Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 1 of 21
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER SCs/STs
(POA) ACT – CUM – V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT
ADILABAD
Present: Sri.Y.Jaya Prasad, Spl. Sessions Judge for Fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women– Cum- VI Additional Dist. & Sessions Judge, Adilabad FAC: Spl.Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Thursday the 16th day of December 2021
SPL.SC.NO.80 OF 2018
Name of the Complainant State represented by Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kaghaznagar.
Name of the Accused Dr.Pendala Maruthi Kumar, S/o Chinna Anjaneyulu, Age:56 years, Caste: Arya Vyshya, Occ:Principal, SKE Degree college, Sirpur-Kaghaznagar, R/o H.No.1-16-273/5, Industrial Area, Kaghaznagar.
Offence under section 354-D IPC, Secs.3(1)(w)(ii), Sec.3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015
Plea of the accusedNot Guilty
Finding Not Guilty Sentence or OrderIn the result:- Accused is not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 354-D Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 accordingly he is acquitted of the charges under section 235(1) Criminal Procedure Code. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. No case property involved in this case.
Name of the counsel for prosecution Sri Sanjay Kumar Vairagare, Addl. Public Prosecutor
Name of the counsel for DefenceSri.A.Amarender Reddy, Advocate
This case coming before me on 10.12.2021 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Sanjay Kumar Vairagare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri.A.Amarender Reddy, Advocate for accused and on hearing both sides the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 2 of 21
J U D G M E N T
1. This case arises out of the charge sheet filed by Sub Divisional Police Officer,
Kaghaznagar in Cr.No.118/2017 for the offences U/secs.354-D Indian Penal Code,
Secs.3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. In nutshell, prosecution case is to the following effect:-
Victim lady was working as part time lecturer in Chemistry department from 2010 onwards at SKE degree college, Kaghaznagar. She was allotted invigilation duty during B.Ed fourth semester examinations from 13.09.2017 to 15.09.2017. On 16.09.2017,
LW4/Mr.M.Maruthi, Botany Lecturer had informed her that he was asked by
LW3/M.Rajesham, the coordinator of the examinations to inform her that she had no invigilation duty on that day. Accordingly, victim lady had gone to Mr.Rajesham and asked him about the invigilation duty. She was told that the Principal/accused had informed him to tell her that she does not have duty on that day. So, victim lady had gone into the chamber of Principal/accused and asked him as to why she had not been allotted duty. Accused had told her that the duties will be allotted to the outers. When victim lady had questioned him as to how duties gets allotted to outers, if at all the duties are to be allotted only to college staff or attenders. On that, accused had “asked her to come to his house to talk about the duties. Thus, the accused had repeated said words thrice”. So having been scared, victim lady had called her husband who had gone to the college and questioned the accused and quarreled with him. Thereafter, coordinator had allotted duty to victim lady but she had refused to attend the duty. So, she had given in writing. Thus, victim lady presented report police on 16.09.2017 at 5.00 p.m. Thereafter on 19.09.2017 on the strength of the contents of the report, inspector of police registered Cr.No.118/2017 U/secs.354-D Indian Penal Code. The inspector on
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 3 of 21 examined LW1/victim lady and her husband/LW2 and recorded their statements.
During the investigation it was noticed that the victim lady belongs to SC-Mala community whereas the accused belong to Vyshya community. Therefore, the Inspector filed memo before learned Judicial Magistrate of first class to add section of law Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of SCs/STs (POA) Act. Thus, Deputy Superintendent of Police,
LW14/P.Sambaiah took up investigation as per the orders issued by Superintendent of
Police vide C.No.29/SC-ST/C2-DCRB/KBM/2017, dated 26.11.2017, he got re-examined and recorded the statement of victim lady by LW8/woman constable under the videography taken by LW9/J.Ranjith, constable. The Sub Divisional Police Officer also examined and recorded the statements of LWs 2 to 9 viz., Kamera Goutham, Munjam
Rajesham, Mudimadugula Maruthi, Battu Mallesham, S.Chandhuji, Ch.Raju, Shameena
Bee, J.Ranjith, visited scene of offence and observed in the presence of LW10/Raziq
Rahman, LW11/Avunuri Prasad. Then, made requisition to Tahsildar Kaghaznagar
LW12/P.Ram Mohan Rao and obtained caste certificate of victim and accused. On 10.09.2018, the investigation officer-SDPO got served 41-A Cr.P.C. notice on accused directing him to attend before the court on receipt of summons to face trial. On completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence
U/sec.354-D IPC, section 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act.
3. The offence was taken cognizance by the Spl.Judge for trial of cases under
SCs/STs (POA) Act–Cum–V Additional District And Sessions Judge, Adilabad, dated 04.10.2018 as Spl.SC No.80/2018.
4. After appearance of the accused and on hearing the learned counsel and learned public prosecutor charges were framed for the offences under Section 354-D Indian
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 4 of 21
Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act against accused, read over and explained to him in Telugu language, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the course of the trial PW1-complainant and victim, PW2-husband of victim lady, PWs 3 to 6 and 12- college staff and circumstantial witnesses, PW7-woman constable recorded the statement of victim lady, PW8-videographer, PWs 9 & 10- mediators for scene of offence observation proceedings, PW11-Tahsildar issued caste certificates of accused and PW1, PWs 13 & 14-Investigation Officers, were examined.
Ex.P1- Complaint of PW1, Exs.P2 to P5- 161 Cr.P.C. statements of PWs 3 to 6, Ex.P6-
Compact disc, Ex.P7- Signature of PW9 on crime detail form, Ex.P8- Signature of PW9 on rough sketch, Ex.P9- Signature of PW10 on crime detail form, Ex.P10- Signature of
PW10 on rough sketch, Ex.P11- Caste verification certificate of PW1 and accused,
Ex.P12-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW12, Ex.P13-First Information report, Ex.P14-Section adding memo, Ex.P15- Memo of Superintendent of police, Ex.P16- Crime details form with rough sketch, were exhibited. Ex.D1: relevant portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 and Ex.D2:Certified copy of rough sketch map in Cr.No.146/2016 of PS
Kaghaznagar-T were exhibited through defence.
6. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the entire incriminating evidence on record against him, and has not chosen to adduce any evidence on his behalf. Case of accused is of total denial and he is innocent.
7. Heard both the counsel.
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 5 of 21
Learned Prosecutor argues that, PWs 1 to 14 have categorically deposed giving graphic account of the offence wherein the accused with lewd intention asked victim lady to come to his home to discuss about allotment of duties to her. There is line of consistency in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and nothing tangible could be elicited in their cross examination. Though PWs 5 and 6 have not supported the charges, but the testimony of PWs 1 to 4 is specific and categorical as to the occurrence of the offence. In their cross examination, nothing tangible could be hammered out to take exception to their evidence and its reliability. That, the case was registered promptly followed by the investigation which established the complicity of the accused, the same has been unfolded before this court with sufficient legal evidence. The testimony of PW11 indicates that the accused belong to other than Scheduled caste while victim belong to Scheduled Caste. The evidence of PWs 1 to 4 establishes that accused with a lewd malicious intention to heckle knowingly that the victim lady belong to Scheduled Caste, asked her to come to his home which itself is an offence.
Victim lady herself vividly testified the same. The testimony of PWs 13 and 14 investigation officers further substantiates and corroborates the ocular testimonies of
PWs 2 to 4 and the evidence of PW1 victim lady. Thus, there is legal evidence. So, the learned Prosecutor requests to record conviction against the accused and sentence him appropriately as per law.
On the other hand, learned counsel argues seriously let alone the legal evidence, there is not even an iota of evidence. At the outset, the very case on the face of it is a false one which is apparent from a plain perusal of the report. The allegation is accused had called victim lady to his house to talk about the duties. Even if the same is taken to be true on the face, it doesn’t amount offence. More over the word “ఇంటికిరా” is inserted in the report. The report is dated on the top of first page 16.07.2017, whereas
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 6 of 21 the case was registered on 19.09.2017, but the signature beneath the crime registration endorsement, by the inspector of police reflects dated 16.09.2017. If at all any preliminary enquiry as such was held, there should have been an entry in the general diary as to presentation of the complaint, but column No.3(c)of printed First
Information Report doesn’t indicate any general diary entry nor the charge sheet reflect any enquiry as such conducted besides that the date on the reverse of the report is totally obliterated with whitener and the date as 19.09.2017 is written on it. Thus it is apparent that this is an afterthought cooked up case just to falsely implicate the accused. Admittedly PWs 2 to 4 are not eye witnesses and they were not at the college when accused said to have uttered the words at victim asking her to come to his house.
Besides that, PW2 is none other than the husband of PW1, PWs 3 and 4 belong to the caste of PW1. Admittedly PWs 3 and 4 agitated against the appointment of accused to be the principal of the college as he hails from Andhra Pradesh State. Besides that, both of them testified in SC/ST case tried against the accused. Therefore, they are interested witnesses. All other witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. The
Tahsildar who is said to have enquired into the caste particulars of the accused admits that the accused original belong to Prakasam district of Andhra Pradesh State and he had not visited his native as such, the caste particulars of the caste is also incorrect. The investigation officers PWs 13 and 14 have in no less clear terms admits as to the investigation omissions and inconsistencies which bears a clear testimony as to the falsity of the case. So, the learned counsel requests to record clean acquittal.
8. Now the sole point that falls for consideration is:
“Whether the prosecution could prove the charges against accused for the offences under Section 354-D Indian Penal Code and Secs.3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989 beyond all reasonable doubts or not?”
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 7 of 21
P O I N T:
9. In order to prove the charges for the offences U/sec.354-D IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, prosecution has to prove the following facts:
i) That, the accused not being the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe knowing well that the victim lady belong to Scheduled Caste, with malafide intention asked her to come to his house by repeating the same thrice.
10. It is contextual to look at Section 354-D IPC, Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of
SCs/STs (POA) Act respectively to have a comprehension as to what prosecution is needed to unfold before this court with legal evidence.
Section 354-D reads as follows:- “Stalking:- Any man who-
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking.
Section 3(1)(w)(ii) reads as follows:- “uses words, acts or gestures of a sexual nature towards a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, knowing that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe”
Section 3(2)(va) reads as follows:- “commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code for such offences and shall also be liable to fine”
Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has to prove that the accused not being the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing well that the victim lady
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 8 of 21 belong to Scheduled Caste, with lewd and malafide intention and to demean asked her to come to his house. So uttered thrice.
11. In order to establish these facts, prosecution adduced following evidence:-
Before adverting to the evidence on record, there are certain pertinent facts borne
on the face of the record which are to be referred to now itself. Firstly, the core of the allegation by victim lady is, the accused had called her to his home to discuss about the allotment of invigilation duty to her. Whether this statement alleged to have been made by the accused fits into any of the provisions referred to above. Undoubtedly the charge was framed for the offences adverted to above, yet this is also context to be examined once again as to whether the facts alleged, constitute an offence at all. Undoubtedly requesting a known person to come to house to discuss something perse is not an offence, but in the instant case, the accused in a context of verbal dual asking a lady who doesn’t seem to have the acquaintance of visiting his house being asked to visit the house of a male person who is not related to domestic affairs, definitely contains an element of criminal proclivity. Therefore, this alleged act comes within the frame of the offence defined as found hereinabove U/sec.354-D IPC and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act. Secondly, the incident is alleged to have occurred on 16.09.2017, on the same day the report appears to have been presented by victim lady. There is an endorsement on the reverse of Ex.P1 report to the effect “after enquiry action will be taken legally” signed by the inspector. Be it noted that when the contents of a report reflect, commission of cognizable offence, the station house officer is duty bound to register the same as an offence and it has not been done apparently, stating that an enquiry was to be made into. But atleast the station house officer should have made an entry of the report in general diary. No such entry is made. So also what is the enquiry that has
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 9 of 21 gone into, is not known. If at all to register a case invoking the provisions of SCs/STs (POA) Act, if the registration of crime is to be taken to have been differed, the same should have been reflected in the record. The same is not there. On the reverse of Ex.P1 report, date is totally obliterated with whitener on which again 19.09.2017 at 17.00 hours is written. It is neither initialed nor mentioned anything as to the context of obliteration, wherein the case registration endorsement is made. But surprisingly the inspector of police put his signature and put the date as 16.09.2017, which is apparently inconsistent with the date in the heading under which registration endorsement is made. It is the claim of the investigation officer that, soon after the registration of the case, he had examined and recorded the statements of victim lady and her husband/PW2. But, the section alteration memo said to have been filed before the court is on 28.11.2017 and it was signed on 26.11.2017. When the investigation officer had examined PWs 1 and 2 if at all on 19.09.2017, he definitely would have come to know about the caste particulars of PWs 1 and 2 on the very day. Why he had waited till 26.11.2017 is concerned, there is no explanation either from the Inspector of Police who registered the crime, or from the
Sub Divisional Police Officer who proceeded with the further investigation after filing section alteration memo adding the provisions of SCs/STs (POA) Act. In the cross examination, PW13, the Inspector of Police admits everything as referred to above as regards the inconsistencies and obliteration of dates and delay in registration of the case and filing of section alteration memo. When the same question is put to PW14, the Sub
Divisional Police Officer, he states - “my investigation was not on the correction made in
Ex.P1, the two endorsements made in Ex.P1 and the correction made with whitener in the second endorsement on Ex.P1. My investigation was not on the aspect of the date mentioned in Ex.P1
as 16.09.2017”. This answer by the prime investigation officer on the face of it, nothing
but the irresponsible disowning the irregularities simply throwing blame on his
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 10 of 21 predecessor investigation officer. Here it is not out of place to state that Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe Act enjoins upon the investigation officer duty to investigate into the offences with all promptitude and care. The above circumstances undisputedly reflect that there is infraction of duty cast on them by the statute.
12. Then coming to the social status aspect of the victim lady and accused is concerned, victim lady as PW1 and her husband as PW2 besides testifying that both of them belong to Scheduled Caste Mala community, got mentioned in Ex.P1 report that
PW1 belong to Scheduled caste community. This oral assertion of PWs 1 and 2 is further substantiated by the evidence of PW11. The Tahsildar who has testified that on the requisition made by the investigation officer of this case, upon enquiry getting made through VRO (Village Revenue Officer) of the concerned village and mandal revenue inspector of the concerned mandal and after ascertaining he same issued Ex.P11 that, victim lady-PW1 belong to Scheduled caste Mala community and accused belong to
Arya Vyshya, other than Scheduled caste community. Exfaci there is nothing in the evidence of PW11 to take exception that victim lady belong to Mala Scheduled Caste community and accused belong to other than Scheduled caste community. It is true, it is elicited in the cross examination of PW11 that the enquiry reports of VRO (Village
Revenue Officer) and MRI (Mandal Revenue Inspector) have not been placed before this court with Ex.P11, but Ex.P11 discloses that PW1 and accused belong to Scheduled caste and other than Scheduled caste communities respectively. U/sec.114(e) of Indian
Evidence Act, the court may presume that the judicial and official acts have been performed as per the statute and rules, this presumption may be drawn by this court as to the veracity of Ex.P11, but in order to rebut such a presumption, there should be some material. Merely because accused belong to a different state, it cannot be said that the
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 11 of 21 report of Tahsildar is incorrect and accused doesnot belong to Arya Vyshya community, other than scheduled caste community. While the accused was being examined
U/sec.228 Cr.P.C. or 313 Cr.P.C. not even a whisper was made as regards his social status that he doesn’t belong to other than scheduled caste community. If at all accused belongs to other than scheduled caste community, nothing would have prevented him to place an authoritative document evidencing his social status, but this has not been resorted to by the accused. Be it noted that this is only a report as to the social status of the victim and the accused and it is not an enquiry into the genealogical lineage of either of the parties. Therefore, when there is a clear report as to the social status of victim lady and accused, no different view can be taken. Thus, this court is of the view that prosecution could prove that victim lady belong to scheduled caste community and accused belong to other than scheduled caste community.
13. Before adverting to the evidence of the prime witnesses PWs 1 to 4, it is to be observed that, PWs 5 and 6 the circumstantial witnesses, PWs 9 and 10, the witnesses for scene of offence observation proceedings have not supported the charges. Their cross examination by learned prosecutor could not hammer out anything in support of the charges. Therefore, their evidence is of little use to prosecution in proof of the charges.
PW12 is also a circumstantial witness, but his evidence doesn’t indicate much to be attributable to the accused except the fact that he works as lecturer in the scene of offence college and he knows accused and PW1 and B.Ed examinations were held in the college. He had gone for lunch during noon hours and got back to college. He was told by the accused that the victim lady had approached him and questioned regarding allotment of duty to her, inturn accused had told her that he had allotted duties to five or six part time lecturers of their college. That, the accused had also stated to him that
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 12 of 21 victim lady’s husband had quarreled with the accused. Subsequently he had come to know that victim lady had filed criminal case against the accused. Infact this witness is also examined in cross by prosecutor, but nothing tangible could be elicited in the cross examination. In cross examination by accused, this witness states that it was the duty of
PW3 to allot invigilation duties to the lecturers and the duties gets allotted to temporary lecturers on rotation basis be that as it may. Once the evidence of these witnesses is excluded, there remains the evidence of PWs 1 to 4, PW7-woman constable who had recorded the statement of victim lady, PW8 who had videographed the said recording of statement of PW1 by PW7 and the investigation officers. Now let their evidence be evaluated to, one after other.
14. The relevant evidence of PW1 is as follows:-
On 16.09.2017 at about 12.30 p.m. she had received call on her mobile from PW4 informing her that he was instructed by PW3 to tell her that she had not been allotted duty on 16.09.2017. That she had gone to college and met PW3 and asked him as to why she had not been allotted duty. She was told that the principal had instructed not to allot duty to her. That, she had gone into the chamber of the accused/principal and asked him as to why invigilation duty was not allotted to her. The accused had adamantly replied stating that he would not allot duty to “outsiders”. Then, victim lady had taken objection for allotting duty to “outsiders” when staff are available in the college. Then, the accused had stated if she wanted to discuss about her duty, she had to go to his house. Then victim lady had requested accused to consider about her duty.
Accused had insisted her to visit his residence. Then she had come out and informed her husband about the incident over phone. Within ten minutes her husband had arrived at the college and questioned principal. A verbal dual had taken place between
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 13 of 21 the accused and her husband thereafter, PW3 had asked her whether she was willing to attend the duty. Then, she had refused to attend duty and to that effect given in writing.
15. PW2, husband of the victim lady deposes that, on 16.09.2017 at 1.30 p.m. he had received call over his phone from PW1 that accused had asked her to come to his house to discuss about the allotment of invigilation duty. Thus, he had gone to the college and enquired with the accused, accused had replied adamantly. In cross examination PW2 states that accused had quarreled with him upon questioning regarding his remarks and attitude towards PW1 in asking his wife to visit the house of the accused for allotment of duty.
16. The relevant evidence of PW3 is this:- on 16.09.2017 he had informed lecturers over phone about their duties. As PW1 doesn’t possess mobile phone, he had asked
PW4 to inform PW1 about her duty. Around 1.00 p.m. when he got back from home after lunch, had observed PW1/victim lady weeping. Upon enquiry she had informed him that the accused had called her to his house, then he had asked her to attend duty but she had refused and to that effect had given letter in writing. Thereafter PW1 had gone away.
17. The relevant evidence of PW4 is, on 16.09.2017 at 10.00 a.m. he was asked by PW3 to inform PW1 about her examination duties for B.Ed examinations. After her arrival to college, he had informed the same to PW1 by 10.35 a.m. After returning from lunch at around 1.30 a.m., he had seen PW1 weeping. On enquiry PW1 had informed him that the accused had called her to his house. It is to be noted that, PW1 states that, around
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 14 of 21 12.30 p.m. she had been informed by PW4 over phone that, she had not been allotted duty but PW4 states that he had informed PW1 on her arrival in the college at 10.35 a.m.
about her duty. It is also to be noted that, PW3 doesn’t depose about non-allotment of duty to PW1. He merely states that, PW3 asked him about examination duty to PW1. Be that as it may. PW3 deposes that he was not present between 12.30 p.m. to 1.30 p.m.
and he had gone out for lunch. It is also to be seen that, PW4 also states that, upon arrival in the college on seeing PW1 weeping, he had come to know through PW1 that accused had asked PW1 to visit his home. In the same breath, it is also to be noted that
PW2 also had come to know about the incident upon being informed by PW1 over phone. In this context it is relevant to be observed that, PW3 states that PW1 doesn’t possess mobile phone that is the reason he had asked PW4 to inform PW1 about the examination duty but as seen from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and Ex.P1 that, PW1 had been informed about the duty on her mobile phone only.
18. There is no evidence as regards PW1 entering into the chamber of accused and while she was coming out there from. Thus, the only evidence is the self assertion of
PW1 regarding accused asking her to come to his home. In this regard, it is relevant to be noted that, PW1 admits in cross examination that one Chippa Satyanarayana,
Mahesh, M.Sridhar Babu, Jakeerullah Khan, N.Venkateshwarlu, K.Rajeshwar,
Chanduji/LW6, S.Kistaiah are non teaching staff and L.Warlu, D.Satyanarayana,
K.Manoj are the sub staff. The room where sub staff and non-teaching staff sits is adjacent to the principal’s chamber. Said L.Warlu sits in front of the principal’s chamber and he informs principal about the appointment of visitors. Except LW6, none of these witnesses are examined by prosecution nor cited as witnesses. PW1 also admits in cross examination that she had been allotted examination duty by the accused prior to the
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 15 of 21 incident in degree examination as well as other examinations held in the college. She had never faced any problem regarding payment for the duties attended by her and accused used to give approval for the payments without any hesitation. That it is PW3, being the coordinator in the examinations allots duties and hand over question papers in sealed cover. PW3 allots duties on rotation basis and there are four part time lecturers in her college. PW3 deposed in this regard that the duties gets allotted by him for both temporary and permanent employees and he had allotted duty to four temporary employees and two permanent employees on 13.09.2017, on 16.09.2017 he had allotted duties to six temporary employees excluding PW1 as there was requirement only for six persons. Everyday he used to allot duties for six persons out of which, five persons were temporary employees and one permanent employee. Here, the point to be taken out to be pondered over is, earlier to the alleged incident PW1 was allotted duties and there was no issue and infact allotment of duties is being done not by the accused, but PW3. It also reflects that there are other part time lecturers and regular lecturers who are being allotted duties and requirement is less and the lecturers are more. All these circumstances indicate that there was no scope for allotment of duties to all the lecturers on all the days. Therefore, there could have been an occasion where
PW1 may not have been allotted duty on 16.09.2017 also.
19. As regards the offence proper, undoubtedly PW1 states that she had been asked by the accused to visit his house. Had the accused casually asked, it wont amount an offence. But the testimony of PW1 indicate that, the accused had insisted her. The point is whether insisting lady to visit the house can be taken to be a sex coloured remark or such an utterance was made with lewd intention and whether the accused had made such a remark knowing well about the social status of PW1 with an intention to resort to
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 16 of 21 atrocity by humiliating her. Be it noted that, as per the evidence, accused and PW1 were working in the same college, thus accused knows the social status of PW1. As already noted, except the assertion of PW1, there is no other evidence. Since it happened within four walls and in the chamber of the principal, there is no scope for any other to witness the incident. When such an incident happens, the burden on the prosecution is of greater degree. Therefore, the circumstances are to be unfolded with exactitude to perceive that the offence had happened.
20. As already stated regarding arrival of PW1 at the college or entering into the
principal chamber or coming out from the principal chamber, these circumstances are
not unfolded by any other evidence except that of PW1. As already hereinabove noted,
PW1 states that she had received information at 1.30 p.m. over phone. PW4 states that, on arrival of PW1 at 10.30 a.m., he had informed PW1 about her duty. PW3 deposes that, the allotment of duty is not that of accused but it is his duty and his evidence also reasons out for non-allotment of duty to PW1 that, the duty was to be allotted to the several other lecturers since there are more lecturers and less requirement. In these improbabilities, the mere assertion of PW1 cannot be acted upon. Besides this, the learned counsel elicited in the cross examination of PW1 that, earlier to the incident as herein above noted, the accused had not done anything affecting or appealing woman sensitivity or degrading her social status. That apart, PW3 admits that, himself and other staff members had taken objection when accused had prompted as principal since he hails from State of Andhra Pradesh being non local. Further he admits that when accused was taken as principal, one Saraiah Dora had contested to the post but accused was recommended. Said Saraiah Dora had filed an SC/ST case against the accused wherein PW3 had deposed evidence against accused. Further, PW3 admits that he had
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 17 of 21 taken part in the agitation for removal as principal and that he had given representation to vice Chancellor on 04.07.2018 to consider his candidature for the post of coordinator of B.R.Ambedkar Open University wherein he had alleged that accused was facing two
SC/ST cases. All these natural but indicate inimical disposition of PW3 towards accused.
21. Then coming to the evidence of PW4, as already hereinabove noted as regards the factual inconsistencies about the offence proper, he also admits in cross examination that, he along with other staff members had taken objection for promotion of accused as
principal as he belong to other State and he also belong to the social stata of PW1. Thus,
when the inconsistencies and insufficiencies that has been referred to in above regarding the delay of registration of the case and filing of section alteration memo and alterations and insertions in FIR and non-examination of the relevant persons who had more probability of witnessing the incident or atleast entering of victim lady into principal chamber and her going out, all these are to be weighed against the sole testimony of
PW1. Thus, this court is of the view that, prosecution could not prove the charges against the accused.
22. Then, as regards the evidence of other witnesses is of insignificance in the light of circumstances referred to above. PW7 is woman constable, she had recorded the 161
Cr.P.C. statement of PW1, she deposes to that extent, and she states that PW1 had not stated to her as in Ex.P1 which is not of worth to be referable. PW8 is another witness he had videographed the statement recording of PW1. His evidence is only to that extent.
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 18 of 21
23. Then coming to the evidence of PWs 13 and 14, PW13 deposes that on 16.09.2017 at 5.00 p.m, PW1 had presented report, on the strength of which he had registered
Cr.No.118/2017 and submitted Ex.P13 printed FIR to the Magistrate concerned and all his higher officers, after registering the crime U/sec.354D IPC. He had examined PWs 1 and 2 and recorded their statements, visited scene of offence, there he had examined and recorded the statements of PWs 3 and 4. On 26.09.2017 he had added section of law of Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of Act 33 of 1989 and filed Ex.P14 and handed over the case diary to PW14. Here the point worthy to be seen is, on 16.09.2017 when Ex.P1 was presented, this witness admittedly examined PWs 1 to 4. By that time, he knows well that
PW1/victim lady belong to Scheduled caste community, then why he had waited till 26.09.2017 to invoke the provisions is not known. There is no plausible explanation nor any material placed before this court for such delay. This delay together with material alterations in Ex.P1 regarding dates insertion of the word “Intiki” gives rise to genuine doubt.
24. Then coming to the evidence of PW14, he deposes that he had re-examined PW1 and got recorded her statement through PW7 under videography of PW8. He also examined PWs 2, 3, 6 to 8 and 12, visited scene of offence, SKE degree college and observed scene of offence and drafted rough sketch, sent requisition to PW11 for issuance of caste certificates of PW1 and accused, collected caste certificates from PW11.
On 10.09.2018 served notice U/sec.41-A on accused directing him to appear on receipt of notice and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/sec.354D IPC, sections 3(1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(va) of the Act 33 of 1989. He deposes that PWs 5 and 6 stated before him as in Exs.P4 and P5.
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 19 of 21
25. Before parting with the evidence, it is to be noted that the learned counsel placed reliance in support of his contention on the following propositions:-
1. InSamineni Upernder Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008(1)ALD (Crl.) 444 (AP) as regards delay in lodging complaint.
2. In Perela Veeraiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2008(1) ALD (Crl.) 419 (AP) as regards delay in lodging complaint.
3. In Parsa Somaiah and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in 2015(1) ALD (Crl.) 143 as regards property dispute in atrocity cases.
4. In K.Padma Reddy v. Station House Officer, Bellampalli and others reported in 2003(2) ALD (Crl.) 421 (AP) as regards utterances made in a private place like the chambers of the Municipal commissioner do not constitute an offence under the Act.
5. In Shaik Shamshuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others reported in 2014(1) ALD (Crl.) 971 (AP)as regards failure to collect mobile data, might prove to be harmful in certain cases.
Since the prosecution could not prove the charges against the accused, there is no need to advert to the propositions in detail.
26. Thus, viewed from any of the stand points, absolutely there is no legal evidence against the accused in proof of the charges under Sections 354-D Indian Penal Code and
Sec.3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act, 1989, so the accused is not found guilty of the aforementioned offences. Point is answered accordingly.
27. In the result:- Accused is not found guilty of the offences punishable under
Section 354-D Indian Penal Code and Sec.3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(va) of SCs/STs (POA) Act,
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 20 of 21 1989 accordingly he is acquitted of the charges under section 235(1) Criminal Procedure
Code. Bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled. No case property involved in this case.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her and after correction pronounced by me in
open court this the 16 th day of December, 2021.
Spl. Judge for fast tracking the cases Relating to atrocities against women -cum-VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad
FAC: Spl.Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:
PW1: Durgam Kousalya -None- PW2: Kamera Goutham PW3: Munjam Rajesham PW4: Mudimadugula Maruthi PW5:Ch.Raju PW6:S.Chandhuji PW7:Pathan Shameena Bee, WPC.1144 PW8: J.Ranjith, PC.3018 PW9: Raziq Rahman PW10: Avunuri Prasad PW11: P.Ram Mohan Rao, Tahsildar PW12: Battu Mallesham PW13: A.Venkateshwar, Inspector/1st IO PW14: P.Sambaiah, SDPO/IO
EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.P1:Complaint of PW1Ex.D1: Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3Ex.D2: Certified copy of rough sketch map in Cr.No.146/2016 of PS Kaghaznagar-T Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P5:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P6:Compact disc
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad
Spl.SC No.80 of 2018 Page 21 of 21
Ex.P7:Signature of PW9 on crime detail form Ex.P8: Signature of PW9 on rough sketch Ex.P9: Signature of PW10 on crime detail form Ex.P10: Signature of PW10 on rough sketch Ex.P11: Caste verification certificate of PW1 and accused Ex.P12: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW12 Ex.P13: First information report Ex.P14: Section adding memo Ex.P15: Memo of Superintendent of police Ex.P16: Crime details form with rough sketch
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
- NIL -
Spl. Judge for fast tracking the cases Relating to atrocities against women -cum-VI
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad
FAC: Spl.Judge for Trial of Cases Under SCs/STs (POA) Act, Cum-V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad
V Addl. Sessions Judge, Adilabad