Sri R.Sarath Babu

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.1/10

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Sri R.Sarath Babu,

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Second (02nd) day of June, 2022.

Spl. Sessions Case No.22 of 2017

[Crime No.150 of 2016 of the Police Station, Gudluru]

Prosecution: Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri D.Srinivasulu Reddy

Name(s) of the Accused : 1. Papanaboina Nageswara Rao, son of Late Malakondaiah, aged 52 years, Yadava by caste,Residentof Adivirajupalem Village, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

2.PapanaboinaVenkata Subbaiah,sonofLate Malakondaiah, aged 40 years, Yadava by caste, Resident of Adivirajupalem Village, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Papanaboina Sankaraiah, son of Late Malakondaiah, Malakondaiah, aged 65 years, Yadava by caste, Resident of Adivirajupalem Village, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Papanaboina Malakondaiah @ Chinna Malakondaiah (Died)

The case against the A4 is abatedon25.06.2019 consequent to his death.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 341, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes andScheduledTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.2/10

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 3 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against the A4 is abated on 25.06.2019 consequent to his death.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order.

--o0o--

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 31.05.2022 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District, has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.150 of 2016 of Gudluru Police

Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 (1)

(r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SC & ST (PoA)

Act, 1989’).

2. Briefly stated, the contents of the charge sheet are that, the land in Sy.No.72/3 of Adivirajupalem village, is being used as burial ground for scheduled caste community people. The accused

Nos.1 to 4, belong to Yadava/BC, other than SC/ST community, who got land nearby the said burial ground had an eye over the said

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.3/10 land. While it is so, on 14.03.2016 the accused No.1 trespassed into the burial ground of SC community people, ploughed it and when the defacto complainant/Akkiligunta Koteswara Rao and others questioned about his wicked acts, the accused abused them in filthy language touching their case, which is registered as a case in Cr.No.42 of 2016 of Gudluru Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 of IPC and Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, wherein the A1 obtained anticipatory bail from the Hon’ble High Court. While it is so, on 11.11.2016 one Pallepogu Subbamma died in SC Colony and so her dead body was burried in that burial ground, later on 23.11.2016 the defacto complainant and his associates, namely,

Akkiligunta Prakasam, Akkiligunta Venkatapati, Akkiligunta

Chandraiah, Pillipogu Yesobu and Akkiligunta Sudhakar, belong to

SC-Madiga community, were proceeding to the burial ground in order to perform the obsequies of said Subbamma, and when they reached near the junction, the A1 to A4 obstructed and picked up quarrel with the complainant party stating that the burial ground belongs to A1 and the lower caste people require well and Ghats, by so saying the A1 caught hold the neck of the defacto complainant, made him to fell, dragged and kicked him. The defacto complainant though pleaded that he is a heart patient, the accused threatened the complainant party that they will see how they reside in the colony and that they will see their end. After that the defacto complainant and his associates went to Gudlur

Police Station and presented written report, basing on the same,

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.4/10 the PW.7-S.I. of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.150 of 2016 of

Gudluru P.S. for the offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Secs.3(1)(r)(s)& 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (POA)

Act, 1989 and issued FIR to the concerned. On receipt of copy of

FIR, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements, he also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Meanwhile, sent up requisition to the Tahsildar concerned for issuance of caste certificates of the complainant and the accused. While the investigation is in progress, the accused approached the Hon’ble

High Court and obtained orders directing the investigating agency to proceeding with the investigation without arresting the accused.

After receipt of caste certificates of the complainant and the accused and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under

Secs.341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Secs.3(1)(r)(s)& 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Cognizance

3.On file of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Secs.3(1)(r)(s)& 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused Nos.1 to 4.

4. Pending trial, the accused No.4 and hence the case against the accused No.4 is abated on 25.06.2019. On the

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.5/10 appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 3 before this Court, they were examined U/s.228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C., whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby having heard the learned

Spl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under

Sections 341, 323, 506 of IPC and Secs.3(1)(r)(s)& 3(2)(va) of the

SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, have been framed and read over to the accused, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the

PWs.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P25. On behalf of defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6.This Court also closed the evidence of LWs.7, 8 & 10, since the material witnesses i.e., the PWs.1 to 6 did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused

Nos.1 to 3 examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., they termed the evidence of prosecution as false, but not chosen to examine the witnesses on their behalf.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused Nos.1 to 3 committed the offences punishable U/secs.341, 323, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.In this case, PW.1 is the defacto complainants, against whom the atrocity alleged. The PWs.2 to 6 are the associates of the defacto complainant and they were also projected as victims of

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.6/10 the case contending that they were also to atrocity in the hands of the accused. The PW.7 the S.I. of police, who registered the case basing on the report presented by the PWs.1 to 6 and issued FIR to all the concerned and also deposed about the assistance rendered by him to the main investigating officer.

10.I have carefully scrutinized the evidence of PWs.1 to 7 here in this case. P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant, deposed in his evidence that, he belongs to SC-Madiga community and he knows the accused as well as the witnesses and that they are having disputes with the villagers with regards to burial ground and in that process he along with other witnesses went to police station, there their signatures were obtained. He further categorically deposed that, he does not now the contents of the report and that the accused are no way concern with this case, however, he identified his signature on the report as Ex.P1.

11.PWs.2 to 6, who are also projected as victims of the case by contending that they were being subjected to caste abuse in the hands of the accused, deposed in the same lines a deposed by PW.1 by contending that they have disputes with the villagers with regards to burial ground and in that process they went to police station, there their signatures were obtained, but they do not know the contents of the report and they all in one voice categorically deposed that accused are no way connected with the case, however, they identified their signatures on the report as

Exs.P3, P5, P7, P9 & P11 respectively.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.7/10

12.I have carefully scrutinized the evidence P.Ws.1 to 6.

Undoubtedly, PWs.1 to 6, who are the victims, did not support the prosecution case by deposing that they accused are no way concern with this case. As such, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor sought permission and cross-examined the PWs.1 to 6 and in their cross-examination, they denied the suggestion that they are not disclosing the truth to help the accused basing on compromise.

The evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is crystal clear that, they did not support the case of prosecution, as such, their evidence is no way helpful to prove the prosecution case. In the absence of incriminating evidence from the star witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 6, the evidence of the investigating officer i.e., the PW.7, alone is not helpful to prove the prosecution case. As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of PWs.1 to 6, who are the star witnesses, this Court closed the evidence of LW.7-Papanaboina Singaiah,

LW.8-Sk.Md.Hussain, Tahsildar and LW.10-K.Prakash Rao, SDPO.

13.The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor fairly argued that, the evidence of PWs.1 to 6 is no way helpful to the prosecution, however, PWs.1 to 6 categorically deposed that, they compromised the matter with the accused and further argued that only because of PWs.1 to 6 compromised the matter with the accused, they did not support the case of prosecution. Whatever the reasons may be, the PWs.1 to 6 categorically deposed before the Court that, due to disputes with the villagers with regards to burial ground they went to police station, whereby their signatures were obtained on

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.8/10 some paper, but they do not know the contents thereof. PWs.1 to 6 denied in their cross-examination by the learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor that they have stated before the police as in Exs.P2, P4,

P6, P8, P10 & P12 respectively and nothing was elicited from their mouth by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor that they have intentionally deposing false before the Court. Thereby, it can be safely hold that, the evidence of the PWs.1 to 6 is no way helpful to the prosecution to bring the accused into the guilty home.

14.After careful consideration of evidence of PWs.1 to 7 coupled with Exs.P1 to P25 and basing on my above discussion without hesitation, I hold that PW.1 to 6 did not support the case of prosecution, as such, their evidence is not at all useful to the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused. In this sort of cases, whereby when the material witnesses have given go-bye to the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution crumbles and this is what happened in this case too.

The prosecution utterly failed to prove that, the accused Nos.1 to 3 wrongfully restrained the defacto complainant and his associates, voluntarily caused hurt to them and that committed criminal intimidated by subjecting them to caste abuse. There is nothing on record to show that, the accused Nos.1 to 3 perpetrated the alleged offences. Thereby without any hesitation, I hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Secs.341, 323, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the SC & ST

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.9/10 (POA) Act, 1989, and hence they are entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly the point is answered.

15.In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 3 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against the A4 is abated on 25.06.2019 consequent to his death.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 02nd day of June, 2022.

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu

Special Judge for trial of offences

under SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum- VII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the ProsecutionFor the Accused

PW.1: Akkiligunta Koteswara Rao -None-

PW.2: Akkiligunta Prakasam

PW.3: Akkiligunta Venkatapati

PW.4: Akkiligunta Chandraiah

PW.5: Pillipogu Yesobu

PW.6: Akkiligunta Sudhakar

PW.7: V.Vemana, S.I.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017 Page No.10/10

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the report given to police.

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

Ex.P3: Signature of PW.2 on the report given to police.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.2

Ex.P5: Signature of PW.3 on the report given to police.

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.3

Ex.P7: Signature of PW.4 on the report given to police.

Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.4

Ex.P9: Signature of PW.5 on the report given to police.

Ex.P10: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.5

Ex.P11: Signature of PW.6 on the report given to police.

Ex.P12: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.6

Ex.P13: Reported given by PWs.1 to 6 to the police.

Ex.P14: Original FIR

Ex.P15: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Exs.P16 to P21: Caste certificates of PWs.1 to 6

Exs.P22 to P25: Caste certificates of A1 to A4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu

Spl.Judge-cum-VII A.D.& S.J. Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl.Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Sri R.Sarath Babu,

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Second (02nd) day of June, 2022.

Spl. Sessions Case No.22 of 2017

[Crime No.150 of 2016 of the Police Station, Gudluru]

Prosecution: Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri D.Srinivasulu Reddy

Name(s) of the Accused : 1. Papanaboina Nageswara Rao, son of Late Malakondaiah, aged 52 years, Yadava by caste, ResidentofAdivirajupalem Village,GudluruMandal, Prakasam District.

2.PapanaboinaVenkata Subbaiah,sonofLate Malakondaiah, aged 40 years, Yadava by caste, Resident of Adivirajupalem Village, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Papanaboina Sankaraiah, son ofLateMalakondaiah, Malakondaiah, aged 65 years, Yadava by caste, Resident of Adivirajupalem Village, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Papanaboina Malakondaiah @ Chinna Malakondaiah (Died)

The case against the A4 is abated on 25.06.2019 consequent to his death.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 341, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.22 of 2017

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 3 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against the A4 is abated on 25.06.2019 consequent to his death. Order relating to case property No case property, hence no order.

DATES OF

Date of occurrence:13.02.2019 Date of report:13.02.2019 Date of appearance:23.09.2019 Date of commencement of trial:24.05.2022 Date of closure of trial:26.05.2022 Date of hearing :30.05.2022 Date of Judgment:31.05.2022

Explanation for Delay : On file of charge sheet before this Court, the case is taken cognizance vide S.C.No.22 of 2017 on 15.03.2017. On receipt of summons, the accused present before this Court on 18.04.2017 and on the same day copies of case documents were furnished to the accused and the case is posted for hearing on charges. At this stage the case is adjourned from time to time to time due to unreadiness of both parties. On 10.08.2018 after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, charges framed under Sections 341, 323, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)

(s) & 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, against the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Pending trial, the accused No.4 and hence the case against the accused No.4 is abated on 25.06.2019. At this stage also the case is adjourned amid Covid-19 pandemic. At last on 24.05.2022 the trial of this case commenced and concluded by 30.05.2022. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 7 examined and Exs.P1 to P25 marked. After closure of prosecution evidence on 31.05.2022 the accused Nos.1 to 3 were examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence appeared against them, to which they denied the same and reported no defence evidence. On the same day both side arguments heard and on 02.06.2022 judgment is pronounced acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 3. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu

Special Judge-cum-VII Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Prakasam District,Ongole. Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016 Page No.1/9

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Sri R.Sarath Babu,

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Second (02nd) day of June, 2022.

Spl. Sessions Case No.98 of 2016

[Crime No.42 of 2016 of the Police Station, Gudluru]

Prosecution: Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri D.Srinivasulu Reddy

Name(s) of the Accused : Papanaboina Nageswara Rao, son of Late Malakondaiah, aged 52 years, Yadava by caste,Residentof Adivirajupalem Village, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the ScheduledCastesand Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r)

(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. He be set at liberty. His bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order.

--o0o--

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016 Page No.2/9

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 31.05.2022 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Kandukur, Prakasam District, has filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.42 of 2016 of Gudluru Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989’).

2. Briefly stated, the contents of the charge sheet are that, the land in Sy.No.72/3 of Adivirajupalem village, is being used as burial ground for scheduled caste community people. The accused, belong to Yadava/BC, other than SC/ST community, got land in an extent of Ac.2.49 cents in Sy.No.72/2, which is by the side of said burial ground. The accused having an eye over the said burial ground land, on 13.03.2016 closed the well situated in the burial ground, cut the trees and sold away the wood etc., with an intention to grab the said land. While it is so, on 14.03.2016 the defacto complainant/Akkiligunta Koteswara Rao and his associates went to the said land and questioned the accused about his wicked acts, then the accused abused them in filthy language touching their case by uttering as “Madiga Lanjakodakallara, labour naa kodakallara, meeku revulu, smasanalu, bavulu avasarama, kulam thakkuva naa kodakallara” and by abusing so threatened that he will see their end by running JCB over them if they again come to

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016 Page No.3/9 him to ask the issue. After that the defacto complainant and his associates went to Gudlur Police Station and presented written report, basing on the same, the S.I. of Police, registered a case in

Cr.No.42 of 2016 of Gudluru P.S. for the offences punishable under

Secs.447, 427, 506 of IPC and Secs.3(1)(r)(s)& 3(2)(va) of the SC &

ST (POA) Act, 1989 and issued FIR to the concerned. On receipt of copy of FIR, the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kandukur took up investigation, visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements, he also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. Meanwhile, sent up requisition to the Tahsildar concerned for issuance of caste certificates of the complainant and the accused. While the investigation is in progress, the accused approached the Hon’ble

High Court and obtained anticipatory bail vide Criminal Petition

No.10997 of 2016 dt.28.07.2016. After receipt of caste certificates of the complainant and the accused and on completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.447, 427, 506 of IPC and Secs.3(1)

(r)(s)& 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Cognizance

3.On file of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Secs.447, 427, 506 of IPC and

Secs.3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused.

4. On the appearance of the accused before this Court, he was examined U/s.228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C., whereby he pleaded

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016 Page No.4/9 not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby having heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under Sections 447, 427, 506 of IPC and Secs.3(1)(r)(s) of the SC &

ST (POA) Act, 1989, have been framed and read over to the accused, for which he denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the

PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P26. On behalf of defence, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6.This Court also closed the evidence of LW.10 to LW.16 &

LW.18, since the material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C., he termed the evidence of prosecution as false, but not chosen to examine the witnesses on his behalf.

8.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution is able to prove that the accused committed the offences punishable U/secs.447, 427, 506 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 beyond all reasonable doubts?

9.In this case, PW.1 is the defacto complainant, against whom the atrocity alleged. The PWs.2 to 5 are the associates of the defacto complainant and they were also projected as victims of the case contending that they were also subjected to atrocity in the hands of the accused. The PWs.6 to 8 are the independent eye witnesses. PW.9 is the S.I. of police, who registered the case basing

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016 Page No.5/9 on the report presented by the PWs.1 to 5 and issued FIR to all the concerned and also deposed about the assistance rendered by him to the main investigating officer.

10.I have carefully scrutinized the evidence of PWs.1 to 9 here in this case. P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant, deposed in his evidence that, he belongs to SC-Madiga community and he knows the accused as well as the witnesses and that they are having disputes with the villagers with regards to burial ground and in that process he along with other witnesses went to police station, there their signatures were obtained. He further categorically deposed that, he does not now the contents of the report and that the accused are no way concern with this case, however, he identified his signature on the report as Ex.P1.

11.PWs.2 to 5, who are also projected as victims of the case by contending that they were being subjected to caste abuse in the hands of the accused, deposed in the same lines as deposed by PW.1 by contending that they have disputes with the villagers with regards to burial ground and in that process they went to police station, there their signatures were obtained, but they do not know the contents of the report and they all in one voice categorically deposed that accused are no way connected with the case, however, they identified their signatures on the report as

Exs.P3, P5, P7 & P9 respectively.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016 Page No.6/9

12.The independent eye witnesses PWs.6 to 8 also did not support the prosecution case by contending that they does not know anything about this case and police did not examine them.

13.I have carefully scrutinized the evidence P.Ws.1 to 8.

Undoubtedly, PWs.1 to 8, did not support the prosecution case by deposing that the accused are no way concern with this case. As such, the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor sought permission and cross-examined the PWs.1 to 8 and in their cross-examination, they denied the suggestion that they are not disclosing the truth to help the accused basing on compromise. The evidence of PWs.1 to 8 is crystal clear that, they did not support the case of prosecution, as such, their evidence is no way helpful to prove the prosecution case. In the absence of incriminating evidence from the star witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 8, the evidence of the investigating officer i.e., the PW.9, alone is not helpful to prove the prosecution case.

As there is no incriminating material in the evidence of PWs.1 to 8, who are the star witnesses, this Court closed the evidence of LW.6-

G.Bala Kotaiah, LW.10-D.Ramaiah, LW.11-D.Ahammad @ Ameed,

LW.12-V.Venkata Naga Raju, LW.13-Daggumati Audi Seshu, LW.14-

Y.Mercy Kumari, Tahsildar, LW.15-Sk.Md.Hussain, Tahsildar, LW.16-

S.Vijaya Chendra, S.I. & LW.18-K.Prakasa Rao, SDPO.

13.The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor fairly argued that, the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 is no way helpful to the prosecution, however, PWs.1 to 8 categorically deposed that, they compromised the matter with the accused and further argued that only because

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016 Page No.7/9 of PWs.1 to 8 compromised the matter with the accused, they did not support the case of prosecution. Whatever the reasons may be, the PWs.1 to 8 categorically deposed before the Court that, due to disputes with the villagers with regards to burial ground they went to police station, whereby their signatures were obtained on some paper, but they do not know the contents thereof. PWs.1 to 8 denied in their cross-examination by the learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor that they have stated before the police as in Exs.P2, P4,

P6, P8, P10, P11, P12 & P13 respectively and nothing was elicited from their mouth by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor that they have intentionally deposing false before the Court. Thereby, it can be safely hold that, the evidence of the PWs.1 to 8 is no way helpful to the prosecution to bring the accused into the guilty home.

14.After careful consideration of evidence of PWs.1 to 9 coupled with Exs.P1 to P26 and basing on my above discussion without hesitation, I hold that PW.1 to 8 did not support the case of prosecution, as such, their evidence is not at all useful to the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused. In this sort of cases, whereby when the material witnesses have given go-bye to the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution crumbles and this is what happened in this case too.

The prosecution utterly failed to prove that, the accused criminally trespassed into the burial ground belongs to SC community pepople, caused mischief and there committed criminal intimidation by threatening the defacto complainant and his

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016 Page No.8/9 associates by subjecting them to caste abuse. There is nothing on record to show that, the accused perpetrated the alleged offences.

Thereby without any hesitation, I hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused for the offences punishable under Secs.447, 427, 506 of IPC and

Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989, and hence they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

15.In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. He be set at liberty. His bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under

Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 02nd day of June, 2022.

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu

Special Judge for trial of offences

under SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum- VII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the ProsecutionFor the Accused

PW.1: Akkiligunta Koteswara Rao -None-

PW.2: Akkiligunta Chandraiah

PW.3: Akkiligunta Venkatapati

PW.4: Akkiligunta Chandraiah

PW.5: Pillipogu Yesobu

PW.6: Akkiligunta Sudhakar

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016 Page No.9/9

PW.7: V.Vemana,

PW.8: Akkelagunta Aseervadam

PW.9: V.Srinivasa Rao, SDPO

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution : Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the report given to police. Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.1 Ex.P3: Signature of PW.2 on the report given to police. Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.2 Ex.P5: Signature of PW.3 on the report given to police. Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.3 Ex.P7: Signature of PW.4 on the report given to police. Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.4 Ex.P9: Signature of PW.5 on the report given to police. Ex.P10: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.5 Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.6 Ex.P12: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.7 Ex.P13: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the PW.8 Ex.P14: Reported given by PWs.1 to 5 to the police. Ex.P15: Original FIR Ex.P16: Authorization Memo Ex.P17: Scene observation report Ex.P18: Rough sketch of the scene of offence Exs.P19 to P24: Caste certificates of PWs.1 to 5 & LW.6. Ex.P25: Caste certificates of accused. Ex.P26: Adangal Pahani.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu

Spl.Judge-cum-VII A.D.& S.J. Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl.Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Sri R.Sarath Babu,

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Second (02nd) day of June, 2022.

Spl. Sessions Case No.98 of 2016

[Crime No.42 of 2016 of the Police Station, Gudluru]

Prosecution: Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri D.Srinivasulu Reddy

Name(s) of the Accused : Papanaboina Nageswara Rao, son of Late Malakondaiah, aged 52 years, Yadava by caste, Resident of Adivirajupalem Village, Gudluru Mandal, Prakasam District.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. He be set at liberty. His bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property No case property, hence no order.

DATES OF

Date of occurrence:14.03.2016 Date of report:19.03.2016 Date of appearance:25.05.2017 Date of commencement of trial:24.05.2022 Date of closure of trial:30.05.2022 Date of hearing :31.05.2022 Date of Judgment:02.06.2022

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2016

Explanation for Delay : On file of charge sheet before this Court, the case is taken cognizance vide S.C.No.98 of 2016 on 31.12.2016. On receipt of summons, the accused present before this Court on 25.05.2017 and on the same day copies of case documents were furnished to the accused and the case is posted for hearing on charges. At this stage the case is adjourned from time to time to time due to unreadiness of both parties. On 10.08.2018 after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, charges framed under Sections 447, 427, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)

(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, against the accused and the charges were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. At this stage also the case is adjourned amid Covid-19 pandemic. At last on 24.05.2022 the trial of this case commenced and concluded by 30.05.2022. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 9 examined and Exs.P1 to P26 marked. After closure of prosecution evidence on 31.05.2022 the accused examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence appeared against him, to which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence. On the same day both side arguments heard and on 02.06.2022 judgment is pronounced acquitting the accused. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu

Special Judge-cum-VII Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Prakasam District,Ongole. Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:- Sri R.SARATH BABU, Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 25 th day of April, 2018.

O.S.No.141 of 2017

Between:

1. Sayampu Suresh, s/o. Late Venkateswarlu, Aged 39 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.40-6-5 (23), Kammapalem, Ongole.

2. Konduri Surya Prakash, s/o. Janaki Rama Rao, Aged 34 years,

Hindu, R/o. Bhagya Nagar, Ongole.... Plaintiff

And:

1. The Tahasildar, Ongole.

2. Deputy Inspector of Survey, R.D.O. Office, Ongole.

3. Assistant Director of Survey, Collector Office, Prakasam Bhavan, Ongole.

4. Project Director, National Highways, Durgamitta, Vedayapalem, Olg GNT Road, Nellore.

5. The State, Rep. By District Collector, Prakasam District, Prakasam Bhavan,

Ongole.... Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of

Sri. P.Sridhar, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant remained ex- parte, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the 2 material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The suit is filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as absolute owners of the A marked suit schedule property in the plaint plan and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendants 3 and 4 to rectify the sketch in the relevant records as per the rough sketch of the 1st defendant dated 5.5.2016 and for costs of the suit.

02.The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are that:-

The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the A marked plaint plan property, as they are purchased the same under registered sale deed dated 23-11-2013 vide document No.8100/2013 from

Gudivada Hanumantha Rao and his wife Seshamma for valuable consideration. The vendors of the sale deed delivered possession of the A marked property to the plaintiffs and since then they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The A2 marked property also sold by the plaintiffs’ vendor.

Subsequently, Government proposed acquisition of land for formation of R marked road connecting main bye pass road and its service road. Accordingly, there was 3A and 3D notifications were issued under NHAI Act, as per the 3D notification possession was taken and road was laid by leaving marigns on both sides and the A marked property of plaint plan and A series properties shown are 3 not subjected to acquisition under 3D notification. The Gazettee

dated 19-9-2003 is also filed by the plaintiffs evidencing that A

series marked property is not in 3D notification and not in possession and enjoyment of NHAI.

Some of the land grabbers prevalied the 1st defendant for grant of DK pattas on the margin vacant site, thereafter, the plaintiffs and others sensed their attempts and filed suit in O.S. No.376/2013

before the III Addl. Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Ongole and got

Permanent injunction by restraining the defendants 1, 4 and 5 from interfereing with their peaceful possession and enjoyment over the

A, A1 marked plan properties.

Thereafter, the plaintiffs came to know that the Mandal surveyor who is subordinate of 1st defendant prepared rough sketch without ascertaining the extens covered under 3A notification instead of 3D notification and the same was approved by the 2nd defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiffs have submitted an application to the 4th defendant bringing about actual state of affairs, upon the application of the plaintiffs, the 4th defendant addressed a letter

dated 11-4-2016 to the 1st defendant to submit actual state of

affairs on ground, thereafter, the 1st defendant personally visited the schedule property and other surrounding property with the assistance of mandal surveyor and submitted a report to the 4th defendant on 5-2-2016 along with sketch prepared by Mandal 4 surveyor. As per the report of 1st defendant, A marked property is not covered under 3D notification and it is in the possession and enjoyment of land owners. Though, the 1st defendant submitted report, neither the 1st defendant nor the 4th defendant did not take any steps to rectify the defect in the sketch. Hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit.

03. Defendants were set ex-parte.

04. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff herself was examined as

PW-1 and marked Ex.A1 to A9.

05.Heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff.

06.Now, the point for consideration is:

(1) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their right over the A marked property of plaint plan?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek mandatory injunction by directing the defendants 3 and 4 to rectify the sketch of 1 st defendant on 5.5.2016?

07. POINT:To prove the claim of the plaintiffs, the 1st plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. I have carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW.1 and the 1st plaintiff re-iterated the plaint averments in his chief affidavit. The 1st plaintiff categorically deposed that they are the absolute owners of the plaint schedule property and when Government proposed to acquire the lands for laying road, the Mandal surveyor who is subordinate of the 1st 5 defendant prepared sketch as per 3A notification instead of 3D notification, as such, the sketch was completely wrong and when the same was brought to the notice of the 4th defendant by way of application by the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant personally visited the schedule property with the mandal surveyor and submitted report to the 4th defendant on 5-5-2016 along with sketch prepared by Mandal surveyor. As per the report, the A marked property is not covered under 3D notification, though, the 1st defendant submitted report, the defendants 1 and 4 did not take any steps, hence, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit and the oral evidence of PW.1 is corroborated with Exs.A1 to A9 documentary evidence.

08.On carefully scrutinize the evidence of PW.1 coupled with

Exs.A1 to A9 and after carefully marshalling the facts and circumstances of the case without hesitation, I hold that the unchallenged evidence of PW.1 is totally corraborated with Ex.A1 to

Ex.A9 documentary evidence and without hestitation, I hold that the plaintiffs proved their title over the A marked property by filing

Ex.A1 to A4 registered sale deeds and the government officials issued 3D notification under Ex.A5 Gazette 3D notification, later the mandal surveyor prepared wrong sketch about A marked property, and inspite requests made by the plaintiffs, the government officials i.e., D1 and D4 did not take any steps, hence, the plaintiffs entitled to suit reliefs. Accordingly, points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of 6 plaintiff.

09.In the result, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by declaring the right of the plainitffs over the A marked property of plaint plan and the defendants 3 and 4 are directed to rectify the sketch in the relevant records as per the report of 1st defendant dt.

5.5.2016 by way of mandatory injunction.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 25 th day of April, 2018.

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: PW-1: S.Suresh -Ex-parte-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A-1 :Copy of registered sale deed dated 23-11-2013 obtained from Mee-seva. Ex.A-2 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 14-03-1986. Ex.A-3 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 30-04-1986. Ex.A-4 : Certified copy of registered sale deed dated 26-05-1989.

Ex.A-5 : Attested copy of Gazette 3D notification obtained under RTI Act. Ex.A-6 : Attested letter addressed by D4 to D1 dt.11-4-2016 under RTI Act. Ex.A-7 : Attested report of Tahasildar along with sketch prepared by Mandal Surveyor dated 5-5-2016 under RTI Act. Ex.A-8 : Certified copy of Decree & Judgment in O.S.No.376 of 2013 on the file of III Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Ex.A-9 : Attested copy of Gazette 3A notification obtained under RTI Act dated 13-2-2003.

DEFENDANT: - Ex-parte - Id/- R.S.B.

A.S.C.J., OGL.

FAC:P.S.C.J., OGL.

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE : ONGOLE

Present:­  Sri R.SARATH BABU,  Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, this the 25 th day of April, 2018.

O.S.No.141 of 2017

Between: 

1. Sayampu Suresh, s/o. Late Venkateswarlu, Aged 39 years, Hindu, R/o. D.No.40­6­5 (23), Kammapalem, Ongole.

2. Konduri Surya Prakash, s/o. Janaki Rama Rao, Aged 34 years,

Hindu, R/o. Bhagya Nagar, Ongole.... Plaintiff

And:

1. The Tahasildar, Ongole.

2. Deputy Inspector of Survey, R.D.O. Office, Ongole.

3. Assistant Director of Survey, Collector Office, Prakasam Bhavan, Ongole.

4. Project Director, National Highways, Durgamitta, Vedayapalem, Olg GNT Road, Nellore.

5. The State, Rep. By District Collector, Prakasam District, Prakasam Bhavan,

Ongole.... Defendants.

The suit is filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as absolute owners of the A marked suit schedule property in the plaint plan and for consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendants 3 and 4 to rectify the sketch in the relevant records as per the rough sketch of the 1st defendant dated 5.5.2016 and for costs of the suit. Plaint presented on : 03­04­2017 Plaint filed on : 03­04­2017

Cause of action for the suit arose on 23­11­2013 when the plaintiffs purchased A marked property from Gudivada Hanumantha Rao and his wife and when there was acquisition proposals for formation of R marked road and when 3A and 3D notifications were issued under NHAI Act and when A marked property of plaint plan and A series properties shown are not subjected to acquisition under 3D and when the government official prepared wrong rough sketch without ascertaining the extents covered under 3A notification and 3D notification and when the plaintiffs put an application to the 4th defendant bringing about the actual state of affairs and when on 11­04­2016 the 4th defendant addressed letter to the 1st defendant and when on 5­5­2016 the 1st defendant prepared actual state of affairs on ground and when A marked property is not covered under 3D notification and it is in the possession and enjoyment of the land owners and neither the 1st defendant nor the 4th defendant did not take steps and it arose within the jurisdiction of this court.

Valuation : For the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction the suit is valued at Rs.10,00,000/­ on which a court fee of Rs.7,426/­ is paid u/sec.24 (b) of APCF & SV Act. This suit is coming before me for hearing in the presence of Sri. P.Sridhar, Advocate for Plaintiff and the defendant remained ex­parte, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:­

1. that the suit be and the same is decreed by declaring the right of

the plaintiffs over the A marked property of plaint plan;

2. that the defendants 3 and 4 are be and hereby directed to rectify the sketch in the relevant records as per the report of the 1 st

defendant dated 5.5.2016 by way of mandatory injunction; and

3. that there is no order as to costs.

Given under my hand, and the seal of this court, this the 25th day of April, 2018. ** Copy of schedule & plaint plan attached to decree.

Sd/­ R.Sarath Babu

ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ONGOLE.

FAC: Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Table of Costs

 Both parties costs memos not filed.

Id/­ R.S.B. 

A.S.C.J., OGL.

FAC:P.S.C.J., OGL.

1

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ONGOLE

Present : Sri R.Sarath Babu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, 11 th day of September, 2019.

H.M.O.P. No. 26/2019

Between: Ankasala Padmavathi, W/o. Venkata Rao, aged 37 years, Hindu, R/o. 9-47, Thopu Bazaar, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District … Petitioner And: Ankasala Venkata Rao, S/o. Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 38 years, R/o. D.No.4-74, Peddavuyyalawada, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District. … Respondent

This petition is coming on 11.09.2019 before me for hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the petitioner and the respondent remained ex-parte, and upon hearing the arguments, and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

//O R D E R//

This petition is filed U/Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, by the wife against her husband for dissolving their marriage dated 29-08-1998.

02.The brief facts of the petitioner’s case as follows:

The marriage of the petitioner with the respondent was performed on 29.08.1998 at Peddavuyyalawada village as per

Hindu traditions and caste customs. Immediately after consummated the marriage, out of their wedlock, they blessed with two children and they were residing at Chimakurthy. The respondent addicted to bad vices and used to beat the petitioner 2 indiscriminately for want of money to fulfill his evil vices. The petitioner bore all the harassment made by the respondent. Due to the harassment made by the respondent along with his sister and brother-in-law for additional dowry, she filed a complaint

before the Chimakurthy PS and the same was registered as

Cr.No.79/2017 and the same is pending before JFCM Excise

Court, Ongole. After filing of the case, the respondent and his family members created nuisance and demanding the petitioner for divorce. The petitioner sent elders to the house of respondent for amicable reconciliation, but the respondent did not allow the petitioner and children into his house. The respondent intentionally deserted the petitioner without any fault of the petitioner. The petitioner lost hopes of their reunion and she filed maintenance case against the respondent and the same is pending before Spl. Excise Magistrate Court, Ongole. As such, she has no other alternative and constrained to file this petition and requested to grant decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Hence, this petition.

03.Respondent was set ex-parte.

04.On behalf of the Petitioner, the petitioner herself was examined as PW.1 and no documents were marked on her behalf.

05.Heard the learned counsel for Petitioner.

06.Now, the point for consideration is:

3

Whether the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce, as prayed for?

07.To substantiate her case the petitioner herself examined as PW-1. I have carefully scrutinized the evidence of PW-1, the unchallenged evidence of PW.1 crystal clears that petitioner’s marriage was performed with the respondent on 29.08.1998. It is further evident through the chief examination of PW.1 that the respondent addicted to bad vices and harassed the petitioner mentally and physically without no fault of her. The respondent and his family members used to ill treat the petitioner by demanding additional dowry. On carefully scrutinize the unchallenged evidence of PW.1, it is crystal clear that the respondent is having no love and affection towards the petitioner and he is not interested to lead marital life with the petitioner.

08.On carefully scrutinize the evidence of PW.1, undoubtedly her evidence is undisputed and corroborated on all material facts that the respondent harassed the petitioner mentally and physically for want of additional money to fulfill his bad vices and he did not allow the petitioner and children into his house. Hence, I am having no other alternative except believing the evidence of PW.1, since her evidence is unchallenged. Hence,

I believed the evidence of PW.1 and hold that the petitioner fairly proved her case that the respondent harassed the petitioner.

4

09.Thereby the evidence of PW.1 satisfied the ingredients contemplated under section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of Hindu Marriage Act.

Hence, without hesitation, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for the relief under the above section of law. On careful consideration of the oral evidence of PW.1 and after carefully marshalling the facts and circumstances of the case and basing on my above discussion, without hesitation, I hold that the petitioner is entitled for decree of divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.

10. In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage

dated 29-08-1998 between the petitioner and respondent is

hereby dissolved by way of divorce. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Personal Assistant, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 11th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- R.SARATH BABU

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

ONGOLE

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: PW-1: Ankasala Padmavathi Exparte

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: NilEx-parte

Ild/- RSB A.S.C.J.

5

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,ONGOLE

Present : Sri R.Sarath Babu,

Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole.

Wednesday, 11 th day of September, 2019.

H.M.O.P. No. 26/2019

Between: Ankasala Padmavathi, W/o. Venkata Rao, aged 37 years, Hindu, R/o. 9-47, Thopu Bazaar, Chimakurthy Mandal, Prakasam District … Petitioner And: Ankasala Venkata Rao, S/o. Late Venkateswarlu, Hindu, aged 38 years, R/o. D.No.4-74, Peddavuyyalawada, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District. … Respondent

This petition is filed U/Sec.13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, by the wife against her husband for dissolving their marriage dated 29-08-1998.

Cause of action for the petition arose when the marriage of the petitioner with respondent took place on 29.08.1998 as per Hindu rites and caste customs. After the marriage, they were blessed with two children, when the respondent started harassment and abusing the petitioner without any reason and tortured physically and mentally by demanding additional money, when the petitioner tried to mend the behaviour of respondent, but he did not change his attitude, when the elders of the petitioner approached the respondent personally and through mediators, but the respondent did not accept for the reunion and there is no hope for reunion, which was taken place within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court.

A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Schedule II

Article I (vii) of A.P.C.F and S.V.Act.

This petition is coming on 11-09-2019 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri G.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for petitioner and respondent remained exparte; upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence and other material available on record and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court doth order and decree.

6 i. that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent dated 29-08-1998 is

hereby dissolved by way of decree of

divorce; and

ii. that each party do bear their own costs.

Given under my hand and seal of this court, this the11th day of September, 2019.

Sd/- R.SARATH BABU

Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ongole

TABLE OF COSTS

NIL (CM & FC NOT FILED)

Ild/- RSB A.S.C.J.

7

1 THE COURT OF THE SESSIONS :: PRAKASAM DIVISION :: ONGOLE

In the Court of the VII Additional District and Sessions Judge,

Ongole.

Present: Sri R.Sarath Babu, VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, Ongole.

Thursday, this the Second (02nd) day of June, 2022.

CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.259 of 2022

in Crime No.267 of 2021 of Tangutur Police Station Between:

Akkala Siva Kotaiah, son of Kondaiah, aged 35 years, Padmasali by caste, Native of Sai Nagar, Kandukur Town, Now residing at Chimakurthy Village & Mandal, Prakasam District. … Petitioner/A1

A N D

The State, Station House Officer, Tangutur Police Station, Rep. by Spl. Public Prosecutor, Ongole. … Respondent/Complainant

Nature of offence: U/Secs.449, 302, 392 r/w.34 of IPC Date of offence: 07-02-2022 Date of remand: 07-02-2022

The above numbered Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions presented before me on 26.05.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri Y.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner/A1 and of Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State – Complainant/Respondent in both the applications, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-

// O R D E R //

This bail application has been filed by the petitioner/A1 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., with a request to enlarge him on bail in Crime No.267 of 2021 of Tangutur Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 302, 392 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2.The allegations levelled against the petitioner are that:-

On 03.12.2021 in between 20.00 and 20.45 hours, the petitioner/A1 along with A2 gained entrance into the house of the defacto complainant in his absence and brutally killed his elder daughter, aged 21 years, who was attending online classes from home by cutting her throat and stabbing 2 indiscriminately all over her body with sharp edged weapon and later the accused also cruelly killed his wife, aged 43 years, by causing deep cut injury to her throat and caused stab injuries all over her body and thereafter the accused robbed the gold ornaments worth about Rs.2,25,000- and decamped with booty. Basing on the report presented by the defacto complainant, the S.H.O., Tangutur Police Station, registered a case in Cr.No.267 of 2021 under Sec.449, 302, 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thus, the case.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 submit that, the petitioners/A1 did not commit any offence and he is innocent person and he was falsely implicated in this case and further submit that the entire investigation is completed and the petitioner has got permanent abode, as such, there is no question of tempering of evidence and abscond from the territorial jurisdiction of the court and requested to grant bail.

4.The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor opposed to grant bail and submit that the alleged offence committed by the accused is a heinous one and mere filing of charge sheet in any way entitles the petitioner for granting of bail. Further submit that, if the petitioner/A1 is enlarged on bail, there is every possibility that he may abscond from the jurisdiction of the court and there is every chance to threat the witnesses and there is every possibility that the petitioner/A1 may commit similar offences requested to dismiss the petition.

5.Heard both the sides.

6.I have carefully gone through F.I.R, complaint report and other material placed before me. It is a case of brutal murder of a mother and her daughter in the absence of inmates. It is a gruesome murder for wrongful gain. On carefully gone through the CD file, in which, it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner/A1 involved in nine other cases, out of them six cases are in Kandukur, one case in Chimakurthy P.S. and one case in Ongole Taluk P.S. and another case in Tangutur P.S. In all those cases the FIRs were issued for the offences punishable under Sec.457 & 380 of IPC. The CD file is further clearly goes to show that from the year 2015 the petitioner/A1 is doing property offences and as per the FIR the petitioner/A1 along with A2 who also involved in property offences entered into the house of the deceased at about 08-00 P.M. and committed murder of daughter and wife of defacto complainant and robbed gold ornaments worth Rs.2,25,000/-. It is not out of place to mention that, the scene of offence house surrounded by the residential houses, however, the petitioner/A1 along with A2 entered into the house with sharp object weapons and killed the inmates of the house and robbed the ornaments, which acts mentioned in the CD file by the petitioner/ A1 and A2 are clearly goes to show the criminal intention in the mind of the petitioner/A1 and A2 and they entered into the house with a view to kill the inmates and commit robbery in the house of the defacto complainant. Thereby the contents mentioned in the FIR, the CD file as well as other material found in the CD file are prima facie establish that the petitioner/A1 is a chronic offender and he is doing property offences since from the year 3 2015 and committed murder of two innocent people and robbed the jewelery. The learned counsel for the petitioner/A1 vehemently argued that, the petitioner/A1 is in judicial custody from 07.02.2022, and further argued that the investigating agency filed a charge sheet, as such, the petitioner/A1 is entitled for grant of bail.

7.I am unable to accept with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/A1. The filing of the charge sheet is one of the ground for enlarged the accused. But it may not be sole ground and there is no hard and fast rule that if the charge sheet is filed the accused shall be enlarged on bail. Here in this case the accused is involved in nine property offences and in this particular case, the petitioner/A1 along with A2 who is also having a history of committed property offences, killed the daughter and wife of defacto complainant and robbed the gold ornaments. If it is the case, if the petitioner/A1 is enlarged on bail, certainly, he may commit similar offence and there is every possibility that he may threat the defacto complainant and other witnesses. Thereby, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner/A1 on bail.

8.In the result, the petition is dismissed.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me, this the 02nd day of June, 2022.

Sd/- R.Sarath Babu

VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole. Copies to:-

1. The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court, Ongole.

2. The S.H.O., Tangutur Police Station.

3. The counsel for the petitioner.