Sri.Samba Siva Rao Naidu

SC 419 of 2009 1

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT L B NAGAR : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com., LL.M.,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Monday, the 23 rd day of January, 2012

SC No. 419 / 2009

1 P.R.C. No. : 41-2009 2 Name of the Complainant : P.S. Neredmet 3 Name of the accused:

1. Majjiga Ramchander @ Ramesh, S/o. Ramulu, Aged: 30 yrs, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Pvt., Employee, R/o. 12-1-669/14, Shantinagar, North Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

4. Crime No. : 120-2009

5. Offence : U/Sec 304 B IPC

6. Prosecution conducted by : Sri. Md. Muktar

7. Accused defended by : Shabbir Hussain

8. Case Committed by : X Metropolitan Magistrate Malkajgiri.

9. Finding of the court : Found guilty

10. Sentence of Order : In the result I found the accused guilty for the offence u/s 304 B IPC, accordingly he is convicted u/s 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

This Sessions case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd. Muktar, Addl. P.P. and of Sri. Shabbir Hussain

Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day the court delivered the following:-

SC 419 of 2009 2

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a case filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Malkajgiri division against the accused with an allegation that he has committed an offence punishable u/s 304 B of IPC. The following is the brief case of the police, as per the charge sheet.

02.The accused Majjiga Ramachander is a resident of Laliguda. The deceased Smt. Kavitha is the daughter of PW1 and 2, and wife of the accused herein. She was married to the accused on 18-4-2008. PWs 1 and 2 have performed the marriage of their daughter with the accused by agreeing to pay an amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- towards dowry and out of the said amount they have paid Rs.1,30,000/- and agreed to pay the balance subsequently. Soon after the marriage the deceased joined the accused and the couple led happy life for few days. Thereafter the accused started harassing his wife to get the balance dowry from her parents. It was informed to PW2, thereby he along with others approached the accused and requested him not to harass the deceased. But there was no change in the attitude of the accused and he started assaulting the deceased physically.

Therefore she went to her parent’s house. The accused approached her and threatened her and also her father to arrange the balance dowry amount otherwise he will kill her. The deceased was unable to bear the harassment, thereby on 8-4-2009 she committed suicide by setting herself ablaze. She was admitted to Gandhi Hospital, but succumbed to burns on 9-4-2009.

03.On the same day i.e. 9-4-2009 at about 2-30 PM, the father of the deceased PW1 herein has presented a report to the police and informed the police that the accused used to harass her daughter for the balance dowry amount and during her absence her daughter committed suicide due to the said harassment and sought the intervention of the police.

SC 419 of 2009 3

04.The said report was registered as a case in Cr. No. 120/2009

U/S 304 B of IPC. It appears that, before the said report on 8-4-2009 the police have received information from the hospital about the admission of the deceased to the hospital, and they filed a requisition before the IV

Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad with a request to record the

statement of the deceased. Accordingly the learned Magistrate has recorded the statement of the deceased at the hospital. The prosecution has further alleged that PW6 who has conducted the investigation of this case, has visited the scene of offence and conducted a Panchanama in the presence of

LW 6 and 7 namely Taraka Srinivas and Tangallapalli Balachary. He has obtained the photographs of the scene of offence with the help of LW 6 namely Ch. Ashok. He has issued a requisition to PW 4 i.e. the then

Tahsildar, Malkajgiri to conduct inquest on the dead body of the deceased.

Accordingly PW 4 has visited the Hospital and held inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW 7 Balachary and LW 9 Smt. G.

Yadalaxmi. After the said inquest the dead body was referred for postmortem and PW 3 conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died of shock due to burns. During the course of investigation, PW 6 has examined PW 1, 2 and LWs 2, 3 4 namely M. Yadagiri, M. Chandrakala, M. Narasimha and recorded their statements. The accused was arrested on 17-4-2009 and was sent to

Judicial custody. After completing the investigation PW 6 has filed charge sheet against the accused.

05.The said charge sheet was registered as PRC No.41 of 2009 on the file of X Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri.

Since the offence punishable u/s 304 B IPC is exclusively triable by the

Sessions Court, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy where it was registered as S.C.

419 of 2009 and later transferred to this court for trial.

SC 419 of 2009 4

06.The accused has appeared before this court, he was examined and a charge u/s 304 B of IPC has been framed against the accused. He has denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. Schedule of this case was fixed from 30-3-2011, but the prosecution did not produce its witnesses till 20-6-2011 in spite of repeated issue of summons and fixing the schedule from time to time. PW 1 and 2 were examined on 20-6-2011 and again there was no response from the police. They did not even try to produce the

Magistrate who has recorded the statement of the deceased, thereby I have

issued summons through ACP Malkajgiri. PW 3 is examined on 5-8-2011,

PWs 4 and 5 are examined on 25-11-2011 and PW 6 is examined on 2-12-

11. Even though the case was commenced on 20-6-11 the prosecution did not produce LWs 2 to 4 including the brother of the deceased before the court. After the conclusion of the trial the accused was examined u/s 313

Cr.P.C. He has denied the evidence of PW 5 and 6, he did not choose to examine any witnesses on his behalf.

07.I have heard both parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is

able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s

304 B IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

08.The learned council for the accused has represented that PW 1 and 2 who are no other than the parents of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution and they did not attribute anything to the accused.

They did not state that the accused harassed their daughter for dowry, thereby the offence u/s 304 B IPC is not proved against the accused. He has further argued that in the light of the evidence of PW 3 and his report Ex P 3 it is very clear that the deceased sustained more than 90% burns, as such the question of she being conscious and gave a statement to magistrate

SC 419 of 2009 5

does not arise and the dying declaration recorded by the magistrate shall not be considered. He has relied upon number of citations and argued that in the absence of such dying declaration there is no case against the accused and he is entitled to an acquittal.

09.As I have already stated the prosecution did not examine the brother and neighbors who are shown as material witnesses to the case in spite of repeated adjournments from time to time. PW 1 and 2 who are no other than the parents of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution. According to PW 1 she performed the marriage of her daughter with the accused about more than 3 years ago and her daughter joined the accused. She was suffering from severe stomach pain. The accused never demanded any dowry. About two years ago her daughter committed suicide due to the said stomach pain and she did not present any report to the police. Similarly PW 2 the father of the deceased also stated the same version and did not attribute any dowry harassment to the accused. PW 3 is the medical officer who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex P 4 report. PW 3 has admitted that the deceased sustained burns over face neck and entire chest, but denied the suggestion that due to such burn injuries, she cannot speak anything. PW 4 is the

Tahsildar who conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased vide Ex P

5. PW 5 is the Metropolitan Magistrate who has recorded the statement of the deceased at Gandhi Hospital.

According to PW 5, on 8-4-2009 he has received a requisition from Police,

Neredmet to record the statement of the deceased and he proceeded to the hospital and identified the patient with the help of duty medical officer. He has enquired the name and other details of the patient and by way of the answers he was satisfied that the patient was in a fit state of mind to give

SC 419 of 2009 6

statement and he has also obtained the certificate of duty medical officer about the condition of the patient and then he has recorded her statement vide Ex P 7. The requisition issued by police is marked as Ex P 6. PW 6 is investigation officer, who deposed about his investigation. During the cross examination PW 6 has admitted that he did not enquire PW 1 whether she gave any report to the police after the admission and before the death of the deceased.

10.The learned council for the accused has relied upon Judgments reported in 2003(2) ALD (Crl.) 538 (AP), 2003(1) ALD (Crl.) 605 (AP), 2007(2) ALD (Crl.) 975 (SC), 2007 (2) ALD (Crl.) 883 (SC), and 1999

Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 1361 and argued that the prosecution is not able to prove the ingredients of section 304 B of IPC. He has further argued that merely because the deceased died within 7 of the marriage and it was a unnatural death it cannot be said that it is a dowry death within the meaning of section 304 B IPC unless there is evidence to show that there was any cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry and in the absence of acceptable evidence of harassment by husband he is not liable for conviction. In the Judgement reported in 2003(2) ALD (Crl.) 538 (AP) our Hon’ble High Court was pleased to observe that when the demand of dowry appears to have been invented by the prosecution witnesses after the death of the deceased and it is not found in the earlier report, the accused is not liable to be convicted.

In another Judgement reported in 2003(1) ALD (Crl.) 605 (AP) the Hon’ble

High Court was pleased to observe that in the absence of acceptable evidence of harassment by husband and other accused they cannot be convicted under section 304 B basing on the mere presumption u/s 113 A of

Evidence Act. In the other Judgement reported in 2007(2) ALD (Crl.) 975

SC 419 of 2009 7

(SC) the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that when there is no evidence to show that there was cruelty or harassment for or in connection with demand of dowry and when there is no finding in this regard by the trial court it is fatal to the case of prosecution and a conviction cannot sustain. In the Judgement reported in 2007 (2) ALD (Crl.) 883 (SC) the

Hon’ble Apex Court observed that there must be existence of a proximate

and live-link between effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and concerned death. In the Judgement reported in 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Crl) 1361, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that consciousness and fitness of mind are distinct conditions and doctor’s certificate not only about consciousness but also about fit state of mind of the deceased that existed before recording of dying declaration is essential.

11.It is a fact that PW 1 and 2 the parents of the deceased did not support the prosecution case and in fact they deposed as if the accused never demanded any dowry from the deceased or her parents. Therefore except the evidence of PW 5 who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and evidence of PW6 the Investigation Officer, coupled with the statement of deceased, there is no other incriminating evidence against the accused. The accused is charged u/s 304 B of IPC. In order to prove the said charge, the prosecution has to prove the unnatural death of a bride

before the expiry of 7 years period after her marriage, apart from proving

the cruelty or harassment of the said lady for, or in connection with dowry demand.

12.There is no dispute about the unnatural death of the deceased.

The evidence of PW 1, 2 and also the evidence of PW 3 goes to show that she died by committing suicide by way of setting herself on fire. There is no dispute about the said death before the expiry of 7 years period after her

SC 419 of 2009 8

marriage. The prosecution has claimed that soon after the admission of the said lady to hospital, an intimation was sent to the police and the police in turn filed a requisition before the learned Magistrate i.e. PW 5 for obtaining the statement of the deceased. Accordingly PW 5 rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased. It may be a fact that PW 1 or her husband did not present any report to police during the life time of the deceased. But that itself does not conclude that there was no harassment from the accused, thereby they did not present any report to the police.

There may be various reasons for the parents of a bride in not approaching the police with any complaint, they might have waited with a view to convince the son-in-law or they might have anticipated a change in the behavior of son-in-law.

13.I have already stated in the previous paragraphs that the prosecution did not produce its listed witnesses on the day when the case stands posted and PW 1 has appeared before the court about more than 3 months after fixing the schedule. PW 1 and 2 did not support the prosecution. But the statement given by the deceased indicates that she was subjected to harassment by the accused in connection with the dowry demand. As per the record, though the marriage of deceased was performed on 18-4-2008 and she joined the accused, by the time the she made attempt to commit suicide, she was at her parent’s house. She made an attempt to commit suicide on the evening hours of 8-4-2009 and immediately she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad.

The same was informed to the police and the police in turn filed a requisition

before the learned Magistrate for getting the statement of the lady. PW5 has

categorically deposed that he rushed to the hospital and identified the patient with the help of the medical officer, who was attending her and

SC 419 of 2009 9

proceeded to record her statement. Before starting the statement, the learned magistrate enquired the name and other details of the deponent and after satisfying about her condition and after obtaining the certificate of the doctor only he recorded the statement of the deceased. According to PW 5 the medical officer was also present at the time of recording the statement of the deceased and after completing the statement the doctor made an endorsement that the patient was conscious and in a fit state of mind to give a statement. PW 5 has recorded what the deceased stated before him in the declaration. He had no necessity to create a statement under Ex P 7 if there was no such statement from the deceased. PW 5 has denied the suggestion that the patient was not in a position to give such a statement because she suffered 95% burns and thumb impression on Ex P 7 was not made by the deceased. The learned council for the accused has represented that the doctor who was present at the time of recording the statement of the patient must certify not only the consciousness of the patient but also the fit state of mind, and the magistrate also must satisfy that the patient was conscious and in fit state of mind to give a statement, but in the present case the evidence of PW 5 shows that he has obtained certificate from the doctor that the patient was in fit state of mind and there is no evidence that the patient was conscious, thereby the statement under Ex P 7 shall not be taken into consideration. But I am not able to accept his contention because as seen from the evidence of PW 5 it is very clear that before recording the actual statement about the cause of her injuries, he has enquired the patient about her name and other details and he has categorically deposed that he was satisfied that the patient was in a fit state of mind to give a statement. PW 5 further deposed that he has obtained a certificate from the doctor about the condition of the patient. The said doctor has certified that “the patient was conscious coherent and in fit state of mind to give statement”. After obtaining the above certificate only PW 5 has recorded the statement and

SC 419 of 2009 10

the evidence of PW 5 further shows that the said doctor was also present all along he recorded the statement of the deceased and again at the end he gave another certificate stating that the patient was conscious and coherent and in fit state of mind though out the statement. In the above referred

Judgement the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that the

medical officer who has attended the patient must certify the consciousness and also the fit state of mind of the deponent while making the statement.

In the said case there was no certificate from the doctor that the deponent was in fit state of mind to give a statement and it was only with regard to the consciousness of the patient. But in the present case the doctor has categorically stated that the patient was conscious and in fit state to give the statement and her condition with regard to the consciousness and fit state of mind all through the statement was certified in Ex.P7. Therefore with great respect to the above citation, I am of the sincere opinion that the said

Judgement is not applicable to the present case.

14.The statement of the deceased is very clear that the accused took her to her parents house and demanded her to bring 5 tulas of gold and

Rs. 80,000/- and if she failed to bring the amount he will kill her thereby due to fear she committed suicide. She has categorically stated before the

Magistrate that her husband is responsible for her suicide. It is not the case

of accused that the above statement was made at the instance of her parents or any other relative.

Therefore the only cause for the said suicide is the dowry demand made by the accused. According to section 304 B IPC, if the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon

before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband

SC 419 of 2009 11

or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand of dowry such death shall be called dowry death and the husband or relative of husband shall be deemed to have caused her death. The statement vide Ex P 7 is very clear that the accused himself left the deceased at her parents house and asked her to bring dowry and gold and if she failed to arrange the gold etc., he will kill her. Therefore it is very clear that soon before her death she was subjected to harassment for dowry and it lead her to commit suicide. It may be fact that her parents did not support the said case. They may have got their own reasons, they might have entered into a compromise with the son-in-law, which is not uncommon in dowry death cases. Simply because they did not state any thing against the accused, the statement of the deceased made before the Magistrate cannot be discarded.

The prosecution has declared them as hostile witnesses. In the light of the said statement and in view of the presumption u/s 113 A of Indian Evidence

Act, it shall be presumed that the accused has committed an offence punishable u/s 304 B IPC. Therefore I believe that the accused has committed an offence u/s 304 B IPC, and he is liable for the conviction.

15.In the result I found the accused guilty for the offence u/s 304 B

IPC, accordingly he is convicted u/s 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

I have heard the accused in respect of sentence. He prayed for mercy.

But I believe that the accused who is responsible for the death of a young bride only for the sake of dowry is not entitled to any lenient view.

Therefore the accused is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. MO s 1 and 2 shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed by me on my personal lab top: corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 23 rd day of January,2012.

SC 419 of 2009 12

IX Addl District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

P.W.1 M. Lakshmi P.W.2 M. Yadagiri P.W.3 Dr. K. Rajendra Kumar P.W.4 D. Premraj P.W.5 K. Sudhakar P.W.6 R. Ravinder Reddy

On behalf of the Defence: Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2 Ex.P4 Postmortem Report Ex.P5 Inquest Ex.P6 Requisition Ex.P7 Statement of Kavitha Ex.P8 FIR Ex.P9 Panchanama Ex.P10 Sketch Map

On behalf of the Defence: Nil.

Material Objects

Mo:1 is the burnt cloth pieces

Mo:2 is the Match Box

IX Addl District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT L B NAGAR : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com., LL.M.,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Monday, the 23 rd day of January, 2012

SC 419 of 2009 13

SC No. 419 / 2009

1 P.R.C. No. : 41/2009 2 Name of the Complainant : P.S. Neredmet 3 Name of the accused:

1. Majjiga Ramchander @ Ramesh, S/o. Ramulu, Aged: 30 yrs, Caste: Yadav, Occ: Pvt., Employee, R/o. 12-1-669/14, Shantinagar, North Lallaguda, Secunderabad.

4. Crime No. : 120 of 2009

5. Offence : U/Sec 304 B IPC 6 Date of offence : 08-04-2009 7 Date of accused arrested : 17-04-2009 8 Date of trial commenced : 20-06-2011 9 Date of trial closed : 02-12-2011

10. Prosecution conducted by : Sri. Md. Muktar

11. Accused defended by : Sri. Shabbir Hussain

12. Case Committed by : X Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri

13. Finding of the court : Found guilty

14. Sentence of Order : In the result I found the accused guilty for the offence u/s 304 B IPC, accordingly he is convicted u/s 235 (2) Cr.P.C.

IX Addl District & Sessions

Judge,(FTC) Ranga Reddy District

To:

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P.

2. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

3. Director of Prosecution.

4. The learned Addl.P.P

IN THE COURT OF THE IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION

JUDGE, (FTC) RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com., LL.M.,

IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

(FTC) RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

Monday, the 6 th day of February, 2012

S.C. No. 589/2010

1. P.R.C No. : 80/2010

2. Name of the Complainant : P.S. Jeedimetla

3. Name of the accused :

A1. Smt. Bhupathiraju Durga, W/o. Subba Raju, Aged: 43

years Occ: Proprietress of M/s. Durga Intermediates

Company.

A2. Bhupathiraju Subba Raju, S/o. Kameswara Raju, Aged: 50

years, Occ: Business.

A3. Pericherla Srinivasa Raju, S/o. Krishnam Raju, Aged: 41

years, Occ: Manager in M/s. Durga Intermediates

Company.

A4. Nasu Venkat Reddy, S/o. Yandadi Reddy, Aged: 40 years,

Occ: Production Manager, at M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A5. Kalindindi Narsimha Raju, S/o. Subba Raju, Aged: 30

years, Occ: Plant in charge, in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A6. Datla Venkata Ramakrishna Raju, S/o. Gopal Raju, Aged:

35 years, Occ: Store Supervisor in M/s. Durga

Intermediates Company.

A7. Kuchalapati Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Krishna Raju, Aged:

39 years, Occ: store keeper in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A8. Madanthena Sunil Kumar Raju, S/o. Krishnam Raju, Aged:

25 years, Occ: Shift in charge in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A9. Bole Subba Rao, S/o. Edukondalu, Age: 25 years, Occ:

Shift in charge in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A10. Kolluri Naga Raju, S/o. Subba Rao, Age: 27 years, Occ:

Shift in charge in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

4. Crime No. : 336/2010

5. Offence U/Sec : 304 A, 337, 285 IPC R/w 3 & 5 of E.S. Act 1908

6. Prosecution Conducted by: Sri. Mohd. Mukthar

7. Accused defended by : Sri. E. Srinivas Reddy Sri. Jaya Ramulu Sri. J.A. Satish, Advocates

8. Case Committed by : VI Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, at Medchal.

9. Finding of the Court : Not guilty

10. Sentence of Order : In the result I found accused not guilty for the offence u/s 304 A, 337, and 285 IPC,Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, and they are acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

This Sessions case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence ofAddl. P.P. and Sri.Sri. E. Srinivas Reddy, Sri. Jaya

Ramulu Sri. J.A. Satish, Advocates for Accused and having stood over to this day the court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a case filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police,

Kukatpally Division, who was in charge ACP of Balanagar, on the basis of a most unfortunate incident that occurred at M/S Durga Intermediates

Company, IDA Jeedimetla on 16-5-2010. The said incident claimed the lives of seven innocent people, apart from causing huge financial loss. The following is the brief case of the police as per the charge sheet.

02.One M/S Durga Intermediates Company is located in plot no. 1- 173/1, IDA Jeedimetla. A1 is its proprietress. The company used to manufacture Intermediate Bulk Drugs such as Sodium Sulphate, Potassium

Sulphate, Methonol Hydro Chloride, IPA HCL and they used raw material

Costic Soda Flakes, Sulphuric Acid, Water, Potassium flakes, Mythonol,

Hydrochloride acid, ISO profile alcohol. A1 is the proprietress of the said industry, A2 is the husband, A3 is brother-in-law of A1 and they used look after and maintain the industry. There were about 25 skilled and 25 unskilled workers worked in the said industry. There are 16 reactors in the plant and all the reactors works in all the shifts. In each shift there are 16 workers used to work.

03.The prosecution has alleged that on A1 to A10 did not take any precautionary, preventive and safety measures in the company and carrying out the production using the various kinds of raw material including the hazardous material like Methonol Hydro Chloride, ISO Profile alcohol,

Sulphuric Acid, which require permission and licence for storage of the said raw material. The management did not obtain any required licence and permissions from the concerned authorities and used to store the above raw material in the premises of the said company without taking safety measures and also engage the work men in the plant without providing hand gloves, face masks, shoes and even they have not arranged the fire extinguishers etc. The management failed to take preventive measures in handling

Explosive Combustible Chemicals.

04.On 16-5-2010 at about 7 am, as usual A4, Mula Swamy (D1), G.

Raju (D2), G. Venkata Narasimha (D3), D. Ramana (D4), V. Sriramulu (D5),

Rambabu (D6), Venkateswara Reddy (D7), LW 2 G. Somesh, PW 2, PW 3,

LW 16 Shivaramaraju, LW 17 K. Veeriah, PW 5, and A5 attended the first shift which commence from 7 am to 2pm. The deceased operator D1 with the help of D2 was attending the process of distillation of ISO propyl alcohol at still reactor and collecting in PVC drums in ground floor of the shed under the supervision of D3 and during the distillation of ISO propyl alcohol in the stainless steel reactor, there was excessive built of pressure inside the reactor and due to excessive pressure and heating and as there is no Auto

Cut-off system to the reactor, there was a sudden explosion of the reactor resulting the fire which spread to adjacent reactors with chemical solvents.

All the 16 reactors in which chemical process was going on were completely burnt away and the workers i.e. Deceased 1 to 7 and LW 2 G. Somesh who were attending at the neighboring reactors also received injures. However the other workers were rescued from the incident.

05.The Sub-Inspector of Police, i.e. PW 1 herein having received information about the above said fire accident rushed to the scene of offence. He sent message to all the higher officers and Fire Service,

Ambulance Services and other officials and started rescue operation and after preliminary enquiry he drafted a complaint and sent the same to

Station House Officer, Jeedimetla. He has narrated how the incident occurred and alleged that the management, who failed to take preventive measures in handling explosive chemicals of intermediate drugs and running the industry without valid licence, is responsible for the said fire accident.

Basing on the said report the then SHO, Jeedimetla has registered a case in crime no. 336/2010 and sent case records to the Inspector of Police,

Jeedimetla i.e. PW 16 who has already reached the scene of offence for further investigation. PW 16 started rescue operations and with the help of

Fire Brigades could control the fire after 2 hours fire-fight. He has conducted a panchanama at the scene of offence and prepared a rough sketch of the scene of offence. PW 16 has examined PW 1 to 3, PW 5 and LW 2, LW 5 P.

Ajai Kumar, LW 6 V. Venkata Laxmi and LW D. Ranujulamma and recorded their statements and he has conducted inquest on the dead body of D1

Mulaswamy. LW 41 the other Sub Inspector of Jeedimetla conducted inquest on the dead body of D2, LW 42 conducted inquest on the dead body of D3, LW 43 held inquest on the dead body of D4, and referred the dead bodies for postmortem. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal (LW 49) taken up the further investigation of the case and he has examined PW 6 and LW 10 V. Sandyarani and LW 12 V. Anjamma i.e. the relatives of D5. LW 41 and LW 43 completed the inquest on the dead bodies of D5 and D6 and referred them for postmortem. Thereafter the investigating officer has examined LW 16 BH Sivaramaraju and LW 17 K. Veeriah and recorded their statements and they said to have stated before the police that they were present in the first shift and when the fire spread in the company they ran away due to fear and they claimed that the fire accident occurred due to the negligence of the management of the company. Later D7 who was undergoing treatment at the hospital also succumbed to the injuries and the police have completed the other formalities like inquest and postmortem etc.

The police have arrested all the accused and produced them before the court. The medical officer who treated the injured opined that the injuries are simple in nature. The medical officers who conducted postmortem opined that the death was due to burns.

06.During the course of time PW 10 i.e. Chief Inspector of Factories has visited the scene of offence and filed a report stating that the industry has applied for a licence on 3-3-2008 but no licence was issued due to defects in the application. They have already filed two cases for the violation of rules. He has opined that the present accident occurred due to the non- provision of safety relief valve to distillation kettle. PW 11 Environmental

Engineer of AP Pollution Control Board also visited the scene of offence and furnished his report stating that the company has obtained consent for operation of the board for discharge of waste water and discharge of air emissions vide order dt.23-8-2007 which was valid upto 31-3-2010 and the company has applied for its renewal and the application was under process and in the mean time the accident occurred, as such the Board issued closure order on 17-5-2010. PW 12 the Assistant Divisional Engineer

Jeedimetla also inspected the industry and opined that the fire accident was not happened due to any short circuit. There after the in charge ACP

Balanagar has completed the investigation and filed charge sheet alleging that A1 to A10 who are the management and bottom cadre who are physically looking after and carrying out the production without taking precautionary and safety measures are responsible for the said drastic incident, thereby committed offences punishable u/s 304 (A), 337, 285 IPC and Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act.

07.The said charge sheet was registered as PRC NO. 80/2010, on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Madchal. Since the offence alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by the court of sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to Metropolitan Sessions

Court, Rangareddy, where it was registered as SC 589 of 2010 and later transferred to this court for trial.

08.All the accused have appeared before this court and they are charged u/s 304 (A), 337, 285 IPC and also u/s 3 and 5 of Explosive

Substances Act. They denied the accusation and claimed to be tried. During the trial the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 16 and marked Ex P 1 to P

13. After conclusion of trial the accused are examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

09.I have heard both parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is

able to prove its case against all the accused for the offences u/s

304 (A), 337, 285 IPC and also u/s 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances

Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.While arguing the case the learned counsel has represented that there is no incriminating material against the accused and they are entitled to an acquittal. As I have already pointed out the case is filed on the basis of a most unfortunate incident which claimed valuable lives of 7 innocent people and caused injuries to number of people. But the prosecution is not able to produce any evidence against the accused and in fact there is no material to believe that the accused have got any connection with the said industry. The prosecution is not able to produce some of the listed witnesses who are figured as eye witnesses and the witnesses already examined did not support the prosecution.

The close relatives of the deceased also did not support the prosecution and all of them are declared as hostile. The learned APP has conceded that the material witnesses did not support the prosecution.

11.Charges were framed against the accused on 11-4-2011 and I have fixed the schedule for examination of witnesses from 2-8-2011. The examination of all the listed witnesses supposed to have been closed at least by the end of August 2011. But the prosecution has examined PW 1 on 2-8- 11, PW 2 and 3 on 3-8-11, PW 4 and 5 on 8-8-11. PW 6 was examined on 24-8-11, PW 7 was examined on 14-8-11, PW 8 on 29-11-11. PWs 9 to 14 are examined on 2-1-12, PW 15 is examined on 10-1-12, and PW 16 is examined on 11-1-12. The prosecution could not examine the listed witnesses even after 6 months. In view of the serious allegations in the charge sheet I have adjourned the case from time to time with a hope that the prosecution may examine the remaining witnesses but there was no use.

Out of the listed witnesses, LW 2 G. Somesh, LW 5 P. Ajay Kumar, LW 6 V.

Venkata Laxmi, LW 8 D. Ranujulamma, LW 10. V. Sandhya Rani, LW 12 V.

Anjamma, LW 13 L. Lalitha, LW 14. L. Ramanamma, LW 15 L. Rajulu, LW 16

BH Shivarama Raju, LW 17 K. Veeriah are not examined. In fact they are shown as relatives of the deceased and injured. The investigation Officers i.e. LW 49 ACP Alwal, and LW 50 ACP Balanagar are also not examined. PW 1 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, who received information about the fire accident at the industry and who rushed to the scene of offence and who presented a report to the SHO Jeedimetla. He is not an eye witness to the fire accident. According to PW 1 he came to know that fire broke out during the process of distillation of ISO propyl and the employees were not qualified thereby they failed to take precautions.

However he did not state anything about the involvement of the accused.

PW 2 and PW 3 are elder brothers of deceased G. Raju, but they did not state anything about the offence and claimed that they do not know anything about the offence. PW 4 and 5 are the brothers of deceased

Venkatanarsimha and they deposed that their brother who worked in Durga

Chemical Company at Jeedimetla, but they do not know what happened and they did not enquire as to how the accident occurred. PW 6 is brother-in-law of deceased Sri Ramulu, but he did not support the prosecution and deposed that he does not know how his brother-in-law died and he came to know that his brother-in-law sustained burns while working in a chemical factory.

PW 7 is son of deceased Venkateswarareddy, but he did not state anything about the death, and claimed that he was working at Mumbai, he does not know how his father died and where he was working. PW 8 who is supposed to be a witness to the scene of offence panchanama did not support the prosecution and deposed that when he went to police station on his personal work, the police have obtained his signature on some papers and he did not witness any such panchanama. PW 9 is younger brother of deceased

Venkateswarareddy. According to PW 9 he does not know where his brother actually worked and he was informed that his brother died at Kukatpally. PW 12, PW 13 are witnesses to the inquest on the dead bodies, PW 14 is a home guard who has taken photos at the scene of offence. The evidence of all these witnesses may not prove anything against the accused. Most of them are declared as hostile and the evidence of other witnesses is of no use.

There remains the evidence of PW 10, 11, 15 and 16.

12.According to PW 10 he worked as Chief Inspector of Factories,

Hyderabad.

He came to know about the fire accident that occurred at M/S Durga

Intermediates Company, they have initiated action before JFCM, Medchal in

STCs 108 and 109 of 2010 and the persons responsible were convicted. On the request of ACP Alwal, he has informed the police, that the management did not obtain licence under the factories act and they have already launched prosecution for the said violation. However during the cross examination PW 10 has added that they have filed separate case for not obtaining the licence and nonpayment of licence fee. PW 10 did not state anything against the accused, it is not elicited from PW 10 as to who is the responsible person for such violation. He has deposed that the industry has violated certain provisions of the Factories Act for which they have already launched prosecution and accused therein were already convicted. PW 11 who worked as Environmental Engineer at AP Pollution Control Board deposed that he has visited the industry known as M/S Durga Intermediates Company and submitted a report to the board and on the basis of his report power supply to the said company was disconnected. Whereas according to PW 15 who worked as Additional Divisional Engineer in Electricity department, the said fire accident was not due to any short circuit. Therefore the evidence of these 3 witness at best will prove that there was a fire accident at M/s Durga

Intermediates Company and it was not due to any short circuit and Factories

Inspector has already initiated action against the management of the company for violation of Factories Act. The evidence of PW 10, 11 and 15 cannot connect the accused with the said offence. PW 16 is the first investigation officer, who rushed to the scene of offence and who prepared a panchanama and who conducted inquest on the dead body of deceased. He did not conduct any investigation about the involvement of the accused.

13.In order to prove the charges namely 304 A, 337, 285 IPC and section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, the prosecution has to prove that these accused are owners of the said company and there was a fire accident due to their negligence and it resulted death of 7 people and injuries to some of the workers. The prosecution must also prove that the accused failed to take precautions to avert the fire accident, besides proving the use of explosive substances. But the prosecution is not able to show how these accused are liable for the above violations. In fact there is no evidence

before the court to believe that A1 is proprietress of the said industry, A2

and A3 are husband and brother of A1 and other accused are employees worked in the said company. It is the duty of the prosecution to produce all the relevant records to show that A1 has incorporated the company and other accused are active workers and failed to take necessary precautions.

The prosecution could not collect any documentary evidence to show as to who has established the said industry. It appears from the charge sheet that the management has applied for renewal of CFO (consent for operation) which was under process. But the investigation officer did not take pains to produce any record which is easily available and which can show the names of actual people concerned with the management of the company. Some of the relatives of the deceased did not state anything against the accused, though some deposed about the death of their kith and kin, did not attribute anything to the accused. It is not the evidence of these witnesses that the accused are responsible for the alleged fire accident at the said industry. The non examination of investigation officer is fatal to the prosecution, because he is the only person to say as to how he came to a conclusion about the involvement of the accused.

Therefore there is no evidence before the court that A 1 is proprietor of M/S

Durga Intermediates Company and other accused are employees of the said company. Therefore the accused are entitled to an acquittal.

In the result I found accused not guilty for the offence u/s 304 A, 337, and 285 IPC, and Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, and they are acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

Typed by me in my personal lap top: corrected and pronounced

by me in the open court on this the 06 th day of February, 2012.

IX Addl District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

P.W.1 N. Ravinder Rao P.W.2 G. Rakesh P.W.3 G. Rupash P.W.4 G. Ramu P.W.5 G. Radhakrishna P.W.6 G. Raju P.W.7 G. Srikanth Reddy P.W.8 G. Ramanjaneyulu P.W.9 G. Raghuramreddy P.W.10 Y. Mohanbabu P.W.11 SSS Murali P.W12 K. Chandramouli P.W.13 M. Jayaramreddy P.W.14 G. Ramakrishna P.W15 J.L. Janapriya P.W.16 A. Gangaram

On behalf of the Defence: Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Complaint PW1

Ex.P2 161 Statement PW2

Ex.P3 161 Statement PW3

Ex.P4 161 Statement PW4

Ex.P5 161 Statement PW5

Ex.P6 161 Statement PW7

Ex.P7 161 Statement PW8

Ex.P8 Report of Dy. Inspector of factories

Ex.P9 Inquest PW12

Ex.P10 Attested Inquest PW13

Ex.P11 Photographs PW14

Ex.P12 Inquest on Mulaswamy PW16

Ex.P13 Scene of offence PW16

On behalf of the Defence: Nil.

IX Addl District & Sessions

Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT L B NAGAR : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com., LL.M.,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Monday, the 6 th day of February, 2012

SC No. 589 / 2010

1. P.R.C No. : 80/2010

2. Name of the Complainant : P.S. Jeedimetla

3. Name of the accused :

A1. Smt. Bhupathiraju Durga, W/o. Subba Raju, Aged: 43

years Occ: Proprietress of M/s. Durga Intermediates

Company.

A2. Bhupathiraju Subba Raju, S/o. Kameswara Raju, Aged: 50

years, Occ: Business.

A3. Pericherla Srinivasa Raju, S/o. Krishnam Raju, Aged: 41

years, Occ: Manager in M/s. Durga Intermediates

Company.

A4. Nasu Venkat Reddy, S/o. Yandadi Reddy, Aged: 40 years,

Occ: Production Manager, at M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A5. Kalindindi Narsimha Raju, S/o. Subba Raju, Aged: 30

years, Occ: Plant in charge, in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A6. Datla Venkata Ramakrishna Raju, S/o. Gopal Raju, Aged:

35 years, Occ: Store Supervisor in M/s. Durga

Intermediates Company.

A7. Kuchalapati Suryanarayana Raju, S/o. Krishna Raju, Aged:

39 years, Occ: store keeper in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A8. Madanthena Sunil Kumar Raju, S/o. Krishnam Raju, Aged:

25 years, Occ: Shift in charge in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A9. Bole Subba Rao, S/o. Edukondalu, Age: 25 years, Occ:

Shift in charge in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

A10. Kolluri Naga Raju, S/o. Subba Rao, Age: 27 years, Occ:

Shift in charge in M/s. Durga Intermediates Company.

4. Crime No. : 336/2010

5. Offence U/Sec : 304 A, 337, 285 IPC R/w 3 & 5 of E.S. Act 1908

6. Date of Offence : 16-05-2010

7. Date of Trial Commenced : 02-08-2011

8. Date of Trial Closed : 11-01-2012

9. Date of accused arrested : 25-05-2010

10. Prosecution Conducted by: Sri. Mohd. Mukthar

11. Accused defended by : Sri. E. Srinivas Reddy Sri. Jaya Ramulu Sri. J.A. Satish, Advocates

12. Case Committed by : VI Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, at Medchal.

13. Finding of the Court : Not guilty

14. Sentence of Order : In the result I found accused not guilty for the offence u/s 304 A, 337, and 285 IPC,Section 3 and 5 of Explosive Substances

Act, and they are acquitted u/s 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled.

IX Addl.District and Sessions

Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District.

To:

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P.

2. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

3. Director of Prosecution.

4. The learned Addl.P.P.

SC 211 of 2008 1

IN THE COURT OF SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC & ST (POA) ACT

cum IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT L B NAGAR : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com., LL.M.,

FAC IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Thursday, the 5 th day of January, 2012

SC No. 211 / 2008

1 P.R.C. No. : 43-2008 2 Name of the Complainant : P.S. Shankerpally 3 Name of the accused :

1. Bhojja Venkat Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Bojja Nagarjuna Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Manne Sreenu S/o. Buchaiah, aged about 28 years, Caste: Mudiraj Occ: Agriculture,

4. Koukuntla Pandu Ranga Reddy S/o. Kista Reddy Aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5. Gadde Prabhu S/o. Shivaiah, aged about 48 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Agriculture,

6. Kurva Ananthaiah S/o. Pentaiah, aged about 45 years, Caste: Kurva, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o. Ravulapally Village of Shankarpally Mandal

4. Crime No. : 86-2008

5. Offence U/Sec : 324, 342, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3 (ii) (x) of SC and ST (POA) Act.

6. Prosecution conducted by : J.V. Narsingh Rao

7. Accused defended by : P. Sudarshan Reddy,

8. Case Committed by : Sri. B. Srinivas Rao, B.Com., LL.M., Judl. Magistrate of

First Class, Chevella RR

District.

9. Finding of the court : Not guilty

10. Sentence of Order : In the result, I found accused not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec 3 (1) (X) SC ST POA Act and section 324, 342, read with 149 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

SC 211 of 2008 2

This Sessions case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence ofAddl. P.P. and Sri. P. Sudharshan

Reddy, Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day the court delivered the following: -

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a case filed by Sub Divisional Police Officer Vikarabad, who was holding Full Additional Charge of Sub DivisionChevella, against A1 to A6 with an allegation that these accused have committed offences punishable U/Sec 324, 342, 506 IPC and section 3 (ii) (X) of SC ST (POA) 1989. The following is the brief case of police as per the Charge Sheet.

02.One Bal Rajthe De – facto /Complaint in this case is a resident of Ravlapally Village and he belongs to Budigajangala community. PW2 is his brother and PW5 is their brother in law. All the accused are residents of same Village and A1 to A4 belongs to Reddy community. Whereas the other accused belongs to backward class. Prior to 20-06-2008 there were thefts at Raolapally Village and the offenders removed Service wire from current motors connected to bore wells at that village. On 20-06-2008 all the accused summoned PW1 to 3 to Gram Panchayat office and alleged that PW1 and his relatives namely Laxman, P.Laxman, Ramaswamy committed theft of service wires and PW1 has abetted the commission of thefts from about 60 agricultural bore wells of Raolapally Village. The accused have insisted

PW1 to confess the commission of offences and in spite of his request that he did not commit any offence, A1 to A6 used criminal forces on PW1 and abused him in the name of his caste.

SC 211 of 2008 3

03.The prosecution has further alleged that these accused abused

PW1 bet him with cheppal and asked him to confess the commission of offence otherwise they will kill him. Due to the harassment and force used by the accused PW1 confessed as if he committed the offence. All the accused forced him to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- within one month otherwise he has to hand over his land to an extent of 2 guntas. They also directed PW1 that if he failed to hand over the property his brother in law i.e., PW3 has to hand over his house, to the accused towards compensation.

All the accused have insisted PW1, PW3 to execute an document accordingly. Therefore PW1 has executed a document in favour of the accused. The prosecution has further alleged that on 6-07-2008 at about 1 pm PW1 presented a Telugu typed complaint to the police about the above referred offence. On the basis of the said complaint the Sub – Inspector of

Police, Shankarpally i.e., PW11 has registered a case in Cr.No. 86/2008

U/Sec’s 324, 342, 506 IPC and section 3 (ii) (X) of SC ST (POA) Act, and referred PW1 to Government Hospital, Chevella. PW11 has visited the scene of offence along with 2 mediators i.e., PW6 and 7 and conducted a

Panchanama, prepared a Rough Sketch of the scene of offence. Thereafter

PW11 handed over the case dairy file to Sub – DivisionalPolice Officer

Vikarabad who was holding Full Additional Charge of Chevella Sub – Division.

PW14 the then Sub – Divisional Police Officer, Vikarabad, took up investigation and caused enquires in the presence of PW1 to 5, examined them and recorded their statements. The prosecution has further alleged that all the accused were arrested on 04-09-2008 and PW14 has seized the document which they have obtained from PW1. PW14 has obtained caste certificate of PW1 to 3 and also the caste certificate of A1 to A6.

PW14 has completed the investigation and filed Charge Sheet against all the accused. The said charge sheet was registered as P.R.C 43/2008 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Chevella.

SC 211 of 2008 4

04.The Offence alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by this court. Therefore the learned Magistrate has committed the case to this court and on the appearance of the accused they stood charged U/Sec 3 (I) (X) of SC ST (POA) read with section 149 IPC 342 read with 142 IPC. The accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried. During the trial the prosecution has examined PW1 to 14 and marked Ex. P1 to P17. After conclusion of trail the accused are examined U/Sec 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the evidence of PW1 to 14.

05.I have heard both the parties.

Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is

able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences punishable U/Sec

324, 342, read with 149 IPC and section 3 (I) (X) SC ST (POA) Act

beyond all reasonable doubt ?

06.The Prosecution has alleged that PW1 and 2 are residents

Ravulapally village and belongs to Scheduled Caste. Prior to the date of alleged offence there was several thefts at the village and offenders have removed service wires of the current motors that were fixed to the agricultural bore wells. On 20-06-2008 the accused summoned PW1 and alleged that he has instigated the commission of thefts and they have abused PW1 in the name of his caste and tied him to Neem tree and beat with sticks and made him to confess the commission of offence and also to execute a bond in favour of the accused. The prosecution has claimed that all the accused demanded PW1 to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and in case of his failure to pay the amount he has to

SC 211 of 2008 5

surrender his land and property to the Gram Panchayat. In order to prove these allegations the prosecution has examined the alleged victim as PW1 his brother as PW2 and brother in law as PW5. Apart from these material witnesses, the prosecution has examined PW3, PW4 who are supposed to be eyewitness to the alleged offences. PW6 is an independent witness deposed about the occurrence. PW7 and 8 are supposed to be mediators for the scene of offence Panchanama, PW9 and 10 are supposed to be mediators to the alleged confession made by accused. PW11 is the first investigating officer, PW12 is the then Deputy Collector who has issued caste certificates of PW1 and accused. PW13 is doctor who treated PW1 and P14 is the investigating officers. Out of these 14 witnesses PW’s 3,4,7 to 10 did not support the prosecution.

06.The learned Public Prosecutor while arguing the case has represented that this is a heinous offence where the accused who belongs to upper caste of the society made PW1 hanged to Neem tree and bet him with cheppal, hands and forced him to execute a bond in favour of the accused.

They have also made PW1 to confess an offence to which he is no way concerned. The learned Public Prosecutor has represented that PW14 being

Deputy Superintendent of Police and having obtained necessary authorization completed the investigation.

The evidence of all the material witnesses categorically proved the charges framed against the accused. Whereas the learned council for the accused while relying upon a Judgment reported in 2011 1 ALD (Criminal) 577 (SC) represented that rule (7) of SC and ST (POA) rules 1955 clearly shows that authority to investigate the offence under the provision of SC ST (POA) Act has to be confered on a specified officers not below the rank of Deputy

Superintendent of Police and in the absence of such authority any

SC 211 of 2008 6

investigating conducted by police officials cannot be considered and accused are entitled to an acquittal.

07.He has further represented that the delay of more than 15 days in presenting a report to the police is not at all explained by the prosecution.

Even though PW1 claimed to have been admitted to a hospital on 20-06- 2008 his evidence has been negatived by the evidence of PW14 who categorically admitted that PW1 was not admitted to any hospital till 7-7-08.

Even though severe allegations are made against the accused there is no explanation from PW’s 1,5,6 as to why the they kept quite for more than 15 days without presenting any report to police. He has relied the medical certificate and claimed that even as per the medical certificate it is very clear that PW1 informed the doctor that he was beaten by only one person where as the witnesses deposed before the court as if all the accused bet PW1, thereby these accused are entitled to benefit of doubt.

08.In order to prove these allegations the prosecution has examined the alleged victim as PW1. According to his evidence on 20-06-2008 he was summoned by the accused and he went to Gram Panchayat where all accused forced him to confess the offence of theft.

It is his specific evidence that the accused have attributed theft and service wires. All the accused bet him with sticks and cheppals. A3 tied him to

Neem tree and all the accused bet him with sticks. He has claimed that all the accused have abused him in the name of his caste. All the accused imposed a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and obtained his signature in a bond. PW1 has claimed that he went to hospital for treatment and he was treated as in patient for one week. Thereafter he presented a report to police as on Ex.

P1. PW2 and PW5 supported his evidence. According to PW2, on 20-06- 2008 A1 called his brother i.e., PW1 to Gram Panchayat officer PW2 also

SC 211 of 2008 7

followed him. All the accused hanged PW1 to Neem tree and bet him with sticks and cheppals.

09.The accused abused PW1 by raising his caste and forced him to admit the commission of theft. The accused have obtained a bond from PW1 and one Yadhagiri PW2 categorically deposed that they presented a report to police on 6-7-2008 where as according to PW5 on 26-06-2008 his sister i.e., wife of PW1 informed him over a phone that the villagers have taken PW1 to the Gram Panchayat and they started beating him on the allegation that he committed theft. Therefore PW5 proceeded to Gram Panchayat. He found all the accused beating PW1 and abused him in the name of his caste bet him with hands and cheppals. They have obtained a bond from PW1 therefore he took PW1 to a hospital. PW6 is a cousin of PW1 and deposed that he was present and witnessed the offence wherein all the accused hanged PW1 to Neem tree abused him and bet him with cheppal and sticks.

According to the evidence of all these evidence the alleged offence took place on 20-06-2008 PW1 has claimed that soon after the offence he was admitted to hospital and treated as inpatient for one week and thereafter he presented a report to police PW5 claimed that he took PW1 to a hospital for treatment and on 06-07-2008 PW1 presented a report to police. However, during the cross examination PW1 has claimed that he himself prepared the report and presented to the police but the police asked him to give report two days thereafter. In view of said evidence, he was asked to identify

Ex.P1 for which PW1 has stated that he has presented a written report.

Ex.P1 is type written report but he has admitted his signature on Ex.P1. He does not know who prepared Ex.P1. According to PW1 soon after the offence, he went to Osmania General Hospital he was treated as inpatient for one week. PW1 claims that on the discharge of he went to Police Station

SC 211 of 2008 8

and informed the police about the offence that took place at his village.

PW1 claims that he informed the police about his treatment at Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad.

10.He has informed to the police about his treatment. PW2 who is another brother of PW1 also deposed that PW1 was admitted in Osmania

General Hospital and there treated as inpatient for one week or 10 days.

Therefore according to PW1 and 2 soon after the offence PW1 was admitted to Osmania General Hospital and he was treated as inpatient for one week he has handed over inpatient report to the police. Whereas the investigation officer who is examined as PW14 claims that PW1 while explaining the delay in presenting report informed the police that he was afraid of accused and as per the investigating. PW1 was not hospitalized for a period of one week after the incident. From this it is very clear that what PW1 stated before the police is not deposed before the court.

According to his statement before the investigation officer he could not present any report for about 16 days due to fear from the accused and it was not at all his case that he was admitted to Osmania General Hospital and was treated as inpatient for one week or 10 days. But at the time of his evidence PW1 has claimed that soon after the alleged offence he got himself admitted in Osmania General Hospital and was treated as inpatient. He stated that he has gave the medical report to the investigation officer. An important aspect from PW1 is about Ex. P1. According to PW1 he has presented a report which was written by him and he does not know contents of Ex. P1 which is a Telugu type written complaint. The prosecution did not explain as to what happened to the report said to have been presented by

PW1 and as to how Ex. P1 came into existence. During the cross examination PW2 who deposed about the offence properly has categorically

SC 211 of 2008 9

stated that in order to reach the hospital they have to cross the Police

Station which is at a distance of 6 km from their village. Even though they proceeded to hospital they did not visit the Police Station which is on their way to hospital, they did not present any report at the out post police of

Osmania General Hospital and they have informed police that PW1 was treated as inpatient for 10 days.

11.PW1 and 2 have deposed that the accused attacked him, abused him and he was hanged to Neem tree, the accused bet him with cheppal and abused him in the name of the caste. PW1 claims that he was treated as inpatient for 10 days. There is no explanation from prosecution as to what happened to the original report presented by PW1. In the light of the evidence of PW14, it is very clear that PW1 was not at all treated as inpatient in any hospital and at the time of investigation PW1 has informed the police that he could not present a report soon after the offence due to the fear from accused. Therefore the prosecution is not able to explain the delay of 16 days in presenting the report. In a Judgment reported in 2009 (2) ALT (Criminal) 135 (DB) (AP) by Justice. A. Gopal Reddyand Justice B.

Chandra Kumarwere pleased to observe that FIR is an important document, from FIR eliminates the chance of embellishment and false implication of accused. Delay in presenting such report may defeat Justice. If the evidence show that FIR was not prepared at the time alleged by prosecution it is very clear that the earliest version is suppressed and only conclusion that can be drawn is that after due deliberations FIR brought into existence.

12.In another Judgment reported in 2009 (2) ALT (Criminal) 131 (SC) the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe that in delay in lodging FIR in a criminal case entitles the accused to an acquittal. In the present case the

SC 211 of 2008 10

evidence of PW1 to 5 that PW1 could present police report for about more than 15 days in view of the treatment at Osmania General Hospital, has been negatived by the investigating officer. The explanation offered by PW1 and 2 is not acceptable. Therefore there is every chance of PW1 and 2 to present a report after due deliberations with a concocted version.

13.Even though PW14 claimed to have obtained authorization from the Higher authorities hospital, no document has been produced before the court. According to rule 7 and SC ST (POA) rules unless there is a specific authorization no police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of

Police has got power to investigate the offence, under the provisions of SC

ST (POA) Act.

It is true, PW14 was a Deputy Superintendent of Police but he could not produce any proof about the authorization under which he conducted the investigation. PW1 has claimed that soon after the offence he was admitted to Osmania General Hospital and was treated as Inpatient for one week or 10 days. But soon after his report the police referred him to hospital.

According to the wound certificate produced by the prosecution PW1 has informed the medical officer that he was beaten by one unknown person.

But at the time of trial, PW1 claimed that all the accused who are six in number have abused him, and beat him with sticks. If that is a fact he ought to have stated the same before the medical officer. The independent witnesses did not support the prosecution. PW1,2,5,6 belongs to same family, they are interested witnesses. In the light of the delay in presenting report to police. I feel there is every chance for PW1 or 2 to create a false case against the accused. The report said to have been presented by PW1 is his own writing is not placed before the court, PW1 is not able to say as to who has prepared Ex. P1. Therefore I feel that the prosecution is not able to

SC 211 of 2008 11

prove the case against all the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and they are entitled to benefit of doubt.

In the result, I found accused not guilty for the offences punishable

U/Sec 3 (1) (X) SC ST POA Act and section 324, 342, read with 149 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5 th day of

January, 2012.

FAC IX Addl District and

Sessions Judge,Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

P.W.1 Mothe Balaraj

P.W.2 M. Ganesh

P.W.3 Kamini Hanmanth Reddy

P.W.4 B. Buchi Reddy

P.W.5 T. Ramulu

P.W.6 Shankaraiah

P.W.7 M. Shankaraiah

P.W.8 K. Buchaiah

P.W.9 Syed Jaffar

P.W.10 Shaik Afzal

P.W.11 J. Venugopal

P.W.12 K. Pradeep Kumar

P.W.13 P. Vasudevanand

P.W.14 G. Ragava Reddy

On behalf of the Defence: Nil.

SC 211 of 2008 12

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Complaint PW1

Ex.P2 A bond paper obtained with Signature by accused PW1

Ex.P3 161 Statement PW3

Ex.P4 161 Statement PW4

Ex.P5 Sign on scene of Offence Panchanama

Ex.P6 Sign on Rough Sketch

Ex.P7 Signature

Ex.P8 Sign on Rough Sketch PW8

Ex.P9 Signature on Recovery PW9 Panchanama

Ex.P10 Signature on Recovery PW10 Panchanama

Ex.P11 FIR

Ex.P12 Scene of Offence Panchanama PW11

Ex.P13 Rough Sketch Prepared by me PW11

Ex.P14 Caste Certificate PW12

Ex.P15 SC Caste Certificate PW12

Ex.P16 Wound Certificate PW13

Ex.P17 Recovery Panchanama

On behalf of the Defence: Nil.

FACIX Addl District and Sessions Judge, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT at LB Nagar.

SC 211 of 2008 13

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF FAC IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT: AT L B NAGAR: HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com., LL.M.,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Thursday, the 5 th day of January, 2012

SC No. 211 / 2008

1 P.R.C. No. : 43-2008 2 Name of the Complainant : P.S. Shankarpally 3 Name of the accused :

1. Bhojja Venkat Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about 27 years, Occ: Agriculture

2. Bojja Nagarjuna Reddy S/o. Satyanarayana Reddy, Aged about 24 years, Occ: Agriculture,

3. Manne Sreenu S/o. Buchaiah, aged about 28 years, Caste: Mudiraj Occ: Agriculture,

4. Koukuntla Pandu Ranga Reddy S/o. Kista Reddy Aged about 33 years, Occ: Agriculture,

5. Gadde Prabhu S/o. Shivaiah, aged about 48 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Agriculture,

6. Kurva Ananthaiah S/o. Pentaiah, aged about 45 years, Caste: Kurva, Occ: Agriculture,

All are R/o. Ravulapally Village of Shankarpally Mandal

4. Crime No. : 86-2008

5. Offence : 324, 342, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sec 3 (ii) (x) of SC and ST (POA) Act.

6 Date of offence : 20-06-2008 7 Date of accused arrested : 04-09-2008

SC 211 of 2008 14

8 Date of trial commenced : 04-01-2010 9 Date of trial closed : 25-07-2011

10. Prosecution conducted by : J.V. Narsingh Rao

11. Accused defended by : P. Sudarshan Reddy

12. Case Committed by : Sri. B. Srinivas Rao, B.Com., LL.M., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Chevella RR District.

13. Finding of the court : Not guilty

14. Sentence of Order : In the result, I found accused not guilty for the offences punishable U/Sec 3 (1) (X) SC ST POA Act and section 324, 342, read with 149 IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

FAC. IX Addl District and Sessions Judge,

Ranga Reddy District

To:

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P.

2. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

3. Director of Prosecution.

4. The learned Addl.P.P.

SC 451/2010 1

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT : AT L B NAGAR : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT: SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com., LL.M.,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Monday, the 30 th day of January, 2012

SC No. 451 / 2010

1. P.R.C. No. : 53/2010

2. Name of the Complainant : P.S. Jeedimetla

Name of the accused:

A1. Gunturu Nageshwara Rao, S/o. Seemaiah, Aged about 26

years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Business R/o. H.No. 8-145, Plrasoonanagar, Chintal, Jeedimetla, N/o. Kodali Village, Gantasala Mandal, Krishna District.

A2. Gunturu Seemaiah, S/o. Rajaratnam, Aged about 54

years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Watchman at ZPHS Kodali, R/o.

Kodali Village, Gantasala Mandal, Krishna District.

A3. Smt. Gunturu Panama Devi, W/o. Seemaiah, Aged about 50

years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Household R/o. Kodali Village, Gantasala Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Crime No. : 299/2010

5. Offence : U/Sec 304 B IPC

6. Prosecution conducted by : Sri. Md. Muktar

7. Accused defended by : M/s. M.V. Durga Prasad, M.R.P.Chakravarthi, K.Srinivas rao

8. Case Committed by : VI Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad at Medchal. 9 Finding of the court : Not guilty Sentence of Order : In the result, I found all the accused not guilty for the offence U/Sec 304 B IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec 235 10 (1) Cr.P.C.

This Sessions case is coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri Mohd. Muktar, Addl. P.P. and of

Sri.M/s. M.V. Durga Prasad, M.R.P.Chakravarthi,

K.Srinivas rao Advocate for Accused and having stood over to this day the court delivered the following:-

SC 451/2010 2

J U D G M E N T

01.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal Division has filed this case against A1 to A3 with an allegation that these accused have committed offence punishable U/Sec 304 B IPC. The following is the brief case of the police as per the charge sheet.

02.One Ch. Venkateswara Raowho is examined as PW1 in this case is a resident of Dokipadu Villageof Krishna District he has got two children, i.e., one Vijaya Laxmi who herein after will be referred as deceased, and

PW2. PW1has performed the marriage of his daughter with A1 at Dokipadu

Village on 09-05-2007. In fact even prior to the marriage there was relationship between PW1 and accused since A2 is non other than the brother in law of PW1. At the time of said marriage PW1 has presented an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry and subsequently the deceased joined in the company of A1. A1 has got a workshop since 2003. The couple lead normal marrital life for some time and thereafter A1 started harassing his wife to bring additional dowry of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

03.He use to harass her both physically and mentally. A2 and A3 are also used to harass the deceased on the ground of that she brought less dowry from her parents. The deceased has informed the said dowry harassment to her parents. Therefore they paid Rs. 35,000/- to the accused. In spite of that A1 was not satisfied and continued the harassment.

04.During the wed lock the deceased was blessed with a male child and about one year prior to the death of deceased A1 shifted his residence to Chinthal.Subsequently the deceased gave birth to a female child, on that occasion PW1 presented a Gold Chain to his grand daughter. During 2010, the deceased kept the said Gold chain with her parents and returned to the

SC 451/2010 3

house of accused along with her child. The prosecution has claimed that since the deceased left the gold chain with her father, A1 has quarreled with his wife and harassed her to bring the Gold Chain. The accused had an alteracation with the deceased in regard to said Gold Chain. In view of the said harassment from the accused the deceased was vexed with her life. On 28-04-2010 at about 7 pm she went to bed room and committed suicide by hanging to the ceiling fan. PW 1 came to about the said suicide and he has presented a report to the police and said report was registered as case in

Cr.No.299/2010 U/Sec 304 B IPC.

05.The prosecution has further claimed that PW10 having registered the case examined PW1 and recorded his statement. The subsequent investigation was conducted by LW23 the then the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal and he has filed charge sheet against all the accused with an allegation that the accused have committed an offence punishable U/Sec 304 B IPC.

06.The said charge sheet is registered as PRC No. 53/2010 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Madchal. Since the offence U/Sec 304 B

IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, subsequently the case was transferred to this court for trial.

07.On the appearance of all the accused they were examined and charged U/Sec 304 B IPC has been filed against the accused, they denied the charge. During the trial the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW10 and marked Ex. P1 to P6. After the conclusion of trial of accused are examined

U/Sec 313 Cr.P.C.

08.I have heard both parties.

SC 451/2010 4

Now the point for consideration is whether prosecution is able

to prove its case U/Sec 304 B IPC against all the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt ?

09.The prosecution has claimed that A1 to A3 have harassed the deceased Vijayalaxmi to bring additional dowry from her parents thereby she committed suicide by hanging herself to ceiling fan. The said suicide was within 7 years of her marriage. Therefore the accused are liable to be punishable U/Sec 304 B IPC. The learned council for the accused has represented that the evidence of PW1 is very clear that he has no capacity to arrange such a huge amount of dowry and to arrange additional dowry. The evidence of PW1, 2 and 4 would reveal that the deceased has committed suicide since PW 1 failed to return the gold chain that was kept with him when the deceased and her daughter visited the house of PW1. But PW1 has foisted a false case against the accused to extract money. The learned council for the accused relied upon a Judgment reported in 2006 1 ALD (Criminal) 493 (AP) and argued that the evidence of PW1 to 4 is heresay evidence, they have no personal knowledge about the alleged dowry harassment.

10.In order to prove the offence U/Sec 304 B IPC, the prosecution must be able to prove that there is an unnatural death of a bride within 7 years after her marriage and soon before the said unnatural death she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment, for or in connection with the dowry demand. Unless and until, these ingredients are satisfied the accused cannot be convicted U/Sec 304 B IPC. It is true the evidence of all the witnesses shows that the deceased has ended her life, within the period of seven years of her marriage, by way of hanging. However, there must be

SC 451/2010 5

evidence before the court that before such suicidal death she was subjected to dowry harassment by these accused. In order to prove these allegations the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. PW1 and PW6 are parents, PW2 is the brother of deceased, PW's 3,4,5 are independent witnesses. However,

PW3 is not an eye witness to the alleged dowry harassment. According to his evidence, on 28-4-2010 at about 7 pm he has told by A1 that his wife entered in to bed room closed the doors from inside and she was not responding. Therefore PW3 went to house of accused and both of them opened the doors with the help of Gas Cylinder and found the dead body of

Vijayalaxmihanging to the ceiling fan. PW3 deposed that A1 and his wife were cardial during her life time. PW4 and 5 did not support the prosecution. They are declared as hostile witnesses and were cross examined by learned Public Prosecutor. PW7 is a witness to the inquest on the dead body of the deceased, PW8 is the Deputy Tahsildar who conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of the PW7 and another witness.

PW9 is a witnesses to the scene of offence Panchanama under which the police have seized the saree with which the deceased committed suicide.

PW10 is the first investigating officer who registered this case and who has examined PW1.

11.The trial of this case was commenced on 03-08-2011. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses from 03-08-2011 to 11-01-2012. In spite of repeated adjournments from time to time for more than 4 months the prosecution has not taken any pains to examine the investigating officer, who supposed to have examined all the witnesses. Therefore there remains the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW6 who are none other than the parents and brother of the deceased.

12.According to the evidence of these witnesses all the accused have subjected the deceased to dowry harassment. PW1 has claimed that he performed the marriage of his daughter with A1 during 2007 he gave Rs.

SC 451/2010 6

2,00,000/- as dowry but A1 used to beat his daughter for additional dowry.

Therefore he has arranged an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. Subsequently his daughter gave birth to a male child. Therefore PW1 came to Hyderabad, took his daughter and his grand son to his house. She stayed there for about 8 months and again returned to Hyderabad by leaving her son with

PW1. Again she became pregnant and she gave birth to a female child about more than one year after the birth of male child. A1 went to the house of PW1 and brought the grand son to Hyderabad. On the next day he received a message that his daughter committed suicide. Whereas according to PW2, A1 used to harass his sister for additional dowry after the birth of male child A1 beat his sister and send her to Dokipadu and he came to know that A1 wanted his wife to bring the Gold Chain and later his sister committed suicide.

13.PW6, the mother of the deceased has deposed that even though they have paid an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as dowry to A 1, he used to insist her daughter to bring additional dowry. They have presented a Gold

Chain to their grand son, but as A1 wanted to dispose of Gold Chain the deceased kept the Gold Chain at the house of her parents. Therefore there was a quarrel between A1 and his wife. PW6 has claimed that her daughter informed her that A1 wanted her to bring the gold chain, and later she came to know the suicidal death of her daughter. As seen from the evidence of these 3 more witnesses, it is very clear that there are good relationship between couple. The deceased joined her husband, both of them lead normal marrital life, during which she gave birth to two children. After the birth of a male child,PW1 took the deceased along with him to his native place and later she came to Hyderabad and joined A1. The evidence of all the witnesses clearly indicates that death of the deceased occured only when

A1 insisted her to bring Gold Chain from her parents house. PW1,2 and 6

SC 451/2010 7

have claimed that they paid more than Rs. 2,00,000/- and in spite of it there was a demand for additional dowry. However, the cross examination of these witnesses clearly shows that they have no capacity to arrange the such a huge amount and A1 has got knowledge of the financial status of

PW1 and PW6. PW1 has categorically deposed that he used to earn Rs.

6,000/-pm and his income is the only source of their livelihood. A1 has got a workshop and he used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. PW1 has claimed that he borrowed Rs. 2,00,000/- from Dr. Sunil by executing a promissory note and arranged the amount as dowry. PW1 has claimed that he borrowed the said amount on interest @ 18% per annum. However when he was cross examined about the date and day on which he borrowed the money, he is not able to say the details. He is not able to say how he arranged the Rs. 2,00,000/- to the accused. According to PW1 he could arrange such an amount out of his hard work. Whereas according to PW2 they have arranged Rs. 2,00,000/- from their hard work and also by raising some loans, when he was specifically asked about the names of the persons from whoom they borrowed money, PW2 claims that one Chilukamma has arranged the loan and they did not execute any documents. PW6 has claimed that they could arrange Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of loan from Dr. Sunil but they did not execute any documents to obtain such loan.

14.However the evidence of all these 3 witnesses clearly indicates, the trouble between the couple started only when the deceased failed to bring the gold chain of her, while returning from the house of her parents.

PW 1 has claimed that he used to earn Rs. 6000/- per month and it is the only source of livelihood for the entire family. The evidence of these witnesses, that they have arranged money even subsequent to the marriage is unbelievable. Even according to their own evidence, the deceased went to her parents house house after the birth of of son and stayed there for more than 8 months. But this is not due to any dowry demand. It appears that

SC 451/2010 8

she remained at her partent's house only to manage her newborn son. It appears from the evidence of PW 1 that the deceased alone left to

Hyderabad by leaving her son at the house of her parents. PW 1 never deposed that he purchased a gold chind soon after the birth of his grand son. The evidence of all the 3 witnesses is very clear that the deceased joined her husband by leaving her son at the house of her parents.

Subsequently she became pregnant and gave birth to a female child. PW 1 and 6 have claimed that after the birth female child only A1 started harrassing his wife with a demand to bring the gold chain. As seen from the evidence of these witnesses, it is very clear that some time after the birth of female child, the couple get their son back to their house and one day after the arrival of the boy the deceased committed suicide. Therefore it is very clear that if there is any quarrel between the couple that must be with regard to the gold chain which was left at the house of PW 1. Even if the evidence of these witnesses is accepted to be true, they have already presented a gold chain to the son of A1 and A1 said to have harassed his wife to get the gold chain. It is not as if he demanded her to get gold or cash as dowry. The alleged harassment must be in connection with dowry demand. In fact the evidence of PW 1 itself clear that he has no capacity to present such gold article to his grand son. It appears that the quarrel between the couple was cropped up only when she could not bring the gold chain from her parents. In such case, certainly it is not a dowry demand. I sincerely believe that the poor lady is victimized when her parents did not returned the gold chain while sending their grand son to the house of accused, and she has committed sucidie, since she is not able to answer her husband. If really she herself kept the gold chain with her parents while returning to her husband, and if he is very particular about the gold chain, she ought to have get the gold chain from the house of PW 1, and there was no necessity for her to end her life only for the sake of such a gold chain. If

SC 451/2010 9

the gold chain is not available with her parents, she may not get it, and it may lead her to committ any act to escape the bad atmosphere. Therefore she must have committed suicide when PW 1 did not return the gold chain, but not due to the alleged dowry harassment. Therefore, there is no such dowry harrassment and the death of the deceased cannot be termed as dowry death, as cuh the accused are entitled to an acquittal.

In the result, I found all the accused not guilty for the offence U/Sec 304 B IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Personal Assistant transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of

January,2012.

IX Addl District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

P.W.1 Ch. Venkateswara Rao P.W.2 Ch. Muralikrishna P.W.3 J. Subbarao P.W.4 K. Sujanamma Devi P.W.5 R. Bhavangiri P.W.6 Ch. Rani P.W.7 R. Swamalathya P.W.8 S. Venkateswararao P.W.9 P. Eshwar goud P.W.10 A. Gangaram

On behalf of the Defence: Nil.

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Complaint PW1 Ex.P2 161 statement PW4 Ex.P3 161 Statement PW5

SC 451/2010 10

Ex.P4 Signed Inquest PW7 Ex.P5 Panchanama PW9 Ex.P6 FIR PW10

On behalf of the Defence: Nil.

Material Objects

Nil

IX Addl District & Sessions Judge, (FTC) Ranga Reddy District

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF IX ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (FTC),RANGA REDDY

DISTRICT : AT L B NAGAR : HYDERABAD.

PRESENT : SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com., LL.M.,

IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE

(FTC), RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Monday, the 30 th day of January, 2012

SC No. 451/ 2010

1 P.R.C. No. : 53/2010 2 Name of the Complainant : P.S. Jeedimetla 3 Name of the accused:

A1. Gunturu Nageshwara Rao, S/o. Seemaiah, Aged about 26 years,

Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Business R/o. H.No. 8-

145,Plrasoonanagar, Chintal, Jeedimetla, N/o. Kodali Village,

Gantasala Mandal, Krishna District.

A2. Gunturu Seemaiah, S/o. Rajaratnam, Aged about 54 years, Caste:

SC Madiga, Occ: Watchman at ZPHS Kodali, R/o.Kodali Village, Gantasala Mandal, Krishna District.

A3. Smt. Gunturu Panama Devi, W/o. Seemaiah, Aged about 50 years,

SC 451/2010 11

Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Household R/o. Kodali Village, Gantasala Mandal, Krishna District.

4. Crime No. : 299/2010

5. Offence : U/Sec 304 B IPC 6 Date of offence : 28-11-2010 7 Date of accused arrested : 17-05-2010 8 Date of trial commenced : 03-08-2011 9 Date of trial closed : 11-01-2012

10. Prosecution conducted by : Sri. Md. Muktar

11. Accused defended by : M/s. M.V. Durga Prasad, M.R.P.Chakravarthi, K.Srinivas rao

12. Case Committed by : Metropolitan Magistrate, Malkajgiri

13. Finding of the court : Not guilty

14. Sentence of Order : In the result, I found all the accused not guilty for the offence U/Sec 304 B IPC and they are acquitted U/Sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C.

IX Addl District & Sessions

Judge,(FTC) Ranga Reddy District.

To:

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P.

2. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

3. Director of Prosecution.

4. The learned Addl.P.P

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC & ST (POA)

ACT CUM IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,(FTC)

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR.

PRESENT: SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com. LL.M.,

FAC IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT LB NAGAR.

Tuesday, the 31 st day of January, 2012

S.C.No. 66 / 2008

1. PRC No. : 34-2005

2. Name of the Complainant : Alwal

3. Name of the accused :

A1. Kondaparthy Srinivasa Chary S/o. Laxmana Chary Aged about 35 years, Caste: Vishwa Brahmin, Occ: Business R/o. F-181, Ved Vihar, AWHO Colony, Subhash Nagar, Thirmalghery.

4. Crime No. : 350/2004

5. Offence U/Sec : 3 (1) (X) of SC & ST Act

6. Prosecuted by : Sri. J.V. Narsingh Rao

7. Accused defended by: : Sri. V. Surender Rao

8. Case Committed by : Sri. Swarna Ravi Kumar,

M.A., LL.M., VI

Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal.

9. Finding of the Court : Not guilty

10. Sentence of Order : In the result, I found accused not guilty. He is acquitted U/Sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C

This sessions case is coming before me for final hearing on 31-1-2012, in the presence of Sri. J.V. Narsingh Rao, Public Prosecutor for complainant and of Sri. V. Surender Rao council for the accused having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.This is a case filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal

Division, against the accused with an allegation that he has committed an offence punishable u/s 3 (1) (X) of SC ST (POA) Act. The following is the brief case of the police as per the charge sheet.

02.The accused is Managing Director of Vishwakarma Homes Private

Limited, situated at S.No. 181 Banjara Enclaves, Macha Bollaram. PW 4 has obtained contract of building work from the said Vishwakarma Homes. In this connection the accused has to pay contract work amount to PW 4 and

PW 4 has demanded his amount on many occasions, but the accused paid deaf ear and did not pay the amount to PW 4. PW 4 though made continuous demands and requests could not collect his amount from the accused.

Therefore he has contacted his friend i.e. PW 3 herein and informed about the dues to be collected from the accused. On 18-8-2004, PW 3 along with

PW 1, 2, 4 and LW 5 K. Ramachandra Reddy went to the office of the accused and asked about the money which he was due to PW 4. But the accused behaved in rash manner and abused them in filthy language, in the name of caste as “Madiga lanjakodukullara vaddera lanja kodukullara” and threatened them, and asked them to leave the officer, and informed them that he is not liable to pay any amount to PW 4.

03.Therefore PW 3 proceeded to police station and presented a written report about the above stated incident. The said report was registered as a case in Crime No. 350 of 2004 u/s 3 (1) (X) of SC ST (POA)

Act.

PW6 the then Inspector of Police, Alwal took up the investigation. In view of the provisions of SC ST (POA) Act, the offence shall not be investigated by an officer below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police, therefore the police have addressed a letter to the Commissioner of Police seeking further instructions for conducting further investigation. The Commissioner of Police has authorized the ACP Alwal to conduct the investigation. Accordingly,

Assistant Commissioner of Police, Alwal i.e. PW 5 took up the investigation and examined PW 1 to PW 4 and LW 5 and recorded their statements. The accused was arrested on 20-4-2005 and was produced before the Court for

Judicial Custody. After completing the entire investigation, PW 5 has filed charge sheet against the accused. The said charge sheet was taken on file as

PRC 34 of 2005, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Madchel and as the offence alleged against the accused is exclusively triable by this court, he has committed the case to this court for trial.

04.The accused is charged u/s 3 (1) (X) of SC ST (POA) Act, he denied the charge and claimed to be tried. During the trial the prosecution has examined PW 1 to PW 6 and marked Ex P 1 to P4. The cross examination of PW 4 was deferred on 18-8-09, but subsequently the prosecution could not produce him before the court and he was not cross examined. On behalf of the accused, DW 1 is examined and Ex D 1 to D 3 are marked. After conclusion of trial the accused is examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C.

05.I have heard both parties. The learned defence counsel has filed written arguments also.

Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution is

able to prove the case against the accused for the offence

punishable u/s 3 (1) (X) of SC ST (POA) Act, beyond all reasonable

doubt?

06.The prosecution has claimed that PW 4 worked under the accused and the accused failed to pay some amount due to PW 4 in spite of his repeated demands. Thereby PW 4 sought the help of PW 3, and both of them along with PW 1, 2 and LW 5 approached the accused and demanded the amount due to PW 4. But the accused said to have abused PW 3 and PW 4 in the name of their caste. However the prosecution did not produce PW 4 who is a material witness, for cross examination, as such his evidence in chief shall be eschewed. PW 1 and PW 2 claims that they were present and witnessed the alleged offence. PW 1 has deposed that PW 4 was due to pay some amount to him therefore he went to the site of accused and he noticed the accused abusing PW 3 and PW 4 in the name of their caste. It is not as if he was asked by PW 3 or PW 4 to accompany them to the office of the accused and he deposed that he went to the site of the accused because PW 4 was due to pay some amount to him. PW 1 is a resident of Maredpally which is at a distance of about 10 KM from the house of PW 4. He admits that he has no any transaction with PW 4. He is not able to say the time, month and year of the alleged incident. He has further deposed that he and other witnesses went to police station and PW 3 presented a report to the police, police recorded his statement on the same day. PW 1 further stated that he never went to the police station subsequently. It is elicited from PW 1 that he did not state before the police about the reason as to why he went to the site of accused.

In fact no report was presented to the police on the date of offence and PW 1 did not state anything about the reason for his visit to the office of accused when he was examined by the police. Therefore the presence of PW 1 at the alleged scene of offence is highly doubt full and it is very clear that he is a planted witness and deposing false.

07.PW 2 also claims that he went to the site of accused to collect his money from PW 4 and he found accused and PW 3 and PW 4 were quarreling and the accused abused PW 3 and 4 in the name of their caste. What he stated before the court is entirely different from his previous and earlier statement before the police. According to his statement before police, he accompanied PW 3 and 4 for the sole purpose of enquiring the accused about the money which he is liable to pay to PW 4. But he gave a different version before the court and it clearly indicates he is deposing false. He is not able to give time, day, month and year of the incident. The reason shown by him is the alleged money transaction with PW 4 but he did not state the same before the police. If really he went to the office of accused about his money he must have stated the same version before the police.

Therefore the presence of PW 2 at the time of alleged offence is highly doubtful and I believe that he is also a planted witness may be to support the case of PW 3.

08.Therefore there remains the uncorroborated testimony of PW 3 on record. According to his report vide Ex P 1 he has got friendship with PW 4 who was working under the accused and accused was liable to pay some amount to PW 4.

But the accused failed to pay the amount and at the request of PW 4 he went to the accused on number of times and asked about money. But the accused did not give proper reply, they went to his office from 8-8-04 to 18- 8-04 on number of occasions, but there was no proper response from the accused. Again on 18-8-04 he along with PW 1, 2, 4 and LW 5 approached the accused, but the accused abused them in filthy language by raising their caste.

09.As seen from the report it shows that PW 3 collected PW 1 and 2 for the purpose of enquiring the accused about the money, but not as if PW 1 and PW 2 came to the scene of offence on their own work. However at the time of evidence PW 3 deposed that on 14/9/04 he along with PW 1, 2, 4 and another went to the office of the accused and when they asked the accused about the reason for his failure to pay the amount, the accused said to have abused them in the name of caste. Therefore they all went to police station and presented a report to the police. In fact he did not present any report to the police on the date of alleged offence. There was abnormal delay in presenting report to the police and it is not at all explained by him.

PW 3 deposed that PW 4 gave a written requisition and asked him to help

PW 4 in collection of the amount.

10.According to PW 3 one Drunamcharyulu (One Dronacharyulu is who is examined as PW 6 is the then Inspector of Police, Alwal) recorded his statement on the same day on which he presented a report to the police. As seen from the charge sheet the report was presented to police, on 14-9-04 and the date on 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PW 3 and 4 is altered from 14-9- 04 to 14-11-04.

Therefore it is very clear that these statements must have been recorded by the Inspector PW6, but not by PW5 as claimed by the prosecution. The major portion of investigation i.e. examination of two material witnesses has been done by the Inspector, which is against the rules of SC ST (POA) Rules.

In this regard the learned counsel for the accused, has relied upon a

Judgement reported in 2003 (1) ALD (Crl.) 472 (AP), wherein it held that

investigation into an offence under the said Act can be conducted by a Police

Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, and where investigation was done by Sub-Inspector, conviction cannot be sustained.

11.The learned counsel for the accused has relied upon another

Judgement reported in 1979 Crl.L.J. 1087 wherein it was held that where the

witnesses make two inconsistent statements in their evidence either at one stage or at two stages, the testimony of such witnesses becomes unreliable and unworthy of credence and in the absence of special circumstances no conviction can be based on the evidence of such witnesses. In the present case PW 1 and PW 2 gave two different versions, one at the time of investigation and the other at the time of evidence before the court and both are inconsistent with each other. Therefore their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. The investigation which was conducted by Inspector is also incorrect. Above all the evidence of PW 3 which is not corroborated by any independent witness clearly shows that he did not present any report to police on the date of alleged offence and on the other hand he deposed as if the offence is committed on 14-9-2004.

12.As per the complaint there is a dispute between PW 4 and accused with regard to the money and it appears that accused issued some cheques to PW 4 but they were bounced due to lack of money in his account.

PW 4 has got every motive to file a false case against the accused. PW 3 and 4 might have thought of using the provisions of SC ST (POA) Act, to pressurize the accused for collection of the money and they lodged Ex P 1 complaint against the accused. Therefore I am not accepting the evidence of PW 1 to 4 and the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and he is entitled to an acquittal.

In the result I found the accused not guilty for the offence u/s 3 (1) (X) of SC ST (POA) Act, and he is acquitted u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled.

Typed by me in my personal lap top: corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 31 st day of January, 2012.

FAC IX Addl. District &

Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

P.W.1 Palle Sai Kumar Goud P.W.2 Rapole Babu Rao P.W.3 Shivaraj Madiga P.W.4 Cheguri Narsing Rao P.W.5 K. Ramesh Naidu P.W.6 K. Dronacharyulu

On behalf of the Defence:

D.W.1 R. Uma

EXHIBITS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution:

Ex.P1 Complaint Ex.P2 Caste Certificate Ex.P3 Rough Sketch Ex.P4 FIR

On behalf of the Defence:

Ex.D1 A Portion of 161 Statement of PW1 Ex.D2 A Portion of 161 Statement of PW1 Ex.D3 Power of Attorney

FAC IX Addl District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at LB Nagar.

CALENDER

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR SC & ST (POA)

ACT CUM IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, (FTC),

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT AT LB NAGAR

PRESENT: SRI SAMBA SIVA RAO NAIDU, B.Com., LL.M.,

FAC IX ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, (FTC) RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

Tuesday, the 31 st day of January, 2012

S.C. No. 66 / 2008

1. PRC No. : 34-2005

2. Name of the Complainant : Alwal

3. Name of the accused :

A1. Kondaparthy Srinivasa Chary S/o. Laxmana Chary

Aged about 35 years, Caste: Vishwa Brahmin,

Occ: Business R/o. F-181, Ved Vihar, AWHO Colony, Subhash Nagar, Thirmalghery.

4. Crime No. : 350/2004

5. Offence U/Sec : 3 (1) (X) of SC & ST Act

6. Date of Offence : 19-04-2004

7. Date of accused arrested : 20-04-2005

8. Date of Trial Commenced : 23-07-2009

9. Date of Trial Closed : 04-07-2011

10. Prosecuted by : Sri. J.V. Narsingh Rao

11. Accused defended by : Sri. V. Surender Rao

12. Case Committed by : Sri. Swarna Ravi Kumar, M.A., LL.M., VI Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad,

Medchal.

13. Finding of the Court : Not guilty

14. Sentence of Order : In the result, I found accused not guilty. He is acquitted U/Sec 235 (1) Cr.P.C

FAC IX Addl. District & Sessions

Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

To:

1. The Hon’ble Registrar (Judicial), High Court of A.P.

2. Commissioner of Police, Cyberabad.

3. Director of Prosecution.

4. The learned Addl.P.P.