Sri P.Mohan Rao

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL SESSIONS JUDGE CUM VII ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 30" day of May, 2014.

Present:- Sri P.Mohan Rao, Spl. Sessions Judge-Cum-VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

S.CNo.42 of 2013

JUDGMENT

1. The Inspector of Police, Shadnagar P.S. has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under sec.302 and 379 PC.

2 The case of the prosecution is that, PWI Balamoni Ramulu lodged Ex.P1 complaint on 15-8-2012 at 1600 hours before PW9 K. Satyanarayana, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Shadnagar P.S. stating that his last younger sister Shantamma was given in marriage about 30 years back to Y.Laxmaiah LW5] and that in the morming at about 1000 hours he went to his agricultural land and that he came to know through his villagers that his sister Y. Shantamma was killed near the Maize crop of Ram Reddy and that he proceeded to the spot and found his sister dead body and that he found contusion and injuries around her neck.

Basing on the said complaint PW9 registered a case in Cr.no.347/2012 nder sec. 3 174 Cr.P.C. and took up investigation. That PW9 examined and recorded the statements of certain witnesses. During the course of investigation the PW8 B. Naveen Reddy, the then Circle Inspector of Police took up further investigation. During the course of investigation PW8 also examined certain witnesses. And that during the course of investigation on 25-8 2012 morning at about 0800 hours PW4 Y. Srinivasulu came to the police station and stated that the accused Kummari Krishnaiah came to his residence at Kondannaguda and voluntarily confessed that he killed the deceased Shantamma by throtling near Maize crop Ram Reddy stolen her gold Nuptial thread and hidden the same in the bushes. And that his statement was recorded and that PW8 himself rushed to the house of PW4 and found the accused and that his confession statement was recorded in the presence of PW6 Abba Anjaneyulu and LW10 Kavali Ramulu and that stolen gold ornaments [MOland MO2] were seized under the cover of panchanama. And that PW8 summoned LWS Y. Laxmaiah husband of the deceased to the police station, who identified the golden omaments and conducted identification panchanama. After completion of the investigation charge sheet is filed against the accused for the offences under sec. 302 and 379 IPC.

2 nat the ac

The Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Shadnagar has taken on fle by thr 4 case as PRC No.5 of 2013 under sections 302 and 379 IPC.

On appearance of accused, on observing all the necessary formalities, the learned 5. Judicial First Class Magistrate felt that the matter is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions and hence he has committed the case to this Court vide committal order dated 24-1

2013.

6 This Court has taken on file the case as S.C.No. 42 of 2013 and ordered issuance of summon to accused.

7. On appearance of the accused and on hearing both the Public PrOsecutor and the defence Counsel, the charges for the offences under sec. 302 and 379 IPC were framed against the accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8 To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 9, and got marked Exs.P1 to P.1l. PWI Balamoni Ramulu is the complainant and brother of the deceased. PW2 Y. Sunitha is the daughter of the deceased. PW-3 Kummari Brahmaiah is the circumstantial witness. PW-4 Yelaganamoni Srinivasulu is the circumstantial witness before whom the accused said to have made extra judicial confession. PW-S M. Venkat Reddy is the mediator for scene of offence panchanama. PW-6 Abba Anjaneyulu, is the mediator for confession of the accused and recovery and identity of articles. PW-7 Dr. P. Rmachander Rao, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased. PW-8 B. Naveen Reddy and PW-9 K. Satyanarayana are the investigation officer.

Ex.Pl is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the scene observation panchanama. Ex.P3 is the 9 inquest panchanama. Ex.P4 is the relevant portion of seizure panchanama. Ex.P5 is the seizure panchanama. Ex.P6 is the identification test of seizure articles. Ex.P7 is the postmortem examination report. Ex.P8 is the final opinion. Ex.P9 is the FSI report. Ex.P10 the First Information Report. Ex.P11 is the memo for alteration of section of law. MO1 one gold beetle chain with6 cuts and MO2 gold pusthe.

After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s 313 Cr.P.C explaining incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused has denied the same. The accused has not adduced any evidence.

11. Heard both Spl Public Prosecutor and defence counsel.

le the 3

e e

The learmed Spl. Public Prosecutor argued that there is evidence on record to show mec that the accused has made extra judicial confession before PW4 that he killed the deceased by throtling and that the evidence of PW4 can be believed and is sufficient to convict the accused. According to the learmed Spl. P.P. the evidence of PW4 is corroborated with the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and PWs 5 and 6. It is also argued by the Spl. P.P. that the death of the deceased is not in dispute. Further there is a evidence of the PW7 Doctor that the death of the deceased was due to throttling and that death was 12 to 48 hours prior to postmortern examination. According to learmed Spl. P.P. the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accused is liable for punishment.

As against this the learned defence counsel argued that no doubt the police found the dead body of the deceased at a particular place but since the investigation oficer has failed to arrest the real culprit, the accused person was implicated only to get over the situation and that the accused is no way concerned with the offences alleged against him. His further argument is that there is no eye witnesses to the incident and that the prosecution is having only evidence of PW4. According to learned defence counsel the evidence of PW4 is that the accused came to him and voluntarily confessed before him that he killed the dececased. According to the learmed defence counsel the prosecution is solely relied upon the extra judicial confession. According to the learned defence counsel the extra judicial confession is

weak evidence. He has relied on Pancho .. Appellant Vs. State of Haryana .. Respondent

reported in 2012 A.LA.R. (Criminal) 48 and between Sahadevan and Anor .. Appellants Vs.

State of Tamil Nadu .. Respondent reported in 2012 AIAR (Criminal) 479. The learned

defence counsel argued that in view of the principles laid down by their Lordships in the above two decisions, the evidence of PW4 alone is not sufficient to come to conclusion the prosecution has proved guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. According to the defence counsel the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed for acquittal of the accused.

Now, the points that arise for determination is as under: 12.

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sec. 302 and 379 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

13. I feel it is not necessary to reproduce the entire evidence that adduced, I will refer the oral evidence and documentary evidence as and when required and to the extent required.

14. As argued by the learned Spl. P.P. and defence counsel the prosecution solely relied upon the evidence of PW4 before whom the accused said to have confessed that he killed the deceased. The other evidence on record is that the evidence of PW1, who is the brother

I am resid 4 nd the acc of the deceased. His evidence before the court is that he was informed that the dead bo.

his deceased sister is lying in the fields of Ram Reddy and on that rushed to the spot and icldo found the dead body of the deceased and that his sister used to wear MO1 one gold beetle chain with 6 cuts and MO2 gold pusthe. It is also evidence of PWi that he suspected involvement of the accused in the death of his sisteT and that he came to know the accused used to threaten the deceased on 2 or 3 occasions earlier to the incident and that he gave

Ex.Pl report.

It is the evidence of PW2 Sunitha, who is the daughter of LWS Laxmaiah that she came to know that her mother was done to death in the fields of Ram Reddy and that herself and her family members rushed there and that the accused also present and that her mother used to wear MOs 1 and 2 but they were missing and that it is her further evidence of PW2 that they suspecting the involvement of the accused, and that the accused was wandering around their fields on that date.

It is the evidence of PW3 Brahmaiah that on 15-8-2012 the accused on telephone informed him that a female dead body was lying in the felds of Ram Reddy and on that he rushed there and found the dead body of the deceased. That the gold omaments of the deceased were missing and that since the accused informed him about death of the deceased, he suspected involvement of the accused.

The evidence of PW5 M. Venkat Reddy that the police conducted the inquest and that he signed as inquest panchayatdar.

The evidence of PW6 A. Anjaneyulu is that the accused has confessed before him and LW10 Ramulu and his confession was recorded and further recovered MOs 1 and 2.

PW7 D. Ramchandra Rao is the Doctor who conducted the postmortemn examination and his evidence is that the cause of death of deceased was due to throttling.

PWs 8 and 9 are the investigation officers, who said to have registered the case, investigated and filed the charge sheet.

The evidence of PW4 is as follows:

body of d

5 "I am resident of Kondannagada I do cultivation. I know PWs 1 to 3, the deceased, and the accused; all are residents of my village. The deceased died on 15-8-2012 in the fields of Ram Reddy. Ten days after 15-8-2012 the accused voluntarily approached me and made extra judicial confession for having killed the deceased and sought for my help to produce him before the police. Then I kept the accused in the custody of kavalkar of my village and informed the same to the police. The accused also confessed before me that he took MOs 1 and 2 gold ornaments on the person of the deceased. I was examined by the police" The important aspect to be considered is that admittedly PWI is not an eye witness 15. to the incident. The prosecution has examined PWi only to show that he lodged Ex.P1 complaint on coming to know death of the deceased. No doubt PW1 has deposed before the court that they suspected involvement of the accused in the death of his sister and that he came to know that his deceased sister was threatened by the accused on 2 or 3 occasions earlier to the incident. Admittedly this was not stated before the police and not mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint. It is a clear exaggeration. It is not the case of the prosecution at all. So the evidence of PWI is useful to the prosecution to the extent that PW1 lodged

Ex.P1. The rest of the evidence of PW1 cannot be believed.

Likewise the evidence of PW2 is also not much helpful to the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW2 only to show that on coming to know death of the deceased she went to the fields and found dead body of the deceased. No doubt PW2 also deposed that they suspected involvement of the accused and that the accused was wondering around fields on that date. This portion of the evidence is not stated before the investigation officer and it is clear exaggeration. So the evidence of PW2 can be believed only to the extent that she found the dead body of her mother in the fields. Except this, rest of the evidence of PW2 cannot be believed.

16. Now the evidence left to the prosecution is evidence of PW4. According to the prosecution the accused has confessed before PW4. Now the point is considered whether the evidence of PW4 can be believed or not.

ln vie 6 alueot In Sahadevan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2012 A.I.A.R. (Crl.) 48 at Para N A valuo their Lordship held that,

Upon a proper analysis of the above-referred judgments of this Court, it will

be appropriate to state the principles which would make an etra-judicial confession an admissibBe piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accUsed. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused.

The Principles.

() The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be

examined by the court with greater care and caution.

(i) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

(iii) It should inspire confidence.

(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value, if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

() For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not

suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law"

And also held that, �it is true that extra judicial confession can be used against its maker, but as a matter of caution, courts looks for corroboration with the same from other evidence on record"

In Gopal Sah v. State of Bihar (2008) 17 SCC 128 it is held that, "Extra judicial confession is, on the fact of it, a weak evidence and the Courts are reluctant, in the absence of chain of cogent circumstances, to rely on it for the

purpose of recording a conviction".

7

In view of the principles laid down by the Lordships I fell to consider the evidentiary 17 ll value of the evidence of PW4 and whether same can be believed.

There is evidence on record to show that PW4 belongs to Yadava community and the 18 deceased family belongs to Yadava community. Further PW4 is relative of the deceased family. There is further evidence on record to show that the accused belongs to Kummari community and there are caste elders in the said Kummari community in the vllage. There is no evidence on record to show that PW4 is the caste elder or Sarpanch of the village. He is not holding any office. Further certain political motives were attributed to PW4 and suggested that there are certain political differences between the accused and PW4. No doubt the said suggestion was denied. It is the evidence of PW4 that he contested for the post of Sarpanch on behalf of Congress party and one Krishnaiah contested against him on behalf of T.D.P. in the Sarpanch elections and that krishnaiah won the elections. And that the accused maintaining cordial terms with the Krishnaiah, who won the elections. It is suggested to PW4 that �ue to that political differences purposefully he implicated the accused person through the accused has not made any confession before him. I feel this is one of the important aspect taken into consideration.

19. Admittedly there no motives attributed to the accused for killing the deceased. At most it can be said that if the version of the-prosecution is believed the accused killed the deceased only for MOs 1 and 2. It is not the case that the accused is stranger to the deceased and further incident said to have taken place in the broad day light and in the fields. Now it is to consider whether it is possible for the accused to kill the deceased just for MOs 1 and 2 in the fields.

20. According to the prosecution PW4 came to the police station and informed that the accused came to his house and made some extra judicial confession that he killed the deceased and on that he kept the accused in the custody of the Kavalkar of his village and went to police station and that PW8 recorded the statement of PW4 in the police station and rushed to the house of PW4 along with panchayatdars where he recorded the confession of the accused in the presence of panchayatdars and further recovered MOs 1 and 2 from the fields. The important aspect to consider is that for the reasons best known to the, re investigation officer, the investigation officer has not examined Kavalkar in whose custody

PW4 said to have kept the accused after making confession before him.

Further according to the prosecution PW8 recorded the confession of the accused in the house of PW4 but PW4 has not at all stated anything about the confession of the accused in his presence and in the presence of of panchayatdars. According to the prosecution LW5 is the husband of the deceased who said to have identified MOs 1 and 2 in the presence of panchayatdars in the police station, Shadnagar on 25-8-2012 at 1235 P.M. under Ex.P6. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined LW5 Y.

Laxmaiah since the very motive attributed to the accused is that he killed the deceased for

MOs 1 and 2 only.

21. Another important aspect to consider is that, according to PW7 panchayatdar for

Ex.P6 identification proceedings that the police have mixed M.Os. l and 2 with some other similar gold omaments and on that LWS Y. Laxmaiah husband of the deceased identified

MOs 1 and 2 golden omaments in his presence and other panchayatdar LW10 Kavali

Ramulu. But it is the evidence of PW8 investigation officer that he has not mixed the similar objects of MOs I and 2 during the course of identification proceedings of MOs 1 and 2. I feel this is one of the important aspect to be taken into consideration. No doubt the learned

Spl. P.P. relied upon the decision Baskaran another .. Appellants vs. State of Tamil Na�u

[Cr.A.No. 121/2008] wherein their Lordships held that,

The courts cannot be unmindful of the legal position that even if the evidence relating to extra judicial confession is found credible after being tested on the touchstone of credibility and acceptability, it can solely form the basis of conviction"

I have gone through the judgment relied upon by the learned Spl. P.P. In the said case apart from extra judicial confession of the first accused Baskaran there is other evidence to connect the accused.

known custod

to

the As already statcd in this case motives attributed to the accuscd is very weak, the Istody recovery and identification procecdings of MOs 1 and 2 is not beyond doubt and further I feel uncoroborated testimony of PW4 alone is not sufficient to come to conchusion the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused.

In view of the above circumstances, I feel the prosccution has failed to prove the 23. guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charges under sec. 302 and 379 24. IPC and as such he is acquitted under sec. 235[1] Cr.P.C. of the said charges.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.

MO1 one gold beetle chain with 6 cuts and M02 gold pusthe shall be returmed to 25. LWS Yelaganamoni Laxmaiah husband of the deceased after due identification and after appeal time is over.

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

by me in the open Court, this the 30" day of May, 2014.

Spl. Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL SESSIONS JUDGE CUM VII ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 22hd day of May, 2014.

PRESENT:- Sri P.Mohan Rao. Special Sessions Judgc-Cun VII Addl. Sessions Judge.

Mahabubnagar.

S.C.No. 103 of 2012 Preliminarily registercd case No.41/2012 committed bv tlhe Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla in Cr.No. 104/2011 ofP.S. Jadcherla for tlhe offence U/Sec.324,506 r/w34 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Prosecution. Sri S.K.M. Quadri, Spl. Public prosecutor, Malab.bnagar.

Accused 1. Bujula Sudhakar Reddy S/oRamchandra Reddy, Aged 45 years, Caste Reddy, Occ: Agril,

2. B.Narsiniba Reddy S/o Chandra Reddy, age 48 years,

Caste.Reddy Occ:Agril.,

3. Bujula Bal Reddy Slo Runclhandra Reddy, age 53 yrs, Occ:Reddy Occ:Aril.,

4. Bujula Srisailam Reddy S/o Sudhakar Reddy, age 23 yrs, Caste.Rediv cc: Agril.

5. Bujula.R:haenar Rediy Sudhakar Reddy, age 20 years, Occ:Agril.

6. Bujula.Srinivas Reddy S. o Bal Reddy, age 28 yrs, cate.keddy, Agril.

7. Bujul:a. Sekiar Reddy S/o Lal Reddy, age 28 years, Occ: Agril.,

R/o Polepal! village of Jadehrla Mandal.

(Sri R.Govethan Gopu, tdvoete defended the accused)

Offence under section U/Sec.324 and 506 r/w 34 IP.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PO) Act. 1989.

Plea-ofthe accused Pleaded not guilty

finding

Found not guilty 2 X sec

and

Sentence or order A-I to A-7 are not guilty The accuscd persons IPC oflfence under sections 324, and 505 R/w 34 IPC ana of SC/ST. (POA) Act 1989 and they are acquitted

unde

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

cancelled. No case property is produced and hence no Order

is passed.

This case is coming up for hearing before me and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration,

till this day the Court delivered the following:

JUDG MENT

1. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubnagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused (A1 to A7) for the offences punishable under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1 )(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

2 The case of the prosecution is that. PVWI Kanthi Nagaiah lodged Ex.Pl complaint before LWI3 B. Vittal Reddy, the then CI of Police. Jadcherla on 31-3-2011 at about 1100 hours contending that on 26-3-2011 himself. his wife Devamma LW3 and his son Jangaiah PW2 were attending agricultural work in their field and that at about 0100 P.m. all the accused persons entered into his ficlds with J.C.3. and start digging pits to erect the poles of the proposed electric line. And that when he did not agree ibr the same all the zccused got annoyed picked up quarrel, abused him. his wile and his son in ilthy language nd also assaulted them with hands and sticks and further the accused who aue Reddy community pcople abused them in the name of their caste.

3 Basing on the said complaint, LW13 reuistered a case in Cr.no. 104 of 2011 under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 |PC and sec. 3()(x) ofC/ST (POA) Act. 1989. And that LW13 sent the complainant and others for treatment. The PW10 Geetha Devi, the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Malhabubnagar. xho was appointd as investigation officer to nvestigate ihe cise by the SupcrintcHdent of lee. Mahabubnagar, took up invesighu. Th l'WI0 xmincd and ccorded thet ments of the witnesses and conducted te stene of' olence punciauala. P,9 D. Hymavathi, S.D.P.O., not guilty

34

d under IPC 3

and

s

3i)o rahabubnagar took up further investigation from PW10 on her transfer and completed tvestigation and filed the charge sheet for the offences under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1)(x) of SCIST (POA) Act, 1989.

4. The Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla has taken on file the case as PRC No.41 of 2012 under sections 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1)(%) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

5 On appearance of accused, on observing all the necessary formalities, the learned Judicial

First Class Magistrate felt that the matter is exclusively triable by the Special Court and hence he

has committed the case to this Court, as this Court being Special Court constituted for trial of cases under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 vide committal order dated 4-12-2012.

6 This Court has taken on file the case as S.C.No. 103 of 2012 and ordered issuance of summon to accused.

7 On appearance of the accused and hearing both the Public Prosecutor and the defence Counsel, the charges for the offences under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8 To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 10 got marked Exs.P1 to P.l1. PWI Kanthi Nagiah is the defacto complainant/injured. PW2 Kanthi Jangaiah is son of PWI/injured. PW3 Karnekota Hari Babu, PW4 Karnekota Eswaraiah and PWS Oggu Buchanna Goud are the eye witnesses. PW6 Gangapuram Balaswamy and PW7 Depally yadaiah are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama. PW8 Dr. Mallikarjunappa. Medical Officer, who treated PWsl and 2 and LW3 Kanthi Devamma. PW9 D. Himavathi and PW10 V. Geetha devi, are the 2d and 1 investigation officers respectively. Ex.PI is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are the wound certificates of PWs 1 and 2 and LW3 respectively. Ex.P7 is the appointment order. Ex.P8 is the appointment order. Ex.P9 is the First Information Report. Ex.P10 is the observation memo. Ex.Pll is the caste certificate.

After closure of prosecution evidence. the Al to A7 were examined U/s 313 CrP.C explaining incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused have denied the same. The accused have not adduced any evidence.

panci 4

Heard both Spl Public Prosecutor and defence counsel. Perused the evidence record. The learned defence counsel has also filed the written argument. int 10.

Now, the points that arise for determination are as under:

11. Whether the prosecution have proved the offence punishable under sec. 324 and 506 w 34 1PC and sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 1989 beyond all reasonable doubt?

T feel it is not necessary to reproduce the entire evidence that adduced, I will refer the oral 12. evidence and documentary evidence as and when required and to the extent required.

The important aspect to consider is that admittedly PWl and PW2 are father and son and 13. hence they are interested witnesses. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined LW3 wife of PWl and injured person. Another aspect is to consider is that according to the prosecution and according to Ex.PI 14. complaint the incident was said to have taken place on 26-3-2011 at about 0100 P.M. Ex.Pl complaint was lodged on 31-3-2011 at about 1100 hours. Hence there is a delay in lodging the complaint though there is evidence on record to show that the Jadcherla Police station is at the distance of 8 Kilometers from the place where the incident said to have taken place. In Ex.Pl it is mentioned that since the accused threatened them, they ran away and after (5] days they came back and lodged the complaint. Other aspects to consider are that there are corrections in the date. The date of the complaint corrected as 31-3-201l. The date in the later portion of the complaint also corrected as 31-3-2011. There is also correction in respect of the days.

15. The other aspects to consider is that according to the prosecution LW13 C.I. of police referred the PWs 1, 2 and LW3 to the Govt. Hospital, Badepally on 31-3-2011. As per the evidence of PW8 he examined PWs 1, 2 and LW3 and issued Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. According to

Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 he examined the injured witnesses on 31-3-2011 at about 1-35 P.M. in the wound certificates he has mentioned that they received injuries on 27-3-2011 [as per the contents of cur Exp they received injuries on 26-3-2011], According to the contents of Ex.Pl and the evidence of PWsAnd 2 the accused persons beat thein with sticks. But according to Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and the evidérce of PW7 there were no external injuries at all and only tenderness was present.

I will consider the evidence that placed by the prosecution in view of the above r/w disepancies. According to the prosecution PW4 is one of the eye witness to the incident, who intervened and separated the accused and the injured. Further PW4 is younger brother of PW3.

His evidence before the court is that about two years back at about 12 noon he was present at the fields of PW1, and that on hearing galata he went there and that PW1, LW3, PW3 and the accused were present there and that the accused were trying to dig the pits in the fields and that

A2 beat his brother [PW3] with stick and that he has separated the accused. The PW4 has not at all deposed before the court that the accused persons also beat PWs 1 and 2 and LW3. His evidence is silent about it. I feel this is one of the important aspect taking into consideration.

17. It is also the evidence of PW3 that about two years back at about 0200 P.M. he was in the fields grazing the cattle near the fields of PWI and that he found all the accused along with

J.C.B. in the fields of PW1 and were trying to dig the pits in the said lands and that PWs 1,2 and

LW3 objected the accused and that there was quarrel and that he went there to separat them but

Al and A2 beat him with stick on his back. PW3 has also not deposed that the accused also beat

PWs 1, 2 and LW3. I feel this is one of the important aspect to take into consideration.

18. According to the prosecution PW5 is one of the eye witness to the incident but his evidence before the court is that about a year back on hearing quarrel he went there and saw all the accused and J.C.B. and that quarrel took place between the accused and PWs 1 and 2. And that by the time he went there all the people dispersed. PW5 has not stated that the accused beat

PWs 1 and 2 and LW3. For the reasons best known to the learned Spl. P.P. this witness was not treated as hostile. I feel this is one of the important aspects to take into consideration.

19. No doubt the learned Spl. P.P. argued that PWs 1 and2 injured persons have supported the case of the prosecution and they clearly narrated as to how the incident took place, that the accused persons beat them and abused them in filthy language.

20. I feel the evidence of PWs I and 2. as already stated who are interested witnesses, is not beyond doubt. According to the prosecution all the accused beat PWs 1,2 and LW3 but PWI has not-stat�d that as to how the accused persons also beat them. His evidence before the court is that about: two years back when himself, his wife were working in the fields, all the accused

is

6 order

objected fo No

came there along with J.C.B. and digging pits. And that he went there and cOurt. And that upon which the accused threatened and abused in filthy language touching the name Madiga and pushed. And that the accused also beat his son with sticks. The evidence

PWI is that when the accused threatened thenm they ran away from the fields, and went to police station lodged the complaint. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration it can be said that on the date of 21. incident itself they went to the police station and lodged the complaint. But as per the Ex.PI complaint they lodged the complaint after [5] days of the incident.

22. The evidence of PW2 with regard to lodging of the complaint is that after [3] days they returned to the village and lodged the complaint.

23. It is the evidence of PW2 son of PW1 and LW3 that he sustained injuries on his back and legs and that his father sustained injuries on hand and back and his mother Lw3 sustained injuries on her head. PW8 doctor who treated PWs 1,2 and LW3 deposed before the court that there was only tenderness on the right fore arm of PWl, general tenderness on the body of PW2 and tenderness on left fore arm of LW3 and that there were no external injuries to PW1, PW2 and LW3. If this is taken into consideration it can be said that PWs 1 and 2 have exaggerated the incident

24. If the material place before the court is taken into consideration, I feel the evidence of

PWs 1 and 2 and case of the prosecution is not beyond doubt. I feel reasonable doubt will arose as to the case of the prosecution. And that I feel the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

25. In the result, the accused Al to A7 are found not guilty for the charges under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and as such they are acquitted ndersec. 235[1] Cr.P.C. of the said charges.

26. \Thò bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.

for

ce of

7

the sa

e o No order is required to be passed as no case property is deposited in this case before this 27. Court.

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

in the open Court, this the 22n" day of May, 2014.

Spl. Sessións Judge,

Mahabubnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

Prosecution:

PWI K.Nagaiah,

PW2 K.Jangaiah, PW3 K.HariBabu, Pw4 K.Eshwar. PwSBuchanna Goud. Pw6 G.Bala Swamy. Pw7 D.Yadaiah. Pw8 Dr.B.C.Mallikarjunappa. Pw9 D.Himavathi. Pw10 Geetha Devi.

Defence: None

Exhibits marked

Prosecution: Ex.Pl Complaint dt.3 1 -3-2011. Ex.P.2 Signature on scene of offence Panchanama dt. 3 1 -3-2011. Ex.P.3 Signature on scene of offence Panchanama 31-3-2011. Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate of PW-1. Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate of PW-2. Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate LW-3. Ex:P7 Appointment order dt.21-1l1-201 1. Ex.P.& Appointment order dt.31-3-2014.

Ex.P9 FLRn Cr.No.104/11 ofP.S.Jadcherla. dt.31 -3-201|

8

Ex.P.10. Scene Observation Mazar.

LISOFD

Ex.P.11 Caste Certificates accused and PW-1.

Defence: IAddI

C

MATRIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

- NIL

Spl. Session_Judge.

Mahabubnagar.

Read by:

Comp.by:

Dyno B53

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL SESSIONS JUDGE CUM VII ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 22hd day of May, 2014.

PRESENT:- Sri P.Mohan Rao. Special Sessions Judgc-Cun VII Addl. Sessions Judge.

Mahabubnagar.

S.C.No. 103 of 2012 Preliminarily registercd case No.41/2012 committed bv tlhe Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla in Cr.No. 104/2011 ofP.S. Jadcherla for tlhe offence U/Sec.324,506 r/w34 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Prosecution. Sri S.K.M. Quadri, Spl. Public prosecutor, Malab.bnagar.

Accused 1. Bujula Sudhakar Reddy S/oRamchandra Reddy, Aged 45 years, Caste Reddy, Occ: Agril,

2. B.Narsiniba Reddy S/o Chandra Reddy, age 48 years,

Caste.Reddy Occ:Agril.,

3. Bujula Bal Reddy Slo Runclhandra Reddy, age 53 yrs, Occ:Reddy Occ:Aril.,

4. Bujula Srisailam Reddy S/o Sudhakar Reddy, age 23 yrs, Caste.Rediv cc: Agril.

5. Bujula.R:haenar Rediy Sudhakar Reddy, age 20 years, Occ:Agril.

6. Bujula.Srinivas Reddy S. o Bal Reddy, age 28 yrs, cate.keddy, Agril.

7. Bujul:a. Sekiar Reddy S/o Lal Reddy, age 28 years, Occ: Agril.,

R/o Polepal! village of Jadehrla Mandal.

(Sri R.Govethan Gopu, tdvoete defended the accused)

Offence under section U/Sec.324 and 506 r/w 34 IP.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PO) Act. 1989.

Plea-ofthe accused Pleaded not guilty

finding

Found not guilty 2 X sec

and

Sentence or order A-I to A-7 are not guilty The accuscd persons IPC oflfence under sections 324, and 505 R/w 34 IPC ana of SC/ST. (POA) Act 1989 and they are acquitted

unde

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

cancelled. No case property is produced and hence no Order

is passed.

This case is coming up for hearing before me and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration,

till this day the Court delivered the following:

JUDG MENT

1. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubnagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused (A1 to A7) for the offences punishable under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1 )(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

2 The case of the prosecution is that. PVWI Kanthi Nagaiah lodged Ex.Pl complaint before LWI3 B. Vittal Reddy, the then CI of Police. Jadcherla on 31-3-2011 at about 1100 hours contending that on 26-3-2011 himself. his wife Devamma LW3 and his son Jangaiah PW2 were attending agricultural work in their field and that at about 0100 P.m. all the accused persons entered into his ficlds with J.C.3. and start digging pits to erect the poles of the proposed electric line. And that when he did not agree ibr the same all the zccused got annoyed picked up quarrel, abused him. his wile and his son in ilthy language nd also assaulted them with hands and sticks and further the accused who aue Reddy community pcople abused them in the name of their caste.

3 Basing on the said complaint, LW13 reuistered a case in Cr.no. 104 of 2011 under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 |PC and sec. 3()(x) ofC/ST (POA) Act. 1989. And that LW13 sent the complainant and others for treatment. The PW10 Geetha Devi, the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Malhabubnagar. xho was appointd as investigation officer to nvestigate ihe cise by the SupcrintcHdent of lee. Mahabubnagar, took up invesighu. Th l'WI0 xmincd and ccorded thet ments of the witnesses and conducted te stene of' olence punciauala. P,9 D. Hymavathi, S.D.P.O., not guilty

34

d under IPC 3

and

s

3i)o rahabubnagar took up further investigation from PW10 on her transfer and completed tvestigation and filed the charge sheet for the offences under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1)(x) of SCIST (POA) Act, 1989.

4. The Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Jadcherla has taken on file the case as PRC No.41 of 2012 under sections 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1)(%) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

5 On appearance of accused, on observing all the necessary formalities, the learned Judicial

First Class Magistrate felt that the matter is exclusively triable by the Special Court and hence he

has committed the case to this Court, as this Court being Special Court constituted for trial of cases under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 vide committal order dated 4-12-2012.

6 This Court has taken on file the case as S.C.No. 103 of 2012 and ordered issuance of summon to accused.

7 On appearance of the accused and hearing both the Public Prosecutor and the defence Counsel, the charges for the offences under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 were framed against the accused, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8 To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 10 got marked Exs.P1 to P.l1. PWI Kanthi Nagiah is the defacto complainant/injured. PW2 Kanthi Jangaiah is son of PWI/injured. PW3 Karnekota Hari Babu, PW4 Karnekota Eswaraiah and PWS Oggu Buchanna Goud are the eye witnesses. PW6 Gangapuram Balaswamy and PW7 Depally yadaiah are the mediators for scene of offence panchanama. PW8 Dr. Mallikarjunappa. Medical Officer, who treated PWsl and 2 and LW3 Kanthi Devamma. PW9 D. Himavathi and PW10 V. Geetha devi, are the 2d and 1 investigation officers respectively. Ex.PI is the complaint. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW6 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P3 is the signature of PW7 on scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are the wound certificates of PWs 1 and 2 and LW3 respectively. Ex.P7 is the appointment order. Ex.P8 is the appointment order. Ex.P9 is the First Information Report. Ex.P10 is the observation memo. Ex.Pll is the caste certificate.

After closure of prosecution evidence. the Al to A7 were examined U/s 313 CrP.C explaining incriminating material in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused have denied the same. The accused have not adduced any evidence.

panci 4

Heard both Spl Public Prosecutor and defence counsel. Perused the evidence record. The learned defence counsel has also filed the written argument. int 10.

Now, the points that arise for determination are as under:

11. Whether the prosecution have proved the offence punishable under sec. 324 and 506 w 34 1PC and sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 1989 beyond all reasonable doubt?

T feel it is not necessary to reproduce the entire evidence that adduced, I will refer the oral 12. evidence and documentary evidence as and when required and to the extent required.

The important aspect to consider is that admittedly PWl and PW2 are father and son and 13. hence they are interested witnesses. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, the prosecution has not examined LW3 wife of PWl and injured person. Another aspect is to consider is that according to the prosecution and according to Ex.PI 14. complaint the incident was said to have taken place on 26-3-2011 at about 0100 P.M. Ex.Pl complaint was lodged on 31-3-2011 at about 1100 hours. Hence there is a delay in lodging the complaint though there is evidence on record to show that the Jadcherla Police station is at the distance of 8 Kilometers from the place where the incident said to have taken place. In Ex.Pl it is mentioned that since the accused threatened them, they ran away and after (5] days they came back and lodged the complaint. Other aspects to consider are that there are corrections in the date. The date of the complaint corrected as 31-3-201l. The date in the later portion of the complaint also corrected as 31-3-2011. There is also correction in respect of the days.

15. The other aspects to consider is that according to the prosecution LW13 C.I. of police referred the PWs 1, 2 and LW3 to the Govt. Hospital, Badepally on 31-3-2011. As per the evidence of PW8 he examined PWs 1, 2 and LW3 and issued Ex.P4 to Ex.P6. According to

Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 he examined the injured witnesses on 31-3-2011 at about 1-35 P.M. in the wound certificates he has mentioned that they received injuries on 27-3-2011 [as per the contents of cur Exp they received injuries on 26-3-2011], According to the contents of Ex.Pl and the evidence of PWsAnd 2 the accused persons beat thein with sticks. But according to Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 and the evidérce of PW7 there were no external injuries at all and only tenderness was present.

I will consider the evidence that placed by the prosecution in view of the above r/w disepancies. According to the prosecution PW4 is one of the eye witness to the incident, who intervened and separated the accused and the injured. Further PW4 is younger brother of PW3.

His evidence before the court is that about two years back at about 12 noon he was present at the fields of PW1, and that on hearing galata he went there and that PW1, LW3, PW3 and the accused were present there and that the accused were trying to dig the pits in the fields and that

A2 beat his brother [PW3] with stick and that he has separated the accused. The PW4 has not at all deposed before the court that the accused persons also beat PWs 1 and 2 and LW3. His evidence is silent about it. I feel this is one of the important aspect taking into consideration.

17. It is also the evidence of PW3 that about two years back at about 0200 P.M. he was in the fields grazing the cattle near the fields of PWI and that he found all the accused along with

J.C.B. in the fields of PW1 and were trying to dig the pits in the said lands and that PWs 1,2 and

LW3 objected the accused and that there was quarrel and that he went there to separat them but

Al and A2 beat him with stick on his back. PW3 has also not deposed that the accused also beat

PWs 1, 2 and LW3. I feel this is one of the important aspect to take into consideration.

18. According to the prosecution PW5 is one of the eye witness to the incident but his evidence before the court is that about a year back on hearing quarrel he went there and saw all the accused and J.C.B. and that quarrel took place between the accused and PWs 1 and 2. And that by the time he went there all the people dispersed. PW5 has not stated that the accused beat

PWs 1 and 2 and LW3. For the reasons best known to the learned Spl. P.P. this witness was not treated as hostile. I feel this is one of the important aspects to take into consideration.

19. No doubt the learned Spl. P.P. argued that PWs 1 and2 injured persons have supported the case of the prosecution and they clearly narrated as to how the incident took place, that the accused persons beat them and abused them in filthy language.

20. I feel the evidence of PWs I and 2. as already stated who are interested witnesses, is not beyond doubt. According to the prosecution all the accused beat PWs 1,2 and LW3 but PWI has not-stat�d that as to how the accused persons also beat them. His evidence before the court is that about: two years back when himself, his wife were working in the fields, all the accused

is

6 order

objected fo No

came there along with J.C.B. and digging pits. And that he went there and cOurt. And that upon which the accused threatened and abused in filthy language touching the name Madiga and pushed. And that the accused also beat his son with sticks. The evidence

PWI is that when the accused threatened thenm they ran away from the fields, and went to police station lodged the complaint. If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration it can be said that on the date of 21. incident itself they went to the police station and lodged the complaint. But as per the Ex.PI complaint they lodged the complaint after [5] days of the incident.

22. The evidence of PW2 with regard to lodging of the complaint is that after [3] days they returned to the village and lodged the complaint.

23. It is the evidence of PW2 son of PW1 and LW3 that he sustained injuries on his back and legs and that his father sustained injuries on hand and back and his mother Lw3 sustained injuries on her head. PW8 doctor who treated PWs 1,2 and LW3 deposed before the court that there was only tenderness on the right fore arm of PWl, general tenderness on the body of PW2 and tenderness on left fore arm of LW3 and that there were no external injuries to PW1, PW2 and LW3. If this is taken into consideration it can be said that PWs 1 and 2 have exaggerated the incident

24. If the material place before the court is taken into consideration, I feel the evidence of

PWs 1 and 2 and case of the prosecution is not beyond doubt. I feel reasonable doubt will arose as to the case of the prosecution. And that I feel the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

25. In the result, the accused Al to A7 are found not guilty for the charges under sec. 324 and 506 r/w 34 IPC and sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and as such they are acquitted ndersec. 235[1] Cr.P.C. of the said charges.

26. \Thò bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled forthwith.

for

ce of

7

the sa

e o No order is required to be passed as no case property is deposited in this case before this 27. Court.

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

in the open Court, this the 22n" day of May, 2014.

Spl. Sessións Judge,

Mahabubnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined for

Prosecution:

PWI K.Nagaiah,

PW2 K.Jangaiah, PW3 K.HariBabu, Pw4 K.Eshwar. PwSBuchanna Goud. Pw6 G.Bala Swamy. Pw7 D.Yadaiah. Pw8 Dr.B.C.Mallikarjunappa. Pw9 D.Himavathi. Pw10 Geetha Devi.

Defence: None

Exhibits marked

Prosecution: Ex.Pl Complaint dt.3 1 -3-2011. Ex.P.2 Signature on scene of offence Panchanama dt. 3 1 -3-2011. Ex.P.3 Signature on scene of offence Panchanama 31-3-2011. Ex.P.4 Wound Certificate of PW-1. Ex.P.5 Wound Certificate of PW-2. Ex.P.6 Wound Certificate LW-3. Ex:P7 Appointment order dt.21-1l1-201 1. Ex.P.& Appointment order dt.31-3-2014.

Ex.P9 FLRn Cr.No.104/11 ofP.S.Jadcherla. dt.31 -3-201|

8

Ex.P.10. Scene Observation Mazar.

LISOFD

Ex.P.11 Caste Certificates accused and PW-1.

Defence: IAddI

C

MATRIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

- NIL

Spl. Session_Judge.

Mahabubnagar.

Read by:

Comp.by:

Dyno B53

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs POA Act 1989 cum VII

Additional District and Sessions Judge

AT MAHABUBNAGAR

SC/70/2013

Bacharaju RajenderThrough Police Station Officer Kondurg PS 116 , age, 52 years, Occ, VRO, Thangellapally village Ro Kondurg village and mandal MAHABUBNAGAR VERSUS

Kondey Navakoti age, 45 years, Caste, Kurva, Occ, Agril, Ro Devarampally village of Chevella Mandal, R.R.District 2:Chakali Jangaiah 3:Sunaganti Mahender 4:Chinna Eshwaraiah -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocate for N.Ravi Kumar appearing for Kondey Navakoti Advocate N.Ravi Kumar, -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Offence punishable under : 302,201IPC of INDIAN PENAL CODE,

JUDGMENT

Judgment present in the open court(VSO) In the result A-1 to A-4 are found not guilty for the charges under section 302 r/w 34 and 201 IPC and as such they are acquitted unr secion 235 Cr.P.C. of the said charges the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled forthwith MO-1 to MO-6 which are worthless shall be destroyed after appeal tie is ovr. The unmarked case property i.e Maruthi care bearin No.AP.16/AB/2134 shall be returned to its owner A-3 (sunauti Mahender s/o Narsimlu) after appeal tie is over.

(Delivered on 30-05-2014)

sd/-

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs POA Act 1989 cum II

Additional District and Sessions Judge MAHABUBNAGAR

IN THE COURT OF

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs POA Act 1989 cum

VII Additional District and Sessions Judge AT

MAHABUBNAGAR ,MAHABOOBNAGAR

Presided Over by S ri.P.Mohan Rao

MVOP/505/2011

Between: Smt.Edulapally Bhagya Laxmi Address: Veldaanda village and Mandal.

2: Hari Prasad 3: Ramaiah 4: Smt.Jangamma

VERSUS Rasula Srinivas Address: Ro 1-101, Dubbacherla, Maaheswaram, R.R.District.

2:Shiram General Insurance co.Ltd.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : G.Thirumalaiah Advocate for : appearing for Rasula Srinivas: Advocate S.Premanath Goud appearing for 2 respectively. (Delivered on 06-05-2014 )

DOCKET O RDER

This case is REFERRED TO LOK ADALAT

Date : 06-05-2014 Sd/-

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs and STs

POA Act 1989 cum VII Additional District and

Sessions Judge, MAHABUBNAGAR