is to be appreciated by the court. It is to be first seen, whether the deceased Dharavath Naresh is a member of Schedule Tribe, where as the accused is other than the member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are the parents of the deceased Dharavath Naresh, in their evidence stated that they belong 9 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 to Schedule Tribe-Lambada community and the accused belongs to B.C.-

Telaga.

12.The aforesaid part of testimony made by P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.3 to 5, who are the elder brothers of the deceased

Dharavath Naresh. P.W.16, who is the then Tahsildar, Paloncha Mandal, in his evidence stated that on 01-04-2016, he received a requisition from Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem, with a request to issue caste certificates of P.W.9 and the accused. Accordingly, the said requisition was endorsed to the VRO/MRI concerned for conducting enquiry and submit a report. The VRO concerned after conducting enquiry submitted his report and the same was verified by the MRI concerned and on the basis of the said report, he issued caste certificates of P.W.9 and the accused stating that P.W.9 belongs to Schedule Tribe-Lambada and theaccused belongs to

B.C-D Munnuru Kapu. Ex.P.16 is the caste certificate of P.W.9, dt.03-03-2017 issued by him. Ex.P.17 is the Caste certificate of accused, dt.3.3.2017 issued by him.

13.There is no dispute from the side of the accused with regard to his caste and the caste of the deceased Dharavath Naresh. A perusal of oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 read together with the evidence of P.W.16, coupled with Exs.P.16 and P.17, it clinchingly and collusively establishes that the deceased-Dharavath Naresh belongs to SC-Lambada, where as the accused belongs to B.C-Munnuru Kapu. Having considered the material available on record, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution has established that the deceased Dharavath Naresh is ST-Lambada and the accused belongs to

B.C.-Munnuru Kapu.

10 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

14.It is to be next seen, whether the accused insulted and humiliated the deceased Naresh, in the public view and the deceased was beaten by him and due to the frustration, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself in his house. In order to prove the same, the prosecution has examined the parents and brothers of the deceased Dharavath Naresh, as

P.Ws.1 to 5. The friends of the deceased as P.Ws.6,7 and 10 and the wife of the deceased as P.W.9. P.W.9, who is the defacto complainant, in her evidence stated that her parents performed her marriage with the

Deceased-Dharavath Naresh in the year, 2015 and her parents native place is Keshavapuram village of Paloncha Mandal. After the marriage with -

Dharavath Naresh, she joined his society at Jagannadhapuram village of

Paloncha Mandal.

15.P.W.9 in her evidence further stated that in the year 2016, on one day, she went to coolie work in the agricultural lands of the accused along with other coolies. While attending coolie work, the other coolies who were at some distance from her by attending their works, at about 11-00 a.m., the accused called her and asked her to sprinkle the pesticide to the Eucalyptus plants. Accordingly, she was sprinkling the pesticides to Eucalyptus plants, in the meantime, the accused came to her, told her that her deceased husband was drunkard and he was inefficient and he would provide whatever, she wants, for which, she has to satisfy his sexual lust and saying so, the accused caught hold of her right hand with intend to outrage her modesty. Then, due to fear of the accused, she left the place and informed to other coolies with regard to the act of the accused. After attending the coolie work, on the same day evening, she returned back to the house and informed the said incident to her deceased husband, who approached the 11 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 accused along with her and questioned the behaviour of the accused towards her, but the accused abused her husband in filthy language referring his caste and then they approached the police, Paloncha and lodged a report narrating the incident and the police concerned registered a case and arrested the accused in that case.

16.P.W.9, in her evidence further stated that after two days of the above incident, the accused sent one Lalu (P.W.8) to her husband, namely,

Dharavath Naresh and the said Lalu told her husband that the accused would provide some amount to her for entering into compromise in the afore said criminal case and on the request of P.W.8, her husband went to the house of the accused and return back to the house in the evening.

Then, she enquired her husband what was happened, for which, her husband informed her that the accused threatened him with dire consequences and also he was beaten by the accused. Then she told her husband nothing would be happened, saying so, she left the house and went to the ration shop for purchasing Rice. At about 6-00p.m., when she return back to the house and when she entered into the house, found her husband committed suicide by hanging himself. On seeing the same, she raised hues and cries, then , her mother-in-law (P.W.2) and her brother-in- law by name, Dharavath Veeranna (P.W.3) came into the house and then they un-tied the Saree, brought down the deceased, laid on the floor and by that time her husband is alive. Thereafter, they made a Dharna in their village, as her husband committed suicide, due to the acts of the accused and on the same day, she went to the Police Station, Paloncha Rural, where, she lodged Ex.P.9/Report on what circumstances, her husband has died.

12 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

17.As seen from Ex.P.9-Report, the incident took place on 6.2.2016 at 6.00 p.m., and the same was reported to the police on the same day at 9-30 p.m., within few hours. Ex.P.9-Report does not disclose, who is responsible for the death of the deceased-Dharavath Naresh and as such, Ex.P.9-Report was registered u/Sec.174 of Cr.P.C., by the police, Paloncha Rural as the deceased Dharavath Naresh has died under suspicious circumstances. P.W.9 in her report stated that while her husband namely, Dharavath Naresh was at the house on 6-2-2016 at 10.00 a.m., P.W.8-Bhukya Lalu came to their house and took her husband along with him and later, on the same day, during evening at about 5-00 p.m. the deceased Dharavath Naresh return back to the house in drunken condition and she enquired where he gone, but the deceased did not inform anything to her and then, P.W.9 left the house to the Ration shop and return back to the house and found her husband has committed suicide by hanging to the iron pipe.

18.Ex.P.9-Report lodged by P.W.9 to the police concerned does not reveal anywhere the cause of death of the deceased-Dharavath Naresh and the persons, who are responsible for his death and even it does not reveal that the deceased-Dharavath Naresh informed P.W.9 that the accused insisted him to withdraw the criminal case, for which, he offerred

Rs.20,000/- and further, the accused offered Rs.50,000/-, if he allowed his wife to keep her as concubine and he refused the said proposal of the accused, then he was beaten by the accused indiscriminately by abusing him, by referring his caste name.

19.It is assumed for a moment for the Arguments sake, that the claim of

P.W.9 that the accused offered a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the deceased for withdrawing the earlier criminal case pending against the accused, when 13 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 the deceased declined the said proposal and then the accused came forwarded with another proposal to offer Rs.50,000/- to allow him to keep his wife as his concubine. When the deceased refused the said proposal of the accused, then the deceased was beaten by the accused indiscriminately, insulted and humiliated him in the public view and then the deceased returned back to the house and informed the same to P.W.9, is true and correct, in such a case, P.W.9 would have mentioned the same in her Ex.P.9 -

Report, which was lodged to the police concerned on 6.2.2016, but P.W.9 did not mention her aforesaid claim in Ex.P.9-Report.

20.Further, P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased-Dharavath Naresh, in his evidence stated that about 5 years ago, he performed the marriage of the deceased Naresh with Swapna (P.W.9). After 3 years of the said marriage, his son has died as his daughter-in-law namely, Swapna (P.W.9) has developed extra marital life with one Naveen. His deceased son found his wife Swapna in the company of Naveen twice or thrice and in that regard, there were disputes in between his son and daughter-in-law namely,

Swapna (P.W.9). About two years ago, as usual, in the morning hours,.he went to the field of Shyamala for attending coolie work, along with his wife (P.W.2) and after attending coolie work, when they return back to the house, in the evening, at that time, they came to know that their youngest son by name, Dharavath Naresh has committed suicide by hanging himself to the beam of the roof of their house. His daughter-in-law (P.W.9), when she entered into the house and found his youngest son was hanging to the

Beam, then their son un-tied and removed the body of the deceased -

Dharavath Naresh from the Beam, laid the body on the floor and he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Paloncha and on his way to the 14 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 hospital, the deceased has died. His daughter in law Swapna (P.W.9) is responsible for the death of his youngest son namely, Naresh.

21.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, he stated that his daughter in law by name, Swapna (P.W.9) developed extra marital affair with one Dharavath

Naresh and due to mental agony, hisyounger son namely, Naresh has died by committing suicide and that his daughter-in-law (P.W.9) is responsible for the death of his younger son namely, Dharavath Naresh.

22.P.W.2, who is the mother of the decesaed-Dharavath Naresh, in her evidence stated in the similar manner as that of P.W.1. Further, P.Ws.3 to 5, who are the elder brothers of the deceased-Dharavath Naresh, in their evidence, stated in the similar manner as that of P.Ws.1 and 2. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, they did not speak any incriminating circumstances against the accused and thereby, they did not support the prosecution case.

23.Therefore, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor declared P.Ws.1 to 5 as hostile subjected to cross examine them. Even after their cross- examination, nothing incriminating was elicited as against the accused.

P.Ws.1 to 5, who gave incriminating statements against the accused before the police concerned when they were examined u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., turned hostile while they were giving evidence before the court. At the instance of the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, P.Ws.1 to 5 were declared as hostile and their Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.5 respectively.

24.P.W.6, who is one of the friends of the deceased, in his evidence stated that about 1 ½ years back, the deceased-Naresh has committed 15 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 suicide by hanging himself in his house. He does not know the reason for his death. P.Ws.7 and 10, who are also friends of the deceased-Naresh, stated in the similar manner as that of P.W.6 and thereby, P.Ws.6, 7 and 10 did not support the prosecution case. P.W.8, to whom the accused said to be sent to the deceased-Naresh to bring him, in his evidence stated that he does not know the reason for the death of the deceased and thereby, he did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor declared P.Ws.6 to 8 and 10 as hostile, subjected to cross- examine them. Even after their cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited as against the accused. P.Ws.6 to 8 and 10, who gave incriminating statements against the accused before the police, when they were examined u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. turned hostile while they were giving evidence before the court. At the instance of the learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor, P.Ws.6 to 8 and 10 were declared as hostile and their Sec.161

Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P.6 to P.8 and P.10 respectively.

25.P.W.11, who is the private photographer, in his evidence stated that he is having private photo studio under the name and style of Vamsi Photo

Studio, Paloncha. In the year, 2016, on one day, he was called by the police,

Paloncha Rural, to the house of the deceased at Jagannadhapuram village at Paloncha Mandal, where on the request of the police concerned, he has taken photographs of the dead body of the deceased and also covering the scene of offence. He handed over the positive photographs along with CD (Ex.P.11) to the police concerned. As seen from the evidence of P.W.11, his evidence is useful only for the limited purpose of taking the photographs of the dead body of the deceased.

16 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

26.P.W.15, who is the Medical Officer said to be conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased, in his evidence stated that on 7.2.2016, at about 10.30 a.m., he received a requisition from the

Station House Officer, P.S. Paloncha Rural with a request to conduct postmortem Examination over the dead body of the deceased by name,

Dharavath Naresh. Accordingly, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased in between 11-00 a.m., and 2-00 p.m., and he found the following external injuries:

1. Eye balls closed and dried up

2. Mouth is opened and tongue protruded,

3. A ligature mark measuring 10 inches in length skin deep haemorrhagic more on left side running around the neck about Thyroid cartilage and ended with a knot and back side of the left ear lobule,

4. An abrasion measuring 3 Cm X ½ Cm on left shoulder.

INTERNAL INJURIES:

No evidence of fracture of hyoid bone. All the internal organs are congested and hemorrhage and the injuries are antemortem in nature, caused by rope like object. The approximate time of death is12 to 16 hours prior to his postmortem examination. The cause of death of the deceased is cordio respiratory due to asphyxia secondary hanging. He issued

Ex.15/Postmortem Examination Report.

27.As seen from the evidence of P.W.15, after conducting postmortem examination report over the dead body of the deceased, he opined that the cause of death of the deceased is cordio respiratory arrest, due to asphyxia secondary hanging. There is no dispute from the side of the accused with 17 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 regard to the death of the deceased by hanging himself. P.W.18, who is another medical officer, stated in his evidence that on 6.2.2016 Dharavath

Naresh was brought to Balaji Hospital, Paloncha, where he was working, by his relatives and he attended to him and examined the said person and he found already died and informed the same to his relatives. As seen from the evidence of P.W.18, he examined the deceased Dharavath Naresh and declared him as died.

28.P.W.19, who is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Paloncha Rural said to be first Investigating Officer in this case,in his evidence stated that on 6.2.2016, at about 6-00 p.m., P.W.9 came to the police station and lodged

Ex.P.9/report, upon that, he registered a case in Cr.No.28 of 2016 u/Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. and issued Ex.P.19/First Information Report. He forwarded the original First Information Report to the Executive Magistrate, Paloncha, later, he visited the scene of offence, which is the house of the deceased

Dharavath Naresh situated at Jagannadhapuram village, Paloncha Mandal, where he secured the presence of the mediators namely, Dharmasoth

Krishna (P.W.13) and Nunavath Bhaskar (P.W.14), in their presence, he observed the scene of offence and their observations were incorporated in

Ex.P.20/Crime Details Form and he also drawn rough sketch for the scene of offence in the relevant column of Crime Details Form and at the end, he obtained the signatures of P.Ws.13 and 14 on it.

29.But P.Ws.13 and 14, who are said to be mediators present at the time of preparing Ex.P.20-Crime Details Form, in their evidence denied their presence at the time of preparing Ex.P.20-Crime Details Form by P.W.19 and thereby, P.Ws.13 and 14 did not support the case of the prosecution. But

P.Ws.13 and 14 have identified their respective Exs.P.13 and P.14 signatures 18 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 on Ex.P.20-Crime Details Form, dt.7.2.2016. Therefore, the learned Spl.

Public Prosecutor declared P.Ws.13 and 14 as hostile, subjected to cross examine them. Even after their cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited in support of the case of the prosecution.

30.P.W.19, in his evidence further stated that he examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 7 and 9 to 11. He has taken the photographs of the scene of offence and dead body of the deceased through private photographer namely, Yeruva Srinivasa Rao (P.W.11). This part of testimony made by P.W.9 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.11 with regard to the taken photographs of the scene of offence and dead body of the deceased.

31.P.W.19, in his evidence further stated that he secured the presence of the mediators namely, Dharavath Bhadru (P.W.12) and Bhukya Naresh (L.W.14), in their presence he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Dharavath Naresh and the Inquest Panchas opined that the deceased might have been died due to hanging. Ex.P.12 is the same Inquest report of the deceased. This part of testimony made by P.W.19 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12 with regard to conducting Inquest over the dead body of the deceased.

32.P.W.19, in his evidence further stated that the dead body of the deceased was shifted to the Government Hospital, Paloncha and he gave a requisition to the Medical Officer concerned with a request to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Accordingly,

P.W.15 conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.15/postmortem Examination report. Later, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased for his rituals.

This part of testimony made by P.W.18 is corroborated by the evidence of 19 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

P.W.15, who is the Medical Officer, with regard to conducting postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased. Further, P.W.19 in his evidence stated that P.Ws.1 to 8 stated before him as in Exs.P.1 to P.8 respectively. The said claim of P.W.19, was denied by P.Ws.1 to 8 in their evidence.

33.P.W.19, in his evidence further stated that while the investigation was in progress, on 24.2.2016, he filed a requisition before III Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class Court, Kothagudem seeking to record Sec.164 of

Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.9. Accordingly, the learned 3rd Addl. Judl.

Magistrate of I Class recorded Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.9. On

15.3.2009 on the basis of statement of P.W.9 recorded by the learned Judl.

Magistrate I Class u/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C., he altered the Section of Law by

adding Sec.306 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and issued Ex.P.21/Alteration Memo. He forwarded Ex.P.21-Alteration Memo to the Magistrate concerned since the offence was registered under the provisions of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 and the

Sub-Divisional Police Officer concerned is competent authority to conduct investigation and as such, as per the orders of the Superintendent of

Police, Khammam, he handed over the CD file to the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Kothagudem, by name, B.Surender Rao, for conducting investigation. As seen from the aforesaid evidence of P.W.19, he speaks with regard to the procedural aspects only. Further, P.W.19 is not competent officer to conduct investigation in respect of the provisions of

Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (POA) Act, 1989.

34.The final evidence before the court is that of P.W.20, who is the then

Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem, in his evidence stated that on 20 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 01.04.2016, he was authorized by the Superintendent of police, Khammam vide his proceedings, dt.01-04-2016 for conducting further investigation in this case. Accordingly, he took up investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he verified the investigation done by P.W.19. On 01.04.2016 he secured the presence of the witnesses, examined and recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 11 at their respective houses. Later, on bifurcation of the jurisdiction , Paloncha sub-Division was established and the CD file was transferred to the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Paloncha by name, V.Srinivasulu (P.W.17) for continuation of the investigation. As seen from the evidence of P.W.20, he has examined and recorded the statements of the P.Ws.1 to 11 only and except that he did not conduct any further investigation in this case.

35.P.W.17, who is the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Paloncha in his evidence stated that on 31-01-2017, he was authorized by the

Superintendent of Police, Bhadradri Kothagudem vide his proceedings, dt.31.01.2017 (Ex.P.8) for conducting further investigation in this case.

Accordingly, he took up further investigation in this case on 31.01.2017.

While the investigation was in progress, on 15.7.2017 at 1-00 p.m. on reliable information, he arrested the accused at his house at

Jagannadhapuram village and after interrogation, the accused was brought to Police Station, Paloncha Rural and got him remanded to judicial custody after following the due procedure. He collected the caste certificates of

P.W.9 and accused from the Tahsildar concerned and after completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused. As seen from the evidence of P.W.17, he speaks with regard to the procedural aspects only 21 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 and his evidence is useful only for the limited purpose of arrest of the accused. Except that, nothing was investigated by P.W.17 in this case.

36.The claim of the accused is that he was not responsible for the death of the deceased and he never offered the amounts to the deceased and when he refused to receive the amounts and allow him to develop extra marital life with his wife and then the deceased was beaten indiscriminately, insulted and humiliated him in the public view and due to the mental agony, the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself. The accused further claimed that the wife of the deceased namely, Swapna (P.W.9) developed extra marital life with Naveen and the deceased found his wife Swapa in the company of said Naveen, twice or thrice and due to the said mental agony, the deceased committed suicide and that P.W.9 was responsible for the death of the deceased. This part of claim of the accused is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, who are the parents and brothers of the deceased/Naresh. Further, it is an un-disputed fact that

P.W.9 after the death of the deceased-Naresh, she contacted second marriage with the said Naveen only. In these circumstances, the claim of the accused that P.W.9 was responsible for the death of the deceased, cannot be ruled out. However, there is no acceptable evidence on record to show that at the instigation and intentional aid of the deceased to commit suicide, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences punishable u/Sec.306 0f IPC.

37. Sec.3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 provides that :

“Whoever not being a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code, punishable with imprisonment for a term of 10 years or more against a person or 22 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 property on the ground that such a person is a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.”

In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the accused committed the offence alleged against the deceased- Dharavath

Naresh on the ground that the deceased-Dharavath Naresh is a member of

Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. To attract the provisions of Sec.3(2)(v) of

S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, the Sine Qua Non is that the victim should be a person, who belongs to a Schedule Caste or a Schedule

Tribe and that the offence under the Indian Penal Code is committed against him on the basis that such a person belongs to a Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence u/Sec.3(2)

(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 arises.

38.Sec.3(2)(va) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 provides that:

“whoever not being a member of Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe commits any offence specified in the schedule against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe, shall be punishable.”

In the present case, there is no evidence at all to the effect that the accused committed the offence alleged against him on the ground that the deceased Dharavath Naresh is a member of Schedule Caste or Schedule

Tribe. To attract the provisions of Sec.3(2) (va) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015, the Sine qua non is that the victim should be a person who belongs to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and that the offence specified in the schedule is committed against him, on the basis that such a person belongs to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. In the absence of such ingredients, no offence u/Sec.3(2) (va) of Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (POA) Amendment Act,2015 arises.

23 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

39.Having considered the material available on record, I am holding that the prosecution has failed to establish that due to abatement of the accused, the deceased-Dharavath Naresh has committed suicide. Further, the prosecution failed to establish that the accused abused and humiliated the deceased-Naresh in the public view and further, the deceased was beaten by the accused in the public view and therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution is able to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

40.From the foregoing reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

RESULT:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.323, 306 of IPC, Sec.3(1)(r)(s) , Sec.3(2)(v) and Sec.3(2)(va) of S.Cs. and S.Ts (P.O.A.) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months from this day. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 18th day of October, 2019.

Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl., Sessions Judge, Khammam.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1. Dharavath Ganya ( Father of the deceased),

P.W.2. Dharavath Bodi (Mother of the deceased), 24 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

P.W.3. Dharavath Veeranna (elder brother of the deceased),

P.W.4. Dharavath Ramesh (elder brother of the deceased),

P.W.5. Dharavath Suresh (elder brother of the deceased),

P.W.6. Pottapinjara Jyothi Basu (Friend of the deceased),

P.W.7. Adapala Nagendra Babu (Friend of the deceased),

P.W.8. Bhukya Lalu (to whom the accused sent to the house of the deceased),

P.W.9. Dharavath Swapna (defacto complainant and wife of the deceased)

P.W.10. Palapolu Prathap Naik (Friend of the deceased),

P.W.11. Yeruva Srinivasa Rao (Private Photographer),

P.W.12. Dharavath Bhadru (Mediator for conducting Inquest over the dead body of the deceased),

P.W.13. Dharmasoth Krishna (Mediator for Crime Details Form),

P.W.14. Nunavath Bhaskar (Mediator for Crime Details Form),

P.W.15.Dr.M.Mukkanteswar Rao, Paloncha (conducted Postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased),

P.W.16.B.Ganya, the then Tahsildar, Paloncha Mandal (issued caste certificates of the deceased and the accused),

P.W.17. V.Srinivasulu, the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Paloncha (conducted part of the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused),

P.W.18. Dr. Banoth Lalu (examined the deceased and declared him died),

P.W.19.B.Satyanarayana, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Paloncha (conducted investigation in this case at the first instance),

P.W.20 B.Surender Rao, the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem (conducted part of the investigation).

For Defence: - none -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

For Prosecution:-

Ex.P.1. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.1 recorded by the police concerned,

Ex.P.2. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.2 recorded by the police concerned,

Ex.P.3. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.3 recorded by the police concerned,

Ex.P.4. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.4 recorded by the police concerned,

Ex.P.5. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.5 recorded by the police concerned,

Ex.P.6. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.6 recorded by the police concerned,

Ex.P.7. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.7 recorded by the police concerned, 25 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

Ex.P.8. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statements of P.W.8 recorded by the police concerned,

Ex.P.9. Report, dt.6.2.2017 lodged by P.W.9,

Ex.P.10. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.10 recorded by the police concerned,

Ex.P.11: 4 positive photographs along with CD,

Ex.P.12. Inquest report, dt.7.2.2016,

Ex.P.13. Signature of P.W.13 on Crime Details form, dt.7.2.2016,

Ex.P.14. Signature of P.W.14 on Crime Details form, dt.7.2.2016,

Ex.P.15. Postmortem Examination report issued by P.W.17,

Ex.P.16. Caste certificate of P.W.9, dt.3.3.2017 issued by P.W.16,

Ex.P.17. Caste certificate of the accused, dt.3.3.2017 issued by P.W.16, Ex.P.18. Xerox copy of common proceedings of the Superintendent of the Police, Bhadradri-Kothagudem District, dt.31-1-2017,

Ex.P.19. First Information Report issued by P.W.19,

Ex.P.20.Crime Details Form, dt.7.2.2016,

Ex.P.21. Section Alteration Memo.

For Defence: - nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- nil -

Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.,

Sessions Judge, Khammam.

Corrections carried out by:

26 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019 27 S.C.No.80 of 2017, dt.18-10-2019

1 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER S.Cs. AND S.Ts. (P.O.A.) ACT-CUM-VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Monday, this the 21st day of October, 2019

Present: Sri Mohd. Abdul Rafi, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs., and S.Ts., (P.O.A.) Act-cum-VII Addl., District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

SESSIONS CASE No.93 OF 2017

============================================================================

1.Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem.

2.Name of the accused :Shaik Pasha S/o.Mybu, age:22 yrs., caste:Dudekula, R/o.Chandrugonda (V) and (M).

3.Crime Number :21 of 2015 of P.S., Chandrugonda

4.Section of law:under Sections 417, 376 (1), 506 of IPC, Sec.3(1)(xii) and 3(2) (v) of S.Cs. And S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989.

5.P.R.C.Number:12 of 2017

6.Name of the Officer, who :Smt. N.Radhika, I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of committed the caseI Class, Kothagudem,

7.Prosecution conducted by:Sri R.Upender Rao, Spl. Public Prosecutor.

8.Defence conducted by:Sri K.Babji, Advocate for the Accused.

9.Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty.

10.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

11.Result: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs. 417, 376 (1), 506 of IPC Sec.3(1)

(xii) and 3(2) (v) of S.Cs. And S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of 2 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 six (6) months from this day. The un- marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

==============================================================

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 17-10-2019 in the presence of Sri R.Upender Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri K.Babji, Advocate for the Accused; upon perusing material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Kothagudem has laid a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.21 of 2015 of P.S. Chandrugonda, charged u/Secs.417, 376, 506 of IPC, Sec.3(1)

(xii) and 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989, with the following allegations:

(i).That the victim (P.W.1) is a resident of Rice Mill Bazar, Chandrugonda village and she belongs to Schedule Caste-Madiga. At the age of 4 years, her mother has died due to cancer ailment and her father taken her brother namely Mani Kumar and sister Bhuvaneswari by leaving her alone at the house of Karnati Padma (L.W.2), who is her foster mother. The accused is also a resident of Rice Mill Bazar, Chandrugonda village, who is other than Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and the accused had developed a sore eye on her and waiting for a chance to fulfill his sexual desires knowingly that she was hails from discarded family and belongs to “SC-Madiga”. As such, the accused, who is non-member of SC or ST, got acquaintance with her, developed love on her and made promise to get marry her. On believing deceitful words of the accused, she fell in love with him.

3 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 ii).As such, the accused developed intimacy with her and promised her to marry and by deceitful means, believing her, the accused used to participate in sexual intercourse with her several times, with her consent at her house while she was alone and noticing the love matter, her foster mother admonished her, upon which, she and the accused eloped from village and stayed at Chinthal of Hyderabad, both resided under the same roof and the accused used to participate in sexual intercourse with her several times, due to which, she got pregnancy and carrying 14 weeks gestation age. After desiring his sexual lust, he necked out her from the house by denying the marriage and threatened her with dire consequences. Thus, the accused cheated her by deceiving her on the guise of love and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her.

(iii)The victim did not aware of her caste, which community she belongs as she was abandoned by her father while she was 4 years old.

Accordingly, she mentioned her caste as “Gowda” but actually she belongs to “Madiga” community. On the basis of report lodged by PW.1, a case in

Cr.No.21 of 2015 u/Secs.417, 376 of IPC was registered at P.S.,

Chandrugonda and investigated into. N.Malllaiah Swamy Circle Inspector of Police, Kothagudem Rural (L.W.21) took up the investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he referred the victim to the

Lady Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Kothagudem for medical examination and report. He visited the scene of offence, drafted Crime

Details Form-I and sketch map of the scene by securing the presence of the mediators namely, A.Lalaiah (LW.12) and Sonu Veera Bhadra Chary (L.W.13).

4 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

(iv).During the course of investigation, it is revealed that the victim belongs to Madiga caste, which comes under the purview of Schedule caste and the accused belongs to Dudekula by caste, which comes under the B.C. community. Upon which, the Circle Inspector of Police filed an

Alteration Memo before the court by adding Sec.3 (1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of

S.Cs./S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989. B.Surender Rao, Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Kothagudem (L.W.22) was authorized for conducting investigation in this case by the Superintendent of Police, Khammam by his proceedings, dt.16.3.2015. Accordingly, the said Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Kothagudem took up the investigation in this case. During the course of investigation, he visited the scene of offence, which is the house of

Karnati Padma (P.W.2) at Mill Bazar, Chandrugonda. While the investigation was in progress on 6-4-2015 the said Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Kothagudem arrested the accused and got him remanded to judicial custody after following the procedure.

v).On requisition, Judl Magistrate of I Class, Yellandu recorded the statement of the victim u/Sec.164 of Cr.P.C, the Lady Medical Officer

Dr.S.Jhansi Lakshmi Bai (L.W.18) examined the victim girl, has opined that the victim was pregnant and carrying 12 weeks gestation age. The medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Khammam (L.W.19) conducted potency test on the accused and opined that there is nothing to suggest that the accused is not capable of performing sex act. Hence, the charge.

2. This case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Secs.417, 376, 506 IPC, Sec.3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 by the I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem vide PRC No.12 of 2017. On appearance of the Accused before that court, all the case 5 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 documents, on which, the prosecution has relied upon, were furnished to him, as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

3. On 05.07.2017 a committal order was pronounced in PRC No.12 of 2017 by the I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem, wherein the case was committed to this Special Sessions Court, as the offences under the provisions of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 is exclusively triable by this

Special Sessions Court. On receipt of the case record from the committal court, this Special Sessions Court assigned S.C.No.93 of 2017 and proceeded with the case against the accused.

4.On 2.7.2019 the Accused was examined u/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein he denied the commission of offence, whereupon, charges u/Secs.417, 376(1), 506 of

IPC, Sec.3(1)(xii) and 3(2) (v) of S.Cs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 were framed against the Accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.6. The prosecution has given up the evidence of

Karumanchi Goramma (L.W.4) and Modugu Kamalamma (LW.5) on the basis of report filed by the police concerned stating that they are not residing in their given addresses and their whereabouts were not known.

The evidence of remaining witnesses namely, Vishwanadhapalli

Lokamamba (L.W.6), Gadde Manju Sri (L.W.7), Palakurthy Udaya Sri, CDPO,

Enkoor (ICDA Project) (L.W.8), Gurram Suresh (L.W.9), Akula Lalaiah (L.W.12), Sonu Veera Bhadra Chary (L.W.13), Bandikatla Yasaswi (LW.14),

Alaampalli Gouri Shankar (L.W.15), V.Raghava Chary, Tahsildar,

Chdnadrugonda (LW.17), Dr.S.Jhansi Lakshmi Bai, CAS, Lady Medical 6 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

Officer, Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem (L.W.18), Dr.B.Vijaya

Kumar, CAS, Government Area Hospital, Kothagudem (LW.19), Md.Hussain,

ASI-962 of P.S., Chandrugonda (LW.20), N.Mallaiah Swamy, Circle Inspector of police, Kothagudem Rural at Julurpad (LW.21), B.Surender Rao, Sub-

Divisional Police Officer, Koghagudem (L.W.22) was closed in view of the hostile evidence of the victim and other material witnesses.

6. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the examination of the accused u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was dispensed with, as there are no incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused found in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and proceeded with the Judgment.

7. Heard the Arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.

8. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable u/Secs. 417, 376(1), 506 of IPC, Sec.3 (1)(xii) and 3 (2) (v) of S.Cs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.In order to establish the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and their evidence is to be appreciated by the court. P.W.1, who is the Prosecutrix/victim in her evidence stated that the accused is doing hotel business at

Chandrugonda village and the accused came to contact with her. She has acquaintance with the accused, while she was 11 years old. The accused never cheated her with a false promise to marry her and participate in sexual intercourse with her. She did not lodge any report to the police concerned against the accused. About 4 years ago, on one day, while she was at her house, at that time, her village elders came to her house and 7 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 obtained her signature on a blank paper. Ex.P.1 is her signature on police report,dt.12.2.2015. She was not referred to medical examination by the police concerned. She did not give any statement before the learned Judl.

Magistrate of I Class.

10.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, she did not speak any incriminating circumstances against the accused and thereby, she did not support the prosecution case. P.W.2-Karnati Padma, who is said to be foster mother of P.W.1, in her evidence denied her knowledge with regard to the facts of the case and thereby, she did not support the prosecution case. P.W.3-Kilari Venkateswara Rao, who is said to be neighbour of the victim, in his evidence denied his knowledge with regard to the facts of the case. P.W.4-Mucharla Sai Kiran and P.W.5- Kadiyala Brahmam, who are said to be neighbours of the hostel, where the accused stayed along with the victim, in their evidence denied their knowledge with regard to the facts of the case and further stated that they did not witness while P.W.1 was in the company of the accused and thereby, P.Ws.4 and 5 did not support the prosecution case.

11.As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5, they did not speak any incriminating circumstances against the accused and thereby, they did not support the prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor declared P.Ws.1 to 5 as hostile, subjected to cross examine them. Even after their cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited as against the accused. P.Ws.1 to 5, who gave incriminating statements against the accused before the police concerned, when they were examined u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., turned hostile while they were giving evidence before the court. At the instance of the learned Spl. Public 8 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

Prosecutor, P.Ws.1 to 5 were declared as hostile and their Sec.161 of

Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P.2 to P.6 respectively.

12. There is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no proof or evidence on record to show that the accused induced the victim with deceitful words by making false promise that he would marry her, knowingly, she belongs to

Schedule Caste-Madiga and exploited her sexually for several times, as a result, the victim conceived. Since P.Ws.1 to 5 have not supported the prosecution case and after declaring them as hostile, except suggestions and confronting Exs.P.2 to P.6, which are alleged statements made u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., no other material evidence was elicited. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution.

13.From the foregoing reasons, I am holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

RESULT:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.417, 376 (1), 506 of IPC, Sec.3(1) (xii) and 3(2)(v) of S.Cs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from this day. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of October, 2019.

Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.,

Sessions Judge, Khammam.

9 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1. Prosecutrix, (Defacto-complainant-cum-victim), P.W.2. Karnati Padma (Foster Mother of P.W.1), P.W.3. Kilari Venkateswara Rao ( neighbour of P.W.1/Circumstantial witness) P.W.4. Mucharla Sai Kiran ( Neighbour of the hostel of accused and victim), P.W.5. Kadiyala Brahmam ( Neighbour of the hostel of accused and victim).

For Defence: -none-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1.Signature of P.W.1 on police report, dt.12.2.2015, Ex.P.2. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.3. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.4. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.5. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.6. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 recorded by the police concerned.

For Defence:- nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- nil-

Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of cases under

SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.,

Sessions Judge, Khammam.

Corrections carried out by:

10 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 11 S.C.No.93 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

1 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER S.Cs. AND S.Ts. (P.O.A.) ACT-CUM-VII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE AT KHAMMAM

Monday, this the 21st day of October, 2019

Present: Sri Mohd. Abdul Rafi, Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs., and S.Ts., (P.O.A.) Act-cum-VII Addl., District and Sessions Judge, Khammam

SESSIONS CASE No.98 OF 2017

============================================================================

1.Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub- Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem.

2.Name of the accused :Uggam Srinivasa Rao @ Srinu, S/o.Chennaiah, 40 years, caste Golla, occu:Agrl., R/o.Ganugapadu (V) of Chandrugonda Mandal

3.Crime Number :150 of 2015 of P.S., Chandrugonda

4.Section of law:under Sections 294(b) IPC and Sec.3(1)

(r) of S.Cs. And S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989.

5.P.R.C.Number:2 of 2017

6.Name of the Officer, who :Smt. N.Radhika, I Addl. Judl. Magistrte of I committed the caseClass, Khammam,

7.Prosecution conducted by:Sri R.Upender Rao, Spl. Public Prosecutor.

8.Defence conducted by:Sri K.Babji, Advocate for the Accused.

9.Plea of the accused :Pleaded not guilty.

10.Finding of the Court:Found not guilty.

11.Result: In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.294(b) IPC and Sec.3(1)(r) of S.Cs. And S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bond of the accused shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from this day. The un- 2 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

==============================================================

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on 17-10-2019 in the presence of Sri R.Upender Rao, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri K.Babji, Advocate for the Accused; upon perusing material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Kothagudem has laid a charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.150 of 2015 of P.S., Chandrugonda, charged u/Secs.294(b), 506 of IPC, Sec.3(1)(r) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, with the following allegations:-

(i).That the defacto complainant by name, Nunavath Mangya (P.W.1) is a resident of Annam Thanda of Chandrugonda Mandal and he belongs to Schedule Tribe-Lambada, while the accused is a resident of

Ganugapadu village of Chandrugonda Mandal and he belongs to Golla caste, which is other than Schedule Caste or Schedule tribe. P.W.1 has taken some amount on loan from the father of the accused. Later, he paid some amount and balance amount was kept pending, due to facing hardship. While so, on 19.10.2015 during morning, at about 8-00 a.m.

ii)while P.W.1 was proceeding to Ganugapadu village from his village to purchase fertilizers, on the way at Ganugapadu school, the father of the accused namely, Uggam Chennaiah stopped him and asked him to pay the balance loan amount. In the meantime, the accused, who sat on the compound wall of the school, jumped from the wall, ran towards P.W.1, abused him in filthy language by taking his caste name within the public view as “ Lanja Kodaka Yenni Vaidalu Pedathavura, Lambadi Lanja 3 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

Kodama” and tried to assault him, who was on the Motor cycle. The persons who observed the incident rushed to the spot and pacified the issue. The village elders tried to settle the dispute by calling the accused, but the accused annoyed for that and asked them to complain anybody, he did not have any fear.

(ii).On the basis of report lodged by PW.1, a case in Cr.No.150 of 2015 u/Sec.294(b), 506 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of S.Cs. and S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989 was registered at P.S., Chandrugonda and investigated into. B.Surender

Rao, the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kothagudem (L.W.13) was authorized to conduct investigation in this case by the Superintendent of

Police, Khammam in his proceedings, dt.26.10.2015. Accordingly, the said

Sub-Divisional Police Officer has taken up investigation in this case and visited the scene of offence, drafted a rough sketch of the scene in the crime details form by securing the presence of the mediators namely,

Bezawada Narasimha Rao (P.W.3) and Barigedu Madhu Babu (P.W.7) and obtained their signatures on it. Meanwhile, the accused had filed a criminal petition vide Crl.P.M.P.No.10262 of 2016 u/Sec.482 of Cr.P.C.

before the Hon’ble High Court, wherein, the Hon’ble High Court directed

the Investigating Agency to proceed with the investigation, however, without arrest of the accused, till the investigation is completed. Hence, the charge.

2. This case was taken on file for the offences punishable u/Secs.294(b), 506 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r) of S.Cs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 by the I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem vide PRC No.2 of 2017. On appearance of the Accused before this court, all the case 4 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 documents, on which, the prosecution has relied upon, were furnished to him, as required u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

4. On 05.09.2017 a committal order was pronounced vide PRC No.2 of 2017 by the I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Kothagudem, wherein the case was committed to this Special Sessions Court, as the offence u/Sec.3(1)(r) of S.Cs and S.Ts (POA) Act, 1989 is exclusively triable by this

Special Sessions Court. On receipt of the case record from the committal court, this Special Sessions Court assigned S.C.No.98 of2017 and proceeded with the case against the accused.

5.On 17.7.2019 the Accused was examined u/Sec.228 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the accusation made against him, wherein he denied the commission of offence, whereupon, charges u/Secs.294(b) of IPC and

Sec.3(1)(r) of S.Cs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 were framed against the

Accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.At the time of trial, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.7. The prosecution has given up evidence of the remaining witnesses namely, Nizampatnam Chander Rao (LW.2),

V.Raghava Chary, Tahsildar, Chandrugonda (LW.9), K.Kanaka Durga,

Tahsildar, Chandrugonda (L.W.10), A.Ramakanth, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Chandrugonda P.S. (L.W.12), B.Surender Rao, Sub-Divisional Police Officer,

Kothagudem (LW.13) in view of the hostile evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7.

7. On closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the examination of the accused u/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., was dispensed with, as there are no 5 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused found in the evidence adduced by the prosecution and proceeded with the Judgment.

8. Heard the Arguments on both sides and perused the relevant record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the Accused for the offences punishable u/Secs. 294(b) of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r) of S.Cs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 beyond all reasonable doubts?

10.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and their evidence is to be appreciated by the court.

P.W.1-Nunavath Mangya, who is the defacto complainant in his evidence stated that he was not abused by the accused by referring his caste name and he was never threatened by the accused with dire consequences.

About 4 years ago on one day while he was at his house,his village elders came to him and obtained his thumb mark on a blank paper. He does not know the contents of the police report. As seen from the evidence of

P.W.1, he did not speak any incriminating circumstances against the accused and thereby, he did not support the prosecution case.

11.P.W.4-Pendyala Jaya, who is an eye witness to the alleged incident in her evidence denied her witnessing the incident. P.W.6-Enjam Gopal Rao, who is another eye witness to the alleged incident in his evidence denied his witnessing the incident. P.W.2-Nunavath Bheemja and P.W.5-Nunavath

Kashiram, who are said to be the village elders, in their evidence denied their knowledge with regard to the facts of the case. As seen from the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6, they did not speak any incriminating circumstances against the accused and thereby, they did not support the 6 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 prosecution case. Therefore, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor declared

P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6 as hostile, subjected to cross examine them. Even after their cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited as against the accused. P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6, who gave incriminating statements against the accused before the police concerned, when they were examined u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C., turned hostile while they were giving evidence before the court. At the instance of the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor, P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6 were declared as hostile and their Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. statements were marked as Exs.P.1, P.2, P.4 to P.6 respectively.

12.P.W.3-Bezawada Narasimha Rao and P.W.7-Barigedu Madhu Babu, who are said to be present at the time of preparing crime details form, in their evidence denied their presence at the time of preparing Crime

Details Form and thereby, they did not support the prosecution case. But

P.Ws.3 and 7 have identified their respective Exs.P.3 and P.7 signatures on

Crime Details Form, dt.27.10.2015. Therefore, the learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor declared P.Ws.3 and 7 as hostile, subjected to cros examine them. Even after their cross examination, nothing incriminating was elicited in support of the prosecution case.

13. There is neither direct evidence nor circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. There is no proof or evidence on record to show that the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language by taking his caste within the public view and tried to assault him. Sincethedefacto complainant (P.W.1), eye witnesses to the alleged incident (P.Ws.4 and 6), elders to the village (P.Ws.5 and 6) and the mediators to the Crime Details

Form (P.Ws.3 and 7) have not supported the prosecution case and after declaring them hostile, except suggestions and confronting Exs.P.1, P.2, 7 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

P.4 to P.6, which are alleged statements made u/Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. in the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 4 to 6 and no other material evidence was elicited.

Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution.

From the above discussion, I am holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

RESULT:

In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable u/Secs.294(b) of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r) of S.Cs and STs (POA) Act, 1989 and he is acquitted u/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six (6) months from this day. The un-marked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 21st day of October, 2019.

Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.,

Sessions Judge, Khammam.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1. Nunavath Mangya(Defacto-complainant-cum-victim), P.W.2. Nunavath Beemja (Village elder), P.W.3. Behawada Narasimha Rao ( Panch witness for CDF), P.W.4. Pendyala Jaya ( eye witness to the incident), P.W.5. Nunavath Kasiram (Village Elder), P.W.6. Enjam Gopala Rao (eye witness to the incident), P.W.7. Barigedu Madhubabu (Panch witness for CDF).

8 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

For Defence: -none-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1.Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.2. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.3. Signature of P.W.3 on Crime details form, dt.27-10-2015, Ex.P.4. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.5. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.6. Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6 recorded by the police concerned, Ex.P.7. Signature of P.W.7 on Crime details form, dt.27-10-2015,

For Defence:- nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- nil-

Spl.Sessions Judge for trial of cases under

SCs and STs (POA) Act-cum- VII Addl.,

Sessions Judge, Khammam.

Corrections carried out by:

9 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019 10 S.C.No.98 of 2017, dt.21-10-2019

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

AT KHAMMAM

Dated this the 16th day of April, 2019

Present: Sri. Mohd.Abdul Rafi

III Addl. District Judge (FTC-II)

Khammam.

E.P.No : 02/2016.

Between:

1. Potta Srinu Address - R/o. Khammam.

...Decree-holder/Claimant

And

1. APSRTC at present TSRTC,KMM DEPOT, Rep by Deport managaer,Khammam Address - APSRTC at present TSRTC,KMM DEPOT, rep by deport managaer, Khammam.

2. APSRTC at present TSRTC musheerabad, hyderabad rep by MD.APSRTC at present TSRTC musheerabad, Hyderabad.

...Judgment-debtors/Respondents.

:: ORDER ::

The counsel for the J.Dr No.1 placed the order of the Hon ble High Court in

M.A.C.M.A.M.P Nos. 4160 and 4161 of 2012 and M.A.C.M.A.M.P No. 4836/2012 in M.A.C.M.A No. 2632/2013 dated.15.11.2013 wherein the Hon ble High Court granted interim stay of the execution of judgment and decree dated. 18.01.2012 in O.P No. 699/2005 on the file of this tribunal cum III Addl. District Judge (F.T.C), Khammam subject to the respondents under these applications / appellants in the M.A.C.M.P deposit 50 percent of the compensation awarded by the tribunal along with accrued interest and costs within eight weeks from 15.11.2013. The amount already deposited by the appellants / respondents shall be given credit to. On such deposit, the petitioner herein / respondent in the appeal is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. The counsel for the J.Dr No.1 represented that as per the above orders of the Hon ble High Court J.Dr No.1, who is appellant in the C.M.A deposited a sum of Rs. 2,51,440/- into this court. Since the

Hon ble High Court stayed the judgment and decree passed in M.A.T.O.P No. 699/2005 on deposit

of 50 percent of the decretal amount, there is no use to keep this E.P pending. Hence this E.P is closed at this stage. The D.Hr is at liberty to file a petition to reopen this E.P or file a fresh E.P as per the orders to be passed by the Hon ble High Court in M.A.C.M.A No. 2632/2013. Written and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16 th day of

April, 2019.Sd/-

III Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Khammam.

TSKH000007992012

Presented on : 18-01-2012 Registered on : 20-01-2012 Decided on : 13-03-2019 Duration : 7 years, 1 months, 26 days

IN THE COURT OF

II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I AT ,KHAMMAM Presided Over by K ARUNA KUMARI

OS/100009/2012

Exhibit No.:

:

BANDI LAXMI

Age: 0 Occupation : Address: RO SRINIVASA NAGAR GODAVARIKHANI KARIMNAGAR DIST

VERSUS :

MOTAMARRI JAGANMOHAN RAO AND OTHERS

Age: 0 Occupation : Address: RO H.NO 5-5-134A3 PAKABANDA BAZAR KHAMMAM DIST ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : B. NARSIMHA REDDY Advocate for : P. VIPLAVA KUMAR appearing for MOTAMARRI JAGANMOHAN RAO AND OTHERS: Advocate appearing for respectively.

Claim :

ORDER

Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are called absent. NRP kon their behalf. D1 to D3 are are also called absent. NRP on their behalf. A perusal of the suit docekt, it reveals that on 1-10-2018 issues were framed for the puropse of trial and the suit was posted to 26-10-2018 for the evidence of the plaintiffs. Inspite of granting sufficient time and even the suit was posted twince on payment of costs, the plaintiffs did not choose to adduce their evidence, even costs also not paid. It shows the plaintiffs have no interest to proceed further in this suit by adducing their evidence. in these circumstances there is no other alternative left to the court except to dismiss the suit for default. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.

Date : 13-03-2019

II Addl.District and Sessions Judge, FTC-I

,KHAMMAM

Dictated on :

Transcribed on : checked on : Signed on :13-03-2019 {JUDGE_DESIGNATION_NAME}

,KHAMMAM

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS