S.C.No. 57/S/2019 1 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES
UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.
Present: SRI V.SRINIVASA RAO,
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCHEDULED
CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
1989-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE.
Friday, the 15th day of MAY, 2026.
Sessions Case No. 57/S/2019.
1. Name of the The State:The Sub-Divisional Police Officer. Complainant Sattenapalli, Guntur Rural.
2. Name of the Chava Mallikharjuna Rao S/o.Kumara Swamy, Caste- AccusedKamma, Andukuru Village, Krosuru Mandal.
U/s 447, 427 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s)
3. Nature of offence and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
4. Plea of the AccusedAccused pleaded not guilty.
5. Finding of the CourtPleaded not guilty.
6. Sentence or Order In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge u/ss. 447, 427 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)
(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015 , and thereby the accused acquitted under
Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges . MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be discharged only after expiry of Six months period by virtue of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
This Sessions case came before me on 13.05.2026 in the presence of Ms.S.Mubeena Begum, Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri S.Brahmananda Reddy, Advocate for the accused and after hearing the Counsel of both parties and this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court passed the following:-
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 2 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
J U D G M E N T
The State, represented by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer,
Sattenapalli filed charge sheet in Cr.No.278/2018 of Krosuru Police
Station for the offence under Sections 447, 427 and 506 of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused.
2. The case of the prosecution as per charge sheet against accused is as follows:-
a) This is a case of criminal trespass, mischief to the property, criminal intimidation, abusing and insulting the Scheduled Caste Person in public view that occurred on 29-09-2018 at about 7-30 AM, BC
Colony, Peesapadu Village, Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District.
b) One Chava Sankar Rao and the accused are cousins. LW1/ Chilaka
Vijaya Vijay Kumar @ vijaya Paul had taken the land of the said Chava
Sankara Rao on lease in an extent of Ac.1-40 cents in S.NO.241/D1 of
Andukuru Village for Rs.14,000/- per annumm. LW5 / Vasiredy Krishnaiah who is the owner of the Well supplied water to the said Chilaka Vijaya
Kumar to cultivate his lease land. For the last three years prior to the occurrence of the offence, the said Vijaya Paul has been cultivating the said land. This year , he raised paddy crop and irrigating the land by arranging water pipes.
c) On 29-09-2018 at about 6-00 AM, the said Vijay Paul came to know through LW3/ Chava Rama Rao and LW4 / Matcha Leelaiah that the accused cut the water pipe and damaged. Then, the said Vijay Paul along with his son went to fields and while enquring the neighbours about the damage of pipe, the accused abused him with caste in public view.
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 3 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
d) Basing on the report of the said Vijaya Paul, LW10 / G.Yedukondalu, the then SI of Police, Krosuru registered the case in Cr.NO.278/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
As per the Proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural
District in C.NO.143/C2/SC-ST/IO-Appt/2018, dated 6-10-2018, LW11/
V.Kaleshavali, the then Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Sattenapalli was appointed to investigate the case.
e) On 6-10-2018, the said Sub-Divisional Police Officer visited the scene of offence along with LW7 / Chevuri Ramanajaneyulu and LW8 /
Chirumamilla Aruna examined the scene of offencve, prepared scene observation report, in which seized pipe. He got photographed the scene of offence through LW6 / Maganti Srinivasa Rao . He also secured the presence of witnesses and also recorded the statements of witnesses.
f) Later, LW9 / M.Leela Sanjeeva Kumari, the then Tahsildar , Krosuru issued caste certificates of LW1 / Chilaka Vijaya Kumar @ Vijay Paul stating that he belongs to Hindu Madiga caste i.e., SC community, whereas, the accused belongs to OC community. On 20-11-2018, the said
Sub-Divisional Police Officer issued Section 41-A Cr.PC notice to the accused.
Hence, the charge.
3. One of my predecessors took the case on file for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)
(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused, furnished the case copies as contemplated under section 207
Cr.P.C.
4. This Court secured the presence of the accused and after hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, against accused and charge for
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 4 IV ADJ COURT, GNT the offence under Sections 447, 427 & 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu language. He denied the truth of factual allegations and pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial ensued.
5. To establish this case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and MO.1 marked.
6. The incriminating material available on the record was offered to the accused was examined U/Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking his explanation. Her denied the truth of the entire evidence.
7.Now, Points for consideration are:-
1. Whether PW1 had taken the disputed land i.e., an extent of Ac.1-40
cents in Sy.NO.241/D1 of Andukuru Village on lease form one Chava
Sankara Rao?
2. Whether the accused trespassed into the land of PW1 and
caused damage to MO.1 and threatened the PW1 with dire
consequences that he would caused injury to him?
3) Whether the accused abused and insulted the PW1 in public view by touching his caste?
4) Whether the prosecution proved the case against the accused for the
offneces punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and Sections
3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
8.Out of 11 witnesses cited by the investigating officer in the memo of evidence annexure to the charge sheet, the prosecution only examined
PWs.1 to 10 and the remaining witnesses are given up by the Lr. Special
Public Prosecutor.
9. Heard the arguments of learned Special Prosecutor for Prosecution and learned counsel for Accused.
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 5 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
10.The learned Special Public Prosecutor - Kum.S.Mubeena Begum, submitted arguments stating that the P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and informed to PW1 that accused cut pipe into pieces and that P.Ws. 1 and 2 visited the scene of offence and noticed damage of pipe. When PW1 questioned the accused about the damage of pipe, he abused, insulted and also threatened PW1 that he would kill him. The prosecution with the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 10, Exs.P1 to P8 and
MO.1 proved the case against the accused. PW1 evidence is a corroborated to the oral evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 and Ex.P1. There are no omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution proved the case against the accused, as such prayed for conviction.
11.In contra, the learned accused counsel Sri S.Brahanmandna Reddy submitted arguments stating that the prosectuion failed to prove the case by producing any document to show that there is a lease in between PW1 and the said Chava Sankara Rao. The prosecution even not examiend the said Chava Sankara Rao, who is said to be owner of the said land.
There is a delay of eight days in presenting the report. In Ex.P6 / FIR some of the coloums are kept blank. There are omissions and contradictions in the oral evidences of P.Ws.1 to 6 and the same were elicited in the cross-examination of PW10, who is the investigation officer. As the prosecution failed to make out the case against the accused and also failed to prove that the accused trespassed, damaged the water pipe. Further there is no independent evidence to show that the accused abused and insulted the PW1. Considering the above facts, the
Hon’ble Court may pleased acquit the accused.
12.POINT Nos.1 AND 2:
This is a case of criminal trespass of accused in the land of PW1 in
S.NO.241/D1 of Andukuru Village an extent of Ac.1-40 cents, damaged
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 6 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
MO.1 and threatened PW1 with dire consequences that he would kill him.
Further, accused abused and insulted PW1 touching his caste in the public view on 29-09-2018 at about 7-30 PM , BC colony, Peesapadu,
Krosuru Mandal, Guntur District.
13.To record conviction under Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(10(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 , the prosecution has to establish that the accused trespassed into the land of PW1, damaged MO.1, threatened PW1 with dire consequences and also abused and insulted PW1 by touching his caste in the public view.
14.The general principle of criminal law is that both the physical act (actus reus) and the guilty mind ( mens rea) must be present at the same time for the occurrence of a crime to have occurred. It is based on
Latin Phrase-"Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea"which means, the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.
15.It is settled cardinal principle of criminal law that the prosecution must prove it’s case against the beyond reasonable doubt against the offender by adducing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence and it should not stand on the weakness of the evidence, if any.
The accused has constitutional right to maintain silence throughout the case and it is for the prosecution to produce the cogent evidence to prove it’s guilt against the accused by standing upon it’s own legs, except in case whether the accused is proposed to prove the facts called upon him under the relevant provision of any statute like plea of alibi U/s.11 of
Indian Evidence Act and exclusive knowledge U/s. 106 of Indian Evidence
Act etc.
16.The gist of the case of the prosecution is that on 29-09-2018 at 6-00 AM, the accused cut water pipe in the filed of PW1 and damaged the MO.1. On knowing the same, P.Ws. 1 and 2 went to the fields,
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 7 IV ADJ COURT, GNT accused abused and insulted the PW1 by referring his caste in the public view.
17.The case of the defence is that at the instigation of the said
Chava Sankar Rao , PW1 foisted a false case against the accused.
18.As seen from the record, the undisputed fact that the accused and one Chava Sankar Rao are cousins, who are the residents of Andukuru Village of Krosuru Mandal. P.Ws.1 and 2 are father and sons . PW4 is the brother of said Chava Sankara Rao. PW6 is the photographer of the scene of offence and where as PW7 is the mediator for the scene observation report. PW8 is the Tahsildar who issued caste certificates of PW1 and accused. The land in an extent of Ac.1-40 cents situated in S.NO.240/D1 of Andukuru Village. There were a civil disputes and suits are pending in between the accused and the said Chava
Sankara Rao. PW1 not produced any document before this Court and not got marked to show that there is a lease agreement in between PW1 and the said Chava Sankara Rao. The said Chava Sankara Rao is not examined by the police and prosecution witness to show that there is a lease agreement in between PW1 and himself.
19.It is to be seen from the material in the record, the accused charged for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 427 and 506
IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA) Amendment
Act, 2015. To prove the said charges, the prosecution produced the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 10, Exs.P1 to P8 and MO.1.
20. Before adverting into the appreciation of the evidence on the said charges, it is very much required to look into the Provisions Under
Sections 447, 427 and 506 IPC.
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 8 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
SECTION 441 IPC: Criminal trespass:- Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another,with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property.
Or, having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult, or annoy any such person , or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “ crimial trespass”.
Section 447 IPC:Punishment for criminal trespass:- Who ever commits criminal trespass, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extended to three months, with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or or with both.
Section 427 IPC: Mischef causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees;- Whoever comit mishcief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extnd to two years , or with fine, or with both.
Section 503 IPC: Criminal Intimidation:- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his peson, reputation or property,or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that peson is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that persons , or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act wich that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding this execution of such threarts, commits criminal intimidation.
Section 506 IPC:Punishment for criminal intimidation:- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 9 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
21.It is to be seen from the evidence of PW1 that on 29-09-2018 at 6-00 AM, P.Ws. 3 and 4 informed to him over phone that the accused cut the water pipe and that along with PW2, he went to the fields. At the fields, he noticed P.W. 3, 4 and four others, then, he asked the accused why he had cut the water pipe line, for which, the accused abused him as “ MADIGA NAA KODAKA MAA VURILO MADIGAVALLU LEKHA,
IKKADIKI VATCHI SAGUCHESTAVA” and attacked him with knife.
22.The evidence of PW2 is disclosed that on 29-09-2018 at 6-00 AM, PW1 has taken him to the fields, as the accused was cutting the water pipe in their fields. When they reached their fields, accused alone present with knife and the water pipes were already cut into pieces.
The accused abused PW1 as “ MADIGA NAA KODAKA, NEEVU PEDDA
MAGADIVA, IKKADIKI VATCHI NEEVU CHENU VESTAVA”. Further, the accused came upon PW1 and that he pulled him aside. At that time seven or eight persons were present and they pacified the matter.
23.As seen from the evidence of PW3 that at about five years back, on one day at 6-00 AM, the accused cut the water pipe line length of 400 feet belongs to PW1 with a sickle in the fields of PW1. At that time along with PW4, he was present and got informed the same to PW1 through PW4. After 1 ½ hour, PW1 reached to his fields, where PW1 and accused were quarreled with each other, in that altercation, the accused abused PW1 as “ MADIGA NAA KODAKA KROSURU NUNCHI VATCHI
IKADA POLAM CHEDAM ANUKUNNAVA, IKKADA MAGAVAALU LERU
ANUKUNNAVA”.
24.As seen from the evidence of PW4 that on 29-09-2018 at 6- 00 AM, while he was proceeding to his fields, he found the accused was cutting the water piple line of PW1, by that time PW3 was also present and he advised him (PW4) to inform the same to PW1 and that he
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 10 IV ADJ COURT, GNT informed to PW1. Later, while he was returning from his fields, he found
P.Ws. 1 and 2 were in their fields and accused abused PW1 as “
MADIGA NAA KODAKA MAAVURILO MADIGAVALLU LEKA
KROSURUNUNCHI VATCHI POLAM CHESTUNNAVA” and also threatened the P.Ws. 1 and 2 with knife.
25.The evidence of PW5 discloses that he has Well in his field and at the request of one Sankara Rao and PW1, he allowed to take water from his well.
26.It is seen from the material on record, PW1 not produced any document to show that there is a lease in between PW1 and the said
Chava Sankara Rao . PW1 in his cross-examination categorically stated that he has an agreement with Chava Sankar Rao for the lease land and he handed over the same to police, but he did not mention the said fact in
Ex.P1. Coming to the cross-examination of PW10, he categorically deposed that he did not seize any document to show that PW1 was put in the land on lease by the said Chava Sankar Rao . Further, Ex.P1 also not discloses that PW1 handed over the said lease deed to the police. Further more, either the investigation officer or the learned Special Public
Prosecutor not examined the said Chava Sankara Rao to show that there is a lease in between himself and PW1 and PW1 is cultivating the said land. The material in the record and the oral testimony of PW1 discloses that there were civil disputes in between the said Chava Sankar Rao and accused in respect of the said land. PW1 not produced any mateiral to show that he is cultivating the said land in Ac.1-40 cents in D.NO.241/1D at Andukuru Village, Krosuru Mandal, as stated by PW1 that he raised paddy crop about 15 days prior to the occurrence. The investigating agency not collected any material to show that whether PW1 is in actual possession of the said land in an extent of Ac.1-40 cents. As there is a dispute in between accused and the said Chava Sankar Rao in the
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 11 IV ADJ COURT, GNT absence of any material to show that whether the said Chava Sankar Rao has any right and PW1 is in possession of the said land, believing the testimony of PW1 that he is cultivating the land and caused the damage is fraught with dangerous and miscarriage of justice. Further, PW1 to show that the said black pipe used for watering the fields, there is no material before the Court, except MO.1 and the oral testimonies of P.Ws.
1 to 5.
27.Every trespass by itself is not a criminal trespass to constitute criminal trespass. The prosecution has to prove and the Court has to give finding on the evidence that the trespass was committed with one of the intents enumerated in Section 441 IPC. In the absence of any such material, it cannot be bring under the clutches of Section 447 IPC. The offence will not attract against the person who has legal right to have possession . The possession of actual possession - possession, which must be at least juridical, if not couple with title is one which may sometimes raise wider issues. But , the Court is not bound to go into them, it must confine its enquiry to the fact of possession and only such facts as make it worthy of protection. So, a co-sharer could not be convicted of criminal trespass on that ground in as much as, his intention would then , be trespassed to ascertion his right to the property rather than an intnetion to annoy his co-sharer.
28.To prove the offence under Section 427 IPC, the prosecuiton has to satisfy the ingredients u/s.425 IPC. PW1 and PW10 not satisfied the quantum of damages. However mentioned in Ex.P1 that he incurred loss of Rs.50,000/- , but coming to the oral testimony of PW1, he did not state the quantum of damage and loss incurred by him. In the absence of the evidence from the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the investigation officer it is not safe to come to conclusion that PW1
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 12 IV ADJ COURT, GNT sustained loss. Further more to show that MO.1 belongs to PW1, no material produced by either PW1 or PW10 before this Court.
29.To make out a case u/s.506 IPC , it must be established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant. Intention is the mental condition which has to be covered from the circumstances of the case. The intention which weights with the accused in entering upon a land in possession of another has no relevancy to the charge u/s.506
IPC. Mere threats with a view to deter the complainant from interfering with his exlcuisve property would not constitute offence of criminal intimidation
30. DELAY OF FIR:
As seen from the evidence of PW9 that on 6-10-2018 at about 11-00 PM, PW1 presented Ex.P1 report, basing on it , he registered Ex.P6
FIR in Cr.NO.278/2018 for the offences punishable under Sectinos 447, 427 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST (POA)
Amendment Act, 2015.
31.It is to be seen from the material in the record i.e., the oral evidences of P.Ws. 1 to 10, Exs.P1, P3,P6 and P7, the date of offence is 29-09-2018 at 6-00 PM. IN Colmun 5(a) of Ex.P6/FIR discloses that the distance in between the scene of offence and Korsuru Police Staino is 6
KM. PW1 stated in his evidence that due to fear of accused, he did not present report immediately and presented Ex.p1 on 6-10-2018 at 11-00
AM. In Coloumn No.8 of Ex.P6/FIR mentioned that due to fear of accused, the complainant waited till 6-10-2018 and after discussing the with his family membes presented a report. The dealy of 8 days in presenting the report is not properly explained. In this regard, this Court is inclined to refer the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
1. In a Decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gajanan Dashrath Kharate
V. State of Maharasha in 2016 (1) ALD (Crl.) 777 (SC) held that :
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 13 IV ADJ COURT, GNT "In his evidence, P.W.1 Nagorao Kharate stated that Boregaon Manju police station is about eight niles from their village and that they had to go to Boregaon Manju police station via Akola. P.W.1 further stated that he went to Akola at 3.00 p.m and from Akola he went to Boregaon Manju Police station at about 5.00 p.m., as no vehicle was available at that time. P.W.1 further stated that it takes two to three hours by walk to reach Boregaon Manju Police station from his village. Delay in setting the law into motion by lodging of complaint and registration of first information report is normally viewed by courts with suspicion because there is possibility of concoction and embellishment of the occurrence. So it becomes necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily explain the delay. The object of insisting upon a prompt lodging of the report is to obtain early information not only regarding the assailants but also about the part played by the accused, the nature of the incident and the names of witnesses. In the case at hand, prosecution has satisfactorily explained the delay in lodging the complaint. When the prosecution has explained the delay in lodging the complaint, prosecution case cannot be doubted on the small delay between the time of occurrence and in registration of first information report".
In an another Decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Meharaj
Singh (L/Nk) v. State of U.P in (1994) 5 SCC 188: 1994 SCC
(Cri) 1391 held that :
" FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder
case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the
purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial.
The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the
FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding
the circumstance in which the crime was committed,
including the names of the actual culprits and the
parts played by them, the weapons, if any, used, as
also the names of the eyewitnesses, if any. Delay in
lodging the FIR often results in embellishment,
which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of
delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage
of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the
introduction of a coloured verson or exaggerated
story". Law is well settled for mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground itself for throwing away the entire prosecutin case. The Court has to seek an explanation for delay and check the truthful things of the versions putforth. If the Court is satisfied with such explanation , then, the delay factor cannot be counted against the prosecution.
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 14 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
32.In criminal trial one of the cardinal principles for the Court is to look for plausible explanations for the delay in lodging the report. Delay sometimes affords opportunity to the complainant to make deliberation upon the complainant and to make embellishments or even make fabrications. Delay defeats the chance of the unsoiled a untarnished version of the case to be presented before the Court at the earliest instance. That is why, if there is delay in either coming before the police or before the Court, the Courts always view the allegations with suspicion and look for satisfactiory explanation. If no such satisfaction is formed, the delay is treated as fatal to the prosecution case, the delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in the embellishment as a result of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, but also danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account or concocted story as a result of the deliberation and consultation. So long as to throw a cloud of suspicion on the seeds of the prosecutions case must depend upon a variety of factors which would vary from case to case. Even a long delay can be condoned if the witnesses have not motive for implicating the accused and / or when plausible explanation is offered for the same.
33.In view of the settled principles of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the delay for properly explained it would not effect the case of the prosecution, but in this case on hand, the dealy of 8 days is not properly explained. The delay of eight days is fatal to the case of prosecution.
34. SCENE OF OFFENCE:
It is to be seen from the record and Ex.P1, the scene of offence is situated in the fields in S.NO.241/D1 an extent of Ac.1-40 cents of
Andukuru Village. PW10 evidence discloses that on 6-10-2018 he proceeded to Krosuru, where he secured P.Ws.1,7,LW7/
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 15 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
CH.Ramanjaneyulu and visited the scene of offence , prepared Ex.P3/ scene observation report, Ex.P8/ rough sketch of scene of offence, in which seized MO.1.PW7 supported the evidence of PW10 in observing the scene of offence, preparing Ex.P3 scene observation report and seizure of MO.1.P W6 that on 6-10-2018 at the request of police, he had photographed the photos in the fields, thereafter handed over the same under Ex.P2.
35.Ex.P3 is the scene observation report is disclosed that the scene of offence is situated at Andukuru Village in S.NO.341/1D divided to four pars an extent of Ac.1-40 cents covered with paddy crop on the southern side bund to the scene of offence . A black colour water pipe was cut into some pieces. As seen from Ex.P3 and cross-examination of
PW7,there are no details that who is cultivating the said land and who was the owner of the said land.
36. INTERESTED WITNESSES:
As seen from the record i.e., from the oral testimonies of
P.Ws.1,2,4,5 and 10 , there are civil disputes in between accused and one Chava Sankara Rao. In the cross-examination of PW10 who is the investigation officer categorically deposed that he did not seize any document to show that PW1 was put in the land of one Chava Sankara
Rao on lease. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have no lands nearby land of PW1. He did not collect the call details of PW1 and other witnesses. There is a irrigation water canal nearby the fields of PW1. In Ex.P8 rough sketch, the land of PW5 was not mentioned. PW3 did not state before PW10 that accused cut the pipe line with a sickle, whereas , PW4 did not state before
PW10 that PW3 advised him to inform about the incident to PW1 and that he made a phone call to PW1. PW3 is the father in law of PW4 and the said Chava Sankar Rao is the brother of PW3. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are father and son, whereas, P.Ws.3 and 4 and Chava Sankar Rao are
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 16 IV ADJ COURT, GNT relatives. Though as per the oral testimony of PW10, P.Ws. 3 and 4 having no lands , but , they informed about the damage of pipe to PW1.
On carefully analysis of the evidence of PW10, P.Ws. 1 to 4 who are interested witnesses to the case of prosecution, believing their testimony will causes grave in justice to the accused.
37.In view of the above aforesaid discussion on delay of FIR, scene of offence , absence of possession of land of Pw1 and interested witnesses, this Court inclined to answer this points 1 and 2 are in favour of the accused against the prosecution.
POINT NO.3:
38. SC & ST Provisions:
As seen from the evidence of PW10 that on 6-10-2018 , as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural under Ex.P7, he took up investigation. PW8 evidences discloses that on the request of police, she issued Ex.P4 caste certificate of PW1 stating that he belongs to Hindu-Madiga Community and issued Ex.P5 caste certificate of accused stating that he belongs to OC community.
39.The prosecution relied on the oral testimonies of P.Ws. 3 and 4 who are the interested witnesses to the case of prosecution, further more, P.Ws. 1 and 2 who are the father and son ,their evidences is tainted, believing their testimony and bringing the accused under the clutches oof the offence, for which he is nothing but miscarriage of justice.
40.After careful consideration of the oral evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 10, Exs.P1 to P8 documents and MO.1, there is a delay in FIR, the possession of PW1 was not supported by any material and further to show that MO.1 belongs to MO.1, there is no material. Except the oral testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 4 who are the interested witnesses to PW1 and
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 17 IV ADJ COURT, GNT the said Chava Sankar Rao, no other witnesses supported the case of prosecution. Under these circumstances , this Court not inclined to bring the accused under the clutches of the offence for which he is charged.
Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of accused against prosecution.
POINT NO.4:
41. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge u/ss. 447, 427 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of
SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 , and thereby the accused acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges . MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused shall be discharged only after expiry of Six months period by virtue of
Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed and typed by him,
corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, this the 15th day of May, 2026. SD/-V.Srinivasa Rao
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE - CUM-
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT&SESSIONS
JUDGE, GUNTUR
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:
WITNESSES EXAMINED
For Prosecution: For Accused: PW.1: CH.Vijay Kumar @ Vijay PaulNone
PW.2: CH.Pitchaiah @ Sagar Babu
PW.3: CH.Rama Rao
PW.4: M.Leelaiah
PW.5: V.Krishnaiah
PW.6: M.Srinivasa Rao
PW.7: CH.Aruna, VRA
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 18 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
PW.8: M.Leela Sajneeva Kumari, Tahsildar
PW.9: G.Yedukondal, SI of Police PW10V.Kalesha Vali, DSP
DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF:
Prosecution:
Ex.P1Report of PW1 Ex.P2Photos ( 3 Nos.) Ex.P3Scene Observation Report Ex.P4Caste Certificate of PW1 Ex.P5Caste Certificate of Accused Ex.P6FIR I Cr.NO.278/2018 of Krosuru PS Ex.P7S.P.Proceedings, dated 6-10-2018 Ex.P8Rough Sketch
For Defence:NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS: MO.1: Two Water Pipe Pieces
SD/- V.Srinivasa Rao
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE - CUM-
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT&SESSIONS
JUDGE, GUNTUR
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 19 IV ADJ COURT, GNT
C A L E N D A R
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF
CASES UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES & SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, GUNTUR.
1.Name of the CaseSessions Case No.57/S/2019
2. Name of the committing---
Magistrate
3. Name of the complainant The State: The Sub-Divisional Police Officer. Sattenapalli, Guntur Rural. Cr.No.278/2018 of Krosuru PS
4. Name of the AccusedChava Malikarjuna Rao S/o.Kumara Swamy,
Caste- Kamma, Andukuru Village, Krosuru Mandal.
5.Date of i) Filling 10.06.2019 ii)Apprehension of Accused31.07.2019. (Appearancebefore
sessions court)
iii)Commencement of trial07.08.2023 iv)Closure of trial18.08.2023
v)Pronouncementof15.05.2026 Judgment 6.Offence(s)Charges U/Secs. 447, 427 and 506 IPC and
Secs. 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 against the accused.
7.Plea of AccusedThe accused Pleaded not Guilty 8.Finding of the CourtFound not guilty 9.Sentence or order:-
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the charge u/ss. 447, 427 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2) (va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 , and thereby the accused acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said charges . MO.1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The bail bonds of the accused
S.C.No. 57/S/2019 20 IV ADJ COURT, GNT shall be discharged only after expiry of Six months period by virtue of Section 437-A Cr.P.C.
10.Explanation for Delay:-
This case was taken on file by this court as SC No.57/S/2019 on 10.06.2019. On 31.07.2019, the accused was present and copies were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C and on 06-10- 2021, Charges U/Secs. 447, 427 and 506 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SCs & STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 were framed against him , charges were read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. On 07.08.2023, the trial was commenced and on 18-08-2023, the trail was closed . On 29-08-2023, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and on 13-05- 2026, heard the arguments of Spl.PP as well as advocate for accused and the judgment is pronounced on 15.05.2026. Hence, delay.
SD/- V.Srinivasa Rao
SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE - CUM-
IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS
JUDGE, GUNTUR.