Dr. P.Siva Ram Prasad

1 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES,

ADILABAD

Present : Dr.P.Sivaram Prasad I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad FAC:Special Judge for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Adilabad.

Thursday, this the 6th day of November, 2025

S.C.(POCSO) No.20 of 2025

1.Complainant:The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad.

2.Names of A1 to A3A1:Ingole Anil, S/o. Gangadhar @ Gangaram, Age 26 years, Caste : SC Mahar,R/o.Ranadivenagar, Adilabad.

A2:Ingole Gangadhar @ Gangaram, S/o. Pakeera Age 70 years, Caste : SC Manar Occ : Labour R/o.3-4- 500/16, Randivenagar, Adilabad.

A3:Dhupatre Shushma @ Sushma, D/o. Ananth, W/o. Ingole Anil, Age 23 years, Caste : BC Balija Occ : Coolie, R/o. Ranadivenagar, Adilabad

3.Crime No.:Cr.No.42/2025 of PS Adilabad Rural

4.Prosecution conducted by :Sri.B.Praveen, Spl.Public Prosecutor, Adilabad.

5.Defence conducted by:Sri G.V.S. Prakash Reddy and Sri M.A.Baseer, Advocates for A1 and A2

and

Sri T.Devender Singh, Advocate for A3

6.Charges :u/secs.127(2), 70(2), 109 r/w 3(5), BNS (old sec.341, 376 DA, 307 r/w 34 IPC) and sec. 5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act against A1 and A2, u/sec. 351(3) r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec. 506 r/w 34 IPC) against A1 to A3, u/sec.127(2), 70(2) r/w 49 BNS (old sec.341, 376 DA r/w 109 IPC) against A3,

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 2 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

7.Plea of A1 to A3:A1 to A3 are pleaded not guilty

8.Finding of the Court: A1 to A3 are found guilty

9.Sentence of Order:In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/secs.127(2), 109 r/w 3(5), BNS (old sec.341, 307 r/w 34 IPC) and u/sec. 351(3) r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec. 506 r/w 34 IPC). Accordingly they acquitted for the said offence u/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

A3 is found not guilty for the offence u/sec. 351(3) r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec. 506 r/w 34 IPC) and u/sec.70(2) r/w 49 BNS (old sec.376 DA r/w 109 IPC) Accordingly she is acquitted for the said offence u/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

But A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence u/secs.70(2) BNS (old sec.376 DA IPC) i.e., sec. 5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. Accordingly they are convicted for the said offence u/sec.235(2) Cr.P.C and

A3 is found guilty for the offence u/sec. 127(2) BNS (old sec.341 IPC) Accordingly she is convicted for the said offence u/sec.235(2) Cr.P.C.

MO1: cutting plier, MO2: black colour bottom pant, MO3: white colour top shall be destroyed after disposal of appeal or appeal time

and

MO4: cell phone (samsung galaxy) is not claimed by A1 to A3 and it is not having considerable worth hence it shall be destroyed after disposal of appeal or appeal time.

A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years each and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each in default to

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 3 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence u/sec. 70(2) r/w 49 BNS ( old sec. 376DA r/w 34 IPC) i.e., sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

A3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in defaulttosuffersimple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence u/sec. 127(2) BNS ( old sec. 341 IPC).

The remand period of A1 to A3 from 22.02.2025 to 19.06.2025 shall be given set off u/sec.428 Cr.P.C.

A1 to A3 are informed of their right to appeal. A1 to A3 are further informed that if they want any legal aid to file appeal, the Court can provide legal aid on their application.

Office is directed to furnish free copy of judgment to A1 to A3 as per section 363(1) Cr.P.C.

Total fine amount is Rs.20,500/- (Rupees twenty thousand five hundred only) and it shall be collected and remitted to the State.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing on today i.e., on 31.10.2025 in the presence of Sri.B.Praveen, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri.G.V.S.Prakash Reddy and Sri.M.A.Baseer, Advocates for A1 and A2 and Sri T.Devender Singh, Advocate for A3 and upon; perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Adilabad filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 u/sec. 127(2), 70(2) 109 (i), 351(3) r/w 3(5) BNS and sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act in Cr.No.42/2025 of PS Adilabad Rural.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 4 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

Brief Averments of the Charge Sheet:-

02. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that the complaint in this case was lodged on 21.02.2025 at 6:30 p.m., by mother of the victim (mother of the victim is Lw1, she is examined and referred as Pw1) disclosing that victim/Lw2 (the victim is Lw2, she is examined and referred as Pw2) is her daughter (aged 16 years) on 15.02.2025, the victim/Pw2 complained neck pain, then Pw1 took the victim/Pw2 to RIMS Hospital,

Adilabad for treatment and returned to house. That on 18.02.2025 the victim/Pw2 suffered sever neck pain and fever, Pw1 admitted the victim/Pw2 in RIMS Hospital, Adilabad. That while undergoing treatment at RIMS Hospital, Adilabad, on 21.02.2025 evening the victim/Pw2 told that one week back A3/Sushma called her to her house to drink tea.

Accordingly the victim/Pw2 went to house of Sushma, on which

A3/Sushma sent the victim/Pw2 into her house and waited outside, when the victim/Pw2 entered into the house, A1 caught hold the victim/Pw2, untied her clothes, forcibly had sexual intercourse with her.

After that the victim/Pw2 shouted loudly. But A2 closed her mouth forcibly had sexual intercourse with her. A2 beat the victim/Pw2 on her back with an iron tool (cutting plier) when she tired to go out. A2 also beat the victim/Pw2 with the same iron cutting plier in-discriminately and attempted to kill her. A3 abated A1 and A2 to exploit the victim/Pw2 sexually and beat her to kill her. A1 to A3 put the victim/Pw2 under fear of death for not revealing matter to others. Due to fear, the victim/Pw2 did not reveal matter to others. On 21.02.2025 the victim/Pw2 conveyed above matter to Pw1 on getting unbearable pain.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 5 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

03. Basing on the contents of the above complaint, Lw18/Pw14 (Syed

Mujahid, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Adilabad Rural) registered a case in

Cr.No.42/2025 u/sec.127(2), 70(2), 109(i) 351(3) r/w 49 BNS and sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. Subsequently Lw19/Pw15 (L.Jeevan Reddy,

SDPO, Adilabad) took-up further investigation, examined and recorded the statement of Pw1. That on 21.02.2025 he visited the scene of offence, drafted crime detail form, drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence in the presence of mediators Lw7/Imran Khan and Lw8/Pw6. On the instructions of Pw15, Lw17/Pw12 (D.Padma, WSIP PS Adilabad-I town) examined and recorded the statement of the victim/Pw2 under videography with the help of Lw6/Pw7. During the statement the victim/Pw2 disclosed the entire incident committed by A1 to A3 on her.

04.That on 21.02.2025 Pw15 effected the arrest of A1 to A3. During the interrogation A1 to A3 confessed about the commission of offence then Pw15 conducted confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 and seized (1) cutting plier and (2) Samsung galaxy cell phone and in the presence of mediators Lw11/Pw9 and Lw12/Sharooq Patan, then A2 and

A3 also confessed their guilt. Later, Pw15 brought A1 to A3 to SDPO

Office, Adilabad and effected their arrest and produced them before the

Court for judicial custody.

05. During further investigation, Pw15 conducted seizure panchanama at RIMS Hospital, Adilabad seized (1) palazzo pant (black colour & white legging), (2) top (white colour & ash colour designed flowers) under a cover of seizure panchanama. Pw15 collected bonafide certificate of the victim/Pw2, as per it her date of birth is 14.11.2008 (age 16 years). The

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 6 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

victim/Pw2 was examined by the lady medical officer and preserved the items, then Pw15 forwarded the preserved material i.e., (1) scalp hair (2) nail clippings (3) blood (4) matted pubic hair (5) cutting pubic hair (6) vulval swab-1 (7) vaginal swab-1 (8) vulval smear-1 (9) vaginal smear-1 along with seized palazzo pant (black colour white lining designs, top (white colour ash colour flower designs) of the victim/Pw2.

06.That Pw15 received FSL report in which Lw15/Pw11 (Dr.Sayuktha,

Asst. Professor, RIMS, Adilabad) opined that semen and spermatozoa were not detected on item No.1 to 8. As per clinical examination hymen is not intact, there is possibility of sexual assault, however it could not be ruled out. Lw13/Pw10(M.Srinath, Tutor Dept. of Forensic

Medicine,RIMS, Adilabad) issued potency test report of A1 and A2, as per it there is nothing to suggest that the individuals examined are incapable of performing sexual intercourse. Pw15 collected all documents and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against the A1 to A3 for the offence u/sec.127(2), 70(2), 109 (i), 351(3), r/w 49 BNS and sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. Hence, the charge.

Cognizance:-

07. The charge sheet in this matter is filed in the Court of I Additional

Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The said Court has taken on file this case

for the offence punishable under sec.127(2), 70(2), 109 (i), 351(3), r/w 49 BNS and sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act. After taking cognizance, the case is registered as SC.(POCSO) No.20 of 2025 and issued summons to A1 to A3. At this stage, as per the Proceedings of

Hon’ble Prl.District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad vide Proc.Dis.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 7 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

No.669/2022/Admn, dt.22.02.2022, due to establishment of Fast

Track Special Court (this Court), the case is transferred to this Court.

On production of A1 to A3 from the District Jail, Adilabad, copies of the case records relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to them as contemplated under Sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Framing of Charge:-

08. On hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 to A3, A1 to A3 were examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C for the offence u/secs.127(2), 70(2), 109 r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec.341, 376DA, 307 r/w 34 IPC) and sec. 5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act against A1 and

A2 and u/sec.351(3) r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec.506 r/w 34 IPC) against A1 to

A3 and u/sec.127(2), 70(2) r/w 49 BNS (old sec.341, 376DA r/w 109 IPC) against A3. The accusation against them is explained to them, but they denied the said accusation. As per the material on record there is prime- facie case made out against A1 to A3 to frame charge, accordingly charge for the above sections were framed against A1 to A3 and the said charge was read over and explained to A1 to A3 in their vernacular language. Having understood the same, A1 to A3 denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As per the request of learned

Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for A1 to A3, trial schedule is given and witnesses are produced and examined. A1 to A3 have engaged their counsel and their counsels defended A1 to A3 throughout the proceedings in this case.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 8 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

Witnesses Examined:-

09. On behalf of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, the list of witnesses cited are Lws 1 to 19. Out of said witnesses, Lw1 to Lw6, Lw8,

Lw10, Lw11, Lw13, Lw15 to Lw19 are examined as Pws1 to Pw15. The witnesses Lw7/Imran Khan (panch for crime detail form), Lw9/Alia

Begum (panch for seizure panchanama (clothes of the victim), Lw12 /Sharooq Patan (panch for confession cum seizure panchanama) and

Lw14/A.Raja Naik, Asst Director FSL, Hyderabad) are given-up by the prosecution. Besides examination of Pws1 to Pw15, the prosecution got marked ExP1 to ExP17 documents and MO 1 to MO 4 objects are marked on behalf of the prosecution.

313 Cr.P.C Examination:-

10. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, A1 to A3 are examined u/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. Having understood the same, A1 to A3 denied the evidence as false and further stated that they have no defence evidence.

Arguments:-

11. Heard both sides and perused the record. At the time of arguments, the learned Spl.PP repeated the contents of charge sheet and he submitted that the witnesses supported prosecution case during

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements and subsequently at the time of evidence also. He argued that all witnesses supported prosecution case and their evidence is reliable and trust worthy. The learned Spl.PP prays to convict A1 to A3. On the other hand the learned counsel for A1 to A3

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 9 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

filed written arguments and submitted that the witnesses not supported the prosecution case and their evidence has contradictions. He prays to acquit A1 to A3 for the charges framed against them. The other arguments of the counsel on both sides and citations are discussed at the relevant point.

Points for Determination:-

12. Now the points for determination are:

(i)whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence u/secs.127(2), 70(2), 109 r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec.341, 376DA, 307 r/w 34 IPC) and sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt ?

whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for

(ii) the offence u/sec.351(3) BNS (old sec.506 r/w 34 IPC) beyond all reasonable doubt ?

whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A3 for the

(iii) offence u/sec.127(2), 70(2) r/w 49 BNS (old sec.341, 376DA r/w 109 IPC) beyond all reasonable doubt ?

(iv)to what result ?

Findings on Points:-

13.After hearing the oral arguments submitted by learned Spl.pp and on consideration of the written arguments filed on behalf A1 to A3 and on perusal of the entire material of record it is observed that the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 to 15 witnesses, Ex.P1 to P17 documents and also MO1 to 4 material objects.

14.As per the charges framed against A1 to A3,

(i)the offence u/sec.127(2), 70(2), 109(i) r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec.341, 376DA, 307 r/w 34 IPC) and sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act is alleged against A1 and A2,

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 10 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

(ii)the offence u/sec.351(3) r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec.506 r/w 34 IPC) alleged against A1 to A3,

(iii)the offence u/sec.127(2), 70(2) r/w 49 BNS (old sec.341, 376DA r/w 109 IPC) alleged against A3,

15.The entire burden to prove the facts of the case is always on the prosecution, therefore the prosecution has lead the evidence by producing material witnesses Pw1 to 6. Among them, Pw.1 is the mother of victim, Pw2 is the victim, Pw3 is the father of the victim, Pw4 is teacher to certify the age of the victim, Pw5 is the owner of the house (scene of offence) who lease out the same to A1 to A3 and Pw.6 is the panch witness for crime detail form (scene of offence panchanama).

16.Besides the evidence of material witnesses Pw1 to 6, the prosecution also produced Pw.7 photographer, Pw.8 panch witness for seizure of clothes of the victim, Pw9 panch witness for confession of A1 to A3, Pw.10 medical officer to certify potency of A1, A2, PW11 medical officer who examined the victim, Pw12 women C.I of Police who recorded the statement of victim, Pw.13 the medical officer who provided treatment to the victim, Pw14 the S.I of Police, Adilabad Rural who registered the crime and Pw15 the Investigation Officer in this case.

17.Before going to appreciate the oral, documentary and physical evidence produced by prosecution, it is very important to note that the contents of the charge sheet disclosed that it is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual assault (gang rape) on minor victim girl aged 16 years (Pw2). On 21.02.2022 at 06.30 p.m., Lw18(Pw14) received complaint from the mother of victim (Pw.1) wherein she disclosed about

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 11 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

the offence that the victim/Pw2 is aged 16 years, studied 4th class and discontinued due to mental illness, on 15.02.2025, the victim/Pw2 complained neck pain and she was taken to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad again on 18.02.2025 the victim/Pw2 was suffering and admitted in RIMS

Hospital, Adilabad, while so, on 21.02.2025 the victim/Pw2 disclosed about the offence.

18.The charge sheet contains the details as to how the offence was committed on the victim/Pw2. Apart from the contents in charge sheet, the contents of complaint are to be taken into consideration. The complaint/Ex.P1 lodged by Pw1 (mother of victim) is marked as Ex.P1 in her evidence. In this complaint, Pw1 clearly mentioned that the victim/Pw2 was taken to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad on 15.02.2025 and admitted there on 18.02.2025 and the victim/Pw2 disclosed the offence on 21.02.2025.

19. In her own words, the mother of the victim/Pw2 stated in the complaint/Ex.P1 that “one week back during afternoon time A3 called her (the victim/Pw2) for tea, A3 sent to the victim/Pw2 inside the house and guarded outside, after the victim/Pw2 went inside, A3’s husband (Anil/A1) hold the victim/Pw2 tightly, removed her clothes and forcibly had sexual intercourse. While the victim/Pw2 was shouting, he closed her mouth and then A3’s father-in-law (Gangaram/A2) also forcibly had sexual intercourse with the victim/Pw2. When the victim/Pw2 tried to come out, A1 beat her with cutting plier on neck while A2 hold her and A3 supported them and they tried to kill her.”

20.It is basing on complaint/Ex.P1, F.I.R (Ex.P13) was filed against A1 to A3, immediately investigation was taken up and A1 to A3 are charge sheeted after completion of investigation.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 12 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

21.Now coming to the evidence part, Pw.1 the mother of the victim/Pw2 stated the same facts which are found in the complaint/Ex.P1. According to Pw.1, A1 to A3 are living near to her house, the victim/Pw2 studied upto 4th class and later stopped studies.

Regarding medical examination of the victim/Pw.2 this witness Pw.1 deposed that “at present the age of the victim is 16 years. About 4 or 5 months back the victim/Pw2 complained neck pain, as such I (Pw1) took her to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad at about 4 to 5 p.m. The victim/Pw2 was examined by the doctor, they gave tablets and we returned to our house. Again I (Pw1) took the victim/Pw2 for medical check-up on 18.02.2025 at about 10.30 p.m. as the victim/Pw2 complained neck pain, fever and body pains and the victim/Pw2 was admitted in the RIMS Hospital, Adilabad”.

22.Regarding the incident incident Pw.1 deposed that (continuation of testimony).

“after two days of admission in the RIMS Hospital, Adilabad, the victim/Pw2 disclosed that she was beaten by A1 and A2. The victim/Pw2 also disclosed that A1 and A2 removed her cloths and had sexual intercourse with her. She further disclosed that this incident was happened at the house of A1 to A3. At that time A3 pushed the victim/Pw2 inside the house and she waited out side. Then A1 and A2 closed the mouth of the victim/Pw2 and caused injuries with cutting plier. The victim/Pw2 did not disclose the incident earlier as A1 and A2 threatened her that they will kill her if she disclose the incident to anyone”.

23.The learned defence counsel cross examined Pw1 at length suggesting various aspects and the same are discussed in the other paras.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 13 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

24. Now coming to the testimony of star witness i.e., the victim/Pw2, she has also disclosed the introductory facts and then narrated the incident in her own words as follows:- “I studied upto 4th class and later stopped studies. At present my age is 16 years. About 8 months back A3 called me to her house to have tea, then I went there. At that time A1 to A3 were present in their house which is near to our house. After I enter inside the house, A3 closed the doors and locked from outside. Initially, A1 removed my cloths and A1 inserted his penis into my vagina. When I raised cries, A1 beat me on my neck with cutting plier. MO.1 is the cutting plier with which A1 beat me. MO.2 is my black colour bottom which I wore on the date of incident. MO.3 is my white colour top on that date. Then A2 had sexual intercourse with me. After that A1 and A2 threatened that they will kill me if I disclose the incident to any one. After 8 days, I informed my mother about the incident”.

25. Pw3 who is father of the victim/Pw2 also disclosed the same facts which are about his other children, location of the house of A1 to A3 near to his house, calling of the victim/Pw2 by A3 for tea, commission of offence on the victim/Pw2 and the incident was narrated by the victim/Pw2 to Pw.1 (mother of the victim/Pw.2).

26.Pw4 testified that he received requisition to furnish bonafide certificate of the victim/Pw2, he verified the school records and furnished Ex.P2 (bonafide certificate of the victim/Pw2) duly mentioning the victim/Pw.2 date of birth i.e., 14.11.2008 and the victim/Pw2 is minor.

27.Pw5 testified about leasing his house in Ranadivenagar, Adilabad to A1 to A3 for rent of Rs.1500/- per month in the month of December 2024 and they have been staying in his house in the said locality and

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 14 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

material witness Pw6 testified about crime detail form (scene of offence panchanama) under Ex.P3.

28. The learned defence counsel cross examined all Pw1 to 6 on the same lines particularly taking a stand that no incident was happened and the mother of the victim/Pw2 i.e., Pw1 filed the false complaint against A1 to A3 but there is no specific suggestion from the learned defence counsel as to what is motive for Pw1 to lodge false complaint against A1 to A3. Admittedly A1 to A3 belong to different caste whereas

Pw.1 to 3 are muslims by community. There are no property disputes, boundary disputes or any other rival issues among both families to show that the victim/Pw2’s family is having an intention to falsely implicate

A1 to A3 in a false case.

29. Here it is noted that the cases arise under section 5(g) r/w 6 of

POCSO Act are to be decided by taking into consideration of presumptions under section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act which are follows.

Section 29 of POCSO Act Presumption as to certain offences where person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be, unless the contrary is proved.

And

30. Section 30 of POCSO Act Presumption of culpable mental state - (1) in any prosecution for any offence under this Act, which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the Special Court shall presume the existence of such mental state, but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 15 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

(2) for the purposes of this section, a fact is said to be proved only when the Special Court believes it to exist beyond reasonable doubt and not merely when its existence is established by a preponderance of probability.

31.In view of the above presumptions, it is only the burden of A1 to

A3 to show the false implication but in this case A1 to A3 could not show any tangible material can be believe they that are implicated, on the other hand the evidence of Pw.1 to 6 is collaborating in all material aspects and establish the commission of offence and their evidence is supported the documents.

32. Pw1 was cross examined that age of A2 is 72 to 75 years, he cannot perform sexual act, Pw1 admitted his age and denied his potency. In this context the evidence of medical officer/Pw10 who physically examined A2 clearly stated that there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is incapable of performing sexual intercourse. He has issued Ex.P9 potency certificate of A2. In view of the specific evidence of Pw10 showing that A2 is also capable of doing the sexual act, the plea of A2 that he cannot commit the offence dueto old age is completely unbelievable. The remaining points in the cross examination of Pw1 are all relating to items on the victim/Pw2 (bangles, clothes etc.,) and the elicitations from Pw1 during cross examination are not significant in nature. At the time of the arguments, the learned defence counsel argued that Pw.1 and A1 to A3 are not residents of

Ranadivenagar, Adilabad. In this context Pw.1 specifically replied that

A1 to A3 living in the scene of offence house since two years prior to the incident and the said evidence is completely and sufficiently

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 16 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

corroborated by the house owner/Pw5. Moreso, the scene of offence panchanama is also filed showing the house of A1 to A3 in

Ranadivenagar, Adilabad.

33. The victim/Pw2 is also cross examined by learned defence counsel on various aspects and also suggested that the mother of the victim/Pw2 who is Pw1 filed case against Siraj and Amjad and police not taken action against Siraj and Amjad since it was false case. Even though the victim/Pw2 admitted about previous case filed by Pw.1 on others with similar allegations and police not taken any action against the said persons, when the evidence of Pw1 to 3 in this case is specific and reliable, those other cases filed by Pw1 and police not taking any action against the accused in those cases cannot be considered in anyway. In support of the contention of A1 to A3 that Pw.1 habituated to file false complainant, they have not produced any material like false complaint lodged by Pw1 or referral charge sheet in the case filed by

Pw.1 as false or the affidavits of the accused who are left in the said case. Hence, mere suggestions to the witnesses on the character of

Pw.1 cannot be considered. Even it is believed that Siraj and Amjad were left due to false complaint lodged by Pw.1, still A1 to A3 cannot take advantage of the same because this is a specific offence against the victim/Pw2 .

34.The learned defence counsel argued that the victim/Pw2 admitted in cross examination that A3 not closed the doors and A1 to A3 not committed offence on her. But when the entire material placed by the prosecution is looked out into, the evidence of material witness and

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 17 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

documents would prove that A3 called the victim/Pw2 for tea, while she guarded out side the house, A1 and A2 had committed forcibly comitted sexual intercourse on the victim/Pw2 against her will without her consent and the victim/Pw2 being minor she was afraid of disclosing the incident to the others.

35. At the time of arguments the learned defence counsel argued that there is no specific date of offence proved by the prosecution and the witnesses not disclosed any date and there is delay in registration of

FIR. Infact on consideration of the evidence of Pw1 to 3 and Ex.P1, the incident was disclosed by the victim/Pw2 to her mother (Pw1) for first time on 21.02.2025 at evening hours. On the same day Pw1 (mother of the victim/Pw2) lodged the complaint (Ex.P1). According to the version of Pw1 to 3 and the contents in Ex.P1 actual incident was happened one week before 21.02.2025 which means on 14.02.2025. The incident was clearly established as per testimonies of witnesses and the documentary evidence. In view of this discussion, it is not possible to say that there is no date of incident proved by the prosecution. More so the delay if any in the cases of this nature connot be fatal. The delay is not material because the matter involved may concerns mainly the exposure of the victim, family prestige and other factors.

36. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs Prem

Singh reported in AIR 2011 SC (Crl.) 1281 held that "So far as the delay in lodging the FIR question is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 18 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

police station to lodge a complaint. In a tradition bound society prevalent in India, more particularly, rural areas, it would be quite unsafe to throw out the prosecution case merely on the ground that there is some delay in lodging the FIR".

37. Further the victim/Pw2 is minor, because of her fear she might have not disclosed the incident immediately after it was committed. As already discussed, this matter is a case of aggravated penetrative sexual intercourse on the victim/Pw2 girl aged 16 years, in such a case the delay in registration the F.I.R cannot be considered as fatal.

38. The learned defence counsel cross examined Pw3 but his evidence is not shaken. The evidence of Pw4 and Ex.P2 (bonafide certificate of the victim/Pw2) establish that the victim/Pw2 was minor as on the date of incident. The learned defence counsel cross examined the witnesses and argued that and she is mentally ill person but the material on record proved that the victim/Pw.2 aged 16 years at the time of incident and she as clearly give evidence in the case without expressing any problem in her mental condition. The location of the house of A1 to A3 in Ranadivenagar, Adilabad is fully proved through the evidence of Pw6 and Ex.P3 (scene of offence panchanama) and nothing elicited in his cross examination.

39. Pw7 is a photographer who testified that while recording the statement of the victim/Pw2 he captured the same and handed over the

CD containing video recording of the victim/Pw2’s statement i.e., Ex.P4 and Sec. 63(4)(c) of Evidence Act certificate (Ex.P5) to the police. Pw7 was cross examined rigorously by the learned defence counsel but it is a fact that his role is only recording video while the victim/Pw2 was

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 19 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

examined. Infact, Pw7 is not crucial witness to discard entire case basing on his admissions in the cross examination if any.

40.Apart from that, the clothes of the victim/Pw2 on the date of incident are seized under cover of Ex.P6 (seizure panchanama). The victim/Pw2 clearly identified the clothes as MO2 (black colour bottom) and MO3 (white colour top), these clothes are recovered immediately after the incident and establish the offence committed on the victim/Pw2. Absolutely there are no important aspects to take into consideration from the cross examination of Pw8 and his evidence cannot be brush-a-side.

41 In relation to the evidence of Pw1 to Pw8, the learned defence counsel argued that there are minor contradictions in the evidence of the witness. But the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal

Gupta and others Vs State of Maharashtra reported in (2010) 13

SCC 657, the Hon'ble Apex Court held follows :

"While appreciating the evidence, the Court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting the core of the as prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The Trial Court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses.

42. Hence, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without effecting core of the prosecution case in the evidence of the prosecution side witnesses which are not material can be ignored for rendering substantial justice

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 20 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

and to give onerous consideration for the evidence late in by the prosecution.

43. Even though the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw9 (panch witness for confession of A1 to A3), it is a fact that confession of A1 to

A3 while in the custody of the police cannot be proved. However, the evidence of Pw9 shows that basing on the confession of A1, the cutting plier (MO1) used at the time of commission of offence is taken into possession. Moreso, the cell phone (MO4) of A1 is seized as per his confession panchanama. These two material objects are marked as MO1 (cutting plier) and MO4 (cell phone), these are connecting A1 to A3 to the offence. Therefore seizure can be proved even though confession is excluded in view of sec.27 of Evidence Act which is as follows :

“when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police-officer, so much of such information, whether it amount to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved”.

44. As already discussed, immediately after the incident the victim/Pw2 is examined by two medical officers. Immediately after the incident the victim/Pw2 could not disclosed the incident to anyone, as such she was treated only for the injury on her neck caused with cutting plier (MO1).

45. In connection with above injury of the victim/Pw2 on neck, the evidence of Pw13 would disclose that he is a medical officer at RIMS

Hospital Adilabad, he examined the victim/Pw2 for her injury on backside of neck and he issued Ex.P12 (injury certificate). This Ex.P12 (injury certificate) clearly disclose the said fact that the victim/Pw2 had injury on neck and he treated her.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 21 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

46. After the victim/Pw2 revealed the commission of offence on her to

Pw1, on 21.02.2025, the victim/Pw2 is again examined by lady medical officer i.e., Pw11 in relation to sexual assault. She clearly deposed that she examined the victim/Pw2 medically, she issued preliminary examination report (Ex.P10), final opinion (Ex.P11) and hymen of the victim/Pw2 was not intact, possibility of sexual assault cannot be ruled out. Even though the evidence of Pw11 is corroborative, in view of the specific evidence of the victim/Pw2 that she was ravished by A1 and A2 the same corroborates the testimony of Pw11 and fully supported with the medical evidence establishing forcible sexual intercourse on the victim/Pw2 leading to tearing of hymen at the age of 16 years because of the forcible sexual act only.

47. Now coming to the testimony of Pw14 and Pw15, their role is registration of F.I.R after receipt of complaint, followed by investigation of Pw15. The investigation officer (PW15) clearly deposed about the investigation that on 21.02.2025, at about 18.45 p.m., he received the

CD file from Mujaid/Pw.14. He verified the investigation done by him and found correct. Immediately, he proceeded to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad and examined LW.1/victim’s mother/Pw.1 and recorded her statement he instructed Women SI D. Padma/Pw.12 to examine the victim/Pw2 minor girl under videography through the videographer/Lw.6/Pw.7, at that time, the victim/Pw2 was undergoing treatment at RIMS Hospital,

Adilabad. He proceeded to scene of offence Ranadivenagar which is the rented house of A1 to A3 and drafted the crime details form/Ex.P3 and

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 22 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

drawn the rough sketch of the scene of offence in presence of mediators

PW.6 and LW.7/Imran Khan.

48. In the testimony of Pw14 he deposed that during investigation the

PW.12 examined the victim/Pw.2 under videography of the videographer/Lw.6/Pw.7, then examined PW.3 and PW.5. On 21.02.2025, at 8.30 p.m., he apprehended A1 to A3 at Ranadivenagar, they are in mood of confession immediately he secured the presence of mediator/Lw.11/Nasir Khan/Pw.9. In pursuance of A1 confession, he seized one cutting plier/MO.1 which was used for the commission of offence and seized samsung galaxy phone/MO.4 from the possession of

A1. Apart from A1 the remaining accused i.e., A2 and A3 also confessed the same. According to sec.105 BNS, he has taken videography of 360 degrees of scene of offence. Ex.P4 is the CD. On the same day at 10.30 p.m., A1 to A3 were brought to SDPO Office, Adilabad and arrested after issuing the arrest memo. A1 to A3 were sent to RIMS Hospital, Adilabad for medical examination. After medical examination he produced A1 to

A3 before Court with a request to remand them judicial custody.

49. That Pw15 conducted seizure panchanama of the victim/Pw2 clothes at RIMS Hospital, Adilabad in the presence of LW.9 and PW.8 under Ex.P6 and seized the MO.2/(pant and top) of the victim/Pw2. He sent a requisition to Lw.5 with a request to issue bonafide certificate of the victim/Pw2. Ex.P14 is the requisition sent to the Head Master. Then he collected the bonafide certificate of the victim/Pw2 from the

Lw.5/Pw.4. As per certificate/Ex.P2, the date of birth of the victim/Pw2 is 14.11.2008 therefore her age is 16 years. He examined PW.5 and

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 23 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

recorded his statement. On his requisition Lw.15/Pw.11 conducted the medical examination of the victim/Pw2. Ex.P15 is requisition given to

Pw.11. Under Ex.P15, Pw15 forwarded material objects preserved by the medical officer and seized clothes of the victim/Pw2 to FSL Hyderabad for examination. He gave Ex.P16requisitiongiven to Pw.10 for examination and potency test of A1 and A2 and hereceived reports.

After receiving of FSL report Lw.15/Pw.11 given final opinion/Ex.P11 and stating that hymen of the victim/Pw2 is not intact, there is possibility of sexual assault however it could not be ruled out and he received Ex.P10 medico legal examination report from Pw.11. Lw.13/Pw.10 issued potency test certificates of A1 and A2. Ex.P8 and Ex.P9 are potency certificates of A1 and A2. As per Lw.13 opinion A1 and A2 are sexually potent. Lw.16/Pw13 gave the treatment to the victim/Pw2 and issued injury certificate Ex.P12. Lw.6/Pw.7 handover the DVD containing statement of the victim/Pw2 along with sec.63(4)(c) certificate and examined Lw.6 and recorded statement and after completion of investigation and after collecting all documents Pw15 filed charge sheet along with all documents against A1 to A3 u/sec.127(2), 70(2), 109(1), 351(3) r/w 49 BNS and sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

50. The learned defence counsel cross examined Pw14 and 15 on many aspects but when the evidence of material witnesses Pw1 to 3 sufficiently proved the offence, basing on the investigation lapses A1 to

A3 cannot be acquitted. In this matter, the victim/Pw2 clearly deposed that she was called by A3 to their house for tea, after she enter inside the house A3 closed the door and locked from out side, A1 removed her

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 24 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

clothes and inserted his pennis into her vagina when she raised cries he beat her with cutting plier on neck and A2 had sexual intercourse with her and they both threatened to kill her if she disclose the offence to anyone.

51. The above evidence of the victim/Pw2 is most crucial and supported by medical and physical evidence, it is founded on the documents placed by the prosecution. In view of the above discussion it is very clear that the evidence of Pw1 to 15, Ex.P1 to P17 documents and the material objects MO1 to 4 proved beyond all reasonable doubt the offence committed by A1 to A3.

Apart from that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Singh vs State of H.P., reported in 2016 Cri LJ 608 (HP) held that when the victim has deposed in her examination-in-chief of the accused having threatened both she and her sister, against theirs disclosing the incident to anyone, in event thereof he would eliminate both. When subsequently she narrated the occurrence to her mother. Concomitantly with the version the incident spelt out by the prosecutrix in her recorded deposition on oath having come to be corroborated by her sister, an eye-witness to the occurrence, buoys an apt conclusion of implicit reliance being imputable to the deposition on oath of prosecutrix. Consequently, the imminent conclusion which surfaces therefrom, is of the prosecution hence having been able to prove the guilty of the accused.

52. Hence, in the victim even though minor, when her evidence is acceptable on comparing with other material, her evidence is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.

53. In this matter the charges framed against A1 to A3 are already discussed. It is to be noted that role of A3 is only sending the victim/Pw2 inside the house as such she is liable for punishment only for the

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 25 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

offence u/sec.127(2) BNS (old sec.341 IPC) and she cannot be found guilty for the other offences as there is no evidence against her. It is not proved that A3 had knowledge of the offence committed by A1 and A2 on the victim/Pw2 inside the house. Hence, A3 is liable for conviction for the offence u/sec.127(2) BNS (old sec.341 IPC) only.

54. Now coming to A1 and A2, it is established that they have committed aggravated penetrative sexual intercourse on the victim/Pw2 one after the other and it is a gang rape as per the definition under sec.5(g) r/w 6 POCSO Act as such they are liable for conviction under said section. Even though A1 and A2 are charged for the offence u/sec.

127(2), 70(2), 109 (i) r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec 341, 376(D)(A), 307 r/w 34

IPC), they cannot be found guilty of the offence u/sec.127(2), 109 (i) r/w 3(5) BNS (old secs. 341, 307 r/w 34 IPC) as there is no sufficient evidence to prove the said sections. Only sec.70(2) BNS (376DA IPC) is proved which is equal to sec.5(g) r/w 6 POCSO Act. When offence under

POCSO Act is proved, A1 and A2 are to be found guilty for the offence u/sec.5(g) r/w 6 POCSO Act and they cannot be found not guilty for the other sections.

55. Hence, offence u/sec. 5(g) r/w 6 POCSO Act against A1 and A2 is established and offence u/sec.127(2) BNS (old sec.341 IPC) against A3 is established beyond all reasonable doubt and they are to be found guilty for the said offence as prayed for. Except for the above sections,

A1 to A3 cannot be found guilty for the other sections charged against them. Accordingly the points for consideration are answered …

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 26 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

(i)that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence u/secs.127(2), 109 r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec.341, 307 r/w 34 IPC) beyond all reasonable doubt, accordingly they are to be found not guilty of the said charge but the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence u/secs. 70(2) BNS (old sec. 376DA IPC) i.e., sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt, accordingly they are to be found guilty of the said charge,

(ii)that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of A1 to A3 for the offence u/sec.351(3) BNS (old sec.506 r/w 34 IPC) beyond all reasonable doubt, accordingly they are to be found not guilty of the said charge, that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of A3 for the

(iii) offence u/sec.70(2) r/w 49 BNS (old sec.376DA r/w 109 IPC) beyond all reasonable doubt accordingly she is to be found not guilty of the said charge but the prosecution has proved the guilt of A3 for the offence u/sec.127(2) BNS (old sec.341 IPC) beyond all reasonable doubt, accordingly she is to be found guilty of the said charge,

Point No.3:-

56.In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence u/secs.127(2), 109 r/w 3(5), BNS (old sec.341, 307 r/w 34 IPC) and u/sec.

351(3) r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec. 506 r/w 34 IPC). Accordingly they acquitted for the said offence u/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C. A3 is found not guilty for the offence u/sec.351(3) r/w 3(5) BNS (old sec.506 r/w 34 IPC) and u/sec.70(2) r/w 49 BNS (old sec.376 DA r/w 109 IPC) Accordingly she is acquitted for the said offence u/sec.235(1) Cr.P.C.

But A1 and A2 are found guilty for the offence u/secs.70(2) BNS (old sec.376 DA IPC) i.e., sec. 5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act, accordingly they are convicted for the said offence u/sec.235(2) Cr.P.C and A3 is found guilty for the offence u/sec.127(2) BNS (old sec.341 IPC), accordingly she is convicted for the said offence u/sec.235(2) Cr.P.C.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 27 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

57.MO1: cutting plier, MO2: black colour bottom pant, MO3: white colour top shall be destroyed after disposal of appeal or appeal time and

MO4: cell phone (samsung galaxy) is not claimed by A1 to A3 and it is not having considerable worth hence it shall be destroyed after disposal of appeal or appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected in Court computer

and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 06th day of November, 2025.

FAC:Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases, Adilabad.

Hearing on S entence

58. When A1 is questioned regarding quantum of sentence, he represented that his wife is suffering with heart problem and is male child died recently and prays the Court to take lenient view.

59. When A2 is questioned regarding quantum of sentence, he represented that nobody is there to look after him and prays the Court to take lenient view.

60. When A3 is questioned regarding quantum of sentence, she represented that she is not having any one to look after her and prays the Court to take lenient view.

61.The Spl.Public Prosecutor represented that A1 to A3 shall be given maximum punishment.

62. Considering the plea of A1 to A3 regarding the quantum of the sentence, since the offence proved is of serious in nature, A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years each and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence u/sec.70(2) r/w 49 BNS (old sec.376DA r/w 34 IPC) i.e., sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO Act.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 28 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

63. A3 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence u/sec. 127(2) BNS ( old sec. 341 IPC).

64. The remand period of A1 to A3 from 22.02.2025 to 19.06.2025 shall be given set off U/sec.428 Cr.P.C.

65. A1 to A3 are informed of their right to appeal. A1 to A3 are further informed that if they want any legal aid to file appeal, the Court can provide legal aid on their application.

66.Office is directed to furnish free copy of judgment to A1 to A3 as per section 363(1) Cr.P.C.

67. Total fine amount is Rs.20,500/- (Rupees twenty thousand five hundred only) and it shall be collected and remitted to the State.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6th day of November, 2025.

FAC:Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1: Mother of victim -None- PW.2: Victim (name not disclosed) PW.3: Father of Victim PW.4:Annela Mohan (head Master,MPPS,Ranadive Nagar, Adilabad) PW.5: Pottipeliwar Shankar (House owner of A1 to A3) PW.6: SK.Muqeet Ahmed ( Mediator for CDF) PW.7: Marshetti Srikanth (videographer) PW.8: Shaik Hasan (Mediator for seizure panchanama -clothes of victim)

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 29 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

PW.9: Naseer Khan (Mediator for confession cum seizure panchanama) PW.10: M.Srinath, (Tutor,Dept. Of Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Adilabad PW.11:Dr.Sayuktha (Asst. Professor, RIMS, Adilabad) PW12:D.Padma ( WSIP, PS Adilabad-I town) PW13: Dr.Sharath Chandra (Causality Medical Officer RIMS, Adilabad PW14: Syed Mujahid ( SIP, Adilabad Rural/1st IO) Pw15: L.Jeevan Reddy, (SDPO, Adilabad/2nd IO

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex.P1: Complaint, dt:21.02.2025 - Nil - Ex.P2: Bonafide certificate of victim Ex.P3: Panchanama along with rough sketch Ex.P4: Compact disc Ex.P5: 63 (4)(c) Certificate Ex.P6: Seizure panchanama, dt: 22.02.2025 Ex.P7: Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A1 Ex.P8: Potency certificate of A1 Ex.P9: Potency certificate of A2 Ex.P10: Medical Legal Examination report Ex.P11: Final opinion Ex.P12: Injury certificate ExP13:First Information Report Ex.P14: Requisition to the Headmaster Ex.P15:Requisition given to Pw11 Ex.P16:Requisition given to Pw10 Ex.P17: FSL report

Material Objects: MO1: Cutting player MO2: Black colour bottom pant MO3: white colour top top MO4: cell phone (Samsung galaxy)

FAC: Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases, Adilabad.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad 30 of 30 Judgment in SC(P) No.20 of 2025

Dt:06.11.2025 of POCSO Court, Adilabad.

Victim Compensation:-

After hearing both sides it is observed that as per the allegations in the charge sheet and complaint lodged by the mother of victim/Pw1,

A1 and A2 had committed forcible sexual intercourse on the victim/Pw2 who is small girl aged 16 years. The offence u/sec.5(g) r/w 6 of POCSO

Act is proved against A1 and A2.

The prosecution got examined Pws 1 to 15 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P17 documents and MO1 to MO4 objects and the prosecution proved the guilty of A1 to A3 and they are convicted.

It is to be noted that, for the purpose of compensation, irrespective of the result of the matter, whether conviction or acquittal, the Court is having authority to award reasonable compensation to the victim.

In view of the same, it is a fit case to grant reasonable amount to the victim/Pw2 towards compensation because the victim/Pw2 was aged 16 years (at the time of incident). As per case facts, the victim/Pw2 hails from poor family, she is resident of Adilabad Rural area and she is purely depend on her parents. Since the offence committed against the victim/Pw2 is heinous in nature, the victim/Pw2 is to be supported mentally and economically to come out of all the mental agony that the victim/Pw2 had suffered because of the incident.

Thus, it is a fit case to award reasonable amount to the victim/Pw2 in this case. Her parents are also poor. As such an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only) would be reasonable compensation to the victim/Pw2 in this case.

Accordingly, compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is ordered to be paid to the victim/Pw2 in this case.

Address a letter to the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority,

Adilabad to take necessary steps for payment of said compensation to the victim/Pw2.

FAC: Special Judge for POCSO Act Cases, Adilabad.

FAC:Special Judge (POCSO) Adilabad

1Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT

ADILABAD

Present: Dr.P.Siva Ram Prasad, II Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad- cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act FAC: I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. Tuesday, this the 25th day of February, 2025

.No.63 of 2022 SC

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

1.Complainant:The State through the Circle Inspector of Police, Mudhole.

2.Name of the accused:A1: Shaik Pasha S/o.Babumiya, Age: 57 years, Occ: Contractor, R/o. Madina colony, Bhainsa.

A2: Obedullah Khan S/o. Vali Khan, Age: 18 years, Occ: Student, R/o.Khazigally, Bhainsa.

A3: Mohd. Babumiya S/o.Allauddin, Age: 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o.Pandrigalli, Bhainsa.

A4: Abdul Khadar S/o. Khadeer, Age: 42 years, Occ: Counselor, R/o. Sidharth nagar, Bhainsa.

A5: Mirza Imran Khan S/o. Wazeed khan, Age: 22 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Sidharth nagar, Bhainsa.

A6: Syed Mahamood S/o. Ameer, Age: 48 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Sidharth nagar, Bhainsa.

A7: Imran Ahmed S/o. Mahmood Ahmed, Age: 24 years, Occ: Mechanic, R/o. Pandrigalli, Bhainsa. A8: Syed Mahaboob Ali S/o.Mofis Ali, Age: 20 years, Occ: Mestri, R/o. Zulfakargalli, Bhainsa.

A9: Abdul Rizwan S/o. Abdul Basheer, Age: 19 years, Occ: Welding shop, R/o. Zulfakargalli, Bhainsa. A10: Majid khan S/o. Ayyub Khan, Age: 21 years, Occ: Mestri, R/o. H.No.1-5-161, Zulfakargalli, Bhainsa.

A11: Syed Abu Bakar S/o. Syed Faruq, Age: 19 years, Occ: Mestri, R/o. Zulfakargalli Bhainsa.

2Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

A12: Abdul Basheer @ Budda Basheer S/o. Shabeer Ali. Age: 25 years, Occ: Car Decorator worker at Nizamabad, r/o. H.No.1-4-172, Zulfakargalli, Bhainsa.

A13: Abdul Javeed S/o. Abdul Gani, Age:23 years,Occ:Driver,R/o.H.No.1-4-172, Zulfakargalli, Bhainsa.

A14: Sajid Khan S/o. Ayub Khan, Ag:26 years, Occ:Meson work, R/o. Zulfakargalli, Bhainsa.

A15: Mohd Sabeer S/o. Riyaz, Age: 55 years, Occ: Auto Driver R/o. Zulfakargalli, Bhainsa.

A16: Mohammed Sohel S/o Ahmed Miya, Age: 22 years, Occ: Meson, R/o.Zainulabuddin galli, Owaisinagar, Bhainsa.

A17: Salman khan S/o. Aisan khan, Age: 26 years, Occ: Fruit business, R/o. Madina Colony, Bhainsa.

A18: Mohammad Masood Ahmed S/o. Mohammad Iqbal Ahmed, Age: 25 years, Occ: Kirana Shop, R/o.Nayabadi, Bhainsa.

A19: Shaik Salman S/o. Naseer, Age:21 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Asad Babanagar, Bhainsa.

A20: Shaik Afroaz S/o. Samad, Age: 21 years, Occ: Meson work, R/o. Zulfekargalli, Bhainsa.

A21: Mohammad Parvez S/o. Ismail, Age: 21 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Madina colony, Bhainsa.

A22: Shaik Siddiq Ahmed S/o. Basheer Ahemd, Age: 25 years, Occ: Mason, R/o. Owaisnagar, Bhainsa.

A23: Mohammad Naseer S/o. Moiz, Age: 20 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Zulfekargalli, Bhainsa.

3Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

A24: Syed Sohail S/o. Ayyub, Age: 21 years, Occ: Auto Driver, R/o. Owaisinagar, Bhainsa. (Died). The case against A24 abated on 20.11.2024

A25: Abdul sharook @ Shaaru, S/o. Abdul Rasheed Age: 24 years, Occ: Mechanic, R/o.Patgalli, Bhainsa.

A26: Shaik Fazil, S/o. Ahmed, Age: 24 years, Occ: Mechanic, R/o. Darga balli Bhainsa.

A27: Abdul Zubair, S/o. Abdul Mateen, Age: 22 years, Occ: Welding shop, R/o. New Abadi, Bhainsa.

A28: Syed Muzammel S/o. Syed Farooq, Age: 25 years, Occ: Pan shop, R/o. Panjesha galli, Bhainsa.

A29: Syed Ausaf, S/o. Syed Jabir, Age: 23 years, Occ: Pan shop, R/o. Naya Abadi Bhainsa.

A30: Mohd. Sufian Nadeem, S/o. Mohd. Saleem, Age: 22 years, Occ: Chicken shop, R/o. New Abadi, Bhainsa Town.

A31: Shaik Nawaz S/o. Shaik Rahmath, Age: 24 years, Occ: Plumber, R/o. Kunta area, Bhainsa.

A32: Shaik Basheer S/o. Babumiya, Age: 40 years, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Khajigalli, Bhainsa.

A33: Abu Shabbir S/o. Basheer, Age: 34 years, Occ: Kirana Shop, R/o. Chowdariglli, Bhainsa.

A34: Mohammed Aslam, S/o. Mohammed Ameen, Age: 28 years, Occ:Kirana shop, R/o. Madina colony of Bhainsa Town.

A35: Mohammed Numan S/o. Mohammed Anwar, Age: 19 years, Occ: Meson work, R/o. H.No.4-1-83, Korbagalli, Bhainsa town.

A36: Shaik Jabeer S/o. Shaik Jaleel, Ag: 20 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 4-3-1/1b/24, Owaisinagar of Bhainsa Town.

4Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

A37: Shaik Mahaboob S/o. Shaik Abdul Raheem, Age: 22 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. 4-3-1/1b/144, Owaisinagar of Bhainsa Town.

A38: Abdul wasay S/o. Salam, Age: 29 years, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Coolie, R/o. 1-4-13/2, Panjeshagalli of Bhainsa.

3.Crime No.:Crime No.35 of 2021 of PS Bhainsa Town.

tt4.Prosecution conducted by:Sri. M. Ramana Reddy, Spl. Public Prosecutor,Adilabad.

5.Defence conducted by:Sri. A.A.Raheem, Advocate for accused.

6.Charges :Under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153-A, 436 and 120-B r/w 149 IPC against A1 to A38.

7.Plea of the accused:Accused have pleaded not guilty 8Finding of the court:Accused are found not guilty 9Sentence of order:In the result,A1 to 23 and A25 to A38 found not guilty for the offence under section 143, 147, 148, 153-A, 436 and 120-B r/w. 149 IPC, accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. and they are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. and thereafter the said bonds shall stands cancelled. (Order relating to case properties is at the result portion of this judgment).A24 died.

This case is coming up for final hearing and disposal before me on 11/11/2024 in the presence of Sri M. Ramana Reddy, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State appearing on behalf of the Complainant, and that of Sri A.A.Raheem, Advocate, for Accused persons upon hearing the arguments on both sides, upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- 5Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Bhainsa Town filed charge sheet for the offence under sections 143, 147, 148, 153-A, 436 and 120-B r/w 149 IPC against A1 to A38 in Crime No.35 of 2021 of PS Bhainsa Town.

Brief averments of the charge sheet:-

02.The brief contents of the complaint lodged on 09.03.2021 at 10:30 hrs by the complainant/Gangadharolla Pedda Bojanna(cited as Lw.1, examined and referred as PW.1) are that, he is running a vegetable shop located before the

JFCM Court, Bhainsa. On 07.03.2021 at about 21.00 hours he came to his house by closing his shop and on the same day at 23.00 hours he came to know that his shop was burnt due to fire, on that he went there and found that the Fire Department was trying to stop the flames. Pw.1 stated that some of the persons formed into unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like sticks, rods, knives and petrol bottles and they were moving on the roads and creating fear in the general public and they burnt his vegetable shop and another vegetable shop no.7 belongs to one Purasthu Shanker, Shop no.8 belongs to Gangadharolla Chinna Bojanna, Shop no.9 belongs to Purasthu

Raju, Shop no.10 belongs to Jidduwar Anand, Shop no.13 belongs to Budhari

Narsaiah due to which all their shops were totally burnt and caused damage to their property and they went to PS Bhainsa Town and lodged complaint and requested the police to take necessary action.

02(a) It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the contents of the above complaint, a case in Cr.No.35 of 2021, U/sec.143, 147, 148, 153-A, 435 r/w 149 IPC was registered by SHO PS Bhainsa Town (Lw.38/Pw.30), he issued

FIR and took up the investigation. PW.30 examined Pw.1 and recorded his 6Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad statement u/sec.161 Cr.P.C. Later, he visited the scene of offence before the

JFCM Court, Bhainsa locality, examined and recorded the statements of Lw.2 to

Lw.7, took photographs of the scene of offence in the presence of Pw.11 and

PW.13 drafted crime details form and rough sketch. He seized burnt and unburnt material under cover of panchanama and forwarded he same to FSL.

02(b) As per the instructions of Superintendent of Police, Nirmal, the Inspector of Police, Mudhole (LW.39/Pw.31) took up further investigation, found the earlier investigation on proper lines, then PW.31 visited the crime scene, re- examined Lw.1 to Lw.8 and examined and recorded the statements of Lws.9 and Lw.13.

02(c) It is mentioned in the charge sheet that through requisition Pw.31,

Revenue Inspector, Bhainsa (Lw.30) furnished the copy of damage of property panchanama mentioning that the damage of the shop nos.7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 was approximately as 1) 60,000/-, 2) 60,000/-, 3) 60,000/-, 4) 60,000/-, 5) 60,000/-, 6) 25,000/- respectively. On requisition of PW.31 the Station Fire

Officer, Bhainsa (Lw.31/PW.16) furnished report stating that the vegetable shop Nos. 5 to 14 were involved in fire accident but the cause of fire is not known.

02(d) It is mentioned in the charge sheet that on requisition of PW.31

Addl.Asst.Engineer (operation) TSNPDCL, Bhainsa Town (Lw.32/Pw.24) furnished the report mentioning that there was no electricity service connection to the shop nos.8, 10, 12, 13 but the electricity meters having service connection to the shops of 7 and 9 which were burnt but not due to electric short circuit and he also mentioned that there was no interruption or disconnection of supply in the feeder from 07.03.2021 at 08.00 P.M. to 01.00 7Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

A.M., and on 08.03.2021. On requisition of Pw.31 the Commissioner,

Municipality, Bhainsa (Lw.33/Pw.21) furnished report about the ownership particulars of shop no.12 which is in the name of Pw.1. Later, Pw.31 received report from TSFSL, Hyderabad from (Assistant Director/Lw.34) in which he opined that no inflammable hydrocarbons are found in the material objects.

02(e) Since all the accused are in judicial remand in various other cases, on requisition of LW.35/Sub Inspector of Police, PS Tanoor, A14, A15 and A23 were given to police custody granted by the Court since they were already arrested in Cr.No.28/2021 of PS Bhainsa Town. On interrogation A14, A15 and

A23 confessed to have committed the offence in this case, after recording the confessional statements of the accused Lw.35 seized material objects used by the accused in the presence of Lw.19/Banoth Eeshwar and LW.20/Anugondla

Monaji under cover of panchanama. Lw.37 taken A9 to A11 who were arrested in Cr.No.29/2021 of PS Bhainsa town into police custody granted by the Court and interrogated them and recorded their confessional statements and seized the incriminating material before Pw.15 and Pw.25, A9 to A11 confessed to have committed this offence along with other accused. Lw.37 also taken A35 to

A37 who were arrested in Cr.No.24/2021 of PS Bhainsa town into police custody granted by the Court and interrogated them and recorded their confessional statements and seized the incriminating material before Pw.28 and Pw.29, A35 to A37 confessed to have committed this offence along with other accused.

2(f) It is mentioned in the charge sheet that on requisition of Lw.36/C.I. of

Police, Bhainsa Town police custody of A1 to A8 granted by the Court who were arrested in Cr.No.25/2021 of PS Bhainsa town on interrogation A1 to A8 8Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad confessed to have committed in this offence along with others under cover of confession and seizure panchanama before Pw.14 and Pw.15 and seized material objects used by them in the commission of this offence. Lw.36 took

A12, A13, A19 to A22, A27 and A32 who were arrested in Cr.No.25/2021 of PS

Bhainsa town into police custody granted by the Court and on interrogation 12,

A13, A19 to A22, A27 and A32 confessed to have committed the offence in this case and recovered the material objects under cover of panchanama before

Pw.17 and Pw.18.

02(g) It is mentioned in the charge sheet that on requisition of Lw.36 took

A16, A24 to A26 who were arrested in Cr.No.26/2021 of PS Bhainsa town, into police custody granted by the Court and on interrogation A16, A24 to A26 confessed to have committed the offence in this case and recovered the material objects under cover of panchanama before Pw.18 and Pw.22. Further

Lw.36 also took A34 who was arrested in Cr.No.63/2021 of PS Bhainsa town into police custody granted by the Court and on interrogation A34 confessed to have committed the offence in this case and recovered the material objects under cover of panchanama before Pw.19 and Pw.27.

02(h) Basing on the confession made by A27 and the statements of the witnesses, the involvement of A17, A18, A28 to A31 was established in this case and basing on the confession of A9 to A11 and the statements of the witnesses, the involvement of A35 to A38 was established in this case.

02(i) It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the evidence available on record section alteration memo was filed before the Court by altering the section of law from 143, 417,148, 153-A, 436 r/w 149 IPC. As the offence is 9Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad clearly established against A1 to A38, as per the orders of the Court, the

Investigating Officer produced A1 to A38 on 29.05.2021 on PT warrants.

02 (j) Pw.31 obtained permission from the State Government through the

Superintendent of Police, Nirmal to prosecute A1 to A38 u/s. 196(1) (a) Cr.P.C.

for the offence u/sec. 153-A IPC. After completion of investigation Pw.31 filed charge sheet mentioning that that supplementary charge sheet will be filed along with call data records of A1 to A38 for the offence u/s. Sec.143, 147, 148, 448, 307, 153-A, 436 r/w 149 IPC. Hence, the charge.

Cognizance/Committal :-

03. The charge sheet is filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate of 1st Class,

Bhainsa vide PRC No. 02/2022, dt. 25.01.2022 and initially this case was committed to the Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad as per the directions of Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad vide

ROC No.1099/SO/2021, dated 29.04.2021 and the Hon’ble Prl. District and

Sessions Court, Adilabad took cognizance for the offence U/Sec.143,147, 148

120-B, 153-A 436 r/w 149 IPC against A1 to A38 and it was registered as

S.C.No.632/2022 and it was made over to this Court vide Lr.Dis.No.672/2022, on 23.02.2022 for conducting the trial of the cases expeditiously on day to day basis and fast track the disposal. On appearance of A1 to A38, copies of case documents are furnished to them as contemplated u/sec.207 Cr.P.C.

Framing of charge:-

04. On hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and learned defence counsel, the charge was framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C against A1 to A38 for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153-A, 436 and 120-B r/w. 149 IPC, the charge is read over the explained to them in their vernacular language.

10Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

Having understood the same, the said A1 to A38 denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The A1 to A38 were defended by their counsel throughout the proceedings.

Witnesses Examined:-

05. On behalf of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, the list of witnesses cited are Lws.1 to 46 . Out of said witnesses, Pws.1 to 37 are examined. The evidence of Lw.8/Suryavamshi Anil is closed since he reported died. The evidence of remaining witnesses i.e. Lw.19/Banoth Eashwar, Lw.20/Anugondla

Monaji, Lw.22/Mohammad Khan, Lw.34/G. Dharneetha, Lw.35/G.Rajanna,

Lw.36/V. Venugopal Rao and Lw.37/G. Ajay Babu is given up by the prosecution. Beside examination of Pws.1 to 31, the prosecution got marked documents i.e. Ex.P1 to Ex.P119. No material objects are marked by the prosecution.

313 Cr.P.C Examination:-

06. After the completion of the prosecution evidence A1 to A38 are examined

U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to them in their vernacular language. Having understood the same, they denied the evidence as false and further stated that they have no defence evidence.

Arguments:-

07. Heard both sides and perused the record. At the time of arguments, the

Special Public Prosecutor repeated the contents of charge sheet and he submitted that all the witnesses strongly supported the case of the prosecution during their section 161 Cr.P.C. statements, their hostile nature is not a ground to discard their evidence and he prays to convict A1 to A38.

11Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

On the other hand, the counsel for A1 to A38 submitted that all material witnesses and all the eye witnesses in this case are turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. The remaining witnesses are circumstantial witnesses and official witnesses but not the eye witnesses. He prays to acquit A1 to A38 for the charge framed against them. The other arguments of the learned counsel on both sides are discussed at the relevant point.

Points for Determination :-

08. Now the points for determination are :

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of A1 to A23 and A25 to A38 for the offence under sections 143, 147, 148, 153-A,436 and 120-B r/w. 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

(ii) Whether A1 to 23 and A25 to A38 can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 1143, 147, 148, 153-A,436 and 120- B r/w. 149 IPC ?

(iii) To what result?

Findings on Points :-

09. After hearing the detailed arguments submitted on behalf of the prosecution by learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel, it is very clear that to prove the guilt of A1 to A38 beyond all reasonable doubt, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 to Pw.31 and also on the documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P119.

10.Before going to discuss oral and documentary evidence relied on by the prosecution and appreciation of the same, it is to be noted that the case of the prosecution as per the charge sheet is that PW.1 is the complainant,

Pws.2 to 7,9,10 and 12 are the neighbouring shop owners and are cited as eye witnesses, Pw.11 and Pw.13 are the panch witnesses for scene of 12Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad offence/CDF panchanama. Pw.14, 15, 17 to 19, 22, 23, 25 to 29 are panch witnesses for various confession and seizure, damage panchanamas,

PW.16, 20, 21, 24, 30 and 31 are official witnesses and Investigation officers. A1 to A38 are residents of various localities of Bhainsa Town and all are belongs to Muslim community.

11. It is stated in the charge sheet that there were communal disturbances in Bhaisna town among Hindu and muslim communities, as such as per planning of A1 to A38 who are residents of Bhainsa town and belong to muslim community, they formed into unlawful assembly by holding deadly weapons i.e., sticks, rods, knives and petrol bottles on 07.03.2021 at 21:00 hours, as per their preplan they set fire to the vegetable shops, pan shops, seeds shops and the articles in the shops of

Pws.2 to 7, 9, 10 and 12 due to which altogether an approximate amount of

Rs.3,25,000/- was damaged by A1 to A38. Hence, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the guilt of A1 to A38 beyond all reasonable doubt with acceptable oral and also documentary evidence establishing their involvement in the said incident.

12.In the above context, the evidence of Pw.1 who is defacto complainant goes to show that he was running a vegetable shop no.12 opposite to the Bhainsa Court premises at Bhainsa but he does not know A1 to A38. About two years ago on one day he lodged complaint/Ex.P1 befor the Police, Bhainsa town. On the date of incident, he closed his shop at about 6:00 p.m., during night at 11:00 p.m., he came to know that the shops were set ablaze, after two days he went there and found that 13Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad vegetables, one table, baskets, weighing machine were burnt in that fire, as there was curfew for two days he couldn’t visit his shop. He further deposed that no panchanama was conducted to assess the value of burnt items.

Police examined and recorded his statement, he came to know that mob of persons set fire to the shops due to communal riots.

13.The learned Spl.PP requested to declare PW.1 as hostile and cross examined Pw.1 with the permission of the Court. In the cross examination by the learned Spl.PP, Pw.1 denied the contents of his section 161 Cr.P.C.

statement recorded by the police.

14.Another vegetable shop owner is examined as Pw.2. According to the evidence of Pw.2, Pw.1 is his brother and owner of Shop no.8 and running the shop for the last 30 years situated near Court Complex, Bhaisna. He further deposed that about one and half year back he closed his shop at 07.00 P.M., an about 08.00 or 9.00 P.M., he came to know that the shops in that complex were set ablaze due to communal riots but he does not know who set ablaze, due to curfew the police did not allow them to go to shop and he cannot say when police examined and he did not state any names in his section 161 Cr.P.C statement. During cross examination by Spl.PP, Pw.2 denied his earlier statement before the police which is marked as Ex.P3.

15.On perusal of the evidence of the remaining shop owners who are examined as Pws.3 to 12, it is revealed that they are running vegetables, petty shops and pan shops in the same municipal shopping complex situated opposite to the Bhainsa Court complex. All of them deposed in one voice that they have closed their shops in the evening hours and went to 14Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad their homes, later they came to know that their shops were set ablaze by unknown persons and due to curfew they could not went to their shops, at last after two days when they went to their shops and found that their shops were set ablaze by unknown persons and vegetables, furniture were burnt in the said accident and Pws.3 to 12 denied their section 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by the police. Since there is no incriminating material found against A1 to A38 in the evidence of Pws.1 to 12 the learned defense counsel did not choose to cross examine them and reported the cross examination as nil.

16.Even though the above said witnesses Pws.1 and 2 are material witnesses and Pws.3 to 10 and 12 as eye witnesses who gave their evidence, the above extracted portion in the depositions of Pws.3 to 10 and 12 shows that there is no incriminating material against A1 to A38 in the said evidence, hence the evidence of Pws.3 to 10 and 12 is not useful in anyway.

17.Pws.11 and 13 who are panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama/Crime Detail Form. Pw.11 deposed that at about 2 years back on one day police called him to the one shop and obtained his signature on white paper but he does not know why the police obtained his signature, the police do not seize any material in his presence. The evidence of Pw.13 who is another panch witness to the scene of offence panchanama/Crime

Detail Form is that in the year 2021 on one day at about 12.00 noon police called him and PW.11 in front of the Bhainsa Court premises where Pw.1 shown them burnt vegetable shops and the police seized full burnt material, 15Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad semi burnt material and unburnt material from those shops. When the learned Special PP cross examined Pw.11 with the permission of the Court,

Pw.11 denied suggestion that police conducted the scene of offence panchanama and seizure of burnt material from the shops whereas PW.13 deposed in his cross examination by the learned defense counsel that he do not remember the contents of Crime Detail Form panchanama and rough sketch and denied suggestion that no panchanama was conducted and he deposed as per the instructions of the police.

18.The above evidence of Pws.11 and 13 goes to show that they have no knowledge of scene of offence panchanama and their evidence is not proving anything related to scene of offence panchanama and seizure of material objects. Hence, the evidence of Pws.11 and 13 cannot be looked into.

19.PW.14, 15, 17 to 19, 22, 23, 25 to 29 are panch witnesses for various confession and seizure panchanamas but all are turned hostile and they did not support the case of the prosecution. They simply deposed that on the request of police they signed several signatures on some written papers given by the police. Pw.14, 15, 17 to 19, 22, 23, 25 to 29 deposed in one voice that they do not know A1 to A38 and they cannot identify them. They deposed that the police did not seize anything from anybody in their presence. This shows that the evidence of PW.14, 15, 17 to 19, 22, 23, 25 to 29 i.e., panch witnesses for several confessional and seizure panchanamas of A1 to A38 is not helpful to prove the seizure of 16Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad incriminating material. Hence, their evidence is not helpful to the case of the prosecution and their evidence is to be discarded from consideration.

20.Remaining is the evidence of Pw.16, 20, 21, 24, 30 and 31 who are the official witnesses and Investigating Officers in this case.

21.The Station Fire Officer, Bhainsa Town is examined as Pw.16, he deposed that on 07.03.2021 on request of Police, Bhainsa Town he along with his staff with fire engine went to Vegetable shopping market near

Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Bhainsa and extinguished the fire at shop no.s5 to 14 and issued a certificate under Ex.P49.

22.Revenue Inspector, Bhainsa who is cited as panch witness for property damage panchanama is examined as Pw.20. According to him, on 08.03.2021 as per instructions of Tahasildar, Bhains as there was property damage at Zulfequargally of Bhainsa village in communal riots and he secured 3 panchas i.e., (1) Lingu Ram (2) Sainath and (3) Abdul Rehman, visited one house and nine petty shops which were burnt on 07.03.2021 in a communal riots and conducted damage panchanama and also damage panchanama of six two wheelers, two autos, two cars and also visited other six houses and eight petty shops which are partly damaged and conducted detailed damaged panchanamas, obtained signatures of above three persons and two witnesses i.e., (1) A.Srinivas and (@) Md.Aziz Qureshi and handed over the same to Tahasildar, Bhainsa. Copy of panchanama is marked as Ex.P55.

17Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

23.From the evidence of PW.20 it is to be noted that the damage of property was assessed at Zulfiqurgally but according to the contents in the charge sheet Pw.1 was running vegetable shop no.12 situated opposite to the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhainsa which are two different areas, as such the evidence of Pw.20 is of no help to the prosecution.

24.The Municipal Commissioner Bhainsa is examined as Pw.21. He deposed that on 18.03.2021 on request of Police he furnished particulars of vegetable shops no.5 to 14, 108 to street vendors in front of Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Bhainsa and allotment resolutions under Ex.P56 true

copy of resolution no.90, Ex.P57 is true copy of resolution no.108, Ex.P58 is trade license of shop no.5, Ex.P59 are the nine street vendors identity cards of different alloties of shops in the shopping complex and Ex.P60 is covering letter.

25.Pw.24 is the Addl.Asst. Engineer (operation) NPDCL, Bhainsa town. He deposed that he received requisition from police on 26.05.2021, accordingly he visited the shop nos.7 to 10, 12 and 13 situated in front of Judicial First

Class Magistrate Court, Bhainsa, he observed that the service meters and service wire of shops burnt due to fire by the persons but shops not burnt due to electrical short circuit and there was 11 KV feeder of Bhainsa-II and as per service record the power supply was available continuously and there was no interruption or disconnection of supply on 07.03.2021, 08.00 P.M., to 01.00 A.M., on 08.03.2021 and he submitted his report under Ex.P69.

26.The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Bhainsa is examined as Pw.30. He deposed that on 09.03.2021 at 10.30 hours he received Ex.P1 from Pw.1 18Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad basing on it he registered the case in Cr.No.35/2021 u/sec.143, 148, 153-A, 435, 427 r/w 149 IPC against the unknown offenders and he issued FIR (Ex.P89), after examining and recording of the statement of Pw.1, he also recorded the statements of Pws.2 to 7 and Ex.P2 to Ex.P9 are marked, later he handed over the CD file to PW.31 for further investigation.

27.Pw.30 is the Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet in this case deposed that he took up CD file from Pw.30, he verified the investigation done by him and found on proper lines. According to PW.31 he visited scene of offence situated in front of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court,

Bhainsa, examined Pws.1 to 10, Pw.12, Pw.13 and Lw.8 and recorded the statements of PW.8 to Pw.13. He obtained the copy of damage panchanama conducted by PW.20, report of Fire extinguish on vegetable shops, collected the ownership certificates of shops. He produced A1 to A38 before the

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Bhainsa on P.T warrants as they were arrested and remanded in other crimes.

28.According to Pw.31 he forwarded the seized material collected from scene of offence to FSL and obtained FSL report in which it was opined that no inflammable hydro carbon are found in the material objects. PW.31 collected copies of various panchanamas of A1 to A38 i.e., Ex.P90 to

Ex.P119 also obtained permission from the Government of Telangana State i.e., prosecution sanction order to prosecute A1 to A38 u/sec.153-A r8w 149

IPC. Later, basing on the evidence available on record, he added section 153-A IPC and section adding memo. After completion of entire investigation and collecting all the relevant documents he filed charge sheet 19Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad against A1 to A38 for the offence u/sec.143, 147, 148, 153-A, 436 r/w 149

IPC.

29.It is to be noted that the prosecution examined Pws.1 to 31 in this case and documents i.e., Ex.P1 to P119 are marked. In fact, the material witness PW.1 made several allegations as per the complaint lodged by him with PS Bhainsa Town but he has not deposed any of the allegations before the Court during his evidence.

30.In his evidence PW1 simply deposed that at about 2 years back on one day he closed his vegetable shop at 07.00 p.m., and at about 11.00 p.m., he came to know that his vegetable shop no.12 situated at the municipal shopping complex in front of Bhainsa Court premises was set fire, after two days when he visited his shop he found that baskets, weighing machine are burnt and he came to know that a mob of persons set fire to the shops due to communal riots.

31.Pw.1 testimony goes to show that after two days he went to his shop which was burnt and later he came to know that it was burnt due to communal riots. Subsequently he lodged complaint (Ex.P1) before the police Bhainsa Town. He has deposed that no panchanama was conducted to asses the value of burnt items and Pw.1 did not mention names of A1 to

A38 who are responsible for the fire.

32.The evidence of Pw.1 goes to show that some unknown persons entered and burnt his shop and Pw.1 failed to depose names of A1 to A38 and not stated that they burnt his shop and there is no evidence from any 20Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad of the prosecution witnesses to make out of the complicity of A1 to A38 for conviction. Hostile nature of Pw.1 goes to show that he did not depose anything against A1 to A38. In the cross examination by the learned Spl PP,

Pw.1 resiled from his earlier statement under sectin 161 Cr.P.C statement.

One of the material witnesses i.e., brother of Pw.1 and owner of another vegetable shop no.8 in the same municipal complex though deposed that he came to know that the shops in that complex are set ablaze due to communal riots, he do not now who set ablaze, he cannot say when police examined and he could not depose any names in his statement. Hence evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is not useful to prove the complicities of A1 to A38.

33.Likewise, Pws.3 to 7, 9, 10 and 12 who are the owners of neighboring shops of Pw.1 and PW.2, they are cited as eye witnesses to the alleged incident but all are turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. All of them simply deposed they do not know the A1 to A38 and they do not know anything about this case and all of them resiled from their earlier statements before the police. Hence evidence of Pws.3 to 7, 9, 10 and 12 is not useful to prove the complicities of A1 to A38.

34.As already stated, there is no incriminating material in the evidence of

Pws.1 to 7, 9, 10 and 12 and there is no corroboration in the testimonies of

Pws.1 to 7, 9, 10 and 12, as such basing on their evidence it is not possible to establish incident through their evidence.

35.The remaining material is evidence of Pw.11 and Pw13 (witnesses for scene observation panchanama) and other panch witnesses PW.14, 15, 17 to 19, 22, 23, 25 to 29 who are the witnesses for confession-cum-seizure 21Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad panchanamas of A1 to A38 and official witnesses. They all have not deposed anything against any of A1 to A38 with regard to their complicity and they stated that police have not seized any material objects from any of A1 to

A38. The official witness supported the case but their evidence cannot be considered without evidence of independent witnesses.

36.It is to be noted that none of the panch witnesses for confession and seizure of material from A1 to A38 deposed about the panchanamas. The panch witnesses from Pw.14, 15, 17 to 19, 23, 25 to 29 turned hostile and not deposed anything in support of prosecution. In these circumstances, it is to be noted that the said confessions A1 to A38 are not proved and also there is no substantial evidence to prove recovery of the weapons from A1 to A38. None of the witnesses identified A1 to A38, their overt acts are not established, hence it is not safe to rely on the testimonies of Pws.1 to 29 and the accused cannot be found guilty. Even if the panch witnesses support the case of the prosecution still their evidence cannot be considered because of the bar u/sec 25 and 26 of Evidence Act which says that confession given to the police or confession given while in the custody of police both are inadmissible and in this case also the alleged confessions are in the presence of the police, as such those confessions are barred from admission.

37.The remaining witnesses i.e., Pw.16, Pw.20, Pw21 and Pw.24 are the official witnesses. When the material witnesses and eye witnesses have not deposed anything against A1 to A38 about their complicity in this incident, 22Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad the evidence of Pw.16, Pw.20, Pw21 and Pw.24 who are the official witnesses cannot be looked into.

38.The above evidence of Pws.1 to 31 creats doubt whether Pw.1 made any allegations against A1 to A38 in his complaint and whether the incident mentioned in the complaint was really occurred or not is also doubtful. The material witnesses, eye witnesses and all the panch witnesses not supported the prosecution case and basing on their hostile evidence, it is not possible to find A1 to A38 guilty of the said charges.

39.Apart from all the above, the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of sections 143, 147, 148, 153-A, 436 and 120-B r/w 149 IPC through the evidence of Pws.1 to 31 and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P119. This evidence cannot help the prosecution to prove the guilt of A1 to A38 in any way.

40.The above discussion clear and chillingly goes to show that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A38 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under section 143, 147, 148, 153-A, 436 and 120-B r/w 149 IPC. Therefore there is no substantial evidence to find

A1 to A38 guilty as such they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the points for consideration are answered that,

i) that, the prosecution has not proved the guilt of A1 to 23 and A25 to A38 for the offence under sections 143, 147, 148, 153-A, 436 and 120-B r/w. 149 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt ii) that, the A1 to A23 and A25 to A38 cannot be found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 143, 147, 148, 153-A, 436 and 120-B r/w. 149 IPC 23Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad iii) And the accused are to be acquitted accordingly.

Point No.3:-

In the result, A1 to 23 and A25 to A38 found not guilty for the offence under section 143, 147, 148, 153-A,436 and 120-B r/w. 149 IPC, accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. and A1 to A38 are set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months U/Sec.437(A) Cr.P.C. and thereafter the said bonds shall stands cancelled. The unmarked case property if any, shall be preserved since the case is pending against CCLs 1 to 5.A24 died.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25 th day of February, 2025.

FAC: I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution: Pw.1:G.Pedda Bhojanna (complainant/victim)

Pw.2: G.Chinna Bhojanna (circumstantial witness)

Pw.3: P.Raju (circumstantial witness)

Pw.4: B.Narsaiah (circumstantial witness)

Pw.5: G.Anand (circumstantial witness)

Pw.6: P.Shanker (circumstantial witness)

Pw.7: G.Laxmi Bai (circumstantial witness)

Pw.8: S.Bhumanna (eye witness)

Pw.9: C.Naryana (eye witness)

Pw.10: Erla Ravi (eye witness)

Pw.11: P.Narayana (panch for CDF panchanama and crime scene panchanama)

Pw.12: Ch.venkatesh (circumstantial witness)

Pw.13: A.Srinivas (Panch for CDF panchanama and crime scene panchanama)

Pw.14: B.Naresh (Panch for confession panchanama of A1 to A8)

Pw.15: Shaik Chand Pasha (Panch for confession panchanama of A1 to A8) 24Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

Pw.16: B.Charan Kumar (issued report pertaining to burnt shops)

Pw.17: Ch.Laxman (Panch for confession panchanama of A12, A13, A19 to A22, A27, A32 and CCL2)

Pw.18: Mohd. Aneesh (Panch for confession panchanama of

A12, A13, A16, A19 to A22, A24 to A27, A32 and CCL2)

Pw.19: A.Vamshi Krishna (Panch for confession panchanama of A34)

Pw.20: T.Praveen Kumar (Conducted damage panchanama)

Pw.21: Mohammed Abdul Aleem (issued owner ship report of Hello mobiles)

Pw.22: A.Gangachari (Panch for confession panchanama of A16,

A24, A25, A26 and CCL3 to 5)

Pw.23: Mohd. Mohtesham (Panch for confession panchanama of A33)

Pw.24: Mulla Azeemoddin (Addl. Asst. Engineer Operation TSNPDCL, Bhainsa)

Pw.25: Shaik Moulana (Panch for confession panchanama of A9 to A11)

Pw.26: K.Bhojanna (Panch for confession panchanama of A33)

Pw.27: S.Srinivas Goud (Panch for confession panchanama of A34)

Pw.28: P.Narsaiah (Panch for confession panchanama of A35 to A37)

Pw.29: O.Gangadhar (Panch for confession panchanama of A35 to A37)

Pw.30: A.Gangaram (First Investigation officer and issued FIR)

Pw.31: K.Vinod (Investigation Officer and filed charge sheet)

For Defence - None -

Exhibits marked

For prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report.

Ex.P.2: Relevant Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.1.

Ex.P.3: Relevant Portion in Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2.

Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.3.

Ex.P.5: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4.

Ex.P.6: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5

Ex.P.7: Part of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.6.

25Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

Ex.P.8: Part of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.7.

Ex.P.9: Part of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.8.

Ex.P.10: Part of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.9

Ex.P11: Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.10

Ex.P12: Signature of Pw.11 on CDF panchanama

Ex.P13: Signature of Pw.11 on scene of offence cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P14: Part of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.12

Ex.P15: Crime Detail Form with Rough sketch

Ex.P16: Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama

Ex.P17: Signature of Pw.14 on confession panchanama, dated 18.03.2021 at 05.00 p.m.,

Ex.P18: Signature of Pw.14 on seizure panchanama dated 18.3.2021 at 1835 hours

Ex.P19: Signature of Pw.14 on confession panchanama dated 20.3.2021 at 08.45 a.m.,

Ex.P20: Signature of Pw.14 on seizure pnchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 10.30 a.m.,

Ex.P21: Signature of Pw.14 on confession panchanama dated 20.3.2021 at 10.15 a.m.,

Ex.P22: Signature of PW.14 on Seizure panchanama dated 20.3.2021 at 11.30 a.m.,

Ex.P23: Signature of PW.14 on confession panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 1615 hours

Ex.P24: Signature of Pw.14 on seizure panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 17150 hours

Ex.P25: Signature of Pw.14 on confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 06.00 a.m.,

Ex.P26: Signature of Pw.14 on seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 07.15 a.m., 26Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

Ex.P27: Signature of Pw.14 on confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 08.15 a.m.,

Ex.P28: Signature of Pw.14 on seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 09.30 a.m.,

Ex.P29: Signature of Pw.14 on confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 10.30 a.m.,

Ex.P30: Signature of Pw.14 on seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 11.30 a.m., Ex.P31: Signature of Pw.14 on confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 12.45 p.m., Ex.P32: Signature of Pw.14 on seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 13.45 9.m.,

Ex.P33: Signature of Pw.15 on confession panchanama, dated 18.03.2021 at 05.00 p.m.,

Ex.P34: Signature of Pw.15 on seizure panchanama dated 18.3.2021 at 1835 hours

Ex.P35: Signature of Pw.15 on confession panchanama dated 20.3.2021 at 08.45 a.m.,

Ex.P36: Signature of Pw.15 on seizure pnchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 10.30 a.m.,

Ex.P37: Signature of Pw.15 on confession panchanama dated 20.3.2021 at 10.15 a.m.,

Ex.P38: Signature of PW.15 on Seizure panchanama dated 20.3.2021 at 11.30 a.m.,

Ex.P39: Signature of PW.15 on confession panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 1615 hours

Ex.P40: Signature of Pw.15 on seizure panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 17150 hours

Ex.P41: Signature of Pw.15 on confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 06.00 a.m.,

Ex.P42: Signature of Pw.15 on seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 07.15 a.m.,

Ex.P43: Signature of Pw.15 on confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 08.15 a.m., 27Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

Ex.P44: Signature of Pw.15 on seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 09.30 a.m.,

Ex.P45: Signature of Pw.15 on confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 10.30 a.m.,

Ex.P46: Signature of Pw.15 on seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 11.30 a.m., Ex.P47: Signature of Pw.15 on confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 12.45 p.m., Ex.P48: Signature of Pw.15 on seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 13.45 9.m.,

Ex.P49: Report issued by Pw.16

Ex.P50: Signature of PW.17 on confession panchanama dt.20.03.2021 at 16.00 hours

Ex.P51: Signature of Pw.18 on confession panchanama dt.31.03.2021 at 1600 hours

Ex.P52: Signature of Pw.19 on altered confession panchanama dated 26.03.2021.

Ex.P53: Signature of Pw.19 on recovery panchanama dated 26.03.2021.

Ex.P54: Relevant portion of seizure panchanama of Pw.19

Ex.P55: Attested copy of panchanama signed by B. Vishwambar, Tahasildar, Bhainsa.

Ex.P56: True copy of resolution no.90

Ex.P57: True copy of resolution no.108

Ex.P58: Trade licence of shop no.5

Ex.P59: Nine street vendors identity cards of different alloties of shop in the shopping complex.

Ex.P60: Covering letter

Ex.P61: Signature of Pw.22 on confession panchanama dated 6.4.2021 at 07.30 A.M.,

Ex.P62: Signature of PW.22 on seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 8.30 A.M.,

Ex.P63: Signature of Pw.22 on confession-cum-seizure-panchanama dated 6.4.2021 at 09.00 A.M., 28Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

Ex.P64: Signature of PW.22 on seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 9.45 A.M.,

Ex.P65: Signature of Pw.22 on confession-cum-seizure-panchanama dated 6.4.2021 at 10.00 A.M., Ex.P66: Signature of PW.22 on seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 10.45 A.M.,

Ex.P67: Signature of Pw.22 on confession-cum-seizure-panchanama dated 6.4.2021 at 11.00 A.M.,

Ex.P68: Signature of PW.22 on seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 11.45 A.M.,

Ex.P69: Report submitted by Pw.24 dated 26.05.2021

Ex.P70: Relevant portion of the confession panchanama dated 08.05.2021 at about 1630 hours

Ex.P71: Seizure panchanama, dated 08.05.2021 at about 1830 hours

Ex.P72: Relevant portion of confession panchanama dated 09.05.2021 at about 08.00 a.m.,

Ex.P73: Seizure panchanama, dated 09.05.2021 at about 09.15 a.m.,

Ex.P74: Relevant portion of confession panchanama dated 09.05.2021 at about 1500 hours

Ex.P75: Seizure panchanama, dated 09.05.2021 at about 1715 hours

Ex.P76: Four signatures of Pw.27 on confession panchanama dated 26.03.2021 at 07.00 A.M.,

Ex.P77: Two signatures of Pw.28 on confession panchanama of Mohd. Nunus

Ex.P78: Seizure panchanama of Mohd. Nunus

Ex.P79: Two signatures of Pw.28 on confession panchanama of Shaik Shabeer

Ex.P80: Seizure panchanama of Shaik Jabeer

Ex.P81: Two signatures of Pw.28 on confession panchanama of Shaik Mehboob

Ex.P82: Seizure panchanama of Shaik Mehboob

Ex.P83: Signatures of Pw.29 on confession panchanama of Mohd Younus

Ex.P84: Signatures of Pw.29 on seizure panchanama of Mohd. Younus.

29Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

Ex.P85: Signatures of Pw.29 on confession panchanama of Shaik Jabeer

Ex.P86: Signatures of Pw.29 on seizure panchanama of Shaik Jabeer

Ex.P87: Signatures of Pw.29 on seizure panchanama of Shaik Mehboob

Ex.P88: Signatures of Pw.29 on confession panchanama of ShaikMehboob

Ex.P89: Original First Information Report

Ex.P90: Certified copy of relevant portion of Confession panchanama dated 18.03.2021, at about 5.00 p.m.,

Ex.P91: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 18.03.2021 at 18.35 p.m.,

Ex.P92: Certified copy of confession panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 08.45 a.m.,

Ex.P93: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 10.00 a.m.,

Ex.P94: Certified copy of confession panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 10.15 a.m.,

Ex.P95: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 11.45 a.m.,

Ex.P96: Certified copy of confession panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 1615 hours

Ex.P97: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 20.03.2021 at 1750 hours

Ex.P98: Certified copy of confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 06.00 a.m.,

Ex.P99: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 07.15 a.m.,

Ex.P100: Certified copy of confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 08.15 a.m.,

Ex.P101: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 09.30 a.m.,

Ex.P102: Certified copy of confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 10.30 a.m.,

Ex.P103: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 11.30 a.m.,

Ex.P104: Certified copy of confession panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 12.45 a.m., 30Judgment in SC.No.63/2022 Dt.25.02.2025 of I ADJ Court-Adilabad

Ex.P105: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 21.03.2021 at 1345 hours,

Ex.P106: Certified copy of relevant portion of confession panchanama dated 26.03.2021 at 07.00 p.m.,

Ex.P107: Certified copy of relevant portion of confession panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 07.30 a.m.,

Ex.P108: Certified copy of relevant portion of seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 08.30 a.m.,

Ex.P109: Certified copy of relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 09.00 a.m.,

Ex.P110: Certified copy of relevant portion of seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021, at 9.45 a.m.,

Ex.P111: Certified copy of relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 10.45 a.m.,

Ex.P112: Certified copy of relevant portion of confession cum seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 11.00 a.m.,

Ex.P113: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 06.04.2021 at 11.45 a.m.,

Ex.P114: Certified copy of portion of confession panchanama dated 18.05.2021 at 10.00 a.m.,

Ex.P115: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 18.05.2021 at 11.15 a.m.,

Ex.P116: Certified copy of relevant portion of confession panchanama dated 18.05.2021 at 12 noon

Ex.P117: Certified copy of Confession panchanama dated 18.05.2021 at 1400 hours Ex.P118: Certified copy of seizure panchanama dated 18.05.20212 at 1550 hours Ex.P119: Prosecution sanction orders vide G.O.Rt.No.485, dated 14.09.2021. For Defence: - Nil -

Material Objects

- Nil -

FAC: I Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, Adilabad

Page 1 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

AT ADILABAD

Present: Dr. P. Siva Ram Prasad II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad FAC: I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Wednesday, this the 19th day of March, 2025

OS.No.43 of 2013

Between:

1.Manal Kishtu, S/o. Venkanna, Age: 74 years, Occ:Business

2.Manal Waman,S/o. Narsimloo, Age: 69 years, Occ:Business.

3.Manal Ashok,S/o. Narsimloo, Age: 64 years, Occ:Business

4.Manal Rajabhav,S/o. Narsimloo, Age: 54 yeas, Occ:Business

5.Manal Prakash, S/o. Madhav Rao, Age: 62 years, Oc:Business

6.Manal Pandurang, S/o. Madhav Rao, Age 59 years, Occ:Business

7.Manal Gajanan,S/o. Madhav Rao, Age 49 years, Occ:Business

8.ManalRamesh, S/o. Yadav Rao, Age: 62 years, Occ:Business

9.Manal Dattatri, S/o. Yadav Rao, Age: 52 years, Occ:Business,

All residents of Ashok Road, Adilabad through their G.P.A. Ameer Bin Hussaih S/o. Hussain, Age 60 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Parkota Mohalla, Adilabad.

...Plaintiffs

// and //

1.Raghunath Mittal, S/o. Shambunath Mittal (died), Age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Adilabad

2.Nirmala Devi, W/o. Chiranjilal Represented by GPA Holder, Raghunath Mittal, S/o. Shambunath Mittal, Age; 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Adilabad

3.V.Srinivas, S/o. Rajeshwar, Age: 38 years, Occ:Business, R/o.Adilabad

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 2 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

4.Attikonda Narsimba Rao, S/o. Seetha Ramaiah, Age: 60 years, Occ;Retired Military Employee, R/o.H.No.20-155. M.E.S.Colony Venkatapuram, Tirumalagherry, Secunderabd

5.The State of A.P. represented by Dist. Collector, Adilabad

6. Commissioner, Municipality, Adilabad

7. Rajiv Mittal S/o.Raghunath Mittal, Age 48 years, Occ:Business, R/o. Adilabad (Defendant No.2 and 7 brought on record as Legal Heirs of defendant No.1 vide I.A. No. 181 /2021 dated 02.03.2022) … Defendants

This case is coming on 16.12.2024 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri.N.Pratap Reddy, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri.Vijay Kumar and Sri MD.Ghouse, Advocates for 1st and 7th defendants; Sri.P.Dayakar, Government Pleader, Advocate for 5th defendant; Sri K.Sriram, Advocate for 6th defendant ; 2nd defendant remained exparte and the suit against 3rd and 4 defendants dismissed as abated, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T :: ::

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants to declare the plaintiffs as owners of Plot No. 37/A and 37/B measuring 23, 296 sq.feet situated at Sy.No.26 of Bhukthapur village and to put them in possession by evicting the defendants 1 to 7 from the above said plots i.e., suit schedule property.

02. This suit is made over from the Court of Special judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Adilabad to this Court as per orders of Prl. District

and Sessions Judge. Adilabad vide Proc.Dis.No.538/2023/Civil,

dt. 21.02.2023 for disposal according to law.

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 3 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

Brief Averments of the Plaint:

03(a). The brief averments of the plaint are that, the grandmother of the plaintiffs 1 to 9 namely late Manala Gouru Bai, W/o. Rajanna was the pattedar and possessor of suit schedule property bearing

No. Sy.No.26 total measuring Ac.8.13 guntas situated at

Bhukthapur, Mandal and District Adilabad out of which the suit schedule property was made into two plots bearing plot No.37/A and 37/B measuring 32,153.77 sq. feet equal to 3,572.64 sq yards equal to 2988.26 sq meters bounded by:

North: Land of Madhusudhan Reddy

South: N.H.No. 7 150 vide road

East: Land of Faiz and Land of Devi Bar West :Road 3(b). That Manala Gouru Bai was expired leaving behind three sons namely Manala Bhagwandlu, Manala Narsimulu and Manala

Venkanna who were expired leaving behind their sons namely (1).

Manala Yadav, S/o. Bhagvandlu, (2). Manala Madhav, S/o. Narsimulu (3) Manala Vaman, S/o. Narsimulu, (4) Manala Ashok, S/o. Narsimulu (5) Manala Raja Bhavu, S/o.Narsimulu (6) Manala Kistu, S/o.

Venkanna, Manala Madhav elder son of Narsimulu expired leaving behind Manala Prakash, S/o.Madhav Rao, (6) Manala Pandurangh

S/o.Madhav Rao, (7). Manala Gajanan, S/o. Madhav Rao, Manala

Yadav elder son of Manala Bhagwandlu also expired leaving behind his sons Manala Ramesh, S/o. Yadav Rao and Manala Dattari S/o.

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 4 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

Yadav Rao, thus the plaintiffs No. 1 to 9 are the grand sons of the original pattedar namely Manala Gouru Bai.

3(c). It is evident from the revenue records/pahanis that the name

Manala Gouru Bai was recorded as pattedar and cultivator in 1347

Fasli. There from in subsequent years, it is shown as Khariz Khatha and found kept fallow without payment of any compensation and without any order from the competent authorities. Taking the advantage of fallow lands, the revenue authorities have recorded

Sy.No.25 Khariz Khata wherein certain plots were created by the defendant No.6 posing as owner of the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property i.e., two plots is joint family property and the plaintiffs No 1 to 9 have several times approached the revenue authorities for rectification of erroneous entiries. But till date revenue authorities not rectified the entries. That meanwhile the municipal authorities taking the advantage of fallow land on ground created title stating that the above suit schedule property was acquired for the purpose of extension of aabadi even though it is a patta land.

3(d). That the 6th defendant/Commissioner, Municipality, Adilabad could not prove the acquisition. Pahanis right from 1948 Fasli onwards are recorded as Khariz Khatha. On perusal of Faisla Patti for the year 1951-52, there is a mention that the acquisition proposal have not been commenced and as per last year, the lands are recorded as Kami Eksala. Meanwhile 1 and 2nd defendants created

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 5 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

document No.3279/A of 1977 and claimed title over the suit schedule property by way of purchase from some person Abdul

Shareef resident of Kinwat, Taluq of Maharastra State. Basing on the said document, the 1st and 2nd defendant entered into an agreement of lease on 10.08.1990 with 4th defendant for establishment of IOC retail outlet of petrol and diesel bunk over the suit schedule property. On perusal of sale deed No.3279/A and 1977 there is no evidence to show how the vendor acquired plot No. 37/A and 37/B and not detailedly mentioned in the registered deed. As a matter of fact, as per revenue records, the plots No.37/A and 37/B are part of

Sy.No.25 of Bhukthapur revenue village which is recorded in revenue records as government land without valid orders. There is also no record to show how and when the municipality acquired these lands from revenue department.

3(e). That 6th defendant issued NOC for establishment of petrol pump, besides that the RDO, Adilabad has also issued NOC in the

File No. D1/1841/1990, dt: 27.10.1990. After putting petrol pump, the Joint Collector, Adilabad issued respective other licenses as contemplated under the provision of AP Petroleum Products Act 1980. That 6th defendant in his Lr.No. G-1/1006/1990, dt: 21.04.1995 filed a report before the Joint Collector, Adilabad stating that the 4th defendant encroached the Municipal land in plot No.37/A and 37/B to an extent of 23,296 sq feet. Accordingly, the Joint Collector,

Adilabad issued instruction to the RDO, Adilabad, Assistant Director,

Survey and Land Records and Tahasildar, Adilabad to conduct spot

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 6 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

inspection of the disputed a land and report. Accordingly the said officers have conducted joint inspection on the spot and reported that the 4th defendant G.Narasimha Rao is in possession of municipal area to an extent of 23, 296 sq. feet and recommended for cancellation of NOC and licenses. After due receipt of joint inspection report of inspecting officers the Collector Civil Supplies,

Adilabad has issued proceeding No.D-1/1063/1992 dt: 13.6.95, canceling the NOC in terms of Rule 161 of Petroleum rules.

Subsequently passed another order vide proceeding No.CS- 3/857/1995, dt: 13.06.1995, canceled the license No. 29/1991, issued to the 4th defendant for operation of petrol bunk. Aggrieved by the action of the Collector (CS), Adilabad the 4th defendant filed a

Writ Petition No.11786/1995 with misc. petition No.14406/1995 on 26.07.1995, challenging the action of Collector (CS), Adilabad in cancelling the NOC and other connected licenses and got suspended. The 1st and 2nd defendants have not disclosed the facts in their writ petition that how they came into the possession of Plot

No.37/A and 37/B when these plots are appearing in Sy.No. 25 recorded as government Khariz Khata in revenue records. The 1st and 2nd defendants with malafied intention to grab the land of plaintiffs No.1 to 9 created certain fake deeds on the strength of deed No.3279/A/1977. Thereafter created another document of partition deeds bearing No.1714/2005 over the suit plots. On seeing the sale deed No.3279/A of 1977, there is no mention of survey number in which the disputed plots are located and where it is

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 7 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

situated. Another significant fact as seen from partition deed

No.58/2005 in which plot No.37 is shown out of survey number 40 and 41 of Mavala village. The suit plots are situated in survey No.26 of Bhukthapur village. To cover up their title a rectification deed registered No.58/2005 was created in which only H.No.7-1-33 is shown.

03(f) Again in the year 2006 the defendants No.1 and 2 created another document for cancellation of partition deed No.1714/2004

A significant fact noticed in this case that the 1st and 2nd defendant have filed a petition before the 6th defendant enclosing partition deed No.1714 of 2004 and registered document No.58/2005 and got it mutated in their name against plot No.37/A and 37/B vide 6th defendant proceeding No. A1/1279/2005, dt: 21.02.2005.

03(g). That 6th defendant is claiming title over the suit plots and on the other side confirming the ownership of 1st and 2nd defendants. As a meter of fact how the 6th defendant acquired title over the suit land has not been established. The question of confirming the title by way of mutation in favour of 1st and 2nd defendants does not arise and have no legal a sanctity. As a matter of fact the 6th defendant in his letter 1/1006/1990, dt: 21.04.1995 made a complaint against 4th defendant to the Joint Collector, Adilabad stating that the 4th defendant has encroached the municipal land for an extent of 23, 296 sq feet against plot No.37/A, thereby ordered the 6th defendant,

RDO, Adilabad. Tahasildar, Adilabad and Assistant Director, Survey

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 8 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

and Land records, Adilabad to inspect the site and report the facts, the RDO, Adilabad after due inspection and survey of the schedule suit plot No.37/A reported that the 4th defendant had found encroached the municipal land, owing to this report, the Joint

Collector, Adilabad cancelled the NOC. Thus it is very much clear that the suit schedule property is not government land to confirm the title through fake document in favour of 1st and 2nd defendant. It clearly goes to show that the 6th defendant colluded with 1st and 2nd defendant in confirming the rights by way of mutation with malafide intention to grab the land of the plaintiffs. Apart from above the 1st and 2nd defendant have filed a petition before the defendant No.6 on 19.3.2006 for regularization of Plot No.37/A. Accordingly the 6th defendant in reference No.G-1184/2005 dt: 4.5.02005 submitted the proposal to the Principal Secretary to Government, Municipal

Administration Adilabad for regularization of plot No. 37/A adjacent to National High Way No. 7 in favour of 1st and 2nd defendants.

Besides above as per the Map of Bhukthapur village, it clearly goes to show that Sy.No 25 is a bondobasth patta land which was phodi by the Assistant Director Survey and Land Records, Adilabad in File

No.A-4/2/90, dt: 6.2.1989 through which survey number 25 is divided into two bits. Thus it is very much clear that the suit schedule property is a patta land, but not government land.

03(h) Another significant fact in this case it that 1st and 2nd defendants have simply set up their claim and set up agreement of lease with 4th defendant with malafide intention to grab the land of

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 9 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

the plaintiffs 1 to 9 and they are liable to for eviction from the suit plots and to induct the plaintiffs 1 to 9 into possession. The above said facts constitute the cause of action which entitled the plaintiffs to file this suit against 1 to 6th defendants. The 1st and 2nd defendant filed OS No.31/1975 before the Junior Civil Judge and OS No.42/2004 filed by 4th defendant before the Senior Civil Judge, Adilabad with malafide intention to grab the land of he plaintiffs and got decrees suppressing the facts which are not binding on the 1st to 9th plaintiffs as they played fraud with Court by misrepresenting the facts and obtained decree against 4th defendant. Finally the plaintiffs prays to grant declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit.

Summons and Written Statements :

04.After registering the suit, summons were issued to the defendants. The 1st defendant, 3rd defendant, 4th defendant, 6th defendant have filed their written statements denying the averments mentioned in the plaint. Summons served on 2nd defendant, no representation, so he remained exparte on 22.01.2025. The right of 5th defendant for filing of written statement is forfeited. No written statement was filed by 7th defendant.

Averments in Written Statement of 1 st defendant :

05(a). The 1st defendant filed written statement that long back in the year 1940 (1340 F) during the Earst-while Nizam Government, the

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 10 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

Tahsildar, who was the EX-Officio Secretary of the Local Fund (Now

Municipality) has acquired certain private lands under town planning scheme from pattedars in various localities of Adilabad including

Khanapur, Bhuktapur, Jubli Gunj, Gunj Market and Dhedwada (Harijanwada) for the purpose of Town Development i.e., Tawsi

Abadi as per the comprehensive Town Development Scheme. The above said acquisition of various survey numbers belonging to the various pattedars has been done by Local Fund, Adilabad in the year 1940 i.e.,1350 Fasli after completing land acquisition proceedings duly making payment of land compensation to the concerned pattedrs from the Local Fund, Adilabad.

05(b). That as per Tawsi Abadi (Town Development) intended for systematic growth of the Adilabad Town, various categories of plots have been sanctioned which includes “A” class plots for houses.”B” class plots for shopping center “C” class pots, Clerks colony, peons colony, Gunj plots, Labour colony, cotton market, officer’s colony,

Industrial plots, Cinema plots, Reserve police colony, parade ground and Govt. office etc., After the plotting arrangements were made, those category wise Municipal plots were sold in public auction by the District collector, Adilabad in the capacity as Mir Majlis (President) of the Municipal Town Committee and has issued

Khaibalas i.e., assignment orders. Later when the successor body i.e. Municipal Council, Adilabad came in to existence after conduct of Municipal Elections in the year 1952, the defendant No.6

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 11 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

Municipality has sold out other Municipal plots in public auction and khibalas were issued to the purchasers of the plots.

05(c). As per the development register of Tawsi Abadi available in the office of Defendant No.6 out of 167 Survey numbers acquired from private pattedars, the land to an extent of 9.00 acres in Survey

No. 23 in Bhuktapur, Adilabad has been acquired from Manala Gouru

Bai by the Local Fund Adilabad during the earst-while Hyderabad

Government in the year 1350 Fasli duly paying land compensation.

The statement showing the compensation paid to her for the land acquired in Sy.No. 23 to an extent of 9-00 acres under Tawsi Abadi is available in the office of 6th defendant.

05(d). It is mentioned that as per plaint averments, the land measuring Ac.8-13 guntas in Sy.No. 25 belonging to plaintiff’s grandmother Manala Gouru Bai which was divided into two plots bearing No. 37/A and 37/B is wrong and baseless. Actually Tawsi

Abadi scheme (Town Development) of Adilabad town total 69 “A” class plots each measuring 200’ x 120’ size and had been made and approved by Adilabad Committee in the earst-while Nizam

Government for development of Abadi I.e for house purpose at

Bhukthapur locality, Adilabad along with National High way No.7 road which have been auctioned in favour of highest bidders along with plot No. 37 “A” class measruing 200 x 120 measuring 24000 sq feets which has been auctioned infavour of Sri Mohd. Shareef, S/o.

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 12 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

Mohd Raza in the year 1956 and the actual boundaries of the plot

No. 37 “A” class as under:

East:House of sri Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate

West : National High way No.7

North :Plot No. 39

South: Road, whereas the boundaries of Plot No. 37 “A” class as mentioned by the plaintiffs are wrong.

05(e). That the plaintiffs have made deliberate and wrong attempt to grab the property which does not belongs to them. They filed false suit by misrepresenting the facts. The plaintiffs have got no ownership right over the suit land and with a malafide intention to grab the Municipal property auctioned infavour of the bidder some 6 years back, the plaintiffs have made false claim before the Court.

05(f). Further the plot No.37 is a single plot and it is not divided into two sub plots. As per record maintained by the 6th defendant there is no origin of plot No.37/A and 37/B as alleged by the plaintiffs.

05(g). It is mentioned that 1st defendant who has purchased the suit land plot bearing No,. 37 “A” class from the first allotee i.e Mohd.

Shareef S/o. Mohd Raza. He has leased out a part of plot No.37”A” to Sri Gultikonda Narasimha Rao i.e.,4th defendant for running diesel/petrol filling station. At present also the 1st and 2nd defendants have leased out the petrol bunk and business petrol bunk is being carried out and the 1st and 2nd defendants being the owners of the 37 ”A” class are in the continuous and peaceful possession of the

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 13 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

said plot and the plaintiffs are not at all having any kind of right or title over the suit schedule property.

05(h). That the plaintiffs No.1 to 9 does not have ownership right over the plot bearing municipal No.37“A” class and they have not approached the Court with clean hands and they are mis representing the court. The plaintiffs filed suit with a malafide intention to grab the valuable municipal plot which was sanctioned under Town Development Scheme several decades ago and also auctioned in the years 1956 some 57 yeas back. Finally, 6th defendant prays the Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs with costs.

Averments in Written Statement of 3 rd and 4 th Defendants :

06(a). As per the information and the documentary evidence filed with the suit, the said area is a patta land bearing Sy.No.25 measuring Ac.8-13 guntas and situated at Bhukthapur village and

Manala Gourubai, W/o. Rajanna was the pattedar and it was made into two plots bearing Plot No.37/A and 37/B measuring 32,153.77 sq feet equal to 3,572.64 sq. yards equal to 2,988.26 sq. meters.

06(b). As per the pahani of 1347 Fasli and in subsequent years it was recorded as patta of Manala Gourubai and later it was recorded as Khariz Khatha and kept fallow without payment of any compensation and without any order from the competent authorities as per record. So the Municipality without paying any compensation

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 14 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

made plots as 37/A and 37/B and claiming title over the suit schedule plots.

06(c). It is admitted fact that the suit land is patta land and the 1st and 2nd defendants created document No.3279/A of 1977 and claimed title over the suit schedule property by way of purchase from some person by name Abdul Shareef of Kinwat, Taluq of

Maharastra State. Basing on the said document, the 1st and 2nd defendants entered into agreement fo lease on 10.08.1990 with this 4th defendant for establishment of IOC Retail outlet of Petrol and

Diesel bunk over the suit schedule plots. On perusal of sale deed

No.3279/A of 1977 there is no evidence to show how the vendor acquired plot No.37/A and 37/B not detailed in the registered deed and moreover as per revenue records the plot Nos.37/A and 37/B are part of Sy.No. 26 of Bhukthapur revenue village which is recorded in the revenue record as Government land without any valid orders. Moreover there is also no record to show how and when the Municipality acquired these lands from the revenue department and when the suit land is a government land as per revenue record, 4th defendant is also entitled for allotment being ex- service men as per rules. Therefore, he prays the Court to dismiss the suit of the plaintiffs 1 to 9 and direct the 5th defendant to allot the suit plots to these defendants to run the IOC petrol pump.

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 15 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

Averments in Written Statement of 6 th Defendant :

07. The 6th defendant filed detail written statement, on perusal of the same, it is found that the contents in the written statement of 1st defendant are same contents in the written statement of 6th defendant, as such the averaments in the written statement of 6th defendant are not repeated here.

Framing of Issues :

08.After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, basing on the rival contentions, the following issues are settled for trial :

1)Whether Manala Gouru Bai was the original owner of the suit schedule property?

2)Whether the lands including the suit lands have been acquired by Government in 1940 for town development? 3).Whether the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the Manala Gouru Bai?

4)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title over the suit schedule property? 5).Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to be put in possession of the suit schedule property and 6),.To what relief?

Witnesses and Documents :

09.During trial Pws.1 and 2 are examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. Assistant Director, Survey and Lands Adilabad is examined as Pw2. Besides examination of Pws.1 and 2, the plaintiffs got marked Exs.A1 to A11 documents. On behalf of the defendants

Dws.1 and 2 are examined including 6th defendant i.e. Dw.1 and no documents are marked on their behalf. Ex.X1 and Ex X2 documents were marked through Pw2.

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 16 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

Arguments:

10.Heard both sides and perused the record. At the time of arguments the plaintiffs counsel repeated plaint averments and the defendants counsel repeated written statements averments and other arguments discussed at relevant point.

11. After hearing the arguments submitted by the learned plaintiffs counsel and defendants counsels and on consideration of the entire material on record it is very clear that the plaintiffs instituted the suit claiming declaration as owners of suit schedule property, for delivery of possession and other reliefs.

12. According to the case of the plaintiffs and as per the issues settled by the Court, the burden of proof in respect of issues 1, 3 to 5 is on the plaintiffs and moreso, issues 1 to 3 are related to ownership of Manala Gouru Bai, acquisition of the land by

Government in 1940 and the status of the plaintiffs as her legal representatives. To avoid repeating the facts and evidence, it is necessary to answer issues 1 to 3 together, thus issues 1 to 3 are taken up.

Findings on Issues No. 1 to 3:

13. According to the plaint averments Manala Gouru Bai is grand mother of the plaintiffs, she was pattedar and possessor of Sy.No.

25 extent of 8-13 gts in Bhukthapur, Adilabad, out of that land 2 plots i.e., plot No. 37/A and plot No. 37/B (suit schedule property) is part within given boundaries. The plaintiffs claimed that the their

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 17 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

grand mother/Gouru Bai died leaving behind the present plaintiffs as successors of the suit schedule property from their respective fathers.

14. The plaintiffs have claimed that the naem of Gouru Bai was recorded in 1347 Fasli, later it was shown as Khariz khata, it was kept fallow land without payment of compensation and there was no order from any authority. Taking advantage of fallow land, the revenue authorities recorded Sy.No.25 as Khariz Khata.

Subsequently 6th defendant claiming as owner and created two plots (suit schedule property).

15. According to the plaintiffs the suit schedule property is their joint family property, they approached the revenue authorities for correction of entries and also went to Municipal authorities i.e., 6th defendant (Commissioner, Municipality, Adilabad) who could not furnish any acquisition record. The land was recorded as Khariz

Khata, no acquisition proposals noted in 1951-52 Fasial Patti, 1st and 2nd defendants created document No. 3279/A of 1977 and claimed title that they have purchased from Abdul Shareef and they leased out suit schedule property to IOC retail petrol bunk / 4th defendant as per lease agreement dated 10.08.1990 but there was no evidence as to how vendor of 1st and 2nd defendants got the suit schedule property.

16. The contention of the plaintiffs is that 6th defendant issued

NOC for Petrol bunk, as per the report of Joint Collector, Adilabad, 4th

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 18 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

defendant encroached municipal site i.e plot No. 37/A and 37/B an extent of 23,296 sq feet, joint inspection was also conducted and proceedings canceling NOC were issued so 4th defendant filed

WP.No.11786/1995 and got the order suspended but 1st and 2nd

defendants not reveled the real facts. The 1st and 2nd defendants do not have documents as to how they are in possession, they created partition deed Doc.No. 1714/2005 but there is no survey number, they falsely filed OS No.31/1975 before Junior Civil Judge Court,

Adilabad and OS No.42/2004 before Senior Civil Judge Court,

Adilabad and got colluded decrees.

17. The plaintiffs shall prove the above plaint averments by acceptable positive evidence to consider their version. Hence the plaintiffs relied on the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 and also on the documents ExA1 to ExA11. As already stated the burden to prove their case is on the plaintiffs because the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The plaintiffs are not examined in the suit. However, the GPA holder of the plaintiffs is

Pw1. The said GPA holder of plaintiffs i.e., Pw1 repeated the same averments of the plaint in his chief examination.

18. Pw1 admitted many facts during cross examination. Pw2 is

Assistant Director Survey and Land Records who deposed that Ex.X1 is village Map of Bhuktapur village and Ex.X2 is attested copy of

Tippan pertaining to land bearing Sy.Nos 23 and 25. His evidence

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 19 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

goes to show that he has handed over the said documents to

Advocate Commissioner who was appointed in the suit.

19. Now coming to the documents, the plaintiffs mainly focused on

ExA1 to ExA6 which are pahanies of 1347, 1357, 1358 and 1353

Fasilis, 1954 Faisal patti and 1355 Fasili/phani (ExA1 to ExA6).

20.The learned counsel for the plaintiffs argued that in all these documents the name of the pattedar is Manala Gouru Bai for an extent of Ac.8-13 gts in Sy.No.25. The nature of land is noted as chelka and nature of cultivation is noted as batai in ExA2 and ExA3.

The survey number i.e., Sy.No.25 is noted as Khariz katha without any names names. But in Ex.A4 the name of Gouru Bai is noted as owner but the nature of cultivation is mentioned as fallow and it is specificaly mentioned that it is chelka land belongs to Sarkar (Government) in Sy.No.25 an extent of 8.13 gts. Coming to ExA5, it is in urdu language but no translation is filed. In ExA6 document the same not reflected Sy.No.25.

21. On consideration of above ExA1 to A6 documents it is very clear that ExA5 is not useful because no translated copy is filed and ExA6 is not useful as there is no survey number in the said faisal patti of the year 1954. There are no names of any of the pattedars or enjoyers in ExA6 to say that the said Sy.No. 25 belongs to Manala

Gouru Bai.

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 20 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

22. Even as per ExA1 the Sy.No.25 is noted as Ac. 8.25 gts, it is clearly mentioned that nature of land is chelka which means (చెలక భూ�మి" అం�టే, ఒకే పొల� లోని చిన్న� చిన్న� భాగాని� లేదా ఒకే భూ�మిని వేరు వేరుగా వ్య�వ్యసాయం� చేసేం�దుకు చిన్న� చిన్న� భాగాలుగా విభూజిం�చి ఉం�డడాని� సూ�చిస్తుం( �ది). In the other words chelka land means it is cattle filed but not the private land. It goes to show that the said person i.e., Manala Gouru Bai was not the exclusive owner of the said survey number i.e., Sy. No.25. Even as per Ex.A1 the nature of cultivation of Manala Gouru Bai was on the basis of batai which means lease and she cannot be absolute owner.

In Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 it is specifically noted that the said land Sy.No.25 is Khariz khata which means Government land or as per revenue meaning of Khariz khata is that the land originally belong to pattedar but it was left by pattedar. This shows that the land is left and does not belongs to said Manala Gouru Bai and she was not absolutely owner.

23. By referring Ex.A4, the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the name of Manala Gouru Bai is mentioned as ownership for

Sy.No.25 but the plaintiffs cannot take advantage because in Ex.A1 to ExA3 documents it is specifically noted that the nature of land is chelka and nature of cultivation is batai. Hence basing on only

Ex.A4, it is not possible to say that Manala Gouru Bai was owner of

Sy.No.25 Ac.8.25 gts.

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 21 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

24.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property is part of Ac.8.13 gts measuring 32,153.77 sq feet equal to 3.572.64 sq yards, 32.153.77 sq feet in plot No.37/A and 37/B but the plaintiffs do not file any record showing that the said plots No.37/A and 37/B are part and parcel of Sy.No.25 Ac.8.25 gts. The rest of the documents filed by the plaintiffs are not relating to the Sy.No.25 as such, the plaintiffs failed to establish that the suit schedule property is part of Sy.No.25, hence it is not possible to look into the other documents filed by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession after laps of so many years without taking any steps soon after the pattedar name was removed and noted as khariz khatha in the revenue records from 1951-1952.

25. The plaintiffs knocked the doors of the Court only to create speculative litigation over suit schedule property without any merits.

The plaintiffs are never recorded as legal heirs of Manala Gouru Bai and they have never in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property at any point of time in their personal capacity or in the capacity of Legal representatives of said Manala Gouri Bai. As the plaintiff were never in possessions of the suit schedule property, the question of the plaintiffs entitlements for recovery of possession does not arise. Absolutely, there is no material on hand to establish that the suit schedule property is part of Sy.No.25. There are admissions in the cross examination of Pw1 which are supporting to the defendants because Pw1 admitted that from 1975the said

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 22 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

Gouru Bai or her legal representatives were not in the possession of

Sy.No.25. Moreso, the evidence of Pw2 is also not favourable to plaintiffs because even as per Ex.X1 and Ex.X2, the suit schedule property is not part of Sy.No.25. Thus, the plaintiffs failed to discharge onus of proof on issues 1 to 3.

26. The defendants herein filed written statements and strongly resisted the suit, inspite of that the plaintiffs did not choose to substantiate their version with acceptable documentary evidence.

The evidence of Dw1 goes to show that Sy.No.25 is different and suit schedule property is not part of Sy.No.25. Dw1 is Commissioner,

Municipality, Adilabad and her evidence has to be given much weight because she deposed before the Court basing on the records in her office existing since long time and she specifically stated that the Government claimed the land by duly paying compensation, it shows that the plaintiffs are nothing to do with suit schedule property.

27. The plaintiffs did not choose to file any documents and examine any witnesses to establish that they are legal heirs of

Manala Gouru Bai even though specific issues are settled on this point. As already stated, onus of proof of proving all the issues is on the plaintiffs to but the above discussion shows that the plaintiffs miserably failed to discharge the onus of proof and they are not entitled for any decree. The above discussion shows that ExA1 to

ExA11 documents and the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 are not useful in

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 23 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

any way to grant decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

28. On the other hand, the evidence of Dw1 and Dw2 goes to show that the plaintiffs instituted the suit to claim rights over the suit schedule property without any right and without any substantial documents to prove their right, title and possession over the suit schedule property.

29. In view of the above discussion, it is needless to say that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any decree as prayed for and the issues are to be settled against the plaintiffs. Accordingly issue No.1 is answered Manala Gouru Bai was not the original owner of the suit schedule property, issue No.2 is answered holding that the lands including suit lands were alredy claimed by the government in 1940 for town development and issue No.3 is answered holding that the plaintiffs are not the legal representatives of Manala Gouru Bai.

Findings on Issues No.4 and 5:

30. In view of the findings on issues No.1 to 3, it was observedthat the said Manala Gouru Bai was not the original owner of suit schedule property and the plaintiffs are not her legal representatives and in-view of these findings, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any declaration of title and recovery of possession over the suit schedule property. Hence, issue No.4 is answered holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of title over the suit schedule property and issue No.5 is answered holding that the

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 24 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

plaintiffs are not entitled to be put in the possession of the suit schedule property.

Findings on Issue No.6 and Result.

31. In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated by me to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 19th day of March, 2025.

FAC : I Addl. District Judge, Adilabad.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF : FOR DEFENDANT :

Pw.1:Ameer Bin HussainDw.1:A.Shailaja (D6)

Pw.2:M.RajenderDw.2:Rajiv Mittal (D7)

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF : Ex.A1:CC of pahani for the year 1347 Fasli

Ex.A2:CC of pahani for the year 1347 Fasli

Ex.A3:CC of pahani for the year 1358 Fasli

Ex.A4:CC of pahani for the year 1353 Fasli

Ex.A5:Faisal Patti for the year 1954

Ex.A6:CC of Pahani for the year 1366 fAsli

Ex.A7:Application seeking information about the acquisition of suit land under

RTI Act vide Lr.No. G/RT/150/2012, dt: 24/11/2011

Ex.A8:Conveyance Deed of Suit land of defendant No.1 by Tahasildar,Adilabad,

dt: 25.12.2015

Ex.A9:Rectification of Deed rectifying ExA8 ( conveyance deed) dt: 31.08.2016

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 25 of 25 OS. 43 of 2013 , Dt.. 19.03.2025 of I ADJ Court, Adilabad.

Ex.A10:Copy of Gazette Notification No. 73, Hyderabad Deccan 27 DEH, 1351

Fasli with English Translation

Ex.A11:Paper clipping dated 17.11.2017 covering news about the suit land

FOR DEFENDANT : -- Nil -- FOR WITNESS (PW2):

Ex.X1:Attested copy of village Map of Bhoktapur village

Ex.X2:Attested copy of Tippan pertaining to land bearing

FAC : I Addl. District Judge, Adilabad

FAC. I ADJ, Adilabad

Page 1 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE SCs & STs (POA) Act

-cum-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present: Dr.P.Siva Ram Prasad

Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Adilabad

-cum- II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad . Thursday, this the 17th day of April, 2025

SPL.SC. No. 27 of 2021

1.Complainant:The State through Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kagazhnagar.

2.Name of the :Mohammed Saddam Hussain, S/o. Moham- accusedmed Ahmed Hussain, Age: 29 yrs., Caste: Muslim, Occ: Chairman of Municipal Council, Kaghaznagar, R/o. H.No. 1-16-438/1, Doctor Road, Irfan Nagar, Kaghaznagar.

3.Crime No. and P.S.:Cr.No.368 of 2020 of PS Kagazhnagar Town,

4.Prosecution:Sri M. Ramana Reddy, conducted by Spl. Public Prosecutor, Adilabad.

5.Defense conducted :Sri.Y.Vishnu Bhagawan, byAdvocate for the accused.

6.Charges :Under Section 353, 324 IPC and Sec. 3(2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused

7.Plea of the accused:Accused has pleaded not guilty.

8.Finding of the court: Accused is found not guilty.

9.Order of sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty or acquittalfor the offence under section 353, 324 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months, under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. and thereafter the said bonds shall stands canceled. There is no property in this case.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 2 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

This case is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal on 04.04.2025 in the presence of Smt. Shaheen Sulthana, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Y. Vishnu Bhagawan , Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kagazhnagar filed charge sheet for the offence under section of 353, 324 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused in Cr.No.368 of 2020 of PS

Kagazhnagar Town.

Brief averments of the charge sheet:-

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that, on 19.11.2020 at 14:00 hrs. the complainant namely Kannepally Sathish Kumar cited as Lw.1, examined and referred as Pw.1 lodged complaint

before the PS Kaghaznagar Town stating that on 18.11.2020

between 5:00 P.M. and 5:30 P.M. while he was attending his legitimate duties in the municipal office, in the meantime Saddam

Hussain (the accused) Municipal Chairperson picked up a quarrel with him alleging that as to why Pw.1 did not allocate construction contract work to the person nominated by the accused, the accused abused Pw.1 in the name of his caste as “are madiga lanja koduka nenu cheppina pani cheyara” and attacked with a chair which was witnessed by Gopal, D.E. and Rafeek Ahmed (Sharaf), Section clerk of Kaghaz-nagar Municipality. Pw.1 further stated that earlier also

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 3 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

the accused insisted him to make fake bills but he refused. Since he undergone depression and informed about the incident to his superior officers, the delay was occurred in lodging the complaint and he requested the police to take action against the accused.

02(a). It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the complaint lodged by Pw.1, the case in Cr.No.368 of 2020 under

Section, 353, 324 IPC and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act is registered by SI of Police, PS Kagazhnagar Town/Lw.14/Pw.13, he issued FIR, accordingly Pw.13 referred Pw.1 to Government Hospital for treatment and certificate later Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Kagazhnagar/Lw.15/Pw.14 was appointed as investigation officer, he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of Lw.1 to Lw.6, secured the presence of Lw.9/Gaddam Srikanth &

Pw.6, drafted rough sketch and prepared CDF (scene of offence panchanama) under videography by seizing plastic chair from municipal office, Kaghaznagar.

02(b). It is mentioned in the charge sheet that the accused was served with section 41-A Cr.P.C. notice directing him to attend the

Court as and when required. The Medical Officer (Lw.11) who treated

Pw.1 has issued medical certificate in which he certified that the injury received by Pw.1 is simple in nature.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 4 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

02(c). It is mentioned in the charge sheet that on requisition of the investigation officer (Pw.14), Tahasildar Kothapally mandal (Pw.12) issued caste particulars of Pw.1 certified that he belongs to

SC/Madiga and Tahsildar, Kaghaznagar mandal (Pw.10) issued the caste particulars of the accused as BC-E Shaik community. Finally, after collecting all the relevant documents from the officers concerned and after completion of entire investigation Pw.14 filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.

Cognizance:-

03. The charge sheet is filed before this Court since Section 353, 324

IPC and Sec.3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act is exclusively triable by the Court of Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)

Act-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The case is taken on file and it is registered as Special S.C.No. 27/2021 and proceeded against the accused by issuing summons. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Framing of Charge:-

04. On hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel, the charge was framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C.

under section 353, 324 IPC and Sec.3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 5 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

accused in his vernacular language. Having understood the same, the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused was defended by his counsel throughout the Court proceedings.

Witnesses Examined:-

05. On behalf of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, the list of witnesses cited are Lws.1 to 15. Out of said witnesses, Lws.1 to

Lw.8, Lw.10 to Lw.15 are examined as Pws.1 to 14. The evidence of

Lw.9/Gaddam Srikanth was given-up by the prosecution. Besides examination of Pws.1 to 14, the prosecution got marked documents i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P14. No material objects are produced.

313 Cr.P.C Examination:-

06. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. Having understood the same, the accused denied the evidence as false and further stated that he has no defense evidence.

Arguments:-

07. Heard both sides and perused the record. At the time of arguments, the Special PP repeated the contents of charge sheet and he submitted that all the witnesses strongly supported the case of the prosecution and he prays to convict the accused.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 6 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

08.On the other hand, the learned defense counsel submitted that though some of the eye witnesses partly supported the prosecution case and there is no corroboration in their testimonies. There is no specific reason to explain the delay occurred in lodging the complaint. In support of the prosecution Pw.4, Pw.5, Pw.8 are also examined but among them Pw.4 and Pw.5 did not depose anything incriminating against the accused and they turned hostile the prosecution failed to seize the chair and the hostile evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.7 does not support the case of the prosecution. That, the rest of the witnesses are official witnesses only, as such the accused cannot be convicted. Finally, the learned defence counsel prays to acquit the accused for the charge framed against the accused. The other arguments of the learned counsel on both sides are discussed at the relevant point.

Points for Determination :-

09. Now the points for determination are :

(i) whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section under section 353, 324 IPC and Sec.3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

(ii) whether the accused can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 353, 324 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act ?

(iii) to what result?

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 7 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

Findings on Points :-

10. After hearing the arguments submitted by the learned Spl.

Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel and after consideration of the material on record it is very clear that the charge framed against the accused is under section 353, 324 IPC and

Sec.3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act. To prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 14and also on the documents i.e., Ex.P1 to P14.

11. In this case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 who is the defacto complainant, Pws.2 to 5 and 7 and 8 who are the colleagues of Pw.1 and circumstantial witnesses. Pw.6 is the Panch witness for CDF Panchanama. Pw.9 is the videographer. Pw.10 is

Tahsildar, Kaghaznagar and Pw.12 is Tahasildar, Kothapally mandal who issued caste particulars of Pw.1 and the accused respectively.

Pw.11 is Medical Officer who issued Medical Certificate of Pw.1.

Pw.13 is the initial investigation officer who received the complaint and issued the FIR and the last witness is Pw.14 i.e. Investigating

Officer who filed charge sheet.

12. Pw.1, the complainant/victim is Asst. Engineer in Municipality,

Kagaznagar. He deposed that the accused was their Vice Chairman of

Municipality, Kaghaznagar asked Pw.1 to do wrong bills, additional

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 8 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

bills and allot the works on nomination basis for which Pw.1 refused, on 18.11.2020 at about 05:00 P.M. the accused came to his chamber and abused him as “madiga lanjakodaka nenu cheppina pani cheyara” and attacked Pw.1 with chair in the presence of D.E. Gopal and Section Clerk Rafiq Ahmed. Later, Rafiq (Pw.2) took the accused outside of his chamber and Commissioner came there and convinced the accused. Pw.1 lodged complaint/Ex.P1 before PS Kagaznagar on the next day after given written intimation to the Commissioner.

13.During cross examination by the learned defense counsel Pw.1 deposed that he do not know whether the Commissioner,

Municipality issued memo to him and D.E. Gopal for giving illegal tap connection at SPM quarters. Pw.1 admitted that on 19.05.2020 the

Commissioner, Kagaznagar issued memo stating that Pw.1 and

Praneel Kumar violated the Government instructions and found the illegal activities at Yellagouda Tota water tank. Pw.1 added that they are not concerned with the above area and allegation. Pw.1 denied suggestion that on 06.07.2020 the Municipal Commissioner issued another memo that himself and D.E. Gopal were not maintaining records properly. Pw.1 further admitted that on 09.09.2020 the

Municipal Commissioner issued memo directing them to complete toilets constructions works immediately, Pw.1 added that the work was already completed. Pw.1 further admitted that on 14.10.2020

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 9 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

the Municipal Commissioner issued another memo for allowing 12 years boy in a prohibited area in Municipality. He denied suggestion that he is under the impression that the Commissioner issued all the above memos under the instance of the accused. Pw.1 further admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 and did not mention in his statement specifically about the preparation of false bills, additional bills and allotment of work on nomination basis.

14.In the cross examination Pw.1 deposed that he did not remember whether he visited the work places along with the accused. He inspected works in some occasions by going with the accused in his car. He admitted that he did not mention in Ex.P1 or in his statement that after quarrel the Commissioner, Municipality convinced the accused. He denied suggestion that on knowing the information that the counselors were going to surrender him in a council meeting to be held within two or three days as such he foisted false case against the accused to avoid surrender.

15.On consideration of the above cross examination of Pw.1, the same goes to show that Pw.1 was ensured to have hit with chair by the accused in the presence of his colleagues but Pw.1 not stated on which part of his body he has sustained injuries. At the same time the admissions in the cross examination goes to show that Pw.1 received charge memos for irregularities in his work. Hence, there is

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 10 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

no amount of chance for Pw.1 to meet allegations against the accused to avoid departmental action against him, as such the evidence of Pw.1 cannot be believed.

16.Pw.2 the colleague of Pw.1 deposed that on 18.11.2020 as there was no power between 05:00 P.M. and 05:30 P.M. he went to the ground of office premises, on hearing the sound he went inside the premises and found staff gathered in front of Engineering Section where he was working, he found the accused was discussing with

Pw.1 and DE Gopal and the accused was in angry manner, he along with other staff sent him to his chamber, thereafter they disbursed, he further deposed that except that he do not know anything about this case and partly turned hostile.

17.When the learned Spl. PP cross examined Pw.2, he denied a portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement and the relevant portion is marked as Ex.P2. During cross examination by the learned defense counsel Pw.2 admitted that when he went inside from the ground, he observed the accused and Pw.1 and DE Gopal were discussing normally about the works, later the accused left to his chamber along with others. This hostile nature of evidence of Pw.2 cannot be useful to the case of the prosecution in any way.

18. Even though Pw.2 partly supported the version of Pw.1, on consideration of his chief and cross examinations it is very clear that

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 11 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

he has not stated about the accused abusing Pw.1 or hitting him with chair in his presence. In the absence of these important facts from the evidence of Pw.2, his testimony has to be discarded.

19. Another eye witness and colleague of Pw.1 i.e. Pw.3. He deposed that on 18.11.2020 at about 05:00 P.M. he went to Revenue office and returned to Municipality and observed a gathering of persons at their office, Pw.1 addressed the media stating that the accused abused him in the name of his caste.

20.On perusal of the evidence of Pw.3 he observed a gathering of persons and Pw.1 stated that the accused abused him in the name of his case which is a hearsay evidence but not direct evidence. When the learned defense counsel cross examined Pw.3, he admitted that he was at office from 10:00 A.M to 05:00 P.M. on the date of incident but he do not know the accused and Pw.1 went to field inspection in a vehicle on the same day. Hence, the evidence of Pw.3 is not trustworthy, reliable and it cannot be considered.

21.Prosecution relied on other eye witnesses i.e. Pws.4, 5 and

Pw.7, but Pws.4, 5 and 7 did not depose anything against the accused to make out his complicity. They simply deposed in once voice that on the day of alleged incident they were on duty and observed a gathering and they heard some noise and all of them turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. When

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 12 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

the learned Spl PP cross examined Pws.4, 5 and 7 they denied their earlier statements i.e. Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and Ex.P6.

22. The Commissioner, Kagaznagar Municipality is crucial witness in this case was examined as Pw.8. He deposed that on 18.11.2020 between 5:00 P.M. and 05:30 P.M. when he was at his chamber,

Pw.4 informed that some galata is going on in office premises, then he immediately came out of chamber and observed that the accused was going to his chamber from Engineering Section. On enquiry Pw.1 told him that there was a discussion in between the accused and

Pw.1. Later, Pw.1 gave complaint against the accused mentioning that the accused abused Pw.1, he forwarded the same to the police concerned.

23.On perusal of the testimony of Pw.8 when he enquired about the incident Pw.1 disclosed the matter about the alleged incident but he did not witness the same and simply he forwarded the complaint made by Pw.1 to police concerned but he was not an eye witness to the alleged incident and his evidence is also not much significant to decide the complicity of the accused in any way. The above witnesses not deposed about the lifting of chair and caused injuries to Pw.1 as alleged by Pw.1.

24.One of the Panch witness for CDF Panchanama is examined as

Pw.6. He deposed that on 19.11.2020 at about 04:30 to 05:00 P.M.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 13 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

police called him to the Municipality Office, Kagaznagar and conducted CDF panchanama and drawn rough sketch under Ex.P5.

As per the testimony of Pw.6, simply he deposed that the police conducted CDF panchanama but in his cross examination Pw.6 admitted that he do not know the contents of Ex.P5, because of admissions of Pw.6 conduct of the CDF Panchanama is doubtful since the sole panch witness admitted that he do not know the contents of panchanama. In this regard, the prosecution did not choose to examine another witness who acted as other panch witness in this case. Hence, the scene of offence is not established by any of the witnesses.

25.Though videographer who recorded the statements of witnesses is examined as Pw.9, he deposed that on 19.11.2020 on the request of Police Kagaznagar he went to Municipal office

Kagaznagar and videographed statements recorded by the DSP

Kagaznagar, later he handed over the DVD by converting the statements recorded by him. Pw.9 deposed about the recording of statements of witnesses but his evidence is not much helpful to make out the complicity of the accused.

26.Pw.10 and Pw.12 are the Tahasildars who furnished the caste verification reports under Ex.P8 certifying that the accused belongs to BC-E/Shaik Community and Ex.P10 certifying that Pw.1 belongs to

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 14 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

SC/Madiga community. The evidence of Tahasildars who issued the caste particulars of Pw.1 and accused is not much important when there is no dispute about the caste of either Pw.1 or the accused, as such the evidence of Pw.10 and Pw.12 cannot strengthen the case of the prosecution in any way.

27. Pw.11 who is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sirpur-T issued Medical

Certificate of Pw.1. He deposed that on the request of Police

Kagaznagar on 19.11.2020 she gave treatment to Kalapally Satish

Kumar Pw.1) to swelling injury with abrasion 1 x 1 C.M. on left arm caused by blunt object and the age of injury was prior to 24 hours

before her treatment and it was simple in nature and she issued

Medical certificate/Ex.P9. Though the injury is stated by Pw.11 but the involvement of the accused in the alleged incident is not proved by any of the witnesses, as such this evidence is also not much helpful to the case of the prosecution.

28. The investigation officers in this case are examined as Pw.13 and

Pw.14. Pw.13 was the SI of PS Kagaznagar town who deposed that on 19.11.2020 at 14:00 hours Pw.1 lodged complaint, he registered a case in Cr.No.368/2020 u/sec. 353, 324 IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of

SCs & STs (POA) Act and issued FIR (Ex.P11), and he flashed radio message to the SDPO, Komram Bheem, Asifabad since the offence

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 15 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

attracts the SCs & STSs (POA) Act, as such Pw.14 was appointed as investigating officer by Superintendent of Police, KB Asifabad.

29.Pw.14 is the Investigating Officer who deposed that on 19.11.2020 he was appointed as I.O. in this case, he took up the investigation by visiting scene of offence at Municipal Office,

Kagaznagar along with Pw.6 and Lw.9/G. Srikanth and conducted scene of ofence panchanama and drawn rough sketch, video-graphed the scene with the help of Pw.8, later he recorded the statements of

Pws.1 to 8. He further deposed that he obtained caste particulars of

Pw.1 from Pw.12 as SC/Madiga and caste particulars of the accused from Pw.10 as BC-E/Shaik. Later, he issued 41-A Cr.P.C. notice to the accused with a direction to attend before the Court as and when summoned and after completion of entire investigation he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.324, 353 IPC and

Sec.3(2)(v)(a) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

30.Even though, Pw.14 conducted investigation in this case, as deposed by Pw.7 in his cross examination there is delay of one day in registration of FIR and the delay is not explained and no witnesses are examined in this regard.

31.Moreover, crucial witness and the defacto complainant/Pw.1 in this case though deposed that the accused asked him to do wrong bills, additional bills and allot the works on nomination basis and he

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 16 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

refused, on 18.11.2020 at about 05:00P.M. the accused came to his chamber and abused him in the name of caste, his cross examination goes to show that Pw.1 was discharging his duties in municipal administration and the accused was the vice chairperson of

Municipality, Kagaznagar and Pw.1 deposed that he do not know whether the Commissioner, Municipality issued memo to him and

D.E. Gopal for giving illegal tap connection to SPM quarters.

32.During his cross examination by the learned Defense counsel,

Pw.1 admitted that on 19.05.2020 the Commissioner, Kagaznagar issued memo stating that Pw.1 and Praneel Kumar violated the

Government instructions and found the illegal activities at Yellagouda

Tota water tank.

33.In fact, Pw.1 deposed specific abusive words allegedly uttered by the accused in his complaint and in his evidence before this Court but it is important to note that whether any public gathered at the scene of offence while the accused abused Pw.1 is not established and such evidence is not available to strengthen the case of the prosecution. Though Pw.1 in his testimony revealed that the accused allegedly attacked Pw.1 with a chair and D.E. Gopal (Pw.7) and

Section Clerk Rafiq Ahmed (Pw.2) witnessed the incident, but the prosecution failed to seize the chair and the hostile evidence of Pw.2 and Pw.7 does not support the case of the prosecution.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 17 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

34.The testimony of Pw.3 who is one of the eye witness only partly supported with regard to his presence at the scene of offence at the relevant time he simply deposed that he observed the gathering of persons at their offence, later Pw.1 addressed the media stating that the accused abused Pw.1 in the name of his caste and Pw.3 heard the same. With this part of the evidence it is very clear that the evidence of Pw.3 is also not direct witness and it is hearsay evidence only.

35.In support of the prosecution Pw.4, Pw.5, Pw.8 are also examined but among them Pw.4 and Pw.5 did not depose anything incriminating against the accused and they turned hostile. The evidence of Pw.8 goes to show that he observed that the accused was going to his chamber from Engineering section and on enquiry

Pw.1 told him that there was a discussion between accused and Pw.1 and Pw.1 gave complaint against the accused, except that there is no incriminating material is found against the accused to convict the accused in this matter.

36.On perusal of all the testimonies of the defacto complainant, eye witnesses, videographer and panch witness for CDF panchanama i.e. Pw.1 to Pw.9 there is no mention about the accused abusing

Pw.1 or he used abusive words in the name of caste against Pw.1.

There is no evidence with regard to assault on the on Pw.1 by the

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 18 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

accused. There is no recovery of alleged crime weapon i.e. chair, hence the scene of offence is also not established by the prosecution.

37.Even though, Pw.13 registered the FIR and handed over the investigation to Pw.14 who conducted major part of investigation, the evidence of Pw.13 and Pw.14 cannot be taken into consideration because the evidence of remaining witnesses is not reliable and trustworthy. It is to be noted that basing on the evidence of the official witnesses i.e. Pw.13 and Pw.14 alone no conviction can be recorded against the accused.

38.The learned defense counsel relied on the decision of the

Hon’ble High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Gaini Suman and

other v. State of Talangana reported in 2025 (1) ALD (Crl.)

413 (TS) wherein it was held that :

“Delay in lodging the First Information Report quite often results in embellishment which is creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the First Information Report should be satisfactorily explained.”

39.In view of the above judgment it is very clear that the delay in lodging complaint by Pw.1 create doubt about the prosecution case as such in this case also the delay in lodging complainant by Pw.1

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 19 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

create reasonable doubt as to the prosecution version and delay in registration of FIR weakens this prosecution case. Hence, the delay in registration of FIR is fatal and prosecution of the case cannot be believed.

40.The above discussion clearly goes to show that even though the prosecution has relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 14 and also on documents Ex.P1 to P14, the said material do not point out the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to record conviction against him.

41.In fact, the prosecution could not establish any of the ingredients covered under section 353, 324 IPC and Sec.3(2)(va) of

SCs & STs (POA) Act to record conviction against the accused and the accused is to be acquitted of the charge framed against him.

42. In these circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the points for determination are answered that :

(i) that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 353, 324 IPC and Sec.3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt

(ii) that the accused cannot be found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 353, 324 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act

and

(iii) the accused is to be acquitted accordingly.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 20 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

Point No.3:-

In the result,the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 353, 324 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA)

Act accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec. 235(1)

Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months, under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. and thereafter the said bonds shall stands canceled. There is no property in this case.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 17 th day of April, 2025.

Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Appendix of evidence

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

Pw.1: Kallepally Sathish Kumar (Complainant/victim)

Pw.2: Mohd. Rafiq (eye witness)

Pw.3: Ramagiri Shiva Prasad (eye witness)

Pw.4: Anishetty Usha (eye witness)

Pw.5: Kudikal Jayaratna Kumar (eye witness)

Pw.6: Bangari Shiva Kumar (panch witness for CDF)

Pw.7: Mysa Gopal (eye witness)

Pw.8: Kandukuri Srinivas (eye witness)

Pw.9: D. Srinivas (videographer)

Pw.10: V. Pramod (Tahasildar, Kaghaznagar)

Pw.11: Dr. Navatha (Medical Officer)

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 21 of 21 Judgment in SPL.SC No.27 of 2021,

Dt: 17.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

Pw.12: Ch. Srinivas (Tahasildar, Kothapally)

Pw.13: S. Venkatesh (Sub Inspector of Police, Kagazhnagar-town)

Pw.14: BLN Swamy (Investigation Officer, Kagazhnagar)

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report by Pw.1.

Ex.P2 : Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2.

Ex.P3 : Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4.

Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5.

Ex.P5 : CDF panchanama along with rough sketch.

Ex.P6 : Relevant portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement.

Ex.P7 : D.V.D.

Ex.P8 : Caste verification particulars of Accused.

Ex.P9 : Medical Certificate.

Ex.P10: Caste verification report.

Ex.P11: First Information Report.

Ex.P12: Memorandum.

Ex.P13: Deletion memo.

Ex.P14: Colour xerox of plastic chair.

For Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects:

-- Nil --

Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 1 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

15.04.2025 and 16.04.2025IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL

JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER THE SCs & STs (POA) Act

-cum-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, ADILABAD.

Present: Dr.P.Siva Ram Prasad

II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad -cum-

Special Judge for trial of Cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act, Adilabad

. Wednesday, this the 9th day of April, 2025

SPL.SC. No. 86 of 2021

1.Complainant:The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Utnoor.

2.Name of the :Karipe Satish S/o Pothanna, 27 years, accusedCaste: BC-Vanjari, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Bhoyawada, Utnoor.

3.Crime No. and P.S.:Cr.No.57 of 2021 of PS Utnoor,

4.Prosecution:Smt. Shaheen Sulthana, conducted by Spl. Public Prosecutor, Adilabad.

5.Defence conducted :Sri. P. Dasari Gangaram, byAdvocate, Chief Legal Aid Counsel for accused.

6.Charges :Under Section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused

7.Plea of the accused:Accused has pleaded not guilty.

8.Finding of the court: Accused is found not guilty.

9.Order of sentence:In the result, the accused is found not guilty or acquittalfor the offence under section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of 6 months, under Section 437(A) Cr.P.C. and thereafter the said bonds shall stands canceled. There is no property in this case.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 2 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

This case is coming up before me for final hearing and disposal on 04.04.2025 in the presence of Smt. Shaheen Sulthana, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri Dasari Gangaram , Advocate, Chief Legal Aid Counsel for the accused and upon perusing the material on record upon hearing arguments on both sides and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

01. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Utnoor filed charge sheet for the offence under section of 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)

(i) & 3(1)(r)(s) SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused in Cr.No.57 of 2021 of PS Utnoor.

Brief averments of the charge sheet:-

02. The brief averments of the charge sheet are that, on 10.06.2021 at 17:30 hrs. the complainant namely Mesram Gopika cited as Lw.1, examined and referred as Pw.1 lodged complaint before the PS

Utnoor stating that on 09.06.2021 at 20:00 p m., her husband left the house for some work and while she was standing in front of her house, meantime a person belonging to her locality namely Satish (the accused) came to her, caught hold of her hand with malafide intention to outrage her modesty, when she tried to escape he abused her in vulgar language and beat her with hands and caused injury on her left hand, as it happened at night time she got herself treated at Hospital and the delay was caused in lodging the complaint and she requested the police to take action against the accused.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 3 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

02(a). It is mentioned in the charge sheet that basing on the complaint lodged by Lw.1, the case in Cr.No. 57 of 2021 under

Section, 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and 3(1)(w)(i) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act is registered by SI of Police, PS Utnoor /Lw.11/Pw.7, he issued FIR, later Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Utnoor/Lw.12/Pw.8 was appointed as investigation officer, accordingly he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of Lw.1 to Lw.4, secured the presence of Pw.5 &

Lw.8/Zakir, drafted rough sketch and prepared CDF (scene of offence panchanama) under videography.

02(b). It is mentioned in the charge sheet that on 14-06-2021 at 09:50 hours Pw.8 along with Pw.7 apprehended the accused at

Bhoyawada locality, Utnoor at his residence during interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence, later the accused was produced before the Court after completion of legal formalities. The Medical Officer (Lw.9) who treated Pw.1 has issued medical certificate in which he certified that the injury received by

Pw.1 is simple in nature.

02(c). It is mentioned in the charge sheet that on requisition of the investigation officer (Pw.8), Utnoor Mandal (Pw.6) issued caste particulars of Pw.1 certified that he belongs to ST/Pradhan and the caste particulars of the accused as BC-Vanjari community. Finally, after collecting all the relevant documents from the officers

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 4 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

concerned and after completion of entire investigation Pw.8 filed the charge sheet. Hence the charge.

Cognizance:-

03. The charge sheet is filed before this Court since Section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and 3(1)(w)(i) and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act is exclusively triable by the Court of Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum-II Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Adilabad. The case is taken on file and it is

registered as Special S.C.No.86/2021 and proceeded against the accused by issuing summons. On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents are furnished to the accused as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Framing of Charge:-

04. On hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned defense counsel, the charge was framed under Section 228 Cr.P.C.

under section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and 3(1)(w)(i) and Section 3(1)

(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused. The charge was read over and explained to the accused in his vernacular language.

Having understood the same, the accused denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused was defended by his counsel throughout the Court proceedings.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 5 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

Witnesses Examined:-

05. On behalf of the prosecution, as per charge sheet, the list of witnesses cited are Lws.1 to 12. Out of said witnesses, Lw.1 who is the defacto complainant and Lw.3 and Lw.4 are eye witnesses, Lw.5 is videographer, Lw.7 is the Panch witness for CDF panchanama,

Lw.10 is Tahasildar, Utnoor, Lw.11 is the Sub Inspector of Police and

Lw.12 is the Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet are examined as Pws.1 to 8. The evidence of Lw.2/Mesram Bheemrao,

Lw.6/S.Vaman, Lw.8/Md. Zakir and Lw.9/Dr. Rathnamala was given- up by the prosecution. Besidesexamination of Pws.1 to 8, the prosecution got marked documents i.e., Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. No material objects are produced.

313 Cr.P.C Examination:-

06. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/sec.313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating evidence was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. Having understood the same, the accused denied the evidence as false and further stated that he has no defence evidence.

Arguments:-

07. Heard both sides and perused the record. At the time of arguments, the Special Public Prosecutor repeated the contents of charge sheet and she submitted that all the witnesses strongly

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 6 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

supported the case of the prosecution and she prays to convict the accused.

08.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel submitted that though the eye witnesses partly supported the prosecution case and there is no corroboration in their testimony. The daughter of Pw.1 has not examined to support the version of Pw.1, the husband of

Pw.1 who is cited as prime eye witness in this incident but he was died. There is no specific reason to explain the delay occurred in lodging the complaint. That, the rest of the witnesses are official witnesses only, their evidecne cannot be looked into and both the evidence of daughter of Pw.1 and husband of Pw.1 who are crucial eye witness is not available, as such the accused cannot be convicted. Finally, the learned defence counsel prays to acquit the accused for the charge framed against the accused. The other arguments of the learned counsel on both sides are discussed at the relevant point.

Points for Determination :-

09. Now the points for determination are :

(i) whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section under section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

(ii) whether the accused can be found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act ?

(iii) to what result?

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 7 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

Findings on Points :-

10. After hearing the arguments submitted by the learned Spl.

Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel and after consideration of the material on record it is very clear that the charge framed against the accused is under section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act. To prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt the prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 8and also on the documents i.e., Ex.P1 to P8.

11. In this case, the prosecution relied on the evidence of Pw.1 who is the defacto complainant, Pw.2 and Pw.4 are the eye witnesses. Pw.3 is the videographer. Pw.5 is the Panch for CDF

Panchanama. Pw.6 is the Tahsildar who issued caste particulars of the defacto complainant and the accused. Pw.7 is the initial investigation officer who received the complaint and issued the FIR and the last witness is Pw.8 i.e. Final Investigating Officer who filed charge sheet.

12. Pw.1 is complainant/victim. She deposed that at about 4 years back at 08.00 pm her husband went to his work. While she was standing at her house gate, at that time the accused came and caught hold her hand and abused her in filthy language and also beat her with the hands of the accused. Then she raised hue and cries and

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 8 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

on hearing her sound Pw.2 and Pw.4 and her daughter/Pooja (presently 19 years) came to rescue her. She got bleeding injury to her right hand, on seeing them the accused ran away, immediately her daughter made a phone call to her father who came to Pw.1 and took her to Government Hospital, Utnoor. Prior to this incident the accused used to come to her house and the accused used to observe her movements in her house by hiding himself. She further deposed that on the next day she went to the police station and lodged report i.e. Ex.P1. On her narration in Marathi language, Police Officer translated to Telugu and Ex.P1 was read over to her and explained in

Marathi.

13.During the cross examination by the learned defense counsel she admitted that she do not know how to write and read telugu but her daughter knows. The house of the accused is situated in opposite lane of her house and Pw.5 who is RMP and the panch for CDF panchanama also her neighbours. According to her, her husband came to her house after 15 minutes of this incident. She admitted that she did not specifically mentioned about the filthy abusive words in her complaint/Ex.P1 and in her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement. She deposed that prior to this incident for 2 to 3 times the accused quarreled with her but she did not lodge any complaint.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 9 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

14. Pw-2 neighbour of Pw1, Boyawada, Utnoor is examined as eye witness. She deposed that on 09.06.2021, while she was doing her house work at her house at 08.00 pm, she heard hue and cries from outside immediately she came out of her house. At that time Pw.4 also came and they witnessed that the accused caught hold the hands of Pw.1 who was present in front of her house and the accused abused her in filthy language and the accused beat Pw.1.

When they went to her then the accused ran away by seeing them.

She further deposed that thereafter, daughter of Pw.1 made a call to

Lw.2/Mesram Bheemrao who is her father and immediately he came and took Pw.1 to Hospital. During this incident Pw.1 sustained injury to her hand. According to her, she along with Pw.4 witnessed the said incident and she identified the accused in the court hall and after 4 days of the said incident, police examined her and recorded her statement.

15.When learned defense counsel cross examined Pw.2, she deposed that Pw.1 and herself residing in different streets and she cannot say either the number of her house or the number of house of

Pw.1. She stated the name of Pw.1 is Gopika but police mentioned as

Deepika. She admitted that she do not know telugu but she can understand abusive words in telugu and she further admitted that

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 10 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

she did not specifically stated abusive words to the police and she is having cordial relation with Pw.1.

16.Pw.3 deposed that on 13.06.2021 on the request of Utnoor police he went to Shanthinagar, there DSP examined the witnesses and he videographed the statements of witnesses recorded by the

DSP Utnoor and later he handed over the CD/Ex.P2. He further deposed after 4 days police examined him and recorded his statement. During cross examination by the learned defense counsel, he admitted that he is a stock witness.

17. Pw.4 who is another neighbour of Pw.1 deposed that on 09.06.2021 while he was coming from his work at 08:00 P.M. he witnessed in front of house of Pw.1 the accused caught hold the hand of Pw.1 and abused her and also beat her and on seeing them the accused ran away. According to Pw.4 the daughter of Pw.1 came and took Pw.1 to the hospital. During that incident Pw.1 received injury to her hand.

18.When the learned defense counsel cross examined Pw.4, he admitted that Sec. 498-A IPC and MC cases are pending on him and during subsistence of his 1st marriage, he married again. He admitted that his house is not situated beside the house of Pw.1 and the house of accused. He admitted that by the time he reached the scene of offence, the accused ran away on seeing them. That he did

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 11 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

not state specific abusive words to the police and he did not state to which hand of Pw.1, she received injuries.

19. Pw.5 who is panch witness for CDF panchanama. That on 13.06.2021, while he was at his house at Bhoyawada, which is beside the house of Pw.1 at 02.00 p.m. Utnoor Police (DSP Utnoor &

S.I.) came to the house of Pw.1 and conducted CDF panchanama and drawn rough sketch with regard to this case which was occurred prior to 4 days of the said conducting panchanama. He deposed that the time conducting panchanama Lw.8/Zakir also signed along with him on the said panchanama.

20.The learned defense counsel cross examined Pw.5 he deposed that he used to give treatment for small health issues, on 10.06.2021 Pw.1 did not come for treatment and he do not know wht happened on 10.06.2021. He admitted that the houses of Pws.2, 3 and 4 were not shown in Ex.P3 / Crime Details form-cum-rough sketch. He further deposed that he signed only one signature on

Ex.P3. He admitted that he do not know the contents of 1st and 2nd pages of Ex.P3.

21. Pw.6 (Deputy Tahsildar, Utnoor) deposed that on 11.06.2021, he received a requisition from Sub-Inspector of Police, Utnoor to issue caste certificate of Pw.1 and the accused. Accordingly, on 03.06.2021 he issued caste verification report stating that the

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 12 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

accused belongs to BC-Vanjeri caste and Pw.1’s caste is ST/Pardan under Ex.P4.

22.Pw.7 (SI police of Utnoor) deposed that on 10.06.2021, at about 17.30 hours Pw.1 came to P.S and lodged Ex.P1, basing on complaint he registered a case in Cr.No.57/2021 for the offence punishable under section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC, Sec.3(1)(w)(i) and

Sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SCs/STs Act and issued FIR/Ex.P5 and sent copies to the superior officers. He sent a medical requisition to Medical officer to examine Pw.1. Thereafter, he sent a requisition to

Tahasildar, Utnoor to issue caste certificates of victim and the accused. Later, he sent a radio message to the SP Adilabad with a request to appoint IO for further investigation as the offence is under

SCs/STs (POA) Act. When the learned defense counsel cross examined Pw.7 he admitted there there is delay of 20 hours in lodging complaint by Pw.1.

23. The last witness (Pw.8 Investigation Officer) deposed that on 03.06.2021 he was appointed as IO in this case by the SP of

Adilabad as this case pertains to SCs & STs (POA) Act and he took up the investigation and verified the investigation done by Pw.7 and found it to be on proper lines. During investigation, Pw.8 visited the scene of offence situated at Boyawada, Utnoor and examined and recorded the statements of Pw.1,2,4, and Lw.2/Mesram Bheemrao.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 13 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

Lw.6/S.Vaman and translated statement of Pw.1 into Telugu from

Marathi. Thereafter Pw.8 secured the presence of Pw.5 and

Lw.8/Zakeer and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch with the help of Pw.3. He further deposed that on 14.06.2021 at 09:50 hours he has apprehended the accused at his residence, the accused voluntarily confessed his guilt, later he effected his arrest and produced him before the Court. He collected

Medical Certificate of Pw.1 from Lw.9/Dr.Rathnamala who opined that the injuries received by Pw.1 are simple in nature. He further deposed that he collected caste certificates of Pw.1 and accused from

Pw.6 and after collecting all relevant documents and after completion of entire investigation, Pw.8 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/sec. 354, 294-b, 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) and

Sec. 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act.

24.Even though, Pw.8 conducted investigation in this case, as deposed by Pw.7 in his cross examination there is delay of 20 hours in registration of FIR and the delay is not explained and no witnesses are examined in this regard. As per the decision of Hon’ble High

Court of AP in Thammisetti Bakkaiah Vs. State of Andhra

Pradesh reported in 2023 (1) ALD (Crl.) 853 (AP), it was held that “failure of prosecution to explain the delay in lodging the complaint shows infirmities in the case of the prosecution”.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 14 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

25.The verdict of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the above case is as follows:

“According to Pw.1 he went to the Police Station on the same day to give complaint. It is evident from Ex.P1 that the report was lodged by Pw.1, but it did not show that it was prepared on 13.01.2008. On the other hand, PW.1 signed and put the date 14.01.2008 underneath his signature. So, it was prepared on 14.01.2008. It would have been prepared on 13.01.2008 itself, if really Pw.1 went to the Police Station on the same day. So, it goes to prove that prosecution did not explain the delay in lodging Ex.P1. As already pointed out, on account of the bitter animosity between the two families the possi- bility for due deliberations and concoctions cannot be ruled out. Apart from this, as this Court already pointed out, the gist of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs Act is intentionally intimidating or insulting the scheduled caste people in the public view which shall be proved to record conviction but not proved".

26.In view of the above judgment it is very clear that the delay in lodging complaint by Pw.1 create doubt about the prosecution case as such in this case also the delay in lodging complainant by Pw.1 create reasonable doubt as to the prosecution version and delay in registration of FIR weakens this prosecution case. Hence, the delay in registration of FIR is fatal and prosecution of the case cannot be believed.

27.Moreover, crucial witness and the defacto complainant/Pw.1 in this case do not know any language except Marathi but no statements in Marathi filed in this case. On perusal of

Ex.P1/complaint and Ex.P7/injury certificate the alleged injury was to

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 15 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

the left hand of Pw.1. On the contrary, in her evidence Pw.1 deposed that she got bleeding injury to her right hand. As such, the injury alleged to have sustained by Pw.1 is doubtful. In her cross examination by the learned defense counsel Pw.1 admitted that she do not know how to read and write telugu but her daughter knows.

The house of the accused is situated opposite lane of her house and

Pw.5 who is RMP and the panch for CDF panchanama is her neighbour. According to her, her husband came to her house after 15 minutes of this incident. She admitted that she did not specifically mentioned about the filthy abusive words in her complaint/Ex.P1 and in her Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement. She deposed that prior to this incident for 2 to 3 times the accused quarreled with her but she did not lodge any complaint.

28.In fact, Pw.1 did not mention specific abusive words allegedly uttered by the accused in her complaint or in her evidence before this Court to attract the SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused. It is important to note that whether any public gathered at the scene of offence while the accused abused Pw.1 is not established and such evidence is not available to strengthen the case of the prosecution.

Though Pw.1 in her testimony revealed that her daughter made phone call to Lw.2/Mesrum Bheem Rao who is the husband of Pw.1, and he came there and took her to Government Hospital but the

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 16 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

prosecution did not choose examine the daughter of Pw.1 in support the case of the prosecution and the evidence of father is also not produced since he died and his death certificate was filed.

29.On perusal of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4 the name of

Pw.1 mentioned as Deepika whereas the actual of name of Pw.1 is

Gopika, moreover Pw.2 and Pw.4 deposed in their evidence that the accused ran away from the scene of offence by the time they reached the scene of offence. As such, the evidence of eye witnesses i.e. Pw.2 and Pw.4 cannot be trustworthy and believeable and it is not possible to consider them as eye witnesses.

30.On perusal of the entire testimonies of the defacto complainant, eye witnesses and panch witness for CDF panchanama i.e. Pw.1 to Pw.5 there is no mention about the abusing or abusive words in the name of caste by the accused against Pw.1. There is discrepancy about the alleged injuy to the hand of Pw.1 because the

Ex.P1/complaint and the evidence of Pw.1 depicts that the injury was to her right hand but Ex.P7/Medical certificate issued by the Civil

Assistant Surgeon, Community Health Cetnre, Utnoor shows that the part of body infected is “left wrist”. So, the alleged injury also not established by the prosecution.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 17 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

31.Even though, Pw.7 registered the FIR and handed over the investigation to Pw.8 who conducted major part of investigation, the evidence of Pw.7 and Pw.8 cannot be taken into consideration because the evidence of remaining witnesses is not reliable and trustworthy. It is to be noted that basing on the evidence of the official witnesses i.e. Pw.7 and Pw.8 alone no conviction can be recorded.

32.The above discussion clearly goes to show that even though the prosecution has relied on the evidence of Pws.1 to 8 and also on documents Ex.P1 to P8, the said material do not point out the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to record conviction against the accused.

33.In fact, the prosecution could not establish any of the ingredients covered under section 354, 294-B, 323 IPC and 3(1)(w)

(i), 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act to record conviction against the accused and the accused is to be acquitted of the charge framed against him.

34. In these circumstances, the prosecution miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. For the above detailed reasons, the points for determination are answered that :

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 18 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

(i) that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubt

(ii) that the accused cannot be found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act

and

(iii) the accused is to be acquitted accordingly.

Point No.3:-

In the result,accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 354, 294(b), 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence

U/Sec. 235(1) Cr.P.C and he is set at liberty. There is no property in this case. The Superintendent of District Jail, Adilabad is directed to release the accused forthwith if his detention is not required in any other case/s.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 th day of April, 2025.

Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Appendix of evidence

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

Pw.1: Mesram Gopika (Complainant/victim)

Pw.2: Jabade Sangeetha (eye witness, Utnoor)

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Page 19 of 19 Judgment in SPL.SC No.86 of 2021,

Dt: 09.04.2025 of SCs/STs Court, Adilabad

Pw.3: Takur Sainath Singh (videographer)

Pw.4: Chowan Venkatesh (eye witness)

Pw.5: Jabade Vasanth (panch witness)

Pw.6: Baragadi R Chandra Varma (Tahsildar, Utnoor)

Pw.7: P. Subba Rao (Sub Inspector of Police, Utnoor)

Pw.8: N. Uday Reddy,(Investigation Officer,Utnoor)

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report by Pw.1.

Ex.P2 : Compact Disc.

Ex.P3 : Crime Details Form-cum-rough sketch.

Ex.P4 : Caste verification report of Pw.1 and accused.

Ex.P5 : First Information Report.

Ex.P6 : Memorandum.

Ex.P7 : Medical Certificate of Pw.1.

Ex.P8 : 65-B certificate.

For Defence:

Ex.D1: Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw2.

Material Objects:

-- Nil --

Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under

the SCs & STs (POA) Act-Cum-II Addl.

Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

Spl. Judge for Trial of cases under SCs & STs (POA)Act- cum-II Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad.