Dr.Shaik Mohd.Fazulullah

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.1/14

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Dr.S.Md. Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2022.

Spl. Sessions Case No.38 of 2017

(PRC No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi relating to Crime No.108 of 2015 of the Police Station, Darsi)

Prosecution :Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri N.Mohan Das

Name(s) of the Accused : Gani Dhana Lakshmi, wife of Singarakonda, aged 28 years, Balijabycaste,Coolie, Pothavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prkasam District.

2. Thirumala Anjaneyulu, son of Sanjeevaiah, aged 30 years, Balija by caste, Cultivation, Resident of Pothavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Thirumala Srinu @ Mukku Srinu, son of Venkateswarlu, aged 45 years, Balija by caste, Cultivation,Residentof Pothavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasasm District.

4. Manda Galeiah, son of Yesu, aged 46 years, Madiga by caste, Coolie, Resident of Pothavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District.

Charges under section(s) : A1 - Sections 306, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.2/14

A2 to A4 - Section 306 r/w.114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused No.1 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 306, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the accused Nos.2 to 4 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section r/w.114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

The non-valuable case property M.O.1-Pesticide Bottle, received in CPR No.1 of 2022 on the file of this Court, shall be destroyed after the appeal time. --o0o--

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 07.04.2022 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, SC/ST Cell-I, Prakasam District, Ongole, has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 4 in Crime No.108 of 2015 of

Darsi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w.109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and

Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SC & ST (PoA)

Act, 1989’).

2. Briefly stated, the contents of charge sheet are that, the defacto complainant/Kota Sunitha, belongs to SC-Madiga community, is a resident of Pothavaram Village, Darsi Mandal,

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.3/14 whereas the accused Nos.1 to 3 belongs to Balija/OC, other than

SC/ST community and the A4 belongs to the SC-Madiga community and are residents of the same village. The defacto complainant is the second wife of the deceased/Kota Peraiah. While it is so, the

A1 had illicit intimacy with the deceased, as such, he gave some landed property in Sy.No.47 of Thimmayapalem to her two years prior to the date of occurrence, however, the A1 discontinued the relationship with the deceased and residing separately. On that, the deceased restored the possession of the said land and gave the same to his daughter and the 2nd wife/defacto complainant.

Aggrieved by the same, the A1 presented a report against the deceased, which was registered as a case in Cr.No.26 of 2014 under SEction 354, 506 of IPC. While the things stood thus, on 17.07.2015, the A1 sowed red-gram seed in the disputed land, having knowledge that she was not in possession of the same, on coming to know about the same, the deceased went to the fields and too sowed red-gram seeds, to which the A1 questioned the deceased, on that, the deceased resorted to physical assault, then the A1 conveyed the incident and high-handed behaviour of the deceased to the A2 to A4, who in turn instigated the A1 to teach a lesson to the deceased. Accordingly, on 18.07.2015 at about 01-00 P.M. while the deceased was indulging in discussion with one

Kota Prabhudas, Manda Srinu, Kota Venkateswarlu and Kota

Bodeiah, at bus-stand center, Pothavaram, by sitting on a pial under a tree, the A1 came there, questioned the deceased as to who is he to cultivate the land and that voluntarily beat him with a

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.4/14 stick in public place and intentionally aiding the deceased vexed with his life and that due to the insult and humiliation caused by the A1, the deceased felt ashamed, purchased pesticide bottle from the shop of one Atchuta Prakash, went to Anganwadi School and committed suicide by consuming pesticide poison. Witnessing the incident, one Manda Balaiah raised alarm, hearing the same, the said Kota Prabhudas, Manda Srinu, Kota Venkateswarlu and

Kota Bodeiah, who were present near a tea-bunk rushed to the spot and shifted the deceased to the hospital in 108 ambulance, however, the duty doctor declared him brought dead.

Adverting to the above, basing the report of the defacto complainant, a case in Crime No.108 of 2015 under Section 306 r/w.109 of IPC of Darsi P.S. registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed to proceed against the accused

Nos.1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 306 r/w.109 of IPC and Sec.3(2)(v) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989.

Cognizance

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi had taken the matter into file as P.R.C.No.9 of 2017 against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the alleged offences punishable under

Sections 306 r/w.109 of IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, after complying with the legal requirement of furnishing copies of all the relevant documents as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C, has committed the case through the

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.5/14 proceedings dated 17.04.2017 under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to this

Special Court for disposal according to law.

4. On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 4 before this

Court, they were examined U/s.228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C., whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby having heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under Sections 306, 324of IPC and Sec.3 (2) (v) of SCs &

STs (POA) Act, 1989 have been framed against the A1 and Section 306 r/w.114 of IPC has been framed against the A2 to A4 and the charges were read over to the accused, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the

PWs.1 to 16, and got marked Exs.P1 to P33 and M.O.1.

6.On closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused

No.1 to 4 examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they termed the evidence of prosecution as false, but not chosen to examine the witnesses on their behalf.

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offences charged beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that, the Court may proceed as per the material available on record.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.6/14

The defence counsel argued that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and prayed for acquittal.

Marshalling of facts and analysis of evidence

9.This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

10.In this case, the wife of the deceased is examined as the PW.1. The alleged eye witnesses to the incident are examined as the PWs.2 to 6. The PWs.7 & 8 are the son-in-law and brother of the deceased respectively. The PWs.9 is the shop owner of Prakash

Traders, Darsi, in which the deceased said to have purchased pesticide. The PW.10 is the scene observation mediator and through him the scene observation report received in evidence.

The Medical Officer is examined as the PW.11 and through this witness, the preliminary postmortem certificate and the final postmortem certificate together with FSL report received in evidence. The Tahsildar who issued the caste certificates pertain to deceased, defacto complainant and accused party examined as

PW.12 and through this witness, the caste certificates received in evidence. The PW.13 is the S.I. of Police, who registered the case basing the written report presented by the defacto complainant and issuance of report and the assistance rendered by him to the investigating officer. The PWs.14 to 16 are the investigating

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.7/14 officers in this case, through these witnesses the records of the prosecution received in evidence.

11.In this case, it is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to establish the fact that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide due to their wicked acts, as such, unable to bear the humiliation in the hands of the accused, the deceased committed suicide.

12.In this case, the wife of the deceased is examined as

PW.1, in her examination-in-chief, she deposed that, the deceased/

Kota Peraiah is her husband and their marriage was performed in the year 2013, and in fact she is the second wife as the first wife was bedridden and after one year of her marriage, the first wife died. She further deposed that, her husband got land in Sy.No.47 of Thimmayapalem and that he had illicit intimacy with the A1, as such, he settled the above land in her favour on oral basis and later he gave away the above land to her and his daughter (through first wife), and that the deceased and the A1 had a dispute over the same and that in the year 2015 her husband sowed the seeds in the said land, on this there was galata in between the deceased and the A1 and others. She further deposed that, at about 01-00 P.M. when her husband was on the pial near a neam tree with others, the A1 came and began quarreling with her husband, so also beat him with stick, and that the deceased felt ashamed and came down to her house and took

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.8/14

Rs.100/- from her and went to Darsi, purchased some pesticide and came down to Anganvadi School, Pothavaram, consumed the above pesticide, after that her husband was shifted to Darsi

Hospital, there he was declared brought dead. She further categorically deposed that the accused are responsible for the suicide of her husband. In the cross-examination she deposed that, though she studied up to 8th class, she was not the author of

Ex.P1 and she got it scribed through one Abraham. She admitted that, she is not an eye witness to the alleged beating of the A1 against the deceased at Pothavaram bus-stand center and she does not know what had happened at Pothavaram bus-stand center, and that at 01-00 P.M. on that day, she came to know that her husband drank pesticide and fell down at Anganwadi School.

13.The PW.7, son-in-law of the deceased, deposed that, about 6 years ago, while he was at Ongole, he received information that the deceased consumed some pesticide and hospitalized at Darsi and by the time he reached, he died. He further deposed in the same lines as deposed by the PW.1 by contending that the deceased had illicit intimacy with the A1 and also deposed about the disputes with regard to settlement of land, however he admitted that he has no personal knowledge as to why the deceased died and the reason for his death.

14.The PW.8, brother of the deceased too deposed in the same lines as deposed by the PWs.1 and 7. Though the PW.8

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.9/14 deposed about the entire incident in his examination-in-chief, in his cross-examination he admitted that, he has no personal knowledge as to how and why the deceased consumed pesticide and for the first time he came to know about the deceased consuming pesticide at 03-00 P.M.

15.The above evidence of PWs.1, 7 & 8, who are wife, son- in-law and brother of the deceased respectively, is not at all helpful to prove that, due to the wicked acts of the accused, the deceased felt ashamed and committed suicide, as such, the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. None of the aforesaid witnesses have spoken that, they have witnessed the alleged incident of A1 beating the deceased, as such, the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In otherwords their evidence is free from incriminating substance insofar as the alleged abatement is concerned. In this view of the matter, the evidence of the PWs.1, 7 & 8 is not at all helpful to prove the prosecution case.

16.In the form of eye witnesses/circumstantial witnesses the prosecution examined the PWs.2 to 6, who said to have present at bus-stand center at the relevant point of time and witnessed the alleged incident of A1 beating the deceased. But the PWs.2 to 6 have given go-bye to the prosecution version by contending that, they does not know anything about this case and they have not witnessed any incident of A1 beating the deceased and that police did not examine them. The evidence of the PWs.2 to 6 is free from incriminating substance, as such, the learned

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.10/14

Special Public Prosecutor cross-examined them, yet nothing suitable to the case of prosecution could be elicited.

17.The PW.9 is the shop owner of Prakash Traders, Darsi.

His evidence is to the effect that, about 7 or 8 years ago, the deceased purchased pesticide from his shop and through this witness the M.O.1-Pesticide bottle received in evidence.

18.The PW.10 is one of the scene observation mediators and also the inquest panchayatdar, and he deposed about his presence at the time of observation of scene of offence by the investigating officer and through this witness the scene observation report received in evidence under Ex.P13. He further deposed that, he was also acted as panchayatdar at the time of inquest over the dead body of the deceased and through him the inquest report under Ex.P12 received in evidence.

19.The medical officer, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased examined as the PW.11, through this witness the preliminary, final postmortem certificates and so also the FSL report received in evidence under Exs.P14 to P16 and he opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to poisonous substance.

20.The PW.12, the then Tahsildar of Darsi Mandal, deposed that, at the request of SDPO, SC/ST Cell, Ongole, he has issued the caste certificates of the deceased, PW.1 and the A1 to A4 together

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.11/14 with covering letter under Exs.P17 to P23 to the effect that the deceased and the defacto complainant belong to SC-Madiga community, whereas the accused Nos.1 to 3 belong to Balija, other than SC/ST community and the A4 belongs to SC-Madiga community.

21.The PW.13 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, he deposed about his registering the case basing the complaint given by the

PW.1 in Cr.No.108 of 2015 under Section 306 r/w.109 of IPC of

Darsi P.S. and also about assisting the SDPO in the investigation, whereby he has secured presence of the witnesses, examined them and recorded their statements, visited the scene, prepared the scene observation report, seized M.O.1, so also drew rough sketch and took photographs of the scene, later conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. The PWs.14 to 16 are the main investigating officers and they deposed about how they conducted investigation in this case and through these witnesses the records of the prosecution received in evidence.

22.In the absence of incriminating evidence from the material witnesses i.e., the wife, son-in-law, brother, so also from the eye witnesses/circumstantial witnesses, the evidence of the inquest panchayatdar, medical officer and the investigating officers, is of no avail. In this sort of cases, whereby when the material witnesses have given go-bye to the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution crumbles and this is what happened

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.12/14 in this case too. The prosecution utterly failed to prove that the accused due to their wicked acts abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is nothing on record to show that the accused perpetrated the alleged offence.

23.On conglomeration of above discussion, the Court is of the view that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is bereft of material so far as the offences punishable under Sections 306, 324 r/w.114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, and thus with the evidence available on record, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused

Nos.1 to 4 for the offences charged. Hence the accused Nos.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered.

24. Result

In the result, this Court found the accused No.1 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 306, 324 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the accused Nos.2 to 4 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section r/w.114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C.

They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.13/14

Order relating to case property

The non-valuable case property M.O.1-Pesticide Bottle, received in CPR No.1 of 2022 on the file of this Court, shall be destroyed after the appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences

under SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum- VII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the ProsecutionFor the Accused PW.1: Kota Sunitha -None-

PW.2: Kota Prabhudas

PW.3: Manda Srinu

PW.4: Kota Venkateswarlu

PW.5: Kota Bodeiah

PW.6: Manda Balaiah

PW.7: Katikala Prabhu Dasu

PW.8: Kota Sudaharshanam

PW.9: Atchuta Prakash

PW.10:Paritala Srinivasulu, VRO

PW.11:Dr. D.Srinivasa Rao, Medical Officer

PW.12:M.Gandhi, Tahsildar

PW.13:S.Subba Rao, Sub-Inspector

PW.14:V..Rambabu, I.O.

PW.15:P.Sridhar, I.O.

PW.16:M.Bala Sundara Rao, I.O.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Report given by PW.1 to the police

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 recorded by S.I. of Police,

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 recorded by I.O.

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 recorded by S.I. of Police

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 recorded by I.O.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017 Page No.14/14

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 recorded by S.I. of Police

Ex.P7: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 recorded by I.O.

Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 recorded by S.I. of Police

Ex.P9: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 recorded by I.O.

Ex.P10: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 recorded by S.I. of Police

Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 recorded by I.O.

Ex.P12: Inquest report

Ex.P13: Scene observation report

Ex.P14: Preliminary Postmortem Certificate

Ex.P15: Final Postmortem Certificate

Ex.P16: RFSL opinion/Report

Ex.P17: Caste certificate of the deceased

Ex.P18: Caste certificate of the PW.1

Exs.P19 to P22 : Caste certificates of the A1 to A4

Ex.P23: Covering letter of the Tahsildar

Ex.P24: Original FIR

Ex.P25: Rough sketch of the scene of offence-I

Ex.P26: Rough sketch of the scene of offence-II

Ex.P27: Photographs along with CD

Ex.P28: Letter of advise

Ex.P29: Letter of request

Ex.P30: Section addition Memo

Ex.P31: Authorization Memo dt.21.07.2016

Ex.P32: Memo dt.21.11.2016

Ex.P33: Authorization Memo 16.10.2015.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1: Pesticide Bottle.

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Spl.Judge-cum-VII A.D.& S.J. Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl.Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Dr.S.Md. Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2022.

Spl. Sessions Case No.38 of 2017

(PRC No.9 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Darsi relating to Crime No.108 of 2015 of the Police Station, Darsi)

Prosecution :Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri N.Mohan Das

Name(s) of the Accused : Gani Dhana Lakshmi, wife of Singarakonda, aged 28 years, Balija by caste, Coolie, Pothavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prkasam District.

2. Thirumala Anjaneyulu, son of Sanjeevaiah, aged 30 years, Balija by caste, Cultivation, Resident of Pothavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Thirumala Srinu @ Mukku Srinu, son of Venkateswarlu, aged 45 years, Balija by caste, Cultivation, Resident of Pothavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasasm District.

4. Manda Galeiah, son of Yesu, aged 46 years, Madiga by caste, Coolie, Resident of Pothavaram Village, Darsi Mandal, Prakasam District.

Charges under section(s) : A1 - Sections 306, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A2 to A4 - Section 306 r/w.114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.38 of 2017

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused No.1 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 306, 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Sec.3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the accused Nos.2 to 4 not guilty of the offence punishable under Section r/w.114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, accordingly, the accused Nos.1 to 3 are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Order relating to case property The non-valuable case property M.O.1-Pesticide Bottle, received in CPR No.1 of 2022 on the file of this Court, shall be destroyed after the appeal time.

DATES OF

Date of occurrence:18.07.2015 Date of report:18.07.2015 Date of appearance:28.04.2017 Date of commencement of trial:04.01.2022 Date of closure of trial:06.04.2022 Date of hearing :06.04.2022 Date of Judgment:11.04.2022

Explanation for Delay : The case is taken cognizance by the learned JFCM, Darsi vide PRC No.09/2017 and committed the same to this Spl. Court through his proceedings dt.17.04.2017 for disposal according to law. The entire record received in this Court on 24.04.2017. On 12.06.2017 the accused present before this Court and the case is posted for hearing on charges. At this stage the case is adjourned from time to time due to unreadiness of both parties. At last on 31.07.2019 after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, charges framed under Sections 306, 324 of IPC and Sec.3 (2) (v) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused and the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. At this stage also the case is adjourned amid Covid-19 pandemic. At last, the trial of this case was commenced on 04.01.2022 and concluded by 06.04.2022. During trial, on behalf of prosecution, PWs.1 to 16 and by marking Exs.P1 to P33 & M.O.1 marked. After closure of prosecution evidence, on the same day i.e., on 06.04.2022 the accused examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and denied the incriminating material appeared against them and on the same arguments were also heard and posted the matter for Judgment. On 11.04.2022 judgment is pronounced acquitting the accused. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Special Judge-cum-VII Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Prakasam District,Ongole. Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.1/12

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Dr.S.Md. Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2022

Spl. Sessions Case No.97 of 2019

[Crime No.115 of 2019 of the Police Station, Martur]

Prosecution :Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri I.Venkateswarlu

Name(s) of the Accused : 1. Popuri Srinivasa Rao, son of Hanumaiah, aged 45 years, Kamma by caste, Granite business, R/o.Beside Seetharama Kalyanamandapam, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Kamineni Janardhan, son of Hanumantha Rao, aged 45 years, Kamma by caste, Beside SR Residency, Golden Company Plots, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Konakanchi Balaji, son of Subba Rao, aged 30 years, Kamma by caste, Paint Shop, R/o.H.No.1-12- 2C, East Bazar, Near Ramalayam Temple, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Patchava Arun Kumar, son of Chennaiah, aged 30 years, Vegetable Business, Resident of H.No.7-176 B, Near Andhra Bank, Nagarajupalli Road, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. Pedavalli Rama Rao, son of Pothuraju, aged 47 years, Kamma by caste, Cultivation, R/o.Near RamalayamTemple,Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.2/12

6. Putta Suresh, son of Amaravaiah, aged 45 years, Kamma by caste, R/o.East Bazar, Near Ramalayam Temple, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

7. Thagedtha Srikanth, son of Peddabbai, aged 30 years, Kamma by caste, Tent House Business, R/o.Near Mosque, Gangavaram road, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

8. Shaik Pharook, son of Moulali, aged 30 years, Muslim, Tent House Business, R/o.Near Mosque, Gangavaram road, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

9. Karusala Baji, son of Dharivali, aged 45 years, Muslim, R/o.Near Mosque, Gangavaram road, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 9 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order. --o0o--

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.3/12

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 07.04.2022 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Women Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 in Crime No.115 of 2019 of Martur Police Station, for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989’).

2. Briefly stated, the contents of charge sheet are that, there were two groups in Lambadi Thanda of Martur Village. The complainant group supports the YSRC Party, whereas the accused group owes their allegiance to TDP Party. While it is so, on 11.04.2019 when the polling for Parchur Assembly and Bapatla

Parliamentary constituencies was going on in the Government

Junior College, Martur, at about 05.00 P.M. one Chunduri

Lakshmidevi came to booth No.19 to cast her vote, however, the polling agents belonging to YSRC Party raised objection with regard to her authenticity, as there was an error in her name, which eventually lead to verbal altercation between polling agents of TDP

Party and YSRC Party and the matter spread outside, on that, the

A1 to A9, who are supporters of TDP party (belong to other than

SC/ST community) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly,

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.4/12 stared hurling abuses at YSRC party supporters, on that, one

Mudavath Jessi Naik and Bhukya Gopi Naik (belong to ST/Lambadi community) and their associates, who are supporters of YSRCP party, tried to pacify the issue, then the A1 to A9 abused them in filthy language touching their caste by uttering as “Lambadi naa kodakallara, mee anthu chustamu”, meanwhile the enraged accused also chased the said Bhukya Gopi Naik, due to which he fell on the ground and in the melee, he lost his cell phone and some cash present in his pocket. The accused also threatened the

Lambadi community people, belonging to YSRC Party with dire consequences that they would see their end. Meanwhile, the police force came and dispersed both the groups and other mob gathered at the spot. After that, the defacto complainant and his associates went to the police station and lodged report about the occurrence.

Adverting to the above, basing the report of the complainant party, a case in Crime No.115 of 2019 under Sections 143, 147, 323, 379, 506 r/w.149 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 of Martur P.S. registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed to proceed against the accused Nos.1 to 9.

Cognizance

3.On file of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of IPC

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.5/12 and Secs.3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused Nos.1 to 9.

4. On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 9 before this

Court, the accused examined U/s.228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C., whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby having heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of IPC and Secs.3 (1) (r)

(s) & 3 (2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 have been framed and read over to the accused, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the

PWs.1 to 28, and got marked Exs.P1 to P41.

6.On closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused

Nos.1 to 9 examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they termed the evidence of prosecution as false, but not chosen to examine the witnesses on their behalf.

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the offences charged beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that, the Court may proceed as per the material available on record.

The defence counsel argued that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and prayed for acquittal.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.6/12

Marshalling of facts and analysis of evidence

9.This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

10.In this case, the defacto complainant is the victim against whom the atrocity alleged and he is examined as the PW.1.

His associates examined as the PWs.2 to 5, 8 to 10, 13, 14, 22 to

24. They too projected as victims of the case contending that they were also subjected to atrocity in the alleged incident. The eye witnesses examined as the PWs.18 to 20, 25, 26. The PWs.7 & 11 are the VRO & VRA respectively, who posted as booth level officers of booth No.20 and they are also acted as scene observation mediators. The revenue officials, police personnel and other persons, who were posted to election duty and who are circumstantial witnesses, examined as the PWs.6, 12, 15, 16, 17,

21. The Tahsildar, who certified the castes of the complainant party and the accused party, examined as the PW.27, through him the list pertain to castes of the accused party and the complainant party received in evidence. The PW.28 is the investigating officer, through this witness the records of the prosecution received in evidence.

11.In the examination-in-chief, the PW.1 deposed that, he belong to ST community and that he knows the accused who belong to other than SC/ST community. He further testified that, in

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.7/12 the year 2019, there was galata in between two groups of their village in connection with identity of voter, there was pull and push in the mob and except this nothing happened. He further categorically deposed that, there was no any atrocity against him or his community, later at the instance of village elders, he along with other villagers went to police station and put their signatures on some already written papers and except his signature he does not know anything about this case. The PWs.2 to 5, 8 to 10, 13, 14, 22 to 24, who are associates of PW.1 and against whom too the atrocity alleged, deposed in the same lines of PW.1. The evidence of the PWs.1 to 5, 8 to 10, 13, 14, 22 to 24 is free from incriminating substance, as such, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor cross-examined them, yet nothing suitable to the case of prosecution could be elicited.

12.In the form of eye witnesses, the prosecution has examined the PWs.18 to 20, 25, 26. They too have not supported the prosecution version by contending that, they does not know anything about this case and that police did not examine them and that there was no any atrocity against any one much less the complainant party. Their evidence is also free from incriminating substance, as such, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross- examined them, yet nothing suitable to the case of prosecution could be elicited.

13.The PWs.7 & 11 are the VRO & VRA respectively, who posted as booth level officers of booth No.20 and they also acted

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.8/12 as scene observation mediators, they deposed in their evidence-in- chief that, during the year 2019 general elections, while they were in duty, there was dispute in respect of identity of one lady inside the booth No.19 and in this regard there was commotion outside the booth between two political parties and that the police came and dispersed the mob and they further deposed about their presence at the time of observation of scene of offence by the investigating officer and through PW.7, Ex.P11-scene observation report received in evidence. The revenue officials, police personnel and other persons who were posted for election duty and who are circumstantial witnesses, examined as the PWs.6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21 and they deposed that, during the year 2019 general elections, while they were in duty, there was dispute in respect of identity of one lady inside the booth No.19 and in this regard there was commotion outside the booth between two political parties and that the police came and dispersed the mob.

The said witnesses also failed to state anything against the accused. The PW.27-Tahsildar, certified that the accused party belong to other than SC/ST community and the complainant party belong to ST/Lambadi community and through this witness the list of particulars of accused party and the complainant party in tabular form, dt.14.05.2019, received in evidence as Ex.P33. The

PW.28 is the main investigating officer, he tried to depose before this Court as to how he conducted investigation in this case and through this witness, the records of the prosecution received in evidence. In the absence of incriminating evidence from the

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.9/12 material witnesses i.e., the victims, their associates, eye witnesses and circumstantial witnesses, the evidence of the Tahsildar and the

Investigating Officer, is of no avail.

14.In this sort of cases, whereby when the material witnesses have given go-bye to the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution crumbles and this is what happened in this case too. The prosecution utterly failed to prove that, the victims were subjected to any atrocity, much less in the hands of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the accused perpetrated the alleged offences. Thus the entire case of the prosecution shatters.

15.On conglomeration of above discussion, the Court is of the view that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is bereft of material so far as the offences punishable under Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and thus with the evidence available on record, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused

Nos.1 to 9 for the offences charged. Hence the accused Nos.1 to 9 are entitled for acquittal.

16. Result

In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 9 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) &

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.10/12 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under

Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences

under SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum- VII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the ProsecutionFor the Accused

PW.1: Kelavath Devunidaya Naik -None-

PW.2: Ramavath Bujji Naik

PW.3: Bukya Moshe Naik

PW.4: Banavath Bala Naik

PW.5: Mudavath babu Naik

PW.6: Devarakond Jyothi

PW.7: Shaik Nagoor Vali

PW.8: Mudavath Jessi Naik

PW.9: Bhukya Punna Naik

PW.10:Bhukya Bullaiah Naik,

PW.11:Mahnika Ratna Raju,

PW.12:M.Sudharani

PW.13:J.Srinu Naik,

PW.14:Banavath Baddu Naik

PW.15:SRK Sharrif

PW.16:T.Madhava Krishna,

PW.17: Dasari Hanumantha Rao

PW.18: Daggupati Suresh

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.11/12

PW.19: Adaka Ganaiah

PW.20: Mylavarapu Nageswara Rao

PW.21: Kundukuri Narasimha Rao

PW.22: Jasavat Setu Naik

PW.23: Bhukya Hanok Naik,

PW.24: Bhukya Koteswara Naik

PW.25: Bhukya Gopi Naik,

PW.26: K.Srinivasa Rao

PW.27: R.Malleswara Rao, Tahsildar

PW.28: M.Balasundara Rao, I.O.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the report given to Police

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P3: Signature of PW.2 on the report given to Police

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P5: Signature of PW.3 on the report given to Police

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P7: Signature of PW.4 on the report given to Police

Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P9: Signature of PW.5 on the report given to Police

Ex.P10: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5

Ex.P11: Scene observation report.

Ex.P12: Signature of PW.8 on the report given to Police

Ex.P13: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8

Ex.P14: Signature of PW.9 on the report given to Police

Ex.P15: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9

Ex.P16: Signature of PW.10 on the report given to Police

Ex.P17: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.10

Ex.P18: Signature of PW.13 on the report given to Police

Ex.P19: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.13

Ex.P20: Signature of PW.14 on the report given to Police

Ex.P21: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.14

Ex.P22: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.18

Ex.P23: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.19

Ex.P24: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.20

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019 Page No.12/12

Ex.P25: Signature of PW.22 on the report given to Police

Ex.P26: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.22

Ex.P27: Signature of PW.23 on the report given to Police

Ex.P28: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.23

Ex.P29: Signature of PW.24 on the report given to Police

Ex.P30: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.24

Ex.P31: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.25

Ex.P32: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.26

Ex.P33: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.27

Ex.P34: Authorization Memo, dt.19.04.2019

Ex.P35: Report given by complainant party to the police

Ex.P36: Original FIR

Ex.P37: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P38: Photographs along with CD

Ex.P39: Section deletion Memo

Ex.P40: Proceedings of the S.P.

Ex.P41: Memo for filing charge sheet dt.03.06.2019

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Spl.Judge-cum-VII A.D.& S.J. Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl.Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Dr.S.Md. Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2022

Spl. Sessions Case No.97 of 2019

[Crime No.115 of 2019 of the Police Station, Martur]

Prosecution :Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri I.Venkateswarlu

Name(s) of the Accused : 1. Popuri Srinivasa Rao, son of Hanumaiah, aged 45 years, Kamma by caste, Granite business, R/o.Beside Seetharama Kalyanamandapam, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

2. Kamineni Janardhan, son of Hanumantha Rao, aged 45 years, Kamma by caste, Beside SR Residency, Golden Company Plots, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Konakanchi Balaji, son of Subba Rao, aged 30 years, Kamma by caste, Paint Shop, R/o.H.No.1-12- 2C, East Bazar, Near Ramalayam Temple, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Patchava Arun Kumar, son of Chennaiah, aged 30 years, Vegetable Business, Resident of H.No.7-176 B, Near Andhra Bank, Nagarajupalli Road, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. Pedavalli Rama Rao, son of Pothuraju, aged 47 years, Kamma by caste, Cultivation, R/o.Near RamalayamTemple,Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019

6. Putta Suresh, son of Amaravaiah, aged 45 years, Kamma by caste, R/o.East Bazar, Near Ramalayam Temple, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

7. Thagedtha Srikanth, son of Peddabbai, aged 30 years, Kamma by caste, Tent House Business, R/o.Near Mosque, Gangavaram road, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

8. Shaik Pharook, son of Moulali, aged 30 years, Muslim, Tent House Business, R/o.Near Mosque, Gangavaram road, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

9. Karusala Baji, son of Dharivali, aged 45 years, Muslim, R/o.Near Mosque, Gangavaram road, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 9 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order.

DATES OF

Date of occurrence:11.04.2019 Date of report:18.04.2019

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.97 of 2019

Date of appearance:03.02.2020 Date of commencement of trial:22.03.2022 Date of closure of trial:06.04.2022 Date of hearing :07.04.2022 Date of Judgment:11.04.2022

Explanation for Delay : On file of charge sheet before this Court, the case is taken cognizance vide Spl. S.C.No.97 of 2019 on 06.12.2019 On receipt of summons, on 03.02.2020 the accused present before this Court and on the same day copies of case documents furnished to the accused and posted for hearing on charges. At this stage, the case is adjourned from time to time, due to unreadiness of both parties and amid Covid-19 pandemic. At last on 21.02.2022 after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, charges framed under Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, against the accused and the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. The trial of this case was commenced on 22.03.2022 and concluded by 06.04.2022. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 28 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P41. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 07.04.2022 the accused examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and denied the incriminating material appeared against them and the arguments were also heard on the same day and the matter posted for Judgment. On 11.04.2022 judgment is

pronounced acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 9. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Special Judge-cum-VII Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Prakasam District,Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.1/11

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Dr.S.Md. Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2022

Spl. Sessions Case No.98 of 2019

[Crime No.118 of 2019 of the Police Station, Martur]

Prosecution :Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri B.Audi Babu

Name(s) of the Accused : 1.Daggubati Suresh, son of Venkateswarlu, aged 35 years, Kamma by caste, Granite Business, 17-209, Gannavaram Road, Martur, Prakasam District.

2. Kanneganti Srinivasa Rao, son of Ammaiah, aged 53 years, Vegetable Business, 10-42B, LMB Back side, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

3.Adaka Gangaiah, son of Venkateswara Rao, aged 42 years, Yadava community, 9-21, Yadava Bazar, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Kakollu Rama Rao, son of Ramaiah, aged 60 years, Kamma by caste, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. Karusola Suloman, son of Lalbude, aged 35 years, Muslim, MarturVillage&Mandal, Prakasam District.

6. Kakollu Venkateswarlu, son of Koteswara Rao, aged 50 years, Kamma by caste, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.2/11

Charges under section(s) : Section 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 6 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order. --o0o--

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 07.04.2022 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Women Police Station, Ongole, Prakasam District, has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 in Crime No.118 of 2019 of Martur Police Station, for the offences punishable under

Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989’).

2. Briefly stated, the contents of charge sheet are that, there were two groups in Lambadi Thanda of Martur Village. The

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.3/11 complainant group supports the TDP Party, whereas the accused group owes their allegiance to YSRC Party. While it is so, on 11.04.2019 when the polling for Parchur Assembly and Bapatla

Parliamentary constituencies was going on in the Government

Junior College, Martur, at about 05.00 P.M. one Chunduri

Lakshmidevi came to booth No.19 to cast her vote, however, the polling agents belonging to YSRC Party raised objection with regard to her authenticity, as there was an error in her name, which eventually lead to verbal altercation between polling agents of TDP

Party and YSRC Party and the matter spread outside, on that, the

A1 to A6, who are supporters of YSRC party (belong to other than

SC/ST community) formed themselves into an unlawful assembly near Ambedkar Open University Building situated in the premises of above Junior College, stared hurling abuses at TDP party supporters, and in that juncture the accused also abused the defacto complainant, who is the booth convener on behalf of TDP party and one Bhukya Hussen Naik, who came to cast his vote (belong to ST/Lambadi community) and their associates, who are supporters of TDP party, in filthy language touching their caste by uttering as “Lambadi naa kodakallara, mee anthu chustamu”, and the accused also threatened the defacto complainant and his associates with dire consequences that they would see their end.

Meanwhile, the police force came and dispersed both the groups and other mob gathered at the spot. After that, the defacto complainant and his associates went to the police station and lodged report about the occurrence.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.4/11

Adverting to the above, basing the report of the complainant party, a case in Crime No.118 of 2019 under Sections 143, 147, 341, 509, 506 r/w.149 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 of Martur P.S. registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed to proceed against the accused Nos.1 to 6.

Cognizance

3.On file of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 506 r/w.149 of IPC and Secs.3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused Nos.1 to 6.

4. On the appearance of the accused Nos.1 to 6 before this

Court, the accused examined U/s.228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C., whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby having heard the learned Spl. Public Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under Section 506 r/w.149 of IPC and Secs.3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 have been framed and read over to the accused, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the

PWs.1 to 25, and got marked Exs.P1 to P32.

6.On closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused

Nos.1 to 6 examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they termed the

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.5/11 evidence of prosecution as false, but not chosen to examine the witnesses on their behalf.

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 6 for the offences charged beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that, the Court may proceed as per the material available on record.

The defence counsel argued that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and prayed for acquittal.

Marshalling of facts and analysis of evidence

9.This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

10.In this case, the defacto complainant is the victim against whom the atrocity alleged and he is examined as the PW.1.

His associates examined as the PWs.2, 3, 16 to 19, 21 to 24. They too projected as victims of the case contending that they were also subjected to atrocity in the alleged incident. The eye witnesses examined as the PWs.8 to 11. The PWs.5 & 6 are the VRO & VRA respectively, who posted as booth level officers of booth No.20 and they are also acted as scene observation mediators. The revenue officials, police personnel and other persons who posted for

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.6/11 election duty and who are circumstantial witnesses, examined as the PWs.4, 7, 12 to 15. The Tahsildar, who certified the castes of the complainant party and the accused party, examined as the

PW.20, through him the list pertain to castes of the accused party and the complainant party received in evidence. The PW.25 is the investigating officer, through this witness the records of the prosecution received in evidence.

11.In the examination-in-chief, the PW.1 deposed that, he belong to ST community and that he knows the accused who belong to other than SC/ST community. He further testified that, in the year 2019, there was galata in between two groups of their village in connection with identity of voter, there was pull and push in the mob and except this nothing happened. He further categorically deposed that, there was no any atrocity against him or his community, later at the instance of village elders, he along with other villagers went to police station and put their signatures on some already written papers and except his signature he does not know anything about this case. The PWs.2, 3, 16 to 19, 21 to 24, who are associates of PW.1 and against whom too the atrocity alleged, deposed in the same lines as deposed by the PW.1. The evidence of the PWs.1 to 3, 16 to 19, 21 to 24 is free from incriminating substance, as such, the learned Special Public

Prosecutor cross-examined them, yet nothing suitable to the case of prosecution could be elicited.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.7/11

12.In the form of eye witnesses, the prosecution has examined the PWs.8 to 11. They too have not supported the prosecution version by contending that, they does not know anything about this case and that police did not examine them and that there was no any atrocity against any one much less the complainant party. Their evidence is also free from incriminating substance, as such, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross- examined them, yet nothing suitable to the case of prosecution could be elicited.

13.The PWs.5 & 6 are the VRO & VRA respectively, who were posted as booth level officers of booth No.20 and they also acted as scene observation mediators, deposed in their examination-in-chief that, during the year 2019 general elections, while they were in duty, there was dispute in respect of identity of one lady inside the booth No.19 and in this regard there was commotion outside the booth between two political parties and that the police came and dispersed the mob and they further deposed about their presence at the time of observation of scene of offence by the investigating officer and through PW.5, Ex.P7- scene observation report received in evidence. The revenue officials, police personnel and other persons who were posted for election duty and who are circumstantial witnesses, examined as the PWs. 4, 7, 12 to 15, and they deposed that, during the year 2019 general elections, while they were in duty, there was dispute in respect of identity of one lady inside the booth No.19 and in this

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.8/11 regard there was commotion outside the booth between two political parties and that the police came and dispersed the mob.

The said witnesses also failed to state anything against the accused. The PW.20-Tahsildar, certified that the accused party belong to other than SC/ST community and the complainant party belong to ST/Lambadi community and through this witness the list of particulars of accused party and the complainant party in tabular form, dt.14.05.2019, received in evidence as Ex.P18. The

PW.25 is the main investigating officer, he tried to depose before this Court as to how he conducted investigation in this case and through this witness, the records of the prosecution received in evidence. In the absence of incriminating evidence from the material witnesses i.e., the victims, their associates, eye witnesses and circumstantial witnesses, the evidence of the Tahsildar and the

Investigating Officer, is of no avail.

14.In this sort of cases, whereby when the material witnesses have given go-bye to the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution crumbles and this is what happened in this case too. The prosecution utterly failed to prove that, the victims were subjected to any atrocity, much less in the hands of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the accused perpetrated the alleged offences. Thus the entire case of the prosecution shatters.

15.On conglomeration of above discussion, the Court is of the view that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is bereft of

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.9/11 material so far as the offences punishable under Section 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and thus with the evidence available on record, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused

Nos.1 to 6 for the offences charged. Hence the accused Nos.1 to 6 are entitled for acquittal.

16. Result

In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 6 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences

under SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum- VII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the ProsecutionFor the Accused

Pw.1 :Vadithe Babu Naik Pw.2 :Buliya Hari Naik Pw.3 :Buliya Surya Naik Pw.4 :Devarakonda Jyothi

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.10/11

Pw.5 :Sk. Nagoorvali Pw.6 :M. Ratna Raju Pw.7 :M. Sudha Rani Pw.8 :T. Srikanth Pw.9 :K. Balaji Pw.10:P. Arun Kumar Pw.11:Challagundla Sarath Babu Pw.12:SRK Sharif Pw.13:Thupakula Madhava Krishna Pw.14:Dasari Hanumantha Rao Pw.15:Kunduri Narasimha Rao Pw.16:Bukye Sussain Naik Pw.17:Kelavath Piklanaik Pw.18:Jarapala Rajesh Naik Pw.19:Jasavath Laxma Naik Pw.20:R. Malleswara Rao/ Tahsildar Pw.21:R. Raja Naik Pw.22:Vadite Chandralal Naik Pw.23:Modavath Prasad Naik Pw.24:Bhukya Mythri Naik Pw.25:M. Bala Sundar Rao/D.S.P

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution :

Ex.P1:Signature of Pw.1 on report Ex.P2:161 CrPC statement of Pw.1 Ex.P3:Signature of Pw.2 on report Ex.P4:161 CrPC statement of Pw.2 Ex.P5:Signature of Pw.3 on report Ex.P6:161 CrPC statement of Pw.3 Ex.P7:Scene observation report, dt.23.04.2019 Ex.P8:161 CrPC statement of Pw.8 Ex.P9:161 CrPC statement of Pw.9 Ex.P10:161 CrPC statement of Pw.10 Ex.P11:161 CrPC statement of Pw.11 Ex.P12:Signature of Pw.16 on report Ex.P13:161 CrPC statement of Pw.16 Ex.P14:161 CrPC statement of Pw.17 Ex.P15 :Signature of Pw.18 on report Ex.P16:161 CrPC statement of Pw.18 Ex.P17:161 CrPC statement of pw.19 Ex.P18:List of caste particulars Ex.P19Signature of pw.21 on report

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 Page No.11/11

Ex.P20161 CrPC statement of Pw.21 Ex.P21:161 CrPC statement of Pw.22 Ex.P22:Signature of Pw.23 on report Ex.P23:161 CrPC statement of Pw.23 Ex.P24:161 CrPC statement of Pw.24 Ex.P25:Authorization memo, dt.19.04.2019. Ex.P26:Report, dt.19.4.2019 Ex.P27:FIR in Cr.No.118/2019 of Martur Police Station Ex.P28:Rough Sketch Ex.P29:Photographs with CD Ex.P30:Section deletion memo Ex.P31:Proceedings of S.P., dt.26.05.2019 Ex.P32:Memo, dt. 03.06.2019.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Spl.Judge-cum-VII A.D.& S.J. Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl.Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Dr.S.Md. Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2022

Spl. Sessions Case No.98 of 2019

[Crime No.118 of 2019 of the Police Station, Martur]

Prosecution :Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri B.Audi Babu

Name(s) of the Accused : 1.Daggubati Suresh, son of Venkateswarlu, aged 35 years, Kamma by caste, Granite Business, 17-209, Gannavaram Road, Martur, Prakasam District.

2. Kanneganti Srinivasa Rao, son of Ammaiah, aged 53 years, Vegetable Business, 10-42B, LMB Back side, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

3.Adaka Gangaiah, son of Venkateswara Rao, aged 42 years, Yadava community, 9-21, Yadava Bazar, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

4. Kakollu Rama Rao, son of Ramaiah, aged 60 years, Kamma by caste, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

5. Karusola Suloman, son of Lalbude, aged 35 years, Muslim, MarturVillage&Mandal, Prakasam District.

6. Kakollu Venkateswarlu, son of Koteswara Rao, aged 50 years, Kamma by caste, Martur Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019

Charges under section(s) : Section 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.1 to 6 not guilty of the offences punishable under Section 506 r/w.149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Order relating to case property No case property, hence no order.

DATES OF

Date of occurrence:11.04.2019 Date of report:19.04.2019 Date of appearance:05.02.2020 Date of commencement of trial:22.03.2022 Date of closure of trial:06.04.2022 Date of hearing :07.04.2022 Date of Judgment:11.04.2022

Explanation for Delay : On file of charge sheet before this Court, the case is taken cognizance vide Spl. S.C.No.98 of 2019 on 07.12.2019. On receipt of summons, on 05.02.2020 the accused present before this Court and on the same day copies of case documents furnished to the accused and posted for hearing on charges. At this stage, the case is adjourned from time to time, due to unreadiness of both parties and amid Covid-19 pandemic. At last on 17.11.2021 after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, charges framed under Sections 506 r/w.149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, against the accused and the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. The trial of this case was commenced on 22.03.2022 and concluded by 06.04.2022. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 25 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P32. After closure of prosecution evidence, on 07.04.2022 the accused examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and denied the incriminating material appeared

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.98 of 2019 against them and the arguments were also heard on the same day and the matter posted for Judgment. On 11.04.2022 judgment is

pronounced acquitting the accused Nos.1 to 6. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Special Judge-cum-VII Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Prakasam District,Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.1/10

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Dr.S.Md. Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2022

Spl. Sessions Case No.74 of 2019

[Crime No.33 of 2019 of the Police Station, Bestavaripeta]

Prosecution :Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri I.Venkateswarlu for A2 Sri M.Raghavendra Reddy for A3 Case against A1 abated on his death

Name(s) of the Accused : 1. Metla Rama Krishna (Died)

2. Chintham Chinna Kondaiah, son of China Venkataiah, aged 26 years,Yadavabycaste, R/o.Chetticherla, B.V.Peta Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Thigireddy Ashok Reddy, son of Chinna Gali Reddy, aged 25 years,Reddybycaste, R/o.Chetticherla, B.V.Peta Mandal, Prakasam District.

The case against the A1 is abated on 16.02.2022 consequent to his death.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.2/10

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.2 & 3 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against the accused No.1 is abated on 16.02.2022 consequent to his death.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order. --o0o--

The above numbered Sessions Case presented before me on 07.04.2022 for final hearing, the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

The State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police

Officer, Markapur, Prakasam District, has filed charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.33 of 2019 of Bestavaripeta

Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and

Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity ‘the SC & ST (PoA) Act, 1989’).

2. Briefly stated, the contents of charge sheet are that, the defacto complainant/Karri Nani, belongs to SC-Madiga community, is a resident of B.V.Peta Village and working in Oorvasi Cinema

Theater at B.V.Peta Junction, whereas the accused Nos.1 to 3 belong to other than SC/ST community and are residents of

Chetticherla Village of B.V.Peta Mandal, and among all the accused, the A1 was working in Agricultural Check Post, B.V.Peta.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.3/10

While it is so, about few days prior to the incident, the A1 along with his friends A2 & A3 went to Oorvasi Cinema Theater, and demanded the defacto complainant to allow them to see the movie without the ticket, but the defacto complainant bluntly refused and at that juncture there arose wordy altercation between them, later the accused left the place. Keeping the above incident in mind, on 07.03.2018 at about 21.00 hours, while the defacto complainant/Karri Nani along with his associates were proceeding towards B.V.Peta Junction on a motorcycle, the A1 who was on duty at Agricultural Check Post, called for the A2 & A3 and stopped the motorcycle of the defacto complainant and demanded to show the vehicle papers without there being any authentication, and picked up quarrel with the defacto complainant and in that quarrel the accused abused the defacto complainant in filthy language touching his caste by uttering as “Madiga lanja kodaka, nee ammanu denga, cinemaku yenduku vellaneeyavu raa, cinema hall yemanna nee sonthama” , and so also beat him with hands and kicked on his face, chest. Witnessing the occurrence, the passersby, namely, Challagali Kasaiah and Polayya Anil Kumar @

Sunny, came to the rescue of the defacto complainant and they were subjected to assault and threatened by the accused party.

After that, the defacto complainant, turned up to B.V.Peta Police

Station and lodged report about the occurrence.

Adverting to the above, basing the report of the complainant party, a case in Crime No.33 of 2019 under Sections 341, 323, 506

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.4/10 r/w.34 of IPC and Sections 3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 of B.V.Peta P.S. registered and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed to proceed against the accused

Nos.1 to 3.

Cognizance

3.On file of charge sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Secs.3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989 against the accused Nos.1 to 3.

4. Pending trial, the case against the accused No.1 abated on 16.02.2022 consequent to his death. On the appearance of the accused Nos.2 & 3 before this Court, they were examined

U/s.228(1)(b)&(2) of Cr.P.C., whereby they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thereby having heard the learned Spl. Public

Prosecutor and the defence counsel, charges under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Secs.3 (1) (r) (s) & 3 (2) (va) of SCs &

STs (POA) Act, 1989 have been framed and read over to the accused, for which they denied the same and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined the

PWs.1 to 9, and got marked Exs.P1 to P17.

6.On closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused

No.2 & 3 examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they termed the evidence of prosecution as false, but not chosen to examine the witnesses on their behalf.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.5/10

7.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the accused Nos.2 & 3 for the offences charged beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that, the Court may proceed as per the material available on record.

The defence counsel argued that, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused and prayed for acquittal.

Marshalling of facts and analysis of evidence

9.This Court has perused the material available on record, verified the depositions of the witnesses, exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution and has given thoughtful consideration to the matter.

10.In this case, the defacto complainant is the victim against whom the atrocity alleged and he is examined as the PW.1.

His associate examined as the PW.2. He too projected as victim of the case contending that, he was also subjected to assault in the hands of the accused when he came to the rescue of the PW.1. The eye witnesses/circumstantial witnesses are examined as the PWs.3 to 5. The PW.6 is the employer of the A1, who issued the duty certificate pertain to the A1 at the relevant point of time. The

Tahsildar who issued caste certificates of the accused party and the defacto complainant, examined as the PW.7, through him the caste certificates received in evidence. The PW.8 is the then Sub-

Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR basing the written

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.6/10 report presented by the complainant and issued FIR. The PW.9 is the investigating officer, through this witness the records of the prosecution received in evidence.

11.In the examination-in-chief, the PW.1 deposed that, he belongs to SC-Madiga community and that he knows the accused who belong to other than SC/ST community. He further deposed that, he was a worker in Oorvasi Cinema Theater, and about 4 years ago, at about 09-00 P.M., himself, Kasaiah and one Anil

Kumar were going going on motorcycle, when they reached Check- post junction, some gathering was there and there was a galata between the gathering, in that galata, there was pull and push, whereby he too fell down from the motorcycle and sustained injury on his jaws and thereafter he went to the police station, there the police obtained his signature on already written paper, but he does not know the contents. He further categorically deposed that, the accused are not responsible for the said incident and they did not abuse him touching his caste and that police did not examine him.

The same is the case with the PW.2. The evidence of the PWs.1 & 2 is free from incriminating substance, as such, the learned Special

Public Prosecutor cross-examined them, yet nothing suitable to the case of prosecution could be elicited.

12.In the form of eye witnesses and circumstantial witnesses, the prosecution has examined the PWs.3 to 5. They too have not supported the prosecution version by contending that,

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.7/10 they does not know anything about this case and police did not examine them. Their evidence is also free from incriminating substance, as such, the learned Special Public Prosecutor cross- examined them, yet nothing suitable to the case of prosecution could be elicited.

13.The Secretary of Agricultural Market Yard, Cumbum, examined as the PW.6 and he deposed that, the A1 used to work on outsourcing basis in the market yard and to that effect at the request of the SDPO, Markapur, he has issued the duty certificate pertain to the A1 under Ex.P7 to the effect that the A1 was on duty 07.03.2019 and from 13.03.2019 he absconded from the duty. The above said evidence of PW.6 is not at all helpful to the case of the prosecution. For the reason that, except stating about the duty particulars of the A1 at Agricultural Market Yard, at the relevant period, nothing could be brought on record against the accused.

14.The Tahsildar, who issued caste certificates pertain to the accused Nos.1 to 3 and the defacto complainant is examined as the PW.7 and through him the caste certificates under Exs.P8 to

P11 received in evidence to the effect that, the accused belong to other than SC/ST community and the defacto complainant belong to SC-Madiga community. The PW.8-S.I. of Police, deposed about his registering the written report presented by the defacto complainant and issuance of FIR and so also the assistance rendered by him to the main investigating officer. The PW.9 is the

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.8/10 main investigating officer, he tried to depose before this Court as to how he conducted investigation in this case and through this witness, the records of the prosecution received in evidence under

Exs.P14 to P17. In the absence of incriminating evidence from the material witnesses i.e., the victim, his associate, eye witnesses and circumstantial witnesses, the evidence of the Tahsildar and the

Investigating Officers, is of no avail.

14.In this sort of cases, whereby when the material witnesses have given go-bye to the case of prosecution, the entire case of prosecution crumbles and this is what happened in this case too. The prosecution utterly failed to prove that, the victims were subjected to any atrocity, much less in the hands of the accused. There is nothing on record to show that the accused perpetrated the alleged offences. Thus the entire case of the prosecution shatters.

15.On conglomeration of above discussion, the Court is of the view that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is bereft of material so far as the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)

(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and thus with the evidence available on record, the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused Nos.2 & 3 for the offences charged. Hence the accused Nos.2 & 3 are entitled for acquittal.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.9/10

16. Result

In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.2 & 3 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under

Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against the accused No.1 is abated on 16.02.2022 consequent to his death.

Order relating to case property

No case property, hence no order.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 11th day of April, 2022.

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences

under SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum- VII-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For the ProsecutionFor the Accused

PW.1: Karri Nani -None-

PW.2: Challagali Kasaiah

PW.3: Dudekula Jahangeer Bee

PW.4: Dudekula Saleema

PW.5: Kandanuru Kondareddy

PW.6: Ch.Vamsi Krishna

PW.7: B.V.R.Ch.Prasad, Tahsildar

PW.8: T.Kishore Babu, I.O.

PW.9: G.Nageswara Reddy, I.O.

VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 Page No.10/10

DOCUMENTS MARKED

On behalf of the Prosecution :

Ex.P1: Signature of PW.1 on the report given to Police

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.1

Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2

Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5

Ex.P7: Duty Certificate of the A1 dated 30.05.2019

Exs.P8 to P11: Caste certificates of the A1 to A3 & the PW.1.

Ex.P12: Report given by PW.1 to the Police.

Ex.P13: Original FIR

Ex.P14: Authorization Memo

Ex.P15: Rough sketch of the scene of offence

Ex.P16: Photographs along with CD

Ex.P17: Authorization Memo for filing charge sheet.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-NIL-

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Spl.Judge-cum-VII A.D.& S.J. Ongole.

Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl.Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

Before the Special Judge for trial of offences under Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – cum – VII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District at Ongole.

Present: Dr.S.Md. Fazulullah

Special Judge for trial of offences under

SCs and STs (PoA) Act, 1989-cum-VII

Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Prakasam District, Ongole.

Monday, this the Eleventh (11th) day of April, 2022

Spl. Sessions Case No.74 of 2019

[Crime No.33 of 2019 of the Police Station, Bestavaripeta]

Prosecution :Sri C.Srinivasa Murthy, Special Public Prosecutor.

Defence Counsel : Sri I.Venkateswarlu for A2 Sri M.Raghavendra Reddy for A3 Case against A1 abated on his death

Name(s) of the Accused : 1. Metla Rama Krishna (Died)

2. Chintham Chinna Kondaiah, son of China Venkataiah, aged 26 years,Yadavabycaste, R/o.Chetticherla, B.V.Peta Mandal, Prakasam District.

3. Thigireddy Ashok Reddy, son of Chinna Gali Reddy, aged 25 years,Reddybycaste, R/o.Chetticherla, B.V.Peta Mandal, Prakasam District.

The case against the A1 is abated on 16.02.2022 consequent to his death.

Charges under section(s) : Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Plea of the Accused: Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty.

Result of the Case: In the result, this Court found the accused Nos.2 & 3 not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Spl. Judge-cum-VII-ADJ, OGL, Spl.S.C.No.74 of 2019 under Secs.3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 232 of Cr.P.C. They are set at liberty. Their bail bonds shall be cancelled after six months under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. The case against the accused No.1 is abated on 16.02.2022 consequent to his death.

Order relating to case property No case property, hence no order.

DATES OF

Date of occurrence:07.03.2019 Date of report:08.03.2019 Date of appearance:07.11.2019 Date of commencement of trial:16.03.2022 Date of closure of trial:07.04.2022 Date of hearing :07.04.2022 Date of Judgment:11.04.2022

Explanation for Delay : On file of charge sheet before this Court, the case is taken cognizance vide Spl. S.C.No.74 of 2019 on 04.10.2019. On receipt of summons, on 07.11.2019 the accused present before this Court and on the same day copies of case documents furnished to the accused and posted for hearing on charges. At this stage, the case is adjourned from time to time, due to unreadiness of both parties and amid Covid-19 pandemic. At last on 02.03.2022 after hearing the learned counsel for both parties, charges framed under Sections 341, 323, 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2) (va) of the SCs & STs (POA) Act, 1989, against the accused and the charges were read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which, they pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. The trial of this case was commenced on 16.03.2022 and concluded by 07.04.2022. During trial, on behalf of the prosecution, Pws.1 to 9 were examined and got marked Exs.P1 to P17. After closure of prosecution evidence, on the same day i.e., on 07.04.2022 the accused examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and denied the incriminating material appeared against them and on the same day both sides arguments were also heard and the matter posted for Judgment. On 11.04.2022 judgment is pronounced acquitting the accused. Hence, the delay.

Sd/- Dr.S.Md.Fazulullah

Special Judge-cum-VII Additional District

& Sessions Judge, Prakasam District,Ongole. Copy submitted to : :Copy submitted to The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)The Hon’ble Registrar (Judl.,)

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Nelapadu, Guntur District.Nelapadu, Guntur District.

Copies to :

1. The Spl. Public Prosecutor, VII ADJ court, Ongole.

2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.2. The Superintendent of Police, Ongole.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: MARKAPUR IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: MARKAPUR

Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, VII Additional District Judge, Ongole VII Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC: VI Additional District Judge, Markapur FAC: VI Additional District Judge, Markapur

Monday, this the Twentieth (20th Monday, this the Twentieth (20th ) day of September, 2021.) day of September, 2021.

Original Suit No.29 of 2018 Original Suit No.29 of 2018

BETWEEN:BETWEEN:

1. Macherla Subbamma,1. Macherla Subbamma, W/o.Late Eswara Reddy, W/o.Late Eswara Reddy, aged 78 years, House lady,aged 78 years, House lady,

2. Macherla Venkata Subba Reddy,2. Macherla Venkata Subba Reddy, son of Late Esware Reddy, son of Late Esware Reddy, aged 57 years, Advocate,aged 57 years, Advocate,

3. Macherla Eswaramma,3. Macherla Eswaramma, wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 50 years, House wife,aged 50 years, House wife,

4. Macherla Venkateswara Reddy,4. Macherla Venkateswara Reddy, wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 31 years,wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 31 years,

5. Macherla Pratapa Reddy,5. Macherla Pratapa Reddy, wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 29 years,wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 29 years,

6. Macherla Satyanarayana Reddy,6. Macherla Satyanarayana Reddy, son of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 26 years,son of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 26 years,

7. Macherla Nagarjuna Reddy,7. Macherla Nagarjuna Reddy, son of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, son of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 27 years, cultivation,aged 27 years, cultivation,

8. Macherla Subhadra Devi,8. Macherla Subhadra Devi, wife of Late Chandra Sekhara Reddy, wife of Late Chandra Sekhara Reddy, aged 36 years, Private Teacher,aged 36 years, Private Teacher,

Plaintiffs are residents of Chetticherla village, Plaintiffs are residents of Chetticherla village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District.Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District. … Plaintiffs … Plaintiffs

AND AND

1. Bonthala Lakshmana Swamy Guptha.1. Bonthala Lakshmana Swamy Guptha. son of Rama Kotaiah, aged 43 years, son of Rama Kotaiah, aged 43 years,

2. Bonthala Chidambareswara Guptha,2. Bonthala Chidambareswara Guptha, son of Siva Narayana Guptha, aged 47 years, son of Siva Narayana Guptha, aged 47 years,

Defendants 1 and 2 are residents of Bestavaripeta VillageDefendants 1 and 2 are residents of Bestavaripeta Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.& Mandal, Prakasam District.

2

3. Ravuri Kasi Ranga Sudhakara Rao,3. Ravuri Kasi Ranga Sudhakara Rao, son of Somaiah, aged 40 years, son of Somaiah, aged 40 years, Resident of Cumbum Village & Mandal, Resident of Cumbum Village & Mandal, Prakasam District. Prakasam District.

4. Boreddy Venkata Reddy,4. Boreddy Venkata Reddy, son of Subba Reddy, aged 54 years, son of Subba Reddy, aged 54 years, R/o.Omkarapuram, Bestavaripet Mandal, R/o.Omkarapuram, Bestavaripet Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants Prakasam District. … Defendants * * * * * *

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of Permanent InjunctionThis is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men and followers from entering into therestraining the defendants, their men and followers from entering into the suit schedule land and converting it into plots and creating 3rdsuit schedule land and converting it into plots and creating 3rd party interest party interest by way of sale, lease or in any way interfering with the plaintiffs’ peacefulby way of sale, lease or in any way interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land and for costs of the suit.possession and enjoyment of the schedule land and for costs of the suit.

This suit is presented before me on today for consideration in theThis suit is presented before me on today for consideration in the presence of Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri M.Sripresence of Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri M.Sri Rami Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.3 and the remaining defendantRami Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.3 and the remaining defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 having remained ex parte, when the matter coming upNos.1, 2 and 4 having remained ex parte, when the matter coming up hearing, the counsel for the plaintiffs reports through bluejeans app virtuallyhearing, the counsel for the plaintiffs reports through bluejeans app virtually that he filed a memo into physical filing not pressing the suit and havingthat he filed a memo into physical filing not pressing the suit and having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

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

Counsel for the plaintiffs reports through bluejeans that, the suit mayCounsel for the plaintiffs reports through bluejeans that, the suit may be dismissed as not pressed and filed not press memo to that effect inbe dismissed as not pressed and filed not press memo to that effect in physical filing. Memo recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed as not pressed. physical filing. Memo recorded. Hence, the suit is dismissed as not pressed.

Pronounced by me in open Court virtually on this the 20Pronounced by me in open Court virtually on this the 20th th day ofday of

September, 2021.September, 2021.

Sd/- S. Md. Fazulullah,Sd/- S. Md. Fazulullah,

VII Additional District Judge, Ongole. VII Additional District Judge, Ongole.

FAC:VI Additional District Judge, FAC:VI Additional District Judge,

Markapur Markapur

Appendix of evidence Appendix of evidence

-NIL- -NIL-

Sd/- S. Md. Fazulullah,Sd/- S. Md. Fazulullah,

VII A.D.J., Ongole. VII A.D.J., Ongole.

FAC:VI ADJ, Markapur. FAC:VI ADJ, Markapur.

3

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE :: IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE ::

MARKAPUR MARKAPUR

Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, Present: Dr. S. Md. Fazulullah, VII Additional District Judge, Ongole VII Additional District Judge, Ongole FAC: VI Additional District Judge, Markapur FAC: VI Additional District Judge, Markapur

Monday, this the Twentieth (20th Monday, this the Twentieth (20th ) day of September, 2021.) day of September, 2021.

Original Suit No.29 of 2018 Original Suit No.29 of 2018

BETWEEN:BETWEEN:

1. Macherla Subbamma,1. Macherla Subbamma, W/o.Late Eswara Reddy, W/o.Late Eswara Reddy, aged 78 years, House lady,aged 78 years, House lady,

2. Macherla Venkata Subba Reddy,2. Macherla Venkata Subba Reddy, son of Late Esware Reddy, son of Late Esware Reddy, aged 57 years, Advocate,aged 57 years, Advocate,

3. Macherla Eswaramma,3. Macherla Eswaramma, wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 50 years, House wife,aged 50 years, House wife,

4. Macherla Venkateswara Reddy,4. Macherla Venkateswara Reddy, wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 31 years,wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 31 years,

5. Macherla Pratapa Reddy,5. Macherla Pratapa Reddy, wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 29 years,wife of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 29 years,

6. Macherla Satyanarayana Reddy,6. Macherla Satyanarayana Reddy, son of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 26 years,son of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 26 years,

7. Macherla Nagarjuna Reddy,7. Macherla Nagarjuna Reddy, son of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, son of Late Venkata Krishna Reddy, aged 27 years, cultivation,aged 27 years, cultivation,

8. Macherla Subhadra Devi,8. Macherla Subhadra Devi, wife of Late Chandra Sekhara Reddy, wife of Late Chandra Sekhara Reddy, aged 36 years, Private Teacher,aged 36 years, Private Teacher,

Plaintiffs are residents of Chetticherla village, Plaintiffs are residents of Chetticherla village, Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District.Bestavaripeta Mandal, Prakasam District. … … PlaintiffsPlaintiffs

AND AND

1. Bonthala Lakshmana Swamy Guptha.1. Bonthala Lakshmana Swamy Guptha. son of Rama Kotaiah, aged 43 years, son of Rama Kotaiah, aged 43 years,

2. Bonthala Chidambareswara Guptha,2. Bonthala Chidambareswara Guptha, son of Siva Narayana Guptha, aged 47 years, son of Siva Narayana Guptha, aged 47 years,

Defendants 1 and 2 are residents of Bestavaripeta VillageDefendants 1 and 2 are residents of Bestavaripeta Village & Mandal, Prakasam District.& Mandal, Prakasam District.

4

3. Ravuri Kasi Ranga Sudhakara Rao,3. Ravuri Kasi Ranga Sudhakara Rao, son of Somaiah, aged 40 years, son of Somaiah, aged 40 years, Resident of Cumbum Village & Mandal, Resident of Cumbum Village & Mandal, Prakasam District. Prakasam District.

4. Boreddy Venkata Reddy,4. Boreddy Venkata Reddy, son of Subba Reddy, aged 54 years, son of Subba Reddy, aged 54 years, R/o.Omkarapuram, Bestavaripet Mandal, R/o.Omkarapuram, Bestavaripet Mandal, Prakasam District. … Defendants Prakasam District. … Defendants

This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of Permanent InjunctionThis is a suit filed by the plaintiffs for grant of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants, their men and followers from entering into therestraining the defendants, their men and followers from entering into the suit schedule land and converting it into plots and creating 3rdsuit schedule land and converting it into plots and creating 3rd party party interest by way of sale, lease or in any way interfering with the plaintiffs’interest by way of sale, lease or in any way interfering with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land and for costs ofpeaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule land and for costs of the suit.the suit.

Date of presentation: 08.06.2018Date of presentation: 08.06.2018Date of filing : 08.06.2018;Date of filing : 08.06.2018;

CAUSE OF ACTION : : CAUSE OF ACTION

Cause of action for the suit arose in the year 2008, when theCause of action for the suit arose in the year 2008, when the 33rdrd defendant filed suit in OS.20/2018 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, defendant filed suit in OS.20/2018 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur and obtained status quo orders against both the parties and inGiddalur and obtained status quo orders against both the parties and in the year 2012 when suit is transferred and numbered as OS.191/2012 onthe year 2012 when suit is transferred and numbered as OS.191/2012 on the file of VII-Addl. District Judge, Ongole and two days prior to 30.4.2018the file of VII-Addl. District Judge, Ongole and two days prior to 30.4.2018 when defendants tried to convert the land into plots violating status quowhen defendants tried to convert the land into plots violating status quo order and when 2ndorder and when 2nd plaintiff filed IA.458/2018 and IA.459/2018 in plaintiff filed IA.458/2018 and IA.459/2018 in

OS.191/2012 on the file of VII-Additional District Judge, Ongole and onOS.191/2012 on the file of VII-Additional District Judge, Ongole and on

2.5.2018 when D3 filed memo and got dismissed OS.191/2012 and for2.5.2018 when D3 filed memo and got dismissed OS.191/2012 and for the last four days defendants are proclaiming to renew their illegal acts ofthe last four days defendants are proclaiming to renew their illegal acts of converting the site into plots and alienate schedule property to thirdconverting the site into plots and alienate schedule property to third parties and all arose at Bestavaripeta within the jurisdiction of theparties and all arose at Bestavaripeta within the jurisdiction of the

Hon’ble Court.Hon’ble Court.

Valuation and Court Fee: Valuation and Court Fee:

The relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued atThe relief of permanent injunction is notionally valued at Rs.16,00,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.18,426/- is paid under SectionRs.16,00,000/-, on which a court fee of Rs.18,426/- is paid under Section 26(c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act, by depositing the same in SBI District Court26(c) of A.P.C.F. & S.V. Act, by depositing the same in SBI District Court Premises Bank, Ongole in lieu of court fee.Premises Bank, Ongole in lieu of court fee.

This suit is presented before me on today for consideration in theThis suit is presented before me on today for consideration in the presence of Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sripresence of Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the plaintiffs and of Sri M.Sri Rami Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.3 and the remainingM.Sri Rami Reddy, Advocate for the defendant No.3 and the remaining defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 having remained ex parte, when the matterdefendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 having remained ex parte, when the matter coming up hearing, the counsel for the plaintiffs reports throughcoming up hearing, the counsel for the plaintiffs reports through bluejeans app virtually that he filed a memo into physical filing notbluejeans app virtually that he filed a memo into physical filing not pressing the suit and having stood over for consideration, this court dothpressing the suit and having stood over for consideration, this court doth order and decree:order and decree:

5

1.1.That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed,That the suit be and the same is hereby dismissed as not pressed, and;and;

2.2.That there be no order as to costs.That there be no order as to costs.

(Costs memo and fee certificate not filed by either of the parties to (Costs memo and fee certificate not filed by either of the parties to this suit)this suit) (Schedule appended hereto)(Schedule appended hereto)

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, on this the 20thGiven under my hand and the seal of this Court, on this the 20th day of September, 2021.day of September, 2021.

VII Additional District Judge, Ongole VII Additional District Judge, Ongole

FAC:VI Addl. District Judge, Markapur FAC:VI Addl. District Judge, Markapur

TABLE OF COSTS TABLE OF COSTS

(Institution costs)(Institution costs) For plaintiffFor plaintiffFor DefendantFor Defendant VakalatVakalat2-002-00---- Plaint feesPlaint fees18,426-0018,426-00---- TOTALTOTAL18,428-0018,428-00 (Costs memo and fee certificate not filed by either of the parties to this suit)(Costs memo and fee certificate not filed by either of the parties to this suit)

VII ADJ, Ongole. VII ADJ, Ongole.

FAC: VI ADJ, Markapur. FAC: VI ADJ, Markapur.

NOTE:: The parties shall apply as soon as possible for the return of all theNOTEThe parties shall apply as soon as possible for the return of all the exhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to destroyexhibits, which they may wish to preserve, as the record will be liable to destroy after the stipulated period from this date.after the stipulated period from this date.