Back
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Idamakanti Naidipi Pakki Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
R. Raghunandan Rao, J. - The petitioners are accused Nos.2 & 8 in S.C. S.T. No. 4 of 2019 on the file of the Special Judge for SC & ST (POA) Act-cum-VI Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kurnool District, for offences under Sections 447, 420, 323, 506, 509, 354 (A) r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x)(g)(f)(i) and 3(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
2. The allegations in the complaint against the 21persons arrayed as accused in the complaint are as follows:
a) The de facto complainant acquired title and possession over the land admeasuring Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.128/1 of Pandlapuram Revenue Village, Kurnool District, by way of a registered deed of settlement executed in her favour by her husband on 14.03.2017. The husband of the de facto complainant acquired this land by virtue of a partition between himself and his three sisters.
b) However, the 1st accused by way of registered deeds of sale dated 22.04.2006 and accused Nos.2 & 3 by way of a registered deed of sale dated 24.04.2010 and by way of a registered deed of sale dated 25.04.2012 had clandestinely created rights for themselves from one Late K.
The court held that a complaint alleging offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 must....
Charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act cannot stand without evidence of insult or intimidation occurring in public view, while IPC offences are sustained as evidence supports the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
