S Uma Sunanda

1 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

// APEG010056362022

Presented on : 20-07-2022 Registered on : 20-07-2022 Decided on : 06-05-2026 Duration : 3 years, 9 months, 17 days

Calendar

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At

Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Uma Sunanda

Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act – Cum-

X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Wednesday, the 06th day of May, 2026.

SC ST SC No.96 of 2022

(Cr.No.9/2022 of III Town L & O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban)

Name of the complainant : State represented by – Deputy Superintendent of police, Central Zone, Rajamahendravaram Urban.

Prosecution conducted by : Special Public Prosecutor.

Name of the accused : 1. Mupparaju Maneendra, W/o.Krishna Murthy, A/33 years,C/Kamma, D.No.61-15-3/2, P & T colony, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Mupparaju Surya Prabhavathi, W/o.Krishna Murthy, C/Kamma, A/68 years, D.No.61-15-3/1, P & T colony, Behind Raja Theatre, Rajamahendravaram.

3. Mandava Mohana Bhagyalakshmi, D/o.late.M.Krishna Murthy, W/o.M.Ravi Kishore, A/32 years, C/Kamma, D.No.61-15-3/1, P & T Colony, Behind Raja Theatre, Rajamahendravaram.

2 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

Accused defended by : Sri.K.Bala Bhaskar, Advocate for A1 to A3

Date of offence : 18.12.2021

Report/Complaint : 07-01-2022

Apprehension of Accused : A1 was arrested on 27-01-2022

Released on bailon 26-03-2022 41-A Cr.P.C. notice is served on the A2 and A3 Committal Order : --

Commencement of trial : 30.03.2026

Close of trial : 16-04-2026

Sentence or Order : 06-05-2026

Explanation for delay and remarks: Cognizance of the case is taken on 20.07.2022 and Accused appeared on 25-08-2022. Charges framed on 11.03.2026. Trial in this case was commenced on 30.03.2026 and closed on 16-04-2026. Arguments are heard and Judgment was pronounced on 06.05.2026. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

Offences charged :U/Sec.417, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.3 (2) (v), and sec. 3 (1)(r) (s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016).

Plea of the accused : Not guilty. Finding of the Judge : NOT GUILTY

Sentence or order :

In the result, the Accused-1 is found not guilty for the offences

U/Secs.417, 376 (n) of IPC and Sec.3 (2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016) , A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.3 (1)

(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016). Accordingly, they are 3 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 to A3 shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437(A) Cr.P.C. MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sd/- S.Uma Sunanda

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act, 1989 cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Copies submitted to

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of A.P. Nelapadu, Amaravathi.

//True Copy// 4 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

FORM-A [Rule 67(1) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At

Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Uma Sunanda

Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act – Cum-

X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Wednesday, the 06th day of May, 2026.

SC ST SC No.96 of 2022

(Cr.No.9/2022 of III Town L & O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram Urban)

COMPLAINANT :State represented by – Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Zone, Rajamahendravaram Urban.

REPRESENTED BY :Special Public Prosecutor.

ACCUSED :1. Mupparaju Maneendra, W/o.Krishna Murthy, A/33 years, C/Kamma, D.No.61-15-3/2, P & T colony, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Mupparaju Surya Prabhavathi, W/o.Krishna Murthy, C/Kamma, A/68 years, D.No.61-15-3/1, P & T colony, Behind Raja Theatre, Rajamahendravaram.

3. Mandava Mohana Bhagyalakshmi, D/o.late.M.Krishna Murthy, W/o.M.Ravi Kishore, A/32 yrs, C/Kamma, D.No. 61-15-3/1, P & T Colony, Behind Raja Theatre, Rajamahendravaram.

REPRESENTED BY :Sri.K.Bala Bhaskar, Advocate for A1 to A3

FORM-B [Rule 67(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

Date of Offence :18.12.2021 Date of F.I.R :07-01-2022 Date of Charge sheet :20-07-2022 Date of Framing of Charges :11.03.2026 Date of commencement of evidence :30.03.2026 Date on which judgment is reserved :01.05.2026 5 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

Date of the Sentencing Order :06.05.2026

Accused Details : Rank of the Accused :Accused Nos.1 to 3.

Name of the Accused :1. Mupparaju Maneendra, W/o.Krishna Murthy, A/33 years,C/Kamma, D.No.61-15-3/2, P & T colony, Rajamahendravaram.

2. Mupparaju Surya Prabhavathi, W/o.Krishna Murthy, C/Kamma, A/68 years, D.No.61-15-3/1, P & T colony, Behind Raja Theatre, Rajamahendravaram.

3. Mandava Mohana Bhagyalakshmi,D/o.late.M.Krishna Murthy, W/o.M.Ravi Kishore, A/32, C/Kamma, D.No. 61-15-3/1, P & T Colony, Behind Raja Theatre, Rajamahendravaram.

Date of Arrest :A1 was arrested on 27-01-2022 41-A Cr.P.C. notice served on the A2 and A3 Date of release on bail : A1 was released on bail on 26-03-2022.

Offences Charged with :U/Sec.417, 376(2)(n) of IPC and Sec.3 (2) (v), and sec.3 (1)(r) (s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016).

Whether acquitted or :Acquitted. convicted

Sentence imposed : --

Period of detention : -- undergone during Trial for purpose of Section 468 of B.N.S.S 2023

This Sessions case is coming on 01.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of

Sri.K.Bala Bhaskar, Advocate for the A1 to A3, upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:

6 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

J U D G M E N T

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Zone,

Rajamahendravaram Urban, has filed the charge sheet for the offences under sections 417, 420, 376, 313 IPC and Sec.3 (1)(r), 3 (1)(s) and Sec. 3 (2)(V) of

SCs & STs (POA) Act-1989 (Act 1/2016) against accused persons in

Cr.No.9/2022 of III Town L & O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha who is unmarried and belongs to SC Madiga by caste and is working as Woman

Police constable in the Govt.Railway Police Station at Rajamahendravaram. In

June, 2020, A1 got acquainted with LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha, sent friend request to her in Face book, that he knew her, he followed her and took her photographs without her knowledge, made her believe that he loves her and he would marry her. LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha believed A1 that he would marry her and accepted him and made friendship with him. LW.1/Aligi Roopa

Sireesha informed to A1 in advance that she belongs to SC Madiga caste. On that A1 said he already knew that she is Madiga by caste. They both together occasionally moved outside and have chit chat over cell phones.

(ii) In September 2020, on one rainy day, A1 called LW-1/Aligi

Roopa Sireesha to meet him at his house. LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha believed him and went to his house at P&T Colony, Rajamahendravaram. By the time the family members of A1 were not present there, and A1 forced LW- 1/ Aligi Roopa Sireesha to participate in sexual intercourse saying that as they both are going to marry shortly, it is not wrong to have sex. So inducing, A1 cohabitated with LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha sexually byusing force against her will and consent. A1 told her not to disclose this matter to anyone as he will get marry her soon. Thereafter A1 enjoyed LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha sexually twice or thrice.

7 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

(iii) On 29th April 2021, A1 took LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha to various places in Rajamahendravaram by his car and stopped at an unknown location and again enjoyed her sexually in the car itself. Many a times, LW-1/Aligi

Roopa Sireesha asked A1 to get marry her and he promised that he would marry her. Few days later, LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha got pregnancy. When

LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha informed the said matter to A1, he said he will marry her and that they shall plan for children after their marriage and advised

LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha to take oral pills for getting abortion of her pregnancy.

(iv) A1 while tried to convince her, LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha rejected for abortion. Then A1 made her emotional blackmailing that he would die if she did not take abortion pills. Feared with him, LW-1/Aligi Roopa

Sireesha took abortion pills and got abortion. Since then A1 started avoiding

LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha to get marry. Then LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha informed this matter to her colony people and A1 friends i.e, LW-21/Sesetti

Vara Prasad, LW-5/Chintam Veerababu and LW.8/Padala Sathibabu . On 10.06.2021 LW.2/Sesetti Veera Nagendra Prasad, LW.5/Ch.Veera Venkata

Durga Rao and LW.8/Padala Sathi babu called A1 to Arts College back side road and when they asked him about his love affair and physical contact with

LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha, A1 agreed before them and promised that he would marry LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha in December-2021. Later the mother of LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha while searching for marriage alliances, LW- 1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha informed about her love affair with A1 to her.

(v) On 20.07.2021, A1 visited the house of LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha along with LW.2/Sesetti Veera Nagendera Prasad @ Vara Prasad, LW.3/Aligi

Ajay, LW.4/Aligi Bharathi Indira Kumari @ Lakkavarapu Bharathi Indira,

LW.5/Chintam Veera Venkata Durga Rao @ Veerababu,, LW.6/Mohammad

Rahimudeen, LW.7/Smt.Karri Rajya Lakshmi, LW.8/Padala Sathi Babu @ 8 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

Satish and promised before her mother/LW.4/Aligi Bharathi Indira Kumari @

Lakkavarapu Bharathi Indira Kumari and maternal uncle that he would definitely marry LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha in December-2021. On 03.10.2021

LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sirisha asked A1 as to whether he informed about their marriage issue to his parents. A1 said no and he will inform to them as per convenience. A1 said he would marry LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha on 10.12.2021 and went away.

(vi) Even after passed away the marriage due date, A1 did not respond and he kept his phone switched off. As he was not contacting to any one and moving invisible, on 18.12.2021 at about 10.30 AM, LW-1/Aligi Roopa

Sireesha along with her mother, brother and LW-8/Padala Sathibabu @

Satheesh together went to the house of A1 situated at P&T Colony and enquired about the A1. By the time A1 was not present there.

A2/Smt. Mupparaju Surya Prabhavathi and A3/Bhagyalakshmi who are mother and younger sister of A1 were available in the house. When LW-1/ Aligi Roopa

Sireesha informed her love matter to them, A2 & A3 disputed with LW-1/Aligi

Roopa Sireesha and abused her as "kulam takkuva danito naa koduku pelli emiti? Mammalniadigi vadito tirigava?" and insulted LW-1/Aligi Roopa

Sireesha and her family members naming her caste. Then LW-1/Aligi Roopa

Sireesha replied that their son Maneendra induced her, promised her to marry and enjoyed her sexually and that being a victimized woman, she came over to their house and begs them for justice. On that, A2 and A3 insulted LW- 1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha that how did she expect that their son get marriage with a low caste woman like her and how did she love him and hoaxed at

LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha by shouting and insulting her in the name of her caste. Then LW-8/Padala Sathi Babu @ Satish interfered in the dispute and brought LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha and her relatives back to home with a view to avoid further complications. Since then, LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha tried to contact A1, but there was no response from A1 and A1 completely avoided 9 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

LW-1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha. Thereafter, A1 to A3 locked their house and gone absconding waited for A1 with a fond hope that he would come back to marry her, but to no avail. As there was no other way to go, LW-1/Aligi Roopa

Sireesha filed a complaint against A1 to A3 in III Town L&O PS,

Rajamahendravaram on 07.01.2022 for taking necessary lawful action against

A1 to A3.

(vii) On receipt of report from LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha on 07-01-2022 at 12-30 PM, LW.15/T.Shyam Sundar, S.I. of Police, III Town L & O Police Station, Rajamahendravaram registered the above report as a case in Cr. No.9/2022 U/Sec.417, 420, 376, 313 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1)(r), 3 (1)(s) & Sec.3 (2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Amendt. Act- 1989 (Act 1/2016).

(viii) Subsequently on the same day i.e. on 07-01-2022,

LW.17/M.Bhaktavatsalam, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-2,

Rajamahendravaram took-up investigation in this case on receipt of orders from the Supdt. of Police, Urban Police District, Rajamahendravaram vide proceedings in C.No.04/C3/DCRB/SC & ST/2022, dt: 07-01-2022. During the course of his investigation,LW.17/M.Baktavatsalam examined LW.1/Aligi

Roopa Sirisha and recorded her statement in detail by LW.16/G.Sravani Devi,

WSI 369, Disha Women PS, Rajamahendravaram. Later, LW.17/

M.Baktavatsalam visited scene of offence and observed the same and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence. He examined LWs.2 to 5 i.e,

Sesetti Veera Nagendra Prasad @ Vara Prasad, Aligi Ajay, Aligi Bharathi,

Chintam Veera Venkata Durga Rao @ Veera babu and recorded their statements in detail.

(ix) LW.17/M.Baktavatsalam has obtained the preliminary

Wound certificate dated 08.01.2022 in respect of the LW.1/Aligi Roopa 10 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

Sireesha/victim woman from Dr.Y.Madhuri, CAS, District Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram. On 20.01.2022, L.W.17/M.Baktavatsalam has forwarded the samples preserved by the Medical officer to the Asst.Director

RFSL, Vijayawada for chemical analysis vide case file

No.RFSL(VJA)209/SER/36/22. LW.17/M.Bhaktavatsalam filed a requisition

before the Honourable Court with a request to record the statement of

LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha under section 164 Cr.P.C. Later,

LW.17/M.Baktavatsalam has gone on leave. As such further investigation of this case was entrusted to LW.18/J.V.Santhosh, DSP, Central Zone,

Rajamahendravaram vide re-nomination proceedings in C.No.

04/C3/DCRB/SC & ST/2022 dated 22.01.2022. On 23.01.2022

LW.18/J.V.Santhoshtook up investigation in this case.

(x) LW.18/J.V.Santhosh re-examined LWs.1 to 5 in the same order in that examination LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sirisha alleged that upon insistence of

A1, she consumed pills unwittingly and that her pregnancy was aborted. As such U/s.313 was applied but there is no medical evidence to prove the allegation of causing miscarriage by A1. Since LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sirisha did not admit into any hospital or taken any treatment. LW.18/J.V.Santhosh did not record their additional statements again as there are no contradictions and exaggerations in their versions. LW.18/J.V.Santhosh visited the scene of offence, observed the same and found it to be correct as per the rough sketch prepared by the first I.O. LW.18/J.V.Santhosh examined LWs.6 to 8 i.e,

Mohammad Rahimudeen, Smt.Karri Rajya Lakshmi, Padala Sathi babu @

Satheesh and recorded their detailed statements.

(xi) On 27.01.2022 at 7-30 AM, LW.18/J.V.Santhosh arrested

A1 in the premises of III Town L & O PS, Rajamahendravaram on his surrender and interrogated him in the presence of mediators. A1 confessed about his involvement before the mediators. In pursuance of his confession, 11 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

LW.18/J.V.Santhosh seized a SAMSUN Company make android cell Phone

Model A71 having IMEI Nos (1) 351280170363215/1 and (2) 354539270363210/SN:R58N64QGE5L from the possession of A1 in the presence of mediators and this cell phone contains the call recordings and chatting text between A1 and LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha. A1 denied to affix his signature on the mediators report. A1 was sent for remand to the court of

Honourable V Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum V Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First

Class, Rajamahendravaram.

(xii) As per the orders of the Honourable High Court of AP,

Amaravathi, in Crl.Petition No.243/2022, dated 25.01.2022 A2 and A3 were served with a notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C on 02.02.2022 and they complied the terms and conditions of the notice and their undertakings were taken on 04.02.2022.

(xiii) LW.18/J.V.Santhosh filed a petition under section 53 Cr.P.C.

before this Honourable Court and obtained orders vide Crl.M.P.No.66 of 2022

dt.14.02.2022 to send the accused to the Medical officer, Govt.General

Hospital, Kakinada for potency test. On 16.02.2022, LW.13/Dr.Challa Rao,

Professor of Medicine, RMC GGH, Kakinada conducted Potency test to accused and issued Potency Report, in which he opined that “As per the available clinical investigations and medical examination, there is no medical cause found in exhibiting him from having sexual intercourse”.

(xiv) LW.12/Dr.Y.Madhuri, CAS, District Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram who examined the victim issued final opinion as per her clinical examination and as per the RFSL Report, sexual assault cannot be ruled out. On 03.02.2022, LW.14/Sri.Ch.Raja Sekhar, Hon’ble VI AJFC

Magistrate Court Rajamahendravaram has recorded the statement of

LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha in terms of Sec.164 Cr.P.C.

12 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

(xv) LW.18/J.V.Santhosh received the caste certificates of both

LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sirisha and A1 to A3 in this case from

LW.11/V.Suswagatham, Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram Urban who certified that LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sirisha belongs to SC Madiga and Accused 1 to 3 belongs to Kamma (OC) by caste.

(xvi) On completion of investigation charge sheet is filed by

LW.18/J.V.Santhosh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Zone,

Rajamahendravaram Urban.

3. Cognizance of the case was taken for the offences under sections

U/Secs.417, 420, 376, 313 IPC and sec.3 (2) (v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act- 1989 (Amended Act No.1/2016) against the A1, and Under sec.3 (1)(r) (s) of

SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 (Amended Act No.1/2016) against A2 and A3 issued summons to accused. On their appearance, case copies are furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused persons are examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C.

Charges under sections 417, 376(n) of IPC and sec.3 (2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act- 2015 (Act 1/2016) are framed against A1 and Sec.3 (1)(r) (s) of

SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016)are framed against A2 and A3 and read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 4, got marked Exs.P1 to P19 and MO.1.

5(a). Out of listed witnesses, LWs.1 to 4, LW.1/Kum.Aligi Roopa

Sireesha is examined as P.W.1. LW.3/Aligi Ajay is examined as PW.2,

LW.4/Aligi Bharathi Indira Kumari is examined as P.W.3, LW.15/T.Shyam 13 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

Sundar is examined as PW.4 . The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses, as material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

6. After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the

Accused persons are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which, they have denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments.

The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 who are material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and that the

Investigating Officer is examined.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused persons have submitted that except the evidence of the Investigating Officer, there is nothing on record and that the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons.

8. Now the point that arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the charged offences under sections 417, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and sec.3 (2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act 2015 (Act-2016) and sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016) beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

“ Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the charged offences under section 417, 376 (2)(n) of IPC and sec.3 (2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act 2015 (Act-2016) and sec.3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016)beyond all reasonable doubt ?” 9(a). As could be seen from the prosecution case, Accused No.1 dishonestly induced the LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha/victim with deceitful words of love and promise of marriage and committed rape against her and made her 14 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

to deliver her chastity made her pregnant got her consume some pills for abortion and finally refused to marry her and A2 and A3 intentionally insulted/intimidated LW.1/Aligi Roopa Sireesha with intent humiliate her and abused her by touching her caste name in a public view and hence committed the charged offences.

10.To prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. PWs.2 and 3 are the circumstantial witness. PW.3 is the Investigating officer. P.W.1/Kum.Aligi Roopa Sireesh who set the law into motion by giving report to police against the accused persons, has deposed that she belongs to SC Madiga community. She and A1 loved each other and A1 promised her to marry. In the year 2021, A1’s phone was switch off and he also did not come to meet her or did not talk with her during that time. She placed the matter before elders thinking that A1 cheated her and at that time village elders took her signature on empty paper. After 3 months A1 came to her and stated that he was held up at his work and tensed with his financial problems and could not meet her. She never gave any report against

A1 to A3. PW.1 identified her signature on the report dated 07.01.2022 as

Ex.P1 but does not know the contents of the report. As P.W.1 resiled from her earlier version, she was cross examined by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P2.

11. PW.2/Aligi Ajay also deposed in the same lines as that of PW.1 that he do not know the accused persons and he does not know anything about this case and do not know whether PW.1 gave any report against A1 to

A3. As P.W.2 also resiled from his earlier version, he was also cross examined by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P3.

15 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

12. PW.3/Aligi Bharathi Indira Kumari also deposed in the same lines as that of PW.1 that she do not know the accused persons and she does not know anything about this case and do not know whether PW.1 gave any report against A1 to A3. As P.W.3 also resiled from her earlier version, she was also cross examined by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P4.

(ii). Thus, PWs.1 to 3 who are material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Nothing material is elicited during their cross examination in support of the prosecution case.

13.Now, coming to the evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e.,

P.W.4/T.Shyam Sundar, SI of police, II Town PS, Rajamahendravaram, at the relevant time of the case, he worked as SI of police, III Town L & O PS,

Rajamahendravaram deposed that on 07-01-2022 at about 12-30 pm basing on the written report of PW.1 under Ex.P5, I registered a case in Cr.No.9/2022 under sections 417, 420, 376, 313 of IPC and sec.3(1)(r)(s), 3 (2)(v) of SCs &

STS (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016) under Ex.P6 First Information Report on 07-01-2022.

P.W.4/T.Shyam Sundarfurther deposed that on 07-01-2022,

LW.17/M.Bhaktavatsalam took up investigation in this case, as per the proceedings under Ex.P7 and recorded the statement of PW.1 on the instructions of LW.17/M.Bhaktavatsalam and on the same day

LW.17/M.Bhaktavatsalam and staff visited scene of offence which is accused house situated at P & T colony, Rajamahendravaram and observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch as in Ex.P8 and photographed the scene of offence with service camera as in Ex.P9. Later,

LW.17/M.Bhaktavatsalam examined PWs.2 and 2 and LW.2/S.Veera

Nagendra Prasad, LW.5/Chintam Veera Venkata Durga Rao and recorded 16 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

their statements. He obtained Wound certificate of PW.1 from

LW.12/Dr.Y.Madhuri, Civil Assistant Surgeon, District Hospital,

Rajamahendravaram as in Ex.P10 and on 20-01-2022,

LW.17/M.Bhaktavatsalam sent the material objects to RFSL, Vijayawada along with letter of advice as in Ex.P11 and sent requisition to Honourable

Magistrate Court to record the statement of PW.1/Victim under section 164

Cr.P.C. Later, LW.17/M.Bhaktavatsalam went on long leave.

P.W.4/T.Shyam Sundar further deposed that LW.18/J.V.Santhosh,

Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Zone, Rajamahendravaram Urban was appointed as investigating officer through Proceedings as in Ex.P12.

Accordingly on the same day LW.18/J.V.Santhosh took up investigation in this case and examined LWs.6 to 8 i.e, Mohammudeen, Smt.Karri Rajya Lakshmi, and Padala Sathi Babu @ Satheesh respectively and recorded their statements. On 25-01-2022, LW.18/J.V.Santhosh received RFSL report as in

Ex.P13. On 27.01.2022 at about 7-30 am, LW.18/J.V.Santhosh arrested A1 at

III Town Police Station in the presence of mediators LW.9/G.Raju and

LW.10/G.Murali and got recorded confession statement of A1 through mediators and seized Samsung A71 Mobile from A1 marked as in MO.1. On 02.02.2022 as per the orders of the Honourable High Court of Andhra

Pradesh, Amaravathi in Crl.Petition No.243/2022, Dt.25.01.2022,

LW.18/J.V.Santhosh served notice to A2 and A3 under section 41-A Cr.P.C and they complied the same. On 16-02-2022, A1 was sent to Government

Hospital, Kakinada for conducting potency test as per Crl.M.P.66/2022,

Dt.14.02.2022 LW.18/J.V.Santhosh received final opinion of PW.1 from

LW.12/Dr.Y.Madhuri. He collected caste certificates of PW.1, A1 to A3 from

LW.11/V.Suswagatham, Tahsildar, Rajamahendravaram. According to

Ex.P14, PW.1 belongs to SC-Madiga community, and according to Ex.P15 to

P17, A1 to A3 belongs to OC-Kamma community. On 17.02.2022

LW.18/J.V.Santhosh received Potency test report of A1 from 17 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

LW.13/Dr.G.S.P.K.Challa Rao, Asst. Professor of Medicine, Rangaraya

Medical college, Govt.General Hospital, Rajamahendravaram under Ex.P18.

On 03.02.2022, Honourable Magistrate recorded the statement of PW.1 under section 164 Cr.P.C. On 09.03.2022, LW.18/J.V.Santhosh obtained final opinion of PW. From LW.12/Dr.Y.Madhuri as in Ex.P19. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

13(a). Except giving suggestions, nothing is elicited from the

Investigating Officer during the cross examination. However, his evidence reflects the procedure adopted for completion of investigation and not much helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the charged offences against

Accused persons.

14. In the present case, no iota of evidence is adduced before the court to prove the charged offences against the A1 to A3. The defacto complainant/PW.1 deposed that she has not lodged any report against the accused persons. Witness also did not support the prosecution case. It is settled Law that any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused persons. From the foregoing discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the charged offences and accused persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence, acquitted.

Point is answered accordingly in favour of the A1 to A3 and against the prosecution.

15. In the result, the Accused-1 is found not guilty for the offences

U/Secs.417, 376 (n) of IPC and Sec.3 (2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016) , A2 and A3 are found not guilty for the offences under Sec.3 (1)

(r)(s), of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016). Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 to A3 shall 18 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

remain in force for a period of six months under section 437(A) Cr.P.C. MO.1 is ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

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

Sd/-S.Uma Sunanda

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act - cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Form-c [Rule 67(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES.

A. Prosecution

RANK NATURE OF EVIDENCE

P.W.1 :Aligi Roopa Sireesha - Defacto complainant. P.W.2 : Aligi Ajay- Circumstantial witness P.W.3 : Aligi Bharathi Indira Kumari - Circumstantial witness P.W.4 :T.Shyam Sundar - Investigating officer

B. Defence Witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

C. Court witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

19 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS [Rule 67(3)]

A. Prosecution :

Sr. Exhibit Description No. Number

1.Ex.P1 :Signature of PW.1 on report dated 07-01-2022 2Ex.P2 :Statement of P.W.1 under section 161 Cr.P.C.

3. Ex.P3 : Statement of P.W.2 under section 161 Cr.P.C

4.Ex.P4 :Statement of P.W.3 under section 161 Cr.P.C

5.Ex.P5 :Written report of PW.1

6.Ex.P6 :First Information Report.

7.Ex.P7 :Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Rajamahendravaram.

8.Ex.P8 :Rough sketch

9.Ex.P9 :Four Photographs along with CD

10.Ex.P10 :Wound Certificate of PW.1.

11.Ex.P11 :Letter of advice

12. Ex.P12 : Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Urban Police District, Rajamahendravaram.

13. Ex.P13 : RFSL Report

14. Ex.P14 : Caste certificate of PW.1

15. Ex.P15 : Caste certificate of A-1

16. Ex.P16 : Caste certificate of A-2

17. Ex.P17 : Caste certificate of A3.

18. Ex.P18 : Potency Test report of A1

19.Ex.P19 :Final opinion.

B.Defence :

Sr.No.Exhibit Description Number

NIL. C.Court Exhibits :

Sr.No.Exhibit NumberDescription

NIL.

20 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

D.Material Objects :

Sr.No. Material Object Description Number 1CPR No.7/2026 Samsung A-71 Mobile metalic white colour bearing imei.No.351280170363215/1 354539270363210/SN:R58N64QGE5L

Sd/- Smt.S.uma Sunanda

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act - cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

//True Copy// 21 Fair order copy SC ST SC 96/2022

Dated 06-05-2026

1 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

APEG010008662021

Presented on : 20-02-2021 Registered on : 20-02-2021 Decided on : 13-05-2026 Duration : 5 years, 2 months, 21 days

Cal end ar

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At

Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Uma Sunanda

Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act – Cum-

X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026.

SC ST SC No. 39 of 2021

(Cr.No.126/2020 of Port Police Station, Kakinada)

Name of the complainant :Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Kakinada Prosecution conducted by : Special Public Prosecutor.

Name of the accused : 1.Rachamadugula Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.VenkataNarasimha Rao, age 44 years, Vysya, Block No.37, SF.6 & SF.8, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, near Mee Seva Blocks, Dairy Farm Centre, Sanjay Nagar, kakinada Urban Mandal.

2. Rachamadugula Kumari, W/o.Veerabhadra Rao, age 40 years, Vysya, Block No.37, SF.6 & SF.8, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, near Mee Seva Blocks, Dairy Farm Centre, Sanjay Nagar, kakinada Urban Mandal.

3. Rachamadugula Narasimha rao, S/o.Veerabhadra rao, Age 16 years, Vysya, Block No.37, SF.6 & SF.8, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, near Mee Seva Blocks, Dairy Farm Centre, 2 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

Sanjay Nagar, kakinada Urban Mandal. ……(CCL)

Accused defended by :Sri.K.Bala Bhaskar Advocate for A1 and A2 Date of offence : 04.06.2020

Report/Complaint : 08-06-2020

Apprehension of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C. notice is served on the A1 and A2 and CCL Committal Order : --

Commencement of trial : 06.03.2026

Close of trial : 08-04-2026

Sentence or Order : 13-05-2026

Explanation for delay and remarks:

Cognizance of the case is taken on 19.02.2021 and A1 and A2 appeared on 10-05-2021. Charges framed on 09.12.2025. Trial in this case was commenced on 06.03.2026 and closed on 08-04-2026. Arguments are heard and Judgment was pronounced on 13.05.2026. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

Offences charged : U/Sec.506 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (s) and sec.3 (2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016). . Plea of the accused : Not guilty. Finding of the Judge : NOT GUILTY Sentence or order :

In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.354, 506 of IPC and sec.3 (1) (s) and sec.3 (2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act- 2015 (Act 1/2016). Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437(A) Cr.P.C. No property is produced before the court.

Sd/- S.uma Sunanda

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act, 1989 cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

3 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

Copies submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of A.P. Nelapadu, Amaravathi. //True copy // FORM-A [Rule 67(1) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At

Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Uma Sunanda

Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act – Cum-

X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Wednesday, the 13th day of May, 2026.

SC ST SC No. 39 of 2021

(Cr.No.126/2020 of Port Police Station, Kakinada)

COMPLAINANT :Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Kakinada.

REPRESENTED BY :Special Public Prosecutor.

ACCUSED :1. Rachamadugula Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.Venkata Narasimha Rao, age 44 years, Vysya, Block No.37, SF.6 & SF.8, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, near Mee Seva Blocks, Dairy Farm Centre, Sanjay Nagar, kakinada Urban Mandal.

2. Rachamadugula Kumari, W/o.Veerabhadra Rao, age 40 years, Vysya, Block No.37, SF.6 & SF.8, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, near Mee Seva Blocks, Dairy Farm Centre, Sanjay Nagar, kakinada Urban Mandal.

3. Rachamadugula Narasimha rao, S/o.Veerabhadra rao, Age 16 years, Vysya, Block No.37, SF.6 & SF.8, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, near Mee Seva Blocks, Dairy Farm Centre, Sanjay Nagar, kakinada Urban Mandal. ……(CCL)

REPRESENTED BY :Sri.K.Bala Bhaskar Advocate for A1 and A2.

FORM-B [Rule 67(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

Date of Offence :04.06.2020 Date of F.I.R :08.06.2020 Date of Charge sheet :19.02.2021 4 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

Date of Framing of Charges :09.12.2025 Date of commencement of evidence :06.03.2026 Date on which judgment is reserved :11.05.2026 Date of the Sentencing Order :13.05.2026

Accused Details :

Rank of the Accused :Accused Nos.1 and 2.

Name of the Accused :1. Rachamadugula Veerabhadra Rao, S/o.Venkata Narasimha Rao, age 44 years, Vysya, Block No.37, SF.6 & SF.8, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, near Mee Seva Blocks, Dairy Farm Centre, Sanjay Nagar, kakinada Urban Mandal.

2. Rachamadugula Kumari,W/o.Veerabhadra Rao,age 40 years, Vysya, Block No.37, SF.6 & SF.8, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, near Mee Seva Blocks, Dairy Farm Centre, Sanjay Nagar, kakinada Urban Mandal.

3. Rachamadugula Narasimha rao, S/o.Veerabhadra rao, Age 16 years, Vysya, Block No.37, SF.6 & SF.8, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, near Mee Seva Blocks, Dairy Farm Centre, Sanjay Nagar, kakinada Urban Mandal. ………(CCL)

Date of Arrest :41-A Cr.P.C. notice served on the A1, A2 and CCL.

Date of release on bail : ----

Offences Charged with :U/Sec.506 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (s) and sec.3 (2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016).

Whether acquitted or :Acquitted. convicted

Sentence imposed : --

Period of detention : -- undergone during Trial for purpose of Section 468 of B.N.S.S 2023 5 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

This Sessions case is coming on 11.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of

Sri.K.Bala Bhaskar, Advocate for the A1 and A2 upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Kakinada, has filed the charge sheet for the offences under sections 354, 324, 323, 506, r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 (1)(r) (s) and 3 (2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-1989 (Amended Act 1/2016) against A1 and A2and CCLin Cr.No.126/2020 of Port Police Station.

Kakinada.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary is the native of Thorredu village near Rajahmundry, she migrated to Kakinada and staying in Block No.37 in Flat No.FF.7 Rajiv Gruha Kalpa near Mee Seva

Blocks, Dairy Farm centre, Sanjay Nagar, Kakinada Urban since three years with her husband and children for rent. The husband of LW.1 is working as a driver in Route Master Company. She has been working as a volunteer to

Block No.37 and 38 of 11th ward at Kakinada since 2nd December 2019 and she blessed with a daughter and a son. The A1 and A2 are residing in the upstairs to the rented portion of LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary in Flat No.SF.6 and SF.8 with the Child-in-conflict with Law and their younger son Prem Sai.

Earlier LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary notice the Child-in-conflict with Law while he is taking photographs of their bathroom and when she brought into the notice of A1 who promised that he will prevent the acts of his son. While so, on 04-06-2020 at about 8-30 pm in the absence of her husband while

LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary is taking bath in her bathroom she noticed the

Child-in-conflict with Law stood at the turning of the stair case and taking 6 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

videos and photographs of her bathroom. Immediately she came out and when questioned the Child-in-conflict with Law, as to why he is taking videos and photographs of their bathroom, even she warned him in several times earlier.

She called A1 while the Child-in-conflict with Law disputing with her. In the mean time the Child-in-conflict with Law picked up a pen knife from his pocket, stabbed on her left hand and caused bleeding injury. A1 and A2 came in support of the Child-in-conflict with Law and abused LW.1. A1 pushed the

LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary by keeping his hand on her chest, puller her night wear and tore it. LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary felt ashamed, covered her person with her hands and sat there. Taking advantage of the same A2 caught the tuft of hair of LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary and when dragged her the Child-in-conflict with Law went up on to beat her and slapped LW.3/Lalam

Naga Raju and thrown slippers upon him when he tried to obstruct him. A2 dragged LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary by caught her tuft of hair up to

Varandah. LW.9/Kesavaraju Vijaya, LW.10/Barre Sudha Rani intervened and got released the tuft of hair of LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary from the hands of the A1 and rescued her. When neighbours tried to pacify the dispute, the A1,

A2 and the Child-in-conflict with Law paid a deaf ear. A1 abused the

LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary by touching her caste as “MALA LANJA” by threatening to keep her videos and photographs in You Tube besides threatened to remove her job by using his fiscal power. The neighbours of the locality were intervened and sent away the Accused No.1 and 2 from there.

LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary contacted with the Secretary Women Welfare and Protection 11th Ward over phone and when informed about the occurrence, who inturn send LW.16/Nimmagadda Haneesh and LW.17/Gochi

Prabhas, they took LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary to Government Hospital,

Kakinada and take back her due to lack of availability to the medical officer.

LW.15/Koduri Rajesh tried to settle the dispute on 05.06.2020 and 7.06.2020 but it was not settled.

7 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

(ii) On receipt of report from LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary on 08-06-2020 at 3-00 PM, LW.26/B.Siva Krishna, S.I. of Police, Port Police

Station, Kakianda, registered the above report as a case in Cr. No.126/2020

U/Sec.354, 354-C, 324, 323, 506, r/w.34 IPC and Sec. 3 (1)(r) (s), & Sec.3 (2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Act-1989, Amendment Act 2015.

(iii) Subsequently on 10-06-2020, LW.27/B.Rama Krishna, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Traffic PS, Kakinada took-up investigation in this case on receipt of orders from the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari

District, Kakinada vide proceedings in C.No.1061/C3/2020, dt: 08-06-2020.

During the course of his investigation, LW.27/B.Rama Krishna visited the scene of offence and observed the same and prepared scene observation report in the presence of LWs.19/K.Anuradha and LW.20/Narukurthi Thammi

Raju on 30-06-2020 at 11-00 am and prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and got photographed the scene of offence with the assistance of

LW.18/Nallam Rama Rao and examined the LWs.1 to 18 i.e, Gosala Saroja @ Mary, Lalam Nagamani, Lalam Naga Raju, Sheik Asharaf, Koduri Anusha,

Nakka Rama Lakshmi, Khandavilli Vara Lakshmi, Boye Mangamma,

Kesavaraju Vijaya, Barre Sudha Rani, Laveti Appa rao, Challa Rama Krishna,

Gaddepalli Dasu, Gosala Victor Kumar, Koduri Rajesh, Nimmagadda

Haneesh, Gochi Prabhas, Nallam Rama Rao and recorded their detailed statements with the assistance of LW.18/Nallam Rama Rao.

(iv)LW.27/B.Rama Krishna, Deputy Superintendent of Police, received wound certificates of LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary and LW.3/Lalam

Naga Raju from LW.21/Dr.B.Ravindra Babu, CMO, Govt.General Hospital,

Kakinada as he opined that the injuries on the person of LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary and LW.3/Lalam Naga Raju are simple in nature. LW.22/P.Prasanth, 8 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

Registrar of Births and Deaths, Municipal Corporation, Kakinada who issued the Date of Birth certificate of Child in conflict with law and as per the date of birth certificate the Child in conflict with law aged about 16 years as he was born on 22-09-2004.

(v)LW.27/B.Rama Krishna, received the caste certificates of both

A1, A2, CCL, LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary in this case from

LW.23/Y.H.S.Satish, Tahsildar, Kakinada Urban who certified that A1 and A2 and CCL belongs to Vysya community and LW.1/Gosala Saroja @ Mary belongs to Adi Andhra (SC) community.

(vi)LW.24/P.P.Bharadwaja, Hon’ble III Addl.Junior Civil Judge cum J.F.C.Magistrate, Kakinada recorded the statement of LW.1/Gosala

Saroja @ Mary under section 164 Cr.P.C.

(vii) Subsequently,LW.28/P.Murali Krishna Reddy, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Traffic PS, Kakinada took-up investigation in this case on receipt of orders from the Superintendent of Police, East Godavari

District, Kakinada vide proceedings in C.No.1061/C3/2020, dt: 28-11-2020.

On 04-01-2021, LW.28/P.Murali Krishna Reddy served notices to A1,A2 and

CCL as per the orders in Crl.P.5661/2020 dated 08-12-2020 under section 41-A Cr.P.C. and they complied the same. A separate final report is filed against CCL before III AJFC Magistrate for Juvenile, Rajamahendravaram.

(viii) On completion of investigation charge sheet is filed by

LW.28/P.Murali Krishna Reddy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic PS, kakinada.

3. Cognizance of the case was taken for the offences under sections

U/Secs.354, 324, 323, 506 r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 (1)(r)(s), and sec, 3 (2)(va) of 9 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

SCs & STs (POA) Act -1989 (Amended Act 1/2016) against the A1 and A2, issued summons to A1 and A2. On their appearance, case copies are furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The A1 and A2 are examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C. Charges under sections 354, 506 of IPC and sec.3 (1) (s) and sec.3 (2)(va) of SCs &

STs (POA) Act- 2015 (Act 1/2016) are framed against A1 and A2 and read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which, they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 3, got marked Exs.P1 to P16 and no material objects are exhibited.

5(a). Out of listed witnesses, LWs.1 to 28, LW.1/Gosala Saroja Mary is examined as P.W.1. LW.3/Lalam Naga Raju is examined as PW.2,

LW.27/B.Rama Krishna is examined as P.W.3. The learned Special Public

Prosecutor has given up the remaining witnesses, as material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

6. After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the A1 and

A2 persons are examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which, they have denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments.

The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 who are material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and that the

Investigating Officer is examined.

10 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

Per contra, the learned counsel for the A1 and A2 persons have submitted that except the evidence of the Investigating Officer, there is nothing on record and that the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons.

8. Now the point that arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the charged offences under sections 354, 506 of IPC and sec.3 (1) (s) and sec.3 (2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act- 2015 (Act 1/2016) beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

“Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the A1 and A2 for the charged offences under section 354, 506 of IPC and sec.3 (1) (s) and sec.3 (2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act- 2015 (Act 1/2016) beyond all reasonable doubt ?” 9(a). As could be seen from the prosecution case, child in conflict with law was taking photographs and videos of the bath room of LW.1/Victim on that A1 and A2 used criminal force against LW.1/Victim with an intent of outrage her modesty, A1 pushed her by keeping his hand on her chest tore her night wear and A2 caught hold tuft of hair of LW.1/Victim and dragged upto varandadh and committed criminal intimidation using criminal force against

LW.1/Victim and threatened her with dire consequences to remove her job by using fiscal power and abused LW.1/Victim by touching her caste name in a public view and hence committed the charged offences.

10.To prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. PW.2 are the circumstantial witness. PW.3 is the

Investigating officer.P.W.1/ who set the law into motion by giving report to police against the A1 and A2, has deposed that she belongs to SC Mala community. In the year 2020, PW.1 used to stay in a rented house at Kakinada and A1 and A2 used to stay in upstairs of her portion. During that time PW.1 11 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

used to work as volunteer in that village. One day, PW.1 went to police station to give report. At that time, police took her signature on white paper. PW.1 identified her signature on the report dated 08.06.2020 as Ex.P1 but does not know the contents of the report. She does not know anything about this case.

As P.W.1 resiled from her earlier version, she was cross examined by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P2.

11. PW.2/Lalam Naga Raju also deposed in the same lines as that of

PW.1 that LW.2/L.Nagamani is his wife and she confined to bed due to ill health and he does not know anything about this case. As P.W.2 also resiled from his earlier version, he was also cross examined by the learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor and his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P3.

(ii). Thus, PWs.1 and 2 who are material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Nothing material is elicited during their cross examination in support of the prosecution case.

12.Now, coming to the evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e.,

P.W.3/B.Rama Krishna, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Spl.Branch,

Rajamahendravaram at the relevant time of this case, he worked as DSP,

Traffic PS, Kakinada deposed that on 08-06-2020, at about 3-00 pm basing on the typed report of PW.1 under Ex.P4, LW.26/B.Siva Krishna, SI of Police, registered a case in Cr.No.126/2020 under sections 354, 354C, 324, 323, 506

IPC and sec.3(1)(r)(s), and 3 (2)(va) of SCs & STS (POA) Act under Ex.P5

First Information Report on 08-06-2020.

P.W.3/B.Rama Krishna further deposed that on 09-06-2020, he received proceedings as per Ex.P6 and on 10-06-2020, he took up investigation and verified CD file and instructed LW.26/B.Siva Krishna to 12 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

secure PW.1. On 11-06-2020, he visited Port police station and examined

PW.1 and recorded her statement and she handed over wheat coloured with pink colour flower design torn nighty and he has seized the same. Later, he secured mediators i.e, LW.19/K.Anuradha, Village Secretariat, Kakinada

Urban Mandal, LW.20/N.Thammai Raju, Village Revenue Officer, Port,

Kakinada rural and Photographer. LW.26/B.Siva Krishna, PW.1, mediators,

Photographer and staff visited the scene of offence which is House of PW.1 situated at Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Dairy Farm centre, Block No.37, Flat No.FF7 and observed the scene of offence and got prepared scene observation report under Ex.P7 and prepared two rough sketches relating to the scene of offence under Ex.P8 and took photos with private photographer under Ex.P9. There he examined PW.2, LW.2/L.Nagamani, LW.4/Sh.Asharaf, LW.5/K.Anusha,

LW.6/N.Rama Lakshmi, LW.7/K.Vara lakshmi, LW.8/ B.Mangamma,

LW.9/K.Vijaya, LW.10/B.Sudha Rani, LW.11/L.Appa Rao, LW.12/Ch.Rama

Krishna respectively and recorded their statements through women PC on his dictation.

PW.3/B.Rama Krishna further deposed that on 16-06-2020, he along with his staff visited Port police station and examined LW.13/G.Dasu and

LW.14/G.Victor Kumar and recorded their statement. On 20-06-2020, he visited Disha Women Police Station, Kakinada and recorded the statements of

LW.15/K.Rajesh, LW.16/N.Haneesh and LW.17/G.Prabhas. On 02-07-2020, he received age certificate of A3/CCL from LW.22/P.Prasanth under Ex.P10 and as per the certificate A3 is minor, so mentioned as CCL. On 06-07-2020,

PW.3/B.Rama Krishna collected the caste certificate of PW.1, A1, A2 and

CCL. According to Ex.P11, PW.1 belongs to SC Mala Community and as per

Ex.P12 to P14 the A1 and A2 and CCL are belongs to Vysya community.

PW.3/B.Rama Krishna further deposed that on 21-07-2020, he received wound certificate of PW.1 from LW.21/B.Ravindra Sekhar, Civil 13 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

Assistant Surgeon, Government Area Hospital, Tuni under Ex.P15. On 06-08- 2020, he received wound certificate of PW.2 from LW.21/B.Ravindra Sekhar,

Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Tuni under Ex.P16. On 10.08.2020, he received the CDRs of PW.1, A1, A2 and CCL and found that all of them were presence at the scene of offence on the alleged date of offence. On 30.09.2020, Hon’ble Magistrate recorded the statement of PW.1 under section 164 Cr.P.C. Due to the transfer, he handed over the CD file to

LW.28/P.Murali Krishna Reddy for conducting further investigation.

On 28-11-2020, LW.28/P.Murali Krishna Reddy took up investigation in this case, as per the proceedings under Ex.P17 and verified the CD file and found there investigation is in correct lines so he did not re-examine the witnesses.

On 04-01-2021, LW.28/P.Murali Krishna Reddy issued notices under section 41-A Cr.P.C to A1, A2 and child in conflict with law as per orders of

Crl.P.No.5661/2020, Dt: 08-12-2020 and they complied the same. After completion of investigation LW.28/P.Murali Krishna Reddy filed charge sheet.

12(a). Except giving suggestions, nothing is elicited from the

Investigating Officer during the cross examination. However, his evidence reflects the procedure adopted for completion of investigation and not much helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the charged offences against A1 and A2.

13. In the present case, no iota of evidence is adduced before the court to prove the charged offences against the A1 and A2.The defacto complainant/PW.1 deposed that she has not lodged any report against the A1 and A2 and CCL. Witness also did not support the prosecution case. It is settled Law that any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the A1 and A2.

From the foregoing discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the A1, A2 for the charged offences and A1, A2 14 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence, acquitted. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the A1 and A2 and against the prosecution.

14. In the result, the A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences

U/Sec.354, 506 of IPC and sec.3 (1) (s) and sec.3 (2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA)

Act- 2015 (Act 1/2016). Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the A1 and A2 shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437(A) Cr.P.C. No property is produced before the court.

Typed to dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 13th day of May, 2026.

Sd/-S.Uma Sunanda

Spl. Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act - cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Form-c [Rule 67(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES.

A. Prosecution

RANK NATURE OF EVIDENCE

P.W.1 :Gosala Saroja Mary- Defacto complainant. P.W.2 : Lalam Naga Raju- Circumstantial witness P.W.3 :B.Rama Krishna - Investigating Officer

B. Defence Witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

C. Court witnesses, if any :

15 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

Nil

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS [Rule 67(3)]

A. Prosecution : Sr. Exhibit Description No. Number

1.Ex.P1 :Signature of PW.1 on report dated 08-06-2020 2Ex.P2 :Statement of P.W.1 under section 161 Cr.P.C.

3.Ex.P3 :Statement of P.W.2 under section 161 Cr.P.C

4.Ex.P4 :Typed Report of PW.1

5.Ex.P5 :First Information Report

6.Ex.P6 :Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada.

7.Ex.P7 :Scene observation Report

8.Ex.P8 : Rough sketch (2 in number)

9.Ex.P9 :Nine Photographs along with CD

10.Ex.P10 :Age proof certificate of A3/CCL

11.Ex.P11 :Caste certificate of PW.1

12.Ex.P12 :Caste certificate of A-1

13.Ex.P13 :Caste certificate of A2

14.Ex.P14 :Caste certificate of CCL.

15. Ex.P15 : Wound certificate of PW.1.

16. Ex.P16 : Wound certificate of PW.2.

17.Ex.P17 :Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District, Kakinada. B.Defence : Sr.No.Exhibit Description Number

NIL. C.Court Exhibits :

Sr.No.Exhibit NumberDescription

NIL.

D.Material Objects : NIL

Sd/-S.Uma Sunanda

16 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act - cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

// True copy // 17 Fair order copy SC ST SC 39/2021

Dated 13-05-2026

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER S.CS

& S.TS(POA) ACT – CUM – X ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT

RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

Present: Smt. S.Uma Sunanda,

Special Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act

– cum-X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Friday, the 08thday of May 2026

Original Suit No.68/2017

BETWEEN

Harendra Mahendra Narsana. … Plaintiff.

AND

1. Vinod Kumar Panachand Narsanna (died)

2. Kelam Srinivasa Rao,

3. Maganti Kiran,

4. Ila V.Narsana,

5. Hemanshu V.Narsana. … Defendants. (defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are added as per orders in IA No.37/20 dt.23.12.2021)

This suit is coming before me for final consideration on this day i.e., on 05.05.2026 after mediation, in the presence of Sri E.Murali Sreedhar Babu, Advocate for Plaintiffs and Sri Ch.V.R, Advocate for the defendant Nos.2, 4 and 5, Sri M.S.Subba Rao, Advocate for the defendant No.3, upon perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:-

JUDGMENT

The suit is filed by the plaintiff praying to pass decree and

Judgment in his favour, declaring that the plaintiff has right of way to his 2 property i.e., ABCD plaint schedule property through the defendants’ EFGH property to reach the main road situated on the South of EFGH property, (b) for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to leave 40’ wide way in the

EFGH property, more particularly on the East in the EFGH property, which is more particularly show as IJKL in the plaint plan or on any side in EFGH property so as to enable the plaintiff to reach to the main road, situated on the south of the schedule property (c) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and agents from constructing any buildings either temporary or permanent in the EFGH property, without leaving sufficient land/site as way to the plaintiff, for his ingress and egress to his ABCD property and for costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that the grand mother

Dhanalaxmi Panachand Narsana was owning land an extent of Ac.2.00 cents in RS No.283/1 in Pidimgoyya panchayat, Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation area, Rajahmundry Rural vide sale deed dt.13.06.66 bearing No.2292/66. The above land was partitioned in to 6 shares vide partition deed dt.20.02.1995 bearing No.4427/95 in the said partition, A schedule property consists of Ac.0- 45 cents was allotted to Dhanalaxmi Panachand, B schedule property consists of Ac.0-30 cents to her eldest son Mahendra Kumar Panachand Narsana, C schedule property consists of Ac.0-30 cents to her 2nd son Jitendra Kumar

Panachand Narsana, D schedule property consists of Ac.0-30 cents to her 3rd son Vinod Kumar Panachand Narsana, E schedule property consists of Ac.0- 30 cents was allotted to Dhanalaxmi’s daughter Prabhavathi Narsana and F schedule property consists of Ac.0-29 cents to her another daughter Yogida

Narsana. After the said partition the respective sharers enjoying their shares with absolute rights.

3

(ii) The BCDEF sharers have right of easement through A schedule property to reach to the main road situated on south of entire Ac.2.00 cents of land which is adjacent to the A schedule property which came to the share of Dhana Lakshmi Narsana. Father of the plaintiff has executed his last will of testament dt.23.08.2000 bequeathing the B schedule property which came to his share on plaintiff, apart from settling some other properties.

Since the death of plaintiff's father, plaintiff has been enjoying the property of

Ac.0-30 cents I.e, Item No.1 of the plaint schedule. During her life time

Dhanalaxmi Narsana, who is grand mother of the plaintiff has settled A schedule property in favour of 1st defendant (deceased) vide deed dt.30.05.2008 bearing No.3317/08. The said property is mentioned as EFGH in plaint plan i.e., Item No.2 of the plaint schedule. The land in Ac.200 cents is not provided with separate ways to reach to the main road situated on the south of the land which leads to Morampudi. In the gift deed executed by plaintiff's grand mother in favour of the deceased 1st defendant, a specific recital was made by her, whereunder it was mentioned that “Donee/deceased 1st defendant should provide way to all his brothers and sisters to reach the main road situated on the south in accordance with the Town planning Rules of Rajahmundry Municipal Corporation.” Hence, 1st defendant has no right to use his entire property and he has to leave sufficient space/site/land to prove way to all his brothers and sisters so as to enable them to reach to the main road on south through is land i.e., EFGH property.

(iii) The deceased 1st defendant sold his entire Ac.0-30 cents of land came to his share under sale deed dt.02.03.2012 to Mallidi Krishna

Reddy, Mallidi Sunitha, Cheedella Nagamani and Allu Satya Prasad. The 1st defendant got attached a lay out plan as if the entire Ac.2-00 cents of land was divided into house sites and provided roads. The plaintiff or his father never 4 gave permission to the deceased 1st defendant for making lay out. In the sale deed executed in favour of the above persons, he shown 30’ wide road on the south of his property i.e., road in between his property and C schedule property belongs to Jitendra Kumar Narsanna, the said road connects to

Somalamma puntha road, which is on the west of the properties.

(iv) The owner of the C schedule property i.e., Jitendra Kumar died and after his death, his heirs sold his share of the property under sale deeds dt.15.04.2014 to Podipireddy Ravi Babu and others. In the said sale deed, there is no reference about the layout, however in the sale deeds, 30’ wide road shown on the North of the C schedule property i.e., in between this property and D schedule property of the deceased 1st defendant. By such sales, the sharers of C and D properties have in other way relinquished their claim to pass through the A schedule property of the deceased 1st defendant i.e., through EFGH property to reach to the main road on the South. The EF sharers of the partition deed Prabhavathi and Yogida also having separate road on the South of their properties and they are also not claiming any right of way through EFGH property of the deceased 1st defendant. The plaintiff has necessarily pass through the EFGH property of the deceased 1st defendant, to reach to the main road on the South and the said right was enjoyed by the plaintiff and his predecessors in title i.e., his father and grand mother since more than 20 years. As per the Municipal Corporation Act, the inner roads of any property, if land is converted to house site should contain 40’ wide roads.

(v) the deceased 1st defendant sold some properties in favour of 2nd defendant, who in turn sole to the 3rd defendant and there is no recital in resect of the condition imposed by the plaintiff’s grand mother on the deceased 1st defendant in respect of providing way to the plaintiff.

Suppressing the said fact, he sold the property. When the plaintiff approached 5 the deceased 1st defendant and questioned about non declaring the right of way to the plaintiff in the property, defendant assured the plaintiff that he is leaving 40’ wide way on the eastern side in EFGH property measuring 40’x104’ site as way to the plaintiff to reach the main road on the site and it will be exclusively belongs to the plaintiff and none would interfere with the same.

Plaintiff came to know that the defendants 2 and 3 are making hectic efforts to construct a complex in the property purchased by them. Then the plaintiff lodged a complaint with the Corporation dt.11.04.2017 about his right of way and raised objections for the approval fo the building plan submitted by the defendant Nos.2 and 3. Hence, the suit.

3.The 1st defendant filed written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that originally the property purchased by Smt. Dhana

Lakshmi W/O Panachand Narasana on 13.06.1966 from Palapu Appa Rao and others in an extent of Ac.2.00 cents of land in R S No.283/1 of Pidimgoyya panchayat and subsequently it was merged into Rajamahendravaram

Municipal Corporation. Her children got partitioned the schedule property on 20.02.1995. During his life time, Mahendra Kumar Panachand Narasana made a proposal for forming of the roads, for that the co-sharers agreed, negotiations took place and all the co-shares approached Sri Kelam Srinivasa

Rao, who is western side land owner and requested him to give to give a way through his land for their ingress and egress to reach Somalamma puntha road. Sri Kelam Snrinivasa rao, asked 1st defendant and others to sell part of the property to him a s per market value, for that all the co-sharers agreed.

The father of the plaintiff has passed away on 22.04.2006. All the co-shares agreed to leave 15 feet width of road in their property and agreed to farm 30 feet road and the same was connected through the land of the Sri Kelam 6

Srinivasa Rao to reach the Somalamma puntha road for that ll the co-sharers including the plaintiff agreed for that proposal. Subsequently plaintiff approached this defendant and demanded him to sell the property to him pertaining to his share in the partition deed dt.20.02.1995 and also property covered under gift deed dt.30.05.2008. This defendant informed the agreement in between the Co-sharers and Sri Kelam Srinivasa Rao. Plaintiff bore grudge and did not cooperate with this defendant for forming roads and filed this case.

(ii) The father of the plaintiff during his life time agreed with regard to forming of roads along with co-shares and after his demise, the plaintiff also agreed for forming of roads. If the contention of the plaintiff is true with regard to the recitals of gift deed dt.30.05.2008 a duty casts upon the plaintiff also to leave similar width of site form the schedule property. Even the gift deed dt.30.05.2008 in regard to path way , further northern side share owners of the partition did not say that in which direction the path way has to be left except stating that to the property of the donor path way has to be given to the northern side owners. Honouring the same, 15 feet width of site towards North to the property covered under the gift deed dt.30.05.2008 for the purpose of road and accordingly the plaintiff also set a path way the similar extent of site in his property towards his site for the total width of 30 feet road. There is a road/passage to the property of the plaintiff in a width of 30 feet towards his west for his ingress and egress and for beneficial enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of the plaintiff.

(iii) Some of the co-sharers sold their lands to 3rd parties after forming the 30 feet roads, which leads to eastern side to western side, those roads were recognised by the Municipal Corporation, as they paid L.R.S to the

Municipal Corporation, Rajamahendravaram where as the road formed by the 7 plaintiff and defendants is not recognised as the plaintiff wantonly did not pay the LRS fee to the Municipal Corporation. Plaintiff suppressed all these facts and came to the court with unclean hands. By reserving his right to file

additional written statement as and when new facts come into light, the 1st

defendant pays to dismiss the suit.

3(a). The 2nd defendant filed separate written statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that in the year 2005 the father of the plaintiff, 1st defendant and other co-shares approached him and shown a proposed plan with regard to forming of roads from eastern side to western side to reach Somalamma puntha road and this defendant agreed to form 30 feet road in his site on a condition that they have to sell part of their land to this defendant, as per market value. After demise of the father of the plaintiff on 22.04.2006 plaintiff and co-shares discussed about the forming fo the roads and agreed to leave 15 feet width of road int heir property and agreed to farm 30 feet road and the same was connected through the lands of this defendant.

(ii) In the year 2009 Government of A.P. introduced L.R.s scheme, the plaintiff and other co-shares paid the remaining balance to the Municipal

Corporation, Rajamahendravaram and they laid cement roads from eastern side to western side through the land of this defendant, whereas the plaintiff did not pay the remaining balance for forming of roads. This defendant came to know through the 1st defendant that he plaintiff demanded the 1st defendant to sell his property to him for that the 1st defendant did not agree and on that the plaintiff bore grudge and did not cooperate with this defendant for farming of roads and filed this suit for wrongful gain.

(iii) This defendant purchased some property from the 1st defendant and due to grudge the plaintiff filed this suit and infact there is road/passage to the plaintiff for his ingress and egress to reach the 8

Somalamma road, if that be so, the plaintiff has no right to demand the defendants to leave 40 feet road for his ingress and egress to reach the southern side road. The width of Somalamma puntha road is more than 60 feet road. By reserving his right to file additional written statement as and when new facts come into light, the 2nd defendant pays to dismiss the suit.

3(b) The 3rd defendant filed written statement separately denying the plaint averments and submitted that the suit is liable to be rejected for the reason that the defendant had suppressed several material facts, particularly, all the relevant topographical features on ground and around the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of declaration. This defendant is not a proper and necessary party for filing the suit seeking relief of mandatory injunction in respect of 40 feet width way. The pleadings of the plaintiff are baseless and vexatious. This defendant has every right to deal with the property purchased by him which is forming part of the western most part of the site corresponding EFGH of the plaint plan and plaintiff cannot interdict such enjoyment. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the suit.

3(c).The defendant Nos.4 and 5 adopted the written statement filed by the 3rd defendant by way of filing a memo.

4.Basing on the pleading of both parties, the following issues are framed by the then Presiding Officer :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of right to way to the plaint schedule property through EFGH property of the defendants as prayed for ?

9

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory injunction directing the defendants to leave 40 feet wide way in EFGH property on the East (shown as IJKL in plaint plan_) or any side as prayed for ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men etc., from making any constructions in EFGH property without leaving land/site for ingress and egress to the plaint schedule property of plaintiff ?

4. Whether there is cause of action for filing this suit ?

5. To what relief

5.During trial, the plaintiff herself is examined as P.W.1. Exs.A1 to

A25 are marked.

6(a). At the stage, both counsels represented that the matter is going to be compromised. Terms of compromise are filed and the record is sent to mediation.

6.Smt.N.Sree Lakshmi, Co-ordinator cum Secretary, District Legal

Services Authority, District Mediation Centre East Godavari,

Rajamahendravaram sent letter to this court along with Annexure-II stating that the mediation was done by the mediator Smt. K.Bhagya Lakshmi in O.S

No.68/2017.

6(a).Before the mediators, both parties settled their dispute and arrived to the following terms :

MEMORANDUM OF RECONCILIATION UNDER SECTION 89 C.P.C R/W

RULE 336 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

AND CIVIL PROCEDURE MEDIATION RULES 2006 :

10

The aforesaid suit was referred to Mediation for resolving the dispute between the parties. In Mediation Center, they have resolved their dispute and agreed the following terms and conditions :

1. Originally, the western side road, which is a private road formed by the 2nd defendant and his family members is a 30 feet road which reaches Somalamma Punta Road. The 2nd defendant agreed that the plaintiff has a right to enjoy and pass through the said 30 feet road situated on the west, connecting the plaint schedule property to Somalamma punta road, which is situated on the western side of the properties of both plaintiff and the 2nd defendant and his family members.

2. The 2nd defendant (Kelam Srinivasa Rao) confirms and declares that the 2nd defendant, his agents, privies or anyone claiming through him either in the present or in future, will not cause any obstruction or interference to the plaintiff or his successors in interest in passing through the 30 feet wide road connecting to Somalamma punta road, which si situated on the west.

3. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant declare that the L.R.S plan approved by the MunicipalCorporation,RajahmundryvideApproval No.LRS2020/EG/RJY/Mo12/12377 and issued to the plaintiff shows the road mentioned as a common municipal road and neither the plaintiff nor the 2nd defendant have any exclusive or independent right over the same. Both the plaintiff, his successors-in-interest shall enjoy the same with absolute rights without any interference or hindrance from any person or persons.

4. The plaintiff agrees that since the 2nd defendant has agreed to declare and undertake not to prevent the plaintiff and his successors-in-interest from passing through and using the 30 feet wide road connecting to Somalamma punta Road on the western side of his property, the plaintiff agrees to give up his right of claiming passage or way through the properties of defendants 1, 4 and 5 to reach the Morampudi road situated on the Southern side of the plaint schedule property.

5. Whereas the 2nd defendant is entitled to reimbursement in resect of the road provided to the plaintiff through his site to reach Somalamma punta road from the properties of defendants 4 and 5, which forms part of his own land.

6. Whereas the plaintiff has a right to pass through the 30 feet road of the 2nd defendant to reach Somalamma punta road and neither the plaintiff nor his successors-in-interest 11 have any right to claim a way on the southern side through the properties of defendants of defendants 4 and 5 as the 2nd defendant has agreed to provide the said 30 feet road on the western side of the plaintiff’s property to reach Somalamma punta Road.

7. Whereas the 3rd defendant is in no way concerned with the pathway of the plaintiff.

8. A detailed sketch depicting the right of way to be provided to the plaintiff, as agreed by the parties, is enclosed to these terms of compromise.

8.After receipt of mediation report both counsels are present and heard regarding the mediation. Both parties appeared before the court and they agreed the terms and conditions what they have settled as in mediation report and their signatures on the memorandum of understanding.

9.The claim of the plaintiff for right to pass through 30 feet road approved by the Municipal Corporation is settled, in view of the terms arrived at before the Mediator on 16.04.2026, the suit is dismissed.

10.In the result, the suit is dismissed. Considering the facts of the case, no costs are awarded.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 08th day of May 2026.

Sd/-S.Uma Sunanda

X Addl.District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff :

P.W.1 : Harendra mahendra Narsana.

For defendants :

None.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff :

Ex.A1 :Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, bearing No.2292/66 standing in the name of Dhanalakshmi Panchand, dt. 13.06.1966.

Ex.A2 :Certified copy of Registered partition Deed bearing No.4427/95 between Dhanalakshmi Panchand and others, Dt.20.02.1995.

Ex.A3 :Original Un-registered will executed by Mahendra Kumar Panchand, Dt.23.08.2000.

Ex.A4Original Death Certificate of Mahendra Kumar Panchand Narsana, Dt.17.05.2006.

Ex.A5:Affidavit of Muktha Gowri, no objection relating to Will, Dt.25.06.2006. Ex.A6:Affidavit of Gayatri B Shah, no objection relating to Will, Dt.25.06.2006.

Ex.A7:Affidavit of Kalpana Hemendra, no objection relating to Will, Dt.30.06.2006.

Ex.A8:Affidavit of Gita B Shah, no objection relating to Will, Dt.08.07.2006.

Ex.A9:Affidavit of Dimple R Shah, no objection relating to Will, Dt.10.07.2006.

Ex.A10:Certified copy (Mee Seva Centre) of Registered Gift Deed bearing No.3317/2008 standing in the name of D1 executed by Dhanalakshmi Panchand Narsana, Dt.30.05.2008. (Subject to Object by Defendant counsel) .

13

Ex.A11:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, bearing No.1375/2013 executed by D1 in favour of Mallidi Venkata Krishna Reddy, Dt.02.03.2013.

Ex.A12:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, bearing No. 1376/2013 executed by D1 in favour of Mallidi Sunitha, Dt.02.03.2013.

Ex.A13:Certified copy of Registered Sale Deed, bearing No. 1377/2013 executed by D1 in favour of Cheedella Nagamani, Dt.02.03.2013.

Ex.A14:Certified copy of Registered Sale Agreement cum General Power of Attorney, bearing No.2180/2013 executed by D1 in favour of Allu Satya Prasad Bapuji, Dt.25.03.2013.

Ex.A15:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed, bearing No.4457/2014 executed by Narasana Laxmi, W/o Jithendra Kumar Narsana and others in favour of Podipireddy Ravi Babu, Dt.15.04.2014.

Ex.A16:Certified copy (Mee Seva Centre) of Registered Sale deed bearing No.4458/2014 executed by Narasana Laxmi, W/o Jithendra Kumar Narsana and others in favour of Somu Venkata Ramana Murthy, Dt.15.04.2014. (Subject to Object by Defendant counsel) .

Ex.A17:Certified copy (Mee Seva Centre) of Registered Sale deed bearing No.4459/2014 executed by Narasana Laxmi, W/o Jithendra Kumar Narsana and others in favour of Kelam Bhavani. Dt.15.04.2014 (Subject to Object by Defendant counsel).

Ex.A18:Certified copy of Registered Sale Agreement cum General Power of Attorney, bearing No.2743/2015 executed by D1 in favour of D2. Dt.12.03.2015.

Ex.A19:Certified copy (Mee Seva Centre) of Registered Sale deed bearing No.3511/2015 executed by D2 in favour of D3. Dt.30.03.2015. (Subject to Object by Defendant counsel).

Ex.A20:Original VLT Receipt issued by Municipal Corporation, Rajamahendravaram to the plaintiff, Dt.21.09.2016.

Ex.A21:Certified copy of Registered Sale Agreement cum General Power of Attorney, bearing No.1933/2016 executed by D1 in favour of D2. Dt.23.02.2016.

14

Ex.A22:Certified copy of Registered Sale deed bearing No.2753/2017 executed by D2 in favour of D3. Dt.30.03.2017.

Ex.A23:Original Valuation Certificate issued by Sub Registrar, Rajamahendravaram for the property RS No.283/1P. Dt.10.04.2017.

Ex.A24:Complaint copy submitted by the Plaintiff to the Municipal Corporation,RajamahendravaramagainstDefendants. Dt.11.04.2017.` Ex.P25:Postal Acknowledgment, Dt.13.04.2017.

For Defendant : Nil.

Sd/-S.Uma Sunanda

X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

- // True Copy // -

1 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

APEG010011632020

Presented on : 03-02-2020 Registered on : 04-02-2020 Decided on : 12-05-2026 Duration : 6 years, 3 months, 9 days

Calendar

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At

Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Uma Sunanda

Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act – Cum-

X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Tuesday, the 12th day of May, 2026.

SC ST SC No.19 of 2020

(Cr.No. 280/2019 of Kothapeta Police Station)

Name of the complainant : State represented by – Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-2, E.G.District, Kakinada..

Prosecution conducted by : Special Public Prosecutor.

Name of the accused : Rayudu Sreenivas, S/o.Babji, Age 47 years, C/Settibalija, D.No.12-8, Koppsettivari veedhi, Kothapeta village and Mandal.

Accused defended by : Sri.T.M.K.Sarma, Advocate for Accused

Date of offence : 30.11.2019

Report/Complaint : 07-12-2019

Apprehension of Accused : 41-A Cr.P.C. notice is served on the accused Committal Order : --

Commencement of trial : 18.02.2026

Close of trial : 19-02-2026 2 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

Sentence or Order : 12-05-2026

Explanation for delay and remarks: Cognizance of the case is taken on 04.02.2020 and Accused appeared on 20-03-2020. Charges framed on 10.07.2025. Trial in this case was commenced on 18-02-2026 and closed on 20.02.2026. Arguments are heard and Judgment was pronounced on 12.05.2026. Hence, there is no avoidable delay in this case.

Offences charged : U/Sec. 506 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016) Plea of the accused : Not guilty. Finding of the Judge : NOT GUILTY Sentence or order :

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Secs.506 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016). Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437(A) Cr.P.C. No property is produced before the court.

Sd/- S.Uma Sunanda

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act, 1989 cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Copies submitted to

The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.) High Court of A.P. Nelapadu, Amaravathi.

// True copy // 3 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

FORM-A [Rule 67(1) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At

Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Uma Sunanda

Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act – Cum-

X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Tuesday, the 12th day of May, 2026.

SC ST SC No.19 of 2020

(Cr.No. 280/2019 of Kothapeta Police Station)

COMPLAINANT :State represented by – Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-2, E.G.District, Kakinada.

REPRESENTED BY :Special Public Prosecutor.

ACCUSED :Rayudu Sreenivas, S/o.Babji, Age 47 years, C/Settibalija, D.No.12-8, Koppsettivari veedhi, Kothapeta village and Mandal.

REPRESENTED BY :Sri.T.M.K.Sarma, Advocate for Accused

FORM-B [Rule 67(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

Date of Offence :30.11.2019 Date of F.I.R :07-12-2019 Date of Charge sheet :04-02-2020 Date of Framing of Charges :10.07.2025 Date of commencement of evidence :18.02.2026 Date on which judgment is reserved :06.05.2026 Date of the Sentencing Order :12.05.2026

Accused Details :

Rank of the Accused:Sole Accused.

4 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

Name of the Accused :Rayudu Sreenivas, S/o.Babji, Age 47 years, C/Settibalija, D.No.12-8, Koppsettivari veedhi, Kothapeta village and Mandal.

Date of Arrest :41-A Cr.P.C. notice served on the Accused

Date of release on bail : ----------

Offences Charged with :U/Sec.506 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016).

Whether acquitted or :Acquitted. convicted

Sentence imposed : --

Period of detention : -- undergone during Trial for purpose of Section 468 of B.N.S.S 2023

This Sessions case is coming on 06.05.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of

Sri.T.M.K.Sarma, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material evidence on record and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-2, E.G.District,

Kakinada has filed the charge sheet for the offences under sections 506 IPC and Sec.3 (1)(r)(s), 3 (2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016) against sole accused in Cr.No.280/2019 of Kothapeta Police Station.

2. The prosecution case in brief is that LW.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao resident of Kothapeta village and he belongs to Mala caste. He cultivating the paddy fields of one Mamidisetti Soma Raju on lease and the said fields are 5 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

located near to the plastic pipes factory of accused at Ballakattu Manyam,

Kothapeta village.

In the 1st Week of June, 2019, accused submitted a representation to the Kothapeta Mandal revenue authorities, so alleging that some of persons encroached the government Puntha road situated in Survey No.336/1 and 339 situated at the outskirts of Kothapeta village and causing obstruction to the traffic and he requested for survey thereby to clear up the encroachments. On that as per instructions of MRO, Kothapeta the LWs.6/Vegulla Venkata Raman and LW.7/Madugula Venkata Shiva (Panchayat secretary and Mandal Deputy surveyor) started survey in the morning of 21.06.2019 at 10.00 am. While the survey is going on the LW.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao, LW.3/Yanamadala

Krishnarjuna, LW.4/Vasamsetti Murali Krishna and LW.5/Appari Srinivas and some of neighbour ryths gathered there and asked the LWs.6/Vegulla Venkata

Raman and LW.7/Madugula Venkata Shiva that who requested for survey.

Then LWs.6/Vegulla Venkata Raman told them that Rayudu Sreenu (accused) submitted representation and some of ryths also signed on it and showed the representation to the LW.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao, LW.3/Yanamadala

Krishnarjuna, LW.4/Vasamsetti Murali Krishna and LW.5/Appari Srinivas. Then

LW.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao, LW.3/Yanamadala Krishnarjuna,

LW.4/Vasamsetti Murali Krishna and LW.5/Appari Srinivas verified the signatures on representation and told that as no one neighbor ryth signed on that representation asked the surveyor to stop the survey. Then the accused demanded for survey on hearing the version of accused, the LW.1/Mulaparthi

Srinivasa Rao asked the surveyor to survey the land on other side of road i.e,

Balla Kattu manyam as originally encroachment taken place there only. Then accused grew wild and abused the LW.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao by touching his caste name “neeku ikkada bhumiledu kada, neeku sambandam emiti mala lanjakodaka”. Then LWs.6/Vegulla Venkata Raman and LW.7/Madugula

Venkata Shiva and LWs.3 to 5 i.e,Yanamadala Krishnarjuna, Vasamsetti 6 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

Murali Krishna, Appari Srinivas admonished the accused as he abused the

LW.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao by touching his caste name and then accused agreed his mistake. Later on the request of neighbour ryths the LWs.6/Vegulla

Venkata Raman and LW.7/Madugula Venkata Shiva stopped and returned.

The matter stood on 30.11.2019 at about 3-00 pm, while the LW.1/Mulaparthi

Srinivasa Rao doing agricultural works at his leasehold along with

LW.2/Dommeti Satyanarayana, the accused came to LW.1/Mulaparthi

Srinivasa Rao and abused him by touching his caste name “MALA LANJA

KODAKA, NEEKU SAMBANDAMLENI VISHAYALLO NUVVENDUKU

KALUGA CHESUKUNTUNNAVU and threatened him with dire consequences.

(ii) On receipt of report from LW.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao on 07-12-2019 at 7-00 PM, LW.11/K.Ramesh, S.I. of Police, Kothapeta Police

Station, registered the above report as a case in Cr. No.280/2019 U/Sec.506 of IPC and Sec. 3 (1)(r) (s), 3 (2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendt. Act-2015 (Act 1/2016).

(iii) Subsequently on 10-12-2019, L.W.12/G.Eliya Sagar, Deputy

Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-2, Kakinada took-up investigation in this case on receipt of orders from the Supdt. of Police, E.G.Dist., Kakinada vide proceedings in C.No. 1452/C3/2019 dt: 07-12-2019. During the course of his investigation, L.W.10/G.Eliya Sagar visited the scene of offence and observed the same, prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence and got prepared scene observation report by the mediators i.e,LW.8/Tirumarthi

Yesayya, VRO, LW.9/Gummadi Suresh, VRA, and got photographed the scene of offence with cell phone and examined the LWs.1 to 7 i.e, Mulaparthi

Srinivasa Rao, Dommeti Satyanarayana, Yanamadala Krishnarjuna,

Vasamsetti Murali Krishna, Appari srinivas, Vegulla Venkata Raman,

Madugula Venkata Shiva and recorded their detailed statements.

7 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

(iv) On 21-12-2019, LW.12/G.Eliya Sagar got served notice to the accused in this case U/Sec.41-A Cr.P.C. On 22-01-2020, the LW.12/G.Eliya

Sagar received caste certificates of both L.W.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao and accused in this case from L.W.10/G.D.Kishore Babu, Tahasildar, Kothapeta who certified that LW.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao belongs to SC Mala community and accused belongs to Settibalija community.

(v) On completion of investigation charge sheet is filed by

L.W.12/G.Eliya Sagar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC & ST Cell-2,

Kakinada.

3. Cognizance of the case was taken for the offences under sections

U/Secs.506 IPC, and Sec.3 (1)(r)(s), 3 (2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused, issued summons to accused. On his appearance, case copies are furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

4. The accused is examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C. Charges under sections 506 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (r)(s), 3 (2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA)

Act-2015 (Act 1/2016) are framed against the accused and read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which, he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined

P.Ws.1 to 4, got marked Exs.P1 to P12 and no material objects are exhibited.

5(a). Out of listed witnesses, L.Ws.1 to 13, L.W.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa

Rao is examined as P.W.1. L.W.3/Yanamadala Krishnarjuna is examined as

P.W.2. LW.4/Vasamsetti Murali Krishna is examined as PW.3. LW.12/G.Eliya

Sagar is examined as PW.4 . The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given 8 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

up the remaining witnesses, as material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

6. After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the

Accused is examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which, he has denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

7. Heard arguments.

The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor has submitted that P.Ws.1 to 3 who are material witnesses did not support the prosecution case and that the

Investigating Officer is examined.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted that except the evidence of the Investigating Officer, there is nothing on record and that the Prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

8. Now the point that arise for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charged offences under section506 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (r)(s), 3 (2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016) beyond all reasonable doubt ?

9. POINT :

“ Whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the charged offences under section 506 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (r)(s), 3 (2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act-2015 (Act 1/2016) beyond all reasonable doubt ?” 9(a). As could be seen from the prosecution case, accused grew wild and intentionally insulted/intimidated LW.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao with intent to humiliate knowing fully-well as he belongs to Mala community and 9 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

abused him by touching caste name in a public view and hence committed the charged offences.

10.To prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. PW.2 and 3 are the eye witnesses. PW.4 is the

Investigating officer.P.W.1/Mulaparthi Srinivasa Raowho set the law into motion by giving report to police against the accused, has deposed that he know the accused and he do not know anything about this case. Few years back, the surveyor was measuring the government lands of PW.1 village and

PW.1 was working in the field nearby and at that time police took his signature on white paper. He never gave any complaint against the accused threatened

PW.1 and abused him by touching his caste name. As P.W.1 resiled from his earlier version, he was cross examined by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C is marked as Ex.P2.

11. P.W.2/Yanamadala Krishnarjuna also deposed in the same lines as that of P.W.1 that he know the accused and he does not know anything about this case. As P.W.2 also resiled from his earlier version, he was also cross examined by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P3.

12. P.W.3/Vasamsetti Murali Krishna also deposed in the same lines as that of P.W.1 that he know the accused and he does not know anything about this case. As P.W.3 also resiled from his earlier version, he was also cross examined by the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P4.

(ii).Thus, PWs.1 to 3 who are material witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution. Nothing material is elicited during their cross examination in support of the prosecution case.

10 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

13.Now, coming to the evidence of the Investigating Officer i.e.,

PW.4/K.Ramesh, SI of police, Bommuru, at the relevant time of this case he worked as Inspector of police, Kothapeta PS deposed that on 07-12-2019, at about 7-00 pm, basing on the typed report of PW.1 under Ex.P5, he registered a case in Cr.No.280/2019, under sec.506 of IPC and sec. 3 (1)(r)(s), 3 (2)(va) of SCs & STS (POA) Act under Ex.P6 on 07-12-2019.

PW.4/K.Ramesh, further deposed that on 10-12-2019, LW.12/G.Eliya

Sagar, Dy.Superintendent of Police SC & ST Cell-2, E.G.District, took up investigation in this case, as per the proceedings under Ex.P7 and on the same day, he along with mediators LW.8/T.Yesayya, VRO, Kothapeta,

LW.9/G.Suresh, VRA, Kothapeta and staff visited scene of offence which is fields of M.Soma Raju and examined PW.1 and recorded his statement. He observed the scene of offence and got prepared scene observation report through mediators under Ex.P8. LW.12/G.Eliya Sagar, prepared rough sketch and took photos with service camera as in Ex.P9 and P10. There

LW.12/G.Eliya Sagar examined LW.2/D.Satyanarayana, PW.2, PW.3 and

LW.5/A.Srinivas respectively and recorded their statements. On 18-12-2019,

LW.12/G.Eliya Sagar secured the presence of LW.6/V.Venkata Ramana,

LW.7/M.Venkata Shiva examined them and recorded their statements. On 21-12-2019, LW.12/G.Eliya Sagar issued notice to accused under section 41-

A Cr.P.C. On 22-01-2020, LW.12/G.Eliya Sagar collected caste certificates of

PW.1 and the accused. According to Ex.P11, the PW.1 belongs to SC Mala community and as per Ex.P12, accused belongs to BC settibalija community.

After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

13 (a). Except giving suggestions, nothing is elicited from the

Investigating Officer during the cross examination. However, his evidence reflects the procedure adopted for completion of investigation and not much helpful to the case of the prosecution to prove the charged offences against

Accused.

11 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

14. In the present case, no iota of evidence is adduced before the court to prove the charged offences against the accused. The defacto complainant/PW.1 deposed that he has not lodged any report against the accused. Witness also did not support the prosecution case. It is settled Law that any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused. From the foregoing discussion, this court holds that the prosecution failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charged offences and accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt. Hence,acquitted. Point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences

U/Secs.506 of IPC and Sec.3 (1) (r) (s), 3 (2)(Va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act- 2015 (Act 1/2016). Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of six months under section 437(A) Cr.P.C. No property is produced before the court.

Typed to dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 12th day of May, 2026.

UMASUNANDDigitally signed by

UMASUNANDA

A

SENAGARAPU

Date: 2026.05.12

SENAGARAPU

17:43:06 +05'30' Spl. Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act - cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Form-c [Rule 67(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice]

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES.

A. Prosecution 12 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

RANK NATURE OF EVIDENCE

P.W.1 :Mulaparthi Srinivasa Rao- Defacto complainant. P.W.2 :Yanamadala Krishnarjuna- Eye witness P.W.3 : Vasamsetti Murali krishna- Eye Witness

P.W.4K.Ramesh- Investigating Officer

B. Defence Witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

C. Court witnesses, if any :

RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE

Nil.

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS [Rule 67(3)]

A. Prosecution :

Sr. Exhibit Description No. Number

1.Ex.P1 :Signature of PW.1 on report dated 07-12-2019 2Ex.P2 :Statement of P.W.1 under section 161 Cr.P.C.

3.Ex.P3 :Statement of P.W.2 under section 161 Cr.P.C

4.Ex.P4 :Statement of P.W.3 under section 161 Cr.P.C

5.Ex.P5 :Typed report of PW.1

6.Ex.P6 :First Information Report.

7.Ex.P7 :Proceedings of Superintendent of Police, E.G.Dt, Kakinada

8.Ex.P8 :Scene observation report.

9.Ex.P9 :Rough sketch

10.Ex.P10 :Photos (4 in number) along with CD

11.Ex.P11 :Caste certificate of PW.1

12.Ex.P12 :Caste certificate of accused

B.Defence : Sr.No.Exhibit Description Number 13 Fair order copy SC ST SC 19/2020

Dated 12-05-2026

NIL. C.Court Exhibits :

Sr.No.Exhibit NumberDescription

NIL.

D.Material Objects :

Sr.No.Material ObjectDescription Number NIL.

Sd/- Smt.S.uma Sunanda

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act - cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

//True copy //

// True copy//

1 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026

In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts

(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At

Rajamahendravaram.

PRESENT: Smt.S.Uma Sunanada

Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act

– Cum- X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram

Thursday, the 07th day of May, 2026

Criminal Appeal No.157/2023

`

From which court the appeal is:VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of preferredFirst Class Court, Rajamahendravaram.

Number of the case in that Court:C.C.No.3030/2019

Name of the complainant in trial court:Penumaka Sathibabu, S/O Tata Rao, Hindu, Aged 49 years, Nursery man, R/O Kadiyapulanka village, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G.Dt.

Name of the accused in trial court:Varagogula Satyanarayana, S/O Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged 48 years, Business, R/o Kadiyapu Savaram village, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G.District.

Date of Disposal before trial court:10.03.2023

Number of the Appeal:C.A.No.157/2023

Name and Description of the Appellant/Accused : Varagogula Satyanarayana, S/O Rama Rao, Hindu, Aged 48 years, Business, R/o Kadiyapu Savaram village, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G.District.

Name and description of the Respondent/Complainant : Penumaka Sathibabu, S/O Tata Rao, Hindu, Aged 49 years, Nursery man, R/O Kadiyapulanka village, Kadiyam Mandal, E.G.Dt.

2 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026

Section of Law under which the Trial court imposed conviction and sentence :-

The accused was found guilty for the offence under section 138 of The Negotiable Instruments Act. Accordingly, the accused is convicted under section 255(2) Criminal Procedure Code and the accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period one (1) year for the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and further the accused is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) towards compensation within two (2) months from the date of the Judgment. In default of payment of compensation, accused shall under simple imprisonment for two(2) months.

Whether Judgment of the lower court is : MODIFIED allowed/confirmed/modified/reversed.

Particulars : Date of presentation :29.03.2023

Date of filing :29.03.2023

Notice issued by the Court :31.03.2023

Appellant ordered to appear :01.05.2023

Date of hearing :30.03.2026

Date of Judgment :07.05.2026

This appeal came before me on 30.03.2026 for final hearing in the presence of Sri K.Suneel Lionel, Sri R.Radha Krishna, Advocate for the Appellant/Accused and Sri B.Sada Siva Rao, Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant and upon perusing the material available on record upon hearing the case and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused under

Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the conviction and sentence

dated 10.03.2023 made in C.C.No.3030/2019, by the VII Additional Judicial

Magistrate of First Class Court, Rajamahendravaram wherein, the accused was

3 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026 found guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

He was convicted under section 255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of one (1) year and in addition to imprisonment, the trial court directed the accused to pay a fine of

Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) as compensation to the complainant within two (2) months from the date of this Judgment. In default of payment of compensation amount, accused is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two (2) months.

The parties to this appeal would be herein after referred to as arrayed in C.C.No.3030/2019 before the learned trial court i.e., VII Additional

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Rajamahendravaram for the sake of

convenience. The appellant herein is the accused and the respondent herein is the Complainant before the learned trial court.

2.The case of the complainant in brief is that,on 16.06.2016 the accused availed hand loan from the complainant for a tune of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of cheque No.728478 drawn on (Canara Bank, Kadiyam ) Inspite of repeated demands, accused failed to repay the loan amount. Finally on 11.02.2019 accused approached the complainant and issued cheque bearing

No.000017 dt.11.02.2019 in favour of the complainant for an amount of

Rs.5,00,000/- towards discharge of the loan amount drawn on Karuru Vysya

Bank Limited Kadiyam. On the same day i.e., 11.02.2019, the complainant presented the cheque for collection through his banker- Andhra Bank Kadiyam but the said cheque was returned unpaid and dishonoured by the banker on 12.02.2019, for insufficient funds. The complainant got issued a legal notice on 27.02.2019, demanding him for payment of the cheque amount and the same was received by the accused on 28.02.2019. But the accused neither gave any reply nor paid any amount. Hence, the complaint.

4 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026 3.The learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram took the cognizance of the case for the offence under

Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the accused and issued summons to the accused. On appearance of the accused, the copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.Before the trial court, the accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C and the substance of accusation under section 138 of Negotiable

Instruments Act was read over and explained to him in Telugu language for which he has denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P6.

6. P.W.1 reiterated the complaint averments in his chief examination affidavit. Further, complainant’s statement of account pertaining to Canara

Bank was marked as Ex.P1. Original cheque bearing No.000017 dt.11.02.2019, for Rs.5,00,000/- drawn on Karur Vysya Bank, Kadiyam branch issued by the accused to the complainant is marked as Ex.P2. Cheque return memo by Andhra bank, Kadiyam branch dt.12.02.2019 is marked as Ex.P3.

Office copy of the registered legal notice dt.27.02.2019 is marked as Ex.P4, postal receipt dt.27.02.2019 is marked as Ex.P5, Postal acknowledgment from the accused dt.28.02.2019 is marked as Ex.P6.

6(a).During cross examination, P.W.1 denied the suggestion that accused is his relative but admitted that he know the accused since 30 years.

He denied the suggestion that by the year 2019, the accused had nursery garden. He pleaded ignorance whether the accused had a land for an extent of 5 acres in front of Kadiyam police station. He denied the suggestion that he transferred an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- by purchasing plants from the accused 5 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026 on the scheme of Jagananna plantation of plants. He deposed that he transferred the amount to the accused by way of cheque without taking any documents. He denied the suggestion that accused issued cheque for the purpose of bank loan to a bank agent and he obtained the said bank cheque of the accused from the said agent. Further, accused need not repay the amounts since he issued Ex.P2 cheque to a bank agent and that Ex.P2 is not an enforceable document.

7.After the closure of the complainant side evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the complainant witnesses was read over and explained him in Telugu and he denied the same and reported NO defence evidence.

8. After hearing the arguments of both sides and considering the material on record, the learned VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Rajamahendravaram has found the accused guilty for the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and accordingly, convicted the accused under

Section 255(2) Cr.P.C as stated above.

9.Aggrieved by the calendar and the Judgment of the Trial court, the accused has preferred the present appeal and his grounds to prefer the appeal are as follows:-

(i) The Judgment of the lower court is against the law, weight of evidence and the probabilities of the case.

(ii) The trial court ought grossly erred in convicting the appellant.

(iii) The trial court erred in coming to a conclusion basing on the evidence of P.W.1 only and even though there was no corroboration for the evidence of P.W.1.

6 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026

(iv) The trial court erred in convicting the accused though there was no subsisting valid and reasonable debt basing on Ex.P2 cheque.

(v) The trial court erred in not taking into consideration of the plea of the accused that the cheque is issued as security for the plants purchased for

Jagananna plantation of plants scheme to the bank agent and the case is filed for wrongful gain.

(vi) The trial court failed to see that the explanation required tobe given under section 351 Cr.P.C is to be given and the lower court ought to have given reasons for not extending the benefits to section 360 Cr.P.C in the absence of such reasoning in the judgment.

It is prayed to allow this appeal and set aside the Judgment of the trial court and acquit the accused.

11. Heard both sides.

12. Now the point for determination is, Whether the sentence passed by the trial court is factually and legally sustainable or not?

13.The case of the complainant/P.W.1 is that the accused borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) from the complainant on 16.06.2016 by way of cheque No.728478 drawn in Canara Bank, Kadiyam.

After repeated demands, the accused issued cheque under Ex.P2 bearing

No.000017 for Rs.5,00,000 dt.11.02.2019 drawn on Karuru Vysya Bank

Limited, Kadiyam for the discharge of the said loan amount. When the complainant presented the cheque on 11.02.2019 for collection, the said cheque was returned under Ex.P3 due to insufficient funds. The complainant has got issued a registered legal notice to the accused as in Ex.P4 under postal receipt Ex.P5. The accused received the notice under Ex.P6 acknowledgment.

Then, the complainant preferred the present complaint.

7 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026

14.During arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter was placed before elders for settlement and the accused is demanding Rs.20,00,000/- The cheque amount is only Rs.5,00,000/- and trial court gave compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- It is further submitted that he is ready to pay cheque amount with interest as directed by the Court and he relied on the citation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in between Sanjabijtari vs. Kishore S.Borcar & another 1 in Crl. Appeal No.1755 of 2020 wherein it is observed that “ pendency of cheque bouncing cases under NI Act in District Courts and major metropolitan cities of India continues to be staggeringly high.

Xxxxx

Admittedly the offence under section 138 of NI Act is quasi-criminal in character and is compoundable.

xxxxx

The relevant portion of the guidelines for compounding offences under the NI Act in

Damoda S.Prabhu vs. Sayed Babala H.2 are reiterated and finally the said guidelines are modified as under :-

(a) If the accused pays the cheque amount before recording of his evidence (namely defence evidence), then the Trial Court may allow compounding of the offence without imposing any cost or penalty on the accused.

(b) If the accused makes the payment of the cheque amount post the recording of his evidence but prior to the pronouncement of judgment by the Trial Court, the Magistrate may allow compounding of the offence on payment of additional 5% of the cheque amount with the Legal Services Authority or such other Authority as the Court deems fit.

(c) Similarly, if the payment of cheque amount is made before the

Sessions Court or a High Court in Revision or Appeal, such Court may

12025 LiveLaw (SC) 952 2 (2010) 5 SCC 663 8 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026 compound the offence on the condition that the accused pays 7.5% of the cheque amount by way of costs.

(d) Finally, if the cheque amount is tendered before this Court, the figure would increase to 10% of the cheque amount.

15.The contention of the appellant is that he has not taken any hand loan and the cheque was given to a loan agent to obtain bank loan. It was mis-used. Further, the accused purchased plants in a government scheme.

He is ready to pay the cheque amount with interest as may be directed by the court. On the other hand, the case of the respondent, as per the record is that the signature on the Ex.P2 cheque was admitted by the complainant. Due to faith in the accused, the complainant has not obtained any security. The oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence clearly prove his contention.

The pleas taken by the appellant are all false. The complainant/respondent has discharged his burden, which was not rebutted by the appellant. It is prayed to dismiss the appeal.

16.With due respect to the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra this court without going into merits and as the appellant is ready to pay the compensation amount, this court is inclined to dispose of the appeal by modifying the sentence passed by the trial court.

(ii) In this context this court relies on the verdict of the Hon’ble

Karnataka Court in Sri Narasimha Murthy v. Sri M.M.Fabs and Tools

decided on November 27, 2019 wherein it is held that “ on a close reading of section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, it indicates that the Court can punish with imprisonment for a term which may extend for a period of two years or with a fine which may extend twice the amount of the cheque or with both. The word used may itself indicates that discretionary power to be exercised, to meet the ends of justice. The main object of the Negotiable Instruments Act is when once a 9 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026 loan has been given and if it is not been returned, then under such circumstances, the complainant will be put to loss and a reasonable compensation has to be granted in this behalf for having used the fund of the complainant. But however, while exercising the discretion, the court has to keep in mind various factors including the act of the accused. ”

The above judgment was modified and interest @ 9% p.a. was given for the delayed period during trial before the trial court and also appellate courts.

17.In view of the above discussion and the citations referred supra, the object of the provision being primarily compensatory, punitive element being mainly with the object of enforcing the compensatory element, compounding at the initial stage has to be encouraged but is not debarred at later stage subject to appropriate compensation as may be found acceptable to the parties or the court. Moreover over, it is settled law that the Negotiable

Instruments Act is aimed at relief of the Negotiable Instrument bearer rather than penalising the accused. Hence, this court is inclined to take into consideration the request of the appellant to pay the cheque amount with interest to the respondent/complainant. Point is answered accordingly.

18.In the result, the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/accused is partly allowed by set asiding the sentence of imprisonment dt.10.03.2023 passed by the trial court against the accused in C.C.No.3030/2019. Instead of payment of compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- the accused i.e., the appellant hereby is directed to pay cheque amount of Rs.5,00,000/- with interest at 9% from the date of the transaction i.e., 16.06.2016 till the date of this Judgment which comes to Rs.9,45,125/- within two (2) months from the date of Judgment, failing which the appellant shall under go RI for a period of six (6) months.

Calculation :

Principal (Cheque) Amount is …. Rs.5,00,000/-

Period is from …..16.6.2016 till 7.5.2026 i.e., 9 years, 10 months and 21 days. Interest @ 9% on Rs.5,00,000/- comes to Rs.45,000/- per annum.

10 C.A.No.157/2023 Dt.7.5.2026

For 9 years (9x45000) .… Rs.4,05,000/- For 10 months (Rs.45,000/12=Rs.3750/- p. m) Rs.3750 x 10 months ...Rs.37500/- For 21 days : Rs.3750/30 = Rs.125/- per day ; Rs.125 x 21 days … Rs.2625/- Total Amount comes to Rs.9,45,125/- (Rs.5,00,000 + Rs.4,05,000 + Rs.37500 + Rs.2625 )

Office is directed to return the amount to the complainant with accrued interest as and when the complainant approaches under due procedure of law. No costs are given in the circumstances of the case.

Typed to dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 07th day of May 2026.

Sd/-S.Uma Sunanda

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act - cum- X Judge.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

Nil.

Sd/-S.Uma Sunanda

Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act - cum- X Judge.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.

Copy to : - The VII Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class Court, Rajamahendravaram.

-// True Copy //-