Sri P Panduranga Reddy

-1- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (PoA) ACT –CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KURNOOL

Present: - Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act

-cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Tuesday, the 14th day of February, 2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.297/2017

From what Court the appeal is Court of the Judicial Magistrate of first preferred.Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool.

No.of the case in that Court.Calendar Case No.339/2016

No. of the appealCrl. Appeal No.297 of 2017

Name and description of the Kategari Tukaram (A2), appellantaged 39 years, S/o.K.Subba Rao, H.No.45-24, Ashok Nagar, Kurnool Town, Caste Katri

Name and description of State rep., by the Station House Officer Respondentof Kurnool I Town Police Station. (Complainant)

Sentence/Order Accused/A1 and A2 were found guilty for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC, convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Whether confirmed, modified or REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF reversed and if modified, the CONVICTION PASSED BY THE TRIAL

COURT.

modification.

Date of presentation21-12-2017 Date of filing 21-12-2017 Notice issued by the Court of 22-12-2017 appeal. Date of bail bonds, if the -- appellant let out on bail. Date of appellant/respondent 29-01-2018 ordered to appear. Date of hearing 02-02-2023

Date of order/Judgment 14-02-2023

Counsel for the Appellant/A2 : Sri M.Venkoba Rao, Advocate Counsel for the Respondent : Sri G.Swamulu, Spl.Public Prosecutor Date of Arguments : 02-02-2023 -2- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

J U D G M E N T

The accused/A2 in C.C.No.339/2016 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of first Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool preferred this appeal

challenging the order of conviction vide judgment dt.11-12-2017 for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be addressed hereafter as per their respective ranks before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The accused/A1 is the grandson of defacto-complainant/PW1 and the accused/A2 is the friend of A1. The accused/A1 and A2 taking advantage of the old age of PW1, represented him in deceitful manner that they would collect rents of his houses and shops if they were given authorization under

General Power of Attorney in the name of A1. Believing the words of accused, PW1 executed the registered General Power of Attorney on 11-02- 2015 in favour of the accused/A1 with condition that the accused/A1 and A2 have to collect all the rents and render the accounts to him. Then the accused/A1 and A2 fraudulently colluded with each other and knowing the facts that PW1 cannot understand Telugu language, obtained his signatures on the GPA document and basing on that the accused/A1 registered a sale deed bearing Document No.1280/2015 dated 25-2-2015 for Item Nos.1 and 2 and executed another registered sale deed vide Document No.

1281/2015 dated 25-2-2015 for Item Nos.3 and 4 in favour of the accused/A2 for Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- without showing any accounts to PW1. Thus the accused/A1 and A2 with an intention to grab the property of PW1, violated the terms of agreement and got registered the property in the name of A2 without paying any amount to PW1. Basing on the statement of PW1, a case in Crime No.36/2015 U/Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC of

Kurnool I Town (U) P.S was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police/PW10 -3- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

who investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC.

4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case for the offence

U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC against A1 and A2. On appearance of the accused/A1 and A2, copies of case records were furnished as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

The accused/A1 and A2 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges framed for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC, read over and explained to accused in

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

5. During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating evidence appearing against them for which they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

The accused examined DW1 and got marked Ex.D1.

6. After hearing both sides and on considering the evidence oral as well as documentary, the learned Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Special Mobile

Court, Kurnool found the accused/A1 and A2 guilty for the charge U/s.420 r/w.34 IPC and convicted them U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

7. Challenging the order of conviction, the accused/A2 preferred this criminal appeal on the following grounds:

i) The accused/A2 cannot be convicted on the admission or confession of co-accused/A1; ii) The complainant/PW1 executed a registered general power of attorney in favour of the accused/A1 authorizing him to sell four items of property and then A1 sold away the property to A2 under two registered sale deeds dt.25-02-2015 by receiving sale consideration before the Sub Registrar and delivered possession of the property also. Thus, the accused/A2 is a bona fide purchaser of the property; -4- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

iii) The ingredients of Sec.420 IPC are not attracted and not proved; iv) The accused/A2 has nothing to do with the general power of attorney;

v) The accused/A2 was convicted on the basis of the collusive evidence of the prosecution and A1; vi) There is no independent evidence to convict the accused/A2 for the offence U/Sec.420 IPC as he is not directly connected with

PW1; vii) The trial Court wrongly appreciated the evidence and convicted A2.

8. Heard both sides. On perusal of the material papers received from the trial Court and having gone through the grounds of appeal, the following points arise for determination:

POINTS:

1)Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A2 for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2)Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused/A2 for the above charge?

3)Whether the judgment under challenge requires any interference in any manner?

9. For the reasons to be recorded herein after my finding is as follows:-

FINDING

Point No.1 : No

Point No.2 : No

Point No.3 : Yes

Final Order:- Appeal is allowed as per operative part of the judgment.

10. REASONS IN SUPPORT OF MY FINDINGS.

POINT No.1: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A2 for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

-5- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

Upon perusal of the record of the case, it revealed that on 11-02-2015 the defacto complainant/PW1 executed a registered general power of attorney/Ex.P2 in favour of his grandson/A1 for his properties. As per the prosecution story, the accused/A1 and A2 represented to PW1 in deceitful manner that A1 will look after the entire properties of PW1 and render accounts to him. Later, the accused/A1 and A2 had not rendered the accounts to PW1 and in violation of the terms of Ex.P2, the accused/A1 executed two nominal registered sale deeds in favour of A2 for

Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- without showing any accounts to PW1.

11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to have a glance of Sec.415 and

Sec.420 of IPC for better appreciation of the evidence and to answer the above point effectively.

Section 415 IPC:

Cheating:- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Explanation:- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

Section 420 IPC:

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

-6- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

12. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. But in the instant case, there is no material to believe that the accused had fraudulently or dishonestly obtained the registered general power of attorney/Ex.P2 from PW1. It is clearly established from the evidence of PW1 and PW3/Joint Sub Registrar that the complainant/PW1 voluntarily executed the registered general power of attorney/Ex.P2 in favour of the first accused who is his grandson. It is also clear from the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 that the contents of Ex.P2 were read over to PW1 by the Joint Sub Registrar/

PW3 and then PW1 signed in it. Therefore, all these facts coupled with the recital in report/Ex.P1 would clearly reveal that the defacto complainant/PW1 voluntarily executed Ex.P2 in favour of the first accused. Though the prosecution alleged that PW1 executed Ex.P2 in favour of the first accused at the instance of A2, no supporting material is placed by them to prove it.

13. The only allegation made by PW1 in report as well as in evidence that the accused/A1 and A2 did not render the accounts as promised by them under Ex.P2 and in violation of the terms of general power of attorney, they created two nominal registered sale deeds (Exs.P3 and P4) for the said property in favour of the accused/A2 though the accused/A1 has no saleable interest over the property. However, as can be seen from the general power of attorney/Ex.P2, the accused/A1 was given all rights including alienable rights over the property of PW1.

14. It is an undisputed fact that the accused/A1 executed two registered sale deeds i.e. Exs.P3 and P4 in favour of the accused/A2 for the property covered under Ex.P2. According to the accused/A2, he purchased the property under Exs.P3 and P4 from the accused/A1 who is the GPA holder of -7- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

PW1 for valuable consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively and the complainant/PW1 also issued a receipt under Ex.D1 for the advance amount received from A2. In his cross-examination, PW1 also admitted his signature in Ex.D1/receipt, but denied its contents. However, the issue whether the accused/A1 has alienable rights on behalf of PW1 over the property covered under Ex.P2 and the question whether the accused/A1 and A2 have created nominal registered sale deeds/Exs.P3 and P4 for the said property are to be decided by the civil Court.

15. Sri M.Venkoba Rao, learned defence counsel submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the criminal complaint was filed by PW1 only to harass the accused. He also submitted that no case is made out against the accused for the offence U/Sec.420 IPC. On this aspect, he relied upon 2022 (3) ALT (Crl.) 234 (SC) Mitesh Kumar J.Sha .vs. State of

Karnataka and others wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that the

Apex Court at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute.

16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma And Ors .Vs. State of Bihar And Anr reported in AIR 2000 (SC) 2341 = (2000) 4 SCC 168 held that:

In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest -8- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

intention at the time of making promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning i.e, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.

17. Therefore, breach of contract is entirely different from the offence of cheating. In the instant case, gist of the prosecution story is that the accused/A1 and A2 have violated the terms of General Power of Attorney/

Ex.P2 and created two nominal registered sale deeds in the name of accused

No.2 for the property covered under Ex.P2. However, as I discussed supra it is for the Civil Court to decide whether the accused/A1 and A2 violated the terms of Ex.P2 and thereby committed breach of contract.

18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 699

Murari Lal Gupta .Vs. Gopi Singhheld that merely because an agreement to sell was entered into which agreement the petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be said that the petitioner has cheated the respondent.

19. Therefore, by placing reliance on the above verdicts of the Hon’ble

Apex Court and applying the dictum to the instant factual matrix, I am of the opinion that the case on hand is entirely civil in nature and the accused cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating. It is settled law that criminal proceedings are not short cut of other remedies available in

Law to get remedy from civil Court. Admittedly, the defacto- complainant/PW1 filed suit in O.S.No.107/2015 on the file of the

I Additional District Judge’s Court, Kurnool for cancellation of the general power of attorney/Ex.P2. If civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted as has happened in this case on hand, the aggrieved party cannot be permitted to take criminal action for such a civil wrong.

20. According to the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the accused/A2 is habitual offender and he involved in so many other crimes in the limits of -9- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

Kurnool II Town Police Station. On this aspect, learned defence counsel submitted that previous bad character is not relevant in criminal cases and the accused cannot be punished merely because he involved in other cases.

21. As per Sec.54 of the Indian Evidence Act, evidence pertaining to the fact that the accused has a bad character is not relevant in criminal cases, except in reply. Therefore, the prosecution cannot present evidence of the accused’s bad character as a part of the main case. However, no material is placed in the instant case to prove that any of the accusations leveled against the accused/A2 was established earlier and was convicted for any offence. Therefore, there is no force in the arguments submitted by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

22. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra in the foregoing paragraphs, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the appellant/A2 and against the respondents.

23. POINT No.2:Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused/A2 for the above charge?

POINT No.3: Whether the judgment under challenge requires any interference in any manner?

The trial Court failed to understand the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating, and erroneously convicted the accused for the offence of cheating though the allegations leveled against them are purely civil in nature. Therefore, the approach of trial Court is completely incorrect. Accordingly, the above points are answered in favour of the appellant/A2 and against the respondents.

-10- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.297/2017

24. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of first

Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool vide Calendar and Judgment dated 11-12-2017 in C.C.No.339/2016. The appellant/A2 is found not guilty for the offence U/s.420 r/w.34 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.386(b)(i) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bond of the appellant/A2 stands canceled after six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14 th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum-

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Copy to The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool.

-1- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (PoA) ACT –CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KURNOOL

Present: - Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act

-cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Tuesday, the 14th day of February, 2023

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.10/2018

From what Court the appeal is Court of the Judicial Magistrate of first preferred.Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool.

No.of the case in that Court.Calendar Case No.339/2016

No. of the appealCrl. Appeal No.10 of 2018

Name and description of the J.Gulab Khan @ Wasif Ali Khan (A1) appellantS/o.Late Manjoor Ali Khan, Aged 27 years, Occ: Business, R/O.40- 790-F2, Challa Compound, Kurnool Town Name and description of State rep., by the Station House Officer Respondentof Kurnool I Town Police Station. (Complainant)

Sentence/Order Accused/A1 and A2 were found guilty for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC, convicted U/s.248(2) Cr.P.C. A1 and A2 were sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years each and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

Whether confirmed, modified or REVERSED THE JUDGMENT OF reversed and if modified, the CONVICTION PASSED BY THE TRIAL

COURT.

modification.

Date of presentation21-12-2017 Date of filing 21-12-2017 Notice issued by the Court of 22-12-2017 appeal. Date of bail bonds, if the -- appellant let out on bail. Date of appellant/respondent 29-01-2018 ordered to appear. Date of hearing 02-02-2023

Date of order/Judgment 14-02-2023

Counsel for the Appellant/A2 : Sri M.R.Krishna and Sri Abdul Kareem Counsel for the Respondent : Sri G.Swamulu, Spl.Public Prosecutor Date of Arguments : 02-02-2023 -2- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

J U D G M E N T

The accused/A1 in C.C.No.339/2016 on the file of the Judicial

Magistrate of first Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool preferred this appeal

challenging the order of conviction vide judgment dt.11-12-2017 for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be addressed hereafter as per their respective ranks before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

The accused/A1 is the grandson of defacto-complainant/PW1 and the accused/A2 is the friend of A1. The accused/A1 and A2 taking advantage of the old age of PW1, represented him in deceitful manner that they would collect rents of his houses and shops if they were given authorization under

General Power of Attorney in the name of A1. Believing the words of accused, PW1 executed the registered General Power of Attorney on 11-02-2015 in favour of the accused/A1 with condition that the accused/A1 and A2 have to collect all the rents and render the accounts to him. Then the accused/A1 and A2 fraudulently colluded with each other and knowing the facts that PW1 cannot understand Telugu language, obtained his signatures on the GPA document and basing on that the accused/A1 registered a sale deed bearing Document No.1280/2015 dated 25-2-2015 for Item Nos.1 and 2 and executed another registered sale deed vide Document No.1281/2015

dated 25-2-2015 for Item Nos.3 and 4 in favour of the accused/A2 for

Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- without showing any accounts to PW1.

Thus the accused/A1 and A2 with an intention to grab the property of PW1, violated the terms of agreement and got registered the property in the name of A2 without paying any amount to PW1. Basing on the statement of PW1, a case in Crime No.36/2015 U/Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC of Kurnool I Town (U) P.S -3- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police/PW10 who investigated the case and filed charge-sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 r/w 34 IPC.

4. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the case for the offence

U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC against A1 and A2. On appearance of the accused/A1 and A2, copies of case records were furnished as required U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

The accused/A1 and A2 were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C and charges framed for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC, read over and explained to accused in

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

5. During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating evidence appearing against them for which they denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses.

The accused examined DW1 and got marked Ex.D1.

6. After hearing both sides and on considering the evidence oral as well as documentary, the learned Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Special Mobile

Court, Kurnool found the accused/A1 and A2 guilty for the charge U/s.420 r/w.34 IPC and convicted them U/Sec.248(2) Cr.P.C.

7. Challenging the order of conviction, the accused/A1 preferred this criminal appeal on the following grounds:

i) The trial Court failed to consider the fact that the accused/A1 and A2 are not friends and the accused/A2 is habitual offender; ii) The trial Court failed to consider the fact that no money transaction was took place and no money was flow from A2 to A1 or A1 to the defacto complainant; -4- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

iii) The trial Court failed to consider the fact that the police have registered the case intentionally not making the real accused

Tukaram as A1, but made him as A2 and the accused/A1 is innocent of the offence; iv) The order of trial Court erroneously convicted the accused/A1 though the accused/A2 is the real beneficiary of registered sale deeds;

v) The trial Court erred in not considering the suit in

O.S.No.107/2015 pending on the file of I Addl.District Court,

Kurnool for cancellation of the alleged GPA and all other registered sale deeds; vi) The trial Court failed to take into consideration of the evidence of PW1 who deposed that the accused/A1 was not present at the time of execution of the alleged GPA and the accused/A2 obtained the signatures of PW1 forcibly on GPA; vii) The trial Court failed to consider the collusion of Sub Registrar and his staff with A2 in obtaining GPA; viii) The trial Court failed to appreciate and take into consideration of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record properly;

8. Heard both sides. On perusal of the material papers received from the trial Court and having gone through the grounds of appeal, the following points arise for determination:

POINTS:

1)Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2)Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused/A1 for the above charge?

3)Whether the judgment under challenge requires any interference in any manner?

9. For the reasons to be recorded herein after my finding is as follows:- -5- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

FINDING

Point No.1 : No

Point No.2 : No

Point No.3 : Yes

Final Order:- Appeal is allowed as per operative part of the judgment.

10. REASONS IN SUPPORT OF MY FINDINGS.

POINT No.1: Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Upon perusal of the record of the case, it revealed that on 11-02-2015 the defacto complainant/PW1 executed a registered general power of attorney/Ex.P2 in favour of his grandson/A1 for his properties. As per the prosecution story, the accused/A1 and A2 represented to PW1 in deceitful manner that A1 will look after the entire properties of PW1 and render accounts to him. Later, the accused/A1 and A2 had not rendered the accounts to PW1 and in violation of the terms of Ex.P2, the accused/A1 executed two nominal registered sale deeds in favour of A2 for

Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- without showing any accounts to PW1.

11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to have a glance of Sec.415 and

Sec.420 of IPC for better appreciation of the evidence and to answer the above point effectively.

Section 415 IPC:

Cheating:- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Explanation:- A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

-6- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

Section 420 IPC:

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:— Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

12. Therefore, for the purpose of establishing the offence of cheating, the complainant is required to show that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise or representation. But in the instant case, there is no material to believe that the accused/A1 had fraudulently or dishonestly obtained the registered general power of attorney/Ex.P2 from PW1. It is clearly established from the evidence of PW1 and PW3/Joint Sub Registrar that the complainant/PW1 voluntarily executed the registered general power of attorney/Ex.P2 in favour of the first accused who is his grandson. It is also clear from the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 that the contents of Ex.P2 were read over to PW1 by the Joint Sub Registrar/

PW3 and then PW1 signed in it. Therefore, all these facts coupled with the recital in report/Ex.P1 would clearly reveal that the defacto complainant/PW1 voluntarily executed Ex.P2 in favour of the first accused. Though the prosecution alleged that PW1 executed Ex.P2 in favour of the first accused at the instance of A2, no supporting material is placed by them to prove it.

13. The only allegation made by PW1 in report as well as in evidence that the accused/A1 and A2 did not render the accounts as promised by them under Ex.P2 and in violation of the terms of general power of attorney, they created two nominal registered sale deeds (Exs.P3 and P4) for the said property in favour of the accused/A2 though the accused/A1 has no saleable interest over the property. However, as can be seen from the general power -7- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

of attorney/Ex.P2, the accused/A1 was given all rights including alienable rights over the property of PW1.

14. It is an undisputed fact that the accused/A1 executed two registered sale deeds i.e. Exs.P3 and P4 in favour of the accused/A2 for the property covered under Ex.P2. According to the accused/A2, he purchased the property under Exs.P3 and P4 from the accused/A1 who is the GPA holder of

PW1 for valuable consideration of Rs.25,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively and the complainant/PW1 also issued a receipt under Ex.D1 for the advance amount received from A2. In his cross-examination, PW1 also admitted his signature in Ex.D1/receipt, but denied its contents. However, the issue whether the accused/A1 has right to alienate the property covered under Ex.P2 on behalf of PW1 and the question whether the accused/A1 and

A2 have created nominal registered sale deeds/Exs.P3 and P4 for the said property are to be decided by the civil Court.

15. Learned defence counsel submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the criminal complaint was filed by PW1 only to harass the accused. He also submitted that no case is made out against the accused for the offence U/Sec.420 IPC. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor vehemently submitted that the prosecution clearly established the guilt of accused for the offence U/s.420 r/w.34 IPC.

16. In 2022 (3) ALT (Crl.) 234 (SC) Mitesh Kumar J.Sha .vs. State of Karnataka and others theHon’ble Apex Court observed that the Apex

Court at innumerable instances expressed its disapproval for imparting criminal colour to a civil dispute, made merely to take advantage of a relatively quick relief granted in a criminal case in contrast to a civil dispute.

-8- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

17. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma And Ors .Vs. State of Bihar And Anr reported in AIR 2000 (SC) 2341 = (2000) 4 SCC 168 held that:

In determining the question it has to be kept in mind that the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one. It depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be judged by his subsequent conduct but for this subsequent conduct is not the sole test. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction, that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making promise. From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such a culpable intention right at the beginning i.e, when he made the promise cannot be presumed.

18. Therefore, breach of contract is entirely different from the offence of cheating. In the instant case, gist of the prosecution story is that the accused/A1 and A2 have violated the terms of General Power of Attorney/

Ex.P2 and created two nominal registered sale deeds in the name of accused

No.2 for the property covered under Ex.P2. However, as I discussed supra it is for the Civil Court to decide whether the accused/A1 and A2 have violated the terms of Ex.P2 and thereby committed breach of contract.

19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in (2005) 13 SUPREME COURT CASES 699

Murari Lal Gupta .Vs. Gopi Singhheld that merely because an agreement to sell was entered into which agreement the petitioner failed to honour, it cannot be said that the petitioner has cheated the respondent.

20. Therefore, by placing reliance on the above verdicts of the Hon’ble

Apex Court and applying the dictum to the instant factual matrix, I am of the opinion that the case on hand is entirely civil in nature and the accused/A1 -9- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

and A2 cannot be said to have committed any offence of cheating. It is settled law that criminal proceedings are not short cut of other remedies available in Law to get remedy from civil Court. Admittedly, the defacto- complainant/PW1 filed suit in O.S.No.107/2015 on the file of the

I Additional District Judge’s Court, Kurnool for cancellation of the general power of attorney/Ex.P2. If civil remedy is available and is in fact adopted as has happened in this case on hand, the aggrieved party cannot be permitted to take criminal action for such a civil wrong.

21. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra in the foregoing paragraphs, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of accused/A1 for the offence U/Sec.420 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the appellant/A1 and against the respondents.

22. POINT No.2:Whether the learned trial Judge was justified in convicting the accused/A1 for the above charge?

POINT No.3: Whether the judgment under challenge requires any interference in any manner?

The trial Court failed to understand the distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating, and erroneously convicted the accused/A1 and A2 for the offence of cheating though the allegations leveled against them are purely civil in nature. Therefore, the approach of trial Court is completely incorrect. Accordingly, the above points are answered in favour of the appellant/A1 and against the respondents.

23. In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of first

Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool vide Calendar and Judgment dated 11-12-2017 in C.C.No.339/2016. The appellant/A1 is found not guilty for the -10- SC/ST Court, Knl

Crl.A.No.10/2018

offence U/s.420 r/w.34 IPC and he is acquitted U/Sec.386(b)(i) Cr.P.C for the said offence. The bail bond of the appellant/A1 stands canceled after six months.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 14 th day of February, 2023.

Sd/-P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum-

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Copy to The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Kurnool.

SCSTSC No.165/2019 SC/ST Court, Knl

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER SCs & STs (PoA) ACT –CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KURNOOL

Present: - Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act

-cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 26th day of March, 2025

SC/ST/S.C.No.165/2019

State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell-I, Kurnool … Complainant

-Versus-

1.Yellanki Bala Ramudu, aged about 37 years, S/o.Yelanki Ranganna, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

2. Yellanki Mohan, aged about 38 years, S/o.Yellanki Nettekallappa, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

3. Yellanki Ravi, aged about 26 years, S/o.Rajendra, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

4. Yelanki Narayana Swamy, S/o.Rajendra, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

5. Yelanki Prabhakar, aged about 50 years, S/o.Pedda Narayana, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

6. Gadekanti Bheemanna @ Bheemudu, aged about 48 years, S/o.Chinna Govindappa, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

7. Yelanki Ameresh, aged about 32 years, S/o.Yelanki Ranganna, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

8. Yelanki Ranganna, aged about 65 years, S/o.Baleppa, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

SCSTSC No.165/2019 SC/ST Court, Knl

9. Yelanki Murali, aged about 26 years, S/o.Yelanki Rama Chandrappa, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

10. Yelanki Yugandhar @ Yoganand, aged about 30 years, S/o.Ramachandrappa Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian. … Accused/A1 to A10

Counsel for State : Sri G.Swamulu, Spl.Public Prosecutor.

Counsel for accused/A1 to A10 : Sri T.Chandrasekhar

Date of Arguments : 26-03-2025

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

SC/ST Cell-I, Kurnool filed charge-sheet in Crime No.36/2015 of Chippagiri

PS against the accused/A1 to A10 for the offence punishable U/Secs.323, 324, 341, 355, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The defacto-complainant/LW1 by name K.N.Govindurajulu and the accused/A1 to A10 are residents of Chippagiri village and mandal. LW1 belongs to SC/Madiga and working as a Reporter for Telugu Praja Shakthi news paper. The accused/A8 is a land lord. Earlier the fore fathers of the complainant/LW1 have worked in the house of the accused/A8. The complainant/LW1 pursued higher education and he did not attend the household works of the accused/A8 and on that the accused/A8 and his family developed grudge on LW1. On 09.05.2015, while the complainant was proceeding on a motorcycle near Srinivasa Chowdary Ware House godowns to go to Guntakal for groceries along with LW4 and 5(G.Gopal,

G.Srinivasulu), the accused/A1, A4 and A6 accosted the complainant and

SCSTSC No.165/2019 SC/ST Court, Knl wrongfully restrained him by abusing him touching his caste name and beat LW1 with hands, legs and an iron rod. The accused/A1, A4 and A6 threatened LW2/K.N.Ramanjanmma, LW4/G.Gopal and LW5/G.Srinivasulu with dire consequences for trying to intervene. The accused/A1, A4 and A6 forcibly took the complainant/LW1 in a vehicle to the house of A8, where the accused/A8 and A9 beat LW1 with hands, legs and chappal by abusing him in caste name. The accused threatened LW1 with dire consequences that they will kill him if he reports the matter to anybody. Later, LWs2 and 3 shifted the complainant LW1 to Government Hospital, Guntakal for treatment.

Basing on the report of LW1, LW13/ASI of Police, Chippagiri PS registered a case in Cr.No.36/2015 U/Secs.147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 355, 384, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act. As per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool in Rc.No.6098/C4/SC

ST/2015 dated 09.05.2015, LW15/Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST

Cell-I, Kurnool took up the investigation and examined as many as ten witnesses under videography. He examined the scene of offence and drafted the rough sketch of the scene of offence. The accused/A1, A4, A6,

A8 and A9 have obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh. After obtaining Wound Certificate of LW1 and on completion of investigation, LW15 filed charge sheet against the accused/A1, A4, A6, A8 and A9 for the said offences by deleting the remaining accused. Later the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Alur took cognizance of the case against the accused/A2, A3, A5, A7 and

A10

3.Basing on the charge-sheet filed by the police and on the protest petition filed by LW1 vide in CFR.No.1570/2015 dt.02.11.2017, the

SCSTSC No.165/2019 SC/ST Court, Knl learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur took cognizance of the case against the accused/A1 to A10 for the offence U/Secs.323, 324, 341, 355, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act. On appearance of the accused before the Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The case was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur under P.R.C.No.3/2018 to this Court and the same was numbered by this Court as SC/ST SC No.165 of 2019.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court and having heard on both sides, Charges U/Secs.341 r/w.34, 324 r/w.34, 506 r/w.34, 323 r/w.34, 355 r/w.34, 506 r/w.34 IPC and U/Sec.3(1)(x)of SCs & STs (PoA)

Act against the accused/A1 to A10 were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P5.

6.As there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of accused U/Sec.313

Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the points arise for determination are:-

POINTS:

1) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to

A10 for the offence punishable U/Secs.341 r/w.34, 324 r/w.34, 506 r/w.34, 323 r/w.34, 355 r/w.34 and 506 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

SCSTSC No.165/2019 SC/ST Court, Knl

2) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to

A10 for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(x)of SCs & STs (PoA)

Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. For the reasons to be recorded herein after my finding is as follows:-

FINDING

Points 1 and 2 : No

Final order:- Accused/A1 to A10 are acquitted for the above charges as per operative part of the judgment.

10. REASONS IN SUPPORT OF MY FINDINGS.

POINTS:

1) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to

A10 for the offence punishable U/Secs.341 r/w.34, 324 r/w.34, 506 r/w.34, 323 r/w.34, 355 r/w.34 and 506 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to

A10 for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(x)of SCs & STs (PoA)

Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

The defacto-complainant/PW1 deposed that on 09.05.2015 at afternoon he fell down from motorcycle and sustained injuries. He never lodged report against the accused in Chippagiri police station and he does not know contents of statement and he was not examined by police.

Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW1 with the permission of Court, nothing is elicited against the accused from his evidence.

11.PWs2,4 and 5 deposed that they do not know accused and they do not know anything in this case. PW3 deposed that she knows accused, but she does not know anything in this case. PWs2 to 5 deposed that they

SCSTSC No.165/2019 SC/ST Court, Knl were not examined by police. Though the learned Special Public

Prosecutor cross-examined PWs2 to 5 with the permission of Court, nothing is elicited against the accused from their evidence. The learned

Special Public Prosecutor given up the remaining witnesses. Since there is no any incriminating evidence against the accused, this Court has no other option except to acquit the accused for the above charges.

12.Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra in foregoing paragraphs, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused/A1 to A10 for the above charges beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the points are answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

13.In the result, the accused/A1 to A10 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.341 r/w.34, 324 r/w.34, 506 r/w.34, 323 r/w.34, 355 r/w.34, 506 r/w.34 IPC and U/Sec.3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA)

Act. Thus, the accused/A1 to A10 are acquitted U/Sec.232 of Cr.P.C for the above charges. The unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused and that of their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum-

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

SCSTSC No.165/2019 SC/ST Court, Knl

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: PW1: K.N.Govindarajulu PW2: K.Ramanjinamma PW3: K.N.Bharathi PW4: M.Jyothi PW5: G.Gopal

FOR DEFENCE: None.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P3: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 Ex.P4: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW4 Ex.P5: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW5

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

Material Objects Marked

NIL

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Spl.Judge, SC/ST Court –cum- VI ASJ, Knl.

SCSTSC No.165/2019 SC/ST Court, Knl

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

SCs & STs (PoA) ACT –CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KURNOOL

Present: - Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act

-cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 26th day of March, 2025

SCST.SC.No.165/2019

TABULAR STATEMENT U/R 67 OF CR.P.C.

Name of the Police Station and: Crime No.36/2015 of Crime number Chippagiri Police Station

Case No. : SCST.SC.No.165/2019

DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED

1.Yellanki Bala Ramudu, aged about 37 years, S/o.Yelanki Ranganna, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

2. Yellanki Mohan, aged about 38 years, S/o.Yellanki Nettekallappa, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

3. Yellanki Ravi, aged about 26 years, S/o.Rajendra, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

4. Yelanki Narayana Swamy, S/o.Rajendra, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

5. Yelanki Prabhakar, aged about 50 years, S/o.Pedda Narayana, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

6. Gadekanti Bheemanna @ Bheemudu, aged about 48 years, S/o.Chinna Govindappa, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

7. Yelanki Ameresh, aged about 32 years, S/o.Yelanki Ranganna, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

8. Yelanki Ranganna, aged about 65 years, S/o.Baleppa, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

9. Yelanki Murali, aged about 26 years, S/o.Yelanki Rama Chandrappa, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian. 10.Yelanki Yugandhar @ Yoganand, aged about 30 years, S/o.Ramachandrappa, Resident of Chippagiri village and mandal, Caste-Kamma-Hindu-Indian.

Date of Occurrence : 09-05-2015 Date of Complaint: 09-05-2015

SCSTSC No.165/2019 SC/ST Court, Knl

Date of apprehension : No apprehension

Date of release on bail : 10-07-2015 - A4, A6, A8 and A9 obtained anticipatory bail from Hon’ble High Court of A.P at Hyderabad 22-09-2015 -A1 obtained anticipatory bail from Hon’ble High Court of A.P at Hyderabad

Summons were issued to A2, A3, A5, A7 and A10 as cognizance was taken against them on protest.

Date of Commencement of trial: 24-03-2025 Date of close of trial : 26-03-2025 Date of Sentence or Order : 26-03-2025

The prosecution was conducted by the Special Public Prosecutor. The accused are defended by Sri T.Chandrasekhar, Advocate.

Prosecution evidence commenced on 24-03-2025. PWs.1 to 5 were examined, Exs.P1 to P5 were marked. Prosecution side evidence closed on 26-03-2025. Examination of accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Arguments heard on 26-03-2025 and Judgment pronounced on 26-03-2025.

In the result, the accused/A1 to A10 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.341 r/w.34, 324 r/w.34, 506 r/w.34, 323 r/w.34, 355 r/w.34, 506 r/w.34 IPC and U/Sec.3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act. Thus, the accused/A1 to A10 are acquitted U/Sec.232 of Cr.P.C for the above charges. The unmarked non-valuable case property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused and that of their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for trial of cases

under SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Copy

1. Submitted to the Hon’ble Registrar (Judl), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.

2. The Director of Prosecution, Government of Andhra Pradesh, D.No.24-19-12/A, Beside: Sharada College, Durgapuram, Vijayawada 520001.

3. The District Collector, Kurnool

4. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool

5. The Spl.Public Prosecutor, SC/ST Court, Kurnool.

SCSTSC No.139/2021 SC/ST Court, Knl -1-

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

SCs & STs (PoA) ACT –CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KURNOOL

Present: - Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act

-cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Thursday, the 13th day of March, 2025

SCST.SC.No.139/2021

State rep by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell-I, Kurnool … Complainant

-Versus-

1. Thippanagari Naga Raju, aged 28 years S/o.T.Eswar Reddy @ Eswarudu, Resident of H.No.2-104, Uppalapadu Village, Owk Mandal. Caste-Golla(BC)-Indian-Hindu

2. Thippanagari Lakshmi devi, aged 54 years W/o.T.Eswarudu, Resident of Uppalapadu Village, Owk Mandal. Caste-Golla(BC)-Indian-Hindu

3. Thippanagari Eswar reddy @ Eswarudu, aged 59 years S/o.T.Gurranna, Resident of Uppalapadu Village, Owk Mandal.

Caste-Golla (BC)-Indian-Hindu ...Accused/A1 to A3

Counsel for State: Sri G.Swamulu, Spl.Public Prosecutor.

Counsel for the Accused/A1 to A3: Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Sri M.Anudeep Reddy, Sri J.Krishna and Sri B.Parthasaradi Reddy

Date of Arguments: 13-03-2025

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST

Cell-I, Kurnool filed charge-sheet in Crime No.131/2021 of Kurnool I Town Police

Station against the accused/A1 to A3for the offence punishable U/Secs.376, 417, 420, 323, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Secs.3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) and 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act.

SCSTSC No.139/2021 SC/ST Court, Knl -2-

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The defacto-complainant/LW1 by name M.Kanthamma Bai is a resident of

Alebad Thanda, Peapully mandal and now residing at Kurnool town. She belongs to ST/Sugali. The accused/A1 to A3 are residents of Uppalapdu village of Owk mandal and they belong to BC/Golla. The accused/A1 has joined in B.Ed course in Shankaras college, Kurnool during the year 2014 and defacto- complainant/LW1 also studied in same college. The accused/A1 and LW1 fell in love with each other and taking the advantage of his amity with LW1, A1 hatched a plan to have sexual intercourse with the complainant and requested

LW6/Ambati Nagendra to allow him to use his room situated at Madhavi Nagar,

Kurnool. In the year 2014, the accused/A1 invited complainant/LW1 for movie.

Later he took her to the room of LW6 at about 02.00 p.m., and had sexual intercourse with the complainant/LW1 forcibly against her will with false promise of marriage stating that he would marry her after getting government job.

Believing the words, the complainant and A1 lived together in a rented house at

Chidambara Rao Street, Kurnool for three years. Later the accused/A1 took an amount of Rs.50,000/- and two tulas of gold chain from the complainant with deceitful words stating that his family is in financial crisis. During the year 2017 the accused/A1 selected as a Constable in Telangana State Police. He started evading the complainant/LW1 with intent to discard her. Noticing adverse attitude of A1, the complainant insisted him to marry her, but he dodged the same on some pretext. On 11.10.2020,the accused/A1 to A3 visited the house of complainant/LW1, A1 refused to marry her, he picked up quarrel with her by abusing in her caste name and beat her with hands and legs throwing her down in public place and threatened with dire consequences as “సుగాలిలం�జదానానిన్ను�పెళ్లి� చేసుకోన్ను . The accused/A2 and A3 are parents of A1 and they also picked up”

SCSTSC No.139/2021 SC/ST Court, Knl -3- quarrel with LW1 and beat her with hands and legs by touching her caste name as “ఏమేసుగాలిదానానీకునాకొడుకేకావాలి�వచ్చిం��దా, నాకొడుకుజీవితం�నశన�చేసావుకదేసుగాలి లం�జదానా".

Basing on the report of LW1, LW16/Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.131/2021 U/Secs.420 and 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of

SC ST (PoA) Act. As per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police,

Kurnool in Rc.No.7040/C4/SC-ST/2021, dated 28.05.2021, the DSP, SC/ST

Cell-I/LW18 took up the investigation, visited the scene of offence and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence. He examined as many as eight witnesses and recorded their statements under videography. During the course of investigation Secs.376, 417 and 323 IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act were added. He obtained caste certificates of the accused/A1 to A3 and LW1. He also obtained potency report of the accused/A1 and sexual certificate of LW1 from GGH, Kurnool. He obtained RFSL report from the Assistant Director of

RFSL, Kurnool. The learned Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Proh &

Excise), Kurnool recorded the statement of LW1 U/sec.164 Cr.P.C. LW18 secured

CDRs of the accused and LW1 during the course of investigation. LW18 arrested the accused/A1 to A3 and send them to court for remand. After completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused/A1 to A3.

3.This Court took cognizance of the case for the offence U/Secs.376, 417, 420, 323, 506 r/w.34 IPC and U/sec.3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act and registered the same as SC.ST.SC No.139 of 2021.

4.On appearance of accused before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Having heard on both sides, Charges U/Secs.376, 417 and 420 of IPC against the accused/A1 and charges U/secs.323 r/w.34, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Secs.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va)

SCSTSC No.139/2021 SC/ST Court, Knl -4- of SCs & STs (PoA) Act against the accused/A1 to A3 were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

6.As there is no incriminating material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, examination of accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with. The accused reported no evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the points that arise for determination are:-

POINTS:

1) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 for the offence punishable U/Secs.376, 417 and 420 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to A3 for the offence punishable U/Secs.323 r/w.34 and 506 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to A3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. For the reasons to be recorded herein after my finding is as follows:-

FINDING

Points 1 to 3 : No

Final order:- Accused are acquitted for the above charges as per operative part of the judgment.

SCSTSC No.139/2021 SC/ST Court, Knl -5- 10. REASONS IN SUPPORT OF MY FINDINGS.

POINTS:

1) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 for the offence punishable U/Secs.376, 417 and 420 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to A3 for the offence punishable U/Secs.323 r/w.34 and 506 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to A3 for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va)of SCs & STs (PoA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

In the instant case, the defacto-complainant/PW1 deposed that she does not know accused/A1 to A3 and she does not know anything in this case. She further deposed that she never lodged report against the accused in Kurnool

I Town PS, she does not know contents of report and she was not examined by police. Though the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PW1 with the permission of Court, nothing is elicited against the accused from her evidence.

11.PWs.2 to 6 deposed that they do not know accused, they do not know anything in this case and they were not examined by police. Though the learned

Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined PWs.2 to 6 with the permission of

Court, nothing is elicited against the accused from their evidence. The learned

Special Public Prosecutor given up the remaining witnesses. Since there is no any incriminating evidence against the accused, this Court has no other option except to acquit the accused for the above charges.

12.Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra in foregoing paragraphs, it can be safely concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the

SCSTSC No.139/2021 SC/ST Court, Knl -6- guilt of accused/A1 to A3 for the above charges beyond all reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, the points are answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

13.In the result, the accused/A1 found not guilty for the offence punishable

U/Secs.376, 417 and 420 IPC; and the accused/A1 to A3 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/secs.323 r/w.34 and 506 r/w.34 IPC and Secs.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act. Thus, the accused/A1 to A3 are acquitted U/Sec.232 of Cr.P.C for the above charges. The unmarked non-valuable case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused and that of their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of March, 2025.

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum-

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: M.Kanthamma Bai PW2: Mudavath Lakshmi Devi PW3: Mudavath Dhansingh Naik PW4: Bestha Suma Latha PW5: Ambati Nagendra PW6: Maradi Thulasi

FOR DEFENCE: None.

SCSTSC No.139/2021 SC/ST Court, Knl -7-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex.P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P3: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW3 Ex.P4: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW4 Ex.P5: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW5 Ex.P6: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW6

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL -

Material Objects Marked

NIL

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Spl.Judge, SC/ST Court –cum- VI ASJ, Knl.

SCSTSC No.139/2021 SC/ST Court, Knl -8-

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

SCs & STs (PoA) ACT –CUM-

VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE : KURNOOL

Present: - Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act

-cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Thursday, the 13th day of March, 2025

SCST.SC.No.139/2021

TABULAR STATEMENT U/R 67 OF CR.P.C.

Name of the Police Station and: Crime No.131/2021 of Crime number Kurnool I Town Police Station

Case No. : SCST.SC.No.139/2021

DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED

1. Thippanagari Naga Raju, aged 28 years S/o.T.Eswar Reddy @ Eswarudu, Resident of H.No.2-104, Uppalapadu Village, Owk Mandal. Caste-Golla(BC)-Indian-Hindu

2. Thippanagari Lakshmi devi, aged 54 years W/o.T.Eswarudu, Resident of Uppalapadu Village, Owk Mandal. Caste-Golla(BC)-Indian-Hindu

3. Thippanagari Eswar reddy @ Eswarudu, aged 59 years S/o.T.Gurranna, Resident of Uppalapadu Village, Owk Mandal. Caste-Golla (BC)-Indian-Hindu

Date of Occurrence : Prior to 28-05-2021 Date of Complaint: 28-05-2021

Date of apprehension : 07-06-2021 (A1) 24-06-2021 (A2 and A3)

Date of release on bail : 30-06-2021 (A1) A2 and A3 complied Sec.41A Cr.P.C conditions

Date of Commencement of trial: 10-03-2025 Date of close of trial : 12-03-2025 Date of Sentence or Order : 13-03-2025

The prosecution was conducted by the Special Public Prosecutor. The accused are defended by Sri M.L.Srinivasa Reddy, Sri M.Anudeep Reddy, Sri J.Krishna and Sri B.Parthasaradi Reddy, Advocates.

Prosecution evidence commenced on 10-03-2025. PWs.1 to 6 were examined, Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. Prosecution side evidence closed on 12-03-2025. Examination of accused U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with. Arguments heard on 12-03-2025 and Judgment pronounced on 13-03-2025.

SCSTSC No.139/2021 SC/ST Court, Knl -9-

In the result, the accused/A1 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Secs.376, 417 and 420 IPC; and the accused/A1 to A3 found not guilty for the offence punishable U/secs.323 r/w.34 and 506 r/w.34 IPC and Secs.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act. Thus, the accused/A1 to A3 are acquitted U/Sec.232 of Cr.P.C for the above charges. The unmarked non-valuable case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused and that of their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for trial of cases

under SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Copy

1. Submitted to the Hon’ble Registrar (Judl), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelapadu, Guntur District.

2. The Director of Prosecution, Government of Andhra Pradesh, D.No.24-19-12/A, Beside: Sharada College, Durgapuram, Vijayawada 520001.

3. The District Collector, Kurnool

4. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool

5. The Spl.Public Prosecutor, SC/ST Court, Kurnool.

SC/ST Court, Knl SCST SC 196/2018

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA)

Act –cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Present: - Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act

-cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 15th day of February 2023

SC/ST S.C.No.196/2018

State rep., by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhone … Complainant -Versus- 1.Boya Madhu 2.Boya Harsha Vardhan 3.Boya Naveen 4.Boya Shakunthala 5.Boya Venkateswari @ Venkateswari 6.Boya Rama Devi @ Radha 7.Boya Divya Bharathi … Accused

Counsel for State : Sri G.Swamulu, Spl.Public Prosecutor.

Counsel for the Accused : Sri S.V.Krishna Reddy

Date of Arguments : 13-02-2023

J U D G M E N T

The State represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhone filed charge-sheet in Crime No.85/2018 of Banaganapalli Police Station against the accused/A1 to A7 for the offence punishable U/Secs.323, 506 and 509 r/w.34 IPC and U/Secs.3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 2015.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-

The defacto-complainant/LW1/Yerukali Lakshmi Devi is the resident of

Owk Metta Buildings, Banaganapalli town and she belongs to scheduled tribe-Yerukali. On 30-04-2018 at about 5.30 p.m., LW3/Hymavathi came to the house of complainant and narrated that the accused/A1 to A3 teased and commented her while she was sweeping in front of her house. On that,

LW1/Yerukala Lakshmi Devi and her husband LW2/Yerukala Vigneswarudu

SC/ST Court, Knl SCST SC 196/2018 went to the house of A2 on the same day at 9.00 p.m and when they questioned the accused/A1 to A3 about the said incident, they challenged with LW2 that they will continue to tease LW3. Due to fear of them, LWs.1 and 2 were returned to home. On 01-05-2018 at about 6.00 p.m., the accused/A2 to A7 came to the house of complainant and abused her as “ఏ� ఎ�క� లంజ�న �� � ��� క�� � �ల�ల� మంద��� �”. Three women among the accused beat LW1 with hands and legs by causing abrasions. The accused threatened that they will see the end of complainant. On the intervention of the neighbours, the accused left away of the place. Then LW1 was shifted to Government Hospital, Banaganapalli for treatment.

Basing on the complaint of LW1/Yerukali Lakshmi Devi, a case in

Crime No.85/2018 U/Secs.323, 506 and 509 r/w.34 IPC and U/Sec.

3(1)(r)(s)(w) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 2015 of Banaganapalli Police Station was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police/LW9. As per the proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Kurnool in Rc.No.3092/C4/SC-ST/2018, dt.05- 05-2018, LW11/Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhone took up investigation and examined the witnesses in this case. After completion of investigation, he filed charge-sheet against the accused/A1 to A7 for the offence punishable U/Secs.323, 506 and 509 r/w.34 IPC and U/Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 2015.

3. This Court took cognizance of the case for the offence U/Secs.323, 506 and 509 r/w.34 IPC and U/Secs.3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 2015 against A1 to A7 and registered the same as SC ST SC No.196 of 2018.

4. On appearance of the accused/A1 to A7 before this Court, copies of documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

Having heard on both sides, Charges U/Sec.323 IPC against A4 to A7,

U/Sec.323 r/w.34 IPC against A1 to A3, U/Secs.509, 506 of IPC and

SC/ST Court, Knl SCST SC 196/2018

U/Secs.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 2015 against A1 to A7 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During trial, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P8.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 to A7 were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appeared against them in Telugu, for which they denied the prosecution evidence and reported no evidence on their behalf.

7. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the record.

8. Now the points arise for determination are:-

POINTS:

1) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A4 to A7 for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC and the guilt of accused/A1 to A3 for the offence U/s.323 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to A7 for the offence punishable U/Secs.506 and 509 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to A7 for the offence punishable U/Secs.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 2015 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9. For the reasons to be recorded herein after my finding is as follows:-

FINDING

Points 1 to 3 : No

Final order:- All the accused are acquitted for the above charges as per operative part of the judgment.

SC/ST Court, Knl SCST SC 196/2018 10. REASONS IN SUPPORT OF MY FINDINGS.

POINTS:

1) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A4 to A7 for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC and the guilt of accused/A1 to A3 for the offence U/s.323 r/w.34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

2) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to A7 for the offence punishable U/Secs.506 and 509 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

3) Whether the prosecution established the guilt of accused/A1 to A7 for the offence punishable U/Secs.3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 2015 beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. In order to bring home the guilt of accused for the above charges, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked EXs.P1 to P8. The defacto-complainant/PW1 deposed that at about 5 years back some persons have obtained her signatures for the purpose of podupu lakshmi and she does not know accused. She deposed that she does not know contents of report, she did not lodge report against the accused, she does not know anything in this case and she was not examined by the police. PW2 deposed that he does not know accused and he does not know anything in this case and he was not examined by the police. Though the learned Special Public

Prosecutor cross-examined PWs.1 and 2 with the permission of Court, nothing is elicited against the accused from their evidence.

12. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhone/PW3 deposed as per the record about the investigation done by him and filing of charge-sheet. The prosecution given up the evidence of remaining witnesses. Since the material witnesses PWs.1 and 2 have turned hostile and deposed nothing against accused, the evidence of Investigating Officer/PW3 is of no use to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused.

SC/ST Court, Knl SCST SC 196/2018

13. Considering all these facts and circumstances discussed supra in foregoing paragraphs, it can be safely concluded that the accused cannot be punished basing on the sole testimony of the police officer/PW3 and thus, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the above charges beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the points are answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

14. In the result, the accused/A4 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC; the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.323 r/w.34, the accused/A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.506 and 509 IPC and U/Secs.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 2015. Thus, the accused/A1 to A7 are acquitted U/Sec.235(1) of

Cr.P.C for the above charges. The unmarked non-valuable case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused/A1 to A7 and that of their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected, signed and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15 th day of February, 2023.

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for trial of cases under

SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum-

VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW1: Yerukali Laxmi Devi PW2: Y.Vigneswarudu PW3: K.Baba Fakruddin, the then Sub Divisional Police Officer, Dhone.

FOR DEFENCE: None.

SC/ST Court, Knl SCST SC 196/2018

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW1 Ex P2: Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C Statement of PW2 Ex.P3: F.I.R Ex.P4: Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool Ex.P5: Rough Sketch Ex.P6: Wound certificate of PW1 Ex.P7: Caste Certificate of PW1 Ex.P8: Caste Certificates of accused.

FOR DEFENCE: - NIL –

Material Objects Marked

NIL

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Spl.Judge, SC/ST Court –cum- VI ASJ, Knl.

SC/ST Court, Knl SCST SC 196/2018

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA)

Act –cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Present: - Sri P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act

-cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Wednesday, the 15th day of February 2023

SC/ST S.C.No.196/2018

TABULAR STATEMENT U/R 67 OF CR.P.C.

Name of the Police Station and : Crime.No.85/2018 of Banaganapalli Crime number Police Station

Case No. : SC.ST.SC.No.196/2018

DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCUSED

Sl.Name of the accusedFather’s nameAgeReligionOccu-Residence pation

1.Boya MadhuRamudu26 yrsHindu-BoyaCoolieOwk Metta Building, Banaganapalli

2.Boya Harsha VardhanChinna Bala 23 yrs-do--do--do- Venganna

3.Boya NaveenB.Nagaraju22 yrs-do--do--do-

4.Boya ShakunthalaW/o.Bala 40 yrs-do--do--do- Venganna

5.Boya Venkateswari @ D/o.Venkatesh23 yrs-do--do--do- Venkateswari

6.Boya Rama Devi @ W/o.Madhu 31 yrs-do--do--do- RadhaSudhan

7. Boya Divya Bharathi D/o.Venugopal 26 yrs -do--do--do-

Date of Occurrence : 01-05-2018 Date of Complaint : 05-05-2018 Date of apprehension : Served Sec.41-A Cr.P.C Notice Date of release on bail : Complied conditions of Sec.41 Cr.P.C Date of Commencement of trial : 03-02-2023 Date of close of trial : 13-02-2023 Date of Sentence or Order : 15-02-2023

The prosecution was conducted by the Special Public Prosecutor, and the accused are defended by Sri S.V.Krishna Reddy, Advocate

Prosecution evidence commenced on 03-02-2023. PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. Prosecution side evidence closed on 08-02-2023. On 13-02-2023 the accused were examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by putting the incriminating evidence against them. They denied the prosecution evidence. Arguments heard on 13-02-2023 and Judgment

pronounced on 15-02-2023.

SC/ST Court, Knl SCST SC 196/2018

In the result, the accused/A4 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.323 IPC; the accused/A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence U/Sec.323 r/w.34, the accused/A1 to A7 are found not guilty for the offence U/Secs.506 and 509 IPC and U/Secs.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 2015. Thus, the accused/A1 to A7 are acquitted U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C for the above charges. The unmarked non-valuable case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of accused/A1 to A7 and that of their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months as per section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/- P.Panduranga Reddy,

Special Judge for trial of cases

under SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.

Copy

1.Submitted to the Hon’ble Registrar (Judl), High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Nelpadu, Guntur District.

2.The Director of Prosecution, Director of Prosecution, Government of Andhra Pradesh, D.No.24-19-12/A, Beside: Sharada College, Durgapuram, Vijayawada 520001.

3. The District Collector, Kurnool

4. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool

5.The Spl.Public Prosecutor, SC/ST Court, Kurnool.