Sri.Mohd.Afroz Akthar

1 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

BEFORE THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs & STs (POA) ACT -CUM - VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI. MOHD. AFROZ AKTHAR CHAIRMAN/ MACT CUM SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA)

ACT, CUM VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

MONDAY ON THIS THE 14 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

L.G.O.P. No.71 of 2014

Between:

1.M.Yadi Reddy, S/o.M.Advi Reddy, Aged 91 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Smt. M.Bhootalli alias Bhulakshmi, W/o. Late M.narssimha Reddy, aged 89 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.17-1-386, Near S.N.Reddy Gardens, Champapet, Hyderabad.

3.M.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o.Late M.Narasimha Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-386, Near S.N.Reddy Gardens, Champapet, Hyderabad.

4.M.Surender Reddy, S/o. Late M.Narasimha Reddy, Aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-386, Near S.N.Reddy Gardens, Champapet, Hyderabad.

5.M.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Late Buchi Reddy, Aged 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6.M.Madhava Reddy, S/o. Late M.Buchi Reddy, Aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7.M.Govardhan Reddy, S/o. Late M.Buchi Reddy, Aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Applicants 1 to 7 are represented by their duty constituted attorney Smt. Marri Manjula, Aged 45 years, Vide GPA registered as document No.151/2011,

dated 05-11-2011, W/o.Marri Surender Reddy,

Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.17-1-383/42/1, Flat No.202, Gayathri Towers, Indraprasthapuram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad – 500 059.

2 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

8.M.Krishna Reddy, S/o.Late Yadi Reddy, resididng at R/o. Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.M.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Late Yadi Reddy, Residing at R/o. Champapet village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(Applicants 8 & 9 are impleaded as per orders in I.A.No.494/2022

dated 01-06-2023.)

…Applicants

And

S.Jagannadha Reddy, S/o. S.Eragama Reddy, Aged about 43 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Eagavva Paleve Village, Allemadugu Post, Vedurokuppam Mandal, Chittore District, A.P. 517 582. …. Respondents.

This petition is coming on 05.10.2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.V. Ramana, Advocate for Petitioners/Applicants and that of Sri M.K.Jaleel, Advocate for Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This application is fled under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7-A and Section 8 (1) of A.P. (Telangana) Land Grabbing Act, 1982 (A.P Act XII of 1982) with a prayer that the applicants are having legal ownership and entitlement for lawful possession of the schedule property and restore the possession of the applicants by evicting the respondent.

Applicants also seek compensation from the respondent and also prays to punish the responent.

2. The brief averments of the application are that:

(i)One Advi Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of total land of Ac.10-04 gts., in Sy.Nos.230 to 233 and 238 to 240 situated at Kharmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 3 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District said M.Advi Reddy, is the father of M.Yadi Reddy (Applicant No.1); father-in-law of Smt. M.Bhoolakshmi (applicant No.2) and grand father of applicants No.3 to 7. After demise of Advi Reddy his sons M.Yadi Reddy,

M.Narsimha Reddy and M.Buchi Reddy have become entitled to 1/3rd share each in the above mentioned property. Thereafter M.Buchi Reddy also died and his sons i.e., applicants No.5 to 7 are entitled for his share.

It is further averred that applicants No.5 to 7 obtained a layout dated 10-08-1978 from Karmanghat Grampanchayath and divided the same into plots and they had sold away most of the land to the diferent individuals. It is further averred that meanwhile the husband of applicant No.2 and father of applicants No.3 & 4 died on 21-05-1991, leaving behind the applicants NO.2 to 4 to succeed to his share/ rights in the remaining property. The applicants had executed a General Power of Attorney dated 05-09-2011 vide registered document bearing

No.151/2011, in favour of Smt. M.Manjula, in respect of plot Nos.14, 52, 53, 62, 65 and plot No.84 total admeasuring 1556 Sq.yards.

ii)It is further averred that GPA holder of the petitioners visited the site i.e., Plot No.84, admeasuring 267 sq.yards, which is petition schedule property herein was found that the same was occupied by the respondent. On enquiry Power of Attorney holder of the petitioners herein learnt that the petition schedule property was conveyed in favour of respondent by one Smt. Anjali Devi. It is further averred Anjali Devi had no right or title to the schedule property and she fabricated the documents in collusion with her daughter and illegally sold the property to the respondent. The acquisition of property of the petitioners, by the respondent is illegal and no title acquired to him and he is a land grabber as defned under the Act.

4 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District iii)It is further averred that the petitioners being the joint owners of the property had earlier executed a Power of Attorney vide registered document bearing No.31/1987 in favour of Smt. G.Anjali Devi in respect of Plot No.83 to an extent of 267 Sq.yards. It is further averred that the said Anjali Devi and her daughter Nandini Devi, who had absolutely no right, title or interest, so far as the Plot No.84, admeasuring 267 Sq.yards is concerned, they had fabricated a Gift deed vide document bearing No.4941/2005, dated 17-05-2005 which is existing in favour of Anjali Devi. It is further averred that the said Anjali

Devi by claiming right over the Plot No.84 on the strength of the said gift deed and also claiming right possession being GPA holder of 67 Sq.yards of land which is Eastern part of Plot No.83, had alienated the same in favour of respondent to an extent of 334 Sq.yards vide registered sale deed document bearing No.4346/2010, dated 23-07-2010. The respondent has not acquired any valid right over the property and has committed ofence of land grabbing and he is liable for punishment.

Hence this petition.

3.Respondent fled counter wherein the fact that Advi Reddy, was the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.10-04 gts., in

Sy.Nos.230 to 233 and 238 to 240 situated at Kharmanghat Village,

Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was admitted. It is also stated that after death of said Advi Reddy above property was devolved upon Yadi Reddy, Narsimha Reddy and Buchi Reddy, who have divided the said land into house plots and sold to various persons. It is further averred that the 1st applicant/ petitioner along with his brother Narsimha

Reddy and children of M.Buchi Reddy executed a registered GPA bearing document No.31/1987 and in pursuance thereto, a sale deed was 5 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District executed on 11-05-2005 vide document bearing No.4683/2005. It is further averred that Nandini Devi acquired property through a document

dated 13-08-1987 executed by Yadi Reddy, Narsimha Reddy, Srinivas

Reddy, Madhava Reddy and Goverdhana Reddy and she was in enjoyment of the same as absolute owner of the same was conveyed by executing a Gift Settlement Deed in favour of Anjali Devi who is vendor of the respondent. It is further averred that, thereafter this respondent purchased the property from the original owner through a registered sale deed vide document bearing No.4346/2010, dated 23-07-2010 and since the date of acquisition this respondent has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. It is further averred that this respondent having purchased the petition schedule property for a valid sale consideration, got regularized the same vide proceedings

No.LRS/729/CR-3/EastZone/GHMC/2012, dated 13-06-2012, along with approved plan and has been paying tax regularly. It is further averred that this respondent in enjoying the property by acquiring the same through lawful means and it is within the knowledge of the applicants and that only to extract amounts the present application is fled. It is fnally averred that the interest of the respondent is protected by Section 53 (A) of Transfer of Property Act and therefore fnally prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Soon after registration of this land grabbing petition, the application was referred to the Jurisdictional MRO for local enquiry and verifcation and the Tahsildhar-cum-Deputy Collector, Saroornagar

Mandal submitted his report on 28-09-2016 vide Lr.Dis.No.B/336/2016, wherein he fnally observed that Smt. Anjali Devi acquired Plot No.84, admeasuring 267 Sq.yards through a Gift Settlement Deed dated 6 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District 4941/2005, dated 17-05-2005 from Smt. Nandhini Devi and subsequently Anjali Devi executed a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.4346/2010, dated 23-07-2010 in favour of respondent herein and that the respondent is in possession of the petition schedule land covery by a room with asbestos sheets.

5.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of applicants/ petitioner, the applicant/ petitioner No.4 was examined as PW.1 and

Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of respondent, he himself is examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B11.

6.Arguments of either side were heard and the records are perused.

7.Now the points for consideration are :

i) Whether the applicants / petitioners were owners and possessor of the petition schedule property ?

ii) Whether the respondent is a “Land grabber” within the

meaning of Section 2(d) and 2 (e) of the Act ?

iii) To what relief the parties are entitled to ?

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

8.Before entering into the discussion on the above points No.1 & 2, it is just and necessary to refer some of the provisions of the Act XII of 1982 and settled proposition of law enunciated by the Hon’ble

Superior courts for better understanding and for a just decision in the case.

7 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

9. Section 2(d) of the act defned who is a “land grabber” and

Section 2 (e) of the Act defnes the expression of “land grabbing” and they read as under:

2 (d). “land grabber” means a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any person who gives fnancial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorised structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands, rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts; and also includes the successors in interest ; 2(e)“land grabbing” means every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belongs to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licenses agreements or sturck unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation of unauthorised structures; and the term “to grab land” shall be construed accordingly :

10.It is also relevant to note some of the decisions of the

Hon’ble Suprement Court and Hon’ble High Courts. In Konda

Lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and

others 2063 of 1999 SCC 258, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in order to make out a case that one is the land grabber, the person 8 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District who is invoking the jurisdiction of the Special Court must specifcally aver and prove both the ingredients i.e., the factum as well as the intention, that one falls in the category of the clause (d) of Section 2 of the Act) and that he has occupied the land in dispute, which belongs to the applicant “without any unlawful entitlement and with a view

to or with the intention of illegally taking possession of such

land”.

11.In Gowni Satya Reddy Vs. Government of A.P. (2004) 7

SCC 398, it is observbed as under :

“From a reading of the defnitions of the phrases “land grabber” and “land grabbing it is clear that the grabbing of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take possession of such lands illegally. That is to say, the land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement. If such elements as indicated above are missing in our view, it would not b a case of land grabbing.”

12.It is also very useful to refer the decision submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent herein and it is in a case of

M.Yadagiri Reddy Vs. V.C. Brahmanna and another, 2005 (1) ALT

56 (D.B), wherein Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed in para 17 as under:

“17.It is observed in clear and categorical terms that merely not being entitled to get the possession iteslf is not enough to hold a person to be a land grabber unless the possession was taken with an intention to enter into possession illegally. The mere fact of illegal not entitled to the possession would not fulful the ingredients of the 9 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District defnition “land grabber” and “land grabbing”. Mere fact that one is not lawfully entitled to enter into possession would not be enough to characterise one to be a land grabber and such entry does not amount to land grabbing unless possession is illegally taken with that view in mind. The person taking possession must know tht he is acting illegally while taking possession of the land.”

13.Keeping in mind the propositions of law enunciated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and our Hon’ble High Court, now this court

proceeds to evluate the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

14.Reverting to the facts on hand, it is an admitterd fact that applicant No.1 i.e., Yadi Reddy, Narsimha Reddy and Buchi Reddy are the sons of original owner of the land Advi Reddy and they are having land

Ac.10-04 gts., in Sy.Nos.230 to 233 and 238 to 240 situated at

Kharmanghat Village, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District. It is also an admitted fact that the frst applicant Yadi Reddy and his brothers

Narsimha Reddy, along with the children of Buchi Reddy i.e., applicants

No.5 to 7 executed a registered GPA vide document No.31/1987 dated 31-07-1987 which is marked as Ex.B1 and the said GPA is in respect of

Plot No.83 in favour of Anjali Devi.

15.Ex.B2 is a crucial document in the facts and circumstances of the case. Ex.B2 is an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated August, 1987 executed by Yadi Reddy, Narsimha Reddy and children of Buchi

Reddy in favour of Nandini Devi who was minor being represented by her mother Anjali Devi and Ex.B2 is in respect of Plot No.84, which is the 10 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District petition schedule property herein. It is the case of the respondent that by virtue of Ex.B2, which is an unregistered Agreement of Sale document, the applicants parted away with the petition schedule property i.e., plot No.84 in favour of Nandini Devi who is none other than the daughter of Anjali Devi and later the said Nandini Devi executed a registered Gift Deed in favour of her mother which is marked as Ex.B4 (Gift Deed document bearing No.4941/2005, dated 17-05-2005) and from the said Anjali Devi the respondent herein is said to have purchased the petition schedule property under Ex.A5. It is further case of the respondent that after purchasing the petition schedule property he regularized the same under Land Regularization Scheme and the

Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation issued proceedings in his favour on 13-06-2012 which is marked as Ex.B5.

16.At this juncture it is relevant to observe Section 10 of the Act and it is with regard to the burden of proof, Section 10 reads as under:

10.Burden of proof :- Where in any proceedings under this prima facie proved to be the land owned by the Government or by a private person the Special Court or as the case may be, the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person who is alleged to have grabbed the land is a land- grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person.”

17.A bare perusal of above provisions goes to show that on a prima-facie proof by the petitioners that the land was owned by them, court shall presume that respondent is a “land grabber” and burden is on the respondent to prove that the land has not been grabbed by him.

11 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

18.In the instant case the respondent is claiming his right by virtue of his sale deed which is marked as Ex.A5, sale deed bearing document No.4346/2010, dated 23-07-2010 and after purchase of the schedule property under the above registered sale deed the said plot was regularized by the GHMC under Land Regularization Scheme and issued proceedings under Ex.B5. Therefore from the above two documents the lawful entitlement of respondent appears to be probable.

Coming to the title and possession of predecessors in title of the respondent is concerned, as regards Plot No.83 (part) is concerned, petitioners themselves admitted about the execution of registered document under Ex.B1 in favour of Smt. Anjali Devi for plot No.83. The whole controversy revolves around Ex.B2 i.e., unregistered Agreement of

Sale, through which, according to the respondent, the applicants/ petitioners herein sold away the same in favour of Smt. Nandhini Devi who is none other than the daughter of Anjali Devi. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since Ex.B2 is an unregistered

Agreement of Sale, no right or title is conveyed through that document and in support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj

Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltx., Vs. State of Haryana & another,

dated 11-10-2011. There is no dispute with regard to the

observations of the Hon’ble Apex court in the above decision relied by the applicants. However it is equally settled proposition that an unregistered Agreement of Sale, wherein the possession is delivered under part performance shall be used by a party against his vendor’s to defend his possession. There is a clear recital in Ex.B2 that possession of plot NO.84 was delivered in favour of Nandini Devi and she acquired 12 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District possessory right over the petition schedule property in part performance of Agreement of sale.

19.Therefore it can be said that by virtue of Ex.B2 the predecessor-in-title of respondent was lawfully entitled to enter into possession of land and her his entering into the possession or the subsequent possession of respondent, cannot be termed as “without any lawful entitlement”. The learned counsel for respondent, by placing the reliance on M.Yadagiri Reddy’s case (supra) argued that by virtue of registered sale deeds and through land regularization proceedings the respondent has taken possession and it is not illegal possession. This court fnds force in such contention, for the reason that in M.Yadagiri

Reddy’s decision the Division Bench of our Hon’ble High Court has categorically observed that mere fact that one is not lawfully entitled to enter into possession would not be enough to characterize the said person to be a ‘land grabber’ and such entry does not amount to “land grabbing”, unless possession is illegally taken with that view in mind.

The person taking possession must know that he is acting illegally, while taking possession of the land.

20.Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in Konda Lakshmana

Bapuji’s, case cited supra also observed that to hold a person as “land grabber”, it must be shown that he has taken possession unauthorizedly, unfairly, snatched forcibly, any land belonging to the Government or a private person; and without any lawful entitlement and with a view to taking illegal possession of such land. In the instant case as discussed above the respondent herein has legally taken the possession of the land 13 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District by virtue of registered document under Ex.A5 which was also recognized by the GHMC. Further even the predecessor-in-title of the respondent was also entered possession by virtue of Ex.B2.

21.When this court has carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is observed that the respondent has discharged his burden of proof that he was lawfully entitled for possession of the petition schedule property, though agreement of sale is an unregistered and there was no intention on his part to illegally take possession of petition schedule property.

22.Having regard to the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners/ applicants failed to prove their case and therefore this court holds that petitioners / applicants are not entitled for any of the reliefs and the respondent cannot be declared as a “land grabber”. Points No.1 & 2 are answered accordingly against the petitioners / applicants.

POINT NO.3:-

23.In view of negative fnding under points No.1 & 2, this

L.G.O.P is liable to be dismissed.

24.In the result, this L.G.O.P. is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court, this the 14 th day of November, 2023.

Spl.Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act -cum- VII Addl. District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

14 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners/ Applicants:-

PW1: Marri Surender Reddy

For Respondent:-

RW.1: S.Jagannadha Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Claim Petitioners:

Ex.A1:Certifed copy of GPA bearing document No.151/2011 in favour of Smt. M.Manjula

Ex.A2:Certifed copy of GPA bearing document No.31/1987 in favour of Smt. Anjali Devi.

Ex.A3:Certifed copy of Sale Deed bearing document No.4683/2005 for Plot No.83

Ex.A4: Certifed copy of Gift Deed bearing document No.4941/2005 for Plot No.84.

Ex.A5: Certifed copy of Sale Deed bearing document No.4346/2010 in favour of respondent.

For Respondent:

Ex.B1:Original GPA bearing document No.31/1987, dt:07-014-1987 in favour of Smt. Anjali Devi.

Ex.B2:Original Agreement of Sale dated 05-08-1987.

Ex.B3: Original Sale deed bearing document No.4683/2005,

dated 11-05-2005.

Ex.B4: Original Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.4941/2005, dated 17-05-2005.

Ex.B5:Original Proceedings No.LRS/726/CR-3/EastZone/GHMC/2012,

dated 13-06-2012.

Ex.B6:Original Property Tax Assessment No.1030811454.

Ex.B7:Original Karvy List of documents.

Ex.B8:Original Deed of Simple Mortgage deed No.19527/2013,

dt:06-12-2013.

15 L.G.O.P.No.71/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

Ex.B9:Original Electricity Bills No.211405542, dt:11-04-2011.

Ex.B10:Original Water Bill No.617629412, dated 29-01-2013.

Ex.B11:3 Colour photos with C.D.

Spl.Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act -cum- VII Addl. District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

1 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

BEFORE THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER

SCs & STs (POA) ACT -CUM - VII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, RANGA

REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI. MOHD. AFROZ AKTHAR CHAIRMAN/ MACT CUM SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs & STs (POA)

ACT, CUM VII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

MONDAY ON THIS THE 14 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

L.G.O.P. No.72 of 2014

Between:

1.M.Yadi Reddy, S/o.M.Advi Reddy, Aged 91 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

2.Smt. M.Bhootalli alias Bhulakshmi, W/o. Late M.narssimha Reddy, aged 89 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.17-1-386, Near S.N.Reddy Gardens, Champapet, Hyderabad.

3.M.Sanjeeva Reddy, S/o.Late M.Narasimha Reddy, Aged 55 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-386, Near S.N.Reddy Gardens, Champapet, Hyderabad.

4.M.Surender Reddy, S/o. Late M.Narasimha Reddy, Aged 53 years, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-386, Near S.N.Reddy Gardens, Champapet, Hyderabad.

5.M.Srinivas Reddy, S/o.Late Buchi Reddy, Aged 53 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

6.M.Madhava Reddy, S/o. Late M.Buchi Reddy, Aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7.M.Govardhan Reddy, S/o. Late M.Buchi Reddy, Aged 51 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

Applicants 1 to 7 are represented by their duty constituted attorney Smt. Marri Manjula, Aged 45 years, Vide GPA registered as document No.151/2011,

dated 05-11-2011, W/o.Marri Surender Reddy,

Occ: Housewife, R/o.H.No.17-1-383/42/1, Flat No.202, Gayathri Towers, Indraprasthapuram Colony, Saidabad, Hyderabad – 500 059.

2 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

8.M.Krishna Reddy, S/o.Late Yadi Reddy, resididng at R/o. Champapet Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

9.M.Bhaskar Reddy, S/o.Late Yadi Reddy, Residing at R/o. Champapet village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(Applicants 8 & 9 are impleaded as per orders in I.A.No.495/2022

dated 01-06-2023.)

…Applicants

And

Nagaram Srinivas, S/o.Late Sayappa aged about 45 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.17-1-376, LIGH-4, New Santosh Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. …. Respondents.

This petition is coming on 05.10.2023 for fnal hearing before me in the presence of Sri.M.V. Ramana, Advocate for Petitioners/Applicants and that of Sri M.K.Jaleel, Advocate for Respondent and upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Tribunal passed the following:

O R D E R

1. This application is fled under Sub-Section (1) of Section 7-A and Section 8 (1) of A.P. (Telangana) Land Grabbing Act, 1982 (A.P Act XII of 1982) with a prayer that the applicants are having legal ownership and entitlement for lawful possession of the schedule property and restore the possession of the applicants by evicting the respondent.

Applicants also seek compensation from the respondent and also prays to punish the responent.

2. The brief averments of the application are that:

(i)One Advi Reddy was the absolute owner and possessor of total land of Ac.10-04 gts., in Sy.Nos.230 to 233 and 238 to 240 situated at Kharmanghat Village, Saroornagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. The 3 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District said M.Advi Reddy, is the father of M.Yadi Reddy (Applicant No.1); father-in-law of Smt. M.Bhoolakshmi (applicant No.2) and grand father of applicants No.3 to 7. After demise of Advi Reddy his sons M.Yadi Reddy,

M.Narsimha Reddy and M.Buchi Reddy have become entitled to 1/3rd share each in the above mentioned property. Thereafter M.Buchi Reddy also died and his sons i.e., applicants No.5 to 7 are entitled for his share.

It is further averred that applicants No.5 to 7 obtained a layout dated 10-08-1978 from Karmanghat Grampanchayath and divided the same into plots and they had sold away most of the land to the diferent individuals. It is further averred that meanwhile the husband of applicant No.2 and father of applicants No.3 & 4 died on 21-05-1991, leaving behind the applicants NO.2 to 4 to succeed to his share/ rights in the remaining property. The applicants had executed a General Power of Attorney dated 05-09-2011 vide registered document bearing

No.151/2011, in favour of Smt. M.Manjula, in respect of plot Nos.14, 52, 53, 62, 65 and plot No.84 total admeasuring 1556 Sq.yards.

ii)It is further averred that GPA holder of the petitioners visited the site i.e., Plot No.53, admeasuring 267 sq.yards, which is petition schedule property herein found that the same was occupied by the respondent. On enquiry, Power of Attorney holder of the petitioners herein learnt that the petition schedule property was conveyed in favour of respondent by one Smt. Bandaru Saraswathi through a registered Gift

Settlement Deed bearing document No.25731/2006. It is further averred

Smt. Bandaru Saraswathi is claiming title over the petition schedule property through sale deed, alleged to have been executed by one

Bandaru Balvanth Rao, who is none other than her husband through registered document bearing No.1275/1992. The GPA of the applicants 4 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District had obtained the certifed copies of the said sale deed and it is observed that the same does not disclose the nature of acquisition of the so called

Bandaru Balvanth Rao. None of the applicants have sold the plot to the said person. The respondent also with his vendors had fabricated the documents with an intention to grab the land. The property is a vacant piece of land and construction is made by the respondent after 2006 on the basis of fabricated document.

iii)It is further averred that the petitioners being the joint owners of the property had never sold the schedule property or part thereof, to any one muchless, to the so called vendors of the respondent nor their predecessors in title. The respondent with the donor and her husband had fabricated the documents for grabbing the property and possession of the respondent over the petition schedule property amounts to land grabbing. The respondent had not acquired any valid title to the property, and as such respondent had committed the ofence of land grabbing and is liable to be punished for the illegal occupation of the petition schedule property. The acquisition of property of the petitioners, by the respondent is illegal and no title acquired to him and he is a land grabber as defned under the Act. The respondent has not acquired any valid right over the property and has committed ofence of land grabbing and he is liable for punishment. Hence this petition.

3.Respondent fled counter wherein the fact that Advi Reddy, was the owner and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.10-04 gts., in

Sy.Nos.230 to 233 and 238 to 240 situated at Kharmanghat Village,

Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District, was admitted. It is also stated that infact the frst applicant along with M.Narsimha Reddy and 5 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District children of Buchi Reddy have executed an agreement of sale by receiving entire sale consideration of Rs.26,700/- from B.Balwanth Rao for sale of plot No.53 to an extent of 267 Sq.yards and delivered possession on 24-11-1986, as such the respondent is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule of property since 24-11-1986.

Though the applicants/ petitioner are also aware of the document dated 24-11-1986, they have intentionally avoided to mention the same and that only to extract amounts the present application is fled. It is further averred that this respondent in enjoying the property by acquiring the same through lawful means and it is within the knowledge of the applicants. It is further averred that this respondent having purchased the petition schedule property for a valid sale consideration, got regularized the same vide proceedings No.LRS/001/CR-3/East

Zone/GHMC/2012, dated 18-04-2012, along with approved plan and has been paying tax regularly. It is fnally averred that the interest of the respondent is protected by Section 53 (A) of Transfer of Property Act and therefore fnally prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.Soon after registration of this land grabbing petition, the application was referred to the Jurisdictional MRO for local enquiry and verifcation and the Tahsildhar-cum-Deputy Collector, Saroornagar

Mandal submitted his report that Bandaru Saraswathi purchased plot

No.53 admeasuring 267 Sq.yards in the above survey number from

Bandaru Balvanth Rao through a registered sale deed vide document bearing No.1275/1992, dated 30-01-1992 and subsequently the said

Saraswathi executed registered Gift Deed bearing document

No.25731/2006, dated 30-11-2006 in favour of respondent herein 6 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District namely Nagaram Srinivas and the petition schedule plot was in possession of Nagaram Srinicas covered by a compound wall.

5.During the course of enquiry, on behalf of applicants/ petitioner, the applicant/ petitioner No.4 was examined as PW.1 and

Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of respondent, he himself is examined himself as RW.1 and got marked Exs.B1 to B7.

6.Arguments of either side were heard and the records are perused.

7.Now the points for consideration are :

i) Whether the applicants / petitioners were owners and possessor of the petition schedule property ?

ii) Whether the respondent is a “Land grabber” within the

meaning of Section 2(d) and 2 (e) of the Act ?

iii) To what relief the parties are entitled to ?

POINT Nos.1 & 2:

8.Before entering into the discussion on the above points No.1 & 2, it is just and necessary to refer some of the provisions of the Act XII of 1982 and settled proposition of law enunciated by the Hon’ble

Superior courts for better understanding and for a just decision in the case.

9. Section 2(d) of the act defned who is a “land grabber” and

Section 2 (e) of the Act defnes the expression of “land grabbing” and they read as under:

7 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District 2 (d). “land grabber” means a person or a group of persons who commits land grabbing and includes any person who gives fnancial aid to any person for taking illegal possession of lands or for construction of unauthorised structures thereon, or who collects or attempts to collect from any occupiers of such lands, rent, compensation and other charges by criminal intimidation, or who abets the doing of any of the above mentioned acts; and also includes the successors in interest ; 2(e)“land grabbing” means every activity of grabbing of any land (whether belongs to the Government, a local authority, a religious or charitable institution or endowment, including a wakf, or any other private person) by a person or group of persons, without any lawful entitlement and with a view to illegally taking possession of such lands, or enter into or create illegal tenancies or lease and licenses agreements or sturck unauthorised structures thereon for sale or hire, or give such lands to any person on rental or lease and licence basis for construction, or use and occupation of unauthorised structures; and the term “to grab land” shall be construed accordingly :

10.It is also relevant to note some of the decisions of the

Hon’ble Suprement Court and Hon’ble High Courts. In Konda

Lakshmana Bapuji Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and

others 2063 of 1999 SCC 258, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in order to make out a case that one is the land grabber, the person who is invoking the jurisdiction of the Special Court must specifcally aver and prove both the ingredients i.e., the factum as well as the intention, that one falls in the category of the clause (d) of Section 2 of 8 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District the Act) and that he has occupied the land in dispute, which belongs to the applicant “without any unlawful entitlement and with a view

to or with the intention of illegally taking possession of such

land”.

11.In Gowni Satya Reddy Vs. Government of A.P. (2004) 7

SCC 398, it is observbed as under :

“From a reading of the defnitions of the phrases “land grabber” and “land grabbing it is clear that the grabbing of any land must be without any lawful entitlement and with a view to take possession of such lands illegally. That is to say, the land grabber must be aware of the fact that he is entering into the possession illegally and without any lawful entitlement. If such elements as indicated above are missing in our view, it would not b a case of land grabbing.”

12.It is also very useful to refer the decision submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent herein and it is in a case of

M.Yadagiri Reddy Vs. V.C. Brahmanna and another, 2005 (1) ALT

56 (D.B), wherein Division Bench of Hon’ble High Court observed in para 17 as under:

“17.It is observed in clear and categorical terms that merely not being entitled to get the possession iteslf is not enough to hold a person to be a land grabber unless the possession was taken with an intention to enter into possession illegally. The mere fact of illegal not entitled to the possession would not fulful the ingredients of the defnition “land grabber” and “land grabbing”. Mere fact that one is not lawfully entitled to enter into possession would not be enough to characterise one to be a land grabber and such 9 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District entry does not amount to land grabbing unless possession is illegally taken with that view in mind. The person taking possession must know tht he is acting illegally while taking possession of the land.”

13.Keeping in mind the propositions of law enunciated by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court and our Hon’ble High Court, now this court

proceeds to evluate the oral and documentary evidence available on record.

14.Reverting to the facts on hand, it is an admitterd fact that applicant No.1 i.e., Yadi Reddy, Narsimha Reddy and Buchi Reddy are the sons of original owner of the land Advi Reddy and they are having land

Ac.10-04 gts., in Sy.Nos.230 to 233 and 238 to 240 situated at

Kharmanghat Village, Saroornagar mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

15.Ex.B1 is a crucial document in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is an unregistered Agreement of Sale dated 24-11-1986 said to have been executed by Yadi Reddy, Narsimha Reddy and children of Buchi Reddy in favoaur of Bandaru Balvanth Rao in respect of Plot

No.53 which is petition schedule property herein and in this document there is a recital about the delivery of possession of the property in favour of Bandaru Balvanth Rao. Later the said Bandaru Balvanth Rao executed registered sale deed under Ex.A3 vide document bearing

No.1275/1992, dated 31-01-1992 in favour of his wife B.Saraswathi and from the said Saraswathi the respondent herein is said to have purchased the petition schedule property under Ex.A2.

10 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

16.At this juncture it is argued by the learned counsel for respondent that after executing Ex.B1 in favour of Balvanth Rao by the applicants/ petitioners herein they have parted away with the possession of the petition schedule property. He further argued that the respondent after purchasing the petition schedule property through a registered sale deed, the same was regularized by the GHMC under Land Regularization

Scheme by issuing proceedings under Ex.B3 and later respondent herein also obtained construction permission under Ex.B5 and constructed a structure and thereby his possession is legal.

17.At this juncture it is relevant to observe Section 10 of the Act and it is with regard to the burden of proof, Section 10 reads as under:

10.Burden of proof :- Where in any proceedings under this prima facie proved to be the land owned by the Government or by a private person the Special Court or as the case may be, the Special Tribunal shall presume that the person who is alleged to have grabbed the land is a land- grabber and the burden of proving that the land has not been grabbed by him shall be on such person.”

18.A bare perusal of above provisions goes to show that on a prima-facie proof by the petitioners that the land was owned by them, court shall presume that respondent is a “land grabber” and burden is on the respondent to prove that the land has not been grabbed by him.

19.As seen from the contentions narrated supra, respondent is claiming his right by virtue of sale deed which is marked as Ex.A2.

Under Ex.B3 the GHMC has regularized the said plot and under Ex.B5 11 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District building permission was sanctioned by the GHMC. Title document of the predecessor of the respondent is from the year 1992 onwards. Perusal of all the above mentioned documents show the legal entitlement of the respondent. However it is the core contention of the counsel for petitioners / applicants that there was no valid fow of legal title in favour of the vendor of the respondent. The whole controversy revolves around

Ex.B1 an unregistered Agreement of Sale, through which, as per respondent, the petitioners / applicants herein sold away the property in question in favour of B.Balvanth Rao. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since Ex.B1 is an unregistered

Agreement of Sale, no right or title is conveyed through that document and in support of his contention the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Suraj

Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltx., Vs. State of Haryana & another,

dated 11-10-2011. There is no dispute with regard to the

observations of the Hon’ble Apex court in the above decision relied by the applicants. However it is equally settled proposition that an unregistered Agreement of Sale, wherein the possession is delivered under part performance shall be used by a party against his vendor’s to defend his possession. There is a clear recital in Ex.B1 that possession of plot No.53 was delivered in favour of Balvanth Rao and he acquired possessory right over the petition schedule property in part performance of Agreement of sale.

20.Therefore it can be said that by virtue of Ex.B1 the predecessor-in-title of respondent was lawfully entitled to enter into possession of land and her his entering into the possession or the 12 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District subsequent possession of respondent, cannot be termed as “without any lawful entitlement”. The learned counsel for respondent, by placing the reliance on M.Yadagiri Reddy’s case (supra) argued that by virtue of registered sale deeds and through land regularization proceedings the respondent has taken possession and it is not illegal possession. This court fnds force in such contention, for the reason that in M.Yadagiri

Reddy’s decision the Division Bench of our Hon’ble High Court has categorically observed that mere fact that one is not lawfully entitled to enter into possession would not be enough to characterize the said person to be a ‘land grabber’ and such entry does not amount to “land grabbing”, unless possession is illegally taken with that view in mind.

The person taking possession must know that he is acting illegally, while taking possession of the land.

21.Even the Hon’ble Apex Court in Konda Lakshmana

Bapuji’s, case cited supra also observed that to hold a person as “land grabber”, it must be shown that he has taken possession unauthorizedly, unfairly, snatched forcibly, any land belonging to the Government or a private person; and without any lawful entitlement and with a view to taking illegal possession of such land. In the instant case as discussed above the respondent herein has legally taken the possession of the land by virtue of registered document under Ex.A5 which was also recognized by the GHMC. Further even the predecessor-in-title of the respondent was also entered possession by virtue of Ex.B2.

22.When this court has carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record, it is observed that the 13 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District respondent has discharged his burden of proof that he was lawfully entitled for possession of the petition schedule property, though agreement of sale is an unregistered and there was no intention on his part to illegally take possession of petition schedule property.

23.Having regard to the above said discussion, this court is of the opinion that the petitioners/ applicants failed to prove their case and therefore this court holds that petitioners / applicants are not entitled for any of the reliefs and the respondent cannot be declared as a “land grabber”. Points No.1 & 2 are answered accordingly against the petitioners / applicants.

POINT NO.3:-

24.In view of negative fnding under points No.1 & 2, this

L.G.O.P is liable to be dismissed.

25.In the result, this L.G.O.P. is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer G-1, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open court, this the 14 th day of November, 2023.

Spl.Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act -cum- VII Addl. District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioners/ Applicants:-

PW1: Marri Surender Reddy

For Respondent:-

RW.1: N.Srinivas 14 L.G.O.P.No.72/2014 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Claim Petitioners:

Ex.A1:Certifed copy of GPA bearing document No.151/2011 in favour of Smt. M.Manjula

Ex.A2:Certifed copy of Gift Settlement Deed bearing document No.25731/2006, dated 30-11-2006.

Ex.A3:Certifed copy of Sale Deed bearing document No.1275/1992, dated 30-01-1992

For Respondent:

Ex.B1:Original Agreement of Sale dated 24-11-1986, Endorsement No.4564, dated 24-12-2011 favouring Bandaru Balwanth Rao.

Ex.B2:Original Receipt issued by New Padmanagar Colony Welfare Association with Receipt No.178, dated 31-01-2007.

Ex.B3: Original LRS proceedings No.LRS/001/CR-3/East Zone/GHMC/ 2012, dated 18-04-2012

Ex.B4: Original property Tax Assessment No.1030811583.

Ex.B5:Original Sanction of Building permission by GHMC, Hyd., with No.11979/DC/EZ/Cir.3/2012, dated 13-06-2012.

Ex.B6:Original Electricity bill with S.No.211404639, USIC No.102491140.

Ex.B7:Photos of the suit schedule property.

Spl.Judge for SC/ST(POA) Act -cum- VII Addl. District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar

1S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

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

UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT –CUM- VII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS

JUDGE : RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SRI. MOHD. AFROZ AKTHAR

Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum- VII.Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

WEDNESDAY, ON THIS 8 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023.

SC/ST. SC. No.73 OF 2016

Cr.No., PS. and the fle ofCr.No.84/2015 of PS Kukatpally, on the fle of the Court.IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally.

Police Station PS Kukatpally

DescriptionoftheNallamothu Shanker Rao, S/o.Koteswara AccusedRao, Age: 42 years, Caste: Kamma, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.5-3-256, Plot No.48, Road NO.5, Venkatraonagar Colony, Kukatpally, N/ o.Kakumanu (V) & (M), Guntur District.

Charges Under Section 506 of IPC and 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act, 1989 against accused.

Plea of the accused Not guilty Finding of the Judge In the result, this court fnds the

Accused not guilty for the ofence punishable Under Section 506 of IPC and 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly Accused is acquitted under

Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

2S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

Prosecution conductedSri S.Prathap Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor by Accused defended byM/s.Subba Rao, Advocate for the accused.

J U D G M E N T

The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kukatpally Division fled charge sheet against the accused for the ofence punishable

Under Section 506 of IPC and 3 (1) (X) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act, 1989.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

On 27-01-2015 at 1630 hours the defacto complainant /

Korra Ramesh, lodged a report stating that, his wife Nirmala is working as a Maid servant in the house of M.Hanumanth Rao, at Venkatraonagar

Colony and the said M.Hanunamth Rao permitted his wife to erect a hut in the open place in his house and as such on 27-01-2015 at 9:00 AM, himself, his wife and his brother-in-law M.Ravi went to see the said place and were talking in their Lambadi language, meanwhile the accused came there and threatened them as to who they are, then the complainant told the accused that Hanumanth Rao permitted them to erect a hut there. Then accused abused them in flthy language as “LAMBADI LANJAKODUKULLARA” and caught hold of the collar of the complainant / PW.1 and pushed him and when his wife interfered, accused also pushed her and continued abusing. Meanwhile Hanumanth

Rao also came there and accused pushed the said Hanumanth Rao also.

Hence the complaint.

3S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

3.On the basis of the above report PW.7 (Sri S.Venkanna) the then Sub-Inspector of Police of PS Kukatpally, registered the present case and issued FIR. Later as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of police, PW.8 (Sri S.Sanjeev Rao) the then ACP, Kukatpally Division, took up the investigation. PW.8 examined and recorded the statements of

Pws 1 to 5 and Lws.5 & 7 and he visited the scene of ofence and conducted scene of ofence panchanama and drew the rough sketch map in the presence of PW.6 and LW.8. Further the Investigating ofcer obtained the caste particulars of PW.1 from LW.10 (Sri J.Krishnaiah) the then Tahsildhar of Lingala Mandal, in which it is mentioned that PW.1 belongs to ST (Lambadies-SL.No.29 (ST) caste and the caste particulars of accused from LW.11 (A.Narsimha Redd) Dy.Collector/ Tahsildhar of

Balanagar Mandal, wherein it is mentioned that accused belongs to

Kamma Community and after completion of investigation he fled charge sheet.

4.Cognizance was taken by this court for the ofence punishable Under Section Under Section 506 of IPC and 3 (1) (X) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents relied by the prosecution, were furnished to him and charges were framed against him, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, Prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses as PWs 1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7.

4S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

6.After closer of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. by putting the incriminating evidence appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused denied the evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Arguments on either side heard and records were perused.

8.Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the ofences

punishable Under Section 506 of IPC and 3 (1) (X) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act, 1989 ?”

POINT:-

9.The specifc allegations leveled against the accused are that he committed criminal intimidation by threatening Pws 1 to 3 and also intentionally humiliated by abusing Pws 1 to 3 in the name of their caste.

10.In order to prove the above allegations the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses as Pws 1 to 8. Among them PW.1 is the complainant/ victim, PW.2 is his wife. PW.3 is brother-in-law of PW.1.

PW.4 is said to be an eye witness. PW.5 is an independent witness. PW.6 is the mediator for conduct of scene of ofence panchanama. PW.7 is the

S.I. of Police who issued FIR and PW.8 is the investigating ofcer in this case. Among the above witnesses Pws 1 to 5 are the material witnesses and hence, at the outset, their evidence is discussed as under:

5S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

11.PW.1 (Peerya @ Ramesh) the defacto complainant/victim deposed that, on 01-01-2015 his wife (PW.2) was working in the house of

Hanumanth Rao and they asked the said Hanumantha Rao permission to erect a hut in his open land, then the said Hanumantha Rao permitted.

PW.1 further deposed that then they gathered some sticks and wood and kept in the said open place and on the next day again he went there and at that time accused came there and questioned him as to why he came there and abused him as “LAMBADI LANJA KODAKA”. PW.1 further deposed that accused pushed him and also his wife, when his wife interfered. He further deposed that then he went and lodged the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P1.

12.PW.2 (K.Nirmala) is the wife of PW.1 and she deposed that on 27-01-2015 when she was working in the house of Hanumantha Rao, they asked the said Hanumantha Rao who permitted them to erect a hut in his open land. She further deposed that she gathered sticks and wood in the said open land and at that time accused came there and abused them as to why you Lambadi people are there. Then she questioned the accused, why he was talking like that, then accused pushed her. PW.2 further deposed that then they made a call to Hanumantha Rao and other colony people also gathered there, accused also abused them.

13.PW.3 (M.Ravi) he deposed that PW.2 was working in a house and she asked one Venkat Rao to permit to have a hut in his open land.

He further deposed that himself and PW.1 were talking about the said hut in the open land, then accused came there and abused in flthy 6S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District language as “LAMBADI LANJA KODUKULARA YEM MATLADUTUNARU” and accused caught hold of PW.1, then PW.2 came there and accused pushed

PW.2 also. PW.1 made a call to the Sir where PW.2 was working and then he also came.

14.PW.4 (M.Hanumanth Rao) said to be a person, who permitted

Pws 1 & 2 to erect a hut and when he was in the witness box PW.4 refused to tell anything about the facts of the case by stating that the accused was blackmailing him. The learned APP declared PW.4 as hostile.

15.PW.5 (M.Krishna Rao) cited by the prosecution as an independent witness and he deposed that PW.4 is son of his brother and accused is their neighbour. In January, 2015 at about 10:00 or 10:30 AM, so many persons gathered in front of the house of the accused and accused was tenant in the house of PW.4. he do not know the reason for such gathering. This witness also declared as hostile by the prosecution.

16.PW.6 (G.Narsimha Goud) is the mediator for conduct of scene of ofence panchanama and he deposed that on 27-01-2015, police conducted scene of ofence panchanama, which is marked as through this witness as Ex.P3. PW.7 is the Inspector of police who registered the

FIR in this case and he deposed about the said aspect and the FIR is marked as Ex.P4.

7S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

17.PW.8 (N.Sanjeev Rao) Investigating ofcer in this case and he deposed that as per the proceedings of commissioner of police he was appointed as Investigating ofcer. He deposed that on 02-02-2015 the defacto complainant appeared before him and he examined and recorded the statement of PW.1 and on the same day he went to scene of ofence and recorded the statements of other witnesses and prepared

CDF. He deposed about the other aspects of investigation done by him which is already narrated and about his fling charge sheet.

18.In the cross-examination PW.8- Investigating ofcer admitted that in this case the charge sheet was fled pending caste certifcate of the accused. He also admitted that when the charge sheet was returned for technical reasons, the same was resubmitted with his signature.

PW.8 further admitted that on 07-12-2015 when the charge sheet in this case was resubmitted he was under suspension and he has not resubmitted the charge sheet on 07-12-2015 and he do not know who resubmitted the same. He denied a suggestion that charge sheet fled by him, is not valid in the eye of law. He deposed that he know about the civil and criminal cases pending between the accused and

Hanumanth Rao.

19.Thus the above is precisely the evidence of prosecution witnesses available on record.

20.It is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that since the Investigating Ofcer (PW.8) himself admitted that he was under 8S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District suspension when the charge sheet was resubmitted in this case, the charge sheet itself is invalid. As it was resubmitted with his signature and he ceased to be the investigating ofcer in view of his suspension.

The learned counsel further argued that, the incident is not within the public view as it was inside the house building. The learned counsel further argued that witnesses failed to tell about the features of the building i.e., scene of ofence. He further argued that prosecution did not fle any document to show that PW.4 Hanumanth Rao is the owner the building to permit Pws.1 & 2 to erect the hut. The learned counsel

for accused also highlighted the discrepancies with regard to the date of

incident as he argued that PW.1 deposed that the incident took place on 01-01-2015.

21.On the other hand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that as the investigating ofcer himself resubmitted the charge sheet, it was during his period only. The learned Additional Public

Prosecutor further argued that the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 is cogent and convincing and there are only minor discrepancies, which do not afect the core case of the prosecution.

22.This court has carefully considered the submissions of either side and has gone through the record i.e., evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the material available on record. So far as the specifc abusive words alleged to have been used by the accused, this court fnds inconsistency in the evidence of Pws 1 to 3. PW.1 deposed that accused abused as “LAMBADI LANJA KODAKA”. PW.3 deposed that 9S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District accused abused as “LAMBADI LANJA KODUKULARA YEM

MATLADUTUNARU”. But PW.2 did not specifcally deposed, the so called abusive words alleged to have been uttered by the accused. She deposed that accused questioned them as to “Lambadi people” gathered there. She also deposed that accused abused them but what were the abusive words uttered, are not deposed by her.

23.Further more, it is settled proposition of law that mere use of abusive words, however flthy it may be de hors the necessary intention would not constitute the ofence within the meaning of Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Necessary intention to humiliate a person with a public view is the core ingredient which the prosecution need to prove to attract the provisions of the act. In the instant case, such necessary intention on the part of accused is lacking.

24.PW.4- Hanumanth Rao who is a crucial witness in this case, however he did not support the case of the prosecution. Even the evidence of another independent witness i.e., PW.5 is also not helpful to the prosecution. Further more PW.6 who is mediator for conduct of scene of ofence panchanama, deposed that such panchanama was conducted on 27-01-2015, which is not the case of prosecution. As per the prosecution scene of ofence was conducted on 02-02-2015, but not on 27-01-2015. It is rightly argued by the learned defence counsel that, as per the rough sketch map of the scene of ofence the same is within the compound wall of the building and it is doubtful whether the same is withing the public view.

10S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

25.In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that the case setup by the prosecution is not free from suspicion, in which event the beneft of doubt should be given to the accused.

Therefore, this court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for any of the charges leveled against the accused. Therefore accused is entitled for acquittal.

Point is answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

26. In the result, this court fnds the Accused not guilty for the ofence punishable Under Section 506 of IPC and 3 (1) (X) of the

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (POA) Act, 1989 and accordingly

Accused is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of

Accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

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

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of November, 2023.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For Trial of ofences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED: -None- PW.1 : Peerya @ Ramesh

PW.2 : K.Nirmala

PW.3 : M.Ravi

PW.4 : M.Hanumanth Rao

PW.5 : M.Krishna Rao 11S.C.No.73/2016 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

PW.6 : G.Narsimha Goud

PW.7 : S.Venkanna

PW.8 : N.Sanjeev Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: Accused:

Ex.P1: Complaint. Nil.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

Ex.P3: Scene of ofence panchanama along with sketch map.

Ex.P4: FIR

Ex.P5: C.P. Proceedings.

Ex.P6: Caste particulars of accused.

Ex.P7: Caste particulars of PW.1.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For Trial of ofences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1S.C.No.224/2022 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

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

UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT –CUM- VII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS

JUDGE : RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SRI. MOHD. AFROZ AKTHAR

Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum- VII.Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

WEDNESDAY, ON THIS 8 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023.

SC/ST. SC. No.224 OF 2022 (Old S.C.No.130 of 2018)

Cr.No., PS. and the fle ofCr.No.305/2015 of PS Kothur, on the fle the Court.Principal Jucial First ClaSS Magistrate At Shadnagar. Police Station PS Kothur

DescriptionoftheA1:PinnintiMadhusudhanReddy, AccusedS/o.Narsimha Reddy, Age: 31 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Dy.Sarpanch Mallapur Village, R/o.Mallapur Village of Kothur Mandal.

A2: Pinninti Sudhan Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Age: 29 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Employee at abroad, R/o.Mallapur Village of Kothur Mandal.

Charges Under Section 509, r/w 34 of IPC and

Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 (As

Amended by Act 1 of 2015) against the accused No.1 & 2.

Plea of the accused Not guilty Finding of the Judge In the result, this court fnds the Accused

No.1 & 2 not guilty for the ofence punishable Under Section 509, r/w 34 of

IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 (As Amended by Act 1 of 2015) and accordingly Accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.

2S.C.No.224/2022 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

The bail bonds of Accused No.1 & 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Prosecution conducted bySri S.Prathap Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended byM/s.G.Chandra Shekar Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.1 & 2.

J U D G M E N T

The Assistant Commissioner of police, Shadnagar Division, fled charge sheet against the accused for the ofence punishable Under

Section 509, r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 (As Amended by Act 1 of 2015).

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

On 22-10-2015 at 20:00 hours LW.1/the complainant /Smt.Angothu Sujatha, lodged a report, stating that in view of Dussera festival on 22-10-2015 at 5:30 PM she and her husband Srinivas and villaters went to Suryachandraraju Temple to host the traditional fag in front of Jammi Chettu, as the same is the tradition in the village that

Sarpanch has to host the fag. But instead of that, Dy.Sarpanch (A1) hoisted the fag and being a Sarpanch she raised objection and in the meantime A1 & A2 abused her saying that “LAMBADIDANA MEE

THANDALO YEGURAVESUKO” and thrown the fag and pushed her. At that time villagers Patlolla Chandrashekar Reddy, Ranga Reddy and 3S.C.No.224/2022 SC/ST Court, R.R.District some others told to follow the protocal and sarpanch has to hoist the fag, then A1 & A2 attacked Chandrashekar Reddy and beat him with hands and kicked with legs. Her villagers Srinivas Reddy, Subhash

Reddy, Chenna Reddy and others separated them. Previously Upa

Sarpanch has taken away the Gram panchayath record and caused lot of inconvenience to her. Hence the complaint.

3.On the basis of the above report, the present case was registered by LW-12 (Sri B.Pochaiah) the then Sub-Inspector of Police, PS

Kothur and he issued FIR. Later LW.13 (Sri T.Goverdhan) the then SDPO of Nagarkurnoon HAC, Shadnagar, took up investigation and he v\he visited the scene of ofence and examined and recorded the statements of PWs 1 to 5 and Lws.2 to 4, 6 & 8 and conducted the scene of ofence panchanama in the presence of PW.4 and LW.9 and drew the rough sketch map. A1 & A2 obtained stay of the arrest from the Hon’ble High

Court. Later as per the proceedings of the Commissioner of police,

LW.14 (V.Surender) the then ACP was appointed as Investigating ofcer in this case and he took up further investigation. He obtained the caste particulars of PW.1 and A1 & A2 from LW.11 the then Tahsildhar of Kothur

Mandal, in which it is mentioned that complainant belongs to ST (Lambada Community), whereas A1 & A2 belongs to OC, Reddy community. After completion of investigation, investigating ofcer fled charge sheet.

4.Cognizance was taken by the Special Sessions Court for trial of ofence under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 4S.C.No.224/2022 SC/ST Court, R.R.District 1989, Mahabubnagar, for the ofence punishable Under Section 509, r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 (As Amended by Act 1 of 2015) against the accused No.1 & 2. On appearance of accused before the said court, copies of documents relied by the prosecution, were furnished to them and charges were framed against them for the above said ofences, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed to be tried.

5.Late after reorganization of Districts this case was transferred to this court.

6.During the course of trial, Prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses as PWs 1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

7.After closer of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under Section 313

Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

8.Arguments on either side heard and records were perused.

9.Now, the point that arises for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt

of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the ofences

punishable Under Section 509, r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1)

5S.C.No.224/2022 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

(r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 (As Amended by Act 1 of 2015) ?

10.POINT:-The specifc allegations leveled against the accused are that, the accused raised objection to hoist the traditional fag by complainant who is Sarpanch of the village in front of Jammi tree and insulted her intentionally insulted the defacto complainant knowing that she belongs to ST Community.

11.In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution has examined (5) Five witnesses as PW.1 to PW.5. Among them PW.1 is the defacto complainant and PW.2 is the husband of PW.1 and PW.3 is the brother of PW.1 and Pws.3 & 5 are cited by the prosecution as eye witnesses and PW.4 is the panch witness. However none of the above witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile.

12.PW.1 (A.Sujatha) the defacto complainant deposed that she know both the accused. About 5 years ago at the instance of elders of village, she signed on written papers, but she do not know its contents and police did not examine her. Pws.2, 3 & 5 categorically deposed that they know both the accused and accused did not do anything to PW.1 and they do not know the facts of this case and they did not witness any incident and police did not examine them. PW.4 deposed that about 7 or 8 years ago police conducted panchanama in their village and later obtained his signature in the police station and he do not know what was written in the panchanama.

6S.C.No.224/2022 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

13.Though the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor cross-examined the above witnesses by declaring them as hostile, however, nothing worthwhile was elicited in their cross-examination to connect the accused with the charges leveled. Since the defacto complainant (PW.1) and Pws 2,3 & 5 who are cited as eye witnesses, have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has given up the evidence of remaining list witnesses. Thus absolutely there is no iota of evidence against the accused. Therefore this court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for any of the charges leveled against the accused. Point is answered accordingly.

14.In the result, this court fnds the Accused No.1 & 2 not guilty for the ofence punishable Under Section 509, r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989 (As Amended by Act 1 of 2015) and accordingly Accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused

No.1 & 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8 th day of November, 2023.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For Trial of ofences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

7S.C.No.224/2022 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED: -None- PW1 : A.Sujatha

PW2 : A.Srinivas

PW3 : S.Srinivas Reddy

PW4 : S.Mohan Redy

PW5 : S.Chenna Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: Accused

Ex.P1: PW.1 Signature on Complaint. -Nil-

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P5: Signature on panchanama.

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For trial of ofences under SC/ST

(POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

1S.C.No.215/2018 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

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

UNDER SC/ST (POA) ACT –CUM- VII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS

JUDGE : RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT : SRI. MOHD. AFROZ AKTHAR

Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act-cum- VII.Addl.Dist.&Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

FRIDAY, ON THIS 10 th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023.

SC/ST. SC. No.215 OF 2018

Cr.No., PS. and the fle ofCr.No.75/2018 of PS Kulkecherla, on the fle the Court.Judicial First Class Magistrate At Parigi Police Station PS Kulkecherla

DescriptionoftheA1: Talari Narsimulu, S/o. Jangaiah, aged Accusedabout 28 years, Caste: Muriraj (BC), R/o.MujahidpurVillage,Kulkecherlam Mandal.

A2: Talari Janardhan, S/o. Jangaiah, aged about 21 years, Caste: Muriraj (BC), Occ: Agriculture,R/o.MujahidpurVillage, Kulkecherlam Mandal.

Charges Under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and

Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused No.1 & 2.

Plea of the accused Not guilty Finding of the Judge In the result, this court fnds the

Accused No.1 & 2 not guilty for the ofence punishable Under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly Accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail 2S.C.No.215/2018 SC/ST Court, R.R.District bonds of Accused No.1 & 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over. Prosecution conducted bySri S.Prathap Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor

Accused defended byM/s.S.Bharat Kumar, Advocate for the accused No.1 & 2.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Divisional Police Ofcer, Parigi, Sub-Division, fled charge sheet against the accused for the ofence punishable Under

Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2016.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that:

On 24-07-2018 at 2000 hours the complainant /Dasari

Ramakrishna, lodged a report, stating that on 23-07-2018 at about 2230 hours, when he was returned from Yelkicherla village, herd of goats came across the road at Hanuman Temple of his village due to which he made his car horn in order to clear of the road. Upon which A1 & A2, who are their villagers started abusing the complainant stating that “Mala Lanja Koduka” and also beat him with hands and the same was witnessed by his villager Musalli Babu, who also followed his car. In this regard the village elders tried to compromise the issue, but in vain due to which he lodged the complaint on 24-07-2018. Hence the complaint.

3S.C.No.215/2018 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

3.On the basis of the above report, the present case was registered by LW-9 (Sri M.Chandrakanth) the then Sub-Inspector of

Police, PS Kulkecherla and he issued FIR. Later as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of police, LW.10 (Sri G.Srinivas) the then SDPO of

Parigi Sub-Divisional, took up investigation and he visited the scene of ofence and conducted the scene of ofence panchanama in the presence of LWs.5 & 6 and drew the rough sketch map and he examined and recorded the statements of Pws.1 to 4. The investigating ofcer issued notice under Section 41 (A) Cr.P.C to A1 & A2. The investigating ofcer obtained the caste certifcates of complainant and A1 & A2 from

LW.7 (Ashok Kumar) the Tahsildhar of Kulkecherla Mandal, wherein it is mentioned that PW.1/ complainant belongs to SC (Mala) Community and whereas accused NO.1 & 2 belongs to Mudiraj (BC) Community. After completion of investigation, investigating ofcer fled charge sheet.

4.Cognizance was taken by this court for the ofence punishable Under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA)

Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused No.1 & 2. On appearance of accused before the court, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to them and charges were framed against them for the above said ofences, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, Prosecution has examined as many as 4 witnesses as PWs 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

4S.C.No.215/2018 SC/ST Court, R.R.District [ [6.After closer of the prosecution evidence, as there was no incriminating evidence against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the examination of accused under Section 313

Cr.P.C. was dispensed with.

7.Arguments on either side heard and records were perused.

8.Now, the point that arises for consideration is: “Whether

the prosecution has been able to bring home the guilt of the accused

beyond all reasonable doubt for the ofences punishable Under

Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 ?

9.POINT:-The specifc allegations leveled against the accused are that, the accused No.1 & 2 voluntarily caused hurt to PW.1 by beating him with hands and intentionally intimidated with an intent to humiliated PW.1 and abused him in flthy language in the name of his caste within public view, knowing that he belongs to SC Community.

10.In order to prove the said allegations, the prosecution has examined (4) four witnesses as PW.1 to PW.4. Among them PW.1 is the defacto complainant and PWs.2 & 3 are cited by the prosecution as eye witness. PW.4 is the elder brother of PW.1. However none of the above witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile.

11.PW.1 (D.Ramakrishna) the defacto complainant deposed that he know both the accused, as they are their villagers and accused did 5S.C.No.215/2018 SC/ST Court, R.R.District not do anything to him. About 5 years ago at the instance of police ofcials, he signed on some written papers, but he do not know its contents and police did not examine him. Pws.2 to 4 categorically deposed they know PW.1 and both the accused and they do not know the other facts of this case and they did not witness any incident and police did not examine them.

12.Though the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor cross-examined the above witnesses by declaring them as hostile, however, nothing worthwhile was elicited in their cross-examination to connect the accused with the charges leveled. Since the defacto complainant (PW.1) and Pws 2 & 3 prosecution cited as eye witnesses, have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, the learned Additional

Public Prosecution has given up the evidence of remaining list witnesses.

Thus absolutely there is no iota of evidence against the accused.

Therefore this court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for any of the charges leveled against the accused. Point is answered accordingly.

13.In the result, this court fnds the Accused No.1 & 2 not guilty for the ofence punishable Under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and accordingly Accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of Accused No.1 & 2 shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

6S.C.No.215/2018 SC/ST Court, R.R.District

The unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer G-I, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10 th day of November, 2023.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For Trial of ofences under SC/ST (POA)Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

PROSECUTION: ACCUSED:

PW1 : D.Ramakrishna-None-

PW2 : M.Babu

PW3 : P.Shiva Kumar

PW4 : D.Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED

PROSECUTION: Accused

Ex.P1: PW.1 Signature on Complaint. -Nil-

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1.

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3.

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil.

SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

For trial of ofences under SC/ST

(POA) Act-Cum-VII Addl. Dist. Judge,

Ranga Reddy District.

Corrections carried out by me:

7S.C.No.215/2018 SC/ST Court, R.R.District