Sri S.Bajaranga Babu

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL SESSIONS JUDGE CUM VII ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Wednesday, the 29th day of October, 2014.

PRESENT:- Sri s.Bajaranga Babu,

Js Addl., District, and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar,

FAC Special Sessions Judge-Cum

VII Add. District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

S.C. No.25 of 2013

Preliminarily Registered Case No.42/2012 committed by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Jadcherla in Cr.No.367 /2011 of P.S. Jadcherla.,

for the offence U/Sec. 302, 201 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 (2) (v) of

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Prosecution: : Sri S.K.M. Quadri,

Spl. Public Prosecutor, Mahabubnagar.

: K.Pratap Kumar, Advocate (defence) for accused.

Defence Counsel: -

Name, and particulars of :1. Nakka Mallesh, S/o.Keshavulu, aged.25 years,

Caste:Golla, R/o.H.No.6-68/3, Gollageri, old

Accused

bazaar, Badepally, Jadcherla Mandal.

2. Jolam Narsimha, S/o.Krishnaiah, aged.23

Caste:Golla, Occ:Hamali, R/o.0ld

years,

Bazaar, Badepally, Jadcherla Mandal.

: U/Sec. 302, 201 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3

Offence under Section(s)

(2) (v) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order Al and A2, are found not-guilty for the offence

punishable U/Sec. 302, 201 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC

and also U/Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST (POA)

Act, 1989, hence, they are acquitted U/Sec.

235(1) of Cr.P.C of the said charges. The bail

bonds of Al and A2, shall be stand cancelled.

The case property i.e. MO.1 to MO. 12, shall be

destroyed after the expiry of appeal time.

MO.13 Motor Cycle bearing No. AP-22-Q-8484,

is already given to A-2 (Jolam Narsimha S/o

Krishnaiah), who is Registered Owner af the

said Motor Cycle, for interim safe custody, vide

Crl.M.P.No. 2867 of 2012 dt.2-11-2012 by the

learned JMFC, Jadcherla, and the same was

also again given to A-2 by this court, for interim

safe custody, therefore, the same is ordered to

be retained, with him as absolute, after expiry of

appeal time.

2 for final hearing or.

me

before

coming

is having

case This the

hearing

upon

on record,

the mnaterial upon perusing

and

27-10-2014, this till for consideration, over stood having the matter

and

arguments,

following: -

the Court delivered day the

JUDG MEN T

allesh,

of one Basaipally

nurder

a case of committing

This is

on

inflicting injuries

by

Caste Community,

of a Schedule

who is member of said the evidence also did cause throat, and and on his his testicles with an in the bushes dead body the

by throwing

to disappear

offence, the have committed

Al A2 and

thereby

the evidence,

to screen

intention

Sec. 3 (2) (v) of SC/ST 34 of IPC and R/w Sec. 302, 201 offence U/Sec.

(POA) Act, 1989.

filed case, as per harge-sheet of facts the prosecution The brief (2). of 2011

in Cr.No.367

Officer, Mahabubnagar,

Police by the Sub-Divisional and A2 are as follows: against Al

of PS Jadcherla,

Old bazar, epally

a resident of Gallageri,

Mallesh is

A-1 Nakka of Old

is also resident

A-2 Jolam Narsimha Mandal, and

of Jadcherla

accused are belong to Both the

of Jadcherla-Mandal.

Bazar, Badepally,

is belongs to

Basaipally Mallesh

Caste. The deceased

Golla (BC) by

of Addakal andal.

hails from Janampet-village

Caste, and Madiga (SC) the deceased pally

to this incident,

eight months prior About

of the eceased at

Majula, who is neighbour fell in-love with one Mallesh, and Manjula rent,

of Caste both deceased,

village. As the

Janmapet

Was not accept their love. SO the elder's of both the families, was

the parents of Manjula

five months back,

about

Subsequently,

was the marriage also, 'Manjula with A-1. After performed, her marriage frequently over phone. Since, last one, to talk with the deceased

continue

aring o

Al was observing all these things, and at last he rebuked her, then she

the

narrated, about the entire of episode her love story. However, Al warned

to changed her attitude and not to talk with the deceased. But anjula

paid deaf car to the words of her husband i.e., Al and again tacted

with the on deccased 15-10-2011 and 19-10-2011 with mobile of phone A

1. Apart from that on 19-10-2011 at about 9-30 am, the ceased

contacted Al directly, and asked to him give mobile to his wife anjula,

for which Al has got-angry he and bore grudge, against the deceased, and

decided to eliminate, once for all. As such, he was approached, his close

fried i.e., 'A-2 and told to him the entire story, and to asked render his

assistance, in execution of plan of action, for which A2 was agreed.

According to their on plan, Al 20-11-2011, talked with the deceased, over

mobile phone for thrice and invited the deceased, for having liquor

together. Accordingly, the deceased came to Jadcherla new bus stand,

where Al and A2 met him and of all them had knock out beer, at Sai

Wines situated opposite to New Bus-stand, Jadcherla. During sions,

Al asked the deceased to meet his wife Manjula who was working in their fields. The deceased slobbered, for the same, and agreed. At about 5.00

Al pm, A2 and took the deceased on their Motor Cycle, driven by A-2. The deceased was sat in-between Al arnd A2, and they were eeded,

On the way at towards Aloor-village via Divitipally, and Thadiparthy.

A1 Aloor, again purchased knockout-beer at Vishnuvardhan Reddy Shop,

and went to the of outskirts Aloor. They were reached the fields in land

Sy.No.29, belongs to one Raghavendra Rao, where they wvere med

Beer at around 6.00 pm, A-1, who was presuming that the eased became an obstacle, between him, and his wife Manjula, there he was

picked up, Beer bottle, and on hit the of head the deceased, of all a

sudden, to due which, the deceased on fell the ground, then A2, caught

hold deceased, and facilitated Al, Al then stabbed the deceased on his

on h1

injuries,

also inflicted bleeding

beer bottle and "throat with broken

A1

of

deceased, threw-away

testicles. death the After confirming the

A of

1

'A-2, stuffed the dead body the assistance

broken-Beer-bottle. with

on

of

dead-body deceased

bags, shifted the plastic-fertilizer and into twO

of

a at

little distance, the fields one Cycle, after passing their Motor and

on

dead-body fallen the lost control over bike, and the Appaiah, they

it in

of

it, threw the bike. both them dragged and ground, from the Then

to

after, the father absconded. There they were went adjacent bushes and

as as

of

their clothes, well the mobile-phone in-law's house Al, and burnt

by

Al to

of

caste, killed belongs Golla (BC) deceased. Thus, and A2, who

A2

Al

thereby and are deceased, belongs S.C Community and the who

34 of

Sec.3 (2) 302, Sec. IPC, and the offence, U/Sec. 201 R/w

committed

of

(v) (POA) Act, 1989. SC/ST

On of

of

Judicial Magistrate First

(3). filing charge sheet, the the

on by

file taking cognizance against Class, Jadcherla taken the case has

34 of 3

A2

Al

Sec. IPC Sec. offence U/Sec. 302, 201 and for the R/w

and

42 of

as

of

registered case P.R.C. No.

(v) Act, 1989, and (2) SC/ST (POA)

As 3 of is

exclusively

(2) (v) SC/ST (POA) Act 2012. the offence U/Sec.

by

therefore, learned Magistrate

Special Sessions Court, the triable the

of to

(a) Cr.P.C this Court. committed the case, U/Sec 209

On of

records, this court has receipt committal orders along with

on by

against the accused persons file case taking cognizance taken the

34 3 of

of

Sec. (2) (v) 302, Sec. IPC and for the offence U/Sec. 201 R/w

as of

S.C.No.25 2013. registered the case (POA) Act, 1989 and SC/ST

on

On of

before this court, and

the accused persons, (4). appearance

on of

behalf the prosecution,

learned Spl., c-Prosecutor

hearing the

on

persons, sidering the learned dvocate for accused and

and

s, 5 on hì on framed a material available record, this court has charge 302, U/Sec.

34 of 3 of

Sec. Sec. (2) (v) (POA) Act, 1989, read 201 IPC and SC/ST R/w

to in

telugu, for they pleaded not guilty over explained them which

and

to be claimed tried.

and

in to of in

(5). prosecution order bring the guilt the accused The home

1 to 11 (

as

all examined eleven (11) witnesses and got marked 24) PWs

as to to

Ex.P1 P-24, M.0.1 M.O.13 are got marked. The documents and

on

Complaint, the Police has

defacto-complainant K.Venkat Reddy whose

a as

against the accused Persons are examined him PW-1, registered case

PW

is to as

Laxmaiah, witrness, the incident examined One M.Dasari who

2. K. examined as

is to

also witness, the incident PW-3. One Venu,who

is of

M.Krishnaiah, younger brother the deceased, and One who

is of

as

circumstantial witness examined PW-4. L.Balaiah, uncle One who as of the deceased also circumstantial witness examined PW-5. the One

of of

witness for scene offence, inguest, over the dead body panch the and i.e., A.

as

deceased Srinivasulu, examined PW-6. Both the panch for the

A1 A2 N.

of B.

confession-cum-seizure i.e., Sheshagiri

and Rao and

as

PW-8. Medical Officer Balramn Reddy are examined PW-7 and The

of

Dr.M.S. Narendra, conducted autopsy over the dead body deceased who

as is of

examined PW-9. Smt. Balamma, mother the deceased One who

as is

examined PW-10. A.Ravinder Reddy, the first investigating who

as

officer, issued against the accused Persons are examined who FIR

PW-11.

to to

documentary evidence, Ex.Pl P-24. Ex.P1 The Coming

on by

of

written-complaint filed dt.20-10-2011.

signature PVW-1, the PW-1

be by

to

telugu written complaint alleged filed PW-1, before Ex.P-2 The

to

Police, -10-2011. Ex.P-5 relevant

the Jadcherla ExP-3 The some 6

of to

in

PW-3, PW-1 respective),

Cr.P.C., statements

portions the 161

Ex.P-8

Inquest panchanama.

Detail Form. Ex.P-7 The

Ex.P-6 Crime

The

on

of

seizure

the Confession and

signatures PW-7

Ex.,P.9 are The

and

A1 A2 10

of

confession

The

respectively. Exs.P-

panchanama and

of

of

Cycle. Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12 for seizure Motor

accused

panchanama

A1

on of

of

seizure A2. Ex.P the confession and and signatures PW-8 The

of 14

13

confession seizure panchanama A-2. Ex.P-the the and

on of

conducted the dead body deceased. Ex.P-15 the

P.M.Examination

F.I.R.in Cr.No. 367/2011 issued against the accused persons. Ex.P-16 The

A

of of

Scene offence panchanama. Ex.P-17 confession panchanama

The

1. of seizure bottle. Ex.P-19 Ex.P-18 panchanama the Beer The The

of

A-2. Ex.P-20 Section confession-cum-recovery panchanama The

of of

Alteration Memo. Ex.P-21 Orders the Superintendent Police, The

of of

Mahabubnagar. Ex.P-22 order the appointment investigating The

of

Report. officer, Ex.P-23 Caste Certificate the deceased, Ex.P-24 The and The

F.S.L.

to to 1

Coming material-objects M.0.1 M.0.13, Control MO. The

of

Earth soil, piece Cloth with stains, MO.2 The dark brown MO.3 The as a Beer Bottle label knock-out, with dark brown stains. black MO.4 The coloured Belt with dark brown stains. black coloured Cotton MO.5 The pant with brown stains. yellow black coloured polyester shirt. MO.6 The

The white coloured Banyan. Drawer. MO.7 MO.8 The Red Cut MO.9 The

a

coloured Thread. torn plastic-bag. broken Red MO.10 The MO.11 The

12

cycle. bottle with dark Coloured stains. Cell MO. The Nokia phone, MO.13 The

Motor

of

(6). After closure prosecution's side evidence, sed-persons the

to

were xamined /Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard the inating

pectivel in

circumstances also evidence appearing against them, the evidence

and

of

prosecution-witnesses. They denied the said circumstances and also

as

evidence. further stated that they are not-committed, offence They any

by

alleged the Prosecution witness, they have been falsely implicated

and

in no

this case. also stated that, they have defence evidence. They

on of

(7). Heard the learned Spl. Public Prosccutor behalf the

Prosecution, learned Advocate for the accused-persons.

and

in

(S). point that arise for consideration this case are: Now the

Al A2 of

committed, the murder deceased Whether and were

on by on

inflicting-injuries his

Basaipally Mallesh, 20-10-2011,

on to a

throat, his testicles with Beer-bottle, belonging who A1 A2

of

schedule Caste community? Whether and were member

of by

to

tried disappear the evidence said offence, throwing, the

in

dead body the bushes? Whether the prosecution proved has the guilt the accused Persons for the offence U/Sec. 302, 201

34 of 3 of

Sec. Sec. (2) (v) (POA) Act, 1989? R/w IPC and SC/ST

1 3: A2

to is of of It is

(9). POINTs Admittedly close friend A-1.

an

also admitted fact that A-1 Nakka Mallesh married one Manjula. was

As of is

prosecution, motive for the offence, that there per the case the

in of by

illegal contact between the wife Al, Manjula, the was name and

to

deceased Person, even prior marriage with A-1, she continued, her and

On

the same, with the deceased, even after her marriage with Al. coming

to of Al

about the affair deceased, with his wife, bore grudge know

to do of

decided with the life deceased, against the deceased and away

he of is

the assistance A-2, his friend, and committed the and took who murder of deceased.

loo 8 In this case, there are no eye-witnesses, to the incicdent, who . (10). witnessed, while Al and A2 were committing the murder of the deceaso

by inflicting injuries, on his throat and on his testicles, on 20-10-2011,

There is no direct-evidence, even with regard to disappearance of evidence

of the said offence i.e., after committing murder of deceased, Al and A2

were shifted, the body on motorcycle and at the field of one Appaiah, they

lost control over it, and the dead body fell-down from the Motor Cycle,

and both of them dragged the dead body, and threw it in the adjacent

bushes, and absconded.

As per the case of the prosecution, on the written-complaint

(11).

filed under Ex.P-2, by PW-1 on 20-10-2011, the Police, registered a case

against the unknown offenders, in Cr.No.367/2011 onthe same day and

issued F.LR under Ex.P-15. As per the contents of Ex.P-2, on20-10-2011

evening at about 6.00 pm, PW-1 along with his villagers Kataram Venu,

Mala Dasari-Laxmaiah, were taking their Cattle, to the Nagappakunta, at

that time, two persons were came on Motor Cycle towards Nagappakunta

bushes, and one person was in the middle of two persons on the said

motorcycle, and they came on to the road, and on seeing them, the said

two persons, threw away the said middle-person into the adjacent bushes,

and they ran-away towards Badepally side. They went to that spot and

observed one person having bleeding injuries on throat and testicles. The

villagers of Kothur were followed the said persons on the motorcycles to

Some distance, but the said two persons were escaped. On the said

Complaint, PW-11, who was SHO., has registered a case, and visited the

Scene of offence place, and conducted the scene of panchanama, and

later, sent the dead body to the Govt. Hospital, Jadcherla and got

conducted, inguest, over the dead body of the deceased, under Ex.P-7 in

the presence of PW-6 and another panch witnesses, and after inquest,

who we, the body was preserved for the of purpose identification and he epared deceased 1e look-out Notice, and sent to all the concern, and published in the News paper. On 24-10-2011 he was examined, of some the witnesses i.e. B.

Krishnaiah, PW-10, PW -4, (LW-8) A.Srinvas, (LW-9) .Ramulamma, PW-5, and T. LWN-11 Krishnaiah and they were identified, the deceased Person as Basaipally Mallesh' and he examined them, and recorded their statements, and came to know that the deceased belongs to hedule

Caste Community.

It is also the case of prosecution that on 01-11-2011, Al was (12). his residence, situated at Badepally, and who

apprehended, at

then he secured the he was about to confess, interrogated him, when

statement of

and recorded the confessional of PW-7 and PW-8, presence

Al and seized Nokia Cell-phone and SIM card No.9885917080, and A1, to the of Scene offence, along with panchayatdars, A1 there, has shown one beer-bottle from nearby-bushes, and the said beer-bottle, was seized under a panchanama (Ex.P-18). of In-furtherance his confession, Al led he and also recorded the Market, and shown them 'A-2

them to Badepally

confession statement of A2, and recovered a Bajaj Motor Cycle bearing

No.AP-22-Q-8484 under of cover a recovery panchanama. MO.13 is the and is the very said Ex.P-19

Motorcycle,

A2. Al and A2 are brought to the ce-Station, and

panchanama of

effected, their arrest and sent them to judicial-custody. sequently, the

Superintendent of Police was appointed Smt.V.Geetha Devi, .D.PO,

Mahabubnagar as Investigating-officer, vide Orders No. -3-10

APT/BCRB/11 dated 1-11-2011, since the cases against Scs/STs (POA)

Act, cases to has be investigated, by not below the rank of SDPO.

|0 her @ has not-examined this case, the prosecution (13). In

Smt.V.

Geen, Devi, S.D.P.O., Mahabubnagar, who is competent to investigate the co under Scs/STs (POA) Act, who filed the charge sheet. when the entire case on Confession and covery of the prosecution are based,

of panchanama 'A1 and A2, recorded by PW-11, under Ex.P-17, and

Ex.P-19 and under Ex.P-18, coupled with panch-witnesses for the alleged confession and recovery i.e., PW-7 and PW-8, but unfortunately both the panch witnesses PW-7 and PW-8 are failed, to support the tion's case, and turned as hostile. Though they are identified their tures, on Ex.P-17 and Ex.P-19, but they are failed to support the of contents

Bx.P-17 and Ex.P-19. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the

alleged Confession and seizure of panchanama Al A2 and on 1-2011

under Ex.P-17 and Ex.P-19 and recovery of any material objects chless

MO.12 and beer-bottle, from the bushes in the presence of PW-7 and PW-8.

(14). In this case, the of mother deceased Balamma, who has mined as PW-10, she deposed, in her evidence, that the deceased Mallesh is her

Son, and she belongs to Madiga Caste, and as per her evidence, one month prior to the death of her he Son, was with her, Al since tened her son, with dire-consequences contending that her Son is having illegal contact, with his wife, due to of fear A-1, his Son went to mpet

village, where her Daughter Ramulamma is residing. On the same day,

her Daughter to telephoned her, and enquired her whether her Son has reached to her house, and she replied that he has not come. They were searched for him about three days, for her Son, and after three days, the

Police called her to Jadcherla P.S., where she identified the dead of body her deceased-Son. She suspected A1 for the death of her Son. During cross-examination, PW-10 admitted that there was panchayat gainst her deceased-son that he was sold away the ornaments of one amani

V. Geeth

cases ire ate the pay a

he was asked to and in the said panchayat,

@ Thirupathamma,

that due to fear she denied the suggestion sum of Rs. 20,000/-. However,

Son was kept in ugonda her

relations of Thirupathamma,

of the she has stated to that,

during cross-examination

She also deposed village. suggestion that but she denied the her Son,

police that A1 threatened

the with dire Al was threatened

before the police, that

she has not-stated with Al's illegal contacts was having that the deceased

Consequences

court also found of PW-10, this 16l Cr.P.C statemnent wife. On perusing that Al Cr.P.C statement, in her 161 has not stated that PW-10 has since her ceased-son with dire consequences, her Son

threatened

in omission

When such material with wife of A-1. illegal contacts having A-1 for the

evidence suspecting

therefore, her evidence of PW-10, the police that Al the before the and she has stated of her Son Mallesh, death her Son was having consequences since her son with dire

threatened

Therefore, the oral of A-1 are not believable. with the wife illegal contacts, case to onnect way helpful to the prosecution

of is PW-10, no

evidence

suspicion owever

the deceased, though for the of murder A1 and A2,

of place evidence.

it cannot take

strong

also turned as ostile, other witnesses are In this case all the

(15).

the panch case including the prosecution's

failed to support

and

on whose laint,

for inquest. The defacto-complainant witnesses to support the a case, also failed Police has registered under Ex.P-2, complaint under filing of any written with regard to

prosecution-case

Ex.P-2.

are not missible in done by PW-11 The so-called investigation, (16). officer when it is not a competent investigating

because PW-11 is

evidence

is

12

the of case prosccution that Al and A2, who are members of

schedule caste-persons, have attacked the deceased, who to belonging

memberof schedule caste community, and only not below rank of .o

is

competent to

investigate the cases,

under SCs/STs (POA) Act.

Therefore, the of

investigation PW-11, with

regard to

ending Al

nd A2 and

recording their

confession and

recovery

anchanama der

Ex.P-17 and on

Ex.P-19 in

1-11-2011 the of

presence PW-7 and PW-3 are

not-admissible. Though the

prosecution, has examined PW-11, but both the pancha for

witnesses

of Al

confession-cum-recovery panchanama and

A2

under Ex.P17 and Ex.P19, i.e. PW-7 and PW-8 are to failed

pport

the

prOsecution's case, and

turned as

hostile.

Therefore, the of case the

prosecution that Al and

A2 was

hatched a

plan, to do

away with the life

of

deceased Mallesh and on

20-11-2011 they were committed the murder

of

deceased and after

commission of

murder, they were shifted the dead on body the Motor Cycle, at and

the of field

one

Appaiah, they lost

ontrol

over it and the dead body fell down from the Motor Cycle, and

of both

them dragged the dead body, and threw it, in the adjacent bushes and

absconded, is not

believable. in Hence, view of

the above

discussion and

after scanning the entire

evidence on read

this court is of

the opinion that the

prosecution in this

case failed, to

prove the guilt of the

ccused

koeyond

persons being

reasonable doubt for the

offence U/

punishable Sec. 302, 201 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3 (2) of (v) SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

In the

result, Al and A2, are found for not-guilty the offence punishable U/ Sec. 302, 201 R/w Sec. 34 of IPC and also U/Sec. 3 (2) (v)

of SC/ST

(POA) Act,1989,

hence, they are

acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) of

of Cr.P.C the said charges. The bail of bonds Al and A2, shall be stand cancelled. The case property i.e. MO.1 to MO.12, shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal time. MO.13 Motor Cycle bearing No.

8484.

13

Krishnaiah), is who

Narsimha S/o

already given to A-2 (Jolam

is

to

safe custody, vide said Motor Cycle, for interim

of Owner the

Registered

the learned JMFC, herla,

dt.2-11-2012 by

Crl.M.P.No. of 2867 2012

court, for interim safe given to A-2 by this was alSO again and the same with him as

ordered to be retained,

the same is

custody, therefore,

of appeal times ovex.

absolute, after expiry by him, rected

transcribed

to the Stenographer,

Dictated

day of ctober, the 29th Court on this me in the open

by

and pronounced 2014.

Sessions Judge,

District and 1st Addl.

Mahabubnagar.

Judge-cum -

FAC Spl. Sessions VII ADJ., Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: K.Venkat Reddy, Complainant, Laxmaiah, Witness, PW2: Malal Dasari PW3: Katram Venu, Witness,

PW4: Marikanti Krishnaiah, of Brother-in-law deceased,

of Uncle the deceased, PW5: Lingala Balaiah, PW6: Akula Srinivasulu, Panch witness for Scene and inquest over the dead body. PW7: Badepally Sheshagiri Rao, Panch witness for onfession-cum of Seizure A1, and A2. PW8: Narra Balram Reddy, Panch witness for Confession-Cum Seizure of Al, and A2. PW9: Dr.M.S. Narendra, Civil Asst., Surgeon, PW10: Basaipally Balamma, Mother of the deceased, PW11: A.Ravindar Reddy, of Inspector Police.

For Defence:

-None

14

EXHIBITES MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex,P-1 Signature of

on PW-1,

Report,

dt.20-10-201l.

Ex.P-2 Report, dt.20-10-2011.

Ex.P-3 Some

relevant in portions the

161

Cr.P.C., of

statement PW-1.

Dt.20-10-2011,

Ex.P-4 Some

relevant portions in

the 161

Cr.P.C., statement of

PW-2.

Dt.20-10-2011,

Ex.P-5 Some

relevant in

portions the 161

Cr.P.C., of

statement PW-3.

Dt.20-10-2011,

Ex.P-6 Crime

Detail

Form,

Dt.20-10-2011,

Ex.P-7

Inquest

panchanama,

Dt.20-10-2011,

Ex.P-8 of

Signatures on PW-7 the

Confession and

seizure

of Al,

panchanama

Dt.01-11-2011.

Ex.P-9 of

Signatures on PW-7 the

Confession and

of seizure

panchanama A2,

Dt.01-11-2011.

Exs.P-10

Confession of

panchanama accused for

of seizure

Motor Cycle

dt.01-11-2011.

Ex.P-11 of

Signatures on PW-8 the Confession and

seizure

of Al,

panchanama

Dt.01-11-2011.

Ex.P-12 of

Signatures on PW-8 the

Confession and

seizure

panchanama of A2,

Dt.01-11-2011.

Ex.P-13

Confession and

seizure of

panchanama A-2,

dt.01-11-2011.

Ex.P-14 Post

Mortem

Examination Report, on

conducted the dead body

of

Deceased, Dt.21-10-2011,.

Ex.P-15 F.I.R.in

Cr.No.

367/201,

Dt.20-10-2011.

Ex.P-16 of Scene

offence

panchanama,

Dt.20-10-2011.

Ex.P-17

Confession panchanama of A-1,

Dt.01-11-2011.

Ex.P-18 Seizure

of panchanama the Beer

bottle,

dt.01-11-2011.

Ex.P-19

panchanama of A-2,

Confession-cum-recovery

01-11-2011.

Ex.P-20 Section

Alteration Menmo,

dt.01-11-2011.

Ex.P-21 Orders of the

of

Superintendent Police,

dt.01-11-2011. Mahabubnagar,

Ex.P-22 of Order the

of

appointment

investigating officer,

-11-2011.

Ex.P-23 Caste of

Certificate the dt,

deceased,

19-01-2012

Ex.P-24 F.S.L. Report,

dt.08-02-2012.

For Defence -Nil 15

OBJECTS MATERIAL

Control earth soil, M.O.1 of cloth stains, M.0.2 Piece with as dark brown stains, Beer-bottle label knock-out with dark brown M.O.3 stains, Black coloured belt with dark brown M.O.4 stains, M.0.5 Black coloured Cotton pant with brown

coloured polister shirt,

M.O.6 Yellow black M.O.7 White coloured banyan, cut drawer, M.O.8 Red colored thread, M.O.9 Red Plastic Bag, M.O.10 Torn colored stains, bottle with dark M.O.11 Broken M.O.12 Nokia Cell phone, Cycle. Motor M.O.13

District Sessions Judge,

1st Addl. and

Mahabubnagar.

- Spl. Sessions Judge-cum FAC Mahabubnagar. VII ADJ.,

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL SESSIONS JUDGE CUM VII

ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Wednesday, the 8th day of October, 2014.

PRESENT:- Sri S.Bajaranga Babu,

[st Addl., District, and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar,

FAC Special Sessions Judge-Cum VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

S.C.No.15 of 2013

Preliminarily Registered Case No.9/2013 committed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur in Cr.No.98/2012 of

P.S. Kollapur, for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of 'Indian Penal

Code' and also Sec.3 (1)(x) of SC/ST of (POA) Act 1989.

: Sri S.K.M. Quadri, Prosecution: Spl. Public Prosecutor, Mahabubnagar.

: K.Pratap Kumnar, Advocate (defence) for Defence Counsel: accused. Anjaneyulu, S/o.Kistanna, Name, and particulars :1. Telugu Caste:Telugu (BC), age.59 years, of the Accused Persons. Occ:Agril., R/o.Manchalakatta village.

2. Pedda Venkataswamy, S/o.Kistanna, Caste:Telugu, Occ: age.42 years,

Mavabubnager Fisherman, R/0.Manchalakatta village.

S/o.Anjaneyulu, R/o.

3. G.Kurmaiah, Manchalakatta village.

4. Smt.G.Padma, W/o.Kurmaiah, R/o. Manchalakatta village. :U/Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC, and also Sec.3 Offence under (1)(x) of SC/ST of (POA) Act 1989. Section(s) : Pleaded not guilty. Plea of the Accused : Found not guilty Finding of the Court The accused person's 1 to 4 are found Sentence or Order not-guilty for the offence U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC, and also U/Sec.3 (1)(x) of

SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. Hence they are 2 Suligiri Chin

acquitted U/Sec.235 (1)

Cr.PC.

bail bonds shall stand be

cancelle

beiongs t

unmarked case property if any, Shal

Sched

destroyed after eXpiry of appeal time

05- d

This case is having coming before me for final hearing on 07

10-2014, and upon perusing the material on record, upon

hearing the arguments, and the mnatter having stood over for

consideration, till this day the Court delivered the following:

JUD G MENT

This is a case of voluntarily causing hurt, by beating with

the Stone, and causing injuries, to one 'Suligiri Chinna-Ramudu,

S/o.Naganna, and also all the accused personrs not being a

member of Schedule Caste, or Schedule tribe, they were insulted

'Suligiri Chinna Ramudu', who belongs to Schedule Caste

Community, in the name of his Caste, in a Public view, thereby

they are committed an offence, punishable U/Sec.324 r/w.34 of

Cs IPO,and also Sec.3(1) (x) of (POA) Act 1989.

(2). The case of the Prosecution, as per the charge Sheet filed by

the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Wanaparthy in Cr.No.98 of 2012

of Police Station Kollapur, are as follows:

The accused A1 to A4 are the resident of Manchalakatta

village and whereas the defacto Complainant/injured Person

d 3

be

Suligiri Chinna Ramudu, he is also resident of same village and

A1 and A2 are not Schedule Caste and bÃinngs to Madiga,

Schedule Tribe community. The alleged incident took place on 05-10-2012, A1 to A4 with their common intention beat the defact complaint Suligiri Chinna Ramudu with stone, voluntarily causing injuries on his head and also abusing the said person with insulting him that his caste name, the same was witnessed by Pws.2 to 5 along with others.

On the Complaint filed by Pw.1, who is injured person under

Ex.P1, the SHO Kollapur, has registered a case, as the accused persons in Cr.No.98 of 2012, U/Sec.324 r/w. 34 IPC and Sec.3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 and issued F.I.R. against the accused person by the S.I. of Police D.Raju, and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation the alleged incident took place under Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe,

and appointed Sub Divisional Police Officer, Gadwal in-charge

Wanaparthy Sub-Division, so as per the instructions of the

Superinténdent of Police, thought initially investigation took by

D.Raju, S.I. of Police, but later the M.Mahesh, Sub Divisional

Police Officer, Gadwal in-charge Wanaparthy, Sub-Division, took up investigation in this case, and investigated, the case

subsequently regular SDPO., took the file, and after completion of

his investigation, he was filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons A1 to A4.

4

On filing the charge-sheet, the learned Judicial Magist. Sa No.1 (3).

First Class at Kollapur had taken on file the case by

cognizance, against the accused persons i.e. A1 to A4, for the offence U/Sec.324 rw.34 Indian Penal-Code, and also Sec.3

of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, and registered the case as PRC No.00a

2013.

(4). After appearance of accused persons, the learned Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Kollapur, has furnished the copies of

documents, as contemplated U/ Sec.207 Cr.P.C., Since the alleged offence committed by the accused persons are U/Sec.3 (1)(x) of

SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, along with Sec.324 r/w34 IPC, as the offence U/Sec.3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 is exclusively

triable by the Court of the Special-Sessions Judge, for trial of

Cases Under S.Cs., and S.Ts. [P.O.A] Act-cum-VII Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, therefore, committed the

case U/Sec.209 (a) Cr.P.C. to the Special Sessions Judge, for Trial

of Cases, Under S.Cs., and S.Ts. P.O.A] Act-cum-VII Addl.

District/ and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

On receipt of the committal Orders, along with the records (5) this court has taken on the file the case, by taking, cognizance for the offence U/Sec.324 rw.34 Indian Penal Code, and also Sec 3 5

13) of sc/ST (POA) Act 1989, and registered, a Case as

SN.No. 15 of 2013.

(6). On appearance of the accused-persons A1 and A4, before this court on 13-05-2013, on hearing the learned Special Public

Prosecutor on behalf of Prosecution, and the learned Advocate for the accused persons this court has framed a charge U/ Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC, and also U/Sec.3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 against the accused persons A1 and A2. Later on 12-07-2013 in

Crl.M.P. No. 185/2013, dt. 12-07-2013,

view of the allowing

Smt.Padma and her husband Kurmaiah are added as accused

On 16-08-20 13 on appearance of the persons A3 and A4.

accused persons A1 to A4, before this court, this Court framed the charges U/Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC, and U/ Sec.3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989 against the accused persons A3 and A4 in this case), read over, and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

(7). The Prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accuséd persons, all examined (5) five witnesses as Pws. 1 to Pw.5, and got marked (5) five documents as Exs.Pl to P5.

The defacto Complainant/injured-Person Suligiri Chinna

Ramudu' has examined as Pw.1. The Prosecution also examined 6

Vallamma,

four (4) other eye witnesses Smt.Suligiri Gu

Ramudu', Devarappaga Chinna Ramudu, and Javiti Shivu

Pws.2 to Pw.5.

Coming to exhibits P1 to P5, Ex.P1, is Original-written

Complaint, filed by Pw. 1, before the SHO of P.S., Kollapur against

the accused persons, dated 06-10-2012, and registered a case by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, P.S. Kollapur, in Cr.No.98 of 2012 and issued FIR, and recorded the statements Exs.P2 to P5 some relevant portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statements of Pws.2 to 5

respectively recorded by the Police, during course of investigation.

After examining Pws. 1 to 5, since there is no incriminating

material evidence against the accused persons, as all the

Prosecution witnesses examined Pws.1

to 5 turned hostile.

Therefore, the learned Special Public Prosecutor of this court

given up the remaining witnesses Lws.8 to 26, and the Lws.6 and 7 are died.

(8). After closure of the Prosecution evidence, since there is no

incriminating material-evidence, against the accused person,

therefore the examination of accused persons U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C.

is dispensed with.

7 (9). Heard both sides,

Now the point that arises for consideration: (10).

Whether, the accuseds with the common intention voluntarily beat Pw.1, with stone and caused injuries to himn, and also insulted him with his Caste, who belongs to Schedule Caste, though the accused are not belongs to Schedule Caste and

Schedule tribe, therefore the accused, are committed the offence

U/Sec.324 r/w.34 IPC, and Sec.3 (1)(x) of SC/ST of (POA) Act 1989.

Points:-Admittedly, the SHO., P.S., Kollapur, D.Raju, (11). receipt of the written-complaint, from the (Lw.24) S.I. of Police on defacto complainant-cum-injured-Person (Pw. 1), under Ex.Pl, against the accused-Persons was registered a case, in Cr.No.98 of 2012, U/ Sec. 324 r/w.34 of IPC and Sec.3 (1)(x) of SC/ST of (POA)

Act, and issued first information report (FIR). Later as the offence

U/Sec. 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST of (POA) Act, exclusively has to be investigated by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, therefore as per instructions of superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar, this case given to the SDPO M.Mallesh, Gadwal who is in-charge Sub

Division Wanaparthy, who took up investigation and examined the witnesses and sent the injured person to the hosital, who was received head injury.

"Madiga Nav 8 ladut (12). In order to prove F.I.R. i.e. written complaint filed husb basing on which, the Police has registered a case, against the

the defacto

examined as Prosecution the accused person,

Complainant i.e. Suligiri Chinna Ramudu, This witness deposed

in chief examination, which was recorded by this court on 09-07

2013, has supported the prosecution's case. He has categorically

deposed before this court, that he know one Padma, was the head

of Grameen Upadi Pathakam-Scheme in home, use to working as a coolie and as per the instructions of his master Padma, they engaged one tractor, for transporting the Sand, but Padma issued wages-chits to the persons who were not attending to Coolie work, in this regard the same has informed to one Thimma Reddy, who was a Special Officer of Palle Vikaasam, about the irregularities of

Padma. He also spoken in his evidence before this court, that

about (10) ten months, ago on one day the said Thimma Reddy, who is Special Officer, along with other Officials of the

Departments came to his village and inspected the entire village

and held meeting in the Grama Panchayat office at their village,

and said "Thimma Reddy the Was enquired about the

irregularities of Padma. He also spoken in the said meeting, he

told to Thimma Reddy, Special Officer, about the irregularity of

Padma and issuing of Chits, to the Person's, who are not

attending coolie work. On that Padma who was present there

became grew-wild, and abused him touching his caste, as

meedane "Madiga Navatta, thinukuntu-mnaa maa SOmmu t the The Kurmaiah, the iN laduthunnava, Madiga badukav".

husband of Padma i.e. A3 alsO abused him by touching his cast,

o

as "Madiga lanjakoduka, sommu-thinukuntu maa meedane matladuthunnava" and asked his authority to question about the irregularities before the Higher officials. Then the Special Officer

Thimma Reddy chide'Padma and Kurmaiah for having committed the irregularities, then they all were disbursed from Grama

Panchayat office at 4.00 p.m., while Pw.1 was present at the petty shop of one Narayana Reddy, (Lw.6) in order to purchase beedies, Al on seen him, abused touching his caste as "Madiga langakoduka nee gotti pellanni denga" inthavaraku neeku pillalu puttaledu, nene pillalni puttisthanu". A1 beat him with stone on his head resulting which received bleeding injury and A2 joined with A1, and he also abused, by touching his cast and also A2 pushed him, and one G.Ramudu (Pw.3) and one Javiti Shivudu (Pw.5) and others were witnessed the incident.

This witness is not cross-examined, on the same day of (13).

his chief-examination i.e. on 09-07-2013, later this witness has re-called, and cross-examined on 29-09-2013, and during cross examination this witness has spoken at the time of alleged galata there were 50 to 60 persons were gathered, the incident took place about for half-an-hour and the Police got written complaint,

and they were asked him to sign, so accordingly he was singed on

10 i the 'Ex.PT, and he has not-nentioned in the written complain on stone Naray names of persOns who was abused him, and also names inciden persons, who was abused his wife in the said galato infor wtness also categoricallv 'admitted that he has not mentioned

Ex Pl. that the name of the person who was beat him and causet injunes, so also the persons, in the said mob-discloses the name of the accused persons, and he has also stated in chief examination, the namne of the persons, who abused, and beat him, only on suspicious He admits that Al to A4 never abused him, and his wife, nor they were beat him at any time.

(14). The alleged eyewitness Suligiri Vallamma, who is

no other than the wife of Pw.1 has failed to support the

Prosecution's case, and turned as hostile, thus this witness cross

examined at length, after declared this witness as hostile. but

nothing is elicited, except that she has not stated before the

Polhce as in Ex.P2 16l Cr.P.C. statement.

Similarly. other eyewinessesS

Gudemoni Ramudu.

Drvarapaya Chinna Ramudu, and Javiti Shivudu, who are

t\ewit 1isses t0 nCident were examined as Pws 3 to 5, tailed to uppoT The Piosecution case and turned hostile Though the

PrONee3toD C TONS exalnei elaborately Pws o 5, aftet scekiug

permissot: trom ths Coutt, to show that though they ave

withessed as the aceused Persons bcat r I voluntaily with

nt as tk

11 stone on the incident day, when Pw.1 was at the Kirana shop of

Sr Narayana Reddy to purchase Beedies by keeping grudge, the

is incident took place at Grama Panchayat Office, when Pw.l informed to the Special Officer Thimma Reddy, about the irregularity of A4.

In this case this court also stated that the learned (15). Special Public Prosecutor of this Court, given up remaining all witnesses in view of the hostile evidence of Pws. l to 5. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove that Al to A4 are the same persons who abused Pw. 1 by touching his caste on the incident day i.e. on 05-10-2012 in the after-noon at Grama Panchayat Office in the presence of one Thimma Reddy and other Officials and the

Prosecution also failed to prove that on the same day night Al to

A4 with common intention voluntarily beat the Pw.1 with stone, when he was at the shop of Narayana Reddy at Manchlakatta village aDd the same was witnessed by Pws.2 to 5 along with others. There is also no material evidence before this court, that

Pw.l sustained head injury, because none of the Medical Officer who treated Pw. 1 on the incident day i.e. on 05-10-2012 nor

medical evidence before this court. Though the Medical Officer

Dr.Shilpa Reddy, who treated Pw.1, and issued medical certificate, the Prosecution given up her evidence also.

The prosecution in this case also not-examined the

(lo).

of offence panch-witnesses i.e. Gudemoni-Vishnu and

Narsimha. for the obvious reasons. to know it, and als For P

investigating officer M.Mahesh, Gadwal, who is in-charge oificer

P P

of Wanaparthy, Sub-Division, who investigated the case, and also

B.Srinivasa Reddy, SDPO., Wanaparthy, who iled the charge

sheet. Therefore, absolutely there is no evidence, before this court against the accused person's, to prove that they were voluntarilr beat Pw.l, at about 8.30 p.m., while Pw.l was at the

Kirana Shop of one Naravana Reddy' and also in the after-noon on the same day, Al to A4 were abused Pw.1 by touching his Cast by A3, who is husband of Padma (A4), and the same was witnessed br Pws.2 to Pw.5 along with-others. Therefore, the accused person's are found not guilty and entitled as acquittal.

In the result, the accused Persons (A1 to A4) are found not guilty, for the offence U/ Sec.324 r/w.34 of IPC, and also U/Sec.3(1](x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989. Hernce they are acquitted

U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail-bonds shall be stand cancelled.

The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroved, after the expiry of appeal time.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by her, corrected, and pronounced br me in the open court this the 8th dav of October, 2014).

1s: Addl. District and Sessions Judge

Mahabubnagar

FAC Spl. Sessions Judge- cum - VII ADJ., Mahabubnagar.

e Scei

13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

PW1: Suligiri Chinna Ramudu, defacto complainant

PW2: Suligir Vallamma, Eye witness, PW3: Godemoni Ramudu, Eye witness, PW4: Devarapaga Chinna Ramudu, Eye witness, PW5: Javiti Shivudu, Eyewitness.

For Defence:

- Nil -

EXHIBITES MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P1 The written complaint filed by Pw. 1, before the Police, dt.06-10-2012. Ex.P2 The some relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

Pw.2 recorded by the Police Ex.P3 The some relevant portion in thel61 Cr.P.C. statement of

Pw.3 recorded by the Police Ex.P4 The some relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of

Pw.4 recorded by the Police Ex.P5 The some relevant portion in the l61 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.5 recorded by the Police.

For Defence -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-Nil - 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar FAC Spl. Sessions Judge- cum VII ADJ., Mahabubnagar.

Com by

IN TE COURTOF TUE SPECIAL SI:SSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAT OF (ASES UNDER S.Cs. ANDs.T's. IP.O)AACTCUM-VII ADDL. DISTRICIAND SESSIONS JUDGE: MALABUBNAGAR.

Dated this the 5" day of l'ebruary. 2014.

PRESENT:- Sri P.Sudhakar.

Judge. I'amily Court.

FAC:Special Sessions Judge-Cum VIL Addl. Sessions Judge. Mahabubnagar.

S.C.No.8 of 2013

PRC No,90/2012 committed by J.F.C.M. Shadnagar

Crime No.337 of 20 12 of Police Station: Shadnagar Name of the complainant Sub Divisional Police Officer. Shadnagar Name of the accused 1. Gunna Mallaiah S/o G.Bhcemaiah.

2. Gunna Ramchandraiah S/o Sailu.

3. Gunna Rangamma W/o G.Bhecemaiah. All R/o Yelikata village of Farooqnagar mandal. Shadnagar. Mahabubnagar Dist. Prosecution case Sri S.K.M. Quadri. Spl.Public Prosecutor. conducted by Accused defended by Sri.T.Vijaya Bhasker Reddy. Advocate 323 r/w 34 IPC Punishment for voluntarily causing Offence hurt 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act. insulting a person belonging to SC/ST caste in the name of their caste in a public view.

Pleaded not guilty. Plea of the accused Found not guilty. Finding of the Court The accusced Nos.I to A.3 are found not guilty of Sentence or order the oflence U/Sec. 323 R/w 34 L.P.C.. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 1989 and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec. 23 5(1 ) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused stands cancclled. No property is produced in this case. hence no order is passed with regard to properly.

This case is coming up for hcaring betore me on this day and upon perusing the material on record. upon hearing the arguments. and the matter hav ing stood over for consideration. till this day the Court delivered the following:

JUDG MENT

The Sub-Divisional police ofticer. Shadnagar filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 337/2012 of Shadnagar police station. U/Sec. 323 RAM 34

rdsi..P.and See. 3(1)(x) ofSC/ST (POA) Act. 1989.

lhe ud ol ccucd

1lklallare Sh

the rup wier loy:

delicto coplaan

there wa heavy

Iloted tonands down vide throngli the lunds ol acched. A tha

t o linhoealo presel lher upriculturl liclds saw tlhe lowiny

Cn lo lle delnclo complant and picked the tan ndet on hen land, JLtl ntlh them auscd them in ilhy lunguape in lhe name of their eact,

lolnloni Vrshapu Neeru Naa Polomloki

lanakoduka, Nee

\tn

A,2 caught hold of

\achuehun:tu, Necku kallaVexkuncdi theleyada, Koduka

A.l and A.3 beat lhim with hands, On sccing

Iholthe tetaclo conplinunt d

Madhapuram Padnmma and Madhapuram Narsamma

the wden I .'and

INd w the yot and reseucd them. Thus on the complaint of the said

Mathauam Rju, tlhe case waN rgistered and investigaled into and ultimately latd harge slhet to the olnves U/Sec. 323 R/w 34 |PC. and Sec. 30(x) of lhe leamcd Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar hs taken the cOgmre as tlie Alo A.3 US. 323 R/w 34 LP.C. und Scc, 3(1Mx) of

s S (O At. 1989 and nunbered it as PRCN,90/ 12 and aler following

the prveiure laid down Us 207 CrPC, commiuled the case lo this special

SwiOs Cout clusivelv triable for the offences under SC/ST (POA) Act.

Ihis court hs (signed S.C NO8 of 13 and proceeded further.

On uppeurnee of cvUscd belore this Court, ad alter hcaring the lcutted speeal public prosrulOr md the advocate for accused, the charges. ISe i'RW i4 LPC. and See. 3(D() of SC/ST (POA) AcL. 1989 ar trated. rvad orr and evplind to the acUsed in Telugu. The acCUsed NOs. le ipleded not guilty and clained to be tricd.

loprov the cs of the pOseeutio1, the proscvulion Namined P.Ws.I lo b and got i.rhed Plw P5 PW.I is the delacto conplainant. PWs.2 lo4 are the ewitteyse lo the itident. PW.5 is the panch wilness for scene of otence

c Pl os the inntigation oflicer

Viter closure ot the prosevution vidence. the accuscd were CNamined S |CrDCpluine the iTnainy cirvumstances appearing againsp

As

thenm in the cvidence of the prosceution winesscs. The aceUsed denid the se

The aceused did not choOSe to exmine anY detence witnesseS On their behal!.

lleard both the learmed Spl publie prosecutor and the detence counsel.

Now the point that arise for consideration is whether the proseution hah

proved the guilt

of the accused bevond reasonable doubt?

The learned Spl public prosecutor argued that A.l to A.3 abused PW.I Raju abusing him in ilthv language by referring his caste as Madiga and that his eidence is corroborated by PWs.2 to 6 and that the delav in giving FIR is Cxplaned by PWs.2 to 6 and that the prosecution bv examining PWs.I to 6 and marking Exs.P.1 to P.5 has well established the guilt of the accused for the oftences U/Sec. 323 R/w 34 LP.C.. and Sec. 3(1 )(x) of SC/ST (POA) Ac. 1989.

10. Whercas. the learned defence counsel contended that there is delav of 45 days in giving FIR and it is not properly explained by the prosecution and as such. it is fatal to the prosccution and that PWs.l to 3 did not whisper any word with regard to the presence of LWA Anjanevulu and PW.4 Ram Reddy in their evidence and that PW.4 in his statement to police did not slate about the presence of PWs.2 and 3 during the time of alleged incident and that LW.4 Anjanev lu stated before the police that he was not at all present at the time of alleged incident and that this case was filed against the accused being neighbouring land oWners and that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused and as such he has praved for clean acquittal of the accused 1 to 3.

11. PW.I M.Raju is brother-in-law of PW.2 Padmamma and brother in law of M.Narsamma. PW.3. They belong to Mladiga community. The same is substantiated by exhibiting Ex.P.5 caste certificate marked through PW.6 S.V.Madhava Reddv. the investigating ofticer in this case. The accused belong to golla bv caste. PW.l and A.l are ncighbouring land owners. PW's.l to 3 deposed that the accused 1 to 3 were attending agricultural work in heir fields about tWO Vcars back and on the same day at about 4 P.M. there was drizzling and that the -rainw ater has to pass from the land of PW.l into the land of the accused. The -accusçd cane there and pickcd up a quarrel and abused PW.l touching his caste as Madiga Lanja Koduka mee polam Varshapu neru na polamloki

raneeaj addu". A.2 caught hold of shirt collar of Pw.I. Al and A.3 beat ith

huids:/. Then PW.I went into the village and infornmed the ineident to his caste iupoclders. Ihey promised that they will do justice. He waited lor to INnths and no be 4 the panchavat was held betwen PW.I and the accused Then PWI croSs that al alleging th their of

complaint to the police.

date CO

As per I.PLWAnjanevulu. PW4 Ram Reddy witnesscd the

alegut

incident. During the time of filing of charge sheet. it is mentioncd init that Wa

Anjanevulu stated betore the police that he was not at all present at the lime of allegcd incident. (One wav or the other. LW.4 is not examincd in this case name of PWis found in E.P. PWs.l to 3 did not whisper any word regardino lhe prescnce of PW4 and LW.4 at the time of allegcd incident. PW.6 investigating ofticer in his croSs admitted that PW.4 did not slate before them about the presence of PWs.l to 3 at the time of alleged incident. Admittedly. PWs.l to are closely related to cach other. The allegcd incident took place on 25.6.2012. But PW.I gave Ex.P.l on 8.8.2012. Therefore. there is delay of 45 days in giVing said complaint. PWs.I to 3 stated that they approached their caste clders and they promiscd that they will do justice. But PWs.I lo 3 did not state the names of said elders either before the police or in the court whilc giving their evidence. The police also did not conduct investigation on this aspect to say that

to whom PW.I approached and what were the steps taken by the clders in settling

the disputes between the accused and PW.1. It appcars that they did not approach anv elders and that no such mediation was held at any time. Only in order to cOver up lapses in not giving complaint. PW.s.l to 3 have created this story. Therefore. this Court disbelieved the version of PWs.l to 3 with regard to giving lEx.P.l report with a delay of 45 days. The prosecution has miserablv failed to prove thc delay of 45 days in giving complaint to the policc. PW.l admitted that there is delay of 45 days in lodging the complaint to the police. PW.6 admittecd that there is a delay of 45 days in lodging complaint and that arc corrections in respeet of the dates of statements ofPWs.2 and 3 and that he did not put his initial at the place of said corrections. He enquircd in the village about the incident with other vilagers. but they say that they did not witness the incident. lle has not Cxamined the neighbouring the land owners of the seene of oflence. Theretore ten explanation of delay of 45 days in Ex.P.I conplaint is latal to the case on

iAden

Dis, hand.

PW:l in his cross examination stated that he has not relerred the names ot the clders to whom he informed the incident. cither in ix.P.l or in ExP4 R or oin în his 16| Cr.P.C statement before the police. PWs.2 and 3 are his own sisters-i) law. le did not go lo the police station on the alleged date of incident. The accused approached the police on the date of allegcd incident. PWs.2 and bin their cross examination stated that the accused gave complaint against them alieging ihat thev beat the accuscd. Thev gave such report against them on the dale of lhe alleged incident on hand. It goces to show that the present case Is a cOunter blast to the alleged complaint given bv the accused against PW.I and PW.T in his croSs denied a suggestion that Ex.P.1 report came into Others, CXIStence afier due deliberations and consultations (wo months aficr the alleged incident and that since no incident had happened. he did not give complant in PWs.2 and 3 denied suggestion that the accused never abuscd them time. touching their caste nor the accused beat PW.I. No doubt. PWs.I to 3 are PW.4 M.Ran Reddy deposed that he noticed that the interested witnesses. accused abused PW.I touching his caste as Madiga lanjakoduka. Madiga lanjallara. A.l andA.3 beat PW.I with hands. Whercas PWs.l to3 stated that the accused abused PW.l touching his caste as Madiga Lanja Koduka mee polam Varshapu neru na polamloki ranceyavaddu". A.2 caught hold of collar of PW. 1. But thev arc not spoken to. bv PW.4 in his evidence. The version of abusive words by PW.4 is different from those of such abuses by the accused as deposed bv PWs. I to 3. As already stated above. PW.4 did not state before police about the presence of PWs.2 and 3 at the time of the alleged incident and the same is admitted by PW.6. In chief examination. hc stated that PWs.2 and 3 were als0 present. but in cross examination, he admitted that he and one Srisailam filed a Civil Suit on the file of J.C.J. Shadnagar and that his sisters filed suit against himn for partition in the family Court and that there is another tenancy case in between him and Yadagiri Goud. That the father of A.I Bheemaiah supported in all matters in favour of Yadagiri Goud and also in civil dispute between him and his sisters. He did not inform the incident to anybody except police till PW.I gave Ex.P.l report. Hc stated that PW.I gave report on 25.6.2012. But as per Ex.P.l it was given on 8.8.2012 and the alleged incident took place on 25.6.2012. Therefore. the evidence of PW.4 is contradictory to Ex.p.l regarding presentation of Ex.P.l by PW.l to the police. On going through the cross examination of PW4 it is clicited that there was ennmity between PW.4 and father of A.1. Therefore. he might have spoken against the accused.

V PW.5 Sivaiah deposed about his presence at the time of preparation of Ex.P.2 observation Mahazar of the scene of offence. In his eross examination. he Sahesu admited that PW.1 is his caste man and that he has prepared Ex.P.l two months ajier the alleged incident as there were talks about the incident. He has filed .. ExP.l report at Shadnagar. Ille denied suggestion that he being çlose relative of

PWI. he has preparcd Exp.l and also s1gned on Ex.PT not of much consequences to prove the guilt of the accused Furlher his

invesugalion

PW6SVMadhava Reddy deposed that he was apponted as ofticer on 882012 under Ex.P.3 appointment order. The S of Poliee

K. Satyanaravana received Ix.P.l complaint trom PW.I and he registered as FIR

IxPA in crime No.337 of 2012. On 14.8.2012 he visitecd the SCCne of offence and prepared lxP2 scene of offence panchanama n the presence of PWS I ws

M.Yadaiah. On 27.8.2012. he has recorded the statemnents of PWs.2 and3 and

IW4 Anjanev ulu. On 30.12.2012 he has recorded the slalement of PW.4. Ue has obtained caste certificate of PW.1. le has not taken any steps to sCcure the illage clders nor explained the delav in giving FIR to the police. lle did not make any eilorts io secure the said persons and that said persons arc ciled as eve witness in this maiter. In view of the circumstances prevailing in this matter. as alrcad, stated abovc. the delay of 4s days in lodging complaint is very much fatal lo the case on hand. LWA Anjanevlu did not state before the police in support of the version of PWs.I to 3. PW4 did not state the presence of PWs.2 and 3 in his slalement betore the police. PWs.l to3 did not whisper anything about the presence of PW.4in their evidence. On the other hand. PWs.I lo 3 did not specify on which part of the body A.l to A.3 beat him and thev did not state whether PW.1 was beaten with anv wcapon or with hands. Thcir version is vaguc one about the beating of PW.I by A.l to A.3. PW4 did not speak that A.1 caught hold of collar of PW.1. AIl thcse things would create doubt in the mind that there was possibility of foisting a case against the accused. Hence the evidence PWs.l to 4 is not trust worthy. Hence I disbelieve the version of the prosecution of case. Accordingly. I hold that the prosecution has not proved the charges U/Sec. 323 Rn 34 I.P.C.. and Scc. 3(0)(x) o> SCST (POA) Act. 1989 levelcd against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

l6. In the result. A.l t0 A.3 are found not guilty of the offence U/Sce. 323 34 LP.C. and See. 3(1 \x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. 1989 and aceordingly thev

àcquitted USec. 235(|) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused slands

canccléd. No property is produced in this case. hence no order is passed witlh

regard tý property.

Dictated to Personal Assistant. Iranseribed by hin. correeled and ponounced hy

me in the open Court. this the S day of ebruary 2014.

FAC SDSessions Judge.

Makabubnagar.

7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Wilnesses I:xamined for

Prosecution:

PW.I M.Raju.

PW.2 M.Padmamma. PW.3 M.Narsamma.

PWANRamreddy.

PW.S Y.Shivaiah. PW.6 S.V.Madhav Reddy(|0).

Defence: - None Exhibits marked Prosecution:

Ex.PI Complaint dt.8-8-2012.

Ex.P2 Scene observation Panchanama. Ex.P3 Appointment Order. dt. 8-8-2012.

Ex.P4 First Information Report. Ex.P5 Caste Certificate.

Vce: -NIL

Gum

MATRIAL OBJECTS MARKED.

Mahzuubri)2

--NIL-

Judge. Iami Court.

FAC:Spl. Sessions Judge. Mahabubnagar.

Read by : pa

Comp. by:

Dis.wo, 99

N THE COURT OF THE SPL SESSIONS JUDGE CUM

VII ADDITIONAL

SESSIONS JUDGE: MAHABUBNAGAR.

Friday, the 17th day of October, 2014.

PRESENT:- Sri S.Bajaranga Babu, |st Addl., District, and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar,

FAC Special Sessions Judge-Cum VII Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar.

S.C. No.17 of 2013

Preliminarily Registered Case No.32/2012 committed by the

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal in Cr.No.37/2008 of P.S.

Gattu, for the offence U/Sec.323 of Indian Penal Code and also Sec.3 (1)(x) of SC/STs of (POA) Act 1989. Prosecution: : Sri S.K.M. Quadri, Spl. Public Prosecutor, Mahabubnagar.

Defence Counsel: : R.Govardhan Goud, Advocate (defence) for accused. Name, and particulars of :1. Veeresh Goud, Sayanna Goud, age.47 Accused Caste:Edigi, years, Occ:Agril., R/o.Boyalagudem village.

2. Madan Goud @ Madan Kumar Goud, S/o.Veresh Goud, age.21 years, Caste:Edigi, Occ:Agril., R/o.Boyatagudem village. Offence under Section(s) U/ Sec.323 r/w.Sec.34 and 506 of IPC and Sec.3(1l)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989.

Plea of the Accused : Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court : Found not guilty

Sentence or Order : Al and A2 are found not guilty for the offence

U/ Sec.323 r/w.34 and 506 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, hence they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be stand canceled. In this case no property, deposited by the Police, and no property was marked, hence the order passed for disposal of case property.

caste offernce of SC/S nis the On This case is having coming before me for final of committed

heariy, JUSed

Sec.3(1)(

2014, and upon perusing the material on record, upon

arguments, amd the matter having stood over for

Consideration, ic

day the Court delivered the following: -

3)

JUD G MENT

(1). This is a case of criminal assault on schedule tribe person by Al

and A2, are intentionally, causing hurt, and also made a

criminally

intimidation, by threatening him with dire consequences, with an

1ntention to cause alaram, and also, abusing him on his Cast, since he

belongs to schedule caste, where the accused person are not schedule

caste, or schedule tribe, thereby the accused, are comnmitted on offence

U/Sec.323 r/w.Sec.34 IPC, and also 506 IPC, and Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST

of (POA) Act 1989.

(2). The case of the Prosecution as per the charge-sheet filed, by the

Sub-Divisional Police-Officer, Narayanpet, Sub-Division, in Crime No.37

of 2008 of P.S. Gattu, are as follows:

The accused persons (A1 and A2) by name Veeresh Goud', and

Madan Goud @ Madhan Kumar Goud, are the resident 'Boyalagudem' village, they belongs to Goud by Caste, and whereas the of

victÉm/ defacto complainant Harijan Hanmanthu' is Schedule- tribe, he

also resident of same village. The incident was occurred on 22-05 2008, in the morning at about 9.00 a.m., in the Boyalagudem village.

As per the case of prosecution, the Al and A2, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to Harijan Hanmanthu (Pw. 1), by assaulting with Chappal, and also they threatened him, with dire consequences, with intention to cause alaram to him, and also l abused on his caste with name. in a pubhc VIew. thereb\ thes . Are committed the offence U/ Sec 323 r/w Sec. 34 and 506 of IPC and also

Sec 3(1)(x) of SC/ST of (POA) Act 1989 (3) On filing of the charge sheet. before the lcarned Iudlal

Magistrate of First Class at Gadwal'. the learned MagIstrate had taken

on file the casc by taking cognizance. against the accused persons for the offence U/Sec 323 of IPC and also Sec 3(ix) of SC/ST of (POA) Act 1989, and registered the casc as PRC No 32 of 2012 (4) After appearance of accused persons the learned Judical

Magistrate of First Class Mag1strate furn:shed the opies of

document 's, as ontemplated L'Sec 207 Cr PC Since the alleged oflence committed by the aCK USed pcrsons arr U/See 2 of P and also, Sec31\x) of SC/ST of (POA) Act 1989 as the offence USec 3 ()(x) of SC/ST (POAT ACt 1989 IS CXclusIvely trable by the Court of the

Specal Sessions Judge for tral of cases Under SCs arnd S Ts POA

Act-cum Vl Addl District and Sessions

Judge Mahabubiagar

therefoe, he has committed. the cas USec 209 la) CrP this (5) n rrcept of the ComIiLtal Orders, tlong with the tecords this

Court has takl, 0n the Ele the case bv taking., cognzanCe agar!ISt .

and A2. for the oflence USec 33 of Indian Penal Code. :1nd :also Se 0}x) of SC/STS of (P0A) Act 1989, and re1sterehe ctSe8et

Sssons Case o. 17 of 2012 the of by signat relevant recording appeaance of the accused--persons before (6). On DetailFor(S some The hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor' on behnalf of *. The P7

and

and the learncd Advo0cate for the accused--persorns, his

COur

iramed a charge U/Sec.323 r/w.Sec.34 and 506 of IPC and also S

()(x) of SC/STs of (POA) Act 1989 against the accused persons,

Over, and explained to them, in tclugu, for which they pleaded nes guilty. and claimcd to be tried.

(7). The Prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt, of the accused persorns, in all exanmined six (6) witnesses as Pws.1 to Pw.o', out of nine (9) wilnesses, cited in the memo of evidence, enclosed along with the charge sheet, and got marked (7) Seven documents, as Exs.Pl to P7.

The Prosecution examined, the defacto complainant/victim

personHarijan Hanmanthu as Pw.1. The eyewitness to the incident

Harijan Maldakal' has examined as Pw.2. One T.Ram Reddy, who is

also an evewitness to the incident, and working as Police Constable has

examined as Pw.3.

One Edigi Narsimulu, who is a circumstantial

wilness, has examined as Pw.4. One K.Hanmanthu, who is one of the

Danch-witnesses for Scene of offence panchanama has examined as

Pw.5 and another panch witness Jangamn Somappa' has examined as

Pw.6.

Coming to exhibits Pl to P7, Ex.P1 The signature of Pw. 1, on writlen complaint, dt.22-05-2008, Ex.P2 is The Complaint iled by the

Pw.1, dt.22-05-2008, before S.H.0., of P.S., Gatlu, EXS.P3 and P4 are

The sOme relevant portions in the l61 Cr.P.C. statenents of Prs. I and

cu

5

Pw.2 recording by the Police, during course of investigation, Ex.P5 is

The some relevant portion in the 161 Cr.P.C., statement of Pw.4. Exs. P6 s and P7 The signatures of Pws.5 and Pw.6 respectively on the Crime

Detail Form (Scene of offence panchanama), dt.23-05-2008.

After examining Pws.1 to Pw.6, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor of this Court has given up the remaining witnesses, 1.e.

Lws.7 to Lw.9, in view of the hostile evidence of Pws. 1 to Pw.6 on 10-10 2014.

(8). After closure of Prosecution's side evidence, the accused persons, are examined U/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances, and evidence, appearing against them, in the evidernce of Pw.3, for which they were denied, the same evidence of Pw.3, and also incriminating circumstances. They further stated they were not committed any offence against Pw. 1. They are falsely implicated in this

Sase. They have no defence evidence on their behalf.

(9). Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of

Prosecution and the learned Advocate for accused-persons.

(10). Now the point that arises for consideration in this case:

Whether, Al and A2, on 22-05-2008, in the morning9.00 a.m., in the Boyalagudem village, in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily caused hurt to Harijan Hanmanthu and beat him with chappal and also threatened with dire-consequences, and abused him on his caste and the same was witnessed by Pws.2 and Pw.3 along with others and whether the accused shall liable for punishment U/ Sec.323 r/w.34 and 506 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act 1989, as praved by the Prosecution?

( (11). Points Ad1mittedlv, the accuscd and defacto e on whosc Complaint under Ex.P2, the police has regysteren belongs to the same village i.c. Boyalagudem' village.

indent of voluntarily causing hurt, by the accused

person,

assaulting Pu.l with cheppal took place on 22-05-2008

mornin,

O.00 a.m.. in Bovalagudem village, but since in this case the material

WItnesscs, who is none other than the victim person, Harijan

Hanmanthu, who has examine as Pw.1, on whose complaint, the police has registered case, has failed to support the case of prosecutions and

turned hostile. Similarly the other evewitness Harijan Maldakal', who

1s examined as Pw.2 also failed to support the case of prosecution's case and turned hostile. No doubt Pw.3, who is Police Constable has supporied the case of Prosecution to some extent by saying that, on 22 05-2008 on the directions of A.S.I. of Police Nagaiah, when he went to

Bovalagudem village to get Al, on Motor Cycle from Gattu village. A followed their Motor Cycle, on proceeding with he saw the Al and 42 and PwS. l and Pw.2 quarreling with each other, but this witness not stated that he witnessed that when Al and A2 assaulted with Chappa!

an beat Pw.1, in his presence, and also threatened, Pw.l with dire conseq°ences and also abused him on his cast, though they belongs to non schedule caste and schedule tribe, therefore, there is no evidence against Al and A2 that they were voluntarily caused hurt on Pw.!. bv

assaulting

with Chappal and beat him on 22-05-2008, morning 9.00 a.m., in the limits of Boyagudem village, there was criminallv intimidation to Pw.l with dire consequences, and als0 abused Pw.l in 7 filthy language by touching his cast name by the accused persons in a cast public view.

The Prosecution failed to examining, the remaining witnesses in view of the hostile evidence of Pws. 1, 2 and 4 to 6. In this case the alleged panch witnesses for scene of offence, which were examined as Pws.4 and 5, they are also failed to support the prosecution case and turned hostile.

In this case the Prosecution not-examine, the investigating officer, and also not proved that Pw. 1 belong to schedule cast, , by examining Krishna Murthy, Thahasildar', who was issued Cast

Certificate, and also failed to prosecution that 'Al and A2, are not being schedule cast or schedule tribe, therefore, the provisions of

SC and ST Act are not applicable, to this case.

Therefore, in view of the above, discussions, since there is no evidence against 'A1 and A2' that, they were beat Pw. 1, with

chappal and also threatened with dire-consequences and also

abused him with his caste name, hence, Al and A2 are found not guilty, for the offences U.Sec.324 r/w.Sec.34 IPC, 506 of IPC, and

Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST of (POA) Act 1989.

In the result, Al and A2 are found not guilty for the offence

U/ Sec.323 r/w.34 and 506 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) of SC /ST (POA) Act 1989, hence they are acquitted U/ Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall be stand cancelled. In this case no propertv, depositcd by the

Police, and no property was marked, hence the ordey disposal of case property.

(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed

by corrected, and pronounced by me in the open court this the 17 ay

Oetober, 2014).

1st Addl. District artd Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar FAC Spl. Sessions Judge- cum VII ADJ., Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

For Prosecution: PW1: Harijan Hanmanthu, Complainant, PW2: Harijan Maldakal, Eyewitness, PW3: T.Ram Reddy, Eyewitness, PW4: Edigi Narsimulu Goud, Circumstantial witness, PW5: K.Hanmanth Reddy, Panch witness for scene of offence, PW6: Jangam Somappa, Panch witness for scene of offence.

For Defence:

None

EXHIBITES MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Signature of Pw.1, on written Complaint, dt.22-05-2008. Ex.P2 Complaint, dt.22-05-2008 Ex.P3 Marked Portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw. 1, dt.05-06-2008 Ex. P4 Marked Portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.2, dt. 05-06-2008 Ex.P5 Marked Portion in 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw.4, dt.05-06-2008 Ex.P6 Signature of Pw.5 on scene of offence panchanama, dt.23-05-2008. Ex.P7 Signature of Pw.6 on scene of offence panchanama, dt.23-05-2008.

For Defence -Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS

Nil - 1st Addl. Distriét and Sessions Judge Mahabubnagar FAC Spl. Sessions Judge- cum VII ADJ., Mahabubnagar Com And

BEFORE THE LOK ADALATH BENCH AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

(Constituted by the District Legal Services Authority, Mahabubnagar)

Under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (Central Act).

Saturday, the 29" day of Novem ber., Two Thousand and Fourteen.

LIA.C.NO. 328 of 2014.

0.P.NO, 479 of 2012. (On the file of IV Additional District and Sesions Judge's Court, (FTC), At Mahabubnagar)

Present:- Presiding Judge: Sri P.Sudhakar,

Judge, Family Court, Mahabubnagar,

Presiding Judge, Lok Adalath Bench, DLSA,

Mahabubnagar.

Sri Sajjad Ahmed, Advocate, M.Nagar. Members: Smt V.Rohini Ayyangar, Social Worker & Advocte, Mahabubnagar. Between: E.Hanmanth Reddy Slo. Venkat Reddy, Aged:48 years, Occ:Conductor, R/o.H.No.7-4-91/1,

Padmavathi Colony, Mahabubnagar Proper, Mandal and District.

..Petitioner.

AND The Managing Director, A.P.S.R.T.C., Reprersented by its Regional Manager, Mahabubnagar

Region, A.P.S.R.T.C. Complex, Mahabubnagar.

...Respondent.

This case is coming on this day for settlement in she presence of Petitioner and Respondent. Sri G.Pullaiah and G.Karthik, Advocates for the Petitioner, Sri Mohammed Avez, Adyocate for Respondent. This case is filed U/s.163-A of M.V.Act, for claiming compensation, for injuries sustained by the Petitioner in an accident caused by the Vehicle APRTC Bus bearing No.AP-11-2-0040 of Shadnagar Depot, owned by the Respondent. AWARD UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE LEGAI SERVICES AUTHORITIES ACT,1987,

This dispute between the partjes having been eferred for determination to the Lok Adalat and the parties having compromised the case, the follo ving award is passed in terms of settlement:

After negotiations and conciliation between th: parties and with the intervention of the Lok 1 Adalat Bench, the claim of the petitioner is iettled at Rs.2,75,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs

Seventy Five Thousands Only), payable by Re pondent within one month from the date of this award without interest and costs. The Respondent agreed to deposit the settle. amount within one month, failing which 2. agreed to pay interest (@12% per annum from the date of this award. The Court Fee paid shall be refunded under Section 21 (1) r/w.Section.25 of the Legal 3 Services Authorities Act,1987 and rlw.Rule l8 ol the Legal Services Authority Rules,1995.

4 THE APPORTIONMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:

Petitioner has agreed to receive an amount of Rs.2,75,000/-,

(Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Five Thousands Only).

... Injured.

DISBURSEMENT:

5.

On deposit of the amount, the Petitioner is permitted to withd raw an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) and the remaining amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy

Five Thousands Only) is ordered to be kept in fixed deposit in any one of the Nationalized Bank on

the name of petitioner for a period of One (01) yea1 .

Advocate Fee is fixed at Rs. -NII

(Rupees -nil- only).

Signatures/T.l of Claimants/Petitioners.

Slgnature of D.M/ANOnert OFFICE

or Authortzed SlhatoH-forBNR-REGIG.

JsuranceCompYaypiEREB Respordat

Petitioners ldentified by me.

Respondent R-2 identifled by me.

Signature of Caimants Advocate.

Signature of the Advocate for Repordert

Glven under our hands and the seal of Lok Adalat Bench on this the

of Novenex, aoll h

day

at Mahabubnagar.

MEMBERS OF THE BENCH

1.

Presiding Judge Mdmbe

Member

Read by'

Contuby: