IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SCs/STs (POA) ACT-CUM-II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT: MAHABUBNAGAR
Friday, the 26th day of September, 2025
Present:-Smt. V.Sharada Devi
Special Judge
for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act -cum-II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
Spl.S.C.No. 168 of 2018
Between:
The State of Telangana Represented through Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gadwal (SHO, PS. Aize).
….Complainant
And
1. Potula Janardhan Reddy S/o. Padma Reddy, age 69 yrs, Occ. Agri.
2. Potula Vijayalaxmi W/o. P.Janardhan Reddy, age 65 yrs, Occ. Housewife.
3. Potula Anantha Laxmi D/o. Padma Reddy, age 75 yrs, Occ. Ration Dealer,
All R/o. Ieeja village & Mandal, Jogulamba Gadwal District.
...Accused.
: U/s. 506 r/w.34 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(x) Section of law of SC & STs (POA) Act.
Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the court: Found not guilty
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 20182 Dt. 26.09.2025
Result :A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 506 r/w. 34 of
IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3, shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months from this date as contemplated u/s. 437-A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.
-o0o-
This case is coming up before me on 11.09.2025 for hearing in the presence of Sri.S.Nagender Raju, Counsel for the
Complainant and accused No.1 as Party in Person and
Sri.P.Laxma Reddy, Counsel for the accused Nos.2 and 3 and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1.The complainant/N.I.Meramma has filed private complaint u/s. 190(1) r/w. 200 of Cr.P.C before JFCM, Court, Gadwal praying the court to take cognizance against A1 to A3 for the
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 20183 Dt. 26.09.2025 offences punishable u/s. 307, 447, 504, 506 of IPC and
Sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act against the accused.
2.The averments of the complaint in brief are; The complainant namely N.I. Meramma belongs to SC-Madiga community and her husband P.Madhusudhan Reddy (who is the younger brother of A1 and A3 herein) belongs to OC-Reddy
Community. On 31.03.1991, she got married to Madhusudhan
Reddy/PW.2 at Bhuvneshwari Talkies, Ieeja. Since beginning,
A1 to A3 used to harass her by pointing towards her caste.
Out of their wedlock, she was blessed with one daughter and two sons. She has tolerated the attitude of A1 to A3 on several occasions by considering the noble personality of her husband.
The family of the accused also got divided the properties in the presence of their mother and other elders. The scene of offence which is an open plot, fell to share of her husband Viz
Madusudhan Reddy i.e., PW.2. On 30.05.2010 at 4.30 a.m., A1 to A3 illegally entered into the open plot and tried to dig pits, stating that they are performing Bhoomi pooja for construction of new house. On knowing the same, she and her husband went and requested them to leave the place, as the accused has no iota of title or interest over the same. Surprisingly, A1 to 3 attacked them without any reasonable cause and further
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 20184 Dt. 26.09.2025 abused her in the name of caste as “Madiga Lanja Neevu Ma
Thammuni Pellichesukunnatha Matharana Midisi adite Etla
Neeku Thannulevu, Kovvu Pattinavu, Ninnu Champesthe
Dikkuevaru Madiga Mundadi Ekkuvyadi” and also threatened to kill her and her husband. A1 to A3 also assaulted them indiscriminately, with hands and legs. A1 attacked her husband i.e., PW.2 with crowbar to kill him and necked him out of the plot. With the intervention of LW3/S.Rama Chandra
Reddy, PW3/G.Ayyanna, LW5/N.Vijay Kumar and other neighbours, the accused left the spot. Immediately, after the incident she rushed to the police station, Ieeja along with her husband and lodged Telugu written complaint on 30.05.2010.
But the police did not take any action against the accused, as
A1 is highly influential person, being state rank officer having acquaintance with high political powers. As such, she has approached human rights commission, Hyderabad for redressel of her grievance vide complaint dated 05.06.2010, sent through registered post. Intentionally, police did not take any action against the accused and finally they registered a case in Cr.No.58/2010 on 07.06.2010, by altering and correcting the date of complaint. Thereafter, they filed final report treating the case as “Lack of evidence”, without
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 20185 Dt. 26.09.2025 investigating into the case. On 23.05.2011, SDPO, Gadwal issued notice to her and also filed final report with flimsy grounds. Aggrieved by the same, she has filed the protest petition before the court within the period of limitation.
Thereafter, on 28.09.2012, the complainant has filed private complaint before JFCM, Gadwal.
3.Basing on that private complaint, registered as
Crl.M.P.No.1420/2011 was registered in Cr.No.58/2010 by the
learned JFCM-cum-JCJ, Gadwal, who had recorded the sworn statements of the complainant herein and as well as the listed witnesses i.e., PW2/Madusudhan Reddy, PW3/Ayyanna,
LW5/Vijay Kumar. Thereafter basing on the private complaint and statements of above witnesses, the learned JFCM, Gadwal took cognizance against A1 to A3 for the offences u/s. 506 of
IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act and registered the case vide PRC.No.02/2017 (old PRC.No.28/2013). On appearance of accused, copies were furnished to them
U/Sec.207 Cr.P.C and the case was committed to this court, vide order dated.03.07.2018 U/Sec.209 Cr.P.C by observing that the offence u/s. 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble VII Addl. District and
Sessions Judge-cum-SC/STs (POA) Act cases, Mahabubnagar
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 20186 Dt. 26.09.2025 (presently designated as II Addl. District and Sessions Judge’s
Court, Mahabubnagar).
4.On appearance of A1 to A3, they were examined u/sec.228 of Cr.P.C and Charges U/s.506 r/w.34 of IPC and u/s.3(1)(x) of SC & STs (POA) Act against A1 to A3 were framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu language.
They denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Hence proceeded further for trial.
5.During the course of trial, on behalf of complainant,
PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.P1 to Ex.P5, were marked.
6.After closure of complainant’s evidence, A1 to A3 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by inviting their attention to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of Pws.1 to 3. For which they denied the same.
However during the cross examination of complainant/PW1 got marked Exs.D1 to D9 and during the cross examination of
PW2 got marked Ex.D10 to D12 and during the cross examination of PW3, got marked Ex.D13, on their behalf.
7.Heard the arguments of both sides. A1 who is party-in- person had also filed his written arguments along with counsels for A2, A3.
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 20187 Dt. 26.09.2025
8.The complainant’s counsel contended that, the complainant/PW1 got married to Madusudhan Reddy ie., PW2 against the wishes of the family of the accused, as such, they are in enemical terms with PW1 and did not accept her into the family, on the ground that she belongs to SC-Madiga caste. On the alleged date of offence, A1 not only abused her in the name of caste, but also tried to attack her husband i.e.,
PW2, with crowbar. It is contended by him that the scene of offence plot, fell to the share of PW2 during the partition among the family members of accused and thereby PWs.1 and 2 objected the visit of the accused to the scene of offence plot, on the date of incident. A1 by taking advantage of his position and rank in government service, had influenced the police to not to register the case initially. Thereafter, even though the case was registered, police had filed their final report referring the case as ‘Lack of Evidence’. As such the complainant/PW1, had chosen to file protest petition herein.
The evidence of PWs1 to 3 are corroborative in naturerelating to the visit of the accused, to the scene of offence plot and threatening PWs.1 and 2 on the alleged date of incident including hurling of abuses towards her in the name of her caste, with a view to insult her, within the public view. Hence,
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 20188 Dt. 26.09.2025 by considering the evidence on record, he prayed the court to convict the accused.
9.The accused NO.1/P.Janardhan Reddy, who is
party- in- person had filed his written arguments along
with counsel for A2 and A3 by contending that; the complainant had willfully and falsely implicated them in this case only with a view to wreck vengeance against them, but in fact, no incident took place as alleged by them. In fact, they went to perform Boomi pooja in that plot which belongs to him, but not of the complainant/PW.1 or her husband i.e.,
PW.2. At that time, it is the complainant and her husband who disputed with them and thereafter by taking advantage of her caste, the complainant/PW1, had filed the protest petition/complaint herein by making false allegations.
10.It is also contended by him that the ingredients u/s. 3(1)
(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act, and Sec. 506 of IPC are missing in this case, as the complainant/PW1 gave bald statement that all the accused abused her by taking her caste name, but did not state which of the accused abused her with which particular words and in whose presence, the alleged abuse took place. There is an inter-relation between PW1 and other
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 20189 Dt. 26.09.2025 witnesses, as such they cannot be considered as independent witnesses. Both PWs1 and 2 had violated the conditions of partition deed dt. 01.05.1994 i.e, Ex.D11 and started encroaching the properties of A1. PW1 miserably failed to adduce any evidence on record to support her claim, that she has spent Rs.5,00,000/- for maintenance of joint family. In order to resist excessiveness of PWs.1 and 2, A1 had approached JCJ Court, Gadwal and filed O.S.NO.92/2002 i.e.,
Ex.D12 for perpetual injunction including the plot No.7-63/1 adjacent to their house NO.7-63, where the alleged incident took place on 30.05.2010 at 4.30 a.m. A1 has obtained decree in his favour and the appeal preferred by PWs.1 and 2, were dismissed. Hence, it is established that A1 is absolute owner of alleged plot No.7-63/1, as confirmed by Jr.Civil Judge
Court, Gadwal vide its decree dt.17.04.2006 in
O.S.No.92/2002 vide Ex.D12, in which PWs1 and 2 are
defendants. In fact, it is PW2 who has necked out A1, and PW1 had attacked A2 and thrown her on to the ground. When A1 informed the S.I. of police, Ieeja about the same then, the police came to the spot and controlled the situation.
11.Basing on the complaint given by A1 on 07.06.2010, at 8.00 a.m., to the Ieeja police station, they registered the case
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201810 Dt. 26.09.2025 in Cr.No.57/2010, dt.07.06.2010 and filed charge sheet
No.8/2011 vide Ex.D1 herein u/s. 448, 504 of IPC against PWs1 and 2 herein before J.C.J. Court, Gadwal. Thereafter on the request made by PW7, A1 had withdrawn that complaint by compromising the case, outside the court. Thereafter PW1 on the instigation of PW2 (who is an Advocate) filed false complaint dt.07.06.2010, against him and other accused which was registered vide Cr.No.58/2010 VIDE Ex.D2. Basing on the false SC certificate obtained by PW1, this case is filed under the provisions of SCs & STs (POA) Act. The false certificate of PW1 is under scrutiny by District Level Scrutiny
Committee. On completion of investigation, police filed final report by closing the case as ‘lack of evidence’. Pending protest petition vide Crl.M.P.No.1420/2011 before JCJ Court,
Gadwal, PW1 had filed the private case with improvised versions i.e, Ex.P1/complaint herein, after lapse of more than 1 ½ years. The abnormal delay in recording the statements of complainant and her witnesses in Crl.M.P.No.1420/2011 gives scope for manipulation. Further, when the protest petition vide
Ex.D3 is pending, the private petition dt.28.09.2012 herein, is not maintainable. It is also contended by him that there are
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201811 Dt. 26.09.2025 many contradictions in the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, making their case unreliable to be acted upon.
12.The counsel for the accused had also relied upon the following decisions viz:
i. Krishnalal Chawla & Others Vs. State of UP,
Crl.A.No.283 of 221 of Hon’ble Apex Court, it was
observed that; “Conduct in filing a delayed complaint case, suppressing material facts, and utilizing fresh proceedings to materially improve on his earlier version, in totality, amounts to gross abuse of the process of law”.
ii. S.Bala Krishna Vs. The state of Telangana;
Crl.P.No.4319 of 2015 decided on 28.01.2016 of
Hon’ble High Court of AP. In which it was held
that; “The trial court had committed an error in taking cognizance of the offences u/s. 506 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, against accused without applying judicious mind and without perusing the contents available on record”.
iii. Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of AP & Ors.;
(Crl.)No.3743/2007, dt. 20.08.2008 of Hon’ble Apex
Court observed that; “When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201812 Dt. 26.09.2025 rigmarole of the criminal trial, would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law”.
13. It is one of the contentions of defence counsel that, A1 to
A3 do not have knowledge about the caste of PW1 as
SC-Madiga, except the fact that her religion is Christianity. He also relied upon the following decision; i.Satnam Singh Vs.State of Punjab & Anr. Crl.Misc.
No.M-3141 of 2011 decided on 23.08.2013 of
Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, in which it
was observed that “ when the allegations in FIR do not spell out that the accused knew the caste of complainant then no offence U/Sec.3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act is made out”.
ii.In Anil Mehra Vs. Ajmer Singh; Crl.Misc. No.14991-
M of 1990, dt. 19.02.1991 of Hon’ble Punjab &
Haryana High Court, it was observed that,
Converting the civil disputes into frivolous criminal prosecution by lodging a complaint under SC, ST (POA) Act and u/s. 506 CrPC, is nothing but to build up pressure on the accused to bend according to their whims and fancies, which is a grave abuse of process of law,
iii. In Daya Bhatnagar & Ors. Vs. State; Crl.W.No.402
of 2001; 17.01.2004 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court.
and
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201813 Dt. 26.09.2025 iv.P.Bhaskararaju (petitioner) Vs. State of Telangana,
Crl.M.P.No.14101/2014, dated.22.04.2015, it was held
that,
With regard to meaning of ‘Public view’ it is clarified and concluded that not mentioning the presence of public to witness the incident, does not constitute the offence under SCs & STs (POA) Act.
v. Hitesh Verma Vs. The state of Uttarakhan,
Crl.A.No.707 of 2020 (decided on 05.11.2020) of
Hon’ble Supreme court, wherein their lordship
observed that; “If the offence is alleged to have been taken place with the four walls of the building, then it would not come within public view as none were said to be present with the four walls of the building as per the F.I.R. and Charge sheet. Hence, the offences u/s. 3(1)(r)(s) are not established, merely on the fact that the victim is a member of Scheduled Caste, unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of SC or ST for the reason, that the victim belongs to such caste”.
vi. Chandrapal Singh & Ors., Vs. Maharaj Singh & Anr.,
Crl.A.No.298/1981 (dt.15.1.1982) of Hon’ble
Supreme court wherein it was observed that;
“In the matters of losing the civil suits in the hierarchy of civil courts then criminal proceedings had been initiated by the opposite party, is nothing but abuse of process of law”.
vii. Parsa Somaiah and Ors. Vs. State of AP in
Crl.P.NO.118 of 2011, dt. 18.02.2014 of Hon’ble
High Court of AP. It was observed that;
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201814 Dt. 26.09.2025 “In the course of a quarrel took place in the fields the petitioners abused the defacto complainant and his people by using the caste name, the said act by itself does not automatically attract the offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The manner in which utterances were made must be with an intention to humiliate or intimidate the persons belongs to SC or ST community”.
viii. Budapap Vs. State of AP., Case NO.1640 of 2004,
LAWS (APH), decided on 6.12.2006 of Hon’ble High
Court of AP. It was observed by the lordships that;
“In the quarrel, both sides said to have exchanged words, and therefore, even if it is assumed that some abuses were made in he name of caste of one party, it cannot be said it would attract the provisions contained in Sec. 3(1)
(x) of the Act. In order to attract the said provisions, there must be an intention to humiliate a member of the SC or ST Community”.
ix. Moti Ram Vs.Sate. Crl.A.No.211/1993,
dt.17.05.2022 of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan at
Jodhpur, wherein it is held that; “Public view means public person present should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties, otherwise Sec. 3(1)(x) of SCs and STs (POA) Act, does not attract”.
x. K.Hanumanth Reddy, Shapur nagar Vs. State of AP,
Rep. by PP, in Crl.A.No.1638 of 2009, decided on
28.07.2022 of Hon’ble High Court of Telangana. It
was observed that;
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201815 Dt. 26.09.2025 “If there is a motive for complainant to falsely implicate him in view of property disputes between them, then the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused”.
14.Now the points for determination are:
Whether the complainant could be able to establish the guilt of;
a) A1 to A3 for the charged offence punishable u/s.506 r/w. 34 of IPC?
b) A1 to A3 for the charged offence punishable
3(1)(x) of the SCs and STs (POA) Act?
Point No.(b):-
Discussion for the charged offences u/s. 3(1)(x) of the SCs
and STs (POA) Act:
15.For the sake of convenience and better appreciation, it would be just to take up Point No.(b) for discussion at the first instance.
16.According to complainant/PW1, she belongs to SC-Madiga community and got married to one Madusudhan Reddy/PW.2 (brother of A1 and A3) who belongs to OC-Reddy community.
On the alleged date of incident i.e, on 30.05.2010 at 4.30 a.m., A1 to A3 had illegally trespassed into the open plot of her husband i.e., PW2, and were trying to dig the pits by performing the Bhoomi pooja and to construct a new house
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201816 Dt. 26.09.2025 and thereby, she and her husband i.e, PW2 went and requested them to leave the place, as the accused Nos. 1 to 3 do not have any iota of title or interest over it. At that time,
A1 to A3 attacked them and further abused her, in the name of her caste as “Madiga Lanja Neevu Ma Thammuni
Pellichesukunnatha Matharana Midisi Padite Etla Neeku
Thannulevu, Kovvu Pattinavu, Ninnu Champesthe Dikkuevaru
Madiga Mundadi Ekkuvydi and also threatened to kill her and her husband“.
17.To attract the ingredients for the offence punishable u/s.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, it has to be established that the accused who belongs to other than SC/ST community, had intentionally insulted PW.1 belongs to SC/ST community in the name of her caste, within the public view. As per the case of complainant, the alleged incident took place in the open plot situated adjacent to their house in Ieeja village. Being an open house plot, definitely it would come within the public view, but as the alleged incident is said to have taken place in the early hours, i.e., at 4.30 a.m., on 30.05.2010, the presence of public or the villagers, at the scene is too remote. As per the complaint averments, LW3/Rama Chandra Reddy and
Ayyanna i.e, PW3/LW.4 and LW5/N.Vijay Kumar, intervened at
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201817 Dt. 26.09.2025 the time of alleged incident. Out of the alleged three eye witnesses only one witness i.e., LW4/Ayyanna was examined as PW3, and the other two witnesses were not examined by the complainant, to substantiate her contentions.
18.Coming to the evidence of PW3, it can be seen that on 30.05.2010, in between 4.30 am and 5.00 a.m., he was proceeding along with LW5/Vijay Kumar, for morning walk and on hearing some noise from the house of PW2, which is situated at a distance of 100 feet from the main road, leading from Hanwada to old bus stand, they went to that place and found A1 and PW2 quarrelling with each other.
19.It is an admitted that that A1 and PW2 are own brothers and from the documents filed by PW1, vide Ex.P1/ police complaint dt. 07.06.2010, it is apparent that there are property disputes between A1 and PW2, prior to (15) years from that date. Even Ex.P2/copy of representation dt.26.04.2011, given by PW1 to Chair person State Mahila
Commission, Hyderabad also reveals that in view of the inter- caste marriage of PW1 with PW2, held on 31.03.1991 the accused herein who are the family members of PW2 did not accept their marriage and thereby, subjected her to
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201818 Dt. 26.09.2025 harassment in many ways. Thus, from Exs.P1 to P3, it can be seen that there are in-differences between the accused and
PWs.1 and 2 herein since 1991, which are still continuing, as of now.
20.From the evidence of PW1, it can be seen that after her marriage, she and her husband/PW2 lived separately from their in-laws and they never lived together with accused at any point of time. This version of PW1 also reinforces the fact that there is a strong enemity coupled with ill-feelings between them, for the past 24 years or so.
21.According to PW3, when A1 went to Bhoomi pooja in the land situated adjacent to the house of PW2, then PW2 objected for the same, by claiming that the said land fell to his share. According to him, A1 to A 3 were present at the scene and so also PWs1 and 2. He further states that, when A1 tried to involve in scuffle with PW2, then he and LW5/Vijay Kumar intervened and separated them. At that time, A1 commented
PW1 by stating that being SC community lady, by marrying his brother i.e., PW2, she is provoking him to fight with A1.
During his cross examination, PW3 deposed that though A2 and A3 were present along with A1, they did not indulge in
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201819 Dt. 26.09.2025 quarrel with PWs.1 and 2, at that time. Even as per the testimony of PW1, it is A1 who had abused her as “Madiga
Lanja, Neevu Ma Tammudni Chesukunnantha Mathraana
Vidichipedithe Etla? Neeku Tannulu Levu, Kovvu Pattinavu,
Ninnu Champesthe Dikkuvaru“ and also further abused her as “ Madiga Mundadhi Ekkuvaindi, Ninnu Champesthe Dikkevaru,
Ninnu Case lalo irikinchi Champestha” . Her evidence do not reveal that A2 and A 3 had abused her in the name of caste in the presence of PW3 and LW3/Rama Chandra Reddy and
LW5/Vijay Kumar, who are said to be the alleged eye- witnesses as per her private complaint.
22.According to PW2, A1 to A3 abused PW1 in the name of her caste as “ Madhiga Lanja Ma Thammudini Chesukunantha
Mathrana Midisi Paddithe Etla, Ninnu Champesthe Dikku
Evaru.” But his version to that effect, is not supported either by PW1 or by PW3, before this court. Because according to
PW.1, A1 alone hurled abuses against her and as per PW.3, A1 commented PW.1. Their testimonies are silent about abuses if any made by A2, A3 towards PW.1. As per the complaint averments, A1 to A3 abused PW1 in the name of her caste as “Madiga Lanja Neevu Ma Thammuni Pellichesukunnatha
Matharana Midisi Padite Etla Neeku Thannulevu, Kovvu
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201820 Dt. 26.09.2025
Pattinavu, Ninnu Champesthe Dikkuevaru Madiga Mundadi
Ekkuvydi and threatened to kill her and her husband”.
23.As it is contended by the complainant that there are in- differences between them and the family of the accused since long time, including the property disputes with A1, then naturally in the course of quarrel if any taken place between them on the alleged date of incident, mere exchange of abusive words in the heated passion on account of their enemical feelings, would not come under the provisions of SCs & STs (POA) Act, as held in the decisions referred supra by defence counsel. Further more, the duty is cast upon the complainant/PW1 to prove that the use of abusive words in the name of caste by A1 to A3 on the alleged date of incident must have been made, only with a view to humiliate her, within the public view.
24.No doubt the evidence of PW3 reveals that A1 commented PW1 as SC community lady who got married to his brother i.e., PW2, is provoking him to fight with him, but it do not reveal the intention on the part of A1, to insult or humiliate PW1 especially within the public view. There is no dispute on behalf of accused regarding their visit to the
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201821 Dt. 26.09.2025 alleged scene of offence on 30.05.2010, to perform Bhoomi pooja.
25.It is the contention of the accused that the scene of offence plot belongs to A1, but not of PWs.1 and 2. It is his contention that PWs.1 and 2 had intentionally disputed with him on the alleged date of incident and prevented him from performing the Bhoomi pooja and thereby he was also constrained to lodge police complaint, against them which was registered as Cr.No.57/2010.
26.In support of his contention, he has also got marked
Ex.D1/C.C. of charge sheet in CC.No.93/2012 on the file of Jr.
Civil Judge Court, Gadwal which reveals that on 30.05.2010 at
4.30 hours, when A1 along with A2 and A3 herein went, to perform Bhoomi pooja, then PWs.1 and 2 herein had threatened them with dire consequences by alleging to file
SC/ST case against them and also obstructed labour from proceeding with the work.
27.It is the contention of the defence counsel that they have filed O.S.No.92/2002 before Jr. Civil Judge Court, Gadwal in which A1 had obtained perpetual injunction against
Pws.1 and 2. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201822 Dt. 26.09.2025
Ex.D12 is C.C. of judgment and decree dated 17.04.2006, in
O.S.No.92/2002 passed by Learned Junior Civil Judge Court,
Gadwal. PW2 also admitted that they preferred appeal before the Hon’ble Senior Civil Judge Court, Gadwal and also before the Hon’ble High Court, but their appeals, were dismissed. He also admitted that in view of the injunction order obtained by
A1, and in view of the dismissal of their appeals, the injunction is in force against them in respect of properties covered under the suit. As per Ex.D12, it can be seen that decree was passed in respect of housing property No.7-63/1, situated at Ieeja village in which the southern boundary is shown as, house of
PW1 herein i.e., H.No.7-63.
28.PW2 in his cross examination clearly admitted that the disputed plot herein ie., the place at which alleged incident took place is the suit property in O.S.No.92/2002, in which the decree was passed against them. Even the boundaries of disputed plot as deposed by PW2 before this court, tallies with the boundaries of housing property mentioned in Ex.D12. In such case, having obtained perpetual injunction by A1 against
PWs.1 and 2, he is having absolute right to proceed with the construction in the said plot, adjacent to the house of PWs.1 and 2. Therefore, it appears that it is PWs.1 and 2 who had
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201823 Dt. 26.09.2025 chosen to pick up quarrel with the accused on the date of incident by claiming that the said plot fell to their share during partition.
29.PW2 in his cross examination, admitted that in the written statement filed by them in OS No.92/002, they did not mention about the alleged settlement before family elders which took place in 2000, in which A1 has given that plot to him, but could not execute the document, due to want of stamp paper. PW2 also deposed that he do not have any documentary evidence, to show that the disputed plot belongs to him absolutely.
30. He also admitted in his cross examination that partition between their family members took place on 1.09.1994 under a written document which contains his own hand writing marked as Ex.D11. On perusal of Ex.D11, it is seen that their family properties were divided into three parts, in which PW2 got eight properties. As per Ex.D12, there is a reference about the settlement deed dt.01.05.1994 vide Ex. D11 and the Jr. Civil Judge Court, Gadwal believed that as per the said document, A1 herein who is plaintiff therein and PW2 herein who is the defendant NO.1 therein, got partitioned their lands
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201824 Dt. 26.09.2025 in the year 1994 itself and further observed that A1 herein is in possession of the suit schedule properties i.e., House
No.7-63/1 and other agricultural lands referred in schedule of
Ex.D12 and thereby, that suit was decreed with costs. Hence, the contention of complainant/PW1 that A1 to A3 illegally trespassed into their land and were digging the pits by performing Bhoomi pooja to construct new house on 30.05.2010, is quite untenable.
31.Having lost the appeals filed by them, the complainant herein and her husband i.e., Pws.1 and 2 are totally restrained from entering into the scene of offence plot belonging to A1.
Thereby from the evidence on record, it can be held that it is the complainant and her husband who had chosen to pick up quarrel with A1 to A3, on the alleged date of incident and registering of Cr.No.57/2010 against them including filing of charge sheet by the police vide Ex.D1, strengthens the contention of A1, that it is the complainant/PW1 and PW2 who are in enemical terms with accused and thereby picked up quarrel on that day intentionally and filed the police complaint.
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201825 Dt. 26.09.2025
32.It is one of the contentions of counsel for the accused that PW1 do not belongs to SC-Madiga caste and they are not aware of her caste. According to him, as per the letter addressed to A1, by PW2 vide Ex.D1, dt. 18.03.1991, PW2 expressed his intention to marry one Mary of Christian religion. In that letter he had informed that he had contacted register marriage, with that lady. Whereas, it is the contention of the complainant/PW1 that she belongs to SC-
Madiga caste and even the caste certificate vide Ex.P5, issued by Tahsildar Ieeja, reveals the same. Further during her cross examination, she deposed that her full name is Naikal Ieeja
Meramma and her mother name is Naikal Miriyamma and her father’s name is Naika Isaiah. She further deposed that her parents belongs to SC-Madiga community, but he worked as pastor of M.B. Church, Ieeja. She denied the suggestion that as she was born to her parents, who were professing
Christianity by the time of her birth, she belongs to Christian religion and not to SC-Madiga community. Further she admitted that her father during his life time, worked as pastor at various places pertaining to M.B.Church and performed the marriages of several Christians.
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201826 Dt. 26.09.2025
33.The counsel for the accused also confronted
Ex.D4/Magazine namely ‘Bethelu Swaramu’, as per which, her father worked as Pastor for the church constructed in 1965 and the book reveals her name, as one of the donor for the funds raised for publishing the magazine. This itself implies that even PW.1/Complainant is Professing Christianity, but not Hindu religion. During her cross examination,
Ex.D5/which are the photo copies of two graves was marked, and PW1 admitted that those two graves belongs to her parents and they contain the construction of tombs in the shape of holy cross. Thus, it is evident from record that the parents of PW1 had converted into Christianity long back and thereby even after their death, their graveyards were constructed in the shape of holy cross.
34.No doubt, as per the judgment of our Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Mohammad Sadique vs Darbara Singh Guru; 2016 (4) ALD
SC 75in which, the lordships of Hon’ble Apex Court observed that:
“A person can change his religion and faith but not the caste, to which he belongs, as caste has linkage to birth.”
In the present case, Tahsildar Ieeja has issued Ex.P5/Caste certificate, as per which, PW1 is claiming the status of
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201827 Dt. 26.09.2025
SC-Madiga. If the accused are really aggrieved by that certificate then, the recourse open to them is to challenge the same before the appropriate authority and to get cancel the same.
35.During the cross examination of PW1, the defence counsel has confronted many documents to her which includes the letter dt. 06.07.2010 addressed by Head Master,
ZPHS, Ieeja, along with sheet containing the name of one
Meramma with Sl.No.188/1456 showing the date of birth of
PW1 as 01.07.1962 and in the religion column, it was mentioned as ‘Christ’ and name of her parents as Isaiah. But
PW1 denied the same. He also confronted the photo copy of admission register of students from 6th class pertaining to
ZPHS, Ieeja, which also reflects the religion of PW1 as ‘Christ’, but she denied the same. Further in her cross examination she admitted that she has submitted application to Head Master,
ZPHS, Ieeja for removal of ‘Christ’ and mention the word as
SC-Madiga, by correcting the particulars. This itself shows that in her school records it was initially mentioned as ‘Christ’.
36.During her cross examination, Ex.D7 which is attested copy of admission register for the year 1979-80, pertaining to
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201828 Dt. 26.09.2025
Government Junior college, Girls Mahabubnagar, showing the name of PW1 with Sl.No.1308, as N.I. Meramma was marked, which also establishes the fact that she studied in government
Junior College for Girls, Mahabubnagar during that relevant period and as per Ex.D8/Transfer certificate issued by that college, at column No.5 relating to caste of PW1 is left blank and in column No.4, it was mentioned as ‘Indian/Hindu’. Even as per Ex.D9, it is the attested copy of duplicate Transfer certificate of PW1 issued by government junior college girls,
Mahabubnagar, column No.5 was left blank and she admitted in her cross examination that as per Ex.D9, SC-Madiga is not mentioned.
37.Thus it is evident from record that the parents of PW1 had professed Christianity, during their lifetime till their death and their names including the name of PW1/complainant herein i.e., Meramma are all christian names, but not of Hindu names.
38.From the evidence of PW1, it is seen that her husband i.e., PW2, is her schoolmate since 6th class and he is quite aware of her family social status and background. As the parents of PW.1 continued, in professing Christian religion by
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201829 Dt. 26.09.2025 converting from Hindu religion, probably that might be the reason for which Ex.D8 and Ex.D9 do not reflect that PW1 belongs to SC-Madiga caste, which she is claiming under Ex.P5 document. Further more, Ex.P5 was obtained by her in the year 2000. Even as per Ex.D10/letter, PW2 referred PW1, as the ‘girl’ belonging to ‘Christian’ community and her name is ‘Mary’.
39.As the marriage of PW1 with PW2 is a love marriage got performed by them without the knowledge of the accused herein (who are the family members of PW2) obviously, by considering the faith of the parents of PW1, in Christianity, till their death and in particular, when the father of PW1 namely
Ishaiah worked as pastor in M.B.Church, and performed the marriage of several Christians as admitted by PW1, then definitely the accused would not be having knowledge, that complainant/ PW1 belongs to SC-Madiga community. Even according to her, after her marriage she never lived together with the accused in one house, as she and her husband always lived separately, from their in-laws. In such case, there is very remote chance for the accused to infer or to have knowledge that, PW1 and her parents belongs to SC-Madiga
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201830 Dt. 26.09.2025 community, but not of Christian religion, which they are professing.
40.As per the recent judgment of Hon’ble High Court of AP at
Amaravathi in the case of Akkalla Rami Reddy Vs. State of AP, in Crl. Petition No.7114 of 2022, dt.30.04.2025 wherein the lordship observed that; “As per the Section 3 of SCs & STs (POA) Act, only a member of SC/ST Act can invoke the provisions of the Act. When the complainant is working as Pastor in a church by following
Christianity, then he is not entitled to invoke the provisions of SCs & STs (POA) Act.”
It was further observed by their lordship that, “Mere non-cancellation of the caste certificate by the authority to a person who has converted into
Christianity, cannot instill the protection granted under the Protective Legislation.” “Thereby it was observed by his lordship that the party therein professing Christianity by working as pastor seized to be the member of SC community
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201831 Dt. 26.09.2025 i.e., on the day, he converted into Christianity, and thereby he cannot avail the benefit of application of
SCs & STs (POA) Act provisions”.
41.In the present case, it is not the contention of the accused, that PW1 has converted into Christianity. But, prior to her birth itself, her parents were professing Christianity and from the cross examination of PW1, it is proved that her parents professed Christian religion till their death and as her father worked as pastor in M.B.Church, probably that might be the reason for which, her caste was not mentioned as
SC-Madiga, in her alleged Transfer certificate vide Ex.D8 and
Ex.D9. Even as per Ex.D10, PW2 i.e., her husband referred her as “ A Christian girl, “ but not of a woman belonging to SC-
Madiga community.
42.During her cross examination, the defence counsel also confronted the photo copy of Transfer certificate of 10th class issued on 21.07.1979 to her, in which the particulars relating to her caste, were left blank and PW1 had denied that document. From her evidence it can be seen that Ieeja police had registered Cr.No.57/2010 dt.07.06.2010 and filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.8/2011 against her and her husband vide
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201832 Dt. 26.09.2025
Ex.D1, relating to their alleged interference into the disputed property pertaining to the same incident, dt. 30.05.2010.
43.It s the contention of the defence counsel that A1 got compromised the matter with PW2 and thereby withdrawn that case. Though police had referred the complaint given by
PW1, by filing final report as ‘Lack of Evidence’, PW1 had intentionally chosen to proceed against them by filing protest petition on 28.05.2011 and thereafter filed the present private complaint on 28.09.2012. Even during her cross examination,
PW1 admitted that she is bound by allegations made by her, in her police complaint, protest petition, private complaint and on the statements given by her, on her oath so far. Ex.D3 is copy of her protest petition dt.28.05.2011.
44.On perusal of Ex.D3, it is seen that A1 to A3 after visiting the scene on 30.05.2010 had called them, on the pretext of settlement of family properties, in order to hold discussion and thereby attacked on her husband i.e., PW2 and abused her in the name of caste. Whereas, during her evidence before this court, she deposed that when A1 to A3 along with others came to the plot for doing Bhoomi pooja and when the land was dug then on hearing the sound, they came out of their
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201833 Dt. 26.09.2025 house and questioned A1 to A3 about their visit to that place, in respect of agreeing to give away that land to them. The evidence of PW1 before this court is quite contrary to the contents of her protest petition vide Ex.D3. As per the private complaint filed by her before this court against A1 to A3, they had trespassed into their open plot and dug the pits to construct a new house. On knowing the same from A1 to A3, she and her husband i.e., ,PW2 went and requested them to leave the place.
45.Thus it is evident from record that PW1 gave three different versions i.e., in her testimony before this court and in
Ex.D3 i.e, protest petition, and in the complaint averments i.e., private complaint, filed before this court. The private complaint herein and as well as her testimony, do not reveal that A1 to A3 had called them to the scene for settlement of their family properties and thereby attacked them.
Furthermore, Ex.D3 is silent about the words used by the accused, in the name of her caste and so also which of the accused out of A1 to 3, had abused her in specific, with which words.
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201834 Dt. 26.09.2025
46.As per her private complaint, A1 to A3 abused her.
Whereas, her testimony before this court reveals that it is only
A1 who had abused her, for two times. According to PW2, A1 to A3 had abused PW1, in the name of caste. According to
PW3, A1 had only commented PW1, that being a SC community lady, she is provoking PW2 against A1. Thus, the three different versions of PWs1 to 3 before this court raises suspicion about the alleged abuses said to have been made by A1 or A1 to A3 towards PW1, in the name of her caste i.e,
SC-Madiga, especially with a view to humiliate her within the public view.
47.As per Ex.P4, it is seen that both A1 and PW2 entered into settlement of partition of properties in which it was mentioned that A1 herein, who is owning the house bearing
No.7-63/1 has to hand over the same to PW.2 for Rs.1,50,000/- and PW2 has to pay that amount to A1 before 08.03.2020 and thereafter can proceed with the mutation of Municipal records.
It is not the contention of A1, that Ex.P4 herein is a created document. However, to claim right under Ex.P4/document, it must be established by the complainant/PW1, that in pursuance to that agreement, PW2 had paid Rs.1,50,000/- to
A1 before 08.03.2020. The testimonies of PWs1 and 2 do not
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201835 Dt. 26.09.2025 reveal, that they have complied with the said contents stipulated in Ex.P4. Even the complaint averments are silent, about the said fact. Hence, in view of the admissions made by
PW2, that the injunction order obtained by A1 is still in force against them in respect of the properties covered in that suit, he cannot be permitted to agitate that under Ex.P4, A1 had given the scene of offence plot/disputed plot to them and thereby the accused, cannot enter and proceed with construction of new house, in that place.
48.Evidently, in view of the property disputes of PWs1 and 2 with accused and having lost the appeals filed by them against A1, naturally they would be in enemical terms with the accused. In such case, it is not safe to place reliance on their testimonies i.e., of PWs1 and 2 alone, to believe that the incident occurred only in the manner deposed by them.
49.For the reasons best known to the complainant, she has not chosen to examine the other two witnesses i.e.,
LW3/Rama Chandra Reddy and LW5/Vijay Kumar. Further more, in view of the inconsistencies appearing in the evidence of PWs1 to 3 regarding the use of abusive words by A1 or, A1 to A3 in the name of her caste, intended to insult PW1 within
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201836 Dt. 26.09.2025 the public view, and more particularly when PW3/eye witness is not an impartial person, it can be held that the ingredients for the offence punishable u/s. 3(1)(x) of SCs & STs (POA) Act are also not made out by the complainant against A1 to A3.
Accordingly, this point is answered.
Point No.(a):-
Discussion for the charged offence u/s. 506 r/w. 34 of IPC:
50.Coming to the offence u/s. 506 r/w. 34 of IPC, it is the case of complainant, that on 30.05.2010 at 4.30 a.m., A1 to
A3 herein had not only abused her in the name of her caste but also threatened to kill PWs1 and 2.
51.Coming to her evidence, PW1 deposed that A1 had caught hold the neck of PW2 and pushed him away and further tried to attack him with crowbar and also threatened to kill PWs1 and 2, and her children. According to her, regarding the said incident, she has lodged police complaint which is registered as Cr.No.58/2010, dt. 07.06.2010 of Ieeja police station. It is her contention that the date on her complaint, was changed by police. No doubt, as per Ex.D2 ie.,
First Information report and complaint, it is seen that date was
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201837 Dt. 26.09.2025 altered by using whitener. But as per the First Information
Report vide Ex.D2, the complaint was lodged on 07.06.2010.
Even as per Ex.D1, A1 has lodged police complaint against
PWs1 and 2 herein, on 07.06.2010 at 9.00 hours.
52.As per Ex.P1/police complaint, dt.07.06.2010, PW1 alleged that all the three accused had together attacked them, on that day. It is also evident that the alleged date mentioned in
Ex.P1 at 9th line was corrected as 30.05.2010, by using whitener. As per Ex.P2 and Ex.P3, she complained about the incident to State Mahila Commission, Hyderabad and Human
Rights Commission, Hyderabad vide letter dt. 26.04.2011 and 05.06.2010 respectively. On perusal of Ex.P1 to P3, it can be seen that PW1 failed to mention about the names of persons
before whom the alleged insult or abuse took place in the
name of her caste. The names of alleged eye witnesses i.e.,
LW3/Ramachandra Reddy and PW3 and LW5/Vijay Kumar are not appearing in any of her above complaints. In her sworn statement recorded by Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal
Dt.05.10.2012,shementionedthenamesof
LW3/Ramachandra Reddy and LW4/Vijay Kumar as the persons who rescued her, but did not speak about presence of
PW3 as an eye witness, for the alleged abuse in the name of
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201838 Dt. 26.09.2025 caste. As per the said sworn statement, it is A2, A3 only who abused her as “Madiga Lanja Nivu Ma Thammuni
Chesukunnata Matrana Medici Padithe Etla Niku Thannulu
Levu, Kovvu Pattinavu Ninnu Champithe Dikkevaru, Madiga
Mundadi Ekkuva Aindi Ninnu Ni Barthanu Kuda
Champesthamu”, but not A1, whereas all three accused attacked her and PW2.
53.Further, PW2 stated before Judl. Magistrate of First Class,
Gadwal on 30.11.2012, that A1 to A3 beat them with hands and further they all three abused PW1 as “Madiga Lanja
Neevu Ma Thammuni Pellicesukunnahta Matharana Middial
Padile Etla Neeku Thannulevu, Kovvu Pattinavu, Ninnu
Champesthe Dikkuevaru Madiga Mundadi Ekkuvudi”.
According to him, LW3/Rama Chandra Reddy, PW3 and
LW5/Vijay Kumar rescued them, from the hands of accused.
The testimony of PW3 before this court is inconsistent with his sworn statement dated 07.12.2012, regarding use of abusive words by A1. His alleged statement do not reveal the presence of 20 persons at the scene by the time of alleged abuse and so also the names of those persons.
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201839 Dt. 26.09.2025
54.Though PW1 alleged that date of complaint was changed by police in Ex.P1 by applying whitener, according to her, she lodged complaint on 30.05.2010, but not on 07.06.2010. She failed to mention the same in her sworn statement before the
Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Gadwal and also not mentioned in her private complaint. Hence, her contention that police had corrected the date as 07.06.2010, is quite untenable to be acted upon.
55.It is evident from record that the complaint given by PW1 was registered by the police as Cr.No.57/2010 and the complaint of PW1 herein, was registered with subsequent number i.e, Cr.No.58/2010. Even according to PW1, her complaint was closed by the police by filing final report as ‘Lack of Evidence’. For which, she has filed protest petition vide Ex.D3, dt. 25.05.2011. Thereafter she has also chosen to file the present private complaint dt. 28.09.2012.
56.From the documents confronted to PWs1 and 2 by the defence counsel, it is proved by them that, despite the settlement effected between them under Ex.D11, dt.
01.05.1994, the litigation is going on between both parties in one way or other and they are enemical terms, with each
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201840 Dt. 26.09.2025 other. Though PW1 in her evidence deposed that she has borrowed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- to meet the expenses of her in-laws and other members, she has admitted that she did not file any documentary evidence before this court to prove that she has availed bank loans and obtained loan from other persons for Rs.3,50,000/-.
57.According to PW1, in the panchayat held in 2000, A1 had torn away the documents i.e., pronotes and pages in the diary, containing the transactions. She further admitted that he did not lodge any police complaint against A1, for tearing those documents and also did not file her IT returns, to prove her loans in helping the joint family, of her in-laws. Moreover, she did not make any reference about obtaining of bank loans by her, in her private complaint before this court. Thus, it can be held that she has come up with an improvised version
before this court, to depose against the accused. According
to her, in the year 1995 first Panchayat was held. In the year 2000, second Panchayat was held, in which the elders advised
A1 to give Ac.2-00 gts., of land to PW2 and also to provide one plot which is adjacent to their joint family house. Whereas, as per Ex.D11/settlement deed, the partition took place under the document in the year 1994 itself.
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201841 Dt. 26.09.2025
58.Even according to PW4, no documents were executed relating to the second Panchayat and none of the alleged
Panchayat elders were examined by PW1 in this case to prove that A1 had done injustice to PW2, by depriving him of his share in the properties. From Ex.D12/judgment passed by
Learned Junior Civil Judge, Gadwal, it can be seen that PWs1 and 2 herein had contested that case by claiming that the scene of offence plot belongs to them, but the court believed the version of A1 herein and decreed the suit in his favour.
When PWs1 and 2 had lost the appeals preferred by them against that judgment, then in such case, naturally their enemical terms would still continue, and thereby there is every chance for PWs.1 and 2, to depose falsely against the accused. Further more as their visit to the scene of offence plot, by claiming their right itself shows that it is they who had chosen to pick up quarrel with the accused on the date of incident. Thereby they would be termed as aggressors, who gave provocation to the accused to quarrel with them.
59.PW3 who is shown as one of the eye witnesses, did not depose that A1 to A3 had threatened to kill PWs1 and 2 in his presence. According to him, A2 and A3 though present at that plot, did not indulge in quarrel with PWs.1 and 2.
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201842 Dt. 26.09.2025
60. It is one of the contentions of defence counsel that even
PW3 is an interested witness to depose falsely against them as it is evident from Ex.D13/photo copy of complaint dt.13.02.2003, addressed to Chief Minister Sri. Chandrababu
Naidu, as per which, the name of PW3 is appearing as one of the signatory with Sl.No.4, in which they have to take action against A1 herein, who was working as Dy. Director of Adult education in the year 2003.
61.PW3 during his cross examination had admitted about his signature in Ex.D13 and also other particulars. Thereby it can be held that even he too is an interested witness to depose falsely, against the accused. PW2 in his cross examination admitted that there are many residential houses surrounding scene of offence plot. The complainant/PW1 did not choose to cite any of them, as witnesses in this case. Furthermore,
PW2 admitted that he did not sustain any injuries on the date of incident. Even though PW3 deposed that A1 tried to involve in scuffle with PW2 then he along with LW5/Vijay Kumar had intervened and separated them. Thus, it appears that except in the form of exchange of words between PWs1 and 2 on one side and A1 on another side, no other incident took place as deposed by PW1 before this court i.e., catching hold of the
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201843 Dt. 26.09.2025 neck of PW2 by A1 and trying to attack him with crowbar etc.
Though PW2 admitted that they had lost the appeals filed against judgment in O.S.No.92/2002, PW1 has clearly denied her knowledge about the decreeing of the suit in favour of A1 including preferring of appeals by PW2. This itself shows that she is trying to suppress the material facts before this court.
62.Furthermore, even according to her, PW2 did not sustain any bleeding injuries, even though he attacked him with crowbar. Even she did not sustain any bleeding injuries as such, she did not go to doctor for treatment. She has clearly admitted that she did not file any documentary evidence to show that the offence took place in the plot, which fell to her and her husband ie., PW2. Furthermore, denied her knowledge that the scene of offence land is subject matter in
O.S.No.92/2002 before Junior Civil Judge Court, Gadwal.
Whereas, PW2 had admitted the same.
63.From her evidence, it can be seen that she has lodged police complaint against A1 and A2 on the ground that they manipulated her school record, by making entry against her name showing her religion as Christian and basing on her
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201844 Dt. 26.09.2025 complaint on 16.01.2014, Cr.NO.5/2014 was registered. But the said complaint copy is not filed before this court.
64.According to PW3, including the accused, PWs1 and 2, himself and LW5/Vijay Kumar, the other members who gathered at the scene, would be totally 20 in number. But the evidence of PWs1 and 2 and the contents of private complaint do not reveal the presence of 20 persons in that early morning hours of 4.30 a.m., at the scene and the names of those persons. Hence, the presence of public at the time of alleged quarrel, is quite doubtful.
65.Thus, in the absence of evidence of any independent witness to corroborate the version of PWs1 and 2 regarding the alleged threatening said to have made by the accused, it can be clearly held that even the ingredients for the offence punishable u/s. 506 r/w. 34 of IPC, are also not made out by the complainant against the accused. Accordingly, this point is answered.
66.In the result, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable u/s. 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of the SCs & STs (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offences u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201845 Dt. 26.09.2025 bail bonds of accused Nos.1 to 3, shall stands cancelled after expiry of six months from this date as contemplated u/s. 437-
A Cr.P.C. The unmarked property, if any, shall be destroyed, after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 26th day of September, 2025.
Digitally signed by VALIVETI
VALIVETI
SARADA DEVI
SARADA
Date: DEVI2025.09.26 17:42:43 +0530
Special Judge
for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act -cum-II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PROSECUTION:
PW1 N.I. Meramma/ Complainant PW2P.Madhusudhan Reddy/husband of PW.1 PW3G.Ayyanna/ Witness
DEFENCE:
-None-
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:
Ex P1Private Complaint of PW1, dt. 07.06.2010 Ex P2Copy of Representation by PW1 to Chair person, State Mahila Commission, dt.26.04.2011 Ex P3Copy of representation by PW1 to State Human rights commission, dt. 05.06.2010
Spl. S.C.No. 168 of 201846 Dt. 26.09.2025
Ex P4Agreement deed dt. 08.02.2020 Ex P5Caste certificate of PW.1 dt. 26.04.2000, issued by Tahsildar, Ieeja
DEFENCE:
Ex.D1C.C. of Charge sheet in CC No.8/11 (93/12, JFCM, Gadwal) Ex.D2C.C. of FIR in Cr.No.58/10 PS Ieeja, dt. 07.06.2010 Ex.D3C.C. of protest petition, dt. 28.05.2011 Ex.D4Magazine namely Bethelu Swaramu by PW2 Ex.D5Photostat copy of two graves. Ex.D6C.C. of order, dt. 28.8.17 in Crl.R.P.No.18/17 Ex.D7Attested copy of Admission Register for yr.1979-80 of Govt. Jr. College (Girls), Mahabubnagar Ex.D8Attested copy of TC of PW1 issued by Govt. Jr. College, (Girls) Mahabubnagar Ex.D9Attested copy of duplicate TC of PW1. Ex.D10Letter dt. 18.03.1991 written by PW2 to A1 Ex.D11C.C. of Immovable settlement deed, dt. 01.05.1994 Ex.D12C.C. of Judgment and decree in OS 92/02 JCJ Court, Gadwal
dt. 17.04.2006
Ex.D13Photo copy of complaint dt. 13.02.2003 made to the then Chief Minister Chandrababu Naidu.
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:
-Nil- Digitally signed
VALIVETI
by VALIVETI
SARADA DEVI
SARADA
Date:
DEVI
2025.09.26 17:42:53 +0530
Special Judge
for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act -cum-II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.