1
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs &
STs (PoA) ACT –CUM- VI ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KURNOOL.
Present: Sri.R.Venkata Naga Sundar,
Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs & STs (PoA) Act
-cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
Monday, the 24 th day of August, 2020
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.273/2017
From what Court the appeal is Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dhone. preferred
No. of the case in that Court C.C.No.376/2009
No. of the appeal Criminal Appeal No.273/2017
Name and description of the 1.R.Shankaramma, W/o. Ranga Reddy, Aged 38 years, Thapala Kothuru Village, appellants Krishagiri Mandal.
2.M.Lakshmi Kishori, W/o. Late Ramakrishna Reddy, Aged 38 years, Cinimageri, Peapully village and Mandal, Kurnool District. The sentence and law under which In the result, A1 and A2 are is found guilty for the offence u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC and they are it was imposed in the lower court accordingly convicted u/Sec.248(2) of Cr.P.C. The A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence u/Sec.419 IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence u/sec.419 IPC. The A1 and A2 are also sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence u/Sec.420 IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence u/sec.420 IPC. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
Whether confirmed, modified or Allowed. revised and if modified, the In the result, the Appeal is allowed setting modification. aside the judgment of conviction and sentence
dated 17-11-2017 passed against the
appellants/A1 and A2 in C.C.No.376/2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dhone for the offence u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC and the A1 and A2 are acquitted under Section 386 (b) (i) of Cr.P.C. The fine amount paid by the appellants in the trial court shall be refunded to them after expiry of appeal time. Date of filing 20-11-2017 Date of presentation 22-11-2017 2
Date of notice issued by the court 22-11-2017 to appear. Date of bail bonds, if the appellant -- let out on bail. Date of appellant/ respondent 27-12-2017 ordered to appear. Date of hearing 17-08-2020 Date of judgment 24-08-2020
Versus
State Rep. by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Police Station. … Respondent/ Complainant
This Criminal Appeal coming on 17-08-2020 before me in the presence of
Sri. H.K.Jalandhar, Advocate for the appellants/A1 and A2 and Special Public
Prosecutor for the Respondent/Complainant and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:-
J U D G M E N T
01. The accused A1 and A2 in C.C.No.376/2009 on the file of the Judicial
Magistrate of I Class, Dhone preferred the appeal against the conviction and
sentence passed by the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Dhone dated 17-11-2017, where under the learned trial Judge has convicted A1 and A2 for the offences u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC and sentenced them to undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/- each for the offence u/Sec.419 IPC and further sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence u/sec.420 IPC.
02. The case of the prosecution is that A1 having procured the SSC certificate of A2 and by impersonating A2, secured job as Anganwadi worker in Tapalakotkur Village, and thereby A1 and A2 have committed the offence u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC. On the strength of report given by P.W.1 G.Aruna 3
Devi, the then CDPO Officer, Dhone under Ex.P3, P.W.7 G.Chand Basha, the then A.S.I. of Krishnagiri Police Station registered a case in Crime
No.76/2008 u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC and conducted investigation in the case. During the course of investigation, he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements in his Part-II C.D. On 18-8-2008, he arrested A1 and released her as she obtained anticipatory bail. The further investigation in the case was taken up by P.W.8 R.G.Subramanyam, the then S.I. of
Police, Krishnagiri Police Station. During the course of investigation, he examined P.W.4 G.Somanna and P.W.6 V.Sudhakar Reddy and recorded their statements in his Part-II C.D. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet in this case.
03. The learned trial Judge having taken the case on file u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC against A1 and A2, examined A1 and A2 u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. and as the accused pleaded not guilty, framed charges u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC, read over the charge to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
04. The prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P6.
05. After prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/Sec.313
Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material appearing against them. The accused denied the prosecution evidence. The accused examined DW1 and
DW2 as defence witnesses and got marked Exs.D1 to D9.
06. The trial Court after hearing both parties, convicted the accused A1 and A2 for the offence u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC and sentenced A1 to A2 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence u/Sec.419 IPC and further sentenced 4 to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year each and to pay fine Rs.1,000/- each for the offence u/Sec.420 IPC. It is observed that both sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial
Court, the accused filed the present appeal.
07. The contention of the accused in the grounds of appeal and the oral submissions at the time of hearing are that;
1)the conviction and sentences of the accused for the offences u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC is against law, appreciation of evidence and probabilities of the case;
2)the trial Court miserably failed to take into account the abnormal delay of two years in giving report to the Police?
3)the trial failed to consider the material omissions and contradictions in prosecution evidence.
4)The trial Court ought not have given much weight to the evidence of
P.Ws.3 and 4 as they are interested witnesses and not residents of
Tapalakotkur Village.
08. The learned counsel for the appellants further contended that A2 is the natural daughter of K.Madhava Reddy but as she is deaf and dumb since birth, the said K.Madhava Reddy has adopted A1 who is child of his relation, brought her up along with his natural daughter. The name of A1 is also
Lakshmi Kishori and in the school record, her father’s name was shown as
Madhava Reddy who is the natural father of A2. Since A2 is deaf and dumb, she did not prosecute any studies but A1 studied up to 10th Class in Z.P.
High School, Yeruru. Since A1 was also brought up by Madhava Reddy, the father’s name of A1 was mentioned as K.Madhava Reddy in her SSC certificate which is marked as Ex.P1, Ex.P2 Transfer Certificate issued by 5
Z.P. High School, Yeruru are also pertains to A1. A1 herself applied for the post of Anganwadi Worker by producing Exs.P1 and P2 certificates and she got appointment as Anganwadi Worker in the year 1993. He contended that the prosecution failed to prove that Exs.P1 and P2 certificates pertains to A2 and that A2 who prosecuted SSC but not A1. He further contended that the prosecution did not examine the then Head Master of Z.P. High School,
Yeruru to prove that A2 studied in the school and that Ex.P1 certificate belongs to A2 but not A1. The evidence of P.W.5 M.Rama Krishna is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution as he could not identify as to who out of A1 and A2 studied in their school and to whom Exs.P1 and P2 belongs.
On the other hand, A1 examined herself as D.W.1 and stated that Exs.P1 and P2 belongs to her and that her marriage was also performed by
Madhava Reddy, the natural father of A2 by filing Ex.D1 wedding card.
Exs.D2 to D7 were produced by A1 which fact shows that A1 herself got the employment as Anganwadi Worker. He submitted that Ex.D9 certificate categorically shows that A2 is deaf and dumb. He contended that even though it is brought to the notice of the Court that A2 is deaf and dumb, the trial Court did not follow the procedure contemplated u/Sec.318 of Cr.P.C.
and same caused prejudice to the case of A2. He contended that there is reference to orders of the District Collector, dated 13-7-2008 in Ex.P3 report but the said order was not filed before the Court. He further contended that A1 being an Anganwadi worker, is a‘Public Servant’ within the meaning of sec.197 of Cr.P.C. and without obtaining prior sanction from the government, she cannot be prosecuted. He further contended that P.W.2 wanted his daughter to be appointed as Anganwadi teacher and as she could not secure the job, he is inimically disposed of towards the accused. Thus,
P.Ws.3 and 4 are also inimically disposed of towards A1 and A2. Therefore, 6 their evidence cannot be given much weight. The identify of A1 and A2 is not established and in the circumstances, much weight cannot given to the evidence of P.W.1. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that A1 has impersonated A2 in obtaining the job as Anganwadi worker.
09. Per contra, the Special Public Prosecutor has contended that the findings of the trial Court are based on factual and legally aspect and the finding of the trial Court do not require any interference.
10. In view of the above contentions, the following points will arise for determination.
1. Whether A2 fraudulently handed over her SSC and Transfer Certificate to A1 and A1 by producing the said documents impersonated A2 with an dishonest intention to secure employment as Anganwadi Worker and thereby cheated the government?
2. Whether A1 by producing the SSC and Transfer Certificate of A2 before the ICDS has dishonestly induced the officers of the ICDS and secured the job as Anganwadi Worker and thereby committed the offence u/Sec.420 IPC?
3. Whether the finding of the trial Court are based on factual and legal aspects or requires any interference?
4. To what result?
Point No.1:
11. P.W.1-Aruna Devi, the then Child Development Project Officer, Dhone,
Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), deposed that in the year 2008, while she was present in his office, she received one memo from
Project Director to conduct an enquiry in respect of one R.Shankaramma (A1) who was working as Anganwadi worker at Tapalakotkur Village of
Krishnagiri Mandal. Immediately, she went to Tapalakotkur Village and examined P.W.2- Remata Sekhar Reddy, P.W.3-T.C.Sunki Reddy, P.W.4- 7
G.Somanna and 20 other persons who are residence of Tapalakotkur Village and the said persons have stated before her that A1 is not M.Lakshmi Kishori (A2)and that the said M.Lakshmi Kishori (A2) is resident of Pyapili village and Pyapili Mandal. On the same day, she obtained the SSC certificate of son of A1 and observed that there is no much age gap between A1 and her son. Later, she went to Yeruru village and enquired one Veerabhadra
Reddy, a retired School Head Master, One Badri Narayana, V.R.O., one
Y.Rajagopal, retired VAO and showed the photograph of A1 to them to ascertain the identity of A1, but the said persons have denied the identify of
A1. On the same day, she went to High School, Yeruru village and verified the administration register but did not find the photograph of A1. Later, he went to Pyapili village and visited the house of A2 but A2 was not in a position to give proper answers due to demise of her husband during the recent pass and she also observed that A2 was financially week. Later, she submitted a written report to the Project Director, who in turn directed her to give report against A1 and A2. She lodged report with the Krishnagiri
Police under Ex.P3. Ex.P1 SSC Certificate and Ex.A2 Transfer Certificate of
A2 were marked through her.
12. P.W.2 R.Sekhar Reddy testified that he does not know anything about the case and he was not examined by the Police. He was treated hostile by the prosecution.
13. P.W.3.T.C.Sunki Reddy deposed that in the year 2006, P.W.2 Remata
Sekhar Reddy informed him that A1 R.Shankaramma by using certificate of
A2 M.Lakshmi Kishori, got job as Anganwadi Teacher. After obtaining signatures from the villagers they made representation to P.W.1 about the impersonation of A1 in obtaining the job.
8
14. P.W.4 G.Somanna deposed that in the year 2006, he along with P.W.2,
P.W.3 and some other villagers gave complaint to the District Collector,
M.R.O. and Police, alleging that A1 got Anganwadi Teacher job by producing certificates of A2 M.Lakshmi Kishori.
15. P.W.5 M.Rama Krishna, a retired Head Master of Z.P. High School,
Yeruru deposed that in the year 2008 or 2009 P.W.1 came to him and showed Exs.P1 and P2 and photograph of one lady and asked him whether the lady appearing in the photograph studied in their school and whether the said photograph belongs to one Lakshmi Kishori or not. He told to P.W.1 that he joined in the School in the year 2005 and as such he cannot identify the lady appearing in the photograph and whether she is the lady who studied in their school in the year 1982. He was also declared hostile by the prosecution.
16. P.W.6 Sudhakar Reddy deposed that he does not know anything about this case and he was not examined by the Police. He was also treated hostile by the prosecution.
17. P.W.7 G.Chand Basha and P.W.8 R.G.Subramanyam are the
Investigating Officers in this case.
18. A1 who was examined as D.W.1 testified in her chief examinant that
Exs.P1 and P2 certificates belongs to her. She got marked the wedding card printed at the time of her marriage as Ex.D1, the call letter dated 6-11-1993 sent by CDPO, ICDS Project, Dhone as Ex.D2, interview intimation dated 19-7-1995 as Ex.D3, letter from the District Collector dated 4-3-1997 as
Ex.D4, Letter of Nodal Officer, addressed to her dated 8-5-1997 as Ex.D5,
Appreciation letter dated 7-1-1998 as Ex.D6, Appreciation letter in respect of ‘Akshra Mahila’ issued in her name as Ex.D7. Notarized affidavit dated 9 8-4-2001 as Ex.D8, certificate in respect of Speech and Hearing issued by
Institute of Speech and Hearing, Bangalore as Ex.D9.
19.It is the case of the prosecution that A2 M.Lakshmi Kishori is the daughter of K.Mahdava Reddy and Ex.P1 S.S.C. Certificate and Ex.P2
Transfer Certificate pertains to A2. It is their further case that the name of
A1 is R.Shankaramma and by procuring Exs.P1 and P2 certificates from A2,
A1 has impersonated A2 and obtained the post of Anganwadi worker. The defence of the accused is that Madhava Reddy, the natural father of A2 has adopted A1 and he educated her and her name is also Lakshmi Koshiri. The
S.S.C. Certificate under Ex.P1 and Transfer Certificate under Ex.P2 pertains to A1 and only after marriage, her name was changed as Shankaramma. As could be seen from the evidence on record, the name of A2 is certain and it is also certain that she is the natural daughter of Madhava Reddy, but according to the accused, A2 is deaf and dumb and she did not study in any school much less S.S.C. Since it is the contention of the prosecution that A2 is the real Lakshmi Kishori to whom Exs.P1 and P2 pertains, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove the same.
20. P.W.1 who was the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) of Dhone no doubt has testified in her evidence that in furtherance of the direction of the Project Director, ICDS, she conducted enquiry with regard to the identity of A1 but during the cross examination, she deposed that one
Veerabhadra Reddy, whom she enquired is a retired Head Master. She did not enquire during which year the said Veerabhadra Reddy worked as Head
Master in the School. She further stated that the said Veerabhadra Reddy told her that Shankaramma did not study in his School during the relevant period when she showed the photograph of Shankaramma. She did not enquire Badri Narayana (VRO) as to in which year, he worked as V.R.O. of 10
Yeruru village. Here, it is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer did not examine the said Veerabhadranna, the then Head Master of Z.P. High
School, Yeruru village. The prosecution also did not try to examine the said
Veeabhadrappa to elicit whether A1 studied in their school, but the prosecution examined the present, Head Master by name M.Rama Krishna as
P.W.5. But his evidence is no way helpful to the prosecution as he could not identify whether A1 or A2 was their student.
21. The evidence of P.W.1 makes it clear that even prior to her, an enquiry was conducted in respect of the identify of A1 during the tenure of one
Swaroopa Rani as Project Officer of ICDS. P.W.1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not state before the Police that even prior to his enquiry, an enquiry was conducted while one Swarooa Rani working as
CDPO. She also admitted that her predecessor Swaroopa Rani has dropped action against A1. In Ex.P3, it was mentioned that the District Magistrate,
Kurnool has instructed to file a criminal case against R.Shankaramma, W/o.
Ranga Reddy of Thapala Kothuru village she got appointment as Anganwadi worker by producing certificate of Smt.K.Lakshmi Kishori. The orders or proceedings of the District Collector, which were referred to in Ex.P3 were not filed before the Court.
22. The contents of Ex.P1 SSC certificate bearing registration No.186818 issued by Head Master, Z.P.H. High School, Yeruru shows that K.Lakshmi
Kishori, D/o. Madhava Reddy who studied in Z.P.H. School, Yeruru passed 10th class in third division in the exams conducted in the month of March, 1982. Her date of birth is mentioned as 19-3-1967. The photograph of the student was not printed on the SSC certificate. It contains the identification marks (1) A wounded scar on the chin; (2) A chicken Pox scar on left of the nose. The contents of Ex.P2, Transfer certificate issued by the Head Master, 11
Z.P.High School, Yeruru shows that Krishnareddi gari Lakshmi Kishori, D/o.
K.Madhava Reddy, studied from 6th class to 10th class in the High School.
Her date of birth is 19-3-1967. A1, who examined herself as D.W.1 has testified in her chief examination that Exs.P1 and P2 belongs to her. She also stated her identification marks as mentioned in Ex.P1. In the cross examination, it was suggested that Exs.P1 and P2 belongs to A2 but not to her and that Ex.D1, wedding card is created for the purpose of the case.
D.W.1 did not state in her evidence that she is the adopted daughter of
K.Madhava Reddy and that A2 was deaf and dumb or mentally retarded.
But all through it is defence of the accused that A2 is deaf and dumb and also mentally retarded and she did not go to the school at all. Suggestions were also given to the prosecution witnesses in those lines. But peculiarly no cross examination was done by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to elicit from
D.W.1 as to what was her maiden name prior to her marriage, what are the names of her natural parents and about the age disparity between her and
A2 to rebut the defence of the accused and to establish that she is not the adopted daughter of Madhava Reddy. It is no doubt, the accused failed to establish conclusively that A1 is the adopted daughter of Madhava Reddy.
It is also not properly explained by the accused as to what made Madhava
Reddy to adopt A1 when he is already having a daughter. But the same will not lessen the burden of the prosecution in proving that A2 in fact studied up to 10th class in Z.P. High School, Yeruru and Exs.P1 and P2 pertains to her, but not to A1 as it is settled position of law that the prosecution has to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
23. It is not conclusively established by the accused that A2 is deaf and dumb or mentally retarded. At the examination stage u/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. A2 put her signature in Telugu as M. Chinna Lakshmi Kishori, whereas A1 put 12 her signature as K.Lakshmi Kishori in English. But at the time of 313 Cr.P.C.
examination, it was informed to the Court that A2 is dumb and she cannot answer questions. It was mentioned in the 313 Cr.P.C. examination of A2 that A2 is unable to talk and the counsel of A2 has denied the incriminating evidence. The learned Magistrate has also observed in the judgment that at the time of questioning the accused with regard to the sentence, it was informed that A2 was unable to speak. Thus, it is brought to the notice of the Court that A2 is unable to speak. The contents of Ex.D9 would show that A2 is having Bilateral mixed hearing loss. It was also observed that it is a case of Misarticulation. The said report shows that A2 was examined on 16-02-1982 when she was aged about 14 years. As per Ex.P1 SSC certificate, A2 passed 10th class in the examination conducted in the year
March, 1982. Therefore, the question is whether A2 having such hearing loss and misarticulation of speech could appear for the examination. It is no doubt that the accused did not examine any person concerned with Ex.D9 to prove the hearing and speech impairment, but the fact that it was found by
P.W.1 during his visit to the house of A2, that A2 was not in a position to give proper answers coupled with the fact that A2 was unable to answer questions put by the Court during 313 Cr.P.C. examination as well as at the time of questioning the sentence, probablize the case of accused that A2 is having some hearing problem. The prosecution failed to establish the identify of A2 with regard to her school certificate. In the school certificate, the identity marks of A2 were mentioned but no attempt was made by the prosecution to prove that the identity marks mentioned in Ex.P2 tallies with the identify marks of A2. Even though there is no conclusive evidence that
A2 is deaf and dumb, the evidence let in by the accused creates doubt about
A2 prosecuting studies up to SSC.
13
24. D.W.1 has testified in her evidence that the identity marks mentioned in Ex.P1 belongs to her. But no attempt was made by the prosecution to disprove that the identification marks mentioned in Ex.P1 are not tallying with the identity marks on the person of A1. It is categorically admitted by
P.W.8 that he did not made any attempt to conduct any identification parade to establish identity of A1 and A2. P.Ws.2 to 4 belongs to Thapala Kothuru
Village and they were examined to prove the identity of A1. P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution and he was treated hostile. According the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, they were informed by P.W.2 that A1 by using the certificate of A2 got job as Anganwadi teacher. Thus, the evidence of
P.Ws.3 and 4 runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.3 shows that he was residing in Kondapeta of Dhone Mandal for the last 35 years. In the cross examination of P.W.4, it was elicited that he along with his wife and son are residing in Kotla Sujathamma Nagar in Dhone for the last four or five years. P.Ws.3 and 4 are not family members of A1 and they also did not state, in which school A1 has studied. In the circumstances, their evidence that A1 is not the Lakshmi Kishori cannot be given much weight.
25. The prosecution examined only one person of Pyapili village by name
Sudhakar Reddy as P.W.6, to which village A2 belongs but he did not support the case of the prosecution. In the cross examination by the accused, he deposed that his father was worked as High School teacher during 1982 and 1983 and he knows the father of A2 Lakshmi Kishori by name Madhava Reddy, who was a school teacher. He knows the family of
Madhava Reddy and A2 since last 30 years. A2 is mentally retarded and to his knowledge, A2 did not study. Even though, P.W.6 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, his evidence cannot be brushed aside as the 14 prosecution failed to establish that he is interested towards the accused. His evidence that A2 is mentally retarded that A2 did not study probablize the case of the accused that A2 did not study in any school. Even P.W.1 stated in her evidence that when she went to the house of A2, she was not in a position to give proper answers. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5, a doubt arises whether really A2 is in sound disposing state of mind or whether she is having any mental and physical retardation. Section 318
Cr.P.C. deals with procedure to be followed by the Magistrate where the accused does not understand the proceedings. The said section reads as follows:
Sec.318 of Cr.P.C.
If the accused, though not of unsound mind, cannot be made to understand the proceedings, the Court may proceed with the inquiry or trial, and, in the case of the Court other than a High Court, if such proceedings result in a conviction, the proceedings shall be forwarded to the High Court with a report of the circumstances of the case and the
High Court shall pass thereon such order as it thinks fit.
26. In the present case on hand, the accused though initially did not put in the notice of the Court that A2 is deaf and dumb, it is brought to the notice of the Court at the 313 examination stage that A2 is unable to talk, but the learned Magistrate did not conduct proper enquiry whether A2 is really unable to hear and talk or she is having any other mental disorder. Of course, the accused also did not file any memo before the Court that A2 is deaf and dumb or mentally retarded. Even according to Ex.D9, A2 is having some hearing problem and misarticulation. It shows that A2 is having
Bilateral mixed hearing loss with misarticulation. The said fact gives raise to any amount of doubt whether A2 having such physical disability could prosecute her studies.
15
27. It is admitted by P.W.8 that he secured Exs.P1 and P2 from A1 at the time of arresting her. The contents of Ex.D6 and D7 shows that the services of A1 as Anganwadi worker were appreciated. The said fact also probablizes the case of the accused that A1 was adopted by Madhava Reddy and she studied in Z.P.High School in Yeruru village from class 6th to class 10th. The prosecution did not examine any teacher or Head Master of Z.P.H. School,
Yeruru to prove that A2 in fact studied in the school but not A1. The prosecution also did not examine Badri Narayana, V.R.O. and Y.Raja Gopal,
V.A.O. of Yeruru village to prove the identity of A1. On the other hand the accused examined D.W.2, one Jayarami Reddy, a resident of Thapala
Kothuru Village, aged about 80 years to prove that A1 was brought up by
Madhava Reddy, the natural father of A2. D.W.2 has testified in his evidence that A1 was brought up by Madhava Reddy, and her name is also
Lakshmi Kishori. He further deposed that A1 studied up to 10th class in one village nearby Joharapuram. He attended the marriage of A1. At the time of marriage, the name of Lakshmi Kishori was changed as Shankaramma for the purpose of ‘�� బలం’ (Horoscope) on the advice of purohits. Nothing could be elicited in the cross examination of D.W.2 to discard his evidence.
There is no relationship between D.W.2 and accused. Therefore, I do not find any reason to discard the evidence of D.W.2. The prosecution failed to establish that A2 studied 10th class in Z.P. High School, Yeruru and that
Ex.P1 SSC certificate pertains to A2 but not A1. On the other hand, the evidence let in by the accused probablize their case that A1 was adopted by
Madhava Reddy, natural father of A2 and given the name of Lakshmi Kishori, same as that of A2 and educated her up to 10th class in Z.P.H. School,
Yeruru and that Ex.P1 SSC Certificate belongs to A1. The prosecution also suppressed the earlier enquiry conducted during the tenure of one Swaroppa 16
Rani, the then CDPO. There is also abnormal delay in lodging the report with the Police. The enquiry report submitted by P.W.1 is also not filed before the
Court to know about her observations. The non-examination of important witnesses like the then Head Masters, V.R.O. and V.A.O. of Yeruru village is also fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove that A2 studied up to 10th class in Z.P. High
School, Yeruru and she handed over the SSC certificate to A1 with a fraudulent intention and A1 impersonated A2 and presented the said certificate before the Project Officer, ICDS and dishonestly obtained employment as Anganwadi worker and thereby committed the offence u/Sec.419 Cr.P.C.
Point No.2:
28. While answering point No.1, I have hold that the prosecution failed to prove that A1 has impersonated A2 and dishonestly obtained employment as
Anganwadi teacher. I have also recorded finding that the prosecution failed to prove that A2 studied 10th class in Z.P.High School, Yeruru. The evidence let in by the accused shows that A2 is having bilateral mixed hearing loss with misarticulation and that she did not go to School at all. Therefore, A1 dishonestly inducing the de-facto complainant in giving employment as
Anganwadi worker does not arise. Therefore, the offence u/sec.420 IPC is also not proved by the prosecution.
Point No.3:
29. The learned trial judge without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record came to an erroneous conclusion that A1 and A2 have committed the offence u/Secs. 419 and 420 IPC. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court needs interference.
17
Point No.4:
30. In the result, the Appeal is allowed setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17-11-2017 passed against the appellants/A1 and A2 in C.C.No.376/2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class,
Dhone for the offence u/Secs.419 and 420 IPC and the A1 and A2 are acquitted under Section 386 (b) (i) of Cr.P.C. The fine amount paid by the appellants in the trial court shall be refunded to them after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected,
signed and pronounced by me in open Court this the 24 th day of August, 2020.
Special Judge for trial of cases
under SCs & STs (PoA) Act –cum- VI Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool.
Copy to
The Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dhone.
18