IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES
CUM – VII –ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT WARANGAL.
Thursday, the 20th day of October, 2016
Present:- Sri N. Solomon Raju, Spl. Sessions Judge for SC/ST (POA) Cases, Cum-VII-ADJ, Warangal.
S.S.C.No. 77 of 2012
(P.R.C.No. 41 /2012 Committed by the Learned VII – Addl. Judicial First Class
Magistrate Court at Warangal, in Cr.No.199 of 2012 of P.S. Hasanparthy)
1. Name and description of The State of Telangana through the Complainant Asst. Superintendent of Police, Kazipet
2. Name and description A1. Yellavula Kumar Yadav, S/o Veeramallu, Age: 42 years, Caste: Of the accused Yadava, Occ: Business, R/o Paidipally village of Hanamkonda Mandal.
A2: Yellavula Lalitha Yadav, W/o Kumar Yadav, Age: 38 years, Caste: Yadava, Occ: Housewife, R/o Paidipally village of Hanamkonda Mandal.
3. Offences charged u/S. 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)Act, 1989
4. Plea of the Accused Pleaded not guilty.
5. Finding of the Court Found not guilty
6. Conviction/Sentence or In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the acquittal offences under Sec. 3(1)( x) of SC/ST (POA)Act and Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC, Sec. 506 IPC and Sec. 506 r/w 34 IPC and both the accused are acquitted under Sec. 235(1)Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties shall stand discharged.
M.O.1 and other unmarked non-valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.
7. Prosecution conducted by: Smt. P.Vijaya Devi,
Addl. Public Prosecutor.
8. Accused defended by: Sri M. Sahodhar Reddy, Advocate
S.S.C. No.77 of 20122
This case coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Smt. P. Vijaya Devi, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri M. Sahodhar Reddy, Counsel for the accused and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:
: J U D G M E N T :
The factual matrix of prosecution case is briefed here under:
1.(i) Offence took place on 30-08-2012 at Paidipally village, within the limits of P.S. Hasanparthy. P.W.1 is defacto complainant and he belongs to Madiga community. A1 is husband of A2 and both are belonged to Yadava community comes under Back ward class. Some plot business transactions were going on between P.W.1 and A1 and in this connection on 30-08-2012 at about 1600 hours while P.W.1 was going to
Hanamkonda, A1 requested him to visit their house along with K. Venu in order to discuss about plots. Upon which both of them went to their house.
A2 started abusing P.W.1 in filthy language on the name of his caste and started beating him with chappal in his house and dragged him on to the road and A1 also abused him in the caste name as “MADIGA
LANJAKODUKA NEEKU YENTHA DAIRYAMURA”. A1 further grew wild against P.W.1 picked up a stick and beat him with stick causing injuries over his shoulder. A1 further threatened P.W.1 that without him no land transactions will take place and if P.W.1 complained against him, he will file a case against him as he out raged the modesty of his wife i.e., A2.
A1 further threatened him to kill with dire consequences. On receipt of complaint by P.W.1, P.W.11 T. Moses, Inspector of police P.S.
Hasanparthy registered a case in Cr.No. 191/2012 under Sec. 324, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)Act. On the appointment
S.S.C. No.77 of 20123 orders of Superintendent of police, Warangal, P.W.12 Dr. K. Praveen, ASP
Kazipet, took up investigation. On the instructions of ASP, Kazipet, inspector of police apprehended A1 and A2 on 24-09-2014 at their residence and produced them before investigating officer, who affected their arrest and produced them before the court for remand. Later both the accused were enlarged on bail. On completion of investigation, ASP
Kazipet, filed charge sheet.
2. The learned VII-Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Warangal, took cognizance of the offences and registered the case as PRC No.
41/2012. On compliance of Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate, committed PRC No.41/2012 to this Special Court constituted at Warangal to try the offences under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 since the offence is exclusively triable by it. Later, the same is numbered as
Special Sessions Case No. 77 of 2012.
4. On making appearance of both the accused, they are charged for the offences under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and A1 is charged for the offences punishable under Sec. 324 and 506 of IPC.
Whereas A2 is charged for the offences under Sec. 324 r./w 34 IPC and 506 r/w 34 IPC for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. To prove its case, the prosecution, examined PWs.1 to 12 and
Exs.P1 to P6 are got marked. On closure of prosecution evidence, accused are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and they denied the incriminating material appears in prosecution evidence. On behalf of accused D.Ws.1 and 2 are examined. Exs.D1 to D10 are marked.
6. Since the charge relating to 324 IPC is found not properly framed. Upon hearing both sides, the same is altered and charge for the offence under Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC is framed against both the accused in
S.S.C. No.77 of 20124 the place of earlier charge Nos. 2 and 3. Consequent thereto, the accused examined D.W.3 and marked Ex.D11 and D12. Whereas the prosecution filed memo stating that there is no necessity to recall the witnesses already examined or to examine any other witness.
7. Arguments heard on either side.
8. The learned Addl. Public Prosecutor argued that P.W.1 belonged to Schedule caste Madiga community eking out his livelihood by doing business. A1 and A2 belonged to Back Ward Class Yadava community. P.W.1 and A1 purchased plot through registered sale deed from their respective vendors and misunderstanding arose with regard to house plot transactions. On 30-08-2012 at 4-00 p.m., A1 asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to come to his house to talk about the plot issue. Accordingly
P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the house of accused, immediately A1 and A2 started abusing P.W.1 by taking his caste name, noticing the same some people gathered, accused picked up a stick and beat P.W.1, abusing as “Madiga Lanjakoduka and accused further challenged by saying that they will file a false rape case through A2. Complaint is lodged on 31-08-2012.
The contents in complaint as “ on the same day evening “ is nothing but only due to over sight and as P.W.1 was in perturb condition. In FIR and 161 Cr.P.C. statements, the date of offence is mentioned as 30-08-2012 and witnesses before the court also stated the same. Ex.P1 contains vivid particulars of commission of offence. The delay of one day in lodging complaint was caused due to fear as the accused are highly influenced people. P.Ws.1 to 7 supported the case of prosecution. The evidence given by P.W.1 gets corroboration from the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 7. P.W.8 who is panch witness for Crime Details Form, panchanama also supports the case of prosecution and he deposed that M.O.1 stick was seized in his
S.S.C. No.77 of 20125 presence. As per the evidence of P.W.9 the caste particulars of P.W.1, A1 and A2 are proved. The injuries caused to P.W.1 are proved by examining
Dr. Naveen as P.W.10 and he issued Ex.P4 wound certificate. P.W.10 in his evidence clarified that the injuries may be possible by weapon like M.O.1 stick. Since P.W.1 and A1 and A2 are known to each other and are residents of same village, there is no ambiguity with regard to identity of the accused. Exs.D1 to D3 are not material contradictions. Exs.D4 to D8 have no bearing on prosecution case. On the other hand the motive part is proved by the said documents. There are no latches or defects in the investigation. The scene of offence is established by examining P.W.8 and by proving Ex. P2 Crime Details Form. The oral testimony given by the witness gets support from the medical evidence and conviction of the accused is proper.
9. The learned public prosecutor in support of arguments relied on the ratio in Yunis alias Kariya etc., Vs. state of M.P. reported in AIR 2003 SC 539 Wherein it was held though different references to land marks were made by the different eye witnesses do not really change the place of occurrence. Where the incident occurs in broad day light and testimony of eye witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence and there was no material discrepancies between oral and medical evidence.
Conviction of accused person is proper.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel for accused argued that accused purchased plot No.10 from its absolute owner through registered sale deed on 09-04-2012 through Ex.D4. P.W.1 claims to have purchased plot Nos. 10 and 11 from Balina Kotesham who is not having any marketable title over the property on 18-04-2012. P.W.1 abused the accused No.1 with respect to plot No.10 and threatened him to file SC/ST
S.S.C. No.77 of 20126 case, thereupon A1 approached ASP P.S. Kazipet and on his direction he filed complaint at Hasanparthy Police station on 21-04-2012 and the same was registered in Cr.No. 96/2012, copy of it is marked as Ex.D9. P.Ws.1 and 2 tried to erect tower in Lotus Corporative housing society,
Ragavendra colony for which A1 objected, taking the said dispute on 30- 08-2012 at 4-00 p.m., when the accused was entered into the car in front of his house, P.Ws.1 and 2 pushed him to his houise, when A2 came to the rescue of A1, P.W.1 beat A2 with chepal. Immediately at 5-00 p.m., A1 went to police station and filed complaint and the same was registered as
Cr.No. 197/2012 copy of which is marked as Ex.D10. As counter blast to the said complaint, P.W.1 filed false complaint on 31-08-2012 at about 5- 30 p.m. The prosecution utterly failed to establish the case against the accused. The plot dispute between A1 and P.W.1 is motive to file a false case against the accused. There is delay of more than one day in lodging the complaint and the same is not explained. The complaint was filed after due consultation. The abuses and allegations made in the complaint are not being tallied with the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 to 7. The prosecution further failed to establish where the actual incident took place whether it was inside the house or outside the house of the accused. As per the contents of charge sheet, the incident took place inside the house of accused and in such case there is no public view in respect of the alleged incident. Witness stated that ASP himself scribed 161 Cr.P.C.
statements, whereas P.W.4 stated that 161 Cr.P.C. statements were scribed by his writer. Therefore it gives inference that one set of 161
Cr.P.C. statements were suppressed by the prosecution. When both the crimes are registered on the same incident, they should be tried together but the prosecution did not take steps in its regard with respect to Cr.No.
197/2012 and on that ground also the accused are entitled for acquittal.
S.S.C. No.77 of 20127
P.W.8 stated that M.O.1 was brought by the police and as such prosecution failed to prove that the stick was recovered from the scene of offence. The evidence of doctor is in ambiguity and as per the statement of injured, he was beaten by known persons on 31-08-2010. The alleged eye witnesses are interested witnesses, some of the witnesses are chance witnesses they are close relatives to P.W.2 and other witnesses are not residents of Paidipally village and all the witnesses are planted witnesses.
The citations submitted by the prosecution are not relevant to the facts of the case, there were several commissions and omissions and latches in the investigation.
11. In support of arguments, the learned counsel relied upon the following decisions.
i)Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. and others reported in 2009
Crl. L. J. 350 S.C.
ii)U. Sadasivaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2013(1) ALD (Crl.) 364 (AP) iii)Dr. Palika Srinivasa Kumar Vs. State of A.P. and another reported in 2007(2) ALD (Crl.) 37 (AP) iv)Ram Babu Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2011(2) Crimes 193 (M.P)
v)J. Sumana Vs. Endluri Aseerwadamma and another reported in 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 252 (AP) vi)Pentyala Raja and other Vs. Gogumalla China Kotaiah and another reported in 2006(3) ALT (Crl.) 137 (AP) vii) Ch. Srinivasa Rao Vs. State rep. by its public prosecutor
Hyderabad and another reported in 2014(3) ALT (Crl.) 85 (A.P.)
S.S.C. No.77 of 20128 viii)G. Sivarama Krishna and another Vs. T. Prasad and another reported in 2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 76 (A.P.) ix)Golla Sankaraiah and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008(1) ALD (Crl.) 830 (A.P.)
x)Perela Veeraiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008(1) ALD (Crl.) 419 (AP) xi)State of A.P., rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,
Hyderabad reported in 2013(1) ALT (Crl.) 152 (DB)(AP) xii)Miluram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2011(2)
Crimes 731 (Chat).
12. The said cited decisions are filed for the ratio that the complaint must contain necessary allegations of intentional humiliation in place within public view, that mere abusive language does not attract the provisions of Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)Act, unless there is necessary intention to humiliate the member of SC/ST within public view and that the offence under Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA)Act would attract only when the alleged caste abuses were hurled within public view and that the case and counter case should be tried together and prosecution should ensure that both the cases are tried together and any lapse in this regard likely to entail disaster consequences and that the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint is fatal to the prosecution case. In fact on perusal of the cited decisions, Gorige Pentaiah‟s case, U. Sadasivaiah‟s case, Dodi Mahto and others‟ case, D. Santhosh Reddy‟s case, Dr. Palika Srinivasa Kumar‟s case,
Ram Babu‟s case, J. Sumana‟s case, Pentyala Raja and other‟s case, Ch.
Srinivasa Rao‟s case, G. Sivarama Krishna and another‟s case and Milu
Ram‟s case are not applicable to the present case, since the facts are not similar.
S.S.C. No.77 of 20129
13. As reply to the arguments submitted by the accused, the prosecution in its reply arguments submitted that people from down trodden castes are generally will not dare to file any complaint against the highly influenced persons. Further the incident took place in the house and continued the same out of the house which is located by the side of public road and as such there was public view in respect of the incident. It is further submitted that when one crime is triable by the magistrate and other crime is triable by the sessions court, now clubbing both the cases together does not arise. In case if the present accused are interested for joint trial they ought have taken steps during initial stage of trial. It is important to note that interested and related witnesses are not bared to give evidence before the court. The evidence of injured witness is supported by other witnesses coupled with medical evidence and the contentions raised by the accused are untenable.
14. The following point would germane for consideration in this case.
“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences under Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)Act and
Secs. 324 r/w 34 IPC, 506 and 506 r/w 34 IPC?”
15. Discussion on point
The gist of the prosecution case is that on 30-08-2012 at 1600 hours at the house of A1 and A2, not being the members of Schedule
Caste or Schedule Tribe intentionally insulted with an intent to humiliate
P.W.1 Jannu Prasad, a member of Schedule Caste within the public view by abusing him in the name of his caste and further beating him with chappal and voluntarily caused hurt to him over his shoulder by means of
S.S.C. No.77 of 201210 stick and threatened him with dire consequences and to file a false case against him that he outraged the modesty of A2.
16. Entire denial of the offence is defence taken by the accused.
17. It is further contended that due to political rivalry, P.Ws.1 and 2 in drunken state made attack against A1 on 30-08-2012 and when A2 came to his rescue P.W.1 beat her with stick and chappal and filed false case against them.
18. On perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution as mentioned in the aforesaid judgment, P.W.1 is the defacto complainant,
P.Ws.2 to 7 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.8 is the panch witness for Crime Details Form, P.W.9 is Tahasildhar, who issued caste particulars of accused and P.W.1, P.W.10 is Civil Assistant Surgeon, who examined P.W.1 and issued injury certificate, P.W.11 is inspector of police, who registered Cr.No. 199/2012 against both the accused, P.W.12 is investigating officer.
19. Coming to exhibits, written complaint by P.W.1 is marked as
Ex.P1, the Crime Details Form is marked as Ex.P2 through P.W.8, Caste particulars of P.W.1 and accused is marked as Ex.P3, wound certificate of
P.W.1 issued by P.W.10 is marked as Ex.P4, Original FIR is marked as
Ex.P5, Appointment order of P.W.12 is marked as Ex.P6.
20. On behalf of defence, first accused is examined as D.W.1, one
B. Ashok is examined as D.W.2, Dr. Shiva Kumar, Regional Medical
Officer at MGM Hospital, Warangal is examined as D.W.3. Coming to exhibits marked on behalf of defence, portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statements of
P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 are marked as Ex.D1 to D3 respectively. Certified copy of sale deed dt: 09-04-2012, certified copy of sale deed dt: 28-05-1980,
S.S.C. No.77 of 201211 certified copy of sale deed dt: 29-05-1979, certified copy of sale deed executed in favour of P.W.1 and certified copy of sale agreement cum GPA executed in favour of B. Kotesham are marked as Exs.D4 to D8 respectively. Certified copy of FIR in Cr.No. 96/12, certified copy of FIR in
Cr.No.197/2012 are marked as Exs. D9 and D10, original O.P. chits issued for A1 and A2 at MGM hospital are marked as Exs.D11 and D12.
21. To prove the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)Act the prosecution must prove that the victim of the offence is belonged to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and the accused belonged to the community other than Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and that the accused intentionally insulted with an intent to humiliate a member of
Schedule Caste / Schedule Tribe within the public view by abusing him in the name of his caste.
22. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7, P.W.1 belongs to Schedule
Caste Madiga community and A1 and A2 are belonged to Yadava community. P.W.9 who previously worked as Tahasildhar, Hanamkonda also deposed that on receipt of requisition from ASP, Kazipet, he got enquired through Revenue Inspector and issued Ex.P3 letter dt: 18-09- 2012, containing caste particulars of P.W.1 and A1 and A2, as per which
P.W.1 belonged to Schedule Caste Madiga community, A1 and A2 belong to Back ward Class Yadava community. Except suggesting that Ex.P3 was issued without making proper enquiry, respective castes of P.W.1 and accused are not disputed with. Moreover during 313 Cr.P.C. examination both the accused candidly admitted that P.W.1 belonged to Schedule
Caste Madiga community and they are belonged to Yadava community.
Thus, the prosecution hitherto proved that P.W.1 belonged to Schedule
Caste Madiga community and both the accused are belonged to Yadava
S.S.C. No.77 of 201212 community which is other than Schedule Caste/ Schedule Tribe community.
23. It is relevant to make mention, the material portion of evidence of prosecution witnesses for proper appreciation to find out whether the offences are proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
24. According to the evidence of P.W.1, incident occurred on 30- 08-2012 at about 04-00 p.m., at the house of accused and on the following day, he went to police station Hasanparthy at about 5-30 p.m., and presented Ex.P1 complaint, then he was asked to sit at police station and after 1 ½ hour DSP came to police station and examined him and he was referred to MGM hospital, Warangal and doctor examined his injury and gave treatment as outpatient. According to P.W.11 on 31-08-2012 at 1730 hours, P.W.1 came to police station and presented Ex.P1 complaint, and he registered it as a case in Cr.No. 199/2012 and issued Ex.P5 original FIR and sent copies of same to all concerned officers. According to P.W.12 as per Ex.P6, appointment orders of Superintendent of Police,
Warangal, he proceeded to Hasanparthy police station took CD file from
P.W.11 and took up investigation, examined P.W.1, recorded his statement and referred him to MGM hospital, Warangal for treatment of injuries. It is the further evidence of P.W.12 that on 01-09-2012, he along with P.W.1 visited the scene of offence which is located in Paidipally village infront of house of A1 and examined the same in the presence of P.W.8 and L.W.10 Jannu Babu and prepared Ex.P2 Crime Details Form by incorporating rough sketch and he further seized M.O.1 stick from the scene of offence. P.W.8 lends corroboration to the evidence given by
P.W.12 on examination of scene of offence. According to him he and
S.S.C. No.77 of 201213
L.W.10 were taken to the house of accused, boundaries to the scene of offence noted, rough plan was also drawn. M.O.1 stick was seized in their presence and Ex.P2 Crime Detials Form was testified by him.
25. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that on 30-08-2012 at about 4-00 p.m., he and P.W.2 were about to proceed to Hanamkonda. A1 was found at Hanamkonda Agricultural form road. A1 asked them to come to his house for the purpose of talking on a plot issue. Accordingly they went to the house of A1 which is situated at Paidipaly village. While they were talking with A1, inside the house, A2 came there and stated as “Ee
Madigollanu Malla yenduku ramannav“ A2 further abused them in nasty language, they replied that they came to their house on the request of A1 only. Both the accused beat him with stick on back below left shoulder, A1 warned that no transaction for even one square yard shall be taken place in the village without his knowledge. A1 further warned if he files any case against them, he would get file a rape case against him through his wife.
A1 further stated that he had much power and influence and challenged to report to anybody. A2 threatened him addressing as Madiga lanja koduka, that she would file a case against him as he pulled her. A1 further threatened him to kill and send him to jail. A1 and A2 abused him as
Madiga lanjakoduka drove him out of their house. L.Ws.3 to 5 witnessed the incident.
26. As per the evidence of P.W.2 on 30-08-2012 at about 0400 p.m., P.W.1 came to Kirana shop, A1 asked P.W.1 to come to his house with respect to plot, accordingly both of them went to the house of A1. On hearing their conversation A2 came there and abused P.W.1 on his caste name as Ee Madiga Lanjakoduku malli intiki enduku vachadu. P.W.1 replied to her that on the request of A1 only he came to their house.
S.S.C. No.77 of 201214
Thereupon A1 stated that who asked P.W.1 to come to their houise, In the meanwhile A2 picked up stick and beat P.W.1 on his left back. Both the accused started abusing P.W.1 in his caste name, when he interfered they drove him out of their house. A1 threatened P.W.1 that he will file a rape case through his wife, if he files case against them. L.Ws.3, P.Ws.4 and 5, L.Ws.6 to 8 gathered there and he was examined by DSP.
27. According to the evidence of P.W.3 on 30-08-2012 he along with L.W.5 went to the house of P.W.4 at Paidipally village and all of them were taking tea at the hotel near the house of A1 which is located near
Bus stand. They heard quarrel from the house of A1. A2 beat P.W.1 with stick on his left shoulder by abusing him as “ Madiga Lanjakoduka. A1 also abused P.W.1 as Madiga Lanja Koduka and further threatened him to file a case alleging that he ravished his wife. P.W.2, L.Ws.4 to 6 and L.W.8 witnessed the incident. DSP examined them.
28. It is the evidence of P.W.4 that on 30-08-2012 at about 4-00 p.m., P.W.3 and L.W.5 Raju came to his house and they all went to a hotel for taking tea which is situated by the side of house of accused. He heard quarrel from the house of A1. Then he P.W.3 and other customers in the hotel came outside the hotel, both the accused are abusing P.W.1 in filthy language. A2 beat P.W.1 with stick on his left shoulder. A1 further threatened P.W.1 that he will file a case alleging that P.W.1 ravished his wife.
29. P.W.5 also stated that at about 4-00 p.m., on 30-08-2012 he was taking tea at Hotel near Bus stand and house of A1 is situated by the side of the said hotel. A quarrel was going on at the house of A1 and A2 beat P.W.1 with stick on his left shoulder, A1 by raising his voice came out of his house and asserted that he was having political support and further
S.S.C. No.77 of 201215 challenged P.W.1 to do whatever he likes. During cross examination done by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, this witness admitted that he stated before DSP that A1 also abused P.W.1 as “Madiga Lanjakoduka” and further threatened him that he will file a case alleging that P.W.1 ravished his wife and sent him to jail.
30. P.W.6, stated that on 30-08-2012 at 4-00 p.m., he was taking tea in the hotel which is adjacent to the house of accused. He saw the accused abusing P.W.1 as “Madiga Lanjakoduka, ma Indlaku enduku vachav” while coming out of their house. Both the accused beat P.W.1 with stick on his right shoulder. Shirt of P.W.1 was found torned. During cross examination done by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, this witness admitted that A1 threatened P.W.1 that he will file a case alleging that
P.W.1 ravished his wife and sent him to jail.
31. P.W.7 also stated that his house is situated by the side of house of accused. Quarrel took place at the house of accused on 30-08- 2012 at 4-00 p.m. Both the accused abused P.W.1 as “Madiga
Lanjakoduka nuv ma Initiki vachetonivara” A2 beat P.W.1 with stick on his left shoulder. A1 further threatened P.W.1 that he would file a rape case through his wife if he files any case of assault against them.
32. It is the contention of the accused that the alleged eye witnesses are interested witnesses, some of the witnesses are chance witnesses, they are close relatives to P.W.2 and other witnesses are not residents of Paidipally village and all the witnesses are planted witnesses.
It is also the contention of the accused that on 30-08-2012 at 04-00 p.m., both P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the house of accused and attacked them upon which A1 lodged complaint on the same day dt 5-00 p.m., and
Hasanparthy police registered Cr.No. 197/2012 against P.Ws.1 and 2. As
S.S.C. No.77 of 201216 admitted by the investigating officer i.e., P.W.12 there is land disputes between accused and P.Ws.1 and 2. According to D.W.1 and as per Ex.
D4, he purchased plot No.10 in Ragavendra colony from Kandukuri Agaiah under original of Ex.D4, the same is admitted by P.W.2 during cross examination. It is further evidence of D.W.1 that P.W.1 claimed to have purchased plots 10 and 11 under original of Ex.B7 from the persons who are not having any title or possession over the property and thereby dispute arose with regard to plot No.10. It is also an admitted fact that A1 gave complaint against P.Ws.1 and 2 to ASP Kazipet on 19-04-2012 stating that they threatened to file SC/ST case against him. P.W.1 in cross examination categorically admitted the same. Ex.D9 further lends support it. As stated by the witnesses, P.Ws.3 to 6 were having tea at a hotel situated by the side of house of A1, at the time of alleged offence and thereby they were happened to witness the incident. According to P.W.7 he is having house near the house of A1 and A2. Admittedly P.Ws.5 and 7 are relatives of P.W.2. According to P.Ws.3 and 6 they are not residents of
Paidipally village and they came to the house of P.W.4. P.W.1 is doing gravel transport business by tractors. According to P.W.4 he had acquaintance with P.W.1 since 14 years and he is doing timber business.
P.W.6 is doing sand transport business by tractors. P.W.1 candidly admitted that he and P.W.2 are belonged to congress political party, whereas A1 and A2 are belonged to Telugu Desham party as on the date of incident. In the light of above said factual scenario, the testimony given by P.Ws.1 to 7 must be scrutinized with great care and caution.
33. On glance at defence evidence, the first accused as D.W.1 deposed the defence version and through him Exs.D4 to D10 are marked.
D.W.2 is said to be the eye witnesses to the case filed by A1 against
P.Ws.1 and 2. D.Ws.1 and 2 stated that no incident as mentioned in
S.S.C. No.77 of 201217 prosecution case is occurred and on the other hand A1 and A2 were assaulted infront of their house. It is trite, prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the contentions raised and evidence adduced on behalf of the accused. Therefore the evidence of
D.Ws.1 and 2 is not that much of relevant, except inspiring the court to come to a conclusion that there was an incident occurred on 30-08-2012 at 4-00 p.m., at the house of accused in Paidipally village between P.Ws.1 and 2 on one hand and accused 1 and 2 on the other hand. „
34. On perusal of the evidence given by D.W.3 it could be the reasonable inference that D.W.3 is not the competent witness to speak on
Exs.D11 and D12. D.W.3 categorically admitted that he cannot identify the hand writing and signature of Dr. Kiran and he has no source or basis to say that contents in Exs.D11 and D12 are in hand writing of Dr. Kiran.
Therefore the evidence of D.W.3 is of no use either for the defence, or for prosecution.
35. Now it is to be seen whether the case of prosecution as projected by it, is proved beyond reasonable doubt or not. As pointed out by the learned counsel for accused and as admitted by P.Ws.11 and 12,
Ex.P1 complaint does not prima facie show that offence took place on 30- 08-2012. Admittedly Ex.P1 was given to the police on 31-08-2012 and in the body of Ex.P1 it is found referred that the incident was occurred on the same day in the evening. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that it is only due to over sight and entire crime record shows the date of offence
as 30-08-2012. On perusal of record, in Ex.P5 original FIR, the date of
occurrence was shown as 30-08-2012. The witnesses referred the date of occurrence in their 161 Cr.P.C. statements as 30-08-2012 and gave evidence before the court referring the date as 30-08-2012. Otherwise
S.S.C. No.77 of 201218 also as per the defence version quarrel took place on 30-08-2012 only.
Under those circumstances it would not be proper as to give undue weight to such discrepancy.
36. According to the case of prosecution and as seen from Ex.P2
Crime Details Form marked through P.W.8 the scene of offence is infront of house of accused at Paidipally village. P.Ws.1 and 2 are material witnesses in this case as mentioned supra. P.W.1 is victim and injured witness. P.W.2 is his close friend and according to the case of prosecution both P.Ws.1 and 2 were invited to the house of accused by A1 to discuss on plot issue. Accordingly they together went to the house of accused.
According to the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 and 2 are direct witnesses to the entire episode. On reading the entire evidence given by P.Ws.1 and 2 it is given to understand that the entire incident is occurred inside the house of accused 1 and 2. According to P.W.1, he and P.W.2 went to the house of A1 and while they were talking with A1, inside the house A2 came there and stated that “EE MADIGOLLANU MALLA ENDUKU
RAMMANAVU”. They replied that they came to their house on the request of A1 only and both accused beat him with stick on back below left shoulder. A1 warned that no transaction even for one SQ. yards shall take place in the village without his knowledge. A1 further warned to get a rape case filed through his wife and further stated that he had much power and influence and challenged him to report to anybody. A2 threatened addressing him as “Madiga Lanjakoduka” that she would file a case against him alleging that he pulled her. A1 further threatened him to kill and send him to jail. After the above said incident, at the end of the incident A1 and
A2 by abusing him as Maidga Lanjakoduka drove him out of their house.
According to P.W.2 he along with P.W.1 went to the house of accused and they were asked to sit by A1 and on hearing their conversation A2 came
S.S.C. No.77 of 201219 there and the incident of abusing and beating was taken place. When he interfered both the accused drove him out of their house. Further Ex.D2 was marked through him and the same was proved through P.W.12. As per which P.W.2 stated before ASP that they sat in a room in the house of
A1 before the incident was taken place.
37. If the evidence given by P.W.2 is read, coupled with Ex.D2 it is crystal clear that the entire incident took place inside the house of the accused and when he tried to interfere he was driven out of the house by the accused. According to P.Ws.3 to 7 they saw the incident that was taken place infront of the house of accused only. As per P.W.3 he heard quarrel from the house of A1 and incident took place infront the compound wall of A1, he does not know what happened inside the compound wall of
A1. Nearly 30 persons gathered at the time of incident. P.Ws.4 and 6 are not the residents of Paidipally village but are residents of Warangal.
According to P.W.3, P.W.6 is his friend who was doing sand business and on his request he accompanied P.W.6 to the house of P.W.4. As per the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4 and 6, P.W.3 and 6 went on that day to the house of
P.W.4 and all were taking tea at a hotel situated near the house of A1.
According to P.W.4 he too heard quarrel from the house of A1, the incident that was occurred inside the house was not seen by him. He had acquaintance with P.W.1 since 14 years and while he along with P.Ws.3 and 6 were taking tea in the hotel they heard quarrel from the house of
A1, then they came out of the hotel and in the meanwhile P.W.1 and A1 and A2 came infront of their house. P.W.2 also came from the house of accused. Therefore as per his evidence also what was occurred inside the house, he did not see nor heard specifically. But he saw the incident said to have been taken place infront of the house of accused. According to
P.W.6, he saw both the accused abusing P.W.1 as “Madiga Lanja Koduka
S.S.C. No.77 of 201220 ma indlaku enduku vachav” while coming out of their house, he further saw both the accused beat P.W., and shirt of P.W.1 was found torned.
During cross examination it was elicited that the house of P.W.4 is in the outskirts of the village in government Agricultural farm. Near the government agricultural farm, Swamy Ayyappa temple and iscon temple are located. Hotels and rice mill were also situated at that place. The distance between the scene of offence and residence of P.W.4 is more than one kilo meter and nearest hotels are located at a distance of 2 or 3 furlongs from the residence of P.W.4. Thus by eliciting such information, the accused created some doubt on their presence at the scene of offence, since there was no explanation from them as to why they preferred to come to hotel located near the house of accused, though it is distantly located from the house of P.W.4, since the arrival of P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 to the said hotel is not in usual course, as part of routine matter, it can be said that they are chance witnesses to the alleged occurrence. Therefore their testimony is required to be appreciated at great care and caution.
38. P.Ws.5 and 7 are admittedly the relations of P.W.2, and according to P.W.5 he was also taking tea at a hotel near the house of A1.
He stated that A2 beat P.W.1 with stick on his back left shoulder. A1 by raising his voice came out and asserted that he was having political support and further challenged P.W.1 to do whatever he likes. P.Ws.2 to 4 and L.W.8 (P.W.7) were present at the time of incident. P.W.5 did not say caste abuses in his chief examination, then the learned Public Prosecutor declared the witness as hostile and in the cross examination done by Addl.
Public Prosecutor P.W.5 stated that it is true, he stated before DSP that A1 also abused P.W.1 as “Madiga Lanjakoduka” further threatened to file a case alleging that P.W.1 ravished his wife and send him to jail. However he did not say that what he admitted to have stated before DSP was
S.S.C. No.77 of 201221 actually witnessed by him at the time of incident. During cross examination P.W.5 suprisingly stated that at the time of incident P.W.2 was taking tea in the hotel along with him, which contrary goes against the case of prosecution. He further stated that the incident what he stated during chief examination was taken place inside the house of the accused.
He again stated that the incident occurred infront of house of A1. The witness adds that the incident was extended to outside from the house. He further stated that A2 beat P.W.1 with stick inside the house and he did not go inside the house of accused and he does not know what happened inside their house. Therefore on reading entire evidence given by P.W.5 it will be easier to come to a conclusion that his evidence is artificial and untrustworthy and his presence at the scene of offence is highly doubtful.
The evidence given by P.W.5 contains self contradictory testimony and the same is liable to be rejected. According to P.W.7 he was in his house at the time of incident and the incident took place infront of house of accused. There is no compound will to the house of accused and he stated that both the accused abused P.W.1 as “Madiga Lanja Koduka” A2 beat
P.W.1 with stick on his left shoulder. A1 further threatened P.W.1 to file a rape case through his wife, if he files any case of assault and abuses against him. It is contended by the accused that the house of P.W.7 is located at a distance of more than ½ k.m., from the alleged scene of offence.
39. In this context it is pertinent to look into Ex.P2 Crime Details
Form and Rough sketch which does not show the house of P.W.7 in the vicinity of scene of offence. Investigating officer did not show the house of
P.W.7 in his rough sketch. Moreover P.W.7 is unable to say whether P.W.5 was present at the scene of offence and he was silent on the presence of
P.W.2 at the scene of offence. P.W.6 like other witnesses, during chief
S.S.C. No.77 of 201222 examination specifically stated that incident was occurred on 30-08-2012 at 4-00 p.m., and while taking tea in hotel adjacent to the house of accused, he saw the incident, but during cross examination, he stated that they were taking tea in the hotel in between 4-30 and 5-00 p.m.,
P.W.6 is well educated witness and he was able to give timings. From his admission, what he stated in his chief examination that he saw the incident that occurred at 4-00 p.m., gets eroded. Therefore from the evidence of P.Ws. 3 to 7, it is given to understand that what was happened inside the house of accused was not seen and was not heard specifically and the incident said to have been occurred infront of the house of accused only they have witnessed. Though P.Ws.5, 10 and 7 tried to explain that the incident was extended from inside the house to outside their house, the same is not stated by P.Ws.1 and 2. According to
P.Ws.1 and 2 no further incident was occurred after they were driven out from their house. Then seeing the incident of beating and abusing by
P.Ws.3 to 7 infront of the house of accused remains as a millannium question. The ratio laid down in Yunis alias Kariya etc., case relied on by the prosecution, is not applicable to the present case. In the said cited decision it is held that where the scene of offence is referred with different land marks as familiar to the witnesses, it cannot be said that the scene of offence is variated. But in the present case, according to the material witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 and 2 the incident was taken place inside the house of accused and after they were driven out from the house, no further incident was occurred. But according to other eye witnesses they saw the incident that was occurred in front of house of A1. Hence what is stated by
P.Ws.3 to 7 cannot be taken as corroboration to the evidence given by
P.Ws.1 and 2. On the other hand the evidence given by P.Ws. 3 to 7 is liable to be rejected.
S.S.C. No.77 of 201223
40. On careful perusal of the evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 7 with regard to the caste abuses said to have been hurled by the accused, he stated that A2 came and stated as “Ee madigollanu malla enduku rammanvu”, he further stated that A2 further abused them in nasty language. He further stated that A2 threatened him addressing as “Madiga
Lanja Koduka” that she would file a case against him alleging that he pulled her. So, as per his evidence, in the entire episode that was occurred inside the house, he made allegations against A2 only and against A1 it is stated that A1 warned him to file a rape case through his wife and further challenged him to report to anybody and he had much power and influence. It is only stated by P.W.1 against A1 that at the time of driving him away from their house, A1 along with A2 abused him as “Madiga
Lanja Koduka”. But the same gets no support from the contents of Ex.P1 report. According to P.W.2 also A2 abused P.W.1 as “Ee Madiga Lanja
Koduku Malla intiki enduku vachadu” A2 picked up a stick and beat P.W.1 on his left back. Though P.W.2 stated that both the accused started abusing P.W.1 in his caste name, he did not specify what are those caste abuses that were hurled by both the accused in his audience. Therefore the evidence given by P.W.2 does not contain any incriminating material against A1 touching the offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)Act.
41. The abusive words articulated by the prosecution witnesses are also at variance. According to P.W.1, A2 stated to A1 pointing out
P.Ws.1 and 2 that “ee Madigollanu malla enduku rammanav”. Infact P.W.2 is not belonged to Madiga community. A2 further addressed P.W.1 as
Madiga Lanjakoduka and both these words are said to have been hurled inside the house, and while driving out P.W.1 from the house both the accused abused him as Madiga Lanjakoduka. According to P.W.2, A2
S.S.C. No.77 of 201224 abused P.W.1 as “ee Madigalanjakoduku malla intiki enduku vachadu”.
According to P.Ws.3 and 4 both the accused abused P.W.1 as “Madiga
Lanjakoduka. According to P.W.6 both the accused abused P.W.1 as
Madiga Lanjakoduka Ma indlaku enduku vachavu”. According to P.W.7 both the accused abused P.W.1 as Madiga lanjakoduka nuv ma intiki vachetonivara.
42. Occular evidence gets no support from medical evidence. All the prosecution witnesses stated that A2 beat P.W.1 with stick. According to P.W.1 in his chief examination stated that both the accused beat him with stick on back below left shoulder. During cross examination, he stated that A2 alone beat him with M.O.1 stick. However he stated before the police, A2 along with her husband beat him with stick. According to
P.W.2 also A2 picked up stick and beat P.W.1 on left back. As per the other witnesses, A2 beat P.W.1 with stick on left shoulder. At this juncture it is relevant to consider the evidence given by P.W.10. As per the testimony of P.W.10, he is Civil Assistant Surgeon at MGM hospital, on 31- 08-2012 at 9-20 p.m., he examined P.W.1, who came to the hospital along with requisition of Hasanparthy Police and found the following injuries, 1. Contusion of 8 x 2 Cms over the left arm, 2. Swelling over left side of scalp region, 3. Tenderness over left side of abdomen, 4.
Tenderness over left forearm near wrist joint. All injuries are simple in nature might have been caused by blunt object, time of injuries is within 24 hours. Ex.P4 is wound certificate of P.W.1 issued by P.W.10. It is further stated by P.W.10 that said injuries may be caused by stick. During cross examination, it is admitted that injuries might have been caused after 9-20 p.m. on 30-08-2012. As per the statement of injured he was beaten by known persons at 4-00 p.m., on 31-08-2012. It is specifically mentioned in Ex.P4 that the injured in his earlier statement made before
S.S.C. No.77 of 201225 medical officer stated that he was beaten by known persons at 4-00 p.m., on 31-08-2012. As per the case of prosecution P.W.1 was beaten at 4-00 p.m., on 30-08-2012, but as per the medical evidence it was stated by
P.W.1 himself before medical officer that he was beaten at 4-00 p.m., on 31-08-2012. It cannot be taken as simple mistake by over sight for the reason that the time of injury as specified by P.W.10 is only within 24 hours from the time of his examination. Therefore the medical evidence rules out the prosecution case that the injuries were caused to P.W.1 at 4- 00 p.m., on 30-08-2012. Moreover according to injured himself, A2 caused single injury to him on his back below left shoulder. The same is stated by P.W.2 and as per other witnesses it was on left shoulder, but the oral testimony gets no support from the medical evidence. No such injury could be seen from Ex.P4 wound certificate. Further either P.W.1 or other prosecution witnesses failed to attribute any of the injuries mentioned in
Ex.P4 to the accused. It is no where explained how P.W.1 received the injuries mentioned in Ex.P4. Thus the medical evidence created any amount of doubt on the story of prosecution and it further discredits the veracity of the testimony given by ocular witnesses. It is appropriate to make mention the admission of P.W.8 that police brought M.O.1 stick further falsifies the case.
43. According to the case of prosecution, A1 invited P.Ws.1 and 2 to his house to discuss the plot issue, according to the defence version he filed complaint against them on their threatening to file SC/ST case, thereupon Cr.No. 96/2012 was registered and P.Ws.1 and 2 further attempted to erect a cell tower at Raghavendra colony in the open place left over for park purpose and A1 objected for it and thereupon P.Ws.1 and 2 came to the house of accused and attacked them. In Ex.P1 it is mentioned that while P.Ws.1 and 2 were proceeding towards
S.S.C. No.77 of 201226
Hanamkonda, A1 invited them to his house, the same was stated before the investigating officer and the same is marked as Ex.D1, which is proved through P.W.12. But coming to the evidence before the court, P.W.1 stated that when they are about to proceed to Hanamkonda, A1 was found on Hanamkonda - Paidipally agricultural form road. A1 asked them to come to their house for talking about plot issue. Accordingly they went to his house. As per P.W.2, P.W.1 came to his Kirana shop to go to
Hanamkonda, A1 asked P.W.1 to come to his house along with him to talk with respect to a plot. Accordingly he along with P.W.1 went to the house of A1. During cross examination P.W.2 admitted that he stated before
ASP, Kazipet that on 30-08-2012, while he was at Kirana shop, P.W.1 came to him and stated that the first accused asked to come to his house for the purpose of talking plot issue and requested him to come to the house of A1. During cross examination P.W.1 stated that he met A1 infront of shop of P.W.2 when A1 invited him to his house, P.W.2 was in his Kirana shop. On reading the evidence given by P.Ws.1 and 2, the contents of Ex.P1 and the contents in Ex.D1 there is discrepancy in prosecution case and it gives raise to a doubt whether A1 had really invited P.Ws.1 and 2 to his house to talk on plot issue. Therefore the genesis of prosecution case is shrouded with suspicion.
44. As per the case of prosecution, the incident occurred on 30- 08-2012 at 4-00 p.m., P.W.1 lodged complaint at Hasanparthy police station on 31-08-2012 at 1730 hours. In view of giving complaint by A1 on the same day of incident at 5-00 p.m., and registration of Cr.No.
197/2012, though the delay is 25 hours, prosecution is required to explain the said delay. As seen from the contents of Ex.P1, no explanation was given for delayed lodging of complaint. Against the respective column in
Ex.P5 FIR, it is mentioned that there is no delay. Though the learned Addl.
S.S.C. No.77 of 201227
Public Prosecutor tried to explain the same by saying that due to fear of the accused he could not give complaint earlier, but the same is not spoken either by P.W.1 or by the police officers. Absolutely P.W.1 did not whisper on the delay in lodging complaint to the police. It is not the evidence of P.W.1 that he was suffering from injuries caused in the incident or he was taking treatment at any other doctor before he is referred by the police to MGM Hospital, Warangal on the following day. In the light of the infirmities and the material discrepancies found in the evidence of ocular witnesses and unsupported medical evidence and also in the light of the fact that A1 immediately after the incident approached the police and lodged complaint basing on which Cr.No.197/2012 was registered, the unexplained for the delay in lodging complaint is fatal to the prosecution case.
45. It is evident from the record that Cr.No.197/12 was registered on the complaint given by A1, and Cr.No. 199/2012 was registered on the complaint given by P.W.1 and both crimes were emanated from the same incident said to have been occurred on 30-08-2012 at about 4-00 p.m.,
P.Ws.11 and 12 in their evidence admitted that Cr.No. 197/2012 was registered on 30-08-2012 at 5-00 p.m., for the offences under Sec. 448, 290, 324 r/w 34 IPC against P.W.1 and others. Though D.W.1 made oscillating statement with regard to Ex.D10 stating that the same was closed and again stating that the name of P.W.1 is closed and case of others is continuing, it is not the case of prosecution that Cr.No.197/2012 was closed for any reason. Investigation was done in the present case by suppressing the Cr.No. 197/2012, it is not elicited from P.Ws.11 and 12 whether the said crime number was closed or not. On the other hand the arguments advanced on behalf of prosecution to the effect that the offence in Cr.No. 197/2012 is triable by Magistrate and the offence in
S.S.C. No.77 of 201228
Cr.No.199/2012 is triable by sessions court and as such trying both the cases together does not arise and if the accused are interest they can take steps at an earlier stage, go to suggest that the case in Cr.No.197/2012 is still pending. As per the ratio laid down in Golla Sankaraiah‟s case cited supra for the accused, both the case should be tried together and it is the prosecution that should ensure for both cases trying together. Infact during investigation it is the duty of the investigating officer/officers to find out whether it is a case of free fight or a case of aggression, and on the failure of investigating officer, it is the duty of the court to decide it by trying both the cases together. Though the court of Magistrate is not competent to try the offence which are exclusively triable by the court of
sessions, vice versa is permissible under law. In the present case, the
prosecution failed to take any such steps and thereby disables this court to make proper appreciation for which the prosecution is likely to entail the disaster consequences as observed by the Hon‟ble High Court in Golla
Sankaraiah and others‟ case.
46. Admittedly there is plot dispute regarding plot No.10 between
A1 and P.W.1. As seen from the record A1 purchased Plot No.10 under original Ex.D4 sale deed dt: 09-04-2012 and P.W.1 purchased plot Nos.10 and 11 together from different vendor under original of Ex.D7 dt: 18-04- 2012, thereupon dispute arose between them and when P.W.1 and others threatened A1, not to visit the disputed plot and to file case under provisions of SC/ST (POA)Act, he lodged complaint against P.W.1 and others and the same is registered in Cr.No. 96/2012 which can be seen from Ex.D9. Further there was political rivalry between P.Ws.1 and 2 and accused 1 and 2. Admittedly as on the date of incident A1 and A2 are belonged to Telugu Desam Party, P.Ws.1 and 2 are belonged to congress party. A1 filed complaint against P.Ws.1 and 2 on 30-08-2012 at 5-00
S.S.C. No.77 of 201229 p.m., alleging that both of them came to his house and made attack against him and when A2 came to his rescue she was beaten with cheppal and stick. As held by Hon‟ble High Court of A.P. in Ch. Srinivasa Rao Vs.
State of Another reported in 2014 (1) ALD Crl. 749 AP the object of prevention of atrocities act, 1989 is to prevent atrocities against members of SC/ST. The provisions of the act however cannot be used as a weapon to settle personal scores against the members of non SC/ST or to settle the property dispute with them or to wreak vengeance. If such a course is allowed, the very object of the act would be defeated. P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 are chance witnesses, P.Ws.5 and 7 are related to P.W.2. The testimony given by prosecution witnesses is not consistent and cogent and is found far from naturality and untrustworthy. The evidence given by P.Ws.1 and 2 rules out the possibility of witnessing the alleged incident by other witnesses said to have been occurred infront of the house of accused. The abusive words said to have been hurled by the accused are spoken at variance and not in conformity with the contents of Ex.P1. The neighbours to the scene of offence though very much available are not examined as witnesses. Medical evidence runs contrary to the ocular evidence and create any amount of doubt in prosecution story. There is inordinate delay which is unexplained in lodging the complaint that becomes fatal to the prosecution case. Prosecution was not diligent in getting the case and counter case trying together. When the main offence punishable under
Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA)Act and Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC are found not proved, though, the witnesses stated on the alleged threatening, in the light of common discrepancies pointed out in the aforesaid judgment it would be proper to hold that the offence under Sec. 506 IPC is also not proved. In the light of aforesaid discussion and findings arrived at, I hold that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the
S.S.C. No.77 of 201230 offences under Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of
SC/ST (POA)Act.
47. In the result, Accused No.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offences under Sec. 3(1)( x) of SC/ST (POA)Act and Sec. 324 r/w 34 IPC,
Sec. 506 IPC and Sec. 506 r/w 34 IPC and both the accused are acquitted under Sec. 235(1)Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused and of their sureties shall stand discharged.
M.O.1 and other unmarked non-valuable property, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, after her transcription, corrected and
pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 20th day of October, 2016)
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA) CASES-Cum-VII ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
P.W.1 Jannu Prasad D.W.1 Y. Kumar Yadav P.W.2 Kunuri Venu D.W.2 G. Ashok P.W.3 Damera Rajesh D.W.3 Dr. Shiva Kumar P.W.4 Pallepu Suresh P.W.5 Kakkeral Chandra Mohan P.W.6 Voraganti Raju P.W.7 Jangam Shiva shankar P.W.8 Vanka Kumar P.W.9 J. Sanjeeva P.W.10 Dr. T. Naveen P.W.11 T. Moses P.W.12 K. Praveen
EXHIBITS MARKED
FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Complaint of P.W.1 Ex.P2 : Crime Details form
S.S.C. No.77 of 201231
Ex.P3 : Caste particulars of A1 & A2, P.W.1 Ex.P4 : Wound certificate Ex.P5 : Original FIR issued by P.W.11 Ex.P6 : Appointment order of P.W.12
FOR DEFENCE: Ex.D1 : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.D2 : Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.D3 : line of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.7 Ex.D4 : CC of sale deed dt: 09-04-2012 Ex.D5 : CC of sale deed of vendor of Lotus Corporation Housing society Ex.D6 : CC of sale deed executed in favour of Lotus Cooperative Housing society Ex.D7 CC of sale deed executed in favour of P.W.1 Ex.D8 : CC of sale agreement cum GPA executed in favour of B. Koteshwar Ex.D9 CC of FIR No. 96/12 Ex.D10 : CC of FIR No. 197/2012 Ex.D11 : Original OP chit issued at MGM hospital for A1 Ex.D12 : Original OP chit issued at MGM hospital for A2.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: M.O.1 Stick
SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC/ST (POA)CASES-Cum- VII ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, WARANGAL.