Sri S. Ramesh

APCH000009762020

Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2020 Page No.1/ 8

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR

Present: S.Ramesh, I Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum- Special Judge, designated for trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [PoA] Act, Chittoor.

Monday, the sixth [06th] day of April, 2026 [Special] SESSIONS CASE No.19 of 2020 in Crime No.84 of 2020 of P.T.M Police Station

ComplainantThe State, through its Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell-II, Chittoor,

ProsecutionSri M.Chandrasekhar,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

DefenceSri D.Reddeppa Reddy, Advocate for Accused,

Names & 1.Derangula Ramana, addresses of s/o.(late) Venkataramana, age 39 years, the Accusedr/o.Pathakandukuru, h/o Kandukuru, P.T.M Mandal,

2.Guntipalli Ramesh, s/o.G.Reddeppa, age 30 years, r/o.Pathakandukuru, h/o Kandukuru, P.T.M Mandal,

Charges - 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act, [section of law]- 323 of IPC, - 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act, - 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act, - 324 of IPC.

Nature of - 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act : Offence

APCH000009762020

Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2020 Page No.2/ 8

Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a SC or ST in any place within public view;

Abuses any member of a SC or ST by caste name in any place within public view; - 323 of IPC: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt; - 324 of IPC: Voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapon or means;

Plea of accusedNot guilty,

Finding of the courtNot guilty,

Result of Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges framed the caseagainst them, punishable under section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act [against A.1], 323 of IPC [against A.1], 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act [against A.2], 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act [against A.1 & A.2] and 324 of IPC [against A.1], and they are acquitted for the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C.

--o0o-- The above numbered Sessions Case is presented before me on 01-04-2026 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

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

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

The State, through its Deputy Superintendent of Police [Dy.S.P],

SC/ST Cell-II, Chittoor, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.84 of 2020 of

P.T.M Police Station [PS], under section 173(2)&(i) of Criminal Procedure

Code [in brevity ‘Cr.P.C’], alleging that the accused committed the offences and liable for punishment under sections 324, 323, 509 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code [for short ‘I.P.C’], and section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act [No.33 of], 1989, as amended by Act No.1 of 2016 [for short ‘SCs & STs (PoA) Act’].

APCH000009762020

Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2020 Page No.3/ 8 [1].Case of the Prosecution, succinctly, is that__

The Members of DWACRA group gathered in front of the house of the

Informant- K.Sivalinga [belong to ST community, hereinafter refers to as the ‘victim’] in Patha Kandukuru, h/o.Kandukuru, during discussions the 1st

Accused [A.1] abused his mother [by name- Venkataramanamma] in filthy language and by referring the caste, insulted and assaulted her voluntarily, in the mean time, the 2nd Accused [A.2] also came, abused and insulted the

Informant referring the caste, and then both the Accused humiliated the said victim, within the public view, by referring the caste, and A.1 assaulted one

K.Sallappa and caused injury.

[2].On receiving report from the Informant/ victim, the S.I of Police, P.T.M

P.S has registered the case.

On receiving proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, the Complainant- Dy.S.P, SC/ST Cell-II, Chittoor took-up Investigation, visited the crime scene, examined it, enquired the witnesses, collected the oral and documentary evidence, arrested the accused, forwarded them to the court for remand, and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

Subsequently, the accused were enlarged on bail.

[3].My learned predecessor-in-office, had taken cognizance of the matter [as Special Sessions Case [S.C] No.19 of 2020] against the accused 1 & 2 for the alleged offence as shown in the charge sheet.

[4].On appearance of the accused 1 & 2, they are furnished with the copies of case record as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C, they are examined under section 228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C, in which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against them punishable

APCH000009762020

Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2020 Page No.4/ 8 under sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act [against A.1], 323 of IPC [against A.1], 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act [against A.2], 3(1)(r)(s) of

SCs & STs [PoA] Act [against A.1 & A.2] and 324 of IPC [against A.1], the contents of which are read over and explained to them in Telugu [local language] and they claimed to be tried.

[5].During trial, the Prosecution altogether examined ‘5’ persons as

Prosecution Witnesses [P.W.’s] 1 to 5 and got marked the Exhibits [Ex.’s]

P.1 to P.6.

No Material Objects [M.O.’s] are marked.

[6].After completion of evidence of the prosecution, the matter is posted for examination of the accused, to record their statements under section 313

Cr.P.C, the court noticed that no incriminating evidence [either oral or documentary] is adduced against them, hence their examination under the said provision of law is dispensed with.

[7].Heard arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant- State and the Defense Advocate.

[8].To prove the charges framed against the accused for the alleged offences, the Prosecution firstly examined the victim- informant, by name-

K.Sivalinga, as P.W.1.

(i).He deposed that, in the year 2020 on one day he sustained injuries by falling on ground accidentally, he was taken to the hospital, Ex.P.1 is his signature on the report dt.19-05-2020, but he doesn’t know the contents therein.

(ii).The eye witness, by name- Smt.C.Aparna, as P.W.2, stated in her examination-in-chief, that she doesn’t know anything about the case pending against the accused.

APCH000009762020

Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2020 Page No.5/ 8

(iii).The Prosecution nextly examined father of the victim- P.W.1, by name- K.Sallappa, as P.W.3, so also, a Mediator- namely S.Mahaboob

Basha, Village Revenue Assistant, Kandukuru, as P.W.4, but they too turned hostile.

(iv).The Medical witness, who treated the injured in this case, by name-

Dr.G.Harinath Reddy, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Kangundi,

Kuppam Mandal, as P.W.5, deposed in his examination-in-chief, that, on 18- 05-2020 he examined P.W.3, who was brought by the police, he examined and found Bruise in the left ear lobe and abrasion, Ex.P-6 is the wound certificate issued by him with opinion that the said injury is simple in nature.

[9].By treating the victim- P.W.1, an eye witness- P.W.2, father of the victim- P.W.3 [injured], Mediator- P.W.4, as hostile, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has examined them in cross but has not drawn any favourable evidence/ information, either in support of prosecution or against the accused.

P.W.1 just identified his signature on Report dated 19-05-2020, as

Ex.P.1, but stated specifically that he doesn’t know the contents therein.

P.W.’s 1 to 3 have denied Ex.’s P.2 to P.4- their statements recorded by the

Investigating Officer under section 161(3) of Cr.P.C during investigation.

P.W.4 just stated in his evidence that Ex.P.5 is his signature in the scene observation mahazar dated 20-05-2020, but he doesn’t know the contents therein, and that, on the request of the police he has just signed in it. As the injured- P.W.3 turned hostile by denying the story of Prosecution, in total, the testimony of P.W.5- Medical witness, pales into insignificance.

[10]. The Prosecution had given up the evidence of other witnesses, circumstantial witnesses and the police personnel who investigated the

APCH000009762020

Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2020 Page No.6/ 8 case, on the ground that the informant- victim/ P.W.1, and the material witnesses, turned hostile.

(i).Even if the said witnesses are examined there would be no purpose as the material witnesses have not stated anything against the accused.

(ii).Learned Additional Public Prosecutor suggested to P.W.1, in his cross-examination, that he is not supporting the case of prosecution due to compromise, for which, he denied. However, P.W.1 categorically stated in his cross-examination for the prosecution, that, recently the village elders and close relatives have settled the disputes between them and the accused.

Whatever the reason may be either due to the compromise or the other, the victim and other witnesses have not supported the case of

Prosecution, and for their known reasons they turned hostile, the ingredients of any of the charges are not proved, considering all the facts and circumstances, the court is of the view that no case made out, the charges are not proved and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

[11]. As result, the Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges framed against them, punishable under section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act [against A.1], 323 of IPC [against A.1], 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act [against A.2], 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act [against A.1 & A.2] and 324 of IPC [against A.1], and they are acquitted for the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C.

Their bail bonds, if any, shall be in force for a period of ‘6’ months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

APCH000009762020

Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2020 Page No.7/ 8

The un-marked non-valuables, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 06th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.RAMESHSH

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution: =============== P.W.1: K.Sivalinga,

P.W.2: C.Aparna,

P.W.3: K.Sallappa,

P.W.4: S.Mahaboob Basha [VRA],

P.W.5: Dr.G.Harinath Reddy

For the Defence: ============= - none-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Prosecution: =============== Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report dated 19-05-2020,

Ex.P.2: Statement of P.W.1 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C,

Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.4: Statement of P.W.3 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.5: Signature of P.W.4 in scene observation mahazar dated 20-05-2020,

Ex.P.6: Wound certificate of P.W.3.

APCH000009762020

Spl.S.C.No.19 of 2020 Page No.8/ 8

For the Defence: ============ --nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--nil-- Id/- S.RAMESH I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APCH000005862025

C.R.P.No.337 of 2025 1 / 7

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

CHITTOOR DISTRICT, AT CHITTOOR

Present: S.Ramesh, I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

Monday, the sixth [6th] day of April, 2026

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.337 of 2025

Name of the court from which the IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Revision is preferred-cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor,

Number of the case in the said Crl.M.P.No.229 of 2025 in Crime No.20 of court2024 of Chittoor I Town Police Station

Date of the order07-02-2025,

Number of the matter in this court Criminal Revision Petition No.337 of 2025,

Name and address K.R.Mallikarjuna, of the Revision s/o.K.M.Raju, age 40 years, Retired Ex-Serviceman, Petitionerr/o.D.No.19-471, Ashramam Street, Mittoor, Chittoor Town and District,

Name and address The State, of the Respondentthrough its Inspector of Police, Chittoor I Town P.S, rep. by the Additional Public Prosecutor,

Decision of the trial court [in Crl.M.P.The petition filed by the Revision petitioner No.229 of 2025], on which the herein was dismissed. Revision is preferred

Result of the Revision Petition--DISMISSED-- --o0o-- The above numbered matter is presented before me on 02-04-2026 for final hearing, in the presence of Sri V.Murugan- Advocate for the Revision

Petitioner, and of Sri M.Chandrasekhar- Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Respondent/ Complainant, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court passed the following :

APCH000005862025

C.R.P.No.337 of 2025 2 / 7

// O R D E R //

=========== The Criminal Revision Petition [CRP] is filed, questioning [or challenging] the order dated 07-02-2025 passed by the IV Additional Civil

Judge (Junior Division) -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor

[hereinafter refers to as the “trial court”], in Crl.M.P.No.229 of 2025 in Crime

No.20 of 2024 of Chittoor I Town P.S, Chittoor District.

[1].The CRP is filed under section 438 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha

Sanhita, 2023 [for short ‘BNSS].

(i).The Revision Petitioner is the Accused, before the trial court, in the said case, Respondent is the Complainant- State, who registered the case as

Crime No.20 of 2024 [of Chittoor I Town PS].

(ii). In order to avoid any confusion, I would refer the parties to the proceedings as per their litigative status and ranking before the trial court.

[2].Laconically, facts of the case [as per the case record] are, that__

(i).At about 9.30 p.m on 30-01-2024, the petitioner, in drunken state, shouting against the customers of Nandini Bar & Restaurant, situated in

C.B.Road, Greamspet, Chittoor town, due to which, the Informant- P.Bhanu

Prakash, the Manager of the said Bar, questioned him as to why he was shouting, and, asked him to leave the place, for which, the petitioner disclosed his name and identity as Ex-Serviceman, and now working as Police in R.P.F,

Tirupati, and didn’t leave the place. When the Informant instructed to go away, the petitioner got wild, picked up a Pistol from his waist, opened fire from the said licensed Pistol, negligently, in the parking area, and terrorized the persons present there.

(ii).On receiving the report from the Informant, the Inspector of Police,

Chittoor I Town UPS, has registered the case against the petitioner on 31-01-

APCH000005862025

C.R.P.No.337 of 2025 3 / 7 2024 for the offences punishable under sections 336, 506 of Indian Penal

Code [for short ‘IPC’] and 27 r/w 5 of the Arms Act, took-up Investigation, arrested the petitioner, recorded his confession, seized the crime weapon in the presence of Mediators and under the cover of Mahazar.

[3].Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Judge of the trial court, the petitioner/ Accused has preferred this CRP under the following__

GROUNDS FOR REVISION

(i).Order passed by the Trial Court is against the Law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case;

(ii).the trial court has not considered that the Revision petitioner herein is the licensed holder [of the case property], and he was using the same for his personal security and for other security services;

(iii).the petitioner need to get the pistol renewed in July, 2024, if it is not renewed, the petitioner would suffer loss;

(iv).the trial court has not considered that the investigation is completed, charge-sheet is filed and yet to be be numbered;

Hence the Revision, seeking to set aside the impugned order of the trial court, by allowing the C.R.P.

[4].I have heard arguments of learned counsel for the Revision petitioner and the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.

[5].Now, the points for determination, are__

1.Whether the order passed by the trial court is legally and factually sustainable ?

2.Is it necessary to interfere with the impugned order of the trial court ?

APCH000005862025

C.R.P.No.337 of 2025 4 / 7 [6].The Revision petitioner is seeking the relief under section 438 of BNSS.

The case record shows that the alleged offence levelled against the petitioner is punishable under section 336, 506 of I.P.C and 27 r/w 5 of the

Arms Act [No.59 of], 1959, as amended up to Act 48 of 2019.

(i).The petitioner, in his petition filed before the trial court, cleverly stated in the cause-title, as ‘Petitioner/ Owner of Property’ only, but has not stated specifically his litigative status.

(ii).He relied on a decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in “Om

Prakash Chaturvedi Vs State of M.P [dated 03-05-2010] reported in 2010 ILR (MP) 1998”, wherein, at paragraph No.2, it is observed that__ “…………...The accused persons have looted the gun of the applicant because of which applicant is facing great hardships. ………..”

In the said case, the applicant was the Informant/ Victim, but in the present case in hand, the Revision petitioner is the Accused, therefore, the facts therein are not applicable to the case in hand.

[7].Rule 34 of The Arms Rules, 2016, reads as__ “Identification marks on firearms.─ (1). A person, who has in his possession any firearm which does not bear distinctly a manufacturer's name, number or other identification mark shall get the identification mark stamped on the firearm after obtaining prior approval of the licensing authority which will consist –

(a) such distinct letters as may be prescribed for the purpose by the State Government;

(b) serial number of the arms licence; and

(c) the year of stamping,

APCH000005862025

C.R.P.No.337 of 2025 5 / 7 in that order on the barrel and the frame, or the barrel and the receiver of the firearm.

(2). When an imported firearm kept for sale by a dealer does not bear the manufacturer's name, such distinguishing mark of the importer as allotted by the State Government shall be engraved on the barrel and the frame, or the barrel and the receiver of the firearm after obtaining prior permission of the licensing authority:

Provided that if a barrel bears more than one number, the distinguishing mark shall be affixed to the number appearing on the original invoice:

Provided further that where the manufacturer's number appears only on the trigger-guard or other replaceable part, that number shall also be engraved on the barrel and the frame, or the barrel and the receiver of the firearm.”

Rule 50 of the The Arms Rules, 2016, reads as__ “Inspection.─ (1). Arms and ammunition deposited in a police station or with a dealer and those transferred to the district malkhana and the register maintained for the purpose shall be inspected periodically by the district

magistrate or other officer appointed by the State Government in this

behalf in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed by the

State Government.

(2). The arms or ammunition deposited in a unit armoury and the register maintained for this purpose shall be inspected periodically by the officer commanding the unit or any other officer empowered by him

APCH000005862025

C.R.P.No.337 of 2025 6 / 7 in accordance with the procedure prescribed by the Government of the

State, where the unit is for the time being located.” [8].In the case in hand, the Investigating officer has noted the details of the

Pistol sought to be returned, in the Mahazar [Confession, Arrest & Seizure

Mahazar] dated 31-01-2024. So, in case if the property is returned, and any of the identification marks are changed due to any reason, it will affect the trial of the case.

[9].The trial court also, in the impugned order, has categorically gave finding that __ “…. Thus the whole case is related to using of said pistol in public illegally by the petitioner/accused and regarding which the crime is also registered. Hence, this court is not inclined to allow this petition.”

The said finding of the trial court, is based on sound legal principle, since, the entire case is that the Revision petitioner used the said case property [pistol] in committing the alleged offence and thus it is the material evidence to the case.

Considering all the circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that the order passed by the trial court is in accordance with law, the

Points 1 and 2 are answered accordingly, holding that, the orders passed by the trial court are legally and factually sustainable, there is no necessity to interfere with the findings of the trial court in this Revision,thereby, the C.R.P is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

[10]. As result, the Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order of the trial court [IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)

APCH000005862025

C.R.P.No.337 of 2025 7 / 7 -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor] dated 07-02-2025 in

Crl.M.P.No.229 of 2025.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 6th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.RAMESH

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chitttoor. Copy to the:

IV Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) -cum- Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Chittoor.

APCH000008332024

Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 1 / 6

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR

Present: S.Ramesh, I Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum- Special Judge, designated for trial of Offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [PoA] Act, Chittoor.

Wednesday the Eighth [8th] day of April, 2026 [Special] SESSIONS CASE No.29 of 2024 in Crime No.128 of 2023 of Penurmur Police Station

ComplainantThe State, through its Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell, Chittoor,

ProsecutionSri M.Chandrasekhar

Additional Public Prosecutor,

DefenceSri A.Murali Mohan, Advocate for the Accused,

Name & 1.T.Subramanyam Reddy, address s/o.Muniswamy Reddy, age 39 years, of the

2.T.Munaswamy Reddy, Accused s/o.Basireddy, age 77 years,

3.P.Mohan Reddy, s/o.Ramachandra Reddy, age 33 years,

4.P.Ramachandra Reddy, s/o.Venkata Reddy, age 60 years,

5.T.Devarajulu Reddy @ Deva, s/o.T.Raja Reddy, age 25 years,

6.T.Vasanthamma, w/o.T.Munaswamy Reddy, age 72 years,

A.1, A.3 to A.5 are r/o.Kathireddypalli, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District,

A.2 & A.6 are r/o.D.No.33-02, Kathireddypalli, Penumuru Mandal, Chittoor District.

APCH000008332024 [Spl.]S.C.No.29 of 2024 Page No.2 / 6

Charges - 326 of I.P.C, [section of - 3(1)(r)(s) of the SCs & STs (PoA) Act, law]- 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C, - 506 of I.P.C.

Nature of - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt with dangerous weapons Offence or means; - Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a SC or ST in any place within public view;

Abuses any member of a SC or ST by caste name in any place within public view; - Voluntarily causing simple hurt with common intention; - Criminal Intimidation.

Plea of accusedNot guilty,

Finding of the courtNot guilty,

Result of The Accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty of the charges framed against the casethem punishable under sections 326 of I.P.C, 3(1)(r)(s) SCs & STs [PoA] Act, 323 r/w 34 and 506 of I.P.C and they are acquitted for the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C. --o0o-- The above numbered Sessions Case is presented before me on 07-04-2026 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

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

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

The State, through its Deputy Superintendent of Police [Dy.S.P], SC- ST Cell,

Chittoor, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.128 of 2023 of Penumuru Police

Station [PS], under section 173(2)&(i) of Criminal Procedure Code [in brevity ‘Cr.P.C’], alleging that the accused committed the offences and liable for punishment under sections 323, 326, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code [for short ‘I.P.C’] and 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act [No.33 of], 1989, as amended by Act No.1 of 2016 [for short ‘SCs & STs (PoA) Act’].

APCH000008332024

Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 3 / 6 [1].Succinctly facts of the case unfolded from the charge sheet are that__

At about ‘2’ p.m, on 16-09-2023, one M.Chitti Babu requested the Informant-

M.Lakshmipathi [belongs to SC community, hereinafter refers to as the ‘victim/ injured’] to remove the serial lights, as the victim felt thirst, went to the house of A.1 [belongs to other than SC & ST community], noticed a chain lying down beside A.6, on seeing the same he informed the A.6, due to which A.6 woke up, got surprised, shouted as ‘thief, thief, thief’, for which, the victim got scared, went towards the pond near the village. Later, A.1 to A.6 caught hold of the victim, brought him to the house of A.1, and then, A.1 beat him with rod and sticks on legs [foot], knees, caused grievous injuries, abused and insulted the victim with intent to humiliate him within the public place, by uttering as “మాదిగ నా కొడకా", and then, A.2 to A.5, by sharing common intention with A.1, assaulted the victim, threatened with dire నిన్ను� ఈడనే చం�పేస్తాం� � . consequences, by uttering as “” [2].On receiving report from the Informant/ victim, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Penumuru P.S, has registered this case, against the accused for the offences punishable under sections 323, 324 ,506 r/w 34 of I.P.C and 3(1)(r) & 3(1)(s) of the

SCs & STs [PoA] Act.

(i).On receiving the proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, the

Complainant- Dy.S.P, SC ST Cell, Chittoor took-up Investigation, visited the crime scene, examined it, drafted rough sketch of the crime scene, enquired the witnesses, collected oral and documentary evidence.

(ii). As per the directions of the Hon’ble High Court, in Crl.Petition No.2618 of 2024, dated 02-05-2024, he [I.O] got served notices to the accused under section 41-A of Cr.P.C, and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

[3].My Learned Predecessor-in-office, had taken the matter into cognizance [as

Special Sessions Case [S.C] No.29 of 2024] against the accused for the alleged offences as shown in the charge sheet.

[4].On appearance of the accused 1 to 6, they are furnished with the copies of case documents as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C, they are examined under

APCH000008332024 [Spl.]S.C.No.29 of 2024 Page No.4 / 6 section 228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C, in which, they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against them punishable under sections 326 of I.P.C and 3(1)(r)(s) of the SCs & STs [PoA] Act against A.1; 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C [against

A.1 to A.6], and 506 of I.P.C [against A.1], the contents of which are read over and explained to them in Telugu [local language] and they claimed to be tried.

[5].During trial, the Prosecution altogether examined ‘2’ persons as Prosecution

Witnesses [P.W.’s] 1 and 2 and got marked the Exhibits [Ex.’s] P.1 to P.3.

No Material Objects [M.O.’s] are marked.

[6].After completion of evidence of the Prosecution, the matter is posted for examination of the accused, to record their statement if any under section 313

Cr.P.C, the court noticed that no incriminating evidence [either oral and documentary] is adduced against them, hence their examination under the said provision of law is dispensed with.

[7].Heard arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant- State, and, the Defence Advocate.

[8].To prove the charges framed against the accused, the Prosecution firstly examined the Informant- victim, by name- M.Lakshmipathi, as P.W.1.

(i).He deposed that, he doesn’t know who are the accused in this case, Ex.P.1 is his signature on the report dated 17-09-2023, but he doesn’t know the contents therein.

(ii). The Prosecution examined an eye witness to the alleged incident, by name-

M.Gunasekhar, as P.W.2, and he deposed in his evidence that the informant is his elder brother, and doesn’t know anything about the case pending against the accused.

[9].By treating the witnesses- P.W.’s 1 and 2 as hostile, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor examined them in cross, but has not drawn any favourable evidence/ information, either in support of prosecution or against the accused.

APCH000008332024

Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2024 5 / 6

P.W.’s 1 and 2 have denied Ex.’s P.2 and P.3- their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161(3) of Cr.P.C during investigation. P.W.1 just identified his signature on report as Ex.P.1.

[10]. The Prosecution has given up the evidence of other witnesses, circumstantial witnesses and the police personnel who investigated the case on the ground that the informant- victim/ P.W.1, the eye witness [P.W.2], turned hostile.

Even if the said witnesses are examined, there would be no purpose as the material witnesses have not stated anything against the accused. P.W.1- injured/ victim, deposed in his cross-examination for the Prosecution, that, recently the close relatives and well-wishers including the village elders have settled the disputes between them and the accused. Either due to compromise as suggested by the prosecution to P.W.1 during cross examination, or the other, the victim-

P.W.1, eye witness- P.W.2, have not stated anything against the accused connecting them to the charges and the alleged incident, considering all the facts and circumstances this court is of the view that, no case made out, the charges are not proved and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

[11]. As result, the Accused 1 to 6 are found not guilty of the charges framed against them punishable under sections 326 of I.P.C, 3(1)(r)(s) SCs & STs [PoA]

Act, 323 r/w 34 and 506 of I.P.C, and they are acquitted for the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C.

Their bail bonds, if any, shall be in force for a period of ‘6’ months, in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The un-marked non-valuables if any shall be destroyed after appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 08th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.RAMESH

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APCH000008332024 [Spl.]S.C.No.29 of 2024 Page No.6 / 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution: =============== P.W.1: M.Lakshmipathi,

P.W.2: M.Gunasekhar.

For the Defence: ============ - none-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Prosecution: =============== Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report dated 17-09-2023,

Ex.P.2: Statement of P.W.1 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C,

Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

For the Defence: ============ --nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--nil--. Id/- S.RAMESH I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APCH000019202023

Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2023 1 / 5

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR

Present: S.Ramesh, I Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum- Special Judge, designated for trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [PoA] Act, Chittoor.

Thursday, the sixteenth [16th] day of April, 2026 [Special] SESSIONS CASE No.42 of 2023 in Crime No.17 of 2023 of Baireddipalli Police Station

ComplainantThe State, through its Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Palamaner,

ProsecutionSri M.Chandrasekhar

Additional Public Prosecutor,

DefenceSri A.Murali Mohan, Advocate for the Accused,

Name & 1.P.Bhuvanachandra Gowd, address of the s/o.(late) P.Venkataramana Gowd, age 29 years, Cultivation, AccusedR/o.Gandhiroad, Baireddipalli village and Mandal,

2.B.Subramanyam Chetty, s/o.B.Munaswamy Chetty, age 49 years, Business, R/o.No.3-1A, Pathapeta, H/o.Kadapanatham, Baireddipalli Mandal.

Charges [section of - 3(1)(r)(s) SCs & STs [PoA] Act; law]- 323 r/w 34, 448, 355 r/w 34 and 506 of I.P.C,

Nature of - Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a Offence member of a SC or ST in any place within public view; - Abuses any member of a SC or ST by caste name in any place within public view; - Voluntarily causing hurt with common intention; - Punishment for House trespass; - Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour person, otherwise than on grave provocation; - Criminal Intimidation.

APCH000019202023

Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2023 2 / 5

Plea of accusedNot guilty,

Finding of the courtNot guilty,

Result of the The Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges framed caseagainst them punishable under sections 3(1)(r)(s) SCs & STs [PoA] Act; 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C, 448, 355 r/w 34 and 506 of I.P.C, and they are acquitted for the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C. --o0o-- The above numbered Sessions Case is presented before me on 15-04-2026 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

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

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

The State, through its Sub-Divisional Police Officer [SDPO], Palamaner, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.17 of 2023 of Baireddipalli Police Station [PS], under section 173(2)&(i) of Criminal Procedure Code [in brevity ‘Cr.P.C’], alleging that the accused committed the offences and liable for punishment under sections 341, 448, 323, 355, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code [for short ‘I.P.C’] and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities] Act [No.33 of], 1989, as amended by Act No.1 of 2016 [for short ‘SCs & STs (PoA) Act’].

[1].Succinctly facts of the case unfolded from the charge sheet are that__

(i). while the informant- K.Somappa [belong to SC community and hereinafter refers to as the victim/ injured] was at Indian Bank, Baireddipalli, at about 8 p.m., on 01-02-2023, the accused 1 and 2 [belong to other than SC & ST community] came, unnecessarily abused the victim basing on political disputes, insulted him referring the caste, within the public view, with intent to humiliate him, both the accused with common intention assaulted the victim with hands, and later trespassed into the house, dragged him out, assaulted by using criminal force and beat him with cheppal and then threatened him with dire consequences.

(ii).On receiving report from the informant/ victim, the Sub-Inspector of Police,

Baireddipalli P.S, has registered this case.

(iii).On receiving the proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, the

Complainant- SDPO, Palamaner took-up Investigation, visited the crime scene,

APCH000019202023

Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2023 3 / 5 recorded the statements of the witnesses, drawn rough sketch of the crime scene, collected the oral and documentary evidence, served notices on the accused under section 41-A of Cr.P.C and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

[2].My Learned Predecessor in office, had taken the matter into cognizance [as

Special Sessions Case [S.C] No.42 of 2023] against the accused for the alleged offences as shown in the charge sheet.

[3].On appearance of the accused 1 and 2, they are furnished with the copies of case records as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C, they are examined under section 228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C, in which they denied the offence, pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against them punishable under sections 3(1)(r)(s) SCs & STs [PoA] Act, 323 r/w 34, 448, 355 r/w 34 and 506 of I.P.C, the contents of which are read over and explained to them in Telugu [local language] and they claimed to be tried.

[4].During trial, the Prosecution altogether examined ‘2’ persons as Prosecution

Witnesses [P.W.’s] 1 and 2 and got marked the Exhibits [Ex.’s] P.1 to P.3.

No Material Objects [M.O.’s] are marked.

[5].After completion of evidence of the prosecution, the matter is posted for examination of the accused, to record their statement if any under section 313

Cr.P.C, the court noticed that no incriminating evidence [either oral and documentary] is adduced against them, hence their examination under the said provision of law is dispensed with.

[6].Heard arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant- State and the Defence Advocate.

[7].To prove the charges framed against the accused, the Prosecution firstly examined the informant- victim, by name K.Somappa, as P.W.1. He deposed that, about 3 years back on one day, at about 8 pm, while he was returning home, a mob gathered, but no one insulted and assaulted him, Ex.P.1 is his signature on the report dated 01-02-2023, but he doesn’t know the contents therein.

APCH000019202023

Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2023 4 / 5

Next, the Prosecution examined an eye witness to the alleged incident, by name- B.Balakrishna Gowd, as P.W.2, he deposed that he doesn’t know anything about the case pending against the accused.

[8].By treating the witnesses- P.W.’s 1 and 2 as hostile, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor examined them in cross, but has not drawn any favourable evidence/ information, either in support of prosecution or against the accused.

P.W.’s 1 and 2 have denied Ex.’s P.2 and P.3- their statements recorded by the Investigating Officer under section 161(3) of Cr.P.C during investigation. P.W.1 just identified his signature on the report dated 01-02-2023 as Ex.P.1.

The independent eye witness to the incident- P.W.2, also turned hostile.

[9]. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor had given up the evidence of other witnesses, circumstantial witnesses and the police personnel who investigated the case, on the ground that the informant- victim/ P.W.1, and, the eye witness- P.W.2, turned hostile.

Even if the said witnesses are examined, there would be no purpose as the material witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution. P.W.1 deposed in his cross examination for the prosecution that recently the village elders and well- wishers have settled disputes between them and the accused. Whatever the reason may be, either due to compromise or the other as suggested by the prosecution to P.W.1 during cross examination, the witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution, to consider the charges framed against the accused.

Considering all the facts and circumstances, this court is of the view that no case made out, the charges are not proved, and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

[10]. As result, the Accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty of the charges framed against them punishable under sections 3(1)(r)(s) SCs & STs [PoA] Act; 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C, 448, 355 r/w 34 and 506 of I.P.C, and they are acquitted for the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C..

APCH000019202023

Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2023 5 / 5

Their bail bonds if any shall be in force for a period of ‘6’ months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The un-marked non-valuables if any shall be destroyed after appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 16th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.RAMESH

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution: =============== P.W.1: K.Somappa,

P.W.2: B.Balakrishna Gowd.

For the Defence : ============= - none-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Prosecution : =============== Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report dated 01-02-2023,

Ex.P.2: Statement of P.W.1 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C,

Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

For the Defence: ============ --nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--nil--. Id/- S.RAMESH I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APCH000009742022 [Spl.].S.C.No.18 of 2022 Page No.1/ 6

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE

CHITTOOR DISTRICT AT CHITTOOR

Present: S.Ramesh, I Additional District & Sessions Judge- cum- Special Judge, designated for trial of Offences under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes [PoA] Act, Chittoor.

Thursday, the Ninth [09th] day of April, 2026 [Special] SESSIONS CASE No.18 of 2022 in Crime No.29 of 2022 of Gudupalli Police Station

ComplainantThe State, through its Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC/ST Cell-II, Chittoor,

ProsecutionSri M.Chandrasekhar,

Additional Public Prosecutor,

DefenceSri B.Poorna Chandra, Advocate for Accused,

Names & Venkatesh Singaravelu, addresses of s/o.Venkatesh, age 29 years, r/o.D.No.4-48, the AccusedKotachembagiri, h/o.Kuppiganiapalli, Gudupalli Mandal.

Charges - 341 of IPC, [section of law]- 354 of IPC, - 506 of IPC, - 3(1)(w)(ii) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act, - 354-A of IPC,

Nature of- Punishment for wrongful restraint, Offence- Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty, - Criminal intimidation, - Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. - Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment.

APCH000009742022 [Spl.].S.C.No.18 of 2022 Page No.2/ 6

Plea of accusedNot guilty,

Finding of the courtNot guilty,

Result of Accused is found not guilty of the charges framed against him, the casepunishable under sections 341, 354, 506 of I.P.C, section 3(1)

(w)(ii) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act, and section 354-A of I.P.C, and he is acquitted for the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C.

--o0o-- The above numbered Sessions Case is presented before me on 08-04-2026 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

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

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

The State, through its Deputy Superintendent of Police [Dy.S.P],

SC/ST Cell-II, Chittoor, filed the charge sheet in Crime No.29 of 2022 of

Gudupalli Police Station [PS], under section 173(2)&(i) of Criminal

Procedure Code [in brevity ‘Cr.P.C’], alleging that the accused committed the offences and liable for punishment under sections 341, 323, 354(A), 354(D) of Indian Penal Code [for short ‘I.P.C’], and section 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes [Prevention of Atrocities]

Act [No.33 of], 1989, as amended by Act No.1 of 2016 [for short ‘SCs & STs (PoA) Act’].

[1].Case of the Prosecution, succinctly, is that__

Since 6 months prior to March, 2022, the accused [Male, age 29 years, belongs to other than SC & ST community] used to follow one

Pavithra [belong to ST community, hereinafter refers to as the ‘victim’]- daughter of the Informant- T.Thimmakka, on the pretext of love, harassed her, for which, the Informant got conducted counseling, in evening hours on 12-03-2022 while the victim was returning home from the College the accused wrongfully restrained, misbehaved with her, insulted and outraged her modesty having knowledge of her community.

APCH000009742022 [Spl.].S.C.No.18 of 2022 Page No.3/ 6 [2].On receiving report from the Informant, the S.I of Police, Gudupalli

P.S has registered the case.

On receiving proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, the Complainant- Dy.S.P, SC/ST Cell-II, Chittoor took-up Investigation, visited the crime scene, examined it, enquired the witnesses, collected the oral and documentary evidence, served notices to the accused under section 41-A of Cr.P.C with an instruction to attend before the court to face the trial, and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

[3].My learned predecessor-in-office, had taken cognizance of the matter [as Special Sessions Case [S.C] No.18 of 2022] against the accused for the alleged offence as shown in the charge sheet.

[4].On appearance of the accused, he is furnished with the copies of case record as required under section 207 of Cr.P.C, he is examined under section 228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C, in which he denied the offence, pleaded not guilty of the charges framed against him punishable under sections 341, 354, 506, 354-A of I.P.C and section 3(1)(w)(ii) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act, the contents of which are read over and explained to him in Telugu [local language] and he claimed to be tried.

[5].During trial, the Prosecution altogether examined ‘3’ persons as

Prosecution Witnesses [P.W.’s] 1 to 3 and got marked the Exhibits [Ex.’s]

P.1 to P.4.

No Material Objects [M.O.’s] are marked.

[6].After completion of evidence of the prosecution, the matter is posted for examination of the accused, to record his statements under section 313

Cr.P.C, the court noticed that no incriminating evidence [either oral or documentary] is adduced against him, hence his examination under the said provision of law is dispensed with.

APCH000009742022 [Spl.].S.C.No.18 of 2022 Page No.4/ 6 [7].Heard arguments of learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant- State and the Defense Advocate.

[8].To prove the charges framed against the accused and to bring home his guilt, the Prosecution firstly examined the Informant- mother of the victim, by name- T.Thimmakka, as P.W.1.

(i).She deposed in her examination-in-chief that, Ex.P.1 is her signature on the report dt.13-03-2022, but she doesn’t know the contents therein.

(ii).The victim girl, as P.W.2, also turned hostile by stating that she doesn’t know anything about the case pending against the accused.

(iii).The Prosecution nextly examined one of the village elders and circumstantial witness, by name- C.Sree Ramakrishnappa, as P.W.3, and he too has not stated anything against the accused, and turned hostile.

[9].By treating the Informant- P.W.1, the victim- P.W.2, and a circumstantial witness- P.W.3, as hostile, learned Additional Public

Prosecutor has examined them in cross, but has not drawn any favourable evidence/ information, either in support of prosecution or against the accused.

P.W.1 just identified his signature on Report dated 13-03-2022, as

Ex.P.1. Learned Additional Public Prosecution during cross-examination of

P.W.1 suggested to her that she is not disclosing the truth basing on compromise, for which, she denied. It appears that, either due to compromise or the other, the witnesses have not supported the case of the

Prosecution and denied Ex.’s P.2 to P.4- the statements of P.W.’s 1 to 3 recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation under section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.

[10]. The Prosecution had given up the evidence of other witnesses, circumstantial witnesses and the police personnel who investigated the

APCH000009742022 [Spl.].S.C.No.18 of 2022 Page No.5/ 6 case, on the ground that the informant, victim and the other witness, turned hostile. Even if the said witnesses are examined there would be no purpose as the material witnesses have not stated anything against the accused. The ingredients of any of the charges are not proved, considering all the facts and circumstances, the court is of the view that no case made out, the charges are not proved and the accused is entitled for acquittal.

[11]. As result, the Accused is found not guilty of the charges framed against him, punishable under sections 341, 354, 506 of I.P.C, section 3(1)

(w)(ii) of SCs & STs [PoA] Act, and section 354-A of I.P.C, and he is acquitted for the same under section 232 of Cr.P.C.

His bail bonds, if any, shall be in force for a period of ‘6’ months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

The un-marked non-valuables, if any, shall be destroyed after appeal period.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me, in open court, on this the 09th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- S.RAMESH

I Additional District & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the Prosecution: =============== P.W.1: T.Thimmakka,

P.W.2: S.Pavithra,

P.W.3: C.Sree Ramakrishnappa.

For the Defence: ============= - none-

APCH000009742022 [Spl.].S.C.No.18 of 2022 Page No.6/ 6

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Prosecution: =============== Ex.P.1: Signature of P.W.1 on report dated 13-03-2022,

Ex.P.2: Statement of P.W.1 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C,

Ex.P.3: Statement of P.W.2 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

Ex.P.4: Statement of P.W.3 recorded under section 161(3) Cr.P.C.

For the Defence: ============ --nil--

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--nil-- Id/- S.RAMESH I Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Chittoor.