Smt S. Sreevani

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES 

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT ­CUM­III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,: AT::

KARIMNAGAR

 PRESENT:­SMT.S.SREEVANI,

SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE­CUM­

III ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Monday, the 8th day of May, 2023.

SPL. SESSIONS CASE No. 158 of 2018

Nameofthe:TheStatethroughA.C.P.Peddapalli Complainant/State(Cr.No.211/2018 of P.S.Sulatanabad)

Name of the Accused:Rangu Praveen s/o.Saylu, 28 yrs, Goud, r/o.Suddala v/o.Sultanabad mandal.

Charges::U/s 323, 354­A IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s)(w) (ii) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act.

Plea of the Accused:: “Not guilty”. 

Finding of the Court::“ Guilty”

Sentence or order:: In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354-A IPC and Sec.3 (1)(r) (s), (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act and the accused is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C. the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Sec.323 IPC. Further he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Sec.354-A IPC The accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- , in default of payment of fine amount, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of 2 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 

SCs/STs (POA) Act and he is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section.3 (1) (w)(ii) of SCs/STs (POA) Act and the accused further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section.3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is intimated about his right of appeal.

Prosecution conducted::Sri T.Pavan kumar, byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar. 

Accused defended by::Sri.B.LaxmiNaranayana,Advocates, Karimnagar.

This case is coming on 17­4­2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. T.Pavan kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor, for the State­ complainant and of Sri. B.Laxmi Narayana Advocates for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:­

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

1.The A.C.P.Peddapalli has laid Charge Sheet against the accused in

Crime No.211/2018 of P.S. Sultanabad for the offences punishable under

Sections 323, 354­A IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s)(w) (ii) of SCs/STs (POA)

Amendment Act.

2.The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the charge sheet are as follows:­ 3 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 

That on 14-8-2018 the complainant by name K.Naresh came to police station and lodged a complaint stating that he is resident of

Suddala village of Sultanabad mandal and belongs to Madiga community.

On 12-8-2018 at about 12-00 hours, when he stood near the Ambedkar statue at the chowrastha, his villager by name Rangu Praveeen who gave his fan for repair came to him and asked him when he would give his fan. On that he told him to come to his house for which he immediately got down from his auto, abused him in most filthy language saying “Madiga lanjekoduka nannu intiki rammantava”. He beat him by pressing him to his auto wherein the occupants of auto got down from the auto and stopped the accused. The accused took the occupants to

Sultanabad and returned back at about 15-00 hours and came near to his house and abused him saying “Are madiga lanjakoduka intiki rammanv kadara, vachina, neevu nee bharya bytiki ra” on that he along with his wife came out from their house. The accused abused his wife as “neeku nee bharta saripodu naa daggariki raa, he threatened his wife saying he would not leave her and in his absence he would see her end and abused in filthy language. Therefore, she requested to take necessary action.

3. Basing on the complaint police Sultanabad P.S. registered a case in

Cr.No.211/2018 under Section 323, 354-D 506 IPC and Sec.3(1)(r)(s)(w)

(ii) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act. The A.C.P.Peddapalli who was authorized to investigate into the matter had examined the witnesses, 4 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 effected the arrest of the accused and after completion of entire investigation, filed charge sheet.

4.On appearance of the accused, charges U/sec. 323, 354-A IPC and

Sec.3(1)(r)(s)(w) (ii) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, were framed, read-over and explained the same to him in telugu, he pleaded not guilty.

5.The prosecution had examined PWs 1 to 13 witnesses and marked

Ex.P1 to P7 marked.

6.The accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of witnesses. He characterized their evidence to be false.

7.The point for consideration is :-

Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.POINT:

As the prosecution filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences under, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that the accused has abused Pw.1 with his caste name and also beat him and the prosecution further has to establish that the accused has outraged the modesty of Pw.2 by using abusive language against her.

5 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 

9.To prove the same the prosecution has examined Pw.1 who deposed before the Court that on 12-8-2018 when he was at Ambedkar chowrastha, the accused who is auto driver has came to him along with auto and passengers and asked him about his fan. Then he informed the accused that the fan is at his house and further asked him to come and take the fan. Then the accused started abusing him as “Madigal lanje koduka” and got down from the auto and beat him. Then one Ravinder who is one of the passengers has intervened and pacified the matter.

Then he went to his house. At about 3-00 P.M., the accused came to his house and started abusing him as “Arey madigal lnaje koduka intiki rammannav kada raa vachinaanu, neevu nee baarya bayataku raa”. Then himself and his wife came out of the house. Then the accused again threatened him and his wife and insulted his wife and also stated that he will come to his house in his absence. Due to fear of accused, he lodged complaint before the police after 2 days of incident.

10.Pw.2 who is the wife of Pw.1 deposed before the Court that on 12- 8-2018 the accused came to her house and started calling her and her husband. Then they came out of the house, then the accused abused her husband as “Madiga Lanja koduka neeku intha andhamaina pellamu avasaramaa” and also started saying to her that her husband is short and she is tall and her husband is not fit for her and asked her to come with him and insulted her. She further deposed that the accused has 6 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 insulted her by saying “Neevu madiga dhani lekka leve, ninnu eppatikaina vadalanu”. Then their neighbours Sampath and others came to their house and warned the accused.

11.Pw.3 is the independent witness deposed before the Court that at about 12-00 noon, himself and his daughter had boarded an auto belongs to the accused. When they are waiting for other passengers,

Pwl.1 came to the accused and then the accused has asked Pw.1 about his fan, then Pw.1 has informed the accused that he has repaid the fan and asked the accused to come and take the fan. Then the accused has started abusing Pw.1 as “ Nee jathi pukula nee madiga pukula modda”.

Then Pw.1 has stated to the accused to not to insult him, then the accused got down from his auto and hit the head of Pw.1 to the auto.

Then Lw.3 got down from auto and pacified the situation.

12.Pw.4 is the independent witness for the second offence deposed

before the Court that on 12-8-2018 at about 2-00 P.M., he went to the

house of Pw.1 as he is learning motor winding from him. Then the accused came to the house of Pw.1 and started calling Pw.1 as “Aray naresh itu raaraa nee bharya undaa? Nee pendlaam undaa, nee bharya errgaa undi, neevu pottigaa unnavu” Then Pw.1 and his wife came out of the house. Then the accused started insulting Pw.2 as “Kalvala Shyamala anu neevu erraga unnavu, neeku nee bartha saripodu pottiga unnadu, 7 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 naatho raave”. The accused has also abused Pw.1 with his caste name as “Arey madigoda, nuvvu em peekuthaavu, sarpanchu, upa sarpanchu mptclu em peekuthaaru”.

13.Pw.5 is another independent witness deposed before the Court that he has boarded an auto of accused to go to Sultanabad, at that time

Pw.1 came to Ambedkar Chowrastha, then the accused has asked Pw.1 about his fan repair. Then Pw.1 replied that he has repaired the fan and asked the accused to come to his house and take the fan. Then the accused has abused Pw.1 with his caste name as “BAGA

MATLAADUTHUNNAV, NEE JATHI PUKULA , NEE MADIGA PUKULA

MODDA”. The accused has also hit the head of Pw.1 to his auto. Then he got down from the auto and pacified the situation.

14.Pw.6 is another independent witness deposed before the Court that on 12-8-2018 he went to the house of Pw.1 due to holiday. While he was watching TV, he has noticed some galata at outside of house of Pw.1, then he came out of the house and noticed that the accused is abusing

Pw.1 with his caste name as “Aray pottoda, nee madiga pukula modda”.

Then Pw.2 came out of the house, then the accused started saying Pw.1 and Pw.2 as “neeku intha andhamaina baarya elaa dhorikindi naatho raa”.

15.Pw.7 is the photographer who recorded the statements of witnesses. Pws 8 and Pw.9 and Pw.11 are the panch witnesses for the 8 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 scene of offence at the house of Pw.1 and also at the ambedkar chowrastha, deposed that the police conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence. Pw.10 is the Tahasildar who furnished the caste particulars of Pw.1 and accused.

16.Pw.12 is the first investigation officer who received complaint and issued FIR. Pw.13 is the main investigation officer who reiterated the contents of his charge sheet.

17.Now in the light of above evidence, it is the duty of the prosecution, to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

On perusing the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 who are the wife and husband deposed before the Court that the accused has abused Pw.1 and beat him at Ambedkar chowrastha, when Pw.1 has asked the accused to take his fan, as he has already repaired it by visiting his house, then the accused grew angry and abused Pw.1 with his caste name and also hit his head to the auto. The evidence of Pw.2 further reveals that the accused came to the house of Pw.1 and insulted Pw.1 by using abusive language and outraged the modesty of Pw.2. Hence, Pws and 1 and 2 went to the police station to lodge complaint. Therefore, from the evidence of Pw.1and Pw.2 it can be culled out that the offences were taken place at two instances i.e. one at Ambedkar chowrastha, and another at the house of Pw.1. The investigation officer has also conducted scene of offence at Ambedkar chowrastha and also at the 9 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 house of Pw.1 who deposed before the Court that the police has conducted scene of offence panchanama at auto stand and also at the house of Pw.1. Though the counsel for the accused has cross examined

Pws 8 and 9 and also Pw.11, but no fruitful purpose was served in favour of the accused. However, Pw.9 at the time of cross examination deposed that he do not know the contents of Ex.P4. But he deposed before the

Court that police called him to the scene of offence which is at the house of Pw.1 and prepared panchanama. In support of evidence of Pw.9, the prosecution has also cross examined Pw.11 who deposed that the police conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence. Even for a while it is presumed that these witnesses turned hostile and not supported the version of the prosecution, that will not thrash-out the entire evidence of the remaining witnesses. However, Pw.8 has supported the version of the prosecution and categorically deposed that the investigation officer has conducted scene of offence panchanama at two places i.e. at Ambedkar chowrastha as well as at the house of Pw.1.

Therefore, it can safely held that the investigation officer has conducted scene of offence at both places i.e. one at Ambedkar Chowrasta and at the house of Pw.1 and Pw.2.

18.The prosecution has also examined Tahasildar to furnish the caste particulars of Pw.1 as well as the accused. The prosecution has examined Tahasildar to prove that the accused belongs to non SC 10 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 community, whereas Pw.1 belongs to SC community. However, the caste of accused and Pw.1 is not disputed by either party. Therefore, it is clear that the accused belongs to non SC community and Pw.1 and Pw.2 belongs to SC community.

19.To prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.323

IPC, and Sec.3 (1)(r)(s) which was committed against Pw.1, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 and also examined Pws 3 and 5.

20.On perusing the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.5 prima facie it is established that when Pw.1 is present at Ambetkar Chowrasta, the accused came in auto along with the passengers and asked for fan, for which Pw.1 has replied to accused to come to his house and take back his fan. Then the accused grew angry on Pw.1 and abused him with his caste name and also beat him. To disprove the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.3 and Pw.5 the counsel for the accused has cross examined these witnesses in lengthy and tried to elicit that no such incident was taken place at the scene of offence. Further all the witnesses has denied the suggestions put forth by the counsel for the accused. Therefore, though the counsel for accused has cross examined Pw.1, Pw.3 and Pw.5 but no fruitful purpose was served in favour of the accused.

21. At this stage, it is the argument from the counsel for the accused, the investigation officer has failed to examine the daughter of Pw.3 who is also present in the auto at the time of incident as per the evidence of 11 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 

Pw.3 and non examination of daughter of Pw.3 is fatal to the case of prosecution. On perusing the cross examination of Pw.3, he has admitted that his daughter was also travelling in the same auto along with the mother at the time of incident and he also deposed that he has informed the police that his daughter was also travelling along with him in the auto. Now this court has to see whether non-examination of daughter of Pw.3 is fatal to the case of prosecution. In fact the prosecution has examined the other two eye witnesses i.e. Pw.3 and

Pw.5 to support the evidence of Pw.1. If at all no eye witnesses were examined by the investigation officer then the accused can take a plea that non examination of daughter of Pw.3 is fatal to the case of the prosecution. The quality of witnesses is required to prove the guilt of the accused but not the quantity of the witnesses. Therefore, whatever the defense taken by the accused at the time of arguments is not sustainable. On perusing the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.3, Pw.5 it is clear that the accused has abused Pw.1 with his caste name and also beat him.

Therefore, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.323 IPC and 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act.

22.According to the prosecution, the accused has outraged the modesty of Pw.2 by using filthy language. To substantiate the same the prosecution again relied on the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.4 and Pw.6.

12 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 

According to the prosecution Pws 4 and 6 are eye witnesses for the offence which was taken place at the house of Pw.1. According to Pw.2 who is the victim for the offence under Sec.354-D IPC, the accused came to her house and called her husband and herself, she came out of the house. Then the accused has abused Pw.1 as “madiga Lanja kodukaa neeku intha andhamaina pellamu avsaramaa” and the accused has also started saying to her husband that her husband is short and Pw.2 is tall and her husband is not fit for her and asked her to come with him and thereby insulted her. She further deposed that the accused has insulted her by saying that he will not leave her and further abused her as “Neevu badiga dhanivi lekka leve, ninnu eppatikaina vadalanu”. Pw.1 who is husband of Pw.2 has also deposed that the accused insulted Pw.2.

23.To support the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.2, the prosecution has also relied on the evidence of Pw.4 and Pw.6. On perusing the chief examination of Pw.1 the words which were used by the accused against

Pws 1 and 2 were nothing but insulting Pw.2 by outraging her modesty by using her caste name. To disprove the evidence of Pw.4 the counsel

for accused has cross examined Pw.4 in lengthy but no fruitful purpose

was served as Pw.4 has once again reiterated the entire incident which was taken place at the house of Pw.1. The prosecution has also cross examined Pw.6 who is the relative of Pws 1 and 2, who was aged about 12 years on the date of incident and who was watching the TV at the 13 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 house of Pws 1 and 2 has also deposed before the Court that the accused has abused Pw.1 with his caste name and also started abusing

Pws 1 and 2 by using her caste name. To disprove the evidence of Pw.6, the counsel for the accused has cross examined Pw.6 in lengthy but no fruitful purpose was served in favour of accused.

24.At this stage, it is the argument of the counsel for the accused the according to evidence of Pw.5 at the time of cross examination they have reached Sultanabad at about 3-00 P.M in the auto of accused. If that is so again the accused cannot come back to the house of Pw.1 by 3-00 P.M and again abuse Pws 1 and 2 by using filthy language by outraging the modesty of Pw.2. on perusing the entire cross examination of Pw.5 he deposed before the Court that they have boarded the auto of accused at 12-00 noon, the incident was taken place at about 12-30

P.M., and the incident took place at about 12-00 to 1-00 P.M., after the incident they went to Sultanabad in the auto after 30 minutes of incident they started from their village, then they reached Sultanabad at 3-00

P.M. Admittedly Pw.5 is resident of Sultanabad. Therefore, Pw.5 started in the auto of accused from Suddala village to go to Sultanabad. The cross examination of Pw.5 shows that the incident was taken place between 12-00 to 1-00 P.M. and after half an hour they stated to go to

Sultanabad. That means at about 1-30 P.M., he is expected to start from

Suddala to go to Sultanabad. The distance between Sultanabad and 14 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 

Suddala is in an around 5 to 6 kms. Even a prudent man can say that anyone can reach Sultanabad from Suddala village within 30 minutes, even if there is heavy traffic because the distance between Suddala and

Sultanabad is 5 yo 6 kms. Therefore, Pw.5 along with accused can reach the Sultanabad from Suddala by 2-00 P.M., and the accused can again back to Suddala by 2-30 P.M. Therefore, only because the evidence of

Pw.5 that they have reached Sultanabad by 3-00 P.M., the accused cannot claim that he was at Sultanabad by 3-00 P.M, therefore, he cannot visit the house of Pw.1 at 3-00 P.M. Moreover, Pw.1 and Pw.2 and other supporting witnesses deposed before the Court that the accused came to the house of Pw.1 at about 3-00 P.M. Hence, by taking advantage of the minor discrepancy in the evidence of Pw.5 the accused cannot take a plea of elibi that he was present at Sultanabad by 3-00

P.M., and thereby he cannot visit the house of Pws 1 and 2 by 3-00 P.M.

Therefore, whatever the defense taken by the accused at the time of argument is not sustainable. At this juncture I am relying on the another citation A.Shanker Vs State of Karnataka reported in AIR 2011 S.C. 2302. Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:

"In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time 15 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the Court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon. However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety. The Court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence."Exaggerations per se do not render the evidence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to test credibility of the prosecution version, when the entire evidence is put in a cruicible for being tested on the touchstone of credibility". Therefore, mere marginal variations in the statements of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements as the same may be elaborations of the statement made by the witness earlier. "Irrelevant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness cannot be lavelled as omissions or contradictions". The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. materially affect the trial or core of the 16 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 prosecutions case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discarded. Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the Court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence"

25.On perusing the evidence of Pws 1, 2, 4 and 6, it is clear that the accused has abused Pw.1 and Pw.2 in filthy language and also insulted

Pw.2 by using filthy language that Pw.1 is short and Pw.2 is tall and Pw.1 is not fit for Pw.2 and thereby asked her to come with him. The evidence of Pw.2 further reveals that though Pw.2 belongs to SC community but still looking beautiful, he will never leave her. The words uttered by the accused against Pw.2 in the public is nothing but outraging the modesty of Pw.2 by using her caste name. Hence, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the guilt of the accused for the offence under Sec.354-D IPC and Sec.3 (w) (ii) 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

26.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354-A IPC and Sec.3 (1)(r) (s), (w) (ii), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act and the accused is convicted under Section 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

17 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 

27.The accused is present. Heard him on the question of sentence.

The accused has represented that he is having children and old aged parents and prayed this Court to take lenient view.

28.Having considered age, social, economic back ground of the accused, this Court is of the opinion that the act of the accused is not comes within the meaning of rarest of rare cases, and the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Sec.323 IPC. Further he is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and also to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Sec.354-A IPC The accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of

Rs.1,000/- , in default of payment of fine amount, he is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under

Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Act and he is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of

Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section.3 (1) (w)(ii) of SCs/STs (POA) Act and the accused further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and also to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under 18 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 

Section.3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period of accused shall be set off under

Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is intimated about his right of appeal.

Dictated to Gr-I-Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the Open Court on this the 8th day of May, 2023.

Sd/-

I ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR

FAC Spl Sessions Judge for

trial of offences under SCs &

STs (POA) Act, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW-1K.Naresh

PW-2K.Shyamala

PW-3K.Kumar

Pw-4G.Sampath

Pw.5G.Ravinder

Pw.6A.Vinay

Pw.7Thota Ajay

Pw.8D.Srinivas

Pw.9A.Anjaiah

Pw.10A.Rajitha

Pw.11B.Srinivas

Pw.12K.Rajesh

Pw.13MD.Habeen Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED

BY THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Complaint by Pw.1 Ex.P2C.D. Ex.P3Crime Details Form Ex.P4Crime Details Form Ex.P5Caste particulars Ex.P6First Information Report Ex.P7S.P.Proceedings 19 Spl.S.C. No.158 of 2018 

FOR THE DEFENCE: - niL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

Sd/-

I ADDL.SESSIONS JUDGE

KARIMNAGAR.

FAC.SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF

OFFENCES UNDER SCs & STs (POA)

ACT, KARIMNAGAR

1 S.C.No. 4 of 2020

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT: SMT. S. SREEVANI,

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Wednesday, the 10th day of April, 2024

SESSIONS CASE NO. 4 OF 20 20

Name of the ::The State through Inspector of Police, complainantKarimnagar II Twon Police Station. (Crime No.573 of 2019). Boini Lavan kumar @ Lavan s/o.Kishan, Description of the ::27 yrs, r/o.H.No.10-1-17/5/1, Srihari accusednagar, Ramnagar, Karimnagar.

Under Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b)(ii) Charge::(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.

Plea of the accused:Not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Not guilty

Sentence or orderIn the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec. under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.and his bail bonds shall stand discharged. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 shall be returned to its owner after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution conducted :Sri V.Venkateshwarlu, byAddl. Public Prosecutor. Defence conducted by:Sri V.Raghuraman Advocate

This Sessions Case is coming before me on 1-4-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri V. Venkateshwarlu, Public Prosecutor for the complainant/State and of Sri V.Raghuraman Advocate for Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

2 S.C.No. 4 of 2020

J U D G M E N T

1. The Inspector of Police, Karimnagar II Town Police Station has filed Charge Sheet against Accused in Crime No. 573 of 2019 for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b) (ii) (B) of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

2.The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the Charge Sheet is as follows:

On 27.12.2019 at 1230 hours in Crime No.497/2019 u/Sec.143,332, 353, 341, 188, 290 r/w 149 IPC and Sec.25 (1) (a) of Indian Arms Act for a period of five days. On 31.12.2019 as per the oral instructions of

LW.12/ Inspector of police, Karimnagar II town the LW.11 along with

Lws.1, 2 accused Boini Lavan Kumar @ Lavan and two panch witnesses went to Padmanagar for recovery of vehicle in police jeep. When they reached Padmanagar the accused got down police jeep and shown concealed vehicle to pancha witnesses and they have observed it is

Mahendra XUV Car bearing no. TS-02-EZ-7878. The pancha witnesses opened car doors checked inside the car and they have found plastic cover, under the seat on the back side of Car in which they have found

Ganja. Immediately LW.9 sent a requisition to Tahasildar, Kothapalli to visit scene of offence along with two official witnesses to conduct panchanama. Accordingly Tahasildar Kothapalli visited scene of offence along with panch witnesses and on interrogation the accused voluntarily confessed that he went to Bhupalpalli where he has 3 S.C.No. 4 of 2020 purchased Dry Ganja and brought his vehicle, Karimnagar out of which some Ganja sold out to un-known persons, some packets concealed with Sharth Varma and Koppula Saikumar and one packed concealed in his car under back seat in order to sell smokers and addict persons illegally and earning money.

3.After confession Tahasildar Kothapalli has got photographed

Ganja through Gaddam Srinivas Photographer, it was weighed about 10

Kgs, its market value about 5,00,000/- and said Ganja and Mahendra

XUV Car bearing No. TS-02-EZ-7878 was seized under cover of confession and recovery panchanama in the presence of pancha witnesses. After completion of confession and recovery panchanama, the S.I of police brought the seized dry Ganja, Mahendra XUV vehicle and accused to Police Station at 1300 hrs and registered a suo-moto case in Crime No.573/2019, U/Sec.8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (II) (B) of NDPS Act of 1985.

4.The case was taken on file against Accused for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b) (ii) (B) of N.D.P.S Act.

5.On appearance of Accused before this Court, copies of the case records relied upon by the Prosecution were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.On appearance of accused charges for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b) (ii) (B) of N.D.P.S Act 4 S.C.No. 4 of 2020 was framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case against Accused, the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 11 and M.O.1.

8.After completion of prosecution side evidence, Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. confronting the incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses, for which he denied and reported no evidence on his behalf. Hence, defence evidence was closed.

9.Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the Prosecution and the learned counsel for Accused.

10.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of Accused for the offence under Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b) (ii)(B) of NDPS Act, 1985 beyond reasonable doubt ?

11.P O I N T

As the Prosecution has filed the Charge Sheet against

Accused for the above said offence, it is duty of the Prosecution to establish the was found with possession of Ganja.

5 S.C.No. 4 of 2020

12.To prove the same, the prosecution has examined P.W.1, who deposed before the Court that on 31-12-2019 as per the instructions of Lw.12 himself along with Lw.1 to lw.4 has accompanied the accused for seizure of property in another crime as they have taken him for police custody in another crime. All of them proceeded to

Padmanagar for recovery of accused vehicle. The accused has shown the crime vehicle bearing No.TS-02-EZ-7878, while Lw.3 and Lw.4 are searching said car they have found one cover under the seat. They have found ganja in the cover. Then Pw.1 sent a requisition to

Tahasildar to visit the scene of offence along with panch witnesses.

Then Lw.8 came to the scene of offence along with panch witnesses, meanwhile they have secured the presence of Lw.6 for weighing the ganja and Lw.5 to take photos. Then Lw.9 came to the scene of offence along with Lw.7 and Lw.8. Tahasildar has weighed the ganja with the help of Lw.6 and found it as 10 kgs. Lw.9 seized ganja under the cover of panchanama and suomoto registered case and issued FIR and then handed over the CD file to Lw.12 for further investigation.

13.Pw.2 deposed in the lines of Pw.1. Pw.3 is the witness deposed

before the Court that on 30-12-2019 he along with Lw.4 went to police

station wherein they have found one person in the custody of police. On enquiry said person has confessed that number of cases were registered against him and police has taken him to custody in one crime and he further confessed that he has celebrated his birthday by keeping 6 S.C.No. 4 of 2020 one cake on his car and the police are searching for the car. He further confessed that he has kept his car in the bushes near canal of

Chinthakunta. On the next day morning he along with Lw.4 Pw.2, Pw.4,

Lw.3 and accused went to above said place wherein they have found one white colour car. On search of car they have found one cover containing 10 kgs of ganja which was weighed by one person who came to the scene of offence and then Pw.1 secured the presence of

Tahasildar and then the witnesses and then Tahasildar has prepared confession-cum-seizure panchanama of said person. Pw.3 again deposed that he cannot identify the person due to lapse of time.

14.Pw.4 is the supporting witness of Pw.3 has deposed in the lines of

Pw.4 and also identified the accused before the Court and further deposed that they have found white colour car bearing No.TS-02-EZ- 7878. Pw.5 is the photographer who deposed before the Court that on call by police Karimnagar II Town he went to police station but he did not remember when the police called him and also deposed before the

Court that he did not remember whether he has taken photos which were shown to him or not. As Pw.5 turned hostile, Public Prosecutor has declared him hostile and cross examined him. Even at the time of cross examination he has not deposed before the court that he went to the scene of offence and taken photos at the scene of offence.

15.Pw.6 is the panch witness for the confession of accused and Pw.8 is the Tahasildar deposed before the Court that on 31-12-2019 they 7 S.C.No. 4 of 2020 along with Lw.8 went to outskirts of Padmnagar area as police has called them. They have noticed S.I. of police, two constables, VRO and the accused at the scene of offence along with car bearing No.TS-02-EZ- 7878. On enquiry the accused has revealed his name as Lavan kumar and further confessed that police has caught him as they have found ganja and he used to purchase the ganja at Bhualapally and selling the same at Karimnagar, Hyderabad. The accused has opened the dicki of the car and they have found one cover under the seat which contain ganja of 10 kgs. Then Pw.8 has recorded the confession-cum-seizure panchanama of accused and the photos were also taken at the scene of offence. Pw.6 further deposed that again at 9-30 P.M., police called and conducted scene of offnce panchanama in his presence.

16.Pw.7 is the person who has weighted ganja, but he has deposed that he has not weighed the ganja, even at the time of cross examination Pw.7, he has not deposed that he went to the scene of offence along with electric weighing machine and weighed the ganja.

17.Pw.9 and Pw10 are the investigation officers who reiterated the contents of charge sheet.

18.Now in the light of above evidence, it is duty of the

Prosecution to prove the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

8 S.C.No. 4 of 2020

19.At the time of arguments the counsel for the accused has argued that the accused has not committed any offence and police has falsely implicated him in the case for statistical purpose and further argued that the inward number on the letter of advise and the number on FSL report are completely different and the property was also sent to expert opinion after 2 months of alleged seizure of the property.

20.On perusing the contention of the prosecution it is the story of prosecution that when the accused was taken into custody in one crime, the accused has informed them that the car bearing No.TS-02-

EZ-7878 was kept by him in bushes near Padmanagar and then Pw1 and other police went to said place and on opening the said car they have noticed one cover containing ganja. Then Tahasildar has seized said ganja on the confession of accused in the presence of panch witnesses.

21.To disprove the evidence of Pw.1 and other witnesses and at the time of cross examination all the witnesses categorically admitted that as per Ex.P1 i.e. photos there is no number of vehicle, depicting in the photos. The panch witnesses i.e., Pw.6 and Pw.8 has deposed before the Court that the accused is found with the possession of car bearing

No.TS-02-EZ-7878. Pw.6 and Pw.8 has to explain as how the number of car has been mentioned as TS-02-EZ-7878 when there is no number at 9 S.C.No. 4 of 2020 all for said Mahindra XLV car. Without number of the car as per Ex.P1,

Pw.1, Pw.2, Pw.3, Pw.4, Pw.6 and Pw.8 has mentioned the number of car as TS-02-EZ-7878 and the same was also mentioned in the panchanama by Pw.8 which clearly shows that they are deposing false

before the court.

22.As rightly pointed out by the counsel for the accused, the accused was taken into custody by the police in another crime only for seizure of car. But as seen fro the evidence of Pw.1, Pw.2, the car has been searched by the panch witnesses and then they have found one cover containing ganja under the back seat of the car. No explanation has been offered by the prosecution as why the panch witnesses has searched the car when they were called only for seizure of the vehicle.

23.Pw.3 has not identified the accused before the Court though Pw.4 has identified the accused before the Court. On perusing the cross examination of Pw.3 he has deposed that by the time they went to the scene at canal Chinthakunta they have found 4 persons i.e. two police persons one photographer and one person who weighed ganja. In fact pw.3 and Pw.4 went to the scene of offencealong with police and the accused for seizure of car. .According to the prosecution the ganja was found after searching the car. But as seen from the evidence of Pw.3, by the time they went to the scene of offence, they have also found photographer and the person who weighed ganja at the scene of offence.

10 S.C.No. 4 of 2020

24.According to Pw.1 he has secured the presence of photographer and the person who weighed ganja when they have found a cover containing ganja after search of car. But as seen from the evidence of

Pw.3, by the time of he went to the scene of offence they have found photographer and the person who weighed ganja at the scene of offence, that means before searching the car itself the photographer and the person who weighed ganja came to the scene of offence. Pw.1 and Pw.2 cannot anticipate that they will found ganja before searching the car to secure the presence of photographer and the person who weighed ganja. But by the time Pw.3 and other witnesses went to the scene of offence, already the photographer and the person who weighed ganja were still present at the scene of offence. This clearly shows that pw.1 created a story in order to falsely implicate the accused in the case. Though the prosecution has claimed that the ganja was weighed at the scene of offence but the person who weighed ganja i.e. Pw.7 has deposed that he has not at all weighed the ganja at the scene of offence. Pw.5 has no where deposed that he has tkane photos at the scene of offence which definitely creates a doubt whether the ganja was found in the car at the scene of offence or not.

25.The counsel for the accused has cross examined Pw.6 and Pw.8.

At the time of chief examination Pw.8 deposed that the accused has opened dicki of the car and they have found cover under the seat which containing ganja. At the time of cross examination Pw.6, also deposed 11 S.C.No. 4 of 2020 that it was not mentioned in the confession -cum-seizure panchanama of accused that the accused has opened the dicki of the car and taken up one cover containing ganja. When the accused himself has opened himself the car, nothing prevented the Tahasildar I.e Pw.8 to mention the same in panchanama. Another interesting point at the time of cross examination of Pw.9 is that at the time of cross examination he has categorically admitted before the Court that he has taken only the accused into custody but not his belongings. Pw.9 further admitted that it was no where mentioned in the record as how the door and dicki of the car was opened. When Pw.9 has taken the custody of the accused from the jail without his belongings, Pw.1, Pw.2 and Pw.9 has to explain as how the accused could open the car dicki without keys. It is general rule that when the jailor was taking any accused into the custody, the jailor will take the custody of all the belongings of the accused and they will return only when the accused is release on bail or acquittal. But as per the evidence of Pw.9 they have taken only the accused into custody but not his belongings. If that is the case, the accused will not have the custody of the keys of the car to open the same. But as seen from the evidence of Tahasildar Pw.1 and Pw.2 the accused himself has opened the dicki of the car and then they have found ganja under the rear seat of the car. It is highly unbelievable that the accused has opened the dicki of the car without keys. This clearly shows that the accused was falsely implicated in the NDPS case by the police.

12 S.C.No. 4 of 2020

26.As admitted by the Pw.1, Pw.2, panch witnesses and Pw.9 no panch chits were affixed on the property seized by Tahasildar. This clearly shows that panch wittiness were not present at the scene of offence while seizing ganja from the car. Further more, at the time of cross examination Pw.9 has admitted that dis. Number on the letter of advise and the sample sent by the Court is 80, dt.18-1-2020 and the dis.No. 146 dt.5-2-2020. Pw.9 has gave an explanation for the said difference that initially property was sent to the expert but it was returned by the expert, as such again the Court has sent sample to the expert as such again dis.number has been mentioned as 146 dt.5-2- 2020. However, no such record has been placed by the prosecution

before the court to show that sample which was sent to the expert with

dis.no.80 dt.18-1-200 has been returned by the expert to the Court and again the Magistrate has resend to the expert with dis.No.146 dt.5-2- 2020. This ambiguity was not cleared by the prosecution by producing cogent evidence which creates a doubt whether any such sample was sent to expert for the opinion which was drawn from ganja which was seized from the possession of the accused or whether any ganja was sent to expert for report. On cumulative reading of evidence produced by the prosecution and in view of the above discussion the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

13 S.C.No. 4 of 2020

27.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 8 (c) read with 20 (b)(ii)(B) of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and accordingly he is acquitted under Sec. under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C.and his bail bonds shall stand discharged. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. M.O.1 shall be returned to its owner after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10th day of April, 2024.

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

P.W.1: N.Swaroop Raj - None - P.W.2: A.Mahesh P.W.3: E.Jacob P.W.4: K.Laxmaiah P.W.5: G.Srinivas P.W.6: A.Srinivas Reddy P.W.7: A.Devendar P.W.8: M.Suresh Kumar P.W.9: Ch.Deva Reddy P.W.10: T.Laxmi Babu

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PROSECUTION:

Ex.P.1Is the Photos at the scene of offence (3) in number Ex.P.2Is the First Information Report Ex.P.3Is the 161 Cr.P.C statement 14 S.C.No. 4 of 2020

Ex.P.4Is the Relevant portion of panchanama Ex.P.5Is the Crime Detail Form Ex.P.6Is the 161 Cr.P.C statement of LW.6 Ex.P.7Is the Annexure-I, inventory Ex.P.8Is the Annexure-II, inventory Ex.P.9Is the Photos at the time of inventory Ex.P.10Is the FSL Report

FOR THE DEFENCE: - Nil - MATERIAL OBJECTS:

M.O.1 is Mahendra XUV Car Bearing No. TS-02-EZ-7878

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

1

BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS CLAIMS

TRIBUNAL – cum- III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ::AT::

KARIMNAGAR.

PRESENT:- SMT.S.SREEVANI

CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL–cum-V ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE,

K A R I M N A G A R.

Thursday, the 21st day of July, 2022

M.V. O.P. No.206 OF 2017. Between:-

1. Anthadupula Vijaya w/o.Kumara Swamy, 44 yrs, occ:household

2. Anthadupula Sandhya Rani d/o.Kumara Swamy, 19 yrs, all are r/o.H.No.6-5-357, Gandhi road, Karkhanagadda, Karimangar city.

.... Petitioners

AND

1.Pati Ramakrishna s/o.Veera Rao, 30 yrs, occ: Lorry driver of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP-05-TA-335 r/o.Chellur v/o.Rayavaram mandal, East Godavari district.

2.Bejawada Venkata Mahalaxmi w/o.Babu Rao, age.not known, occ; owner of the lorr bearing AP-05-TA-335, r/o.H.No.1-131 Jaganandhagiri v/o.Khajulur mandal of East Godavarikhani District

3.The United India Insurance Company Ltd., R/by its branch manager.

...Respondents.

--- This petition is coming before me on 7-7-2022for fnal hearing in the presence of Sri L.Rajesham, Advocate for the petitioners and of Sri Busarapu Srinivas, Advocate for the respondent No.3, R1 and R2 remained exparte, upon perusing the material papers on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following :-

:: O R D E R ::

1.This is a petition fled by the petitioners under Section 166 (1)

(c) of Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondent on account of the death of the deceased namely A.Praveen Kumar in the road trafc accident that 2 occurred on 30-3-2012 at about 17-00 hours, at bus stage

Banjerupally village, involving the Lorry bearing No.AP-05-TA-3357, driven by the frst respondent , owned by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent.

2.The brief facts of the petition are that the petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner No.2 is the sister of the deceased. The deceased was aged 21 years, he was working as auto driver and doing business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and the same was contributing for the maintenance and welfare of the petitioners.

3.That on 30-3-2012 the deceased along with Kiran and Ramulu have started their journey in trolley auto bearing No.AP-15-Y-5780 to unload the cool drinks bottles at Dharmaram. After unloading the bottles while they were returning and when they reached near Bus stage, at Banjerpally village, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-05-

TA-3357 drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed to the Auto in which the deceased was travelling. Due to which the deceased sustained grievous injuries to head, neck, face and other vital parts of the body and died on the spot.

4. On receipt of complaint, the Police, Dharmaram registered a case in Crime No.48/2012 for the ofence under Section 304-A, 337 of I.P.C against the respondents and after completion of 3 investigation the police fled charge sheet against the driver of the frst respondent.

5. The petitioners further submitted that the deceased was aged 21 years young and was hale and healthy at the time of his death, and he was maintaining his family with his earnings. Due to the unnatural and untimely death of the deceased the petitioners sufered mental shock and agony and lost the earnings of the deceased and the death of the deceased in the accident has resulted great loss to their estate. The petitioners lost love and afection and they sufered mental shock and lost great support in future. Therefore, on all counts the petitioners are claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the respondents. The frst respondent is the driver, second respondent is the owner of the crime vehicle, and the third respondent is the insurer of the said vehicle, and vehicle is covered with insurance policy.. Therefore, all the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

6. The respondents No.1 & 2 remained exparte.

7.The respondent No.3, Insurance Company fled counter denying all the allegations of the petitioners regarding the occurrence of accident and denying the rash and negligence driving of the frst respondent. R3 denied the age of the deceased, income 4 of the deceased. It is further submitted that R1 has no license to drive the crime vehicle as on the date of accident, R2 being the owner of the crime vehicle knowingly allowed him to drive the same and thereby R2 violated the terms and conditions of the policy and committed breach of contract, as such insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. R3 further submits that unless the policy is detected and found correct it is deemed that the policy in respect of this crime vehicle is not issued. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is excessive, exorbitant and the petitioners are not entitled for the said compensation and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

8.On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

1) Whether the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. lorry bearing No.AP-05-TA-3357 ?

2) Whether the crime vehicle was having valid insurance policy issued by Respondent No.3/Insurance as on the date of accident?

3) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

4) To what relief?

9. During the course of enquiry, on behalf of the petitioners,

P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Ex.B1 policy was marked.

10. Heard the arguments on both sides.

5

11. ISSUE NO.1:

This issue has been framed, as the petitioners claimed that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent of the driving of the crime vehicle by R1, whereas the respondents has denied the same.

To prove the same, the petitioner No.1 herself examined as

PW-1 and she reiterated the contents of the petition. The petitioners has also examined PW.2 who is eye witness for the accident deposed that on 30-3-2012 he along with Praveen Kumar and one

Ramulu have started in auto trolley bearing No.AP-15-Y-5780 to unload the cool drink bottles at Dharmaram. After unloading the bottles while they were returning and when they reached near bus stage of Banjerupally village, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP- 05-TA-3357 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed to their auto, due to which the deceased sustained grevious injuries and died on the spot.

12.To disprove the contention of the petitioners the counsel for

R3 has cross examined Pw.2 and tried to elicit that the deceased

Praveen Kumar has not worked as helper in Bislery Water agency,

Karimnagar. However, the witness categorically deposed before the

Court that the deceased worked as helper in their Bislery water agency, Karimnagar and he joined in the job prior to 2 or 3 months of the accident. Though the counsel for R3 cross examined Pw.2 but no fruitful purpose was served in favour of R3.

6

13. Apart from the oral evidence the petitioners also fled documents, more particularly charge sheet which shows that the investigation ofcer has conducted investigation and after due enquiry the investigation ofcer has fled charge sheet against R1 alleging that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of R1. Therefore, the oral evidence is corroborating with the documentary evidence.

14.At this juncture I am relying on the following citation:Anitha

Sharma Vs New Assurance Ltd.,Civil Appeal No.4010/2020,

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "The standard of proof in such life matters is one of the proponderence of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. One needs to be mindful that the approach and role of Courts while examining evidence in accident claim cases, ought to not to be fault with non examination of some best eye witnesses, as may happen in a criminal trial but instead should be only to analyze the material placed on record by the parties to ascertain whether the claimants version is more likely than not true." From the above observation it is clear that direct proof of occurrence of accident beyond all reasonable doubt is not necessary and the Court has to ascertain the occurrence of accident basing on the records submitted by the claimants before the Court. PW.1 has fled charge 7 sheet before the Court which shows prima facie that R1 has driven the crime vehicle in a rash and negligent manner".

From the above observation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that direct proof of occurrence of accident beyond all reasonable doubt is not necessary and the Court has to ascertain the occurrence of accident basing on the records submitted by the claimants before the Court. Hence, from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the documents fled by the petitioner it is clear that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the respondent.

15.ISSUE NO.3:

Now coming to issue No.2, the petitioners has prayed this Court to grant compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. Admittedly both the petitioners are mother and sister of the deceased and he was unmarried. According to the petitioners deceased used to work as driver on the auto trolley and he also used to do business and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month and the deceased used to contribute the same for the maintenance and welfare of the family. Though the petitioners has claimed that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month, but no document was feld by the petitioners to prove that the deceased used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. However, the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 prima facie establishing that the deceased used to work as helper in Bislery Water agency. Therefore, the income of the deceased can be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month.

8

16.At this juncture I am relied on Apex court in Sarla Verma (2009 (3) Supreme 487), Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "one must bear in mind that, bachelors normally 50% is deducted as personal living expenses because it is assumed that a bachelor would tend to spend more on himself. Even otherwise, there is also the possibility of his getting married in a short time, in which even the contribution to the parents and siblings is likely to be cut drastically. Further, subject to evidence to the contrary, the father is likely to have his own income and will not be considered as a dependent and the mother along will be considered as a dependents. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, brothers and sisters will not be considered as dependent on the father. Thus even if the deceased is survived by parents and siblings, only the mother would be considered to be a dependent, and 50% would be treated as the personal and living expenses of the bachelor and 50% as the contribution to the family. However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the d deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non earning sisters or brother, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one third and contribution to the family will be taken as two-thrid".

17.The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that having considered several subsequent decisions "we are of the view that 9 whether the deceased was married the deduction towards personal and living expense of the deceased should be taken 1/3, where number of dependents of the family members is 1 to 3, 1/4 where the depending family members is 4 to 6, 1/5 where the dependents family members is exceed '6'".

18.Therefore, basing on the observation made by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the above case, the living expenses of the deceased should be deducted proportionately and 50% income which comes to Rs.4000/- is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting said amount, the total income of the deceased comes to Rs.4000/- per month and it comes to Rs.4000/-.

18.Now coming to the calculation of future prospects of the deceased, I am relying on the following citation. National

Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Pranaysethi and others

reported in 2017 ACJ 2700, Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that, "While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%.

Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. In case the 10 deceased was self-employed or on a fxed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component".

19.The deceased was working as auto driver as on the date of accident as such the petitioner is entitled to 40% of actual income as future prospects, as the deceased is below 40 years. As per the evidence of PW.2 the deceased was working as auto driver. By relying on the above citation is entitled to 40 % future prospects. As such 1600/- (Rs.4000/- X 40%) is awarded towards future prospects.

Thus the total income of the deceased per month comes to

Rs.5,600/-. Rs.5,600/- X 12 months = Rs.67,200/- per year.

20.Regarding the age of the deceased, According to the petitioners the deceased was aged 21 years as on the date of accident. At the time of cross examination PW.1 deposed that her son is aged about 21 years. Even the documents submitted by the petitioner are disclosing the age of the deceased as 21 years. As such the age of the deceased can be taken as 21 years at the time of accident. At this juncture I am relying on the following Judgment 11 of Hon’ble Apex court in Sarla Verma (2009 (3) Supreme 487)

Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that " We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of table above (prepared by applying

Susamma Thoman, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age group of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every fve years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30, M-16 for 31-35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M-14 for 41- 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every fve years, that is M-11 for 51-55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61-65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years."

Hence, by following the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex court in

Sarla Verma (2009 (3) Supreme 487) the relevant multiplier basing on the age group of the deceased 20-25 years would be “18”. Therefore, the loss of dependency would be Rs.67,200/-x18 =

Rs.12,09,600/-.

21.The petitioners claimed compensation under other diferent heads i.e.,funeral expenses, loss of love and afection, and loss of consortium.

As per the decision reported in National Insurance

Company Ltd., Vs Pranaysethi and others reported in 2017

ACJ 2700, the petitioners are entitled to compensation towards loss of love and afection, the petitioners can be granted Rs.15,000/-, 12 towards funeral expenses the petitioners can be granted Rs.15,000/- and towards loss of consortium Rs.40,000/- is awarded.

Loss of Love and afection/estate Rs. 15,000/- Funeral Expenses Rs. 15,000/- Consortium Rs. 40,000/- Loss of dependency Rs.12,09,600/-. Total Rs.12,86,600/-

Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs.12,86,600/- to which the petitioners are entitled.

22.On perusing the contents of petition, the petitioners has prayed this Court to grant compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on all counts. But as per the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Pranaysethi case and Saralaverma case, this Court has to consider the age, multiplier according to the age future prospects and compensation for loss of love and afection etc. Accordingly this

Court has to consider the multiplier by taking into consideration of the age of the deceased by the date of is death and also consider the future prospects. On consideration of all aspects as per the

Judgment of Hon’ble Surpeme Court, the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.12,86,600/-. Only because the petitioner could not calculate the compensation amount properly, the Court should not deny the just equitable and fair compensation.

13

At this stage I am relying on the following citation: 2013 ACJ

1403 between Rajesh and others Vs Rajbir Singh and others.

Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that, “it is the duty of the tribunal to award just, equitable and fair and reasonable compensation irrespective of the amount claimed”.

Hence, in view of the above observation made by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in the above citation, I am inclined to grant compensation of Rs.12,86,600/-.

23.ISSUE NO.2:

It is an admitted fact that the respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner of the ofending vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. The copy of Insurance policy shows the crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP-05-TA-3357 was insured with R3 Insurance Company and the policy was in force upto 24-1-2013 and the accident had occurred on 30-3-2012, which shows that the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Hence,

R3 is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners.

24.ISSUE NO.3

To what relief ?

IN THE RESULT, the petition is allowed and an amount of

Rs.12,86,600/- (Rupees twelve lakhs eighty six thousand six hundred only) is awarded to the petitioners No.1 & 2 towards compensation with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per 14 annum from the date of petition till realization. The respondents

No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

The respondent No.3 is directed to deposit the said amount into the

Court within one month from the date of this order.

On such deposit, petitioners No.1 being the mother of deceased is allotted an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy nine thousand six hundred only), and petitioner No.2 being the unmarried sister of deceased is allotted Rs.2,86,600/-.

On such deposit, the petitioner No. 1 is permitted to withdraw

Rs.5,00,000/- and the remaining amount shall be kept in fxed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of one year. Petitioner

No.2 is permitted to withdraw entire amount apportioned to her. The

Advocates fee is fxed at Rs.2,500/- (Rupees two thousand fve only). The petitioners are directed to deposit defcit Court fee.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this 21st day of July, 2022.

Chairman, M.A.C.T- cum- III Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERS: FOR RESPONDENTS:

Pw.1: A.Vijaya - NIl - PW.2: K.Kiran kumar

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONERS:-

Ex.A1 C.C.of F.I.R in Cr.No.48/2012 Ex.A2 C.Cof Inquest report 15

Ex.A3 C.C. of charge sheet Ex.A4 C.C.of PME report Ex.A5: C.C. of MVI Report Ex.A6: C.C. of Form No.54

FOR RESPONDENTS:

Ex.B1: copy of policy. Chairman, (M.A.C.T)- cum- III Addl. District Judge, Karimnagar

1Spl.S.C. No. 246 of 2021 (Fair)

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER SCs/STs (POA) ACT -CUM-III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:Smt. S. Sreevani, I Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar. FAC:Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional District and Sessions Judge,

KARIMNAGAR.

Wednesday, the 15th day of November, 2023

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 246 OF 20 21

Nameofthe:The State through Assistant Commissioner Complainant/Stateof Police, Karimnagar (Rural), (Crime No.13 of 2021 of Choppadandi P.S.)

Name of the Accused:Gurram Rajashekar Reddy, S/o. Rajaram Reddy, Age: 50 years, Caste: Reddy, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Choppadandi village and mandal. Charges:Under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC, Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty”

Finding of the Court:“ Not guilty”

Sentence or order:Accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC, Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C., and his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. Prosecution:Sri T. Pavan kumar, conducted byAdditional Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar. Accused defended by:Sri V. Ramrathnakar Reddy, Advocate, Karimnagar.

2 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair)

This Special Sessions Case is coming on 9-11-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Pavan Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State-complainant and of Sri V. Ram Rathnakar Reddy, Advocate for the accused, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar (Rural) has laid the Charge Sheet against the accused in Crime No.13 of 2021 of

Choppadandi P.S., for the offences punishable under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC, Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.

2.The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the Charge

Sheet are as follows:

That on 16-1-2021, at 18:00 hours, the complainant by name, Smt. M. Kavitha Devi, Social Worker, ICTS-CPDU, Karimnagar lodged a complaint stating that she has received a complaint from Child

Help Line 1098 on 8-1-2021 to the effect that children are engaged to work as maid servants in the house of the accused and on such information she along with ICPS, ICDS, ALO, Revenue and Police officials went to the house of the accused and found one girl cleaning the vessels, then she called said girl and on enquiry, said girl revealed her name as “Sabavath Kumari Anitha, aged 14 years and belongs to ST (Lambada) caste, she studied upto 5th class and in the year 2019 she came to the house of the accused and for the first year, accused has paid Rs.45,000/- to her parents and for the second year Rs.50,000/-, she 3 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair) is cleaning the vessels, keep the clothes in order, sweeping the house etc., and her duties are also include to press the legs of the father of the accused and to take him to the bath room, to take him to attend to his natural calls and that the family members of the accused used to abuse and scratch her and also used to beat her. Therefore, the complainant requested to take necessary action.

3. Basing on the complaint, the Police, Choippadandi registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2021 for the offences under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC, Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and issued First

Information Report.

4. Subsequently, as per the proceedings in C.No.

07/KNR/D3/CCRB/2021, dated 16-1-2021, the Assistant Commissioner of

Police, Karimnagar (Rural) was authorized to investigate into the matter and accordingly L.W.17 took-up further investigation of the case, examined the witnesses, visited the scene of offence, prepared Crime

Details Form, collected the Caste Certificates of the victim and accused from the concerned officials, Date of Birth certificate of the victim and after completion of entire investigation, filed the Charge Sheet.

5.The case was taken on file against the accused for the offences under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC, Section 75 of Juvenile Justice

Act and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment

Act, 2015.

4 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair)

6.On appearance of the accused, after furnishing the copies of documents, charges for the offences under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC,

Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 were framed, read-over and explained the same to them in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined

PW.s 1 to 17 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to P.16.

8.After closure of the Prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating evidence appearing against him in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 17 and he characterized the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses to be false and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.The point for consideration is :

Whether prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.P O I N T

As the prosecution has filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the above offences, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that he has engaged a minor child who belongs to SC community to do work in his house.

5 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair)

11.To prove the same, the Prosecution has examined the complainant as P.W.1 and she deposed that she is working as District

Welfare Officer on contract basis and she worked in Integrated Child

Prosecution Service which is under the control of Bala Raksha Bhavan and her duties are to protect and look-after the welfare of minor children, counsel them and motivate them towards education. P.W.1 further deposed that on 8-1-2021, L.W.6 and Kumara Swamy informed her that they received a call to child line about bounded labour of minor at

Choppadandi, then on 12-1-2021, she along with Sai Kiran went to

Choppadandi, met one Anganwadi Teacher, enquired about G.R.R.,

Function Hall and about the house of owner of said function hall, later all of them went to said house and searched the surroundings and that she has noticed L.W.2 coming out of the house and throwing the garbage.

P.W.1 further deposed that on 16-1-2021, again she informed the incident to their Madam and other officials and all of them visited the house of accused and they found father of accused, they revealed their identity to the father of accused and searched the house, found L.W.2 who was aged 15 years cleaning the vessels and on enquiry L.W.2 informed them that she was working in the said place since two years and accused of you paid Rs.45,000/- for the first year and accused paid Rs.50,000/- to parents for the second year and contract period is going to be completed in the month of April, then they brought L.W.2 to the Office of M.R.O., kept L.W.2 in Sakhi Center and later she lodged complaint before the

Police (Ex.P.1) and that Police examined and recorded her statement.

6 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair)

12.P.W.2 is the girl child and she deposed that she do not know anything about this case and Police not examined her and further deposed that her statement was recorded by the Magistrate.

13.P.Ws.3 and 4 are parents of P.W.2 and they deposed that they do not know anything about this case and Police not examined them.

14.P.W.5 (P. Bhumaiah @ Bhumesh) deposed that he is working as Team Member in Child Help Line, 1098. He deposed that on 8-1-2021, they have received information through above said help line about child labour in the shop of accused, then they informed the same to concerned departments and follow-up the actions. P.W.5 further deposed that on 16-1-2021, he along with P.W.1, L.Ws.5, 7 and 9 went to the shop of accused and found P.W.1 hiding in the house of accused, then P.W.2 has informed them that her parents were engaged in construction work and they have advised her to stay in the house of accused and P.W.2 further informed them that she will do some household work in the house of accused and P.W.5 deposed that Police examined him and recorded his statement.

15.P.W.6 (A. Rajitha, Tahasildar) deposed that on 16-1-2021,

P.W.1 came to her and informed her that on 8-1-2021, they received a phone call to 1098 number and informed that there is a child labour in the house of accused and requested her to visit the house of accused as she was also a member of committee. P.W.6 further deposed that she along with P.Ws.1, 5 and L.Ws.7 and 8 and other staff went to the house 7 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair) of accused wherein they found P.W.2 cleaning the vessels and on enquiry

P.W.2 informed that she was working in the house of accused since two years, then they brought P.W.2 and handed-over to C.W.C., Karimnagar and P.W.6 further deposed that Police examined and recorded her statement.

16.P.W.7 (Vukanti Sowjanya, the then Woman Police Constable,

Karimangar (Rural) P.S.) deposed that while she was working in Muskhan

Team, on 16-1-2021, on the oral instructions of her higher officials she went to Choppadandi with Muskhan team for searching the victim/P.W.2, went to the house of accused and found the victim/P.W.2 in one room and later they took P.W.2 to the Office of M.R.O., Choppadandiand after enquiry by the Sub Inspector of Police, Choppadandi and other officials, she examined the victim/P.W.2 and recorded her statement and later produced P.W.2 before Sakhi Center, Karimnagar for safe custody. She further deposed that Police examined and recorded her statement.

17.P.W.8 (Bonkuri Surender, then Revenue Inspector,

Choppadandi) deposed that on 16-1-2021, when he was at his Office,

Muskhan team came and requested to show the house of accused of you and on the instructions of the Tahasildar, Choppadandi she went along with Muskhan team shown the house of accused and after some time,

Muskhan team took P.W.2 to the Office of M.R.O.,Choppadandi. He further deposed that after recording the statement of P.W.2 by the Police, she was produced before Sakhi Center, Karimnagar for safe custody and 8 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair) that he has prepared a report and submitted before the Tahasildar,

Choppadandi and that Police examined him and recorded his statement.

18.P.Ws.9 and 10 are panch witnesses for Crime Details Form and they deposed that about two years back, on one day, when they went to the Police Station on their work, Police obtained their signatures on some papers marked as Ex.P.5 and P.6.

19.P.W.11 (Damera Laxmi, Center Administrator, Sakhi one stop

Center, Karimnagar) deposed that their Sakhi Center provide shelter to woman who come to their center directly with some problems and children are referred by C.W.C., or by Police to their Center.P.W.11 further deposed that in the year 2021, on reference of C.W.C., P.W.2 was brought by I.C.P.S., team, to their Cakhi Center for providing shelter to P.W.2 and

P.W.2 stayed at their center for two days and thereafter the parents of

P.W.2 brought relieving order from the C.W.C., and took her to their house under proper acknowledgment and that their center gave only shelter to

P.W.2 and that she was fine at that time. P.W.11 further deposed that in the year 2021, on reference of C.W.C., P.W.2 was brought by I.C.P.S., team, to their Sakhi Center for providing shelter to P.W.2 and P.W.2 stayed at their center for two days and thereafter the parents of P.W.2 brought relieving order from the C.W.C., and took her to their house under proper ackowledgment and that their center gave only shelter to

P.W.2 and that she was fine at that time. P.W.11 further deposed that

Police examined and recorded her statement.

9 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair)

20.P.W.12 (S. Sandhya, Tahasildar) deposed that on the requisition of Police, she has issued the case particulars of P.W.2 on the basis of the report of V.R.O., and M.R.O., opining that P.W.2 belongs to ST (Lambada) community.

21.P.W.13 (K. Rambabu, Police Constable) deposed that on 17-1- 2021, on the instructions of Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Karimnagar, he has videographed the statements of P.Ws.1 to 8 and 11 recorded by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar through is mobile phone, later converted it into Compact Disc and handed-over the said to the Police and also issued Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian

Evidence Act.

22.P.W.14 (G. Sudhakar, Tahasildar) deposed that on the requisition of Police, he has issued the case particulars of P.W.1 on the basis of the report of M.R.I., opining that P.W.1 belongs to BC-A (Yellapi) community.

23.P.W.15 (B. Anuradha, S.G.T.) deposed that on the requisition of Police, he has issued Bonavide Certificate of P.W.1 vide Ex.p.11 and as per the Admission Register, the date of birth of P.W.2 is 10-6-2007.

24.P.Ws.16 and 17 are Investigation Officers and they deposed about the investigation conducted by them in this case respectively.

25.On perusing the record, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 to 8 in brief before the Court is that they have found P.W.2 who is the victim 10 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair) working in the house of the accused, then P.W.2 was shifted to a shelter home i.e., with P.W.11. To disprove the contention of these witnesses, the counsel for the accused has cross-examined P.Ws.1, 5 to 8 and 11 and tried to elicit that P.W.1 has not worked in the house of the accused as a child labour and a false case was registered against the accused, however all these witnesses have denied the suggestions put-forth to them by the counsel for the accused. Therefore, though the counsel for the accused has cross-examined these witnesses, no fruitful purpose was served in favour of the accused.

26.The Prosecution has also examined the Investigation Officers and Tahasildars who deposed before the Court that accused and P.W.2 belongs to different communities and P.W.2 belongs to SC community.

Though the Prosecution has examined the Tahasildars, their evidence at best help the Prosecution to prove that P.W.2 belongs to SC community.

The evidence of these witnesses itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Though the Prosecution has also examined the Head Master of the school to prove that P.W.2 is a minor, it is not disputed fact that P.W.2 is a minor on the date of alleged incident. So the evidence of Head Master is also helpful only to some extent to prove that P.W.2 was a minor as on the date of incident.

27.The evidence of Investigation Officers at best will help the

Prosecution to prove that basing on the complaint filed by P.W.1 they have conducted investigation. The evidence of these witnesses itself is 11 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair) not sufficient for the Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt as they are not eye witnesses for the offence.

28.The crucial witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt are P.Ws.2 to 4. P.W.2 is the victim and

P.Ws.3 and 4 are the parents of the victim. On perusing the evidence of

P.W.2 who is the victim, she deposed before the Court that she do not know anything about this case and she completely turned hostile. P.Ws.3 and 4 who are the parents of P.W.2 have also deposed before the Court that they do not know anything about this case and they have turned hostile. As P.Ws.2 to 4 have turned hostile, they were declared as hostile and they were cross-examined by the learned Additional Public

Prosecutor. However, even at the time of cross-examination, they have not supported the evidence of P.W.1 who deposed before the Court that they have seen P.W.2 working in the house of the accused. Unless and until the victim i.e., P.W.2 has deposed before the Court that she worked in the house of the accused as a child labour, the evidence of P.W.1 and other official supporting witnesses itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

29.As I already stated above, the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4 plays a vital role to prove the guilt of the accused, but unfortunately those witnesses have turned hostile and nowhere deposed that P.W.2 i.e., minor was engaged by the accused for working in his house. Therefore, 12 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair) the Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

30.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences under Sections 290 and 323 of IPC, Section 75 of Juvenile Justice Act and

Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and he is acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. and his bail bonds shall stand discharged. Un-marked case property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him and

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15th day of November, 2023.

Sd/-

Spl Sessions Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge Act, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE: PW.1M. Kavitha- None - PW.2S. Anitha PW.3S. Govindamma PW.4S. Nayak Ram Das PW.5P. Bhumaiah PW.6A. Rajitha PW.7Vukanti Soujanya PW.8Bonkuri Surender P.W.9Garshakurthi Bheemaiah P.W.10Gyatham Nagaraju P.W.11Damera Laxmi P.W.12S. Sandhya, Tahasildar P.W.13K. Rambabu, Police Constable P.W.14G. Sudhakar, Tahasildar P.W.15B. Anuradham S.G.T. P.W.16B. Vamshi Krishna, S.I., of Police P.W.17J. Vijaya Saradhi, A.C.P.

13 Spl.S.C. No.246 of 2021 (Fair)

EXHIBITS MARKED

BY THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1Complaint Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.2 Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.3 Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.4 Ex.P5Signature of P.W.9 on Crime Details Form Ex.P6Signature of P.W.10 on Crime Details Form Ex.P7Caste particulars of P.W.2 Ex.P8Compact Disc Ex.P9Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.10Caste particulars of P.W.1 Ex.P.11Bonafide Certificate Ex.P.12First Information Report Ex.P.13Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police Ex.P.14Crime Details Form Ex.P.15Requisition Ex.P.16Caste Certificate of the accused

FOR THE DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

Sd/-

Spl Sessions Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge Act, Karimnagar.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES

UNDER SCs & STs (POA) ACT -CUM-III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR

PRESENT:SMT.S.SREEVANI,

I ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR,

FAC:SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE-CUM-

III ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

KARIMNAGAR.

Monday, the 1st day of May, 2023

SPECIAL SESSIONS CASE NO. 58 OF 2017

Nameofthe:The State through A.C.P.Karimnagar Rural Complainant/State(Cr.No.91/2017 of P.S.Karimnagar Rural)

Name of the Accused:A.1Jungoni Pochaiah, S/o.Dharmaiah, Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture, A.2Jungoni Gangaraju, S/o. Pochaiah, Age: 19 years, Occ: Agriculture, A.3Jungoni Laxmi, W/o. Pochaiah, Age: 39 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Agriculture R/o. Nagunur village of Karimnagar mandal. Charges:Under Sections 324 read 34 IPC and :Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act. Plea of the Accused: “Not guilty” : Finding of the Court:“ Not guilty” : Sentence or order:Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for :the offences punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act and they are acquitted under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. and their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The un-marked property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

2 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair)

Prosecution:Sri T. Pavan kumar, conducted by:Additional Public Prosecutor, Karimnagar. Accused defended by:Sri P. Laxman Rao, :Advocate, Karimnagar.

This case is coming on 20-4-2023 before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Pavan Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State-complainant and of Sri P. Laxman Rao, Advocatefor Accused No.1 to 3, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Karimnagar (Rural) has laid the Charge Sheet against Accused No.1 to 3 in Crime No.91 of 2017 of Karimnagar (Rural) P.S., for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment

Act.

2.The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the Charge

Sheet are as follows:

That on 16-2-2017 the complainant by name, A. Shakunthala came to the Police Station and lodged a complaint stating that she is having Ac.00-30 guntas of land abutting to the village tank situated at the outskirts of village. Besides that one J. Agamma’s land is there, the said land was cultivated by her villager J. Pochaiah i.e. Accused No.1 on lease. On 7-2-2017, the son of Accused No.1 i.e. Accused No.2 was going to his leased agricultural land by walking on her wet boundary bund, on that she objected him as the boundary will damage. On that Accused

No.1 and 2 made galata and abused her in filthy language by taking her 3 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair) caste name as “Madiga Lanje, Donga Munda”. On 11-2-2017, the wife of Accused No.1 i.e. Accused No.3 also abused her husband as “Madiga

Badakaavu” and while her husband was returning, on the way Accused

No.1 and 2 pounced upon him and beat him indiscriminately, due to which her husband received bleeding injury over the head. Therefore, she requested to take necessary action.

3. Basing on the complaint, the Police, Karimnagar (Rural) registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2017 for the offences under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA)

Amendment Act. Subsequently, the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Karimnagar (Rural) who was authorized to investigate into the matter had examined the witnesses, effected the arrest of Accused No.1 to 3 and after completion of entire investigation, filed Charge Sheet.

4.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Karimnagar

before whom the Charge Sheet was filed had complied with the

provisions of Section 209 of Cr.P.C., and committed the case to this

Court.

5.On appearance of Accused No.1 to 3, charges for the offences under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1) (r) (s) of

SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act were framed, read-over and explained the same to them in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair)

6.In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined

PW.s 1 to 12 witnesses and marked Ex.P.1 to P.20.

7.After closure of the Prosecution side evidence, Accused No.1 to 3 were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing them in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 12 and they characterized the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses to be false and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. .

8.The point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt?

9.P O I N T

As the prosecution has filed the Charge Sheet against

Accused No.1 to 3 for the above offences, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish that they have abused P.Ws.1 and 2 with their caste name and also beat P.W.2 with an iron punch.

10.To prove the same, the prosecution has examined P.W.1 who deposed before the Court that about five years back, on one day, at about 4.00 p.m., when she was working in the land, Accused No.2 was walking on the bund and she asked him not to walk on the bund as it may damage, then Accused No.1 and 2 have started abusing her with her caste name as "maadiga lanje, donga munda". She further deposed that after four days, her husband went to the house of the Sarpanch to see him who was suffering from fever, then Accused No.3 came to her 5 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair) husband and abused her husband with his caste name as "maadiga lanja kodukaa, naa koduku polam gattu pi nundi pothunte, nee pendlam thittindata, nee ayya, jaagiraraa" and later when her husband was returning from the house and when he reached near school ground, again Accused No.1 and 2 came and beat him with a punch on his head due to which her husband sustained injury and L.W.8 by name, Bonagiri

Sathaiah has informed the same to her, then she shifted her husband to

Government Hospital and lodged complaint before the Police.

11.P.W.2 is the husband of P.W.1 and he deposed that about five years back, on one day, he went to the house of Sarpanch as he was suffering from fever, then Accused No.3 came to him and abused him in filthy language with his caste name as "maadiga lanja kodukaa, maadiga, baadakaav, naa koduku polam gattu pi nundi pothunte nee pendlaam thittindata, nee ayya jaagiraraa" and later while he was returning from the house of Sarpanch and when he reached near school ground, Accused No.1 and 2 came to him and beat him on his head with punch and he sustained bleeding injury. He further deposed that

Accused No.2 beat him with a punch and Accused NO.1 beat him with his hands and Accused No.1 and 2 also abused him with his caste name as "maadiga lanja kodukaa". He further deposed that P.W.3 informed the same to P.W.1, then he was shifted to Government Hospital.

12.P.W.3 deposed before the Court that about five years back, on one day, when he was passing near the school, he has noticed 6 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair)

Accused No.1 and 2 coming and P.W.2 was walking in front of them, then

Accused No.1 and 2 started abusing P.W.2 with his caste name as "maadiga lanja kodukaa" and both of them also beat P.W.2. He deposed that Accused No.2 beat P.W.2 on his head with kadiyam which was worn by him and as such P.W.2 sustained injury to his head, then he tied his towel to the head of P.W.2 and informed the same to P.W.1, then P.W.1 came and shifted P.W.2 to the hospital.

13.P.Ws.4 and 5 are panch witnesses for the scene of offence, but they have turned hostile and not supported the version of

Prosecution. Even at the time of cross-examination by the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor after declaring them hostile, they have not

supported the version of Prosecution.

14.P.Ws.6 and 8 are eye witnesses and they have turned hostile and not supported the version of the Prosecution. Even at the time of cross-examination by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor after declaring them hostile, they have not supported the version of

Prosecution.

15.P.Ws.7 and 9 are panch witnesses for confession panchanama of Accused No.2 and they deposed before the Court that

Police obtained their signatures on some papers and Accused No.2 has not confessed anything before them. As P.Ws.7 and 9 turned hostile, learned Additional Public Prosecutor declared them hostile and even at 7 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair) the time of cross-examination they have not supported the version of

Prosecution.

16.P.W.10 is another eye witness and he has also not supported the version of Prosecution and nowhere deposed that he has witnessed when Accused No.3 has abused P.W.2 with his caste name.

17.P.W.11 is the Doctor who deposed before the Court that on 11-2-2017, he has examined P.W.2 and found laceration on the scalp on the left side, which was simple in nature.

18.P.W.12 is the Investigation Officer who has reiterated the contents of the Charge Sheet.

19.Now in the light of above evidence, it is duty of the

Prosecution to prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt.

20.Though the Prosecution has examined P.Ws.4 to 10, their evidence is not at all helpful for the Prosecution to prove that Accused

No.1 to 3 have abused P.Ws.1 and 2 with their caste name and Accused

No.2 beat P.W.2 on his head with an iron punch. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.4 to 10 is not at all helpful for the Prosecution to prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3.

21.Though the Prosecution has examined P.W.12, Investigation

Officer, his evidence at best will help the Prosecution to prove that 8 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair) basing on the complaint lodged by P.W.1, he has proceeded with the investigation. The evidence of P.W.12 is not helpful for the Prosecution to prove the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt without any independent corroborating evidence, because P.W.12 is not an eye witness for the offence.

22.For the corroboration, the Prosecution has totally relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. On perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the origin for the offence is that P.W.1 has asked Accused No.2 to not to walk on the bund of agricultural field, then Accused No.1 and 2 have abused P.W.1 with her caste name. However, no evidence of eye witness is produced by the Prosecution to prove that Accused No.1 and 2 have abused P.W.1 with her caste name when she has asked Accused No.2 not to walk on the bund. Further more, as admitted by P.W.1, she has not lodged a complaint before the Police when Accused No.1 and 2 abused her with her caste name. P.W.1 nowhere explained as why she has not lodged complaint before the Police when Accused No.1 and 2 have abused her with her caste name. This discrepancy is nowhere explained by the Prosecution at any point of time, which creates a doubt whether any such incident was taken place or not.

23.On perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, when P.W.2 was going to the house of Sarpanch, Accused No.3 came to him and abused him in vulgar language with his caste name as "maadiga lanja kodukaa, maadiga, baadakaav, naa koduku polam gattu pi nundi pothunte nee 9 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair) pendlaam thittindata, nee ayya jaagiraraa". However, no independent witness has been examined by the Prosecution who can depose before the Court that he or she has witnessed when Accused No.3 has abused

P.W.2 with his caste name. Though P.W.2 deposed that Accused No.3 came toh im and abused him with his caste name, he has also not chosen to file a complaint before the Police immediately and he simply went to the house of Sarpanch, which creates a doubt whether Accused

No.3 has really abused P.W.2 in filthy language with his caste name or not .

24.The evidence of P.W.3 goes to show that when P.W.2 was returning from the house of the Sarpanch and when he reached near the school ground, Accused No.1 and 2 came to him, beat him and also abused him with his caste name. Except P.W.3, no another independent witness is examined to support the version of P.Ws.1 to 3. On perusing the chief-examination of P,.W.1 itself it is clear that the origin of the incident is that when Accused No.2 was walking on the bund on the fields, P.W.1 objected. This clearly shows that there are some civil disputes between the family of Accused No.1 to 3 and the family of

P.Ws.1 and 2.

25.According to P.W.2, Accused No.1 and 2 came to him and abused him with his caste name. However, on perusing the complaint filed by P.W.1, she nowhere mentioned that Accused No.1 and 2 have abused P.W.2 with his caste name. P.W.3 is only the eye witness for the 10 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair) incident, which was taken place between P.W.2 and Accused No.1 and 2.

On perusing the chief-examination of P.W.3, he deposed before the Court that after the incident, he tied his towel to the head of P.W.2 and informed the incident to P.W.1. However, at the time of cross- examination, he has admitted that he has deposed that he went to the house of P.W.1 and brought P.W.1 to the Police Station. He further admitted that he has stated to the Police that he has informed the incident to P.W.1. Though P.W.3 has deposed that after the incident, he tied his towel to the head of P.W.2, the Investigation Officer, P.W.12 has not chosen to seize such towel and further more P.W.3 has not at all stated the same before the Police at the time of his 161 Cr.P.C., statement, which created a doubt whether P.W.3 was really present at the time of alleged incident and whether any such incident was taken place at the scene of offence and whether P.Ws.1 and 2 have lodged a false complaint against Accused No.1 to 3 due to previous land disputes.

26.According to P.Ws.1 and 2, after the incident they went to the hospital and then after five days P.W.1 lodged complaint before the

Police. According to P.W.1, as they were at the hospital, they lodged the complaint with delay of five days. However, on perusing the cross- examination of P.W.11 who is the Doctor, he has deposed before the

Court that she cannot say for how many days, P.W.2 was admitted in the hospital and even she cannot say the date of discharge. She further admitted that she has not mentioned the age of injuries on Ex.P.13. On 11 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair) perusing Ex.P.11, which is the Medico Legal Certificate, except the injuries of P.W.2, nothing was mentioned by the doctor on Ex.P.11.

Further more, Ex.P.13 is silent regarding the date of admission of P.W.2 into the hospital and discharge of P.W.1 from the hospital, which creates a doubt whether P.W.2 was really admitted in the hospital for a long period of five days for the injury of laceration on his scalp.

27.Generally, if any accident takes place, definitely the details of said injuries and cause for injuries will be informed to the Doctor and concerned hospital authorities are expected to inform such incident to the Police. But as seen from the evidence of Investigation Officer, he has not received any information from the hospital and even Ex.P.13 Medico

Legal Certificate is very much silent regarding the cause of injuries sustained by P.W.2, which creates a doubt whether any such incident was taken place or not or whether P.W.2 has sustained injury in the hands of

Accused No.1 and 2 and further more definitely create a doubt whether

Accused No.1 to 3 have abused P.Ws.1 and 2 with their caste name, more particularly when the land of Accused No.1 to 3 was sold with the mediation of P.W.2. Hence, the Prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of Accused No.1 to 3 for the offences with which they are charged beyond all reasonable doubt, thereby they are entitled for benefit of doubt and acquittal.

12 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair)

28.In the result, Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Section 324 read with 34 IPC and Section 3 (1)

(r) (s) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act and they are acquitted under

Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. and their bail bonds shall stand discharged. The un-marked property, if any shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Grade-I), transcribed by him and

corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1st day of May, 2023.

Sd/-

Spl Sessions Judge for trial of under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge Act, Karimnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PROSECUTION: FOR THE DEFENCE:

PW.1A. Shakunthala- None - PW.2A. Pochaiah PW.3B. Sathaiah PW.4K. Koteshwar PW.5A. Laxminarayana PW.6B. Kishan Goud PW.7D. Narsaiah PW.8V. Padma P.W.9K. Narayana P.W.10K. Sumalatha P.W.11Dr. K. Sathish Kumar P.W.12V. Thirupathi, Assistant Commissioner of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

BY THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P1Complaint Ex.P2Signature of P.W.4 on Crime Details Form Ex.P3Signature of P.W.4 on Crime Details Form Ex.P4Signature of P.W.4 on Crime Details Form Ex.P5Signature of P.W.5 on Crime Details Form Ex.P6Signature of P.W.5 on Crime Details Form 13 Spl.S.C. No.58 of 2017 (Fair)

Ex.P7Signature of P.W.5 on Crime Details Form Ex.P8161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.6 Ex.P9Signature of P.W.7 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P.10161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.8 Ex.P.11Signature of P.W.9 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P.12161 Cr.P.C., statement of P.W.10 Ex.P.13Medical Certificate Ex.P.14First Information Report Ex.P.15Proceedings of the Sub Divisional Police Officer Ex.P.16Crime Details Form No.1 Ex.P.17Crime Details Form No.2 Ex.P.18Crime Details Form No.3 Ex.P.19Caste particulars Ex.P.20Confession-cum-seizure panchanama

FOR THE DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL –

Sd/-

Spl Sessions Judge for trial of under SCs & STs (POA) Act-cum- III Additional Sessions Judge Act, Karimnagar.