Sri. S.nagarjuna

1

Before the Court of Sessions :: Chittoor Division

In the Court of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Present: Sri S.Nagarjuna, Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Thursday, the Thirteenth (13th) day of April, Two Thousand Seventeen.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 147 OF 2014

S.C.No.426 of 2012

on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Srikalahasti.

Between:

Kota Raghavaiah @ Ragaiah…Appellant/ Accused

And: The State represented by Its S.H.O.Thottambedu PS.(Complainant)

..Respondent/

Complainant

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 147 of 2014

From which court the appeal isAssistant Sessions Judge, Srikalahasti. preferred

Number of the case in that CourtS.C.No.426 of 2012

Number of the appeal before thisC.A.No.147 of 2014 court

Names and description of theKota Raghavaiah @ Ragaiah, appellant.s/o.Vemalaiah, Hindu, aged about 32 years, Chiyyavaram Village, Thottambedu Mandal, Chittoor District.

The offences under which the trialUnder Sec.306 and 498-A of the IPC. court passed order. Accused is found guilty for the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC. Hence, he is convicted u/Sec. 235(2) of the Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence 2 under Section 306 of the IPC; and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 498-A of the IPC. IDSI for one year and six months.

Whether the appeal confirmed,In the result, this Criminal modified or reversed, if modified,Appeal is dismissed confirming the the modification.conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court against the appellant in its judgment in S.C.No.426 of 2012 dated 17.04.2014 for the offences punishable under Sec.306 and 498-A of the IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently and the appellant/accused is entitled for set off of the period of imprisonment, if any, already undergone by him under Sec. 428 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant/accused is directed to surrender himself before the trial court to receive and serve out the remaining sentence as imposed upon him by the trial court. On the failure of the appellant/accused to surrender

before the trial court as aforesaid, the

trial court shall proceed against him in accordance with law.

Date of presentation :16-07-2014

Date of admission :01-08-2014

Date of hearing :10-04-2017

Date of sentence or order :13-04-2017

This appeal coming on 10.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri U.Lakshmanachari, advocate for appellant and of Sri A.Sudhakar Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon’ble court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused in S.C.No.462 of 2013 on the file of Assistant Sessions

Judge, Srikalahasti filed this appeal under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C against

the judgment of the trial court dated 17.06.2014 by which he was convicted under u/Sec. 235(2) of the Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs10,000/- for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC; and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 498-A of the

IPC. It is further directed that in default of payment of fine he has to undergo simple imprisonment for another one year and six months.

2.The accusations which lead to the trial of the accused are as follows:

The accused is a resident of Chiyyavaram village of Thottambedu Mandal living by cultivation. The complainant Munaswamy is also resident of the same village. Kota Munemma who is the daughter of the complainant fell in love with the accused and their marriage was celebrated on 15.04.2004 at Penchalakona,

Nellore District as per Hindu rites and customs. No dowry was given to the accused at the time of the marriage. They blessed with a male and female children aged 5 years and 4 years respectively. Later the accused addicted to alcohol and he used to beat Munemma. On 11.10.2011 at 9.00 p.m., the accused beat Munemma as usual. On12.10.2012 at 11.00 a.m., the accused beat

Munemma as usual. Munemma vexed with the harassment and ill treatment of her husband, she consumed pesticide and committed suicide.

3.The Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Srikalahasti who took cognizance of the case under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC has committed the same to the court of Sessions. After receipt of the records and after appearance of the accused, the trial court has framed the charges under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC. After considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 13 coupled with Exs.P.1 to P.4 and M.O.1, the trial court found that there is sufficient evidence before the court to connect the accused with the death of

Muenmma as she died only due to the harassment made by the accused by demanding her to bring dowry. Ultimately, the accused was convicted under the above said sections of law.

4.Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant/accused herein preferred this appeal and urged before this Hon’ble court that the judgment of the lower court is against law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution; and that the lower court ought to have held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He requested the court to allow the appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence passed against him by the lower court.

4

5.The point for consideration is:

Is the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ?

6.Heard the arguments.

7.POINT :

The learned advocate for the appellant/accused submitted that none of the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution; that there is no valid inquest report; that PW.1 who is a mahazar witness did not support the case of prosecution; that PW.1 has no knowledge about the contents of the papers which he signed; that the trial court ought to have disbelieved the version of

PW.2 as no specific overt acts spoken against the accused to implicate him in the offence as charged by the prosecution; that there are no disputes between the deceased and accused; that there was no harassment of the accused to lead the deceased for suicide; that the lower court misconstrued the version of PW.2 and came to wrong conclusion that there was harassment by the accused towards deceased; that the evidence of PW.3 is quite contra to the report given by PW.2 and his evidence; that the version of PW.4 cannot be believed as she related to

PWs.1 and 2 and her evidence is contra to the contents of Ex.P.4; that the version of PWs.5 and 6 who are brothers of the deceased cannot be disbelieved as they are residing at Nellore and their evidence is only hearsay and not reliable and trustworthy; that the witnesses PWs.7 and 8 are only planted witnesses as they did not support the case of prosecution and their signatures were taken by the police without reading the contents of Ex.P.5; that the police took the signature of PW.9 without informing the contents of Exs.P.6 and P.7; that the lower court ought not to have marked Ex.P.7 which is a confessional statement of the accused made before the police officer; that the evidence of PW.10 is not supporting the case of the prosecution and his role is pertaining to panchanama on the dead body and alleged confession of the accused; that PW.11 who issued reports under Exs.P.8 and P.9 will not speak the guilt of the accused; that the evidence of PW.12 is contra to the procedure which she ought to have adopted

before conducting postmortem; that the reports under Exs.P.10 and P.11 are

against the procedure; that PW.13 has not conducted the investigation properly; that the trial court failed to discuss about the decisions submitted on behalf of the 5 accused; and that the entire case of prosecution is unbelievable. He requested the court to allow this appeal and to acquit the accused.

8.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the findings of the trial court in convicting the accused for the offences under

Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC.

9.For better appreciation of the case, the provision under Section 306 of the

IPC is reproduced as under:-

Any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

10.The provision under Section 498-A of the IPC is also reproduced as under:-

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means:-

(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

11.Now it is required for the court to look into the evidence of prosecution to find out whether the appellant/accused committed the above said offences or not.

12.PW.1 is the defacto complainant in this case. It is the evidence of

PW.1 that about two years ago, on one day, he came to know that

Munemma died at about 4.00 p.m., by consuming poison, but the reason for her death is not known to him. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that on the next day of the death of Muenmma, while the dead body of

Munemma was in the house of accused, the police obtained his signature on some written papers and the contents of the written papers were not read over to him. This witness was cross examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. He denied a suggestion that 6 the police held inquest over the dead body of the deceased as per

Exs.P.1 to P.3. On the basis of the evidence of PW.1, it is not safe to conclude that the accused has committed the offences under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC.

13. PW.2 is the father of the deceased Munemma.It is the evidence of PW.2 that the marriage of his daughter with the accused was performed by him as per the wishes of his daughter at Penchalakona

Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple; that during their wed lock, a son and a daughter were born; that he is having only a house in the village; that the accused demanded his daughter and himself to divide the said house property into three shares; that he stated that it is only the house he is having and if it is divided, there will not be any shelter for him and his wife; that he made a promise that in case if the said house is sold at any time, the share of his wife out of sale consideration will be given to him; that the accused did not satisfy with his promise and he was going to harass his daughter to bring her share in the house property; and that he used to threaten her to kill if she fails to bring her share in the house property.

14.In the cross examination, PW.2 revealed that he heard that

Ac.0.52 cents was purchased by the accused in the name of his daughter. Merely on the basis of the above admission made by him, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be thrown out because there is no such registered deed pressed into service by the accused during his examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. PW2 further revealed that one Alankaram is an elder of their villager through whom a mediation was made and only once he conducted mediation after one year of their marriage. The said mediator was not examined by the prosecution.

Even though the said mediator was not examined by the prosecution, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be thrown out because the evidence of

PW.12 coupled with Ex.P.10 and P.11 made it clear that the daughter of

PW.2 died due to consumption of an insecticide phorate poison.

15.PW.3 is the mother of the deceased Munemma. It is the evidence of PW.3 that her daughter Munemma was given in marriage to the accused; that their marriage was love marriage; that she advised her daughter that the accused is not a good man, but her daughter married 7 him despite her advise; that the accused started to harass her daughter to bring dowry after getting her first issue; that she helped her daughter at the time of her first pregnancy; that the gold given by her to her daughter was also consumed by the accused; that the accused placed thorny bushes on the way and caused trouble to them and the residents to whom they permitted to use the said pathway; that she questioned the accused; that he demanded them to give 1/3rdshare in their house property; that she gave money to the accused now and then; that the accused did not satisfy with it; that her daughter stopped to come to her house out of fear; that the accused would beat her; that the accused also beat her in the absence of her husband; that the accused often used to beat her daughter by asking her to go to her parents house to bring money and his share in the house property; that the accused killed her daughter by beating her severely; that she was also informed by the villagers that the accused killed her daughter by beating her; that on the day when her daughter died the accused came to their house and asked her husband to give a share in the house property and also threatened that he would kill their daughter if his share in the house property was not given to him; that when she was in the post office, she was informed that her daughter died; and that on her questioning the accused stated that he himself killed her and challenged her to do whatever she likes.

16.In the cross examination, PW.3 revealed that the accused had

Ac.1.50 cents of land, a house and a house site; that the accused had also purchased some land in the name of her daughter; and that the accused did not come to the mediation as and when they tried to conduct a mediation; that she has not given a complaint to the police whenever the accused demanded her daughter to bring money; that she stated to the police that the accused asked her husband to give 1/3 share to him in their house; and that there are residential houses on both sides of the house of the accused. She denied a suggestion that on 12.10.2011, her grand-daughter asked her to lift her while she was taken by her daughter to her school and that she scolded her saying that she will not lift her as she born to the accused and advised her to die and that due to which her daughter keeping insulted committed suicide by consuming poison and that the accused has no need to have any amount and house site form them.

8

17.Even though PW.3 is not an eye witness to the occurrence, her evidence cannot be thrown out, because she is the mother of the deceased Munemma and normally if a daughter experiences any difficulty in the hands of her husband, she will inform immediately to her mother. Merely on the basis of the admissions made by her that the accused had purchased some land in the name of her daughter and she has not given any complaint to the police against the accused when the accused demanded her daughter to bring money, her evidence cannot be rejected.

18.PW.4, who is said to be the resident of Kuderu village, stated that the accused is the husband of Muenmma; that the accused used to harass Munemma to bring additional dowry; that the accused used to beat Munemma as she did not bring dowry from her parents; that the accused was not allowing Munemma to speak with them whenever they used to go their house; that the accused also placed thorny bushes on the way to the house of parents of Munemma; that on the date when

Muenmma died she went to the village on receiving information about her death and made an enquiry with the neighbours of the accused in turn who infirmed that the accused used to beat Munemma and he himself killed her by making her to consume poison. In the cross examination, PW.4 revealed that the accused looked after his wife and children carefully and she did not witness personally while the accused was beating Munemma. In view of the admission made by PW.4, it can be said that PW.4 does not know personally about the harassment made to Munemma by her husband. Munemma is the daughter of sister of PW.4. So, on the basis of evidence of PW.4, it is not safe to conclude that the accused committed the above said offences.

19.PW.5, who is said to be the resident of Chiyyavaram village, stated that there were quarrels in between his sister and her husband from the last four days prior to the death of his sister; that on one day when he made a phone call to his mother to know their welfare and the welfare of his sister from Nellore, his mother informed him that the accused was quarreling with his sister from the last four days and when he was asked to come to their village to ask the accused; that on 11.10.2011 at about 8.00 p.m., when he came to their village, his 9 mother informed him that the accused placed thorny bushes on the way by asking a share in the house property; that he also asked his father why the accused placed thorny bushes in the path way and demanded him to ask the same to the accused; that when his father asked him then accused demanded his father to give his 1/3rdshare in the house property; that immediately as there was a necessity to him, for which himself and his father told him that the said share will be given to him whenever it was partitioned as they already contemplated to give such share to him in the house; that the accused threatened his father that he would see the dead body of his daughter if he failed to give his share in the house property. In the cross examination, PW.5 revealed that they arranged another man to marry his sister prior to the marriage of his sister; that the accused threatened his father to give his sister in marriage to him otherwise he would kill her; that his father gave his sister in marriage to the accused that none of their family members attended the marriage of his sister except his father. PW.5 is the brother of deceased Munemma. Though he is not an eye witness to the incident, his evidence cannot be discarded merely on the basis of the admissions made by him that her mother informed him about the harassment being made to Munemma by her husband.

20.PW.6, who is said to be a resident of Chiyyavaram village, stated that the accused is the husband of his sister; that in the year 2004 the accused and his sister got married and they lived happily for about 6 months, and thereafter, the accused started to harass his sister for each and every small and trivial issues; that his sisters used to inform the same to her parents and in turn their parents used to give money to the accused; that the accused is having illegal intimacy with another lady in their village; that the accused used to beat his sister on the advice of that lady; that four days prior to her death, the accused placed thorny bushes in their pathway and demanded him to give 1/3rdshare in their house property; that he threatened his parents that if they failed to give a share in their house, he would kill his sister; that the accused carried out his warning by killing his sister on the fourth day; that on the date of death of his sister, his mother went to post office in their village and when she was returning from the post office, the accused brought dead body of his sister out of his house and laid it in the street; that the accused challenged his mother that already there 10 were criminal cases against him; and that thereafter the accused absconded from the village. In the cross examination, PW.6 revealed that none of their family members attended the marriage of his sister with the accused except his father as they do not like their marriage; that they were residing in a rented house of Kota Venkateswarlu by the time of death of his sister; that they are not having another property except their house property; that his parents are doing coolie work; that the agriculturists used to stock the pesticides in their houses for their use in their lands; that the distance between their residential house and the house of accused is one kilometer; that one has to go to post office by crossing the house of the accused; that the said post office is after four houses from the house of the accused; that nearly about 40 to 50 persons were gathered at the dead body of his sister; and that he was in the college by the time of placing the thorny bushes on the pathway by the accused. PW.6 is another brother of the deceased Munemma.

Though he is not an eye witness to the occurrence, his evidence cannot be thrown out because he came to know about the alleged harassment made to the deceased Munemma by the accused through his parents.

21.PW.7 is the owner of the house where the parents of the deceased

Munemma resided as tenants. He stated that the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Munemma was conducted in his presence. Ex.P.5 is the said inquest report. But he stated that he does not know about the contents of inquest report. Even though he was cross examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, he did not turn to support the case of prosecution as if the police seized pesticide poison pocket in the house under Ex.P.6 and the accused was arrested by the police under

Ex.P.7 in his presence. However, he admitted that the parents and brothers of deceased Munemma were residing in their house as tenants on the date of death of Munemma. In view of the admissions made by

PW.7, the evidence of PW.7 is no way useful to the case of prosecution.

22.PW.8 is said to be the resident of Chiyyavaram village stated that on13.10.2011 at about 8.00 a.m., the inquest was conducted by police in their presence. He admitted that he signed inquest report, but he stated that he does not know its contents. Even though he was cross examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor, he did not turn to support the case of prosecution as if he is aware of the contents of 11

Ex.P.5. In view of the admissions made by PW.8, the evidence of PW.8 is no way useful to the case of prosecution.

23.PW.9 who is said to be a resident of Chiyyavaram village stated that on 12.10.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., when he came to his fields to their village, he found the dead body of Munemma kept in the street and her relatives were weeping. He further stated that his signature was obtained by police in the inquest report. But he stated that he does not know its contents. When the contents of inquest report, seizure mahazarnama and arrest cum-confessional statement of the accused are read over to the witness, he denied the correctness of the contents therein. He admitted about his relationship with PWs.2 and 3. But he denied the suggestion that those proceedings have been prepared and the accused was arrested in his presence. In view of the admissions made by PW.9, the evidence of PW.9 is no way useful the case of prosecution.

24.PW.10, who is sad to be the resident of Chiyyacaram village, stated that two years ago, on one day at about 11.00 a.m., Munemma died, but she does not know the reason for her death. She also stated that police have conducted panchanama on the dead body of Munemma at Ankamma temple; that the panchanama report was also prepared by the police; that the signatures of four other persons were obtained by the police; that she asked the police to read over the contents before obtaining their signatures on the panchanama for which the police stated that the accused confessed that he himself killed the deceased

Munemma; that the panchanama was conducted in their presence; and that she attested the panchanama along with other panchayatdars.

25.In the cross examination, PW.10 revealed that she is the wife of

PW.7; that there are nearly about 500 houses in their village; that her house is at a distance of one kilometer from the house of the accused; that PWs.2 and 3 were residing in their house as tenants by the time of death of Munemma; and that police started panchanama examination at about 8.00 a.m and completed by 10.00 to 12 noon. She denied a suggestion that the police never arrested the accused and they never conducted panchanama in her presence and that she does not know anything in this case.

12

26.I do not see any reason to reject the evidence of PW.10 on the ground that she is the wife of PW.7 because she has categorically stated about the arrest of the accused in her presence.

27.PW.11 is the Assistant Director of Regional Forensic Science

Laboratory of Andhra Pradesh. The evidence of PW.11 coupled with

Ex.P.8 and P.9 made it clear that stomach, intestine, liver, Kidney,

Urinary bladder, Torpid liquid of the deceased contained Phorate which is an insecticide poison.

28.PW.12 is the then Civil Assistant Surgeon, Area Hospital,

Srikalahasti. The evidence of PW.12 coupled with Exs.P.10 and P.11 made it clear that the deceased Munemma died due to consumption of phorate insecticide poison.

29.PW.13 is the then Sub inspector of police. The evidence of PW.13 coupled with Ex.P.13 and P.14 goes to show that on 12.10.2011 at about 3.30 p.m., on the written complaint of PW.1 a case was in

Cr.No.55/2011 was registered; that he took up investigation in this case; that he visited the scene of offence; that he traced out the pesticide poison packet in the verandah of the house of the accused; that he secured the panchayatdars from the village, and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased; that he sent the dead body to Area Hospital, Srikalahasti for postmortem examination; that he seized pesticide poison pocket marked as M.O.1 and on 13.10.2011 at 3.30 p.m., he arrested the accused at Gangamma temple of

Chiyyavaram village; that he recorded the confessional statement of accused and after receiving postmortem report he laid charge sheet.

30.In the cross examination, PW.13 revealed that PWs.2 to 6 did not say in their statements about the demand made by the accused to give 3/4thshare in their house site. In view of the admissions made by

PW.13 the version of PWs. 2 to 6 that the accused demanded 3/4th share in their house site cannot be believed, because they stated in their evidence for the first time. PW.13 revealed that the above witnesses also did not say that the accused caused obstruction to the path way by placing thorny bushes. In view of the admissions made by 13

PW.13 it can be said that the evidence of PWs.2 to 6 that the accused caused obstruction by placing thorny bushes cannot be believed as stated in their evidence for the first time. PW.13 revealed that he made an enquiry with the neighbors of the house of the deceased to know the reason for the death of Munemma, but none of them came forward to state about the incident because they are all related to the accused.

Merely on the basis of the admission made by PW.13, it cannot be said that the accused is an innocent person.

31.On careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 10, I am of the view that the accused was not present at the time of inquest held by the police over the dead body of the deceased. Even though PWs.2 to 6 revealed in their evidence for the first time about the demand of the accused to give him 1/3rdshare in their house property and when the neighbours did not come forward to speak about the incident, the accused is only answerable to explain under which circumstances

Munemma died in his house. The accused is the best person to explain the circumstances under which Muenmam consumed pesticide poison to commit suicide. The accused did not state in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C any of the reasons under which Munemma committed suicide. The accused did not examine any of the neighbours to speak about his innocence. If rally there was no such harassment from the accused, she would not have committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison in the house of the accused and the accused would not have absconded from the village on the date when she died. He would have made his presence throughout the investigation of the case by

PW.13 and at the time of inquest.

32.Munemma committed suicide while she was in the company of accused and in the absence of any explanation from the accused about the circumstances under which Munemam consumed pesticide poison,

I believe the evidence of PWs.2 to 6 that on account of harassment from the accused for the share of the deceased in the house property, she committed suicide by consuming poison and therefore, the accused is responsible for the death of Munemma. I find no tenable ground in the grounds of appeal, there is no legal force in the arguments submitted by the learned advocate for the appellant, and the decision of the trial 14 court in convicting the accused cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, I hold this point against the appellant .

33.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial court against the appellant in its judgment in S.C.No.426 of 2012 dated 17.04.2014 for the offences punishable under Sec.306 and 498-A of the IPC. The sentences shall run concurrently and the appellant/accused is entitled for set off of the period of imprisonment, if any, already undergone by him under Sec. 428 of the Cr.P.C. The appellant/accused is directed to surrender himself

before the trial court to receive and serve out the remaining sentence as

imposed upon him by the trial court. On the failure of the appellant/accused to surrender before the trial court as aforesaid, the trial court shall proceed against him in accordance with law. .

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, correct and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13thday of April, 2017.

Sd/-S.Nagarjuna.

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Copy to:

The Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikalahasti.

//True copy//

1

Before the Court of Sessions :: Chittoor Division

In the Court of the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Present: Sri S.Nagarjuna, Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Wednesday, the Twelfth (12th) day of April, Two Thousand Seventeen.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 183 OF 2016

S.C.No.362 of 2013

on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court, Srikalahasti.

Between: B.Sarada.…Appellant/ Defacto complainant

And: 1.Bandarla Venkatasubbaiah (A.1) 2.Bandarla Navakoti (A.2) 3.Bandarla Chalapathi (A.3) 4.Bandarla Prasad (A.4) 5.The State represented by Its S.H.O. Srikalahasti Rural PS.(Complainant)

..Respondents

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2016

From which court the appeal isAssistant Sessions Judge, Srikalahasti. preferred

Number of the case in that CourtS.C.No.362 of 2013

Number of the appeal before thisC.A.No.183 of 2016 court

Names and description of theB.Sarada, w/o.Rosaiah, Hindu, aged appellant.about 43 years, Bheemavaram Village, Srikalahasti Mandal.

The offences under which the trialUnder Sec. 436 of the IPC. court passed order. A.1 to A.4 are found not guilty for the offence under Sec.436 of the IPC. Hence 2 they are acquitted u/Sec. 235(1) of the Cr.P.C. their bail bonds and surety bonds are ordered to be cancelled.

Whether the appeal confirmed,In the result, the appeal is dismissed modified or reversed, if modified,confirming the judgment of the trial court the modification.in acquitting the respondents 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4 under Sec. 235(1) of the Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sec.436 of the I.P.C in S.C.No.362 of 2013 dated 19.03.2015.

Date of presentation :13-01-2016

Date of admission :02-06-2016

Date of hearing :10-04-2017

Date of sentence or order :12-04-2017

This appeal coming on 10.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri K.B.Nagaraja, advocate for the appellant; and of Sri U.Lakshmanachari, advocate for respondents 1 to 4; and of Sri A.Sudhakar Reddy, Additional Public Prosecutor for 5threspondent; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon’ble court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The defacto complainant in S.C.No.362 of 2013 on the file of Assistant

Sessions Judge, Srikalahasti has filed this appeal under Section 372 of the

Cr.P.C against the judgment of the trial court dated 19.03.2015.

2.The accusations which lead to the trial of the accused are that on the night of 01.10.2012, the complainant during mid night, heard cries and rushed to her house, and noticed that the house was being burnt into ashes and the accused were running from there. On the complaint of complainant a case in Cr.No.84/2012 under Section 436 of the IPC was registered and after conclusion of the investigation of the crime, the sub inspector of police,

Srikalahasti Rural police station has laid charge sheet against the accused as if they are liable for punishment under Section 436 of the I.P.C.

3

3.The trial court has framed a charge under section 436 of the IPC against all the accused. After considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 8 and

Exs.P.1 to P.9 and M.Os.1 and 2, the trial court came to a conclusion that the prosecution could not able to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 436 of the IPC, and ultimately, they were acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.

4.Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant/complainant preferred this appeal and urged before this Hon’ble court that the judgment of the trial court is against law, weight of evidence and circumstances of the case; that the lower court failed to consider the evidence of the prosecution which clearly established the ingredients of the Section 436 of the IPC; that the lower court did not consider the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4 as they had seen the respondents 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4 while they were escaping from the scene of offence after setting fire. She requested the court to allow this appeal.

5.The point for consideration in this appeal is:

Is the prosecution able to establish the guilt of the A.1 to A.4 beyond all reasonable doubt ?

6.Heard the arguments.

7.POINT :

The learned advocate for the appellant submitted that there was a strong circumstance about the involvement of the respondents 1 to 4/A.1 to

A.4 ; that the trial court wrongly extended benefit of doubt to the respondents 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4 on the reason that no independent witness supported the case of prosecution; that the trial court wrongly gave much importance to the evidence of DW.1, and he requested the court to allow the appeal.

8.On the other hand, the learned advocate for respondents 1 to 4/A.1 to

A.4 supported the findings of the trial court in acquitting the accused. He further submitted that the witnesses Pws.1, 3 and 4 are interested to each other; that the neighbours of the locality did not support of the case of 4 prosecution; and therefore, the respondents 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4 are not liable for punishment under section 436 of the IPC.

9.For better appreciation of the case, the provision under Section 436 of the IPC is reproduced as under:-

Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

10.Now it is required for the court to look into the evidence of prosecution to find out whether the respondents 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4 committed the above said offence or not.

11.The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os.1 and 2 on its behalf.

12.PW.1 is the defacto complainant in this case. It is in the evidence of

PW.1 that A.1 is the elder brother of her husband; that A.2 is the son of A.1; that A.3 and A.4 are the sons of Siddaiah, who is also a brother of 1st respondent; that her husband is no more; that there are previous grudges in between herself and the accused with regard to their lands; that at about two years ago on one day when herself and her son sleeping in the house of her daughter in the same village out of fear in the hands of the accused by locking the doors of her house, A.1 to A.4 put fire to her house in the mid night. Due to which her house was completely destroyed; that on seeing the flames when she came to her house and observed that A.1 to A.4 while escaping from that place. It is also the evidence of PW.1 that the villagers gathered there, but they could not able to stop the fire, due to which three bags of paddy, household goods, five sovereigns of gold, iron almirah, iron box, two wooden cots and cash of Rs.70,000/- were burnt in the said fire. Ex.P.1 is the report given by her to the police. In her cross examination, PW.1 revealed that A.1 5 filed a suit for partition against her and other joint family members including hermother-in-law10 months prior to the alleged incident. The number of the suit is O.S.No.51/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Srikalahasti. She also reveals that the said suit was filed for partition of the joint family properties including the thatched house which was destroyed in the fire and its surrounding place.

13.In view of the admissions made by PW.1, it can be said that the relationship between PW.1 and the accused is so close, but it is very strange.

The house which was burnt is also part of the properties covered by the suit in

O.S.No.51/2012 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti. The

said suit was filed by A.1 for partition. Admittedly, there are previous grudges existing in between herself and the accused with regard to their lands. While so, there may be a chance for PW.1 to speak false against the accused.

Because it is not the version of PW.1 that she saw while the house was burnt by the accused. The evidence of PW.1 cannot be weighed in support of the case of the prosecution, unless it is corroborated by the evidence of any independent witness.

14.PW.2 stated that the house of PW.1 is situated opposite to their house.

At about 12 mid night, one year ago, the house of PW.1 was gutted with fire.

He has categorically stated in his evidence that he has not seen the person who lit fire to the house of PW1. While so, the evidence of PW.2 is no way useful to the case of prosecution.

15.PW.3 is the son of PW.1 and he naturally supports the evidence of

PW.1. He stated that his mother saw the flames rising from their house; that his mother, his sister and himself went to their house and saw the accused while escaping from the said place. It is not the version of PW.3 that he saw while the accused set fire to their house. In the cross examination, PW.3 revealed that he did not try to catch hold of the accused and the accused were not there by the time when the public gathered at that place. On the basis of 6 the evidence of PW.3, the accused cannot be held responsible for the damage caused to the said house.

16.PW.4 is the daughter of PW.1 and she naturally supports the evidence of PW.1. She stated that one day, in the mid night, about two years ago, while her mother was awaken due to her ill health, she observed the flames arising from her house; that they also awaken and went to the house and found the accused escaped from the place. In the cross examination, PW.4 stated that one Balappa Naidu and Munaiah were present by the time when she reached and except the said persons, none were present by that time. When PW.2 namely Balaiah Naidu did not state in his evidence that the accused were escaping from the place, the evidence of PW.1, PW.3 and PW.4 that they saw while the accused were escaping from the house of PW.1 cannot be believed.

17.PW.5 namely Munaiah also did not state in his evidence that he saw while the accused were escaping from the house of PW.1. He does not know the reason why the said house was gutted in fire. So, the evidence of PW.5 is no way useful to the case of prosecution.

18.PW.6 namely C.Guraviaah stated in his evidence that he has not seen the person who caused the fire to the house of Sarada. So, the evidence of

PW.6 is no way useful to the case of prosecution.

19.PW.7 namely Y.Ramanaiah stated that he could not able to see the persons who caused the said fire to the house of PW.1. So, the evidence of

PW.7 is also no way useful to the case of prosecution.

20.PW.8 is the Sub Inspector of police. He received Ex.P.1 report given by

PW.1 and registered it was a case in Cr.No.84/2012 under Section 436 of the

IPC. Ex.P.6 is the FIR submitted to the learned Magistrate, Srikalahasti. He stated that he seized M.Os.1 and 2, the ash and bamboo pieces and he prepared Ex.P.7 rough sketch at the scene of offence. He has stated in his evidence that he recorded the statements of Balappa, Munaiah, Guravaiah and

Ramanaiah under Exs.P.2 to P.5. But the witnesses did not support the case 7 of prosecution. Ex.P.9 is the cover containing six positive photographs with compact disc of the said scene of offence. He stated that on 13.10.2012, he arrested A.1 and A.3 at Vempalle check post; that on 21.2.2013 he arrested

A.2 at the very same place and that on 6.6.2013 he arrested A.4 at

Anjaneyapuram village, Srikalahasti Mandal. He field charge sheet after completion of the investigation of the crime. The evidence of PW.8 is no way useful to the case of prosecution, because the neighbours did not support the case of prosecution and his evidence is only a circumstantial.

21.Since the evidence of PW.1 is not corroborated by the evidence of any independent witness, I am of the view that the accused cannot be punished only on the basis of the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4 that they saw while the accused were escaping from the house of PW1. On account of disputes existing in between the accused and PW.1 and her family, it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PWs.1, 3 and 4. I feel that the grounds on which the appellant preferred this appeal are untenable and there is no sufficient ground to interfere with the findings of the trial court in acquitting the accused.

Accordingly, I hold this point against the appellant.

22.In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the trial court in acquitting the respondents 1 to 4/A.1 to A.4 under Sec. 235(1) of the Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Sec.436 of the I.P.C in

S.C.No.362 of 2013 dated 19.03.2015.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, correct and

pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 12thday of April, 2017.

Sd/-S.Nagarjuna

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

// t.c.f.b.o //

Chief Administrative Officer.

Copy to: The Assistant Sessions Judge, Srikalahasti.

8

1

Before the Court of Sessions :: Chittoor Division

In the Court of the Special Sessions Judge­cum­IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Present: Sri S.Nagarjuna,  Special Sessions Judge­cum­ IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Thursday, the Twentieth (20th) day of April, Two thousand Seventeen.

Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2014

S.T.C.No. 29 of 2013 

(On the file of III Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi)

Between:

Mangapuram Satyanrayana… Appellant/ Complainant

And:

T.Sudhakar (Accused)… Respondent/ Complainant 

Judgment in Criminal Appeal No. 204 of 2014

From which court the appeal is III Additional Judl. Magistrate of First preferred Class, Tirupathi

Number of the case in that Court S.T.C.No. 29 of 2013

Number of the appeal before this C.A.No.204 of 2014 court

Name and description of the Mangapuram Satyanarayan, s/o.Late appellant. M.Narayanaswamy, Hindu, aged about 60 years, D.No.129, Kola Street, Tirupathi. 

The offences under which the trialUnder Section 138 of the Negotiable court passed order. Instruments Act. In the result, the accused in found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and hence, he is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after lapse of six months.

2

Whether the appeal confirmed,In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. modified or reversed, if modified, the modification.

Date of presentation :14.10.2014

Date of admission : 15.10.2014 

Date of hearing :19.04.2017

Date of sentence or order : 20.04.2017

This appeal coming on 19.04.2017 for final hearing before me in t 0he presence of Sri M.Vinod, Advocate for appellant; and of Sri N.Prabhakar, Advocate for the respondent; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon'ble court delivered the following:

 :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The unsuccessful complainant in S.T.C.No.29 of 2013 on the file of the III

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupathi has filed this appeal

under Section 372 of the Cr.P.C against the Judgment of the trial court dated 21.07.2013 by which the respondent/ accused was acquitted under Section 255(1) of the Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said appeal was registered by the District Court, Chittoor under section 372 of the Cr.P.C. For the sake of convenience, I refer the parties hereinafter as complainant and accused as they arrayed in S.T.C.No.29/2013 before the trial court.

2.The accusations which lead to the trial of the accused are that on 30.12.2012 the accused has borrowed a sum of Rs.25,000/­ for his necessities as hand loan promising to repay the said amount within a period of one month. On repeated demands of the complainant the accused had issued a cheque bearing

No.672423 dated 4.1.2013 drawn on State Bank of India, Piler Branch in favour of the complainant towards discharge of the aforesaid debt. The complainant presented the said cheque for collection on 10.3.2013 with Andra Bank,

Tirupathi, but the same was returned on 12.3.2013 with an endorsement 3 “Funds insufficient”. The complainant sent a registered notice to the accused on 22.3.2013 through his advocate calling upon him for the payment of the amount due on the dishonoured cheque within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. The accused acknowledged the same on28.3.2013, but he neither replied nor complied it. 

3.The trial court took cognizance of the case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. Section 142 of Negotiable

Instruments Act after following the required procedure under Section 207 of the

Cr.P.C and also Section 251 of the Cr.P.C.

4.PW.1 is the complainant in this case. He has got marked Exs.P.1 to P.4 in support of the complaint. Ex.P.1 is the cheque dated 4.1.2013; Ex.P.2 is the return memo dated 12.3.2013; Ex.P.3 is the office copy of legal notice dated 19.3.2013 and Ex.P.4 is the postal receipt and acknowledgement. He has stated in his chief examination affidavit that the accused has borrowed a sum of

Rs.25,000/­ from him on30.12.2012 as a hand loan promising to repay the said amount within period of one month. In the cross examination PW.1 admitted that Ex.P.4 does not contain the signature of the accused. He denied a suggestion that he never given such amount of Rs.25,000/­ to the accused.

5. The trial court, after going through the evidence of PW.1 coupled with

Exs.P.1 to P.4 , found that the accused was not guilty and ultimately, the accused was acquitted for the above said offence.

6.Aggrieved by the Judgment of the trial court, the appellant/complainant submitted in this appeal that the judgment of the trial court is against law, weight of evidence and circumstances of the case.

7.The point for consideration in this appeal is:

Is the appeal maintainable in the Court of Sessions ? If so, is the accused liable for punishment for the offence punishable under Section 138 r/w. Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881?

8.I have heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the written arguments of advocate for appellant.

9.POINT:

4

The learned advocate for the appellant/complaint submitted that the complainant has proved that there was a legally enforceable debt and the notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 was duly served on the accused. But the learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the complaisant failed to prove that there was legally enforceable debt and the complaint filed by the complainant has no cause of action on the ground that the legal notice was not duly served on the respondent/accused. 

10.Before deciding the merits of the case, it is appropriate for the court to decide the maintainability of this complaint by referring the following provisions of the law.

11.The proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C was amended by Act No.5 of 2009.

The said proviso confers a statutory right upon the victim, as defined under

Section 2(wa) of Cr.P.C to prefer an appeal against an order passed by the trial court either acquitting the accused or convicting him for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation. It came into force with effect from 31.12.2009.

12.Section 372 of the Cr.P.C provides that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided for by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force. Provided that the victim shall have a right to prefer an appeal against any order passed by the Court acquitting the accused or convicting for a lesser offence or imposing inadequate compensation, and such appeal shall lie to the Court to which an appeal ordinarily lies against the order of conviction of such Court.

13.Section 378 of the Cr.P.C provides the procedure to present appeal in case of acquittal. It runs as follows:

(1) Save as otherwise provided in sub­section (2), and subject to the provisions of sub­sections (3) and (5),

(a) the District Magistrate may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the Court of Session from an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non­ bailable offence;

(b) the State Government may, in any case, direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal to the High Court from an original or appellate 5 order of an acquittal passed by any court other than a High Court not being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision; (2) If such an order of acquittal is passed in any case in which the offence has been investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment constituted under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (25 of 1946), or by any other agency empowered to make investigation into an offence under any Central Act other than this Code. the Central Government may, subject to the provisions of sub­ section (3), also direct the Public Prosecutor to present an appeal­

(a) to the Court of Session, from an order of acquittal passed by a

Magistrate in respect of a cognizable and non­bailable offence;

(b) to the High Court from an original or appellate order of an acquittal passed by any Court other than a High Court not being an order under clause (a) or an order of acquittal passed by the Court of Session in revision.

(3) No appeal to the High Court under sub­section (1) or sub­section (2) shall be entertained except with the leave of the High Court.

(4)If such an order of' acquittal is passed in any case instituted upon Complaint and the High Court, on an application made to it by the complainant in this behalf, grants special leave to appeal from the order of acquittal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High Court.

(5) No application under subsection (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after the expiry of six months, where the complainant is a public servant, and sixty days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal.

(6) If in any case, the application under sub­section (4) for the grant of special leave to appeal from an order of acquittal is refused, no appeal from that order of acquittal shall lie under sub­ section (1) or under subsection (2).”

14.In a decision “Subhash Chand Vs. State (Delhi Administration)” decided in Criminal Appeal No. 50 of 2013 dated 08.01.2013 it was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:

“Sub­Section (4) of Section 378 makes provision for appeal against an order of acquittal passed in case instituted upon complaint. It states that in such case if the complainant makes an application to the High Court and the High Court grants special leave to appeal, the complainant may present such an appeal to the High 6

Court. This sub­section speaks of special leave as against sub­section (3) relating to other appeals which speaks of leave. Thus, complainants appeal against an order of acquittal is a category by itself. The complainant could be a private person or a public servant. This is evident from sub­section (5) which refers to application filed for special leave by the complainant. It grants six months period of limitation to a complainant who is a public servant and sixty days in every other case for filing application. Sub­ Section (6) is important. It states that if in any case complainants application for special leave under sub­Section (4) is refused no appeal from order of acquittal shall lie under sub­section (1) or under sub­ section (2). Thus, if special leave is not granted to the complainant to appeal against an order of acquittal the matter must end there. Neither the District Magistrate nor the State Government can appeal against that order of acquittal. The idea appears to be to accord quietus to the case in such a situation.”

(i)It was also observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that:

 “A complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only to the High Court. He cannot file such appeal in the Sessions Court.” 

15.There is a direct authority on this aspect. In a decision “Satya Pal Singh

Vs. State of M.P. and others” decided in Crl. Appeal No. 1315 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 7954 of 2014 dated 06.10.2015 it was observed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that­ 

“the proviso to Section 372 of Cr.P.C. must be read along with its main enactment i.e., Section 372 itself and together with sub­Section (3) to Section 378 of Cr.P.C otherwise the substantive provision of Section 372 of Cr.P.C will be rendered nugatory, as it clearly states that no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of a Criminal Court except as provided by Cr.P.C.”

16.It was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that ­ “the right of questioning the correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal by preferring an appeal to the High Court is conferred upon the victim including the legal heirs and others as defined under section 2 (wa) of Cr.P.C under proviso to section 372, but only after obtaining the leave of the High Court as required under sub­section (3) of section 378 of the Cr.P.C.” 7

17.In the light of the above authorities, I conclude that the appeal is not maintainable in this court of session as there is a bar to maintain this appeal under section 378 of the Cr.P.C., when the appeal is not maintainable before the court of sessions, any findings given by the appellate court without any authority leads to abuse of process of the court. The appeal on hand cannot be converted as a petition under revision to exercise the powers under section 397 of the

Cr.P.C to dispose of the same because this court of session has no inherent powers under section 482 of the Cr.P.C to convert the same as a revision petition. Accordingly, the point is decided.

18.In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, correct and pronounced 

by me in the open Court, this the 20th day of April, 2017. 

Sd/­S.Nagarjuna Special Sessions Judge­cum­ IV Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Copy to:

The III Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,Tirupathi.

//True copy//  8

1

Before the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge :: Chittoor at Tirupati.

Present: Sri S.Nagarjuna,

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Wednesday, the Twelfth (12th) day of April, Two thousand Seventeen.

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO.24 OF 2014

ComplainantThe State, represented by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, West Sub Division, Tirupati. [Crime No. 208 of 2013 of Chandragiri Police

Station].

Accused1.Thukekula Devarajulu Reddy @ Deva Reddy, aged 40 years, S/o. Late T.Raja Reddy, Door No.1.55, Agarala village, Ithepalli post, Chandragiri Mandal. Caste by Kapu.

Thukekula Bhaskar Reddy, 2. aged 38 years, S/o.Late T.Raja Reddy, Door No.1.55, Agarala village, Ithepalli post, Chandragiri Mandal. Caste by Kapu.

T.Jaganmohan Reddy @ 3. Madan Mohan Reddy, aged 28 years, S/o.T.Eswar Reddy, Diguva veedhi, Agarala village, Ithepalli post, Chandragiri Mandal. Caste by Kapu.

Kollam Garataiah, aged 50 4. years, S/o.Late K.Karreiah, SC colony, Agarala village, Ithepalle post, Chandragiri Mandal. Caste by SC (Mala).

Sandiputti Balakrishna, aged 5. 35 years, S/o.S.Srinivasulu, Door No.7.224/1, SC colony, Agarala village, Ithepalli post, Chandragiri Mandal. Caste by SC (Mala).

2

Preliminary Register CaseP.R.C.No. 08/2014 committed by the numberIV Addl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tirupati.

Prosecution was conducted bySri A.Sudhakar Reddy. Special Public Prosecutor, Tirupati.

Accused defended bySri.A.Dandapani, Advocate for A.1 to A.5.

Offences-ChargesCharges under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC against A.1 to A.5 and a charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, against A.1 to A.3.

Plea of the accusedA.1 to A.5 pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the courtI find A.1 to A.5 not guilty of the Charges under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC and A.1 to A.3 not guilty for the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Sentence or orderIn the result,A.1 to A.5 are acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC. A.1 to A.3 are also acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A.1 to A.5 are set at liberty. Bail bonds of A.1 to A.5 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any in this case, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on 11.04.2017 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Sudhakar Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State; and ofSri M.Dandapani,Advocate for A.1 to A.5; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon'ble Court delivered the following:

3

J U D G M E N T

1.Sri S.K.Babu, Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Tirupati West Sub

Division, Tirupati has filed a charge sheet against A.1 to A.5 in

Cr.No.208/2013 of Chandragiri Police Station registered under Sections 147 and 323 r/w 149 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2.The learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Tirupati, who took cognizance of the case under Sections 147 and 323 r/w 149 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has committed the case to this Hon'ble Court by her orders in P.R.C No.08 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014, after following the due procedure U/s.209 of the Cr.P.C., against accused.

3.Brief facts of the case are as under:

A.1 to A.3 who are residents of Agarala village, Chandragiri

Mandal are Kapus by caste which comes under the category of other than Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe. A.4 and A.5 who are residents of SC Colony, Agarala village, Chandragir Mandal are Mala by caste which comes under the category of Schedule Caste. The defacto complainant namely Darsi Ravi also belongs to Mala Caste. On 23.09.2013 at 8.00 p.m at Bandakadapalle village, Agarala panchayat,

Chandragiri mandal, Chandragiri A.1 to A.5 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with common object, beat Darsi Ravi and Paidi

Sairaju with hands and legs causing simple injures. During the past

Sarpanch elections Darsi Ravi and some of the villages caste their votes to the candidate belonging to TDP party. A.1 to A.3 and Kishore Reddy are the sympathizers of YSR Congress Party and they bore grudge against Darsi Ravi and Paidi Sairaju. They have threatened them with dire consequences and also abused as “ DONGANAKODUKULLARA,

MAAKU VYATHIREKAMUGA PANI CHESTHARA”, PADHI MATLU

LOTHUKI THOKKESTHAMU, CHAMPUTHAMU ”. The sympathesiders and leaders of YSR party, A.1 to A.5, Kishore Reddy, Eswariaha,

Chandra and Subhan Saheb approached Darsi Ravi and Paidi Sairaju by raising slogans’ in favour of Jagan as “Jai Jagan” and sprinkled 4 colour water. Then Darsi Ravi stopped his motor cycle went to the tea shop of Ramamurthy, parked his motor cycle in front of tea stall, went to the house of Kollam Rajendramma, and he attended his face bath. At about 8.00 p.m., while Sairaju was at Ramamurthy tea shop, Sai Raju came on running and he informed him that A.1, A.4 and his son again sprinkled colour water, for which he informed them that there were no separate clothes to change and requested them not to sprinkle colour water. Then A.1 and A.4 abused him in filthy language and A.4 fisted on the chest with his right hand. A.1 abused him in filthy language by naming his caste as “MAALANA KODAKA YEMIRA RANGU PUSTHE”.

So abusing, he kicked on his back and he escaped from his clutches.

A.3, A,.4 and A.5 beat him with hands and A.1 caught hold of his shirt pulled forcibly and beat him with hands. In the meanwhile, A.2 the younger brother of A.1, arrived and abused them by naming their caste as “MEERU MAALANA KODAKALLARA, MEMU KODITHE PADALIRA,

NENU THALUCHUKONTE, MIMMULANUY MAALAPALLE LO

LEKUNDA CHESTHANU”.Darsi Ravi and Pydi Sairaju got afraid and cries out loudly and on hearing the cries, S.Balan and K.Rajendramma came there and on seeing them they went away.

4.On appearance of A.1 to A.5 and on due consideration, Charges under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC against A.1 to A.5 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 against A1 to A3 have been framed, read over and explained to A.1 to A.5 respectively, in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-4 on behalf of the prosecution. The other witnesses cited in the Charge sheet were given up by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material made against them.

7.The point that arises for consideration in this case is:

“ Is the prosecution able to prove the guilt of A.1 to A.5 beyond all reasonable doubt ? ” 5

8.Heard.

9.POINT:

The burden of proof is only on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

10.P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant in this case, has stated that nothing happened in between him and the accused and he has not given any police report against them. He admitted his signature in the report dated 24.09.2013 as Ex.P.1. But he denied the contents of the said report. He stated that when he was in Ruia Hospital, he was asked to sign on a white paper and he put his signature. Even though, he was cross examined by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, he did not turn to support the case of prosecution as if he stated against the accused to the police as in Ex.P.2, the 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by the police. He never stated that he is aware of the contents of the report dated 24.09.2013. PWs.2 and 3, who were examined by the learned Special Public Prosecutor as an eye witnesses to the incident, also did not support the case of prosecution. Even though, they were was cross-examined by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, they did not turn to support the case of prosecution as if they stated against A.1 to A.5 as in Exs.P.3 and P.4, the 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by police during investigation.

11.Since PWs.1 to 3 did not state that A1 to A5 beat them with hands and legs and A1 to A3 abused them touching their caste name with in public view, they are not liable for punishment for the offences under sections 147 and 323 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. I find A.1 to A.5 not guilty of the charge under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC. I also find A.1 to A.3 of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accordingly, the point is decided.

6

12. In the result, A.1 to A.5 are acquitted under Section 232 of the

Cr.P.C for the offences under Sections 147 and 323 of the IPC. A.1 to

A.3 are also acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A.1 to A.5 are set at liberty. Bail bonds of A.1 to A.5 and their sureties shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any in this case, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 12thday of April, 2017.

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: PW.1:D.Ravi PW.2:S.Balan PW.3:N.Masthan Valli

For defence: -None-.

Exhibits marked

For prosecution: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 in the report given by PW.1 to the police. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3.

For defence: Nil.

Material objects marked: Nil.

Spl.S.J-cum-

IV AD&SJ,

TPT

1

Before the Special Sessions Judge-cum-IV Additional District and

Sessions Judge :: Chittoor at Tirupati.

Present: Sri S.Nagarjuna,

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Monday, the Third (3rd) day of April, Two thousand Seventeen.

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 01 OF 2017

ComplainantThe State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-1, Chittoor District. [Crime No. 148/2016 of Nagari Police Station].

AccusedA.Chandrasekhar Chetty, s/o.Dharmalingam chetty, Hindu,aged about 51 years, S.V.Nagar, Nagari Town, School Assistant (Maths), Z.P.High School, Ekambarakuppam Nagari Mandal Rural Mandal, caste by Ediga.

Preliminary Register CaseP.R.C.No. 01/2017 committed by the numberJudicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari.

Prosecution was conducted bySri A.Sudhakar Reddy. Special Public Prosecutor, Tirupati.

Accused defended bySri.I.Ramesh, Advocate for the accused.

Offences-ChargesCharge under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused.

Plea of the accusedAccused pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the courtI find the accused not guilty of the Charge under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2

Sentence or orderIn the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C for the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused is set at liberty. Bail bond of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any in this case, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case coming on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri A.Sudhakar Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for the State; and of Sri I.Ramesh, Advocate for the accused; and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Hon'ble Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.Sri U.Suryanarayana, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC & ST

Cell-1, Chittoor has filed a charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.148/2016 of Nagari Police Station registered under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagari, who took cognizance of the case under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has committed the case to this Hon'ble Court by his orders in P.R.C No.08 of 2016 dated 10.01.2017, after following the due procedure U/s.209 of the Cr.P.C., against accused.

3.Brief facts of the case are as under:

The accused being Class Teacher was constructing upstairs of his house at S.V.Nagar, Nagari town. He selected some of the Dalith students and other caste students, and utilized their services for his personal work by promising to add 20 internal marks during the examinations from his side, lest, they would be marked as ‘debarred’.

He threatened the son of the complainant B.Seeman and other school children if they do not obey his orders and they being the members of schedule Caste refused for the same. The accused abused them as 3

“EMIRA MAALA LANJA KODAKALLARA, NENU CHEPITE MEERU

PONANTAARA” and then the children went to his house and attended the construction without food. The accused warned the children if they inform to their parents and again he threatened them “MAALA LANJA

KODAKALLARA MEE TOLU THEESTANU” and he did not provide water, tea and food. With fear of the accused, they bare the torture.

4.On the complaint of defacto complainant S.Bhaskar, a case in

Cr.No.148/2016 was registeredunder Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During the course of investigation the accusedapproached the

Hon’ble High Court to quash the proceedings against him and upon

which the Hon’bole High Court issued orders in Crl.P.No.11270/2016

dt. 3.8.2016 directed the police concerned to complete the investigation

into the crime without arresting the accused and file final report in accordance with law. Accordingly, a notice under section 41(A) of

Cr.P.C was served to the accused for his future appearance before the court.

5.On appearance of the accused and on due consideration, charge under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The learned Special Public Prosecutor has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 on behalf of the prosecution. The other witnesses cited in the Charge sheet were given up by the learned

Special Public Prosecutor.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with as there is no incriminating material made against him.

8.The point that arises for consideration in this case is:

“ Is the prosecution able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt ? ”

9.Heard.

4

10.POINT:

The burden of proof is only on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant in this case, did not support the case of prosecution. He stated before the court that nothing happened in his presence; that he signed under Ex.P.1 on a white paper at the request of police; that he does not know the contents of report

dated 20.7.2016 and that he was not examined by the police. Even

though, he was cross-examined by the learned Special Public

Prosecutor, he did not turn to support the case of prosecution as if he stated against the accused as in Ex.P.2, the 161 Cr.P.C statement recorded by police that he is aware of the contents of the report dated 20.7.2016.

12. PWs.2 to 8, who are victims in this case, also did not support the case of prosecution. Even though, they were cross examined by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, they did not turn to support the case of prosecution as if they stated against the accused as in Exs.P.3 to P.9, the 161 Cr.P.C statements recorded by police during investigation.

13.Since the witnesses PWs.1 to 8 did not state against the accused that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate them in any public place within the public view and that he abused them touching their caste name in any place with the public view, I have come to conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

14.I find the accused not guilty of the Charge under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. Accordingly, the point is decided.

15.In the result, the accused is acquitted under Section 232 of the

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused is set at liberty. Bail bond of the accused and his sureties shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case 5 property, if any in this case, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, this the 3rdday of April, 2017.

Special Sessions Judge-cum- IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupati.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

For prosecution: PW.1:S.Bhaskar PW.2:S.Seeman PW.3:B.Gunasekhar PW.4:G.Balan PW.5:V.Lokesh PW.6:E.Thulasi PW.7:S.Azmeer PW.8:D.Janakiram

For defence: -None-.

Exhibits marked

For prosecution: Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on the report given to police. Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1. Ex.P.3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2. Ex.P.4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3. Ex.P.5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4. Ex.P.6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5. Ex.P.7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6. Ex.P.8: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.7. Ex.P.9: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8.

For defence: Nil.

Material objects marked: Nil.

Spl.S.J-cum-

IV AD&SJ,

TPT