Gandla Rajender and Ot Vs. State of A.P., Rep.by Its Public Prosecu - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1170303
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided OnFeb-12-2014
JudgeTHE HON?BLESRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HON?BLE SR
AppellantGandla Rajender and Ot
RespondentState of A.P., Rep.by Its Public Prosecu
Excerpt:
the honble sri justice l. narasimha reddy and the honble sri justice criminal appeal no.80 of 2012 12-02-2014 gandla rajender and others appellants state of a.p., rep.by its public prosecutor,high court of a.p., hyderabad...respondent counsel for appellants :a.gayatri reddy counsel for respondent :public prosecutor head note: ?.cases referred : hon'ble sri justice l. narasimha reddy and hon'ble sri justice m.s.k.jaiswal criminal appeal no.80 of 2012 judgment: (per honble sri justice msk jaiswal) appellants no.1 and 2 are spouses and the 3rd appellant is said to be their friend. all the three were charge-sheeted by the sub-divisional police officer, kamareddy, for the offences punishable under sections 302 read with 34 of i.p.c., and section 3(2)(v) of the sc/st (poa) act, 1989, in the court of special judge for trial of cases under scs/sts (poa) act, nizamabad. through judgment, dated 30-12-2011, the trial court found the accused guilty of the charges, convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life on both the counts together with fine of rs.100/-, in default, sentence of simple imprisonment for two months.2. the facts presented by the prosecution are as under: smt.koneti mary prabhavathi (p.w.1) is the first wife of koneti devidas (l.w.2), who is working as a police constable. they had one son, by name prakash (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and daughter by name mounika. devidas has taken one gangamani as his second wife and that lead to the disputes between p.w.1 and gangamani. p.w.1 and her two children started living in harijanwada, kamareddy, whereas devidas, and gangamani, were living in police quarters. a.1 is also a police constable and he too was residing in the police quarters along with his wife a.2. a.1 and a.2 had a daughter by name nandini. it is alleged that the deceased prakash used to tease nandini when he visited his fathers (l.w.2) residence. on 5-12-2007 at about 12.30 noon, a.1 and a.2 along with their friend a.3 are alleged to have beat the deceased. while a.1 is alleged to have beat the deceased with a small stick, a.2 and a.3 are said to have assaulted the deceased with hands. it was alleged that immediately, the parents of the deceased came and took the injured to their house. at about 5.30 p.m., the mother of the deceased (p.w.1) filed a complaint, ex.p.6 with the sub-inspector of police, kamareddy, and on its basis, crime no.347 of 2007 was registered and f.i.r. (ex.p.7) was issued. the injured was firstly treated by p.w.8 at the government hospital, kamareddy and since brain haemorrhage was suspected, he was referred to gandhi hospital, hyderabad. on 12-12-2007, in the evening hours, the injured succumbed to the injuries. inquest was conducted and body was subjected to post-mortem examination by p.w.12. as per post-mortem examination report ex.p.16, the cause of death is said to be the head injury. investigation was commenced; but the conclusion thereof was delayed. it was in october, 2009, that p.w.9 recorded the statements of the witnesses and laid the charge-sheet before the judicial magistrate of first class, kamareddy, where it was registered as p.r.c.no.86 of 2009. after complying with the statutory requirements of code of criminal procedure, the learned magistrate has committed the case to the special judge for trial of cases under scs/sts (poa) actcumviii additional district judge, nizamabad and the same was numbered as s.c.no.15 of 2010.3. charges constituting offences under sections 302 read with 34 of i.p.c., and section 3(2)(v) of the sc/st (poa) act, 1989, were framed. the accused pleaded not guilty. to prove its case, prosecution examined p.ws.1 to 12 and produced exs.p.1 to p.16.4. the learned special judge found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.5. the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants- accused is that the entire case has been concocted against the accused due to professional rivalry between a.1 so also father of the deceased, who are constables. it is submitted that there is abnormal delay at every stage including lodging of the complaint, forwarding the f.i.r. to the magistrate, recording of the statements of the witnesses and completion of the investigation, and it speaks about the intention of the police officials to implicate the accused, who had some differences with his colleagues in the department. it is also submitted that the evidence is not at all reliable and the learned judge erred in resting his conclusion upon the evidence of p.ws.2 and 3 and finding the accused guilty of the offences.6. learned public prosecutor submits that the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly opined that p.ws.2 and 3, who are the natural witnesses, and there is no illegality in the finding that the accused are guilty. she submits that judgment of the trial court is based on the reliable testimony of the eye-witnesses, and it does not warrant any interference.7. the point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction and sentence or whether it needs to be set aside, modified or varied?.8. a trivial incident said to have taken place at about 11.30 a.m., on 5-12-2007 is said to have lead to the death of a young boy, aged about 18 years, by name koneti prakash. the immediate provocation for the accused to commit the crime is said to be the conduct of the deceased in teasing a teenage daughter of a.1 by name nandini. the incident is said to have taken place in the midst of the police quarters, which incidentally happened to be just in front of the jurisdictional police station. the deceased is the son of p.w.1 and devidas (l.w.2) and they were living in a private locality whereas devidas was living with the second wife- gangamani in the police quarters. the deceased being the son of devidas used to visit the police quarters where a.1 was living.9. the fact that the deceased died due to injuries is not in controversy. the contentious aspect is as to whether it is the accused who caused the injuries to the deceased, which ultimately proved to be fatal about a week thereafter, needs to be examined. p.ws.2 and 3 are said to be the eye-witnesses. the other material witness namely the father of the deceased, who is a police constable, has not been examined, and for reasons best known to the prosecution, he has been given-up. the mother of the deceased, who is the de facto complainant, was examined as p.w.1 and she denied the case of the prosecution insofar as the involvement of the accused is concerned. she has categorically asserted that her son died, but a.1 to a.3 are not responsible therefor. she has even denied having lodged any complaint with the police. according to her, her husband (l.w.2) has obtained her signatures on blank papers and even though the signature part of it, which is marked as ex.p.1, is hers, she do not know the contents of it. she has been declared hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination, she denied having stated before the police as in ex.p.2.10. the entire case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence of p.ws.2 and 3, who are said to be the eye-witnesses. p.w.2 is a woman constable and p.w.3 is the assistant sub- inspector of police. p.w.2 stated that on the date of the incident, at about 11.30 a.m., she saw a.1 beating the deceased with a small stick and that a.2 and a.3 beat the deceased with hands. she stated that thereafter, the deceased was taken away by his father and after about 10 days, she came to know that the deceased died. in the cross-examination, it was elicited from her that she informed the police that it is the second wife of devidas, namely gangamani who beat the deceased.11. p.w.3 deposed that he has seen the incident which took place at about 11.30 a.m., where a.1 beat the deceased with a stick and a.2 and a.3 beat with hands. he further deposed that thereafter the second wife of devidas (l.w.2) took the injured to her house. in the cross-examination, it was elicited from him that he stated before the police that it is the second wife of l.w.2, by name gangamani who beat the deceased. he admitted in his cross-examination that on the date of the incident, his duty hours were from 7.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m. he sought to explain his presence, stating that he came to his house by taking permission for about half-an-hour.12. a careful perusal of the testimony of these two witnesses creates any amount of doubt as to its veracity insofar as the incident is concerned. it is in their evidence that not only the accused but also gangamani, the 2nd wife of devidas (father of the deceased), who beat the deceased, and immediately it is the 2nd wife of devidas, who took the deceased into her house. the incident is said to have taken place at about 11.30 in the morning. the police station is just in front of the quarters. p.ws.2 and 3, being police officials, are expected to know the requirement of lodging the complaint at the earliest point of time. for more than six hours, no complaint was filed. only at about 5.30 in the evening, the complaint ex.p.6 was lodged. the person, who sustained injuries at about 11.30 a.m., was not taken to the hospital till about 5.30 p.m. the medical officer (p.w.8) opined that the injured might have sustained the injuries within a period of five hours from the time of examination i.e., 5.00 p.m. if this is correct, the injured might have sustained injuries after 12.00 in the afternoon and till the injured was brought to the hospital, he was in semi-conscious state. it was informed to p.w.8, the doctor that the injured was beaten by few persons, who have not been named or identified. the alleged assailants were not strangers.13. it is further noticed from the record that it has been consistently stated by the witnesses that gangamani, the 2nd wife of devidas, who beat the deceased, but her name has been deleted from the charge-sheet even though she was specifically named in the f.i.r. no doubt, it is for the investigating agency to either charge a person or delete someone. however, when same evidence is available against all the four persons, exclusion of one person and charge-sheeting the three, creates any amount of doubt about the dependability of the investigation.14. the record reveals the lop-side nature of the investigation, that has been carried out by even senior officers. the complaint ex.p.6 was lodged with p.w.7 at about 5.30 p.m. on 5-12-2007, though the incident is said to have taken place at 11.00 a.m. the f.i.r. ex.p.7 was issued immediately. the court of judicial magistrate of first class is just about one furlong from the police station and even the house of the judicial magistrate of first class is just 2 k.ms. away. the f.i.r. in the crime of such gravity has reached the magistrate only at about 11.30 a.m., on 6-12-2007. this abnormal delay would certainly affect the case of the prosecution, particularly, in view of the lack of clarity and other circumstances.15. it is further noticed from the record that the statements of the witnesses were recorded on as many as four occasions. though the f.i.r. itself was registered at about 5.30 p.m., on 5-12-2007, p.w.3 who is the a.s.i. of police, categorically stated that his statement was recorded on 5-12-2007 in the afternoon itself. it is apparent that the complaint, which was taken on record at about 5.30 p.m., is not the one received at the earliest point of time before the investigation in the matter has commenced. the basis on which the investigation was carried out even before the complaint ex.p.6 was lodged, has not been explained. it is not as though p.w.3 is a layman. he is an assistant sub-inspector of police and the police examined him and his statement was recorded in the afternoon of 5-12-2007. if that be so, the case of the prosecution that the complaint was lodged at 5.30 p.m., on 5-12-2007 falls to the ground.16. in addition to the above, immediately after the death of the deceased on 12-12-2007, the investigation was taken up by the c.i. of police - pw.11, who has re-examined the witnesses. the statements of the eye-witnesses were recorded by the judicial magistrate of first class on a requisition from the police, on 29-3-2008. nearly two years after the incident, the investigation was taken up by the sub-divisional police officer (p.w.9) and he again recorded the statements of the witnesses. it is in the evidence of sub-divisional police officer that when he took up the investigation on 28.08.2009 itself, he has recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses two months thereafter. certainly this is not the way in which the investigation in a serious crime is to be conducted that too of the rank of sub-divisional police officer.17. we are conscious of the fact that latches on the part of the investigating agency or the perfunctory investigation by itself should not enure to the benefit of the accused. however, if such an investigation leads to a serious doubt about the involvement of the accused, benefit thereof should invariably be extended to the accused.18. as already stated, it is a case involving the police constables and there is said to be the professional rivalry in between them. a.1 is a police constable, so also devidas, the father of the deceased. the eye-witnesses to the incident are the a.s.i. of police and a woman police constable. the incident is said to have taken place in the midst of the police quarters that too in front of the police station. if these circumstances are taken into consideration, the way the investigating agency conducted itself, calls for a close scrutiny.19. upon perusing the evidence on record, we find it difficult to uphold the judgment of the learned special judge that the evidence of p.ws.2 and 3 is sufficient for establishing the guilt of the accused. serious defects, which are glaring at the face of the prosecution, are pointed in the preceding paragraphs. the judgment of the trial court cannot therefore be sustained. the same is liable to be set aside.20. in the result, the criminal appeal is allowed. the conviction and sentence ordered in s.c.no.15 of 2010 on the file of special judge for trial of cases under scs/sts(poa) act-cum-viii additional district judge at nizamabad, dated 30.12.2011, against the appellants-accused 1 to 3, are set aside. they shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed in respect of any other crime. the fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants- accused shall be refunded to them. _____________________ l.narasimha reddy,j.__________________ m.s.k. jaiswal,j.dt. 12.02.2014
Judgment:

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY and THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2012 12-02-2014 Gandla Rajender and others Appellants State of A.P., Rep.by its Public Prosecutor,High Court of A.P., Hyderabad...Respondent Counsel for appellants :A.Gayatri Reddy Counsel for respondent :Public Prosecutor HEAD NOTE: ?.CASES REFERRED : HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2012 JUDGMENT

: (Per Honble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal) Appellants No.1 and 2 are spouses and the 3rd appellant is said to be their friend. All the three were charge-sheeted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Kamareddy, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34 of I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, in the Court of Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (PoA) Act, Nizamabad. Through Judgment, dated 30-12-2011, the trial Court found the accused guilty of the charges, convicted and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life on both the counts together with fine of Rs.100/-, in default, sentence of simple imprisonment for two months.

2. The facts presented by the prosecution are as under: Smt.Koneti Mary Prabhavathi (P.W.1) is the first wife of Koneti Devidas (L.W.2), who is working as a Police Constable. They had one son, by name Prakash (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and daughter by name Mounika. Devidas has taken one Gangamani as his second wife and that lead to the disputes between P.W.1 and Gangamani. P.W.1 and her two children started living in Harijanwada, Kamareddy, whereas Devidas, and Gangamani, were living in Police quarters. A.1 is also a Police Constable and he too was residing in the Police Quarters along with his wife A.2. A.1 and A.2 had a daughter by name Nandini. It is alleged that the deceased Prakash used to tease Nandini when he visited his fathers (L.W.2) residence. On 5-12-2007 at about 12.30 noon, A.1 and A.2 along with their friend A.3 are alleged to have beat the deceased. While A.1 is alleged to have beat the deceased with a small stick, A.2 and A.3 are said to have assaulted the deceased with hands. It was alleged that immediately, the parents of the deceased came and took the injured to their house. At about 5.30 p.m., the mother of the deceased (P.W.1) filed a complaint, Ex.P.6 with the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kamareddy, and on its basis, Crime No.347 of 2007 was registered and F.I.R. (Ex.P.7) was issued. The injured was firstly treated by P.W.8 at the Government Hospital, Kamareddy and since brain haemorrhage was suspected, he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. On 12-12-2007, in the evening hours, the injured succumbed to the injuries. Inquest was conducted and body was subjected to post-mortem examination by P.W.12. As per post-mortem examination report Ex.P.16, the cause of death is said to be the head injury. Investigation was commenced; but the conclusion thereof was delayed. It was in October, 2009, that P.W.9 recorded the statements of the witnesses and laid the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kamareddy, where it was registered as P.R.C.No.86 of 2009. After complying with the statutory requirements of Code of Criminal Procedure, the learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) ActcumVIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad and the same was numbered as S.C.No.15 of 2010.

3. Charges constituting offences under Sections 302 read with 34 of I.P.C., and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, were framed. The accused pleaded not guilty. To prove its case, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and produced Exs.P.1 to P.16.

4. The learned Special Judge found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.

5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants- accused is that the entire case has been concocted against the accused due to professional rivalry between A.1 so also father of the deceased, who are constables. It is submitted that there is abnormal delay at every stage including lodging of the complaint, forwarding the F.I.R. to the Magistrate, recording of the statements of the witnesses and completion of the investigation, and it speaks about the intention of the Police Officials to implicate the accused, who had some differences with his colleagues in the Department. It is also submitted that the evidence is not at all reliable and the learned Judge erred in resting his conclusion upon the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and finding the accused guilty of the offences.

6. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has rightly opined that P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the natural witnesses, and there is no illegality in the finding that the accused are guilty. She submits that Judgment of the trial Court is based on the reliable testimony of the eye-witnesses, and it does not warrant any interference.

7. The point for consideration is as to whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction and sentence or whether it needs to be set aside, modified or varied?.

8. A trivial incident said to have taken place at about 11.30 a.m., on 5-12-2007 is said to have lead to the death of a young boy, aged about 18 years, by name Koneti Prakash. The immediate provocation for the accused to commit the crime is said to be the conduct of the deceased in teasing a teenage daughter of A.1 by name Nandini. The incident is said to have taken place in the midst of the Police Quarters, which incidentally happened to be just in front of the jurisdictional Police Station. The deceased is the son of P.W.1 and Devidas (L.W.2) and they were living in a private locality whereas Devidas was living with the second wife- Gangamani in the Police Quarters. The deceased being the son of Devidas used to visit the Police Quarters where A.1 was living.

9. The fact that the deceased died due to injuries is not in controversy. The contentious aspect is as to whether it is the accused who caused the injuries to the deceased, which ultimately proved to be fatal about a week thereafter, needs to be examined. P.Ws.2 and 3 are said to be the eye-witnesses. The other material witness namely the father of the deceased, who is a Police Constable, has not been examined, and for reasons best known to the prosecution, he has been given-up. The mother of the deceased, who is the de facto complainant, was examined as P.W.1 and she denied the case of the prosecution insofar as the involvement of the accused is concerned. She has categorically asserted that her son died, but A.1 to A.3 are not responsible therefor. She has even denied having lodged any complaint with the police. According to her, her husband (L.W.2) has obtained her signatures on blank papers and even though the signature part of it, which is marked as Ex.P.1, is hers, she do not know the contents of it. She has been declared hostile by the prosecution and in the cross-examination, she denied having stated before the police as in Ex.P.2.

10. The entire case of the prosecution revolves around the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are said to be the eye-witnesses. P.W.2 is a woman constable and P.W.3 is the Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police. P.W.2 stated that on the date of the incident, at about 11.30 a.m., she saw A.1 beating the deceased with a small stick and that A.2 and A.3 beat the deceased with hands. She stated that thereafter, the deceased was taken away by his father and after about 10 days, she came to know that the deceased died. In the cross-examination, it was elicited from her that she informed the police that it is the second wife of Devidas, namely Gangamani who beat the deceased.

11. P.W.3 deposed that he has seen the incident which took place at about 11.30 a.m., where A.1 beat the deceased with a stick and A.2 and A.3 beat with hands. He further deposed that thereafter the second wife of Devidas (L.W.2) took the injured to her house. In the cross-examination, it was elicited from him that he stated before the police that it is the second wife of L.W.2, by name Gangamani who beat the deceased. He admitted in his cross-examination that on the date of the incident, his duty hours were from 7.00 a.m., to 5.00 p.m. He sought to explain his presence, stating that he came to his house by taking permission for about half-an-hour.

12. A careful perusal of the testimony of these two witnesses creates any amount of doubt as to its veracity insofar as the incident is concerned. It is in their evidence that not only the accused but also Gangamani, the 2nd wife of Devidas (father of the deceased), who beat the deceased, and immediately it is the 2nd wife of Devidas, who took the deceased into her house. The incident is said to have taken place at about 11.30 in the morning. The Police Station is just in front of the quarters. P.Ws.2 and 3, being police officials, are expected to know the requirement of lodging the complaint at the earliest point of time. For more than six hours, no complaint was filed. Only at about 5.30 in the evening, the complaint Ex.P.6 was lodged. The person, who sustained injuries at about 11.30 a.m., was not taken to the hospital till about 5.30 p.m. The Medical Officer (P.W.8) opined that the injured might have sustained the injuries within a period of five hours from the time of examination i.e., 5.00 p.m. If this is correct, the injured might have sustained injuries after 12.00 in the afternoon and till the injured was brought to the hospital, he was in semi-conscious state. It was informed to P.W.8, the Doctor that the injured was beaten by few persons, who have not been named or identified. The alleged assailants were not strangers.

13. It is further noticed from the record that it has been consistently stated by the witnesses that Gangamani, the 2nd wife of Devidas, who beat the deceased, but her name has been deleted from the charge-sheet even though she was specifically named in the F.I.R. No doubt, it is for the investigating agency to either charge a person or delete someone. However, when same evidence is available against all the four persons, exclusion of one person and charge-sheeting the three, creates any amount of doubt about the dependability of the investigation.

14. The record reveals the lop-side nature of the investigation, that has been carried out by even senior Officers. The complaint Ex.P.6 was lodged with P.W.7 at about 5.30 p.m. on 5-12-2007, though the incident is said to have taken place at 11.00 a.m. The F.I.R. Ex.P.7 was issued immediately. The Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class is just about one furlong from the Police Station and even the house of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class is just 2 K.Ms. away. The F.I.R. in the crime of such gravity has reached the Magistrate only at about 11.30 a.m., on 6-12-2007. This abnormal delay would certainly affect the case of the prosecution, particularly, in view of the lack of clarity and other circumstances.

15. It is further noticed from the record that the statements of the witnesses were recorded on as many as four occasions. Though the F.I.R. itself was registered at about 5.30 p.m., on 5-12-2007, P.W.3 who is the A.S.I. of Police, categorically stated that his statement was recorded on 5-12-2007 in the afternoon itself. It is apparent that the complaint, which was taken on record at about 5.30 p.m., is not the one received at the earliest point of time before the investigation in the matter has commenced. The basis on which the investigation was carried out even before the complaint Ex.P.6 was lodged, has not been explained. It is not as though P.W.3 is a layman. He is an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and the police examined him and his statement was recorded in the afternoon of 5-12-2007. If that be so, the case of the prosecution that the complaint was lodged at 5.30 p.m., on 5-12-2007 falls to the ground.

16. In addition to the above, immediately after the death of the deceased on 12-12-2007, the investigation was taken up by the C.I. of Police - PW.11, who has re-examined the witnesses. The statements of the eye-witnesses were recorded by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class on a requisition from the Police, on 29-3-2008. Nearly two years after the incident, the investigation was taken up by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (P.W.9) and he again recorded the statements of the witnesses. It is in the evidence of Sub-Divisional Police Officer that when he took up the investigation on 28.08.2009 itself, he has recorded the statements of the eye-witnesses two months thereafter. Certainly this is not the way in which the investigation in a serious crime is to be conducted that too of the rank of Sub-Divisional Police Officer.

17. We are conscious of the fact that latches on the part of the investigating agency or the perfunctory investigation by itself should not enure to the benefit of the accused. However, if such an investigation leads to a serious doubt about the involvement of the accused, benefit thereof should invariably be extended to the accused.

18. As already stated, it is a case involving the police constables and there is said to be the professional rivalry in between them. A.1 is a Police Constable, so also Devidas, the father of the deceased. The eye-witnesses to the incident are the A.S.I. of Police and a Woman Police Constable. The incident is said to have taken place in the midst of the Police Quarters that too in front of the Police Station. If these circumstances are taken into consideration, the way the investigating agency conducted itself, calls for a close scrutiny.

19. Upon perusing the evidence on record, we find it difficult to uphold the Judgment of the learned Special Judge that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is sufficient for establishing the guilt of the accused. Serious defects, which are glaring at the face of the prosecution, are pointed in the preceding paragraphs. The Judgment of the trial Court cannot therefore be sustained. The same is liable to be set aside.

20. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence ordered in S.C.No.15 of 2010 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs(POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad, dated 30.12.2011, against the appellants-accused 1 to 3, are set aside. They shall be set at liberty forthwith, unless their detention is needed in respect of any other crime. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants- accused shall be refunded to them. _____________________ L.Narasimha Reddy,J.

__________________ M.S.K. Jaiswal,J.

Dt. 12.02.2014