Smt.Y.Padma

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 1 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

IN THE COURT OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE’S

COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE

AND POCSO ACT CASES :: MAHABUBNAGAR.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN-CUM-IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS

JUDGE, AT MAHABUBNAGAR.

Thursday, the 7 th day of March, 2024

Present: Smt.Y.Padma,

Spl. Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women-cm-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

FAC: Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Mahabubnagar.

S.C. (POCSO) No. 59 OF 2020

(Crime No.162/2019 of P.S. Jadcherla)

Name and description: The State representing through the Sub of the ComplainantInspector of Police, P.S. Jadcherla.

Bellam Naresh s/o Chennaiah, age: 23 Name and description years, Caste: SC Madiga, Occ: Computer of the Accused: worker in Mee-Seva, R/o. H.No.1-136, Lingampet village of Jadcherla Mandal.

Nature of OffenceUnder sections 354-D, 354-C and 306 of :IPC and Secs.11 r/w 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against accused.

Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 2 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

Sentence / OrderThe accused is found not guilty for the : offences under sections 354-D, 354-C and 306 of IPC and section 11 r/w 12 of the

POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months.

MO-1/ Mi company mobile phone shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Special Additional Public Prosecutor for the

Complainant/State and of Sri. U.Sathya Sheel, Counsel for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Jadcherla Police Station has filed charge sheet against above named accused in Crime

No.162/2019 for the offences u/Secs.354-D, 354-C and 306 of IPC and Secs.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

2.The case of the Prosecution as setup in the charge sheet is that on 13.05.2019 at about 11.30 hours, LW-1 father of the

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 3 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

deceased (name withheld) approached LW14: Sub Inspector of

Police, P.S., Jadcherla and lodged a complaint stating that, he had two children and for the past several days, accused is harassing his daughter who is aged about 17 years on the name of love and marriage. The accused obtained mobile number of his daughter and frequently calling her and subjecting her to harassment. About six months ago, the accused underwent marriage with a minor girl after making her pregnant and having knowledge that he is married person subjecting his daughter for harassment. On 12.05.2019 at about 5-20 P.M., he came to know that his daughter committed suicide by hanging and further he came to know that just prior to the death of his daughter also, accused sent a message and telephoned her. Due to the harassment of the accused, his daughter committed suicide and requested to take action against accused.

3.Basing on the said complaint, LW-14 Sub Inspector of

Police registered the above crime for the above offences and took up the investigation. He examined the parents of the deceased, visited the scene of offence, got photographed it and examined and recorded the statement of neighbors, conducted scene of offence panchanama, examined it in the presence of mediators and prepared map. He visited the hospital, conducted inquest over the

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 4 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for postmortem examination, arrested the accused, recorded his confession in the presence of mediators and also seized mobile of accused and collected Bonafide Certificate of the deceased from the college where she studied prior to her death and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/Secs.354-

C, 354-D ad 306 of IPC and Secs.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act.

4.The Hon’ble Special Judge-cum-I-Additional District and

Sessions, Mahabubnagar took cognizance for the offences

punishable under Sec.354(C) (D) and 306 of IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and registered as Special Sessions Case and issued summons to accused and made over this case to this Court for trial and disposal.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.Heard on charges and charges were framed against the accused for the offences u/Secs.354-D, 354-C and 306 of IPC and

Secs.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

7. On behalf of the Prosecution, PW-1 to PW-9 are examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and MO-1 are marked.

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 5 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

8.The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-1 father of the victim as he died and

Death Certificate of him is filed. The learned Additional Special

Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW-4 and LW-5, circumstantial witnesses, LW-7, mediator for scene of offence, LW-9 and LW-10 mediators for inquest panchanama, since the said documents marked through Investigating Officer and no specific purpose would be served by examining them.

9.After completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C., and explained all the incriminating material available against him and he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

10.Heard. The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused filed written arguments.

11.Now the point for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the

guilt of the accused for the charges levelled

against him, beyond all reasonable doubt?

12. POINT:-

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, it relied on

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 6 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

the oral testimony of PW-1 to PW-9 and Exs.P1 to P9 and MO-1.

13.The learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor argued that accused having knowledge that he is a married person and deceased is a minor girl and child within the meaning of Sec.2(d) of

POCSO Act, obtained her mobile number and sent messages, made calls and subjected her to harassment, unable to bear the same, deceased committed suicide by hanging. The oral evidence of PW-1 to

PW-9 and Exs.P1 to P9 and MO-1 are sufficient in establishing the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against him, hence accused is liable for conviction.

14.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused argued that prosecution failed to prove that the accused harassed the deceased or committed offence of stalking, though Police seized the mobile but not forwarded the same to FSL and ascertained whether any obscene material is found in the mobile of the accused and also not ascertained the mobile number of the deceased and not seized the mobile number of the deceased and not collected call data of the deceased and accused and there is no material on record to prove that the accused frequently called the deceased or sent messages or subjected her to harassment and due to the harassment of the accused alone, the deceased committed suicide,

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 7 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.As seen from the evidence, PW-1 is the mother of the deceased and she deposed that she had a son and a daughter. Her daughter was studying intermediate first year at the time of her death. The wife of the accused and her daughter were classmates and wife of the accused obtained mobile number of the deceased and accused collected the said mobile number of her daughter and used to harass her by stating that he would not survive without the deceased. The accused also informed the deceased that he likes her and her daughter informed the same to her, as such she warned the accused whereas the accused kept quite for eight days and thereafter, again started calling the deceased. After eight days, on one day, she went to agricultural fields and in between 4-00 to 5-00 P.M., her daughter committed suicide by hanging, since the accused telephoned her and harassed her, she came to know about the suicide through her neigbhbours. Immediately, she rushed to the house and found the dead body of the deceased. Her husband,

Anand and Jangili went to Police Station and gave complaint.

16.During the cross-examination, she admitted that she has not stated before the police that the accused secured the mobile number of her deceased daughter and used to call her and

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 8 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

harass the deceased. She cannot say the mobile number of her daughter and she has not filed any complaint before the police prior to the death of the deceased against the accused stating that he harassed the deceased over a phone and she cannot say since how long the accused had been harassing her deceased daughter. She is in possession of the mobile used by her daughter and there is a call record in a phone.

17.PW-2 deposed that deceased committed suicide unable to bear the harassment made by the accused, who is a married person, and father of the deceased informed him that the accused telephoned to deceased and due to the said harassment only, the deceased committed suicide.

18.PW-3, who is Principal of VSR College in which the deceased studied, deposed that on 01.06.2019 on the request of the

Police, Jadcherla, he issued Bonafide of the deceased and as per the school records, date of birth of the deceased was recorded as 12.04.2003.

19.PW-4 is the mediator for the CDF Panchanama. He deposed that on 13.05.2019 at about 12.00 noon, Police called him and LW-7 Venkataiah to the house of the deceased and observed it

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 9 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

and prepared panchanama in their presence and police read over the contents on which he obtained their signatures.

20.PW-5 and PW-6 deposed that about two years ago during afternoon, Police Jadcherla called him to Jadcherla Police

Station along with D.Jangaiah and enquired whether he knows the deceased or not and as he gave answered in affirmative, they obtained his signatures on some papers, but he does not know anything about the present case and he denied the suggestion that

Police seized mobile phone from the accused in his presence.

21.PW-7 deposed that Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 12.05.2019 in the presence of him and in the presence of Vasantha. They signed on the inquest proceedings. During cross-examination, he deposed that in his presence, Police not examined any of the persons.

22.PW-8 doctor, who conducted postmortem examination, deposed that on 12.05.2019 on the request of the Police, Jadcherla, he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and he opined that the said death was caused 20 to 22 hours prior to his examination and the cause of death of the deceased was hanging.

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 10 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

23.PW-9 Investigating Officer deposed that on 13.05.2019 he received a complaint from the father of the deceased, basing on it, he registered a case in Crime No.162/2019 and issued FIR to all concerned. He examined material witnesses and recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, examined it in the presence of mediators and obtained photographs of the dead body of the deceased and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent him to postmortem examination. The doctor conducted postmortem examination and issued opinion and thereafter, he approached Principal of the college in which the deceased studied and obtained Bonafide Certificate of the deceased. Basing on the

Bonafide Certificate, he altered the section of law and added

Secs.354-C and 354-D of IPC and Sec.11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. On 29.06.2017 he arrested the accused at his residence at Lingampet village and recorded his confession in the presence of mediators and seized MO-1 mobile phone from the accused under a cover of panchanama in the presence of said mediators.

24.During cross-examination, he admitted that in the complaint there is no mention about the mobile used by the deceased and he has not collected mobile data of the accused as well as the deceased. He has not examined any of the classmates

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 11 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

or friends of the deceased and he has not seized the cloth used by the accused in committing suicide. Many times in Ex.P6, he mentioned the date as 12.06.2019 and also as 12.05.2019 once and 13.06.2019. He has not mentioned IMEI number of mobile number as well as SIM. He has not made any efforts to forward the said mobile to FSL.

25.In the case on hand, the admitted fact is that victim, who is a minor, died due to hanging and there is no dispute with regard to the death of the deceased and cause of death and even the oral testimonies of PW-1, PW-2, PW-7 and PW-8 and Exs.P5 and P8 are sufficient and establishing the cause of death of the deceased.

26.Now, this court has to see whether the prosecution could able to prove that the accused, who is the husband of friend of the deceased, collected the mobile number of the deceased, sent messages and made calls frequently and thereby subjected her to harassment, as such unable bear the said harassment, deceased committed suicide.

27.In the case on hand, PW-1, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed that the accused collected the mobile number of

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 12 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

the deceased from his wife, who is the friend of the deceased, and sent messages and called her, whereas she has not specifically deposed since how long the accused is harassing the deceased and as per the admission of PW-1, she has not made any complaint to

Police during the lifetime of the deceased stating that the accused having knowledge that he is married person following the victim on the name of love and harassed the deceased by making calls and sending messages. Even PW-1 not deposed any instances when the accused sent message to the deceased though PW-1 deposed that even just prior to the death of the deceased also, accused sent a message and called her, no material is collected to prove the said fact and at present, there is no material to know what are the messages sent by the accused, whether the said messages are in the form of obscene or which causing agony to the deceased. Even

PW-1 not deposed anything that she witnessed the accused while talking with the deceased or calling her. Except oral testimony of

PW-1, there is no material to prove that accused called deceased and sent messages and thereby subjected her to harassment.

Therefore, the oral testimony of PW-1 is not sufficient to connect the accused for the charges levelled against him.

28.As seen from the oral testimony of PW-2, he is not an

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 13 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

eye witness and his entire deposition is based on the information given by the father of the deceased. Therefore, he can be considered as hearsay witness and his oral testimony should be kept aside from consideration, unless it is corroborated with some other evidence. Admittedly, there is no corroborative material to support the oral testimony of PW-2. Therefore, his evidence must be discarded to connect the accused with the alleged charge.

29.The oral testimony of PW-3 and Ex.P1 is only sufficient to prove that the deceased studied in the said college and in the school records, her date of birth is recorded as 12.04.2003 and as on the date of death, she has not completed 18 years. Mere establishing that deceased was a minor is not sufficient to convict the accused for the alleged charge, prosecution must prove that the accused committed the offence of stalking and voyeurism against the deceased, as such deceased committed suicide. Therefore, even the oral evidence of PW-3 and Ex.P1 is not much helpful to the case of the prosecution.

30.PW-4 to PW-7, who are the mediators for the CDF panchanama and inquest panchanama and their evidence is not much helpful and relevant to the case of the prosecution and their oral evidence and said panchanamas are only relevant to prove the

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 14 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

nature of circumstances of the scene of offence.

31.In the case on hand, entire case of the prosecution is that the accused telephoned the deceased and by making calls and sending messages, harassed the deceased whereas neither PW-1 nor the Investigating Officer furnished the details of the mobile allegedly used by the deceased and said mobile is not seized by the police and not produced before the court. Even no particulars of the said mobile or mobile number allegedly used by the deceased are furnished before the court. Though PW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that she is in possession of the said mobile and there is a call record in the same, but the same is not produced

before the court even subsequently.

32.Furthermore, even as per the admission of PW-9 and

PW-10, they simply stated that they seized MO-1 stating that it belongs to the accused and he used the same in the commission of offence, whereas PW-9 failed to collect any certificate stating that the said mobile belongs to the accused and the mobile number in the said mobile is registered on the name of accused and he had been using the same.

32.Furthermore, PW-9 failed to collect mobile data of

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 15 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

accused which may sufficient to prove that he made calls to deceased on a particular day and sent messages. In fact, the mobile data is an appropriate data which may connect the accused with the deceased and may be sufficient to prove that the accused made calls to deceased during her lifetime. Even PW-9 did not choose to forward MO-1 to FSL to ascertain whether it contains any messages allegedly sent by the accused to deceased or someone else and what is the nature of the said messages. In the absence of said material, this court is unable to conclude that the accused frequently made calls to the deceased and sent messages and thereby committed the offence of stalking and voyeurism and due to the harassment of the accused alone, the deceased committed suicide. Therefore, prosecution failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused for the offence under sections 354-D, 354-C and 306 of IPC and section 11 r/w 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Hence accused is entitled for acquittal.

Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 354-D, 354-C and 306 of IPC and section 11 r/w 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 16 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

The bail bonds of the accused shall stands cancelled after six months.

MO-1/ Mi company mobile phone shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer (Gr.I), typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 7th day of March, 2024.

Spl. Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women-cum-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:

PW-1:Mother of the victim

PW-2:V.Alivelu/Neighbour and circumstantial witness

PW-3:P.Jaipal Reddy/issued Bonafide Certificate

PW-4:A.Anand/Panch for scene of offence

PW-5:A.Charan Tej/Panch for confession & seizure

PW-6:D.Jangaiah/Panch for confession & seizure

PW-7:B.Laxmaiah/Panch for inquest

PW-8:Dr.Vijay Kumar/held autopsy over the dead body

PW-9:M.Krishnaiah/Investigating Officer

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 17 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

DEFENCE:: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION :

Ex.P-1: Bonafide Certificate

Ex.P-2: Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P-3: Signature on PW-5 seizure panchanama

Ex.P-4: Signature of PW-6 on seizure panchanama

Ex.P-5: Original inquest panchanama

Ex.P-6: Original Postmortem examination report : Original complaint Ex.P-7 : First Information Report Ex.P-8 : Portion of confession panchanama of the accused Ex.P-9

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE : - NIL -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED::

: Mi company mobile phone MO-1

Spl. Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women-cm-IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FAC: Fast Track Special Court for Expeditious Trial and Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases at Mahabubnagar.

Spl.SC.No.59 of 2020 18 of 18 .

Dt: 07.03.2024

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

1 of 15

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS

TRIAL AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND POCSO ACT CASES JUDGE ::

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Monday, this the 17th day of October, 2022

Present: Smt. Y. Padma, Spl. Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking The Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IV Addl. District And Sessions

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

F.A.C. Special Judge, for trial of cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Sessions Case No. 4 of 2016

(Cr.No. 66 of 2012 of P.S. Maddur)

1 Name of the The State of Telangana through complainantPolice, P.S. Maddur.

2 Name of the accusedA1) Golla Sayappa s/o. G. Rajappa @ Rajanna, age: 60 years. A2) Golla Rajanna S/o. G. Sayappa, age: 35 years. A3) Golla Anjilappa S/o. Sayappa, age: 30 years. A4) Golla Mallappa S/o. G. Sayappa, age: 28 years. A5) Smt Golla Chinnamma W/o. G. Sayappa, age: 55 years. A6) Kum Golla Kashamma D/o. G. Sayappa, age: 20 years. All are Golla by Caste, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mominapur Village of Maddur Mandal. A7) Smt Golla Laxmi W/o. Govindu, age: 32 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Renivetla Village of Maddur Mandal.

3 Offences complained For the offences under Sec. 447, of188, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(v)(x) of SCs and STs (P.O.A.) Act.

4 Crime No. & Name of 66 of 2012 of P.S. Maddur.

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

2 of 15 the PS 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

7 Sentence or order In the result, the accused No. 1 to 7 are found not guilty of the offence

U/Sec. 447, 188, 323 and 506 of I.P.C.

and Sec. 3(i)(v)(x) of Scs/STs (POA)

Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges.

The bail bonds of accused No. 1 to 7 shall be in force for 6 (six) months as contemplated U/Sec.437 (A) of

Cr.P.C.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Rambaksh, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri C. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Narayanpet filed a Charge sheet in Cr.No. 66/2012 of P.S. Maddur against the above named accused for the offence U/Sec. 447, 188, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and

Sec. 3(i)(v)(x) of Scs/STs (POA) Act.

2. The case of the Prosecution as set up in the charge sheet is that on 26-11-2012, S.I. of Police, received a complaint forwarded by Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kodangal filed by

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

3 of 15 defacto complainant Smt Gurka Venkatamma under Section 200

Cr.P.C. and in the said complaint, defacto complainant contended that her family owned land to an extent of Ac. 0-30 gts., in sy. No.

368/16 situated at Renvetla Village of Maddur Mandal,

Mahabubnagar District. She filed a Civil Suit in O.S. No. 44/2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal against accused No. 1 to 7 and obtained interim order.

3.On 03-11-2012 at about 3:00 P.M. when she along with her son sowing Jawar Seeds in the said land, accused No. 1 to 7 criminally trespassed into the said land by arming with deadly weapons, abused her on the name of caste stating that “Madiga

Lanjadana Neevu Chala Rajakeeyam Chestunnavu Ninnu

Bumiloniki Ranivvamu”, bet her with hands and chappal and assaulted severely. When LW2 who is her son intervened, accused pushed him aside and bet him with hands and chappal. LW6 and

LW7 intervened and rescued them and requested to take action.

3.Basing on the said complaint, LW16 H.C. of Police,

Maddur P.S. registered a case in Cr.No. 66/2012 for the offence U/

Sec. 447, 188, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(v) of Scs/STs (POA) Act. Thereafter LW19 Sub Divisional Police Officer,

Narayanpet was appointed as Investigating Officer, he investigated the case and after completion of investigation, he

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

4 of 15 filed charge sheet against accused No. 1 to 7 for the offence

U/Sec. 447, 188, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(i)(v)(x) of Scs/STs (POA) Act.

4.Taken on file for the offence punishable U/Sec. 447, 188, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(i)(v)(x) of Scs/STs (POA) Act.

5.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6.My Learned Predecessor, heard on charges and charges were framed against the accused No. 1 to 7 for the offences

U/Sec. 447, 188, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(i)(v)(x) of Scs/STs (POA) Act and read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of Prosecution PWs1 to 8 were examined and

Ex.P1 to P10 were marked. LW1 defacto complainant died. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW5 who is one of the eye witnesses, LW8 to LW10 Circumstantial witnesses,

LW12 mediator for the scene of offence panchanama, LW13 and

LW14 Tahsildars who issued caste certificate, LW15 R.D.O.

Narayanpet who issued Stay Order and LW17 and LW18 investigation officers, since other witnesses supported the case of

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

5 of 15 the prosecution and no purpose would be served by examining them.

8. After completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances available against the accused was explained to them U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., examination and they denied the same and reported no evidence, on their behalf.

9.Heard both sides.

10. Now the Point for determination is:

“Whether Prosecution could able to prove the guilty of the accused No. 1 to 7 for the charge U/Sec. 447, 188, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(i)(v)(x) of Scs/STs (POA) Act beyond all reasonable doubts”.

Point:

In order to prove case of the prosecution, it relied on an oral testimony of PW1 to PW8 and Exs.P1 to P10.

11.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that, accused No.

1 to 7 who belongs to non schedule community, having knowledge that LW1/defacto complainant and PW1 belongs to SC (Madiga)

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

6 of 15 Community and owners of the land in Sy. No. 368/16 to an extent of Ac. 0-30 gts., illegally trespassed into the said land claiming right over the said property. When defacto complainant and PW1 objected the claim of accused, abused them on the name of caste, bet them with chappal and hands and caused simple injuries. The oral testimony of PW1 who is son of defacto complainant, PW2 to

PW4 and PW6 who are eye witnesses to the alleged incident and oral testimony of PW5 mediator and PW7 and PW8 Investigating

Officers evidence is sufficient and establishing the case of the prosecution and accused No. 1 to 7 are entitled for conviction.

12.On the other hand, learned Counsel for accused No. 1 to 7 argued that defacto complainant is not examined before this

Court, PW1 to PW4 are not trustworthy witnesses and there are number of material omissions and contradictions and further PW3 and PW4 are inimical to the accused, therefore, their evidence cannot be relied on and in the absence of corroboration by independent witnesses, oral testimony of Investigating Officers cannot be relied on and prosecution prima facie failed to establish the case against accused No. 1 to 7 beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, accused No. 1 to 7 are entitled for acquittal.

13.In the case on hand, defacto complainant who is mother of PW1 who filed the complaint before Judicial First Class

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

7 of 15

Magistrate is not examined before this Court. However, as seen

from Ex.P3 complaint petition filed by defacto complainant, she contended that her family owned land to an extent of Ac. 0-30 gts., in Sy. No. 368/2016 situated at Renivetla Village and she also filed Suit against accused No. 1 to 7 in O.S. No. 44/2012 before

Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal and obtained ad-interim injunction.

This shows that both the parties are claiming right over the said survey number land and shows that there are Civil disputes between the parties. When there are Civil disputes between the parties and more particularly, when both the parties are claiming right over the same property, this Court must be more and more conscious while appreciating the oral testimony in Criminal case.

14.Admittedly, in the present case, defacto complainant and PW1 initiated Civil proceedings against accused family and so far it is not the case of the prosecution that the said Suit was decreed in favour of the defacto complainant and conferred the title and possession of the defacto complainant. It is settled law that “Criminal Court is not competent Court to decide the

title and possession of a particular person in respect of a

immovable property and it is for the competent Civil Court

to decide the same”.

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

8 of 15

15.In the case on hand, admittedly there is no document to prove that, defacto complainant and PW1 are the owners of the property claimed by them and their title is not conferred by any of the Civil Court.

14.In the case on hand, accused No. 1 to 7 are facing allegations for the commission of offence under Section 447. In the absence of deciding title, “this Court is unable to decide who is having a better title and whether the act of accused comes under trespass or not”.

15.In the case on hand, it is the contention of the prosecution that accused No. 1 to 7 having knowledge that the said disputed property belongs to PW1 and defacto complainant, intentionally damaged the Crop raised by them and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 447.

16.As seen from the complaint, there is no whisper about the nature of the Crop or the crop existing in disputed property and it is allegedly damaged by accused. The complaint discloses that on 03-11-2012 at about 3:00 P.M. when defacto complainant and her son PW1 attempted to sow Jawar seeds, accused interfered. In the entire complaint, there is no mention of the nature of the Crop and what are the property damaged.

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

9 of 15

17.Whereas, when PW1 is examined before this Court, he deposed that accused No. 1 to 6 took away the red gram crop and bet them. When said red gram crop was sowed no document is filed and PW1 did not mention anything why said fact is not mentioned in the complaint. Even in the statement given to the

Police, PW1 did not state whether they were cultivating red gram crop and what was the stage of the same and no document is filed in proof of the same. In the absence of the said material it is not proper to conclude that accused No. 1 to 7 damaged the property of defacto complainant and thereby caused loss to the property of the defacto complainant.

18.In the case on hand, it is the contention of the prosecution that on 03-11-2012, accused No. 1 to 7 bet PW1 and defacto complainant with hands and cheppals, caused pain and abused them on the name of caste and thereby threatened them with dire consequences. As seen from Ex.P3 complaint, the alleged incident took place at about 3:00 P.M. whereas, all the prosecution witnesses deposed that said incident took place at about 11:00 A.M. there is no consistency with regard to the time of the alleged offence committed by the accused.

19.In Ex.P3 Complaint, it shows that accused No. 1 to 7 bet defacto complainant and abused her and her son PW1. Whereas,

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

10 of 15 when they are examined by the Police, defacto complainant stated that, she was not available at the scene of offence and she came to know about the incident later. When PW1 is examined before this Court, he deposed that Government allotted the land to an extent of Ac. 0-30 gts., to his family, he along with his brother went to the land allotted by Government and at that time accused

No. 1 to 6 came there and untied bullocks of plow and abused them stating that, “Madiga kodukulara meku akadidhi bhumi”. His mother was also present at that time and LW6 Shekarappa, LW7

Mohan intervened and rescued them and they left the place and his mother filed Suit before Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal and obtained injunction, thereafter, they went to land for cultivation, then accused No. 1 to 6 came there, took away red gram crop, bet them, in turn, his mother lodged report. As seen from oral testimony of PW1, it gives inference that there are two incidents.

Initially, PW1 along with his brother went to the land and tried to cultivate, at that time, accused No. 1 to 6 objected them and abused them, then they left the place. The oral testimony of PW1 is silent, whether on the same day, again they went to cultivation or some other day. From the oral testimony of PW1 it further shows that, when PW1 and his family members tried to cultivate, accused No. 1 to 7 took away the red gram crop and bet them.

Whereas, Ex.P1 complaint and their statements are silent about

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

11 of 15 the same. Furthermore, there is no date and time when the alleged incident took place.

20.In the case on hand, PW2 is the brother of PW1 and he deposed that at about 6 years back, when they were cultivating the land in Sy. No. 368/16 to an extent of Ac. 0-30 gts., accused

No. 1 to 7 came and removed bullocks and bet them with cheppals, abused them as “Madiga Lanja kodukullara meeku bhumi yekkadira adhi maa bhumi”. PW1 did not depose anything about beating them by accused with cheppals, simply PW1 deposed that accused bet them and there is no corroboration to the version of PW2. PW3 and PW4 who are the alleged eye witnesses, in fact, who rescued PW1 and PW2 deposed that accused No. 1 bet PW1 with cheppal, abused PW1 stating that “Madiga koduka neeku yekkadi bhumi” and accused No. 1 also abused PW2 in filthy language. PW2 oral testimony is contrary to the oral testimony of PW1, in fact, PW1 himself not deposed that accused No. 1 alone bet him and abused him. PW2 deposed that all the accused bet him. PW4 deposed that, when he was grazing the cattle in the field, he heard the hues and cries from the fields of PW1 and he along with PW3 rushed the said place and accused

No. 1 bet PW1 with cheppal and they were quarreled. PW4 did not depose about the injury caused or beating by accused to PW2.

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

12 of 15

21.As seen from PW1 to PW4 evidence, there is no corroboration to each other and each one is contradicting with other. Oral testimony and their oral evidence is contrary to the case of the prosecution.

22.Further it is the contention of the accused No. 1 to 7 that there are disputes between PW3 and PW4 with the accused family. Even, PW4 also admitted the said fact, as such, when there are disputes between the parties, it is not proper to rest upon the oral testimony of PW3 and PW4. Moreover, in the case on hand,

PW3 and PW4 did not give the details of their land to prove that their land adjacent to the disputed property or accused property.

Hence, oral testimony of PW1 to PW4 cannot be relied on.

22.PW5 who is the mediator for the Scene of Offence, and his oral testimony is not sufficient to prove any of the charges levelled against the accused.

23.PW6 is the family member of PW1 and PW2, he deposed that accused No. 1 to 7 came to the land allotted by the

Government to defacto complainant and her family members, abused them, bet them with cheppal and they also pushed LW1

Smt. Venkatamma who fell on the ground. PW6 made some more improvement to the case and there is no corroboration to the oral

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

13 of 15 testimony of PW6. Hence, oral testimony of PW1 to PW6 cannot be relied on to connect the accused with the alleged charges.

24.As seen from the record, PW7 and PW8 are the

Investigating Officers, when there are material omissions and contradictions in the oral testimony of PW1 to PW6, it is not proper to rely on the oral evidence of Investigating Officers and as per

PW8 Investigating Officer, LW1 Smt Venkatamma who is defacto complainant was not present at the scene of offence and accused also owned some land and they are claiming right. In the absence of establishment of perfect title of the defacto complainant over the disputed land, it is not proper to connect the accused No. 1 to 7 with the alleged charges levelled against them, when there are civil disputes between the parties.

24.Prosecution prima facie failed to prove the charges leveled against accused No. 1 to 7 and no case is made against accused No. 1 to 7. Hence they are entitled for acquittal.

25.Since prosecution failed to prove that defacto complainant was subjected to crime, hence defacto complainant is not entitled for any compensation.

In the result, the accused No. 1 to 7 are found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 447, 188, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(i)(v)

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

14 of 15

(x) of Scs/STs (POA) Act and accordingly they are acquitted

U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges.

The bail bonds of accused No. 1 to 7 shall be in force for 6 (six) months as contemplated U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 17th day of October, 2022.

F.A.C. Special Judge, for trial of cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

PROSECUTION:

PW1 Gurka Mogulappa

PW2Sale Narsappa

PW3Kadelolla Shekarappa

PW4K. Mohan

PW5E. Kanakappa

PW6G. Sayanna

PW7Thirupathaiah

PW8P. Sreenivas Reddy

DEFENCE:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex P1Scene of offence Panchanama

Ex P2Original F.I.R.

Ex P3Complaint receipt from the Court (Private Complaint)

Spl. S.C.No. 4 of 2016 Date: 17.10.2022

15 of 15

Ex P4Appointment Order by S.P.

Ex P5Appointment Order issued by S.P. to S.D.P.O.

Ex P6Signature of PW7 on Crime Detail Form

Ex P7Caste Certificate issued by Tahsildar

Ex P8Letter of R.D.O.

Ex P9Caste Certificate of Smt. Venkatamma

Ex P10Caste Certificate of accused issued by Tahsildar

DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

Nil

F.A.C. Special Judge, for trial of cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

S.C.No. 301 of 2019 1 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN-CUM-IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Thursday, this the 20th day of April, 2023

Present: Smt.Y.Padma, Spl.Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking The Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IV Addl. District And Sessions

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Sessions Case No. 301 of 2019

(Cr.No. 138 of 2018 of P.S. I-Town, Mahabubnagar)

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Inspector of Police, P.S. I-Town, Mahabubnagar.

2 Name of the accused Kampili Ranga, S/o: Shivanna @ Shiva Ramulu, Aged: 25 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Bolero Driver, R/o: H.No. 4-7-99/2/1, Kisan Nagar, Bandlageri, Mahabubnagar.

3 Offences complained of Accused for the offences U/Sec. 420, 506(i) and 376(2)(n) of I.P.C.

4 Crime No. & Name of the PS138 of 2018 of P.S. I-Town, Mahabubnagar.

5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

7 Sentence or order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 420, 506(i) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec.

235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

SC. 301 of 2019 2 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for 6 (six) months as contemplated

U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

The M.O.No.1 and M.O.No.2 cloths shall be destroyed after appeal time.

* * *

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Gaddam Gopal Advocate

for the accused and upon perusing the material on record,

and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- : : J U D G M E N T: :

Inspector of Police, P.S. I-Town, Mahabubnagar has filed a charge sheet against above named accused in Cr.No. 138 of 2018 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 417, 420 and 376 of IPC.

1.The case of the prosecution has set up in the charge sheet is that on 08-10-2018 LW1 victim approached LW17 SI of Police I Town PS

Mahabubnagar and lodged a complaint stating that accused who is resident of her locality, for the past 3 months following her on the name of love and marriage and he gave his mobile number to her and thereafter gave one mobile phone to her and they started talking over phone. Under

SC. 301 of 2019 3 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

guise of love and marriage he had intercourse with her. On 06-10-2018, during midnight accused telephoned her and took her out and had intercourse with her. When she demanded accused to marry her, he refused to marry her and cheated her and requested to take action.

2.Basing on said complaint, LW-17 Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. I-

Town, Mahabubnagar registered a case in Crime No. 138 of 2018 for the offences U/Sec. 417 and 420 of IPC and thereafter during course of investigation statement of victim was recorded and thereafter altered and added section of law to Sec.376 of IPC. Then LW-18 Inspector of Police,

P.S. I-Town, Mahabubnagar took up investigation and he examined all material witnesses and collected all material evidence and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against accused for offences U/Sec. 417, 420 and 376 of IPC.

3.Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar took cognizance for the offences under Section 417, 420 and 376 of IPC and registered as PRC No. 8 of 2019 and issued summons to accused.

4. On appearance of accused case copies were furnished to him under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

SC. 301 of 2019 4 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

5. The Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mahabubnagar by the committal order dated 18.11.2019, committed the case to Hon’ble Prl.

District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar, who registered the same as

S.C.No. 301 of 2019 and made over to this Court, for trial and disposal as per law.

6. On appearance of accused my predecessor heard on charges and charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 420, 506(i) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and read over and explained to him in

Telugu and he pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of prosecution, PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P12 and MO-1 and MO-2 were marked. Learned Additional P.P has given up the evidence of LW-2 who is brother of victim, LW-7 who is mediator for seizure panchanama, LW-12 and LW-13 Doctors who examined victim and accused, LW-14 Woman Police Constable No. 1973 who recorded the statement of victim, LW-15 Doctor who issued FSL report , LW-16 Magistrate who recorded the statement of victim U/Sec.

164 Cr.P.C., LW-17 Investigating officer, since other material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and no other specific purpose would be served by examining them. Evidence of LW-8 and LW-9 who are

SC. 301 of 2019 5 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

mediators for scene of offence panchanama is closed on the report of

Police. The prosecution has closed the evidence of LW-5 since he reported died.

8. After completion of examination of prosecution witnesses accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and explained all the incriminating material available against accused and he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges under Section 420, 506 (i) and 376(2) (n) of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

POINT:-

In order to prove the case of prosecution, it relied on oral testimony of PWs1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P12 and M.Os.No.1 and 2.

11.The Learned in-charge additional P.P argued that accused having knowledge that he has no intention to marry PW1 victim and no scope to marry victim, misrepresented her and had intercourse and thereafter refused to marry her and thereby cheated her and oral testimony of PWs 1

SC. 301 of 2019 6 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

to 4 and PW7 is sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged charges and accused is liable for conviction. On the other hand, learned defence

Counsel argued that PW1 is a major and she knows what is bad and what is good and believing the words of a married person itself creates a doubt with regard to the happening of the incident and PWs 1 to 3 are interested witnesses and there is no clarity with regard to the place of offence and there are material omissions and contradictions hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. As seen from the Ex.P1 complaint in it, victim stated that accused is resident of her locality , for the past 3 months he followed her, and gave mobile phone and under the guise of marriage, accused had intercourse with several times and on 06-10-2018 during midnight called her and took her out and had intercourse. When she was examined by the

Police her statement is almost similar to Ex.P1 and further stated that at about 2 months ago on the terrace of her house had intercourse and they used to meet now and then and had intercourse on 06-10-2018 on the terrace of house of her sister.

13.In the case on hand, admittedly statement of victim was recorded by Magistrate on 18-01-2019 and she stated to Magistrate on oath that

SC. 301 of 2019 7 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

accused who is resident of her locality, for the past 3 months followed her, when she was going to coolie work and gave mobile and insisted over mobile to speak with her and to come out. On 06-10-2017, accused asked her to come to house of her sister which is under construction and by putting her under fear of threat, in midnight at 12.00 A.M., had intercourse forcibly on the terrace.

14.When PW1 was examined before this Court, she deposed that two months prior to lodging of Ex.P1 complaint, she got acquaintance with accused while she was attending coolie work and accused used to insist over a phone to marry her. On 06-10-2018, during night hours when she was at the house of her elder sister accused asked her to come to terrace of said house and committed rape and thereafter accused stated to her that he has no intention to marry her. Then, she informed to her sister-in-law, after two days of said incident, she went to Police station and gave complaint.

15.As seen from the oral testimony of PW1 there are lot of material omissions and contradictions. Admittedly neither PW1 nor Investigating

Officer disclosed the mobile number of accused and victim and no mobile phone was seized from accused and victim and even call data is not filed.

SC. 301 of 2019 8 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

In fact, said call data is helpful to connect the accused with victim and more particularly the alleged date of incident that occurred on 06-10- 2018.

16.Furthermore, as seen from the depositions of PWs1 to 3, accused and victim are residing in the same locality therefore, all of them are having knowledge about each other. Whereas it is the case of accused that he already got married and having children, making the victim to believe that he would marry her is not possible. In the case on hand,

PW1 denied about her knowledge about marital status of the accused, however since PWs 1 to 3 admitted that accused is residing in the same locality, from the same one can presume that everyone is having knowledge about other, therefore there is every possibility to PWs 1 to 3 to have knowledge about the marital status of accused. Further more it is for the Prosecution to prove that PWs No.1 to 3 had no knowledge about marital status of accused. Admittedly prosecution failed to prove that

Pws No.1 to 3 had no knowledge about accused. PW-1 is a major and having knowledge what is good and what is bad. When accused is married person and he promising the victim that he would marry her and

PW-1 who is a major believing his words and participating in sex is unbelievable because PW-1 knows that there is no possibility to accused

SC. 301 of 2019 9 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

to marry her as already he had a wife. Further PW-1 having knowledge of said fact moving closely with accused shows that PW-1 is having knowledge of consequences and there is no scope for misrepresentation or misconception of fact.

17.In the case on hand it is the contention of the accused that there is no relationship between him and PW-1. PW-1 keeping quiet when accused insisting her to marry him and following her and not disclosing said fact to any of the family members is quite unnatural. Furthermore as per PW-1 during midnight she met the accused without notice of other family members and said conduct of the victim also shows that she is consenting party.

18.In the case on hand after two days of the alleged incident she reported to Police and delay is not explained. PW-1 improved her version before this Court stating that accused had intercourse forcibly but

PW-1 not making alarm and not alerting any one and not disclosing said incident immediately also gives scope to doubt the oral testimony of PW- 1 or gives presumption that no such incident took place or no force used by accused . Therefore oral testimony of PW1 is not sufficient to connect the accused with alleged charges.

SC. 301 of 2019 10 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

19.In the case on hand PW-2 who is sister-in-law of PW-1, PW-3 who is own sister of PW-1 also corroborated the version of PW-1. Whereas,

PW-2 and PW-3 are not deposed that they have seen PW-1 along with accused at any time and their oral testimony is basing on the information given by PW-1. Therefore, their testimony cannot be believed, more particularly when this Court considers that oral testimony of PW1 is un trust worthy.

20.In the case on hand PW-4 is the mediator for the seizure of MO-1 night gown wore by PW-1 at the time of alleged incident and PW-4 supported the case of the prosecution. Whereas her testimony is only sufficient to prove that Police seized MO-1. Admittedly MO-1 was examined by the FSL authorities under Ex-P9 and no sperm was found on it and further it was seized after 3 days of the alleged incident, therefore one cannot expect presence of any incriminating material on it. Therefore, oral testimony of PW-4 and MO-1 and Ex-P2 are not sufficient to connect the accused with alleged charges.

21.In the case on hand PW-5 and PW-6 are the mediators for the confession panchanama of accused and seizure of MO-2 and they have not supported the case of the prosecution, even if they have supported

SC. 301 of 2019 11 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

their oral testimony is not sufficient to connect the accused with alleged charges since confession made by accused to Police even in the presence of mediators is not admissible and further MO-2 was seized after 4 days of the incident and further no incriminating material was found on it.

22.In the case on hand PW-7 is the investigating officer he corroborated the manner and mode of the investigation conducted by him.

In the case on hand admittedly Investigating Officer not examined any of the independent witnesses who has seen accused and PW-1 together and further no explanation is offered for not seizing the mobile phones of accused and victim and for not collecting mobile numbers and mobile data. At present there is no material to prove that accused induced the victim to cohabit. In view of above stated circumstance prosecution failed to prove that accused had intercourse with PW-1 under misconception of fact and thereafter cheated her and threatened her. Therefore accused is entitled for acquittal.

The point is answered accordingly.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.

420, 506 (i) and 376(2)(n) of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec.

235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

SC. 301 of 2019 12 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for 6 (six) months as contemplated U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

MO-1 and MO-2 cloths shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Copyist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 20 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-

Spl. Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking The Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IV Addl. District And

Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW1: Victim.

PW2: Sister-in-law of victim.

PW3: Elder sister of victim.

PW4: K. Jhansi.

PW5: A. Gangadhar.

PW6: G. Naresh.

PW7: B. Rajesh (Investigating Officer).

DEFENCE:

-None-

SC. 301 of 2019 13 of 13 Dt: 20.04.2023.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: is Complaint given by PW-1.

EX.P2: is Seizure panchanama.

EX.P3: is signature of PW-5 on the confession cum recovery panchanama.

EX.P4: is signature of PW-6 on the confession cum recovery panchanama.

EX.P5: is original F.I.R.

EX.P6: is section alteration memo.

EX.P7: is Original CDF.

Ex.P8: is Preliminary report.

Ex.P9: is FSL report.

Ex.P10: is final opinion.

Ex.P11: is seizure panchanama.

Ex.P12: is potency report.

DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

MO-1 is black night gown with white and red flowery design. MO-2 is blue color inner wear.

Sd/-

Spl.Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking The Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IV Addl. District And

Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

S.C.No. 340 of 2021 1 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST

TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST

WOMEN-CUM-IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR.

Thursday, this the 13th day of April, 2023

Present: Smt.Y.Padma, Spl.Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking The Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IV Addl. District And Sessions

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Sessions Case No. 340 of 2021

(Cr.No. 98 of 2018 of P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural)

1 Name of the complainantThe State of Telangana through Circle Inspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural.

2 Name of the accused Moodavath Ravi Naik, S/o: Mangya Naik, Age: 26 years, Caste: ST (Lambada), Occ: Auto Driver, R/o: Kanaipally Thanda, H/o: Lingupally Village, Koilkonda Mandal, now at TD Gutta, Mahabubnagar.

3 Offences complained of Accused for the offences U/Sec. 376(2)(n) and 498 of I.P.C.

4 Crime No. & Name of the PS98 of 2018 of P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural 5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

7 Sentence or order In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec. 376(2)(n) and 498 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

SC. 340 of 2021 2 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for 6 (six) months as contemplated

U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

* * *

This case is coming up before me for final hearing in the presence of Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri. Syed Nooruddin Advocate for the accused and upon perusing the material on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:- : : J U D G M E N T: :

Circle Inspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural has filed a charge sheet against above named accused in Cr.No. 98 of 2018 for the offences punishable U/Secs. 376(1), 420 and 417 of IPC.

1.The case of the prosecution as set up in the charge sheet is that on 20-03-2018 LW1 father in law of victim approached LW12 S.I of Police,

Mahabubnagar Rural P.S and lodged a complaint stating that LW2 victim is residing in Mahabubnagar in a rented house for the past 2 years. While so on 15-03-2018, at about 10.00 AM, he came to know that Lw2 victim went away along with accused and took away Rs.1,80,000/- in cash, 3 thulas of gold and also took away 3 years old daughter by leaving her son

SC. 340 of 2021 3 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

in the rented house itself and requested to trace victim and take action against accused.

2.Basing on said complaint, LW-12 Sub Inspector of Police, P.S.

Mahabubnagar Rural registered a case in Crime No. 98 of 2018 for the offences under Woman and Girl Missing and thereafter LW-13 Circle inspector of Police, P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural took up investigation.

During course of investigation victim was traced and on recording her statement, altered and added section of law to Sec.376, 420 and 417 of

IPC. After examination of all material witnesses and collection of all material evidence, filed charge sheet against accused for offences U/Sec.

376(1), 420 and 417 of IPC.

3.Learned Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition and

Excise) Court, Mahabubnagar took cognizance for the offences under

Section 376(1), 376 (2)(n), 417 and 420 of IPC and registered as PRC No.

8 of 2019 and issued summons to accused.

4. On appearance of accused case copies were furnished to him under

Section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The Learned Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, (Prohibition and Excise) Court, Mahabubnagar by the committal order dt: 30.09.2021,

SC. 340 of 2021 4 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

committed the case to Hon’ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

Mahabubnagar who registered the same as S.C. No. 340 of 2021 and made over to this Court, for trial and disposal as per law.

6. On appearance of accused, heard on charges and charges were framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 376(2)(n) and 498 of IPC and read over and explained to him in telugu and he pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of prosecution, PWs 1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to

P9 were marked. Learned Additional P.P has given up the evidence of

LW4 who is father of victim, LW-7 who is mediator for scene of offence,

LW-8 Doctor who examined victim, LW-10 Magistrate who recorded the statement of victim U/Sec. 164 Cr.P.C., LW-11 Woman Police Constable

No. 2106, who recorded the statement of victim, LW-12 Investigating officer, since other material witnesses supported the case of the prosecution and medical record of Victim and FSL reports were marked through Investigating Officer and no other specific purpose would be served by examining them.

8. After completion of examination of prosecution witnesses accused was examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C. and explained all the

SC. 340 of 2021 5 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

incriminating material available against accused and he denied the same and reported no evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard.

10.Now the point for determination is:

Whether prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges under Section 376(2) (n) and 498 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

POINT:-

In Order to prove the case of prosecution, it relied on oral testimony of PWs1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P9.

11.The learned in-charge additional P.P argued that accused having knowledge that PW1 victim is a married woman, enticed her and detained her in Pune and had intercourse with her repeatedly and oral testimony of

PW1 is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused, hence accused is liable for punishment for the charges leveled against him. On the other hand, learned counsel for accused argued that there is no force used by accused and there is no material on record to prove that accused took away the

PW1 and had intercourse and PW1 has not lodged any complaint against accused, therefore PW1 evidence cannot be believed, hence accused is entitled for acquittal.

SC. 340 of 2021 6 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

12.In the case on hand, before appreciating the oral testimony of PW1 who is the victim and competent witness, it is just and necessary to ascertain whether oral testimony of PW2 to 7 is sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged charge.

13.In the case on hand, the admitted fact is that PW1 is a married woman and having two children.

14.PW2 who is defacto complainant and father-in-law of victim deposed that about 12 years ago marriage of PW1 was performed with his son and his son is residing in Soudi and about 2 years ago PW1 shifted to

Mahabubnagar town and stayed in a rented house for the studies of children. PW1 went away along with daughter and also took away 3 thulas of gold and Rs.1,80,000/- of cash and he approached the Police and lodged complaint.

15.The oral testimony of Pw2 is sufficient to prove that Pw1 went missing along with her daughter, for some period and PW2 lodged complaint with the Police about the said missing.

16.PW3 is mother of the victim she also deposed that about 12 years ago she performed marriage of PW1 with the son of PW2 and PW1 shifted to Mahabubnagar town and stayed in a rented house. Accused

SC. 340 of 2021 7 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

was introduced to PW1 through cousin of victim and thereafter accused took away the PW1 to Pune and after months PW1 returned.

17.In the case on hand, the cousin of the victim was examined as PW5 through whom accused came into contact with PW1, as per the

Prosecution’s case, whereas when she examined before this Court, she has not supported the version of PW1 and PW3 and Prosecution and she became hostile to the case of the Prosecution and she deposed that she does not know accused and she has not seen him at any time.

18.In the absence of corroboration of PW5, the oral testimony of PW3 is not sufficient to prove that accused had acquaintance with PW1 and he took away PW1 to Pune. Furthermore even if it is considered that accused and PW1 went to Pune, there is no material on record to prove that accused induced the PW1 and took her to Pune. Both parties are majors and PW1 is having living spouse and children therefore PW1 is having knowledge that there is no possibility to accused to marry her.

Therefore Prosecution must establish the inducement with cogent evidence.

19.PW4 is the mediator for the Ex.P2 C.D.F and he corroborated the case of the prosecution in respect of visit of PW7 Investigating Officer to

SC. 340 of 2021 8 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

the house where PW1 allegedly stayed as a tenant. His evidence and

Ex.P2 is only sufficient to prove that PW1 stayed in the said house for some period and thereafter she went missing for some period but, his evidence is not sufficient to prove that accused himself took away the

PW1 or accused committed some offence against PW1.

20.PW6 is the Doctor who examined the accused and issued Ex.P4 potency report. Her evidence and Ex.P4 is only sufficient to prove that accused can perform sexual act. Whereas mere establishing that accused can perform sexual act itself is not sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged charges. Prosecution must establish that accused committed sexual assault against PW1.

21.PW7 is the investigating Officer and he corroborated the case of the Prosecution and proved manner and mode of the investigation conducted by him.

22.Now this Court has to see whether oral testimony of PW1 is sufficient to prove the charges leveled against accused. PW1 deposed that about 12 years ago her marriage was performed and her husband is residing in Soudi. When she was residing in Mahabubnagar along with children, PW5 introduced accused to her and thereafter accused used to

SC. 340 of 2021 9 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

call her regularly and he promised her to marry. Thereafter took her along with daughter to Pune by leaving her 7 years old son at rented house. She stayed in Pune for 3 months, thereafter accused left her at

Pune and went away and stopped attending her calls. After 2 months she returned from Pune and narrated the incident to her parents. She conceived through accused but aborted. Subsequently she came to know that PW2 who is her father-in-law lodged the complaint. During cross examination she deposed that she has not obtained divorce from her husband and they went to Pune by bus and voluntarily stayed with accused. No document is filed to say that she conceived through accused.

23.In the case on hand, it is the contention of the PW1 that accused was introduced to her through PW5, accused promised her to marry and took her to Pune. Admittedly PW5 not supported the version of PW1.

Further it is admitted fact that PW1 is a married woman and having children and she has not obtained divorce from her husband. Accused making a promise to marry her and believing the words of accused that he would marry her is unbelievable because there is no possibility to accused to marry PW1 during subsistence of her first marriage. In the case on hand, it is not the contention of PW1 that accused misrepresented that he is legally married husband of PW1. The oral testimony of PW1 shows

SC. 340 of 2021 10 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

that she voluntarily moved closely with accused and he has not moved with PW1 against her will. When there is no misrepresentation or force or when accused has not acted against the will of PW1 no offence is made out against the accused under Section-498 of IPC, therefore, accused is entitled for acquittal for the said charge.

24.In the case on hand, PW1 deposed that she went to Pune and stayed for about 3 months and she has not resisted acts of accused and not made any complaint against accused at Pune or even thereafter. In fact, PW1 deposed that she voluntarily went along with accused and stayed which shows that there is no force or misrepresentation, hence it appears that

PW1 consented party therefore, offence under Section.376(2) (n) is not made. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal for the said charge.

25.In the case on hand, prosecution prima facie failed to prove that

PW1 is a victim of a crime and even as per PW1 she voluntarily went along with accused therefore, she is not considered as a victim of a crime.

Hence, PW1 is not entitled for any compensation.

The point is answered accordingly.

SC. 340 of 2021 11 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offences U/Sec.

376(2)(n) and 498 of IPC and he is accordingly acquitted U/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the said charges.

The bail bonds of accused shall be in force for 6 (six) months as contemplated U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Assitant, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, this the 13 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/-

Spl. Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking The Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IV Addl. District And

Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:

PW1: Victim.

PW2: Complainant-cum- Father-in-law of victim.

PW3: Mother of victim.

PW4: M. Shiva Kumar.

PW5: Cousin of victim.

PW6: Dr. K. Parvathi.

PW7: Investigating Officer

DEFENCE:

-None-

SC. 340 of 2021 12 of 12 Dt: 13.04.2023.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: is Complaint given by PW-2.

EX.P2: is CDF.

EX.P3: is Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-5.

EX.P4: is report given by PW-6.

EX.P5: is original F.I.R.

EX.P6: is alteration memo.

EX.P7: is preliminary report.

Ex.P8: is FSL report.

Ex.P9: is final opinion.

DEFENCE:

Nil

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

Sd/-

Spl.Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking The Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IV Addl. District And

Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 1 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDGE FOR TRAIL OF CASES UNDER

SC/STs (POA) ACT-CUM-II ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MAHABUBNAGAR

Friday, this the 14th day of October, 2022

Present: Smt. Y. Padma, Spl. Sessions Judge For Fast Tracking The Cases Relating To Atrocities Against Women-Cum-IV Addl. District And Sessions

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

F.A.C. Special Judge, for trial of cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. District and Sessions

Judge, Mahabubnagar.

Spl. Sessions Case No. 41 of 2017

(Cr.No. 156 of 2016 of P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural)

1 Name of the The State of Telangana through P.S. complainantMahabubnagar Rural.

2 Name of the accusedA1) Kurva Naresh S/o. Narsimulu, age: 30 years, Caste: Kurva, Occ: Business,R/o.Veerannapet, Mahabubnagar. A2) Golla Gopal S/o. Sayanna, age: 33 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Adavi Venkatapur Village of Mahabubnagar Mandal. A3) Katravath Raju @ Rajesh s/o. Lal Singh @ Nan Singh, age: 25 years, Caste: Lambada, Occ: Auto Driver, R/ o. Goi Bai Thanda, H/o. Venkatapur Village of Mahabubnagar Mandal.

3 Offences complained For the offences under Sec. 324, 506 ofr/w. 34 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of S.C/STs (POA) Act.

4 Crime No. & Name of 156 of 2016 of P.S. Mahabubnagar the PSRural.

5 Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty.

6 Finding of the CourtFound not guilty.

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 2 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

7 Sentence or order In the result, the accused No. 1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 324, 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2) (va) of SC/STs (POA) Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges.

The bail bonds of accused No. 1 to 3 shall be in force for 6 (six) months as contemplated U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

The un-marked case property i-e., Bamboo stick deposited in C.P.No. 19/2017 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

This case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. Rambaksh, Spl. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Shiva Kumar, Advocate for the accused and upon hearing both sides and perusing the material on record, this Court delivered the following:

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

Sub Divisional Police Officer, Mahabubnagar filed a Charge sheet in Cr.No. 156 of 2016 of P.S. Mahabubnagar Rural against the above named accused for the offence Sec. 324, 506 r/w. 34 of

I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of S.C/STs (POA) Act.

2. The case of the Prosecution as set up in the charge sheet is that on 05-05-2016 at about 19:00 hours, LW1 defacto complaint approached LW11 S.I. of Police, Mahabubnagar Rural

P.S. and lodged a complaint stating that on 03-05-2016 at about 9:00 P.M. he dropped LW1 Golla Kurmaiah at his fields by his

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 3 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

motorcycle and while he was returning, when he reached Gol Bavi

Thanda, accused No. 1 to 3 who were proceeding by a Car stopped him, had galata with him and bet him, then he telephoned to LW2 and LW3 who are his brothers and informed the same, on which LW2 and LW3 came there and then accused

No. 1 to 3 also had galata with LW2 and LW3 and bet them.

Accused No. 1 to 3 bet LW2 on his head and caused bleeding injury and bet LW3 Ravi on his hand with stick and caused bleeding injury. Accused No. 1 to 3 had galata with them by keeping in mind the previous grudges. After the galata they approached village elders to resolve the issue, since it was not settled, they approached Police and hence, delay was caused and requested to take action.

3.Basing on the said complaint, LW11 S.I. of Police,

Mahabubnagar Rural P.S. registered a case in Cr.No. 156/2016 for the offence U/Sec. Sec. 324, 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(x) of

S.C/STs (POA) Act. Thereafter LW12 on his appointment as

Investigating Officer took up investigation and completed the investigation and thereafter, LW13 filed charge sheet against accused for the offence Sec. 324, 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)

(s) and 3(2)(va) of S.C/STs (POA) Act.

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 4 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

4.Taken on file for the offence under Section 324, 506 r/w.

34 of I.P.C. and 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of S.C/STs (POA) Act against

Accused No. 1 and 2 and for the offence under Section 324 and 506 r/w. 34 I.P.C. against accused No. 3.

5.On appearance of accused, case copies were furnished to them U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

6.Heard on charges and charges were framed against the accused No. 2 to 6 for the offence U/Sec. 324, 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C.

and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/STs (POA) Act and read over and explained to them and they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.On behalf of Prosecution PWs1 to 10 were examined and

Ex.P1 to P15 were marked. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW9 Doctor, LW10 Tahsildar who issued

Caste Certificate of accused and LW13 Investigating Officer who filed Charge Sheet, since no purpose would be served by examining them.

8. After completion of examination of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances available against the accused was explained to them U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., examination

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 5 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

and they denied the same and reported no evidence, on their behalf.

9.Heard both sides.

10. Now the Point for determination is:

“Whether Prosecution could able to prove the guilty of the accused for the charge U/Sec. 324, 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and

Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/STs (POA) Act, beyond all reasonable doubts”.

Point:

In order to prove case of the prosecution, it relied on an oral testimony of PW1 to PW10 and Exs.P1 to P15.

11.The learned Public Prosecutor argued that, accused No.

1 to 3 in furtherance of their common intention having knowledge that PW1 to PW3 belongs to ST (Lambada) Community bet them and caused simple injuries to them and oral testimony of PW1 to

PW10 is sufficient to connect the accused with the alleged charges.

12.On the other hand learned Counsel for accused argued that PW1 initially in his chief examination supported the case of

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 6 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

the prosecution, but during cross-examination deposed that he settled the matter out of the Court and further there are material omissions and contradictions in the oral testimony of PW1 and even PW2 and PW3 who are the brothers of PW1 not supported the case of the prosecution and PW4 to PW6 who are the mediators and the eye witnesses to the said incident not supported the case of the prosecution. PW7 and PW8 who are the mediators for the panchanama, even they have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW9 and PW10 are the Investigating

Officers, except oral testimony of Investigating Officer, there is no material on record to connect the accused with the alleged charges, hence, accused are entitled for acquittal.

13.As seen from the record, PW1 is the defacto complainant and victim, when he examined before this Court, he deposed that on 03-05-2016, he dropped Golla Kurmaiah in his agriculture fields by his motorcycle and while he was returning when he reached Golvai thanda, he noticed accused No. 1 to 3 were consuming beer. Accused No. 3 caught hold his collar.

Accused No. 1 and 2 bet him with hands, meanwhile, he called

PW1 and PW3 and they came to said place and accused No. 1 to 3 also had galata them and bet them and accused No. 1 bet PW2

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 7 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

with a small knife on his head and accused No. 1 and 2 abused them on the name of caste.

14.Whereas in Ex.P1 Complaint, PW1 stated that accused were proceeding by Car and on seeing him stopped him and had galata with him, abused him on the name of caste and when he called his brothers, they came to the said place and accused bet

PW2 who is his brother with knife on his head and also bet PW3 with stick on his hand and caused bleeding injuries. PW1 not mentioned in Ex.P1 and even not mentioned in his 161 Cr.P.C. that accused No. 1 to 3 were consuming Beer and accused No. 3 caught hold his collar, which is material omission. PW1 to PW3 were sent to the Medical Officer for examination and doctor examined them and issued reports. As per PW1, PW2 and PW3 received bleeding injuries, whereas, the Medical Officer is contrary to the same. In Ex.P10 to P13, Doctor mentioned that she has not noticed any external injuries to PW1 to PW3. Furthermore, in the case on hand, PW2 and PW3 deposed that they have not received any injuries in the hands of accused No. 1 to 3, except oral testimony of PW1, there is no material on record to prove that

PW1 to PW3 received injuries on 03-05-2016.

15.In the case on hand PW4 is the person whom PW1 dropped at his fields and while returning said galata took place,

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 8 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

whereas, when PW4 examined before this Court, even he has not deposed anything against accused and stated that, PW5 approached him at his fields, thereafter, he heard that while PW1 was returning, there was a galata between PW1 and accused No. 1 to 3 and accused bet PW3. In fact, PW4 deposed that he does not know anything about the present case.

16.In the case on hand, PW5 and PW6 are the eye witnesses, even when they are examined before this Court, they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have not deposed anything about the alleged galata between PW1 to PW3 and accused No. 1 to 3. PW6 and PW7 are the mediators to the alleged panchanama conducted by Investigating Officer, even they have not supported the case of the prosecution and even not supported seizure of any property. Even, if they have supported, their oral testimony is only sufficient to prove that Investigating

Officer visited particular place, but their testimony is not sufficient to prove that accused had galata and caused injuries to PW1 to

PW3.

17.In the case on hand, prosecution prima facie failed to prove that accused No. 1 to 3 had galata with PW1 to PW3 and caused injuries. When defacto complainant and injured themselves not supported the case of the prosecution, it is not

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 9 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

proper to rest on the oral testimony of PW9 and PW10

Investigating Officers to connect the accused with the alleged charges.

18.Prosecution prima facie failed to prove the charges leveled against accused and no case is made against accused.

Hence they are entitled for acquittal.

19.In the case on hand, though PW1 to certain extent corroborated the case of the prosecution and contended that he is subjected to crime, as there is no medical evidence and it is not established that some offence is committed against PW1, therefore, PW1 is not entitled for any compensation.

In the result, the accused No. 1 to 3 are found not guilty of the offence U/Sec. 324, 506 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/STs (POA) Act and accordingly they are acquitted U/Sec.235 (1) Cr.P.C for the said charges.

The bail bonds of accused No. 1 to 3 shall be in force for 6 (six) months as contemplated U/Sec.437 (A) of Cr.P.C.

The un-marked case property i-e., Bamboo stick deposited in

C.P.No. 19/2017 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 14th day of October, 2022.

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 10 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

F.A.C. Special Judge, for trial of cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

(Witnesses examined)

PROSECUTION:

PW1 K. Laxman

PW2Kethavath Ramesh

PW3Kethavath Ravi @ Ravinder

PW4Golla Kurmaiah

PW5K. Ravi

PW6G. Anjanna

PW7K. venkatesh

PW8Katravath Vindo

PW9G. Rajeshwar Goud

PW10P. Krishna Murthy

DEFENCE:

-None-

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:

Ex P1Complaint

Ex P2161 CrPC Statement of PW2

Ex P3161 CrPC Statement of PW3

Ex P4161 CrPC Statement of PW4

Ex P5161 CrPC Statement of PW5

Ex P6161 CrPC Statement of PW6

Ex P7Signature of PW7 on Panchanama

Ex P8Signature of PW8 on Panchanama

Ex P9F.I.R.

Ex P10Appointing Letter

Spl. S.C.No. 41 of 2017 11 of 11 Date: 14.10.2022

Ex P11Wound Certificate of PW1

Ex P12Wound Certificate of PW2

Ex P13Wound Certificate of PW3

Ex P14Crime Detail Form

Ex P15Caste Verification Report

DEFENCE:

- Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

- Nil -

F.A.C. Special Judge, for trial of cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-cum- II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar.