Sri Shaik Sikinder Basha

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRAIL OF OFFENCES UNDER SCs & STs

(POA) ACT-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM

PRESENT: : Sri Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs

(POA) Act-cum-IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

Monday, this the 15th day of April, 2024.

SC ST SC No. 18 of 2020

1. Name of the Complainant :The Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC ST Cell – I, Vizianagaram

2. Name of the accused :Lenka Anand, S/o Seetham Naidu, 35 years, T.Kapu by caste, A.T.Agraharam Village, Nellimarla Mandal, Vizianagaram District

3. Charges : Under Section 326 of and Section 3(1)

(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015 against Accused

4. Plea of accused : Accused pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge : In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC & ST POA Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

The Accused is found guilty for the offence under Sections 326 of IPC and accordingly, Accused is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence.

6. Sentence or order : On hearing of quantum of sentence, the accused is sentenced to suffer Simple imprisonment for a period of 32 days, which is period of detention during pre-trial stage, and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence under 326 of IPC. In default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks. The period of detention in jail from 18-02-2020 to 20-03-2020 i.e. 32 days shall be given set off in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused is explained about his right to appeal. A free copy of the judgment is supplied herewith.

7. Prosecution conducted by: Special Public Prosecutor.

8. Defence conducted by : Sri G.Kesava Rao, Advocate for the Accused.

This case is coming on 11.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri

G.Kesava Rao, Advocate for Accused, the case having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E N T

1.The State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC ST Cell –

I, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet in Cr. No.23/2020 of Denkada Police Station against sole accused for the offences under section 326 of IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act – 2015, with the following allegations:

2.That, the Accused is resident of A.T.Agraharam village, Nellimarla

Mandal and belong to Non-SC ST Community. P.W.1 is resident of Saripalli

Village, Nellimarla Mandal and belongs to Scheduled Caste-Madiga community. On 11.02.2020 on receiving medical intimation, the Police reached District Hospital, Vizianagaram and recorded the statement of P.W.1, who stated that about three years back, he purchased a calf and cow from the mother of the accused for Rs.2,800/-. At that time, he gave Rs.1,000/- to them and remaining amount will be on credit. He told his father to pay the credit amount to the accused family and he thought that his father paid the due amount. While so, on 11.02.2020 at about 12.30 PM, while he was present in

Mopada Shandy, the accused came to him and abused him as “ఏరామాదిగ లం�జాకొడకాఎన్ని�సం�వత్స�రాలుఅయిం�దిరానాకు 1,800/- ఇవ�డాన్నికి, అయింనాఇప్ప�టికిడబ్బు లుఇవ�కు�డా తిరుగుతునా�వు” and beat him with a big Stone on his left hand, causing swelling to his left hand. The persons preset there, shifted him to Vizianagaram

Government Hospital on Motorcycle and admitted him for treatment. The

Police registered case in Crime No.23/2020 for the offence under Sections 324 of IPC, Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment

Act – 2015. After investigation, as the P.W.1 received grievous injury, added

Section 326 of IPC and Section 3 (2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act – 2015. After receiving Proceedings from the Superintendent of Police,

Vizianagaram, investigation has been carried by Deputy Superintendent of

Police, who visited the scene of offence and seized the crime weapon i.e Big 3

Stone weighing about 10 KGs from the scene of offence and after obtaining caste particulars and medical certificate, charge sheet has been filed.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences under Section 326 of IPC and

Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against the Accused.

4.On appearance of the Accused, he engaged Advocate of his choice, copies of charge sheet and other documents have been furnished to him under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.After hearing plea of accused under section 228 Cr.P.C, charges for the offences under Section 326 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against Accused have been framed read over and explained to the accused in Telugu and he denied the same by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 18 and marked

Exhibits P.1 to P.12 and M.O.1.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused is examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied the incriminating material found in the prosecution evidence and stated that he has no defense evidence.

8. Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Now, the points for determination are:-

(1) “Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the Accused beat P.W.1 with Stone causing

fracture injury which is grievous injury to attract

punishment under Section 326 of IPC?

(2) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the Accused with a view to humiliate and insult

the P.W.1, who belong to Scheduled Caste, made caste

abuses within the public view in a public place to attract

punishment under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs & ST s (POA)

Act?

(3) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the Accused committed the offence under

Section 326 of IPC which is punishable for a term of ten

4

years or more on account of the P.W.1 belong to Scheduled

Caste to attract punishment under Section 3(2)(v) of SCs &

ST s (POA) Act?

(4) To what result?

10.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that, the Accused belong to Non-SC ST community and the victim of the offence belong to

Scheduled Caste, the P.W.1 owed an amount of Rs.1,800/- to the mother of accused, while so when the P.W.1 met the accused at Mopada Shandy on 11.02.2020, the accused came to P.W.1 and abused him touching his caste for not clearing the debt of Rs.1,800/-, when the P.W.1 fell, he beat him with a big stone, due to which the P.W.1 received fracture injury. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses, all the witnesses have stated about the offence and supported the case of prosecution. The accused humiliated the P.W.1 for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled Caste, and also beat the P.W.1 with Big

Stone and caused fracture injury, which is grievous injury, hence the prosecution proved the guilty of the accused for the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is liable for punishment.

11.The learned counsel for the Accused submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of Prosecution witnesses. According to P.W.1, he received injury to left hand, P.W.3 stated that the accused had thrown the stone on the left leg of the P.W.1, the entire investigation was conducted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, who recorded the statement of witnesses, the offences under Section SCs & ST s (POA) Act are to be investigated by the

Deputy Superintendent of Police. P.W.6 do not know the name of the accused, he referred the name as “Lenka Govind”, whereas the name of the accused is “Lenka Anand”. The Doctor did not examine whether the injured was in intoxicated state or not, X-Rays were taken, there is no yardstick to mention the weight of the M.O.1/Stone, whether the accused pushed the P.W.1 to the

Stone or whether he had thrown it on the P.W.1 is not clear from the evidence.

5

Only to get compensation from the Government, false case has been foisted against the accused, simply asking money to clear debt cannot be treated as an offence under SCs & ST s (POA) Act, the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt and he may be acquitted.

POINT No. 1:-

12. The case of the prosecution is that, the P.W.1 owed an amount of

Rs.1,800/- to the mother of accused and the accused demanded P.W.1 for that money, for which the P.W.1 sought time, thereupon the accused made caste abuses and also beat the P.W.1 with a Stone and caused fracture injury to his left hand. To substantiate this case, the prosecution examined the victim of the offence as P.W.1. He stated that he belong to SC-Madiga community and he was doing cattle business, he know the family of the accused since three or four years prior to the filing of case. He purchased a cow and calf for

Rs.2,800/- from the mother of accused and he gave Rs.1,000/- and agreed to pay the balance amount later. He told the said fact to his father, thereafter he was under impression that his father paid the due amount. One day, the accused asked for money and he told that he is not indebted to him and that he had no acquaintance with him. Then the P.W.1 said that he is indebted to the mother of Accused. Then P.W.1 said that his father might have paid the amount. At about 12.30 hours, the accused came in drunken condition and abused him touching his caste and also beat him and pushed him to the ground, beat him with hands and legs and hit his left hand to a stone. He received fracture injury to his left hand. He identified M.O.1 as the stone to which he was hit. P.W.s 2, 3, L.W.7/Pendurthi Paparao and P.W.5 have witnessed the incident and came to rescue him. Meanwhile the accused lifted the same stone and threatened them not to interfere. Then P.W.2 made a 6 phone call to P.W.4, who sent P.W.7 to him. The P.W.7 questioned the accused for his acts and asked him to shift P.W.1 to Hospital in his auto, but the accused refused and went away with his Auto. Thereafter, P.W.7 shifted him to

Denkada Police Station. The police advised him to go to Hospital. The police came to hospital and recorded his statement under Exhibit P.1. In his cross- examination, he stated that he cannot say the day, month and year of the occurrence. He paid advance for purchase of cattle and he is responsible for payment of balance consideration. The Mopada Shandy is covered with sand, the Shandy was held on Tuesdays. After informing to his father, he did not enquire whether his father paid money to the mother of accused or not.

13. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the cross-examination, P.W.1 stated that the accused came from backside, twisted his hand on the backside and beat him. According to learned counsel, there is no possibility for a person to hold a stone of the size of M.O.1 weighing 10 KGs with one hand and twisting hand of the victim and beating him with another hand. A careful scrutiny of cross-examination of P.W.1 shows that the incident of twisting hands to the backside and the incident of pushing the P.W.1 to a Stone which is M.O.1, hitting of stone and receiving fracture injury are not a single incident.

According to evidence of P.W.1, the accused made caste abuses, pushed him to ground, beat him with hands and legs, this is one incident followed by the accused hitting his left hand to a stone and receiving injury, thereafter, when the surrounding people assembled to rescue the P.W.1, the accused again lifted the same stone and threatened them not to interfere. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the accused that there is no possibility to twist the hand from backside and hold the M.O.1.Stone with one hand is wrong interpretation of fact, treating the incident as a single incident.

14.P.W.2 is an eye witness to the incident. He is also doing the cattle business along with P.W.1. About three years back from the date of giving 7 evidence, about 12.30 to 1.00 PM, he, P.W.1 were sitting at Mopada Shandy, the other witnesses were also sitting. The accused and P.W.1 were altercating each other. The P.W.1 was due of an amount of Rs.1,800/- to the accused and when the accused demanded the P.W.1, he stated that he will pay in two installments. As the P.W.1 was postponing the payment, the accused quarreled with him and pushed him with leg. The P.W.1 fell down and abused as “లం�జాకొడకా . After he fell down, the accused beat him with stone, and then” they interfered. The accused stepped back and again caught hold the shirt collar and pushed the P.W.1. When the accused picked up stone, for the second time they have interfered and stopped him. Then the accused abused

P.W.1 saying that “మాదిగలం�జాకొడకాఎప్పు�డుఅడిగినాఇలాగేవాయిందాలువేస్తా0 వు . Then the” accused beat P.W.1 with stone. The witness identified the M.O.1 Stone. They have tied a Towel to the left hand of P.W.1 and asked the accused to shift

P.W.1 in his Auto, but the accused said that he is not concerned and left with his Auto. Then somebody called P.W.4 and informed him, then P.W.4 sent

P.W.7, who took P.W.1 to Denkada Police Station, from there he was shifted to

Hospital. In his cross-examination, he stated that he cannot say the date, month and year of offence. The P.W.1 did not state him that he purchased cattle from the mother of accused. They were sitting at some distance from the place of offence. He do not know whether P.W.1 paid Rs.1,800/- to the accused or not till date.

15.P.W.3 is another eye witness to the incident. He also corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 and stated that on 11.02.2020 at about 12.30 to 1.00 PM, when he along with L.W.7/Pendurthi Paparao and P.W.6 were sitting in Mopada

Shandy, at that time the accused came and asked P.W.1 for money of

Rs.1,800/-. The P.W.1 stated that he is not having money on hand and he will give money after one week. Both, the accused and P.W.1, caught hold shirt collars of each other. The accused abused P.W.1 by saying “మాదిగలం�జాకొడకా” 8 and also beat him with legs. Then they went to P.W.1 and accused, and rescued P.W.1. After separating them, the accused picked up a stone. Then on their interference, he had thrown the stone. Again he picked up the stone and thrown on the left leg of P.W.1. While the P.W.1 was crying, the accused went away with his Auto. Somebody made a call to P.W.4 and he sent P.W.7, at that time the hand of P.W.1 was tied with a towel. Then P.W.1 was shifted police station, who referred him to Hospital.

16.P.W.4 is not a direct witness. He is Ex-Sarpanch of Saripali Village and brother to father of P.W.1. He stated that on 11.02.2020 at about 1.00 PM, while he was present in his village, he received a phone from the phone of

P.W.1. and stated that the accused had beat P.W.1 with a stone and abused him as “మాదిగలం�జాకొడకా and the P.W.1 received fracture injury. Immediately,” he made a phone call to P.W.7 and asked him to go to Mopada Shandy and to take P.W.1 to Police Station. Thereafter, he went to Hospital and Doctors informed that the P.W.1 received fracture injury.

17.P.W.5 is a direct witness to the occurrence. He corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 and stated that between 12.00 to 1.00 PM while they were sitting at Mopada Shandy near Ropes Shop, the accused came in

Auto and abused P.W.1 by saying “మాదిగలం�జాకొడకా, మాలం లం�జాకొడకా ఎనా�ళ్ళు2 అయిం�ది డబ్బు తీసుకున్ని” . They both altercated and scuffled each other. The accused pushed P.W.1 to ground and picked up one Stone weighing about 10 KGs and thrown on his left hand. The P.W.1 was lying on ground as his hand was fractured, then they rushed to that place and called P.W.4 over phone. Then

P.W.4 sent P.W.7, who took P.W.1 to Police Station.

18.P.W.6 is a direct witness to the occurrence. He also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5. He stated that between 11.00 to 12.00 Noon, while he, P.Ws. 2, 3 and 5 were sitting at Ropes Shop, the accused abused

P.W.1 by saying “మాలంలం�జాకొడకా, మాదిగలం�జాకొడకా, ఎన్ని�స్తారు5డబ్బు లుఅడగాలిరా” , they 9 both scuffled each other. They went there and separated them. Then the accused brought one stone and thrown on the left hand of P.W.1. The P.W.1 was lying on the ground as he received fracture injury. Then, the accused left in his Auto. Somebody called P.W.4 and he sent P.W.7, who shifted P.W.1 to police station. In his cross-examination, he referred the name of accused as “Lenka Govind” whereas the name of accused is “Lenka Anand”. He further stated that he knows the P.W.1, but he came to know the accused at the time of incident only. So, it is not always necessary that a person who had seen the accused on the date of occurrence should know the name of accused, and mere referring of name of accused wrongly when there is no dispute about the identity of the accused, will not be fatal to the case of prosecution.

19.P.W.7 is the person, who shifted the P.W.1 to Police Station. He stated that after completion of work, he was returning from Mopada Shandy, he received a phone call from P.W.4 and asked him to go to Mopada Shandy as somebody beat his brother-in-law. Immediately he went to Mopada Shandy and found P.W.1 at the Shandy, his left hand was tied with a towel. P.Ws. 2 and 3 stated that the accused beat P.W.1. Then, he engaged TATA Ace belong to P.W.8 and took P.W.1 to Denkada Police Station and on the advice of Police, he took him to Hospital.

20.P.W.8 is owner of TATA ACE van in which the P.W.1 was shifted. He took the cattle in his TATA ACE van to Mopada Shandy, when he reached Mopada

Shandy, he found P.W.1 with bleeding injury and he was crying. Then, he questioned P.W.1 how he received injury, he said that the accused beat him to

Stone, he took PW1 to Denkada Police Station in his vehicle. Some other people followed them on Bikes. He dropped P.W1 at Police Station and then left.

21.P.W.9 stated that he came to know about the P.W.1 and accused altercating each other, but he did not see the incident. He was declared as 10 hostile by the prosecution and in his cross-examination, he denied having stated to police as in Exhibit P.2-161 Cr.P.C Statement.

22.P.W.10 is Village Revenue Assistant of Saripalli Village, who visited the scene of offence, he stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police observed the scene and prepared Scene Observation Report/Exhibit P.3 and he further stated that he was present at the time of seizure of Stone/M.O.1.

23.P.W.11 is Medical Officer. She stated that on 11.02.2020 at 3.45 PM,

P.W.1 was brought by some attendants, she gave TT Injection. She found swelling to the left hand of P.W.1 and she referred him to District Hospital,

Vizianagaram for further treatment. On the requisition of Deputy

Superintendent of Police, she gave information about treatment under Exhibit

P.4.

24.P.W.12 is the Tahsildar, who issued Caste certificate of P.W.1 under

Exhibit P.5, which shows that P.W.1 belongs to SC-Madiga community.

25.P.W.13 is one of the direct witness to the occurrence. He was doing rope business at Mopada Shandy. On that day, P.W.1, the accused and some other people were disputing. The accused beat P.W.1 with a stone. P.W.1 received fracture injury. The distance between his shop and the place of offence is ten feet. He does not know the reason for the dispute. He had seen the accused throwing stone.

26.P.W.14 is the Medical Officer at District Hospital, Vizianagaram. On 11.02.2020 at 4.30 PM, the P.W.1 came to Hospital, he complained pain to left hand swelling. She took X-Ray and also sent the patient for CT scan to elbow joint. She found fracture of (1) Head of Radius, (2) Cortical fracture of olecaenoral (3) Fracture of chip posteror Humerus. Based on the Radiologist opinion and ward opinion, she issued Wound Certificate under Exhibit P.6. As per her opinion, the injury is grievous in nature. In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not verify whether the patient was intoxicated at the time 11 of examination or not. She was Casualty Medical Officer at that time. She does not know the medical history of the patient.

27.P.W.15 is the Head Constable. He received medical intimation on 11.02.2020 at about 17.00 hours from casualty ward of Government Hospital,

Vizianagaram. He went there and recorded the statement of P.W.1. He marked Exhibit P.7 Medical Intimation. By the time he reached Casualty Ward, the patient was not treated. He noticed swelling injury to the left hand of

P.W.1.

28.P.W.16 is the Sub-Inspector of Police. He stated that on 12.02.2020 at about 8.30 AM, he received medical intimation along with statement of P.W.1 from Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. He registered case in Crime

No.23/2020 under Section 324 of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v), 3(1)(r)(s) of SCs &

STs (POA) Amendment Act. Exhibit P.8 is the FIR. After receiving medical reports, he altered the Section from 324 of IPC to 326 of IPC. Exhibit P.9 is the

Alteration Memo.

29.P.W.17 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police. After receipt of proceedings from the Superintendent of Police, Vizianagaram, he took up investigation, visited the scene of offence at Mopada Shandy, examined the witnesses, prepared rough sketches and took photographs of the scene of offence. He obtained the reports from Hospital and Caste Certificates, after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

30.P.W.18 is the Radiologist, who took X-Ray to the hand of P.W.1. The X-

Ray opinion is given as simple injury, no bony injury was found. CT scan was done, which shows grievous injury because three fractures were found.

Fracture of head of radius, cortical fractures of olecranon and chip fracture of posterior cortex of humerus. He referred the patient to Ortho Department.

31.An over all consideration of the evidence discussed herein above shows that, an incident of the accused and P.W.1 altercating each other and scuffle 12 had taken place and in the said incident, in the presence of eye witnesses, the accused pushed the P.W.1 to ground and the P.W.1 fell and hit to a Stone, thereafter, the accused lifted the same stone and thrown on the accused. All the material witnesses i.e. victim of the offence/P.W.1 and the eye witnesses

P.Ws. 2, 3, 5, 6 and 16 have clearly stated about the incident. Though the learned counsel for the accused stated that there is no corroboration in the evidence of eye witnesses, but the law is well settled that minor discrepancies in trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by Investigating officer not going to the root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of evidence as a whole. In the present case, the discrepancies in evidence pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused are trivial in nature and do not effect the core of the case, hence cannot be given much credence.

32. From the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3, the motive for the offence is that the

P.W.1 is due to pay an amount of Rs.1,800/- to the mother of the accused, for which the accused made a demand and when the P.W.1 did not pay the money, the accused got aggrieved and committed the offence. In the cross examination of direct witnesses, the accused also did not dispute the said fact, and nothing contra has been elicited in the cross-examination of

Prosecution witnesses with regard to the said motive. As regards the occurrence, the P.W.1 stated that the accused abused him, pushed him to ground, beat him with hands and legs and hit his left hand to a Stone i.e.

M.O.1, and he received fracture injury to his left hand. Thereafter, the surrounding people came to his rescue, but the accused lifted the same stone and threatened them not to interfere. The P.W.2 stated that the accused quarreled with P.W.1 and pushed him with leg, the P.W.1 fell down, then abused as “లం�జాకొడకా” , after PW1 fell down, the accused beat him with Stone.

13

Then they have interfered. The accused stepped back for some time, again caught hold the shirt collar of PW1 and pushed him. The accused took up a stone for second time, then he interfered and stopped him. So, the incident has been narrated by P.W.1 in a little variance. Similarly, the P.W.3 stated that the accused beat him with legs, then they went to rescue the P.W.1, after separating them, the accused picked up stone, when they interfered, he had thrown the stone. Again the accused picked up stone and thrown on the left leg. The learned counsel for the accused strongly pointed out that the P.W.3 referred to left ‘leg’ of P.W.1 and it is not the case of P.W.1 that he received injury to left ‘leg’. The witnesses have deposed before the court after four years of alleged incident, therefore, there is possibility of fade of memory.

When there is direct medical evidence with respect to receiving of fracture injury to left hand, one of the witnesses referring to left ‘leg’ cannot be taken as a material contradiction to the case of prosecution. P.W.5 stated that both

PW1 and accused have altercated and scuffled each other, the accused pushed P.W.1 to the ground and brought one stone weighing about 10 KGs and thrown on his left hand. When the P.W.1 was lying on ground with hand fracture, they rushed to the place and called P.W.4 over phone. P.W.6 also stated that both the accused and P.W.1 scuffled each other and they went there and separated them, then the accused brought one stone and thrown on the left hand of P.W.1. P.W.13 who is also a direct witness stated that the accused beat P.W.1 with stone and the P.W.1 received fracture injury. Thus, the trivial contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, as pointed out by learned counsel for accused are not material contradictions affecting the case of prosecution.

33. As regards the injuries are confronted, there is minor discrepancy in the evidence of P.W.18 who is Radiologist. He himself stated that through the X-

Ray, it was found to be simple injury, no bony injury was found, but in CT-Scan 14 opinion they found three fractures and turned to be grievous injury. The

Doctor/P.W.14 stated that she took X-Ray and on the next day, she sent P.W.1 for CT Scan to Elbow Joint and found fracture injuries. Based on the Radiologist opinion and ward opinion, she issued Wound Certificate under Exhibit P.6 that the P.W.1 received grievous injury. The learned Counsel for the accused submitted that X-Ray and CT Scan are not produced before the Court, as such, the injury cannot be presumed. But, this Court did not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of Doctor, who issued Exhibit P.6.Wound Certificate.

34.The learned counsel for the accused also pointed out that the scene of offence which is Mopada Shandy is covered with plain soil whereas M.O.1 appears to be picked up from red soil, therefore the material object is a planted one. The Mediator for Scene Observation and Seizure is examined by the Prosecution as P.W.10, nothing was elicited during the cross-examination of P.W.10 to suspect his evidence. In cross-examination of P.W.10, he stated that Mopada Shandy is red soil. After the contents have been read over, he signed Exhibit P.3.

35.For the above reasons, this Court do not find any strong reason to reject the evidence of P.W.1 and the direct witnesses produced by the prosecution with respect to the occurrence of the accused beating P.W.1 to

M.O.1 Stone and causing grievous injury to him. The prosecution has been able to prove the guilty of accused for the offence under Section 326 of IPC against the Accused. The point is accordingly answered in favour of prosecution.

POINT No.2:

36.The prosecution also alleged that the accused abused P.W.1 by touching caste name with an intention to insult and humiliate P.W.1 in public place within public view. If a person intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to insult or humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any 15 place within public view, he is liable for punishment under Section 3(1)(r) of

SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and if the said person makes an abuse to any member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by caste name in public place within public view, he is liable for punishment under Section 3(1)

(s) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Now it is to be seen from the evidence, whether the accused had any intention to insult and humiliate P.W.1 as he belongs to Scheduled Caste From the evidence, and with such motive he made caste abuses against PW1 in public place within public view.

37.From the evidence adduced by prosecution, the motive for the offence is that the P.W.1 is due to an amount of Rs.1,800/- to the mother of the accused, for which the accused was demanding money, and the PW1 was postponing the payment of money. When the P.W.1 was not paying money, the accused is said to have demanded money and made caste abuses. As regards to specific uttering, the P.W.1 stated that the accused abused him saying "నీయమ్మ;మాదిగ లం�జాకొడకా, నీపెళ్ళాం2�మొగిడిదానీయమ్మ;మొగుడిదా" . P.W.2 who is said to be a direct witness stated that “మాదిగలం�జాకొడకాఎప్పు�డుఅడిగినాఇలాగేవాయిందాలువేస్తా0 వు . P.W.3” stated that the accused abused P.W.1 as “మాదిగలం�జాకొడకా . P.W.5 stated that” the accused abused P.W.1 as “మాదిగలం�జాకొడకా, మాలం లం�జాకొడకా ఎనా�ళ్ళు2 అయిం�ది డబ్బు తీసుకున్ని . P.W.6 stated that the accused abused P.W.1 as “మాలంలం�జాకొడకా, మాదిగ” లం�జాకొడకా, ఎన్ని�స్తారు5డబ్బు లు అడగాలిరా . P.W.13 did not at all say about any caste” abuse. So, from the utterings stated by each of the direct witnesses to the offence, they are not identical. Further, the P.Ws. 5 and 6 referred to both

Madiga and Mala castes, which are different castes in the Schedule Caste category.

38.The Honourable Supreme Court of India in Hitesh Varma Vs. State of

Uttarakhand 1held that..

“13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate 1 2020 10 SCC 710 16 a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment….. “

39.In a recent decision of Honourable High Court of Orissa in Surendra

Kumar Mishra vs State Of Orissa And Another 2 by following the Hitesh

Varma decision supra, observed like this.

“In an identical situation, where the accused suddenly out of anger, abused the informant in a different circumstances, the accused took the name of informant’s caste while abusing the latter the mere utterings of abuse by taking name of ones caste would not be an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act unless the intention is to insult, intimidate the person being Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe.”

40.In the said case, while labour work was in progress at the spot, the accused is said to have abused the informant on account of noise during such work, the cattle got alarmed which annoyed him and in course of events, accused abused and assaulted the alleged victim of the offence. It was contended that the alleged overt act was committed suddenly without any intention to insult or humiliate the informant by making aspersion to his caste.

41.Thus, the law is clear that, only if the insult and intimidation is made as the victim belong to schedule caste, and utterings of caste abuse are made in public place within public view with intention to humiliate him, then only the offences under section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC & ST (POA) Act, are attracted. In the present case, the grievance of the accused is to collect due money from the

P.W.1, for the said reason he demanded P.W.1 to pay money, for which the

P.W.1 was postponing and in a fit of anger he appears to have made such 2 CRLMC No.2628/2013 dt.19.12.2022 17 utterings. Further, it has come in evidence that, at the time of incident, the accused was in intoxicated stage. However, the accused had not taken the defence that he committed the offence under the influence of intoxication.

The intention behind the utterings is, to collect due money and does not appear to be to insult, humiliate or intimidate the P.W.1 as he belongs to scheduled caste. There is no such evidence appearing in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses to believe beyond reasonable doubt that the intention of the accused was only to intimidate, insult or humiliate the P.W.1 in public place within public view, as he belongs to Scheduled Caste.

42.In view of the Law settled by the Honourable Apex Court in Hitesh

Verma Case which is followed by Orissa High Court in Surendra Kumar

Mishra vs State Of Orissa And Another (supra), this court do not find any reason to hold the accused guilty of offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of

SC & ST POA Act. The Point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.3:

43.The Accused is also charged for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act for allegedly involved in offence under Section 326 of IPC which carries punishment of imprisonment of ten years or more. If the accused commits the said offence against the person belonging to Schedule

Caste or Schedule Tribe with knowledge that the said person is a member of

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, he shall be liable for punishment under

Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST POA Act. In the present case, the motive for the offence is collection of due money and in an attempt to collect money, which was due by the P.W.1, the accused exceeded his limits and beat the P.W.1 to a Stone and caused grievous injury. In this incident, the knowledge of the accused that the P.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste has no relevance and it cannot be presumed that the accused committed the said offence only for the reason that the accused belong to Scheduled Caste. The nexus between the 18 offence of 326 of IPC and the knowledge of the accused that the P.W.1 belong to Scheduled Caste and that the offence has been committed for the reason that the accused belong to Scheduled Caste, is not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the accused cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST POA Act. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.4:

44. In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of SC & ST (POA) Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences.

The Accused is found guilty for the offence under Sections 326 of

IPC and accordingly, he isconvicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offence.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by her, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of April, 2024.

Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under SCs & STs (POA)

Act-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

45.The Accused is explained about result of the case that he is found guilty of the offences under Section 326 of IPC and has been convicted for the said offence. He is questioned with respect to the quantum of sentence.

He stated that, he is having family and two children aged about 8 years and 7 years and his old aged mother is dependent on him and she is sick, hence he may be pardoned and prayed mercy.

46.The offence under Section 326 IPC carries punishment with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

19

47.In the facts and circumstances of the case, Keeping in view the nature of the offence, and the family conditions stated by the accused, and that the offence had been committed in a fit of anger to collect due money from the victim, this court do not feel it proper to sentence the accused with imprisonment for longer periods. The accused was in jail for a period of 32 days during pre-trial stage and also attended the court regularly during trial of the case, and there is no previous history of crimes against him, hence he deserve a lenient view in awarding sentence.

48.Accordingly, the accused is sentenced to sufferSimple imprisonment for a period of 32 days, which is period of detention during pre-trial stage, and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for the offence under 326 of IPC. In default of payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for two weeks .

49. The period of detention in jail from 18-02-2020 to 20-03-2020 i.e. 32 days shall be given set off in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

50.M.O.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The accused is explained about his right to appeal. A free copy of the judgment is supplied herewith.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by her, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 15th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under SCs & STs (POA)

Act-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

For Prosecution:- For Defense:

PW1: Rayi Srinu -NONE- PW2: Gudela Seetharam PW3: Pilla Govindu @ Gopi PW4: Rayi Vibheeshana Rao PW5: Pendurthi Pydithalli PW6: Pyla Bala Krishna PW7: Nalukurthi Appala Narayana PW8: Kovvada Apparao PW9: Lenka Appala Naidu 20

PW10: Mallarapu Suryanarayana PW11: Dr.Pavani, Medical Officer PW12: G.Ramu, Tahsildar PW13: Vellanki Venkat Rao PW14: Dr. K.Swapna Kumari PW15: Ch. Prabhakar, Head Constable PW16: S.Bhaskar Rao, SI of Police PW17: B.Mohana Rao, Deputy Superintendent of Police PW18: Dr. A.Madhukar, Radiologist

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Statement given by P.W.1 to Police Ex.P.2: 161 Cr.P.C Statement of P.W.9 Ex.P.3: Scene Observation Report Ex.P.4: Letter (information about treatment given to P.W.1) of P.W.11/Dr.Pavani. Ex.P.5: Caste Particulars of P.W.1 and Accused No.1 Ex.P.6: Wound Certificate of P.W.1 Ex.P.7: MLC Intimation Ex.P.8: Original FIR in Cr.No.23/2020 of Denkada PS Ex.P.9: Alteration Memo Ex.P.10: Proceedings of SP, Vizianagaram vide C.No.564/C2/2020 Ex.P.11: Rough Sketch Ex.P12: 16 Photographs

For Defence : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

M.O.1: Stone (approximately weighing about 10 KGs)

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge For Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA)

Act-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRAIL OF OFFENCES UNDER SCs & STs

(POA) ACT-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM

PRESENT: : Sri Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs

(POA) Act-cum-IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

Friday, this the 12th day of April, 2024.

SC ST SC No. 42 of 2018

1. Name of the Complainant :The State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC ST Cell-II, Vizianagaram.

2. Name of the accused :A1. Garapati Bulli Rani, W/o late Chandra Mohan Rao, 55 years, Kamma by caste, R/o Door No.17-1-47A, Seethammapeta, Rajahmundry Town, East Godavari District

A2. Garapati Suresh, S/o late Chandra Mohan Rao, 31 years, Kamma by caste, R/o Door No.17-1-47A, Seethammapeta, Rajahmundry Town, East Godavari District

A3. Garapati Srinivas, S/o late Chandra Mohan Rao, 29 years, Kamma by caste, R/o Door No.17-1-47A, Seethammapeta, Rajahmundry Town, East Godavari District

A4. Chinnam Somireddy, S/o Dharama Reddy, 64 years, Reddi by caste, R/o Flat No.G-4, Sri Krishna Manson Apartment, Door No.14-133/10, Opposite RTC Complex, Rajahmundry Town, East Godavari District

3. Charges : Under Sections 420 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(zc) and 3(2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015 against Accused/A1 to A4

4. Plea of accused : Accused/A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge : Accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty.

6. Sentence or order : In the result, the Accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(zc) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST POA Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused/A1 to

A4 shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of section 437-A

Cr.P.C.

2

7. Prosecution conducted by: Special Public Prosecutor.

8. Defence conducted by : Sri G.Mannu, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 3.

Sri K.B.Parameswara Rao, Advocate for Accused No.4.

This case is coming on 08.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri G.Mannu, Advocate for Accused Nos.1 to 3, Sri K.B.Parameswar Rao, Advocate for Accused No.4, the case having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC ST

Cell – II, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet in Cr. No.224/2018 of Salur Town

Police Station against Accused/A1 to A4 for the offences under sections 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(zc) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act – 2015 with the following allegations.

2.That, Accused No.1 is mother of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, Accused No.4 is close associate of Accused Nos. 2 and 3, all the Accused/A1 to A4 are residents of Rajahmundry Town, East Godavari District and belong to Non-SC

ST community. P.W.1 belongs to SC-Mala caste and native of Peda

Harijanapeta of Salur Town, Vizianagaram. The P.W.1 and accused are known to each other as their lands are situated side by side in Survey No. 330 of

Kurmarajupeta village of Salur Mandal and moreover P.W.1 purchased six acres land from the accused vide registered Document No.1146/2016, due to which the caste of P.W.1 is known to the accused. Further the Accused No.1 is having Ac.0.80cents of cultivable land in same survey number. Accused

Nos. 2 to 4 are having Ac.5-42cents of land in the same survey Number. On 21.02.2017, Accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to P.W.1 in Salur and agreed to sell their land to an extent of Ac.5.42cents in S.No.330 of Kurmarajupeta Village for Rs.2,50,000/- per Acre. The P.W.1 agreed to purchase. The Accused Nos.

1 to 4 took token advance amount of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1. Again on 24.04.2017 took Rs.9,50,000/- from P.W.1 and issued receipt in favour of

P.W.1, it was agreed to register the land after obtaining permission from the 3

Police Department in which the P.W.1 is working as Additional

Superintendent of Police. Meanwhile, the Accused No.1 offered to sell

Ac.0.80cents land in survey No.330 of the same village to P.W.1 for

Rs.2,00,000/- and handed over the registered Document No. 1288/2005 which is a Link Document and Pattadar Passbooks, on which the P.W.1 transferred Rs.2,00,000/- to SBI Account No. 33134262879 of Accused No.1.

Later, P.W.1 obtained permission on 10.07.2017 from his Department to purchase the above lands. Since then P.W.1 was asking the accused to come forward to register the lands in his name, but the accused did not heed the words of P.W.1 and dragged the matter. Further, the P.W.1 and P.W.10 went to Rajahmundry and asked the accused to register the agreed land in favour of P.W.1, but the accused deliberately told P.W.1 that they will not sell their lands to Scheduled Caste people. Thereby the accused boycotted P.W.1 from registering their lands on the ground that P.W1 belongs to Scheduled Caste.

Moreover, the Accused No.1 sold away Ac.0.80 cents land to somebody

before taking the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from P.W.1, concealing the said

fact, thereby cheated the P.W.1 in deceitful manner. Based on the report of

P.W.1, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Salur Town Police Station registered the

Crime No.224/2018. Subsequently, the matter was investigated by Deputy

Superintendent of Police, SC ST Cell-II, Vizianagaram and filed the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 420 of IPC and

Sections 3(1)(zc) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against Accused/A1 to

A4.

4.On appearance of the Accused/A1 to A4, they have engaged Advocates of their choice, copies of charge sheet and other documents have been furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.After hearing plea of accused under section 228 Cr.P.C, charges for the offences under Sections 420 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(zc) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against Accused/A1 to A4 have been framed read over and 4 explained to them in Telugu and they denied the same by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 11 and marked

Exhibits P.1 to P.14.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused/A1 to A4 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused/A1 to A4 denied the incriminating material found in the prosecution evidence and stated that they have no defense evidence, but filed some documentary evidence.

8. Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Now, the points for determination are:-

(1) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable

doubt that Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have deceived P.W.1, due

to which the P.W.1 parted with money thereby the

Accused Nos. 1 to 4 have cheated the P.W.1 to attract

offence under Section 420 of IPC?

(2) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the Accused Nos.1 to 4 have socially boycotted

the P.W.1 as he belongs to Scheduled Caste to attract

punishment under Section 3(1)(zc) of SCs & ST s(POA) Act?

(3) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the Accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed offence

of cheating under Section 420 of IPC with an intention to

lure and insult the P.W.1 with knowledge that the he

belongs to Schedule Caste to attract punishment under

Sections 3(2)(va) of SCs & ST s (POA) Act?

(4) To what result?

10.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that, the Accused

Nos. 1 to 4 are having lands in Salur, they offered to sell the property and the P.W.1 agreed to purchase the same. In fact, earlier also the P.W.1 purchased six acres of land from Accused Nos. 2 to 4. After receiving the advance money, an Agreement of Sale was executed by accused persons, the Accused No.1 also agreed to sell Ac.0.80cents of land separately and received total consideration. As the P.W.1 is a Government Employee, he needed permission from the Department for purchase of properties, for the said reason, registration could not be carried immediately and after the P.W.1 5 obtained permission from the Department to go for registration, the P.W.1 was requesting the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 to come forward for registration, but they did not come forward. When the P.W.1 approached them, they bluntly refused to register by saying that they will not sell the properties to

Scheduled Caste people. This conduct of accused amounts to social and financial boycott of the Scheduled Caste person. The accused have deceived the P.W.1 and socially boycotted the P.W.1, hence they are liable for punishment. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 11, P.W.1 clearly stated about the offence, P.Ws. 2, 9 and 10 have supported the evidence of P.W.1, the other witnesses are official witnesses. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the Accused are liable for conviction.

11.The learned counsel for the Accused submitted that P.W.1 is working as

Additional Superintendent of Police by the date of alleged offence, he

allegedly entered into an Agreement of sale for purchase of certain property, the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are alleged to have received advance money on the date of execution of registered sale deed. Even if it is true, even then, it cannot be a criminal offence, the P.W.1 has already filed civil suit in

O.S.No.130/2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Salur. In the present

case, no documents are filed by the prosecution with respect to the allegations of entering into Agreement of Sale and payment of advance money, no evidence has been adduced to show alleged payment of

Rs.50,000/- and Rs.9,50,000/- at the time of alleged execution of Agreements of sale. In the report itself, the P.W.1 had mentioned that earlier on 08.06.2016, he purchased property from the same accused persons and obtained a registered document. When once the caste was not a barrier for execution of registered document in favour of P.W.1, it cannot be said that it will become a hurdle for execution of second document. Only to get pressure on the accused persons in the civil case, with the false allegations the present case has been filed. Four months prior to the filing of the Police 6 report, a legal notice was given by the P.W.1 to the accused and a proper reply had been given by the accused, those documents are not filed before the court. The property of Ac.5.46cents is in the name of Accused No.4,

Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are no way concerned with the said property, the alleged payment of advance money to Accused Nos. 2 and 3 when they are not the owners, cannot be taken as refusal to register the document as the lands of the P.W.1 are near to the disputed lands. The P.W.1 wanted to grab the property by getting pressure on the accused. In the absence of any document, the allegations of deception and cheating cannot be established by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, hence the accused are entitled for acquittal.

12.The learned counsel for the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 filed written arguments on the same lines and submitted that the dispute is purely civil in nature and the civil suit is also pending, as such the question of dishonest intention to cheat from the inception does not arise and there is no social boycott. The offence under Section 3(1)(zc) of SCs & STs (POA) Act cannot be attracted.

There are many discrepancies in the record with regard to purchase of stamp paper by P.W.1 at Rajahmundry in the name of Accused No.1 etc. The police did not seize any original or copies of documents. The prosecution failed to prove the guilty of Accused for any of the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, hence the accused may be acquitted.

POINT No. 1:-

13. The prosecution alleged that, the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are owners of certain property, they offered to sell the property and the P.W.1 agreed to purchase the same, Agreements of sale were executed, but, as the P.W.1 was a public servant, he needed permission from the Department, for the said reason some delay was occurred. After obtaining permission, when the

P.W.1 approached the accused persons to register the property, they have refused to register the same on the ground that he belong to Scheduled 7

Caste. Further, the P.W.1 came to know that one of the property offered by the accused for sale for which he paid total consideration was already alienated before entering into sale agreement. Therefore, it is contended that, the accused have deceived the P.W.1 and due to the said deception, the

P.W.1 had parted with advance money paid by him.

14.The main offence alleged against the accused is for cheating punishable under Section 420 of IPC. “Cheating” is defined under Section 415 of IPC as;

415. Cheating: Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

Explanation.—A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

15.A reading of the above section shows that there are three ingredients for the offence (1) Deception of any person (2) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person

(i) To deliver some property to any person or

(ii) to consent that any person shall retain said property

(iii) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived.

16.The offence depends upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement which may be decided on the basis of his subsequent conduct.

There is distinction between mere “breach of contract” and the offence of “cheating”. The Law is well settled that mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction. To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest 8 intention at the time of committing that act. From his mere failure to keep up a promise subsequently, a culpable intention cannot be presumed at the beginning of making such promise. When somebody suffers injury to his person, property or reputation he may have remedies both under civil and criminal law. When there is dispute between the parties arising out of a transaction involving passing of valuable properties between them, the aggrieved person may have right to sue for damages or compensation and at the same time, Law permits the victim to proceed against the wrong doer for having committed the offence of criminal breach of trust or cheating. To deceive is to induce a person to believe that a thing is true which is false and which the person practicing the deceit knows or believes to be false. It must be shown that there existed a fraudulent and dishonest intention at the time of commission of the act.

17.In the light of the above position of Law, if we look into the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the P.W.1 is produced as alleged victim of the offence. He stated that he is working as Superintendent of Police, he belongs to Scheduled Caste community. In the year 2016, he worked as Regional

Intelligence Officer, Visakhapatnam, the accused are having lands nearby his lands at Salur, and they are native of Rajahmundry. In the year 2016 the

Accused Nos. 1 to 4 approached him and offered to sell an extent of

Ac.6.05cents in Survey No.332 of Kurmarajupeta Village of Salur Mandal.

After negotiations, he agreed to purchase. As per the agreement, registration was done on 08.06.2016 by Accused Nos. 1 to 4. Again on 21.12.2017

Accused Nos. 2 to 4 approached him and offered to sell Ac.5.42cents in

Survey No.330 of Kurmarajupeta Village at the rate of Rs.2,50,000/- per acre, he paid Rs.50,000/- to Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and obtained receipt for the same.

Thereafter, he applied the Department seeking permssion to purchase the property. On 24.04.2017 Accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to him and they took

Rs.9,50,000/- and delivered the possession of the property, Agreement was executed for payment of balance consideration at the time of registration on 9 02.06.2017. On 02.06.2017, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 approached him and offered to sell Ac.0.80cents of land in the same survey number 330 of

Kurmarajupeta Village for Rs.2,00,000/-. On the same day, he transferred

Rs.2,00,000/- from his bank account to the account of Accused No.1 and entered into Agreement of Sale. Subsequently, he came to know that the said property was already sold to Chinnam Chandra Sekhar Reddy, who is son of Accused No.4. In the month of July, 2017 he got permission from the department for purchase of property. Thereafter, he consulted Accused Nos.

1 to 4 to come forward for registration of the land, but they did not come forward. In the first week of June, 2018 he went to Salur and approached the accused and requested Accused Nos. 1 to 4, but all the accused said that as he belongs to the Scheduled Caste, they will not register the property to the

Scheduled Caste people and earlier they have registered the property without knowing his caste. At the time of said incident, P.W.10 was present.

Then, on 18.07.2018, he gave police report at Salur Police Station. Exhibit

P.1 is his report. Subsequently, he also filed civil cases for specific performance of agreement of sale.

18.The entire chief examination of P.W.1 nowhere contains any allegation of deception at the time of entering into transaction. When it comes to cross- examination of P.W.1, he stated that he knows the legal position about documents and transactions. He believed that the accused have knowledge of his caste at the time of first registration. But he explained that after taking entire consideration money, the accused came to know about his community.

He do not remember whether he mentioned in O.S.No.130/2018 that Accused

Nos. 1 to 4 have refused the registration as he belongs to Scheduled Caste.

He handed over the advance consideration of Rs.50,000/- to Accused No.4 in the presence of Accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the receipt is available with him.

Similarly, for Rs.9,50,000/- also, he got a receipt. He did not file those receipts in this case. He verified the link documents and after satisfying about the Title, he entered into the transaction. The Accused Nos. 3 and 4 10 are the Title owners of S.No.5-42cents of land and Accused No.1 is owner of

Ac.0.80cents of land at the time of transaction. Subsequently, he came to know that he already sold the land to son of Accused No.4. Accused No.1 is only entitled to sign on the document with respect to Ac.0.80cents. But it was signed by Accused Nos. 1 and 2. Accused No.2 being son of Accused

No.1, voluntarily signed the Agreement. He can produce all the documents to prove the transactions. He admitted that Accused Nos. 2 and 3 have given a report to Superintendent of Police, Rajahmundry on 24.06.2020 that under the colour of office, he was harassing them. A copy of the report was also marked to him. He admitted that in Exhibit P.1 report, he mentioned that by 08.06.2018 itself, the accused are aware of his caste. Even then, the son of

Accused No.4 registered the document in his favour. He admitted that his report may not contain when the Accused came to Salur and approached them and asked for registration. Before entering into transaction, he verified link documents. He issued notice to accused calling upon them for registration.

19.A careful scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.1, nowhere suggest that the accused persons with a dishonest intention to deceive the P.W.1, have entered into the transaction of sale of some properties with P.W.1. According to P.W.1, he got some properties near the disputed properties, as such when the accused have offered to sell Ac.6.05cents in S.No.332 of Kurmarajupeta

Village of Salur Mandal, he readily agreed to purchase the same, after negotiations price was fixed and registration was done on 08.06.2016 by

Accused Nos. 1 to 4. So, it was a completed transaction. At that time there was no caste hurdle. When it comes to disputed transactions, on 21.02.2017, the Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are alleged to have offered to sell Ac.5.42cents of land in Survey No.330 and took advance of Rs.50,000/- and after two months, on 22.04.2017 the Accused Nos. 2 to 4 took additional money of

Rs.9,50,000/- and delivered the possession of property. Further, it is alleged that, on 02.06.2017 Accused Nos. 1 to 3 offered to sell Ac.0.80cents of land 11 in same survey number 330 and the total consideration of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid by P.W.1. For all these transactions, according to P.W.1, there are documents, such as payment receipts, Agreements of sale and those documents are not produced before this court. It appears that they have been filed in the suit 130/2018 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Salur. So, the

P.W.1 is fighting a civil litigation before Civil Court and admittedly he filed a suit for specific performance of Agreement of Sale against the accused persons. When there are civil disputes, giving the colour of criminal offence is deprecated by the Honourable Apex Court.

20. In this connection, it is appropriate to refer to the decisions of

Honourable Apex Court in Ramawtar Vs. State of MP 1wherein the Apex

court held that “16. …...where it appears to the Court that the offence in question, although covered under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in nature, or where the alleged offence has not been committed on account of the caste of the victim, or where the continuation of the legal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings…”

21. The Honourable Apex Court also deprecated the practice of filing criminal cases to sort out civil disputes particularly under the Provisions of

SCs & STs (POA) Act. In a decision of B. Venkateswaran Vs.

P.Bhaktavatsalam2 ,it is held that..

“whenever evidence disclose that a private civil case is tried to be converted as a criminal case more particularly under the provisions of SC ST (POA) Act, the prosecution shall not sustain.”

22. As a supporting evidence, the prosecution examined P.W.2. He is working as a Government Teacher and he also belong to Scheduled Caste

Mala community. He stated that P.W.1 is native of Salur. He is having land by the side of lands of accused. The Accused offered to sell the property to 12021 SCC Online SC 966 22023 SCC Online SC 14 12

P.W.1, the P.W.1 agreed to purchase the same and paid advance money in the year 2018. P.W.1 made phone call for registration after obtaining permission from the Government, but the accused have not registered the property. On one occasion, he, P.W.1 and the son of P.W.1 went to the house of accused at Salur. They said that they will not register the property as the

P.W.1 belong to Scheduled Caste community. Then the P.W.1 gave police report. In his cross-examination, he stated that P.W.1 is his brother-in-law. He denied the suggestion that Accused Nos. 1 to 3 belongs to Rajahmundry and they do not have any house at Salur. He denied the suggestion that he did not state to the police that he, P.W.1 and the son of P.W.1 went to the house of accused at Salur.

23.This evidence of P.W.2 is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1. According to P.W.1, in the first week of June, 2018, he went to Salur and met Accused

Nos. 1 to 3 at a place Harijanapeta, Salur on the road, but P.W.2 says that they went to the house of accused at Salur. The case of prosecution is that the Accused Nos. 1 to 3 are residents of Rajahmundry.

24.P.W.9 is the son of P.W.1, who was said to be present at the time when the accused have refused registration. He is aged about 24 years at the time of giving evidence and he might be 17 years at the time of alleged transaction in the year 2017. He stated about the accused offering to sell the property in the year 2017 and his father making payment of cash in

April,2017 and transferred the money to the account of Accused No.1 in

May,2017 subsequently after getting permission, his father requested the

Accused to come for registration, but they did not come forward. In his cross- examination, he stated that at that time he was student, but he denied that he came to know about the said facts through his father. He studied at IIT in

Bihar from July 2017 to May 2021. If he had gone for studies in the month of

July, 2017 his availability in June, 2018 when the alleged refusal was made by the accused is doubtful. Thus, the evidence of P.W.9 is not inspiring confidence in the Court about his presence and knowledge about transaction.

13

25.The prosecution also examined P.W.10, whose name is referred by

P.W.1 as to be present at the time of transaction. He stated that he is having lands by the side of lands of P.W.1. He also stated about offer by the accused to sell the land and P.W.1 agreeing to purchase and stated that after obtaining permission from the Department, he requested Accused No.1 and others to come for registration, the vendors stated over Phone that they will not register. Thereafter, he and P.W.1 went to Rajahmundry to the house of

Accused No.1. The Accused No.1 and another person were present. P.W.1 asked them to come for registration. Then Accused No.1 said that they will not sell the property to Scheduled Caste people. In his cross-examination, he stated that he do not remember the date when he went to Rajahmundry. He do not know the places of residence or other details of the accused. He denied the suggestion that he did not go to Rajahmundry along with P.W.1 and never questioned Accused No.1 to come for registration. This evidence of

P.W.10 is contradicting to the evidence of P.W.1 with respect to asking the accused persons to come for registration. According to P.W.1, he went to

Salur along with P.W.10 and questioned Accused Nos. 1 to 3 on the road to come for registration, which they refused, but this P.W.10 says that he along with P.W.1 went to Rajahmundry to the house of Accused No.1, the Accused

No.1 and another person were present there and Accused No.1 said that they will not register the property to Scheduled Caste people. This P.W.10 totally changed the place of alleged request made by P.W.1 to come for registration an refusal by accused.

26.The other witnesses produced by the prosecution i.e. P.W.3 is Stamp

Vendor to speak about purchase of stamp paper in the name of P.W.1 at

Rajahmundry.

27. P.W.4 is a Senior Assistant in Registrar Office, Vizianagaram. He stated about furnishing certified copies of registered Document No.2100/2015 and 1288/2005 and Encumbrance Certificate. Those documents are marked as

Exhibits P.2 to P.4. as per the details available in their office, Accused No.1 14 purchased the property in the year 2015. Exhibits P.5 and P.6 are

Encumbrance Certificates.

28.P.W.5 is Tahsildar, who issued Caste Certificates of P.W.1 under Exhibit

P.7 and P.W.6 is the Tahsildar, who issued Caste Certificates of Accused Nos.

1 to 3 under Exhibits P.8 to P.10. P.W.7 is the Tahsildar, who issued Caste

Certificate of Accused No.4 under Exhibit P.11.

29.P.W.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR based on the report of P.W.1. Exhibit P.12 is the original FIR.

30.P.W.11 is the Investigation Officer. After receipt of proceedings from the

Superintendent of Police vide Exhibit P.13, he took up investigation, visited the scene of offence which is land of the accused, prepared rough sketch under Exhibit P.14, recorded the statements of witnesses, obtained caste particulars from Tahsildars, arrested some of the accused and served 41-A

Cr.P.C notice to Accused No.1 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.In his cross-examination, he stated that P.W.1 did not state him that he went to Salur to the house of accused No.1 and requested to come for registration. He did not seize any original or copies of documents from P.W.1.

He did not seize any documents for alleged deception. He did not examine any witnesses at Salur, he tried but nobody came forward. P.W.1 stated to him that even prior to 08.06.2016 itself, he entered into transaction with

Accused No.4 and his son and the accused are aware of the caste of P.W.1.

He did not enquire whether the accused have got any houses at Salur.

31.On consideration of over all evidence as above, this court do not find any intentional dishonesty against Accused Nos. 1 to 4 in entering into transactions of sale of property. The P.W.1 is having land near to the lands of accused persons and the accused persons are residing at Rajahmundry. So, they decided to sell away the property and as his properties are also located in the same area, the P.W1 appears to have agreed to purchase the property and since he is a Government servant, he required permission from the department, for the said reason, some delay was caused. Meanwhile, 15 payments appears to have been made, but somehow registrations could not be carried by vendors. This act of non-registration of properties by the accused persons cannot be treated as inducement or fraud against them.

Though the prosecution alleged that, the A1 had alienated the property of an extent Ac.0-80 cents in the name of son of A4, even prior to entering into agreement of sale with P.W.1. In the absence of any document produced by the prosecution before the court, the said allegation cannot be said to have been established beyond reasonable doubt. Even to prove the transactions, the prosecution did not secure the agreements from the P.W.1, may be for the reason that they were filed in civil suit. In the absence of any evidence to believe the fraudulent intention to deceive the P.W.1 at the time of entering into transactions with him, it cannot be said that the accused have cheated the P.W.1 in the name of selling properties. In fact, as admitted by P.W.1, the

Accused No.1 to 4 and son of Accused No.4 have executed a registered document on 08.06.2016 with respect to another land of an extent of

Ac.6.05cents in Survey No.332 of Kurmarajupeta Village of Salur Mandal. So, it cannot be said that, the alleged non-registration was on account of the

PW.1 belongs to Schedule caste.

32. For the above reasons, this court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of offence under Section 420 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.2:

33.If anybody threatens a social or economic boycott of any person belonging to Scheduled Caste, he is liable for punishment under Section 3(1) (zc) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act. To prove the said offence, the prosecution must establish that the accused persons are aware of the caste of the victim of the offence and due to the said reason the accused have socially or economically boycotted the victim or his family from their society. In the present case, the alleged transaction is a civil transaction relating to purchase of property by P.W.1 from the accused. From the evidence, it could be 16 understood that the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 and son of Accused No.4 have sold an extent of Ac.6.05cents of land to the P.W.1 by way of registered document and P.W.1 clearly admits that by the date of said transaction itself the accused persons had knowledge of his caste. So even according to P.W.1, the caste is not a barrier for the accused persons to enter into transaction with the P.W.1. When there is no difference shown by the accused persons to the

P.W.1 in the name of caste when they entered into transaction on 08.06.2016, there is no reason to believe that they have shown bias or difference or discrimination to the P.W1 after entering into Agreements of

Sale for purchase of other properties. From the evidence, P.W.1 says that he approached the accused persons at Salur along with P.Ws. 9 and 10 at Peda harijanapeta, Salur on the road, P.W.2 stated that they went to the house of accused at Salur, he did not refer which of the accused. P.W.9 did not at all speak where they met the accused and P.W.10 says that they went to

Rajahmundry to the house of Accused No.1, and the Accused No.1 and another person said that they will not sell the property to Scheduled Caste people. Thus, in view of said contradictions and in the light of civil suit filed by

P.W.1 in O.S.No.130/2018 for Specific Performance of Agreement of Sale, this

Court is of the view that the prosecution tried to convert a civil litigation to a criminal case to get pressure on the accused persons to settle the dispute.

The prosecution has failed to prove any social and economic boycott of P.W.1 by Accused Nos. 1 to 4 solely for the reason that he belongs to Scheduled

Caste. Hence, the Accused Nos. 1 to 4 cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(zc) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act. The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.3:

34.If the prosecution established the offence under Section 420 of IPC against the accused persons and further establish that the offence under

Section 420 of IPC was committed by the accused with knowledge that the victim of the offence belong to Scheduled Caste community and with an 17 intention to harass and humiliate the Scheduled Caste people, then the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act will be attracted against the accused. In the present case, the main offence under

Section 420 of IPC has not been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and hence, the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SCs &

STs (POA) Amendment Act does not attracted against the accused persons.

The point is accordingly answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.4:

35.In the result, the Accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(zc) and 3(2)(va) of SC &

ST POA Act and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused/A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by her, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 12th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under SCs & STs (POA)

Act-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Prosecution:- For Defense:

PW1: Uppada Ravi Prakash-NONE-

PW2: Sanga Apparao

PW3: Sundari Venkata Rama Ravi Kumar

PW4: B.Krishna Sandeep, Joint Sub-Registrar

PW5: D. Veerabadra Rao, Tahsildar

PW6: T. R. Rajeswara Rao, Tahsildar

PW7: K.Posubabu, Tahsildar

PW8: U. Fakiruddin, Sub-Inspector of Police

PW9: Uppada Harshit Jaya Sundar

PW10: Mentada Trinadha Rao

PW11: D. Gurumurthy, Deputy Superintendent of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report given by P.W.1 to police 18

Ex.P.2: Covering Letter

Ex.P.3: Certified copy of document No.2100/2005

Ex.P.4: Certified copy of document No.1285/2005

Ex.P.5: Encumbrance Certificate of 1288/2005

Ex.P.6: Encumbrance Certificate of 2100/2005

Ex.P.7: Caste Certificate of P.W.1

Ex.P.8: Caste Certificate of Accused No.1

Ex.P.9: Caste Certificate of Accused No.2

Ex.P.10: Caste Certificate of Accused No.3

Ex.P.11: Caste Certificate of Accused No.4

Ex.P.12: Original FIR in Cr.No.224/2018 of Salur Town PS

Ex.P.13: Proceedings of SP, Vizianagaram vide C.No.3990/C2/2018

Dt.18.07.2018

Ex.P.14: Rough Sketch of Scene of offence

For Defence : NIL

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge For Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA)

Act-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRAIL OF OFFENCES UNDER SCs & STs

(POA) ACT-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM

PRESENT: : Sri Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs

(POA) Act-cum-IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram. Monday, this the 08th day of April, 2024.

SC ST SC No. 0 8 of 20 20

1. Name of the Complainant :The State Represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District

2. Name of the Accused :A1. Chappa Appanna, S/o Suryanarayana, aged 50 years, Hindu, Coolie, Golladi Village, Badangi Mandal, Vizianagaram District

A2. Avala Ganesh, S/o Polinaidu, aged 18 years, Hindu, Coolie, Golladi Village, Badangi Mandal, Vizianagaram District

3. Charges : Under Section 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

4. Plea of Accused : Accused Nos. 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge : Accused Nos. 1 and 2 found not guilty.

6. Sentence or order : In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act and accordingly,

Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of section 437-A Cr.P.C.

7. Prosecution conducted by : Special Public Prosecutor.

8. Defence conducted by : Sri K. B. Parameswara Rao Advocate for the Accused Nos. 1 and 2.

This case is coming on 01.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of complainant and of Sri

K.B.Parameswara Rao, Advocate for Accused Nos. 1 and 2, the case having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2

J U D G M E NT

The Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bobbili, Vizianagaram District filed charge sheet in Cr. No. 108/2019 of Badangi Police Station for the offences under sections 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of

SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015 against Accused/A1 and A2 with the following allegations.

2.That, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are residents of Golladi Village, Badangi

Mandal. P.W.1 is the defacto-complainant and belongs to Schedule Caste.

P.W.1 was having Ac.0.36cents of land granted by the Government 30 years back, and she was raising 30 Mango trees in the said land since last 8 years.

On 25.09.2019 the P.W.1 gave report to Badangi Police and the case was registered. While the matter stood thus, on 04.10.2019 evening, the accused have approached and informed the village elders/P.Ws. 3 and 4 that they have committed the offence and destroyed the Mango Trees to take revenge against the P.W.1 as she insulted them while they were grazing their sheep nearby her Mango Tope about 20 days back. Later, the P.W.1 gave another report to Badangi Police. On the basis of said report, Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act – 2015 has been added and Alteration Memo has been issued. After receiving proceedings from the Superintendent of

Police, the investigation has been taken up by the Assistant Superintendent of Police, Bobbili. During the investigation, she visited the scene of offence, recorded statements of witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015 against Accused/A1 and A2.

4.On appearance of the Accused/A1 and A2, they have engaged

Advocate of their choice, copies of charge sheet and other documents have been furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C.

3

5.After hearing plea of accused under section 228 Cr.P.C, charges for the offences Under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC and 3(2)(va) of SCs &

STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015 against Accused/A1 and A2 were framed, charges have been read over and explained to the Accused/A1 and A2 in

Telugu and they denied the same by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exhibits

P.1 to P.18.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused/A1 and A2 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused/A1 and A2 denied the incriminating material found in the prosecution evidence and stated that they have no defense evidence.

8. Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Now, the points for determination are:-

(1) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable

doubt that the Accused/A1 and A2 have trespassed into the

property belonging to P.W.1 and committed mischief by

damaging 20 Mango Trees belonging to P.W.1 to attract

the offences under Sections 447 and 427 read with 34 of

IPC?

(2) Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable

doubt that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have committed the

offences under Section 447 and 427 of IPC with knowledge

that the P.W.1 belongs to Schedule Caste with an intention

to humiliate and harass P.W.1 to attract offence under

Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act ?

(3) To what result?

10.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that before the alleged offence, on one day, the P.W.1 found Accused Nos. 1 and 2 grazing their goats in her Mango Tope and she admonished them and asked them to take away their goats for which, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 grew wild and abused her and threatened that they will kill her. After two days, on 25.09.2019 when the P.W.1 went to her fields, she found about 20 Mango Trees were damaged 4 and cut by some miscreants. After making enquiries, she gave police report which was registered as a FIR, subsequently on 04.10.2019 the Accused Nos.

1 and 2 appeared before Village Elders/P.Ws. 3 and 4 and made extra judicial confession that they have cut and removed mango trees and the same was informed to P.W.1 and the P.W.1 gave written report. Based on the said report, Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act has been added and Alteration Memo was issued by Police. Investigation has been made and charge sheet was filed. The prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and marked

Exhibit P.1 to P.18. All the witnesses supported the case of prosecution and in fact while making confession, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have made an Offer to pay compensation for the plants damaged by them, which was not agreed by P.W.1. The evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is reliable and trustworthy. P.W.2 is a chance witness, she supported the case of prosecution. There are certain typographical mistakes in the Mediators Report with respect to mentioning the date, that will not affect the total case of the prosecution. If there are any lapses in the investigation, the victim of the offence cannot be made to suffer. The prosecution has proved the guilty of the Accused beyond reasonable doubt and the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are liable for punishment.

11.The learned counsel for the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the prosecution could not establish whether the land belongs to the P.W.1 or somebody else. In the Mediators Report, it is mentioned as Mango Plants, but the evidence of P.W.1 shows that she planted the trees about 30 years back and they are mango trees and yielding crop. After ten days of alleged offence, the accused are said to have made extra judicial confession before

P.Ws. 3 and 4 for an incident happened about 20 days back, the confession is false. Even the P.W.1 could not identify the person who caused damage to the Mango trees in her Mango Tope. P.W.1 stated that she did not go to the elders and directly went to the police. She did not state that the elders have fixed compensation for the damage, which she did not agree. All the 5

Mediators Reports are dated 17.10.2019, but in the first line, the date has been corrected as 06.10.2019, but in the last para, the date has been kept intact, which indicate that the Mediators report has been subsequently prepared to suit the case. According to the prosecution, there are three scenes of offence, P.W.5 Mediator went to only one scene of offence. As per the revenue records, the owner of property is Yandava Seethamma, she is not examined by prosecution. In the FIR the “Suspect” Column was kept blank. The investigation is total faulty, due to political grudges between the parties, false case has been filed against the Accused Nos. 1 and 2. The police have shown the arrest of accused on 29.10.2019. When the accused have made extra judicial confession on 04.10.2019 and produced before police, how could the police arrest the accused on 29.10.2019 is not explained by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused are entitled for acquittal.

Point Nos. 1 and 2:

12. The case of the prosecution is that, the P.W.1 owned a land to an extent of Ac.0.36cents which was assigned to her by Government thirty years back and she was raising Mango trees which were cut by some miscreants and after giving report, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have made extra judicial confession before Village Elders/P.Ws. 3 and 4. To substantiate these allegations, the prosecution examined victim of offence as P.W.1. She stated that about 40 years back the Government assigned an extent of Ac.0.36cents land to her and about 20 years back, the Government supplied 40 mango plants for plantation in the assigned land. 35 plants were grown up, five plants died. About five years back, the Mango Trees were yielding and she was getting Rs.50,000/- - 60,000/- per annum for a crop. On one day, she went to her Mango Tope and found goats belonging to the accused were grazing. She drove away the goats from her Tope. At that time, Accused 6

No.1 threatened her that he will kill her. Then she returned home. On the next day, when she went to her Mango Tope and found that all Mango trees were cut. On seeing this, she was crying. Neighbor land people came an enquired her whether she got any suspicion. On the same day after crossing five fields, three mango plants were cut in the fields of son of one

Karunamma. Then she directly went to the police station. She did not go to the elders. Police came to the village and at 5.00 PM apprehended the accused. Police examined her and recorded her statement, Ex.P.1 is the

Report. She cannot assess the damage. In her cross-examination, she stated that she did not state to the police that she used to get income of Rs.50,000/- - 60,000/- per year from the Mango Tope. P.W.3 is Ex-Sarpanch of the village, but she denied the suggestion that she used to work under P.W.3. One

Sankar Rao is the present Sarpanch. P.W.3 belong to one group and P.W.4 belong to another group. Accused belong to the group of Sankar Rao. Police examined her on the same day and after three days of the incident the police arrested the accused. The witness further stated that meanwhile, the accused held panchayat before the caste elders and offered money for not going to police, but she did not accept the offer. She did not mention the same in Exhibit P.1 Report. She received compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- from

Government.

13.From the above evidence of P.W.1, she was assigned land about 40 years back and she planted Mango trees about 20 years back. 35 plants were grown up and one day, she found the goats grazing in her Mango Tope. When she drove away the animals, the Accused No.1 threatened her. She did not speak about Accused No.2 and on the next day she found all the Mango trees were cut, directly she went to police and she did not go to the elders. The police apprehended the accused on the same day at 5.00 PM. But when it comes to the cross-examination, she contradicted her own evidence and said that after three days of the incident, the police arrested the accused. In the 7 meanwhile, the accused held panchayat before the caste elders and offered money to not to go for police case, she did not accept for the same. These facts admittedly not mentioned in the Exhibit P.1.Report.

14.P.W.2 has been produced as a corroborative witness, but P.W.1 did not mention in her Exhibit P.1 or in her evidence that P.W.2 was also present and witnessed her altercation with Accused No.1. This P.W.2 stated that about five years back at about 11.30 AM she was present at Mango Tope of P.W.1 for shade under tree, she had seen Accused Nos. 1 and 2 grazing their goats and sheep in their fields. Then she and P.W.1 questioned the Accused whey they are grazing their animals in their fields, then the accused abused her by touching her caste. Then she and P.W.1 have sent away the goats from the

Mango Tope. At the time of occurrence, the mango trees are aged 18 years.

After two days, the P.W.1 was crying at the Mango Tope, then she noticed that Mango trees are cut. The P.W.1 went to Police Station and gave report.

Then the matter was placed before elders/P.Ws. 3 and 4. The Accused Nos. 1 and 2 confessed that they cut the Mango trees and offered to pay compensation, but P.W.1 did not agree to receive the compensation.

15.This witness/P.W.2 speaks something else than what is deposed by

P.W.1. The P.W.1 never stated that the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 made caste abuses and even in report there is no mention about the caste abuses.

According to P.W.1, after the incident of grazing of animals in her mango

Tope, on the next day she found her mango trees were cut. But this witness/P.W.2 states that after two days, the mango trees were cut, immediately P.W.1 went to police station and gave report to police, thereafter, the matter placed before the elders. But the P.W.1 in her chief examination, says that on the same day, she gave report and police have arrested the accused at 5.00pm, but in the cross examination she said that after three days she gave the report, meanwhile, she approached the elders 8 and the accused have made an offer to pay compensation for the damage of trees, which she refused. So, there is material contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

16.P.W.3 is a village elder and he is an Ex-Sarpanch of the Golladi Village.

He stated that on 25.10.2019 P.W.1 came and informed that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have cut the mango trees from her fields and they also cut three mango trees belonging to L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma. But on the previous day, the P.W.1, and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have quarreled with each other as their sheep were grazing in her fields and P.W.1 sent away the animals, at that time the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 threatened her with dire consequences. Then the witness advised P.W.1 that he will hold panchayat or she may go for police complaint. She preferred to go to police complaint. After two days, the police made enquiries, then the accused approached him and asked to settle the matter. Then the elders told the accused that only if they have committed wrong, then only they can settle the matter, otherwise they cannot bear the burden of settling the matter of an innocent. After ten minutes, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 came back and confessed that they have cut the mango trees in the fields of P.W.1 and L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma. Then they called the relative of accused and others and convinced them to receive compensation from the accused, but the P.W.1 did not agree for the compensation and insisted for punishment to the accused. After about one month, the police came to the village and recorded his statement. When the

P.W.1 informed them about the cutting of trees, he and P.W.4 went to the fields of P.W.1 and found mango trees cut and they were aged about 5-10 years and yielding mango crop. In his cross-examination, he denied many suggestions which are contradictions in his 161 Cr.P.C Statement. They did not hand over the Accused Nos.1 and 2 to the police after they made confession nor inform the police about the confession made by the accused.

9

17.P.W.4 is another village elder, his daughter in law was the then

Sarpanch. He stated that about five years back P.Ws.1, 2 and L.W.2/Chintada

Seethayya(died), L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma (died) came to him and informed that their mango trees were cut in their fields and to come and see. Then, he,

P.W.3 and other elders of village went to the fields of P.W.1 and noticed that mango trees were cut. There were approximately 22 mango trees. As the

P.W.1 quarreled with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 three days prior to the said date, they suspected the Accused Nos. 1 and 2. As the police were making enquiries, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached him and informed that they are accepting the guilt and ready to pay compensation, for which, the elders stated that only if they have committed wrong, then only they can punish them, otherwise, they will not punish them. Then the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 confessed that they have cut the mango trees and ready to pay compensation. The elders have fixed Rs.60,000/- as compensation, but the

P.W.1 did not agree to receive the said money. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestions which are contradictions to his 161 Cr.P.C statement.

18.The evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 before whom allegedly the Accused Nos.

1 and 2 have made extra judicial confession is in contradiction to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. According to P.W.1, police have arrested the accused on the same day of giving report at 5.00 PM, but in the report she did not mention the name of “Suspect”, but this P.Ws. 3 and 4 state that on 25.09.2019 the P.W.1 came to them and said that her Mango trees were cut and asked them to come to the Mango Tope, they went there and according to them, they found 22 Mango trees were cut and they are aged between 5- 10 years. According to P.W.s 1 and 2, the mango trees are aged about 20 years and number of trees were about 35. According to the mediators, after two days the police have made enquiries, then the accused approached them and asked to settle the matter and made extra judicial confession. It is not understood when the P.W.1 herself is not suspecting the accused, the 10 accused themselves came forward to make confession. It is also not understood and not clear from the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 as to actually when the accused appeared before them and made extra judicial confession.

It was stated by both P.Ws. 3 and 4 that they initially cautioned the accused that only if they have committed any wrong, they can make extra judicial confession, if not they will not bear the burden of trusting a wrong on the innocent. This statement in the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 does not find place in their 161 Cr.P.C statements, for the first time, they have deposed like this before this Court. Even the fixing the quantum of compensation is not found in their 161 Cr.P.C statements. Therefore, whatever stated by

P.Ws. 3 and 4 before the Court is not in accordance with the statements recorded by police, and in contradiction to the evidence of P.Ws 1 and2.

19.P.Ws.5 and 6 are examined by prosecution as mediators for scene observation. The Scene Observation was carried by the Investigation

Officer/P.W.9. P.W.2 stated that he is Village Revenue Officer, on 06.10.2019 at about 11.00 AM, she accompanied the police to the mango Tope of P.W.1, she found 22 Mango trees were cut. The police have obtained her signature on Exhibit P.2/Scene Observation Report. In her cross-examination, she admitted that as per the Exhibit P.2 contents, the date of scene observation report is 17.10.2019, in the first line of Exhibit P.2, date of 17.10.2019 has been corrected as 06.10.2019. The name of the Scribe is not mentioned in

Exhibit P.2. She did not verify the survey number of the scene of offence.

20.P.W.6 is another mediator. He stated that on 17.10.2019, on the directions of the Mandal Revenue Officer, he proceeded to Badangi Police

Station, from there to Golladi Village to the Mango Tope of P.W.1. Scene

Observation Report was prepared, he and P.W.5 signed the Report. From that place, they went to neighbour land and found two mango trees cut in the fields of L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma, where another scene observation report was 11 prepared. Exhibit P.3 is the 2nd Scene Observation Report. In his cross- examination, he stated that in both Exhibits P.2 and P.3, the date below the signature of Deputy Superintendent of Police is noted as “06.10.2019”, in fact they went on “17.10.2019”.

21. If the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 is compared to the evidence of

Investigation Officer/P.W.9, she stated that on 06.10.2019 she went to scene of offence, which is mango Tope of P.W.1, drafted scene observation report, prepared the rough sketch in the presence of P.Ws. 5 and 6, then she prepared a common rough sketch for both the scenes of offence vide Exhibit

P.14. Then she went to the 3rd scene of offence relating to the land of

L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma. Exhibit P.15 is the Scene Observation Report. She also prepared two rough sketches for the land of the L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma under Exhibit P.16 and P.17. So, according to the Investigation Officer, she prepared three scene observation reports under Exhibits P.2, P.3 and P.15.

P.W.6 stated about only one scene observation report i.e. at the field of

P.W.1, and P.W.6 stated about two scenes of offence and according to him, at the 2nd scene of offence, which is land belong to L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma only two mango trees were cut and removed. There is no report given by

L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma about cutting of her trees in her fields. In her cross- examination, P.W.9 admitted that in Exhibits P.2, P.3 and P.15, date and time of scene observation is mentioned as “17.10.2019 at 11.00 AM, 12.00 Noon and 12.50 PM” respectively. In the first line of the above reports, the date is corrected from 17.10.2019 to “06.10.2019”, but the said correction was not attested. In Exhibit P.2, 20 mango plants were cut and in Exhibit P.3, two mango trees were cut. According to P.W.6, they visited the property on 17.10.2019 and not on 06.10.2019. Therefore, it is clear from the Exhibits

P.2, P.3 and P.15 and evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 9 that the Mediators reports have been prepared either without going to the scenes of offence by some subordinate staff, or by going but not preparing the report instantaneously.

12

Thus, the evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6 which is contrary to the evidence of

P.W.9 is fatal to the case of prosecution.

22.P.W.7 is Tahsildar. She furnished the caste particulars of P.W.1 and

Accused under Exhibits P.4 to P.6. In November, 2019, she received another requisition from Sub-Inspector of Police to furnish land ownership of P.W.1.

After enquiry, she furnished ownership particulars as Exhibit P.7. The P.W.1 was issued Patta No.94, Survey No.92/7 and Exhibit P.8 is the Adangal Copy and Exhibit P.9 is the 1-B Extract in the name of Pyla Sanyasi. As per Exhibit

P.8 an extent of Ac.1.06cents was allotted to P.W.1 and enjoyer name is

Yendava Seethamma W/o Ramayya. The witness did not physically visit the property, but her subordinate staff visited the property and submitted the report, based on the same, she furnished the particulars.

23.This evidence of P.W.7 shows that the land where the alleged mango plants have been removed is not in her possession, but it was recorded in the name of Yendava Seethamma. Admittedly the prosecution did not examine the said Seethamma to show the possession of the property. P.W.1 says that the Government assigned Ac.0.36cents of land about 30 years back, but the revenue record shows otherwise.

24.P.W.8 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR. He stated that on 26.09.2019 at 19.00 hours P.W.1 came to the police station and presented a statement, he reduced the statement to writing and registered

FIR in Crime No.108/2019 under Section 447, 427 of IPC. On the next day, he visited the scene of offence and prepared scene observation report and rough sketch. On 05.10.2019, at about 14.00 hours, P.W.1 again came to the police station and submitted written complaint. Based on the same, he added

Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015. Exhibit P.11 is the written report presented by P.W.1 on 05.10.2019 and Exhibit P.12 is the

Alteration Memo. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.9. In his cross- 13 examination, he stated that in Exhibit P.10, the name of the suspect is kept

Blank. He did not obtain the signature of complainant in Column No.14 of the

Exhibit P.10.

25.As regards the arrest of the accused, the P.W.9/Investigation Officer states that on 29.10.2019 she effected the arrest of the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and produced before Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bobbili. She also addressed a letter to Assistant Director, Horticulture Department to furnish value of property and he gave reply stating that loss of P.W.1 is

Rs.32,105/- and loss of L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma is Rs.3,310/-. Exhibit P.18 is

Letter received from Assistant Director, Horticulture Department. In her cross-examination, she admitted that there is no mention in Exhibit P.11 that

P.W.1 approached the village elders as the accused threatened her on previous day, she is suspecting them. P.W.6 did not state her that on 25.09.2019 P.W.1 approached him and complained that Accused Nos. 1 and 2 have cut her mango trees. He also did not state that P.W.1 informed him that on previous day, she quarreled with Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for grazing goats and sheep and Accused Nos. 1 and 2 threatened her with dire consequences. The contradictions pointed out in the 161 Cr.P.C statement of

P.Ws.3 and 4, which are recorded by the Investigation Officer, have been admitted by P.W.9/Investigation Officer.

26.The entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution do not reflect the ingredients of alleged offences under section 447, 427 of

IPC and there is no nexus to the caste of the P.W.1 in the allegations. The evidence of crucial witnesses is contradictory to each other. A simple incident of grazing animals of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the Mango Tope said to be belonging to P.W.1 cannot be a motive for cutting the mango trees of the accused. Even the P.W.1 did not suspect the accused persons, but from the evidence, the prosecution tried to give much weightage to the extra judicial 14 confession said to have been made to P.Ws. 3 and 4 who are said to be the village elders and political persons. Even their evidence is not corroborating the evidence of P.W.1. When the P.W.1 herself not stated about the presence of P.W.2, the evidence of P.W.2 that she was present and witnessed the incident and also making further allegation of caste abuses is nothing but falsehood. It is not the case of prosecution that the P.W.1 and accused know each other, therefore the attribution of caste abuses is without any basis.

The corrections pointed out in the scene observation reports Exhibits P.2, P.3 and P.15 and the evidence of P.W.6 that they went on 17.10.2019 but not on 06.10.2019 as corrected in the Exhibits P.2, P.3 and P.15 makes those documents suspicious. The prosecution has not seized any material object from the scene of offence nor made assessment of alleged damage through mediators but they obtained some letter from Assistant Director, Horticulture

Department under Exhibit P.18. This Assistant Director, Horticulture

Department, who assessed the damage is not examined as witness. There is no report at all from the L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma about cutting and removal of mango trees from her fields, but the prosecution had shown much interest in preparing the reports with respect to land of L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma. The said L.W.6/Pyla Karunamma could not be examined by prosecution and her evidence was given up as she was unable to move from Bed.

27.For all the above reasons, this court holds that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the offences under Section 447, 427 read with 34 of

IPC and they have also failed to prove any nexus to the caste of P.W.1 in the above alleged events. The extra judicial confessions said to have been made by the accused to P.W.3 and 4 are highly unreliable and the witnesses do not appear to be trustworthy. Hence, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. The Point Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly answered against the prosecution.

15

POINT No.3

28.In the result, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 447, 427 read with 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and accordingly they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by her, corrected, signed

and pronounced by me in open court, this the 08th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA)

Act-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX of EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:

PW1: Chintada Appamma-NONE-

PW2: Pyla Laxmana

PW3: Kuriti Suryanarayana

PW4: Girada Lxmana

PW5: D.V.V.Devi, VRO

PW6: Killada Sudhakar, VRO

PW7: Smt P. Adilaxmi, Tahsildar

PW8: B. Surendra Naidu, SI of Police

PW9: Ms Gowthami Sali, IPS, Assistant Superintendent of Police

Documents Marked

For Prosecution:

Ex.P.1: Report of PW1.

Ex.P.2: Scene observation Report

Ex.P.3: 2nd Scene Observation Report

Ex.P.4: Caste Certificate of P.W.1

Ex.P.5: Caste Certificate of Accused No.1

Ex.P.6: Caste Certificate of Accused No.2

Ex.P.7: Land Ownership Particulars given by P.W.7/Tahsildar

Ex.P.8: Copy of Adangal for the year 2019 in favor of P.W.1.

Ex.P.9: Copy of 1-B extract in favour of Pyla Sanyasi

Ex.P.10: Original FIR in Crime No.108/2019 16

Ex.P11: Written Report presented by P.W.1 dated 05.10.2019

Ex.P12: Alteration Memo

Ex.P13: Proceedings of Superintendent of Police in C No.4722/C2/2019

Ex.P14: Common Rough Sketch for 1st and 2nd Scene of offences

Ex.P15: Scene Observation Report

Ex.P16: Rough Sketch of scene of offence/land belongs to L.W.6/Pyla

Karunamma

Ex.P17: Another Rough Sketch of scene of offence/land belongs to L.W.6/Pyla

Karunamma

Ex.P18: Letter received from Horticulture Department

For Defence : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge For Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA)

Act-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT CUM III ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, VIZIANAGARAM

Present: Smt. K. RADHA RATNAM,

Judge, Family Court cum

III Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram.

Monday, this the 07th day of November, 2022

Adoption O.P.No.3/2022

Between:

1.The District Women and Child Welfare & Empowerment Officer, at 1st Floor, Collectorate Complex, Vizianagaram – 535003.

2Mr.GelliChandrasekhararao,S/o Venkateswararao, Age 47 years, Occupation: Electrician&Contractor,MainRoad, Eepurupalem Mandal, Prakasam District.

3.Smt.GelliSenavalli,W/oGelli Chandrasekhararao, Age: 41 years, occupation: House wife, Main Road, Eepurupalem Mandal,…Petitioners Prakasam District.

A n d:

NILRespondents

The petition coming on 28.10.2022 for hearing before me in the presence of Smt. K. Jayalakshmi, Advocate for the petitioners and

NIL respondents and having perused the material, this Court made the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 58 of

Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children Act) read with Rule 33(5) of

Juvenile Justice Rules to permit the 1st petitioner to give the minor female child by name SAHASRA, who is newly named as SAHASRA born on 10.11.2021, in adoption to the petitioners 2 and 3.

2. The brief averments made in the petition are: that the petitioners 2 and 3 are legally married on 04.10.2009 and their marriage was solemnized as per Hindu rites and caste customs. After the marriage, both petitioners 2 and 3, used to reside at Main Road,

Eupurupalem Mandal, Prakasam District. The Government of Andhra

Judge, FC cum III ADJ, VZM Adoption OP 03/20222

Pradesh. recognized “Sishu Greha” District Women and Child Welfare &

Empowerment Officer, i.e., the 1st petitioner as the Adoption Placement

Agency vide G.O.Ms.No.7 of 2000, dt.01.03.2000 to provide shelter and also to take care of neglected and abandoned children, who are kept in the custody of the 1st petitioner and the Government of Andhra Pradesh granted power to 1st petitioner vide G.O.Ms.No.8 of 2000, dt.23.3.2000 to give children who are under her control ‘in country’ adoption, in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Central Adoption Resource

Agency from time to time and said guidelines were framed as per the

Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Laxmikant Pandey’s case by

Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India. Thus, the 1st petitioner is the de facto guardian of the children who are in the care and custody of Sishu Greha.

3.A female child by name SAHASRA is kept in care and custody of Sishu Greha, Vizianagaram, vide reference No.AP 43 SAA-094,

Dt.15.11.2021 being surrendered by the parent before the Child Welfare

Committee, Vizianagaram at Sisu Greha, Vizianagaram. The 1st petitioner made necessary enquiry, then submitted entire file to the Child Welfare

Committee, Vizianagaram, after expiry of sixty days from the date of surrender which is the reconsideration period for the biological parents, as stipulated under sub-section (5) of section-41 of the Act and no further notice shall be issued to the surrendering parents. The Child Welfare

Committee which is formed to declare whether the child is fit for Adoption has declared that the said child being orphan and is legally free for adoption vide proceedings No.VZM/CWC/96/2022, dt.26.02.2022.

4.Petitioners 2 and 3 approached the 1st petitioner to take adoption of child and to give health, education and life to under- privileged child. Accordingly, preferred an application stating that they got married on 04.10.2009 and that they are having no biological children. Hence, they decided to adopt a female child to give love and affection and also a family to a girl they intended to adopt. The Petitioner

Judge, FC cum III ADJ, VZM Adoption OP 03/20223

No.2 is working as Electrician & Contractor and earning an amount of

Rs.1,30,000/- per annum, and the Petitioner No.3 is a house wife and they own house in Eepurupalem Mandal, Prakasam District, another house situated in Chilara District, two LIC Policies, and MIS Deposits in Postal worth of Rs.9,00,000/-. As such, the petitioners 2 and 3 are economically in position to take care and well being of female child SAHASRA.

5.The 1st petitioner conducted Home Study Report which revealed that petitioners 2 and 3 have requisite qualification for being eligible to adopt child and they do not suffer from any physical, mental, financial, legal or any other disability whatsoever, accordingly, the application of petitioners 2 and 3 was approved by the 1st petitioner and the minor child SAHASRA was matched online for adoption to the petitioners 2 and 3, and, accordingly, petitioners 2 and 3 have gone through the medical reports of the female child SAHASRA and they have executed a foster care agreement in favour of the Petitioner No.1 on 27.04.2022 and since then female child SAHASRA is in care and custody of Petitioners 2 and 3. The petitioner No.1 vide proceedings

No.19/66/2022/DW&CW&EO/SAA/Adoption Committee, dt.27.04.2022, given the female child SAHASRA for adoption pending legal formalities i.e., filling the application under the provisions of Juvenile Justice Act

before this Court. The Petitioner No.1 has given the said female child

SAHASRA in adoption to the petitioners 2 and 3 as they agreed to take care and look after the welfare of child which is paramount consideration.

The requests of Petitioners 2 and 3 are genuine and proper and they have both the financial resources and social awareness to take proper care of the minor child. The proposed adoption is in the interest and paramount welfare of the minor child. Hence, the petition.

06.On 28.10.2022, petitioners 1 to 3 along with minor child present before the Court and they are examined as P.ws.1 to 3. Exs.A.1 to

A.20 are marked.

Judge, FC cum III ADJ, VZM Adoption OP 03/20224

07.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

08.Now the point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioners are entitled for the relief as prayed for?

09.Point: The 1st petitioner is appointed by the Government vide G.O. as a de facto guardian of the children kept in Sishu Greha and she is also empowered to give “in country” adoption of the children under her control to the requisite parents who came forward to act as biological parents of child on proof that they have got financial capacity and undertake to provide good health and education of the child. The petitioners 2 and 3 came forward to take adoption of child SAHASRA and after over all consideration the 1st petitioner has given the adoption of child to the 2nd and 3rd petitioners on 27.04.2022.

10.The 1st petitioner as P.W.1, in her affidavit filed in lieu of her chief examination while reiterating the petition averments marked Ex.A.1 xerox copy of Registration Certificate, dt.21.05.2018; Ex.A.2 Original Baby

Surrender document, dt.15.11.2021; Ex.A.3 Original Child Study Report (SCR) signed by the Prospective Adoptive Parents, dt.22.02.2022; Ex.A.4

Original Medical Examination Report signed by the Prospective Adoptive

Parents, dt.18.02.2022; Ex.A.5 Original Certificate of the Child Welfare

Committee (CWC), Vizianagaram, dt.26.02.2022 declared child free for adoption; Ex.A.6 Original Home Study Report (HSR), dt.15.09.2020 of the

Prospective Adoption Parents along with their recent family photograph approved by PD, DW&CDA, Ongole District; Ex.A.7 Original

Recommandation letter, dt.25.04.2022 given by M.H. Srinivasarao; Ex.A.8

Original Recommendation letter, dt.25.04.2022 given by K.V.S.

Subrahmanyam; Ex.A.9 Original Income Certificate, dt.01.12.2021 & xerox copies of postal books; Ex.A.10 Xerox copy of marriage Certificate, dt.23.04.2022; Ex.A.11 Xerox copy of Foster Care Proceeding, dt.27.04.2022 issued by the Project Director, DW & CDA, Vizianagaram; and Ex.A.12 Original Pre-Adoption Foster Care Undertaking Affidavit,

Judge, FC cum III ADJ, VZM Adoption OP 03/20225

dt.27.04.2022 respectively. She urged the Court to permit her to ratify her action in giving adoption of female child SAHASRA to the petitioners 2 and 3.

11.Petitioners 2 and 3 who are the Prospective Adoptive Parents also in their affidavits admitted as chief-examination of P.Ws.2 and 3.

Through P.W.2, the documents i.e., Ex.A.13 Xerox copy of PAN Card

No.BGXPG4656G of the 2nd petitioner; Ex.A..14 Xerox copy of Aadhar Card

No.877127517203 of the 2nd petitioner; Ex.A.15 Xerox copy of 10th Class

Marks Certificate of the 2nd petitioner; and Ex.A.16 Original Certificate of medical practitioner, dt.21.04.2022 certifying that the Prospective

Adoptive Parents do not suffer from any chronic or contagious or fatal disease and they are fit to adopt, are marked. Through P.W.3, the documents i.e., Ex.A.17 Xerox copy of PAN Card No.BPHPG0376L of the 3rd petitioner; Ex.A.18 Xerox copy of Aadhar Card No.333716403564 of the 3rd petitioner; Ex.A.19 Attested copy of age proof Certificate, dt.01.12.2021 of the 3rd petitioner, issued by the Government of Andhra

Pradesh Revenue Department; and Ex.A.20 Original Certificate of medical practitioner, dt.21.04.2022 certifying that the Prospective Adoptive

Agents do not suffer from any chronic or contagious or fatal disease and they are fit to adopt, are marked. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 supported the evidence of P.w.1 in all material aspects. According to P.ws.2 and 3 they have no biological children. As such they intend to take the child

SAHASRA in adoption to give love and affection and also a family to the girl.

12.Thus, the evidence of P.W.1 B. Santha Kumari, coupled with

Exs.A.1 to A.20 and the evidence of P.ws.2 and 3, proves that the minor child is a surrendered child and that he is in the custody of Sisu Greha.

The evidence of P.w.1 amply shows that the child is in Sisu Greha under her supervision as per the G.O.Ms.No.7 and she is also empowered to give ‘in country’ adoption. Ex.A.6 Home Study Report coupled with

Exs.A.7 and A.8, recommendation letters given by the residents of Chirala

Judge, FC cum III ADJ, VZM Adoption OP 03/20226

of Prakasam District, Andhra Pradesh State, and Income Certificate & xerox copies of Postal Books of P.w.2 under Ex.A.9 clearly shows that there are justifiable grounds to give custody of minor child SAHASRA to the petitioners 2 and 3. After consideration of all the documents and other relevant facts and circumstances, the 1st petitioner having satisfied, gave custody of child to the petitioners 2 and 3. On 28.10.2022 petitioners 2 and 3 have produced the minor child before the Court and the child was found to be in good health and cheer. Taking into consideration of their abode object of giving a parental care, good family caring, providing better opportunities to a surrendered child, after considering all the documents and other relevant facts and circumstances, and taking into consideration the evidence of P.ws.1 to 3, this Court is satisfied and this Court has no hesitation to hold that the petitioners 2 and 3 are right and proper persons to take adoption of child

SAHASRA which was given by 1st petitioner on 27.04.2022. Accordingly, this point is answered.

13.In the result, the petition is allowed. The 1 st petitioner is hereby permitted to give the female child SAHASRA, whose name is changed as “SAHASRA” female, born on 10.11.2021 in adoption to petitioners 2 and 3 with the following conditions:

1. The petitioners 2 and 3 shall treat the child as their biological child for all purposes and the child shall not be used as a servant or for any other sort of commercial purposes;

2. The minor child shall acquire all the rights including right of inheritance and succession over the assets, such as movable and immovable properties of the petitioners 2 and 3 as their natural born daughter;

3. The petitioners 2 and 3 shall submit a report about the well-being and welfare of the child including the education to the Court once in a year;

Judge, FC cum III ADJ, VZM Adoption OP 03/20227

4. The petitioners 2 and 3 shall execute a bond in favour of the 1st petitioner to ensure due compliance of the conditions. A copy of the bond shall be submitted to the Court within 45 days from the date of this order;

5. In case of any violation with regard to the laws and guidelines issued by the Government of

Andhra Pradesh, the 1st petitioner is at liberty to take action, as per Law against petitioners 2 & 3.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 07thday of November, 2022.

Sd/- K. RADHA RATNAM,

Judge, Family Court cum

III Additional District Judge,

Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Petitioners:For Respondent:

P.w.1:B. Santha Kumari (Child Welfare and Employment Officer). P.w.2:Mr. Gelli Chandrasekhararao. None P.w.3:Smt. Gelli Sena Valli.

Exhibits Marked

For Petitioners:

Ex.A.1: Xerox copy of Registration Certificate, dt.21.05.2018. Ex.A.2: Original Baby Surrender document, dt.15.11.2021. Ex.A.3: Original Child Study Report (SCR) signed by the Prospective Adoptive Parents, dt.22.02.2022. Ex.A.4: Original Medical Examination Report signed by the Prospective Adoptive Parents, dt.18.02.2022. Ex.A.5: Original Certificate of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), Vizianagaram, dt.26.02.2022 declared child free for adoption. Ex.A.6: Original Home Study Report (HSR), dt.15.09.2020 of the Prospective Adoption Parents along with their recent family photograph approved by PD, DW&CDA, Ongole District. Ex.A.7: Original Recommandation letter, dt.25.04.2022 given by M.H. Srinivasarao. Ex.A.8: Original Recommendation letter, dt.25.04.2022 given by K.V.S. Subrahmanyam. Ex.A.9: Original Income Certificate, dt.01.12.2021 & xerox copies of postal books.

Judge, FC cum III ADJ, VZM Adoption OP 03/20228

Ex.A.10:Xerox copy of marriage Certificate, dt.23.04.2022. Ex.A.11:Xerox copy of Foster Care Proceeding, dt.27.04.2022 issued by the Project Director, DW & CDA, Vizianagaram. Ex.A.12:Original Pre-Adoption Foster Care Undertaking Affidavit, dt.27.04.2022. Ex.A.13:Xerox copy of PAN Card No.BGXPG4656G of the 2nd petitioner. Ex.A.14:Xerox copy of Aadhar Card No.877127517203 of the 2nd petitioner. Ex.A.15:Xerox copy of 10th Class Marks Certificate of the 2nd petitioner. Ex.A.16:Original Certificate of medical practitioner, dt.21.04.2022 certifying that the Prospective Adoptive Parents do not suffer from any chronic or contagious or fatal disease and they are fit to adopt. Ex.A.17:Xerox copy of PAN Card No.BPHPG0376L of the 3rd petitioner. Ex.A.18:Xerox copy of Aadhar Card No.333716403564 of the 3rd petitioner. Ex.A.19:Attested copy of age proof Certificate, dt.01.12.2021 of the 3rd petitioner, issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue Department. Ex.A.20:Original Certificate of medical practitioner, dt.21.04.2022 certifying that the Prospective Adoptive Agents do not suffer from any chronic or contagious or fatal disease and they are fit to adopt.

For Respondents: NIL

Sd/- K. RADHA RATNAM,

Judge, Family Court cum

III Additional District Judge,

Vizianagaram.

1

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRAIL OF OFFENCES UNDER SCs &

STs (POA) ACT-CUM- IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIZIANAGARAM

PRESENT: : Sri Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge for trial of offences under SCs & STs

(POA) Act-cum-IV Addl.District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

Monday, this the 08th day of April, 2024.

SC ST SC No. 12 of 20 21

1. Name of the Complainant :The State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC ST Cell – I, Vizianagaram

2. Name of the accused :A1: Sankarapu Chenna Kesavarao, S/o Appala Naidu, 24 years, Gajula Kapu by caste, Putturu Village, Parvathipuram Mandal

A2: Sankarapu Sai Kumar, S/o Simhachalam, 20 years, Gajula Kapu bycaste,PutturuVillage, Parvathipuram Mandal

A3: Sankarapu Chandramouli, S/o Tirupathi Naidu, 22 years, Gajula Kapu by caste, Putturu Village, Parvathipuram Mandal

A4: Sankarapu Appala Naidu, S/o Sanyasi Naidu, 45 years, Gajula Kapu by caste, Putturu Village, Parvathipuram Mandal

3. Charges : Under Sections 323 read with 34 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015

4. Plea of accused : Accused/A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty.

5. Finding of the Judge : Accused/A1 to A4 are found not guilty.

6. Sentence or order : In the result, the Accused/ A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 323 read with 34 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015 and accordingly, theyare acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused/ A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of section 437-A Cr.P.C.

2

7. Prosecution conducted by : Special Public Prosecutor.

8. Defence conducted by : Sri P.Sriram Murthy, Advocate for Accused/A1 to A4

This case is coming on 04.04.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Special Public Prosecutor on behalf of complainant and of

Sri P.Sriram Murthy, Advocate for Accused/A1 to A4, the case having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC ST

Cell – II, Vizianagaram filed charge sheet in Cr. No. 70/2020 of

Parvathipuram Rural Police Station for the offences under sections 323 read with 34 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA)

Amendment Act - 2015 against Accused/A1 to A4 with the following allegations.

2.That, the Accused/A1 to A4 belong to Putturu village,

Parvathipuram Mandal and P.Ws. 1 to 3 are residents of same village and belongs to Schedule Caste, Accused Nos. 1 to 4 belong to Non-SC ST

Community. On 09.03.2020, the P.W.1 gave report to the police that on the previous night i.e. on 08.03.2020 while he along with other friends were going in marriage procession, when they reached Pipeel tree of SC street in their village, the Accused No.1 came there and abused them by touching their caste and necked them out with abusive language. Then the other accused came and beat them with hands and legs. Based on the report of P.W.1, case was registered as FIR in Crime No. 70/2020, investigated into and filed the charge sheet.

3.The case was taken on file for the offences under Sections 323 read with 34 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA)

Amendment Act - 2015 against Accused/A1 to A4.

3

4.On appearance of the Accused/A1 to A4, they have engaged

Advocate of their choice, copies of charge sheet and other documents have been furnished to them under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5.After hearing plea of accused under section 228 Cr.P.C, charges for the offences Under Sections 323 read with 34 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015 against Accused/A1 to A4 were framed, charges have been read over and explained to the

Accused/A1 to A4 in Telugu and they denied the same by pleading not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 4 and marked

Exhibits P.1 to P.4.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, Accused/A1 to A4 are examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused/A1 to A4 denied the incriminating material found in the prosecution evidence and stated that they have no defense evidence.

8. Heard arguments of both sides.

9. Now, the points for determination are:-

(1) Whether the prosecution proved beyond

reasonable doubt that the Accused/A1 to A4 have

committed offences punishable under Section 323

read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)

(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015?

(2) To what result?

10.The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.4.

Though the P.W.1 stated about caste abuses by Accused No.1 and did not speak anything against other accused, but in the cross-examination, he turned hostile. The P.Ws. 2 to 4 also did not support the case of 4 prosecution, but there is no necessity to book false case against the accused, hence the accused may be convicted.

11. The learned counsel for the Accused/A1 to A4 submitted that the material witnesses did not support the case of prosecution and they have turned hostile and hence, the accused may be acquitted.

POINT No. 1:-

12. The case of the prosecution is that, during a marriage procession, the P.W.1 and other friends were dancing, it was objected by Accused

Nos 1 to 4, some altercation took place and in the said altercation, the

P.W.1 received some injuries. When it comes to the evidence, though the P.W.1 stated about altercation and in chief-examination he referred to Accused No.1 alone, but when it comes to cross-examination, he stated that there were about 100-200 persons at the time of galatta, as there was power failure at that time, the sound system was playing on

Generator and due to the sound system, the voice of people is not audible and he gave report to the police as suggested by the police. The other witnesses P.Ws. 2 to 4 also simply turned hostile and stated that they do not know the persons who created the galatta in the said marriage function. They denied having stated to police as in Exhibits P.2 to P.4/ 161Cr.P.C statements.

13.in these circumstances as there is no incriminating evidence against the accused, the accused cannot be found guilty for the offences alleged against him. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilty of the Accused/A1 to A4 for the offences under

Sections 323 read with 34 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs &

STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015 beyond reasonable doubt. The Point

Nos. 1 and 2 are accordingly answered against the prosecution.

5

POINT No.3

14. In the result, the Accused/ A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 323 read with 34 of IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act - 2015 and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the said offences. The bail bonds of Accused/ A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months in terms of section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade III, transcribed by her, corrected,

signed and pronounced by me in open court, this the 08th day of April, 2024.

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge For Trial of Cases Under SCs & STs (POA)

Act-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.

APPENDIX of EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:- For Defense:

PW1: Pentakota Keri-NONE- PW2: Donka Chinna PW3: Pentakota Rajabhushana Rao PW4: Pentakoda Prasanna Kumar

Documents Marked

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1: Report given by P.W.1 to Police Ex.P.2: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2. Ex.P.3: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3. Ex.P.4: Section 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4.

For Defence : NIL.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

NIL

Sd/- Shaik Sikinder Basha

Special Judge For Trial of Offences Under S.Cs & S.Ts (POA)

Act-cum- IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram.