Sri A.Jayaraju

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT: MANTHANI.

PRESENT: SRI A. JAYA RAJU, 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Wednesday, the 14th day of February, 2019

A.S. NO. 10 OF 2017

BETWEEN: Badithela Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.13­1, Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar.

…..Appellant

A N D

Marupaka Ramesh, S/o. Vissaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: SCCo. Ltd, Employee, R/o. Ankammamula of Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar. …Respondent

On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2015 in

OS No.71 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani.

Between:

Badithela Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.13­1, Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar.

…..Plaintiff

AND Marupaka Ramesh, S/o. Vissaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: SCCo. Ltd, Employee, R/o. Ankammamula of Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar. …Defendant

­O0O­

This appeal is coming before me for Judgment in the presence of Sri A. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri KVLN Hari Babu, Advocate for the Respondent, having been heard and having stood over consideration to this day, the Court made the following:

2

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Manthani in OS 71/2005

dated 13.10.2015. 

2.The appellant herein filed OS 71/2005 against the respondent/defendant herein for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession to an extent of 3X15 feets from the possession of the respondent/defendant.

3.For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the trial court.

4.The brief case of the plaintiff in OS 71/2005 is as under:

 The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing

No.13­1 (The said house herein after referred to as suit house) situated at

Ankammamula, Manthani. The defendant is the immediate neighbor of the plaintiff and he got house towards southern side of the suit house. The defendant purchased the open land of Late Radharapu Lingaiah, which is situated towards southern side of the suit house and had a house built therein about 05 or 6 years ago. The plaintiff being the teacher had to reside away from

Manthani. However, the defendant taking undue advantage of absence of the plaintiff in Manthani encroached the land of the plaintiff to an extent of 3X15 feet towards the northern side of the defendant and had a wall built and fixed gate illegally and unauthorizedly against his approved plan. The measurement shown in the approved map of the defendant and the actual construction made by him do not tally with each other. By encroaching the land of the plaintiff the defendant causing the plaintiff financial loss of Rs. 3,00,000/­. Further it is submitted that the defendant laid a pipeline from his toilet along with the border line of the northern wall of the house of the plaintiff by deeply digging footage, of his wall whereby damaging the wall from it’s very roots. As the 3 defendant laid pipeline the wall got damaged and grew weak and feeble and it is about to collapse and there is every likely wood of it being collapsed. Therefore, the pipeline requires to be removed which totally damaged the said wall.

Further submission of the plaintiff in his plaint is that the defendant grew a guava tree touching the border land of the southern wall of the house of plaintiff. The defendant aggrieved by the plaintiff growing guava tree got issued legal notice on 13.08.2005 calling upon him to cut down the same. On that the defendant approached the counsel of the plaintiff and executed a deed dated 17.08.2005 and cut down the said guava tree. The plaintiff many a times objected the defendant for his act of encroaching his land, but taking advantage of his absence in the village, the defendant hurriedlyfinished the encroachment.

Further submission of the plaintiff is that he approached the G.P. Manthani, with a prayer to demolish the illegal wall constructed by the defendant, but the

G.P. Manthani did not take heed of his words. The plaintiff had a panchayat for restoration of the encroached land. But the defendant gave deaf hear. Further submission of the plaintiff is that he made application before the G.P. Manthani on 16.08.2005 for removal of the encroached wall and get pipeline but the G.P.

Manthani did not take any action, hence, this suit. 

5.The defendant filed written statement in OS 71/2005 contending that the averments of the plaint are false. The contention of the defendant is that he constructed compound wall and fixed gate about 7 years ago by purchasing dilapidated house. He further submitted that he constructed wall on the old foundation itself and the plaintiff has no connection with the said land of the defendant and there was no encroachment of the land of the plaintiff by the defendant and the defendant is in absolute ownership and possession of the suit house without any interference by anybody since the date of it’s purchase.

Further submission of the defendant in his written statement is that the alleged 4 land claimed by the plaintiff which is on the northern side of the land of the defendant house and compound wall of the defendant belongs to G.P.

Manthani. Further it is submitted that there is a wall constructed by local found at about 60 years back and the defendant laid pipeline with the permission of the G.P. and the land in which the pipeline was laid by the defendant is through G.P. land and the land of the defendant only. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant constructed wall illegally and laid pipeline by encroaching his land. Further it is submitted that the plaintiff has got no open land either towards west of his compound wall and south of his house and the plaintiff filed the suit against him with an intention to harass and cause loss to the defendant.

6.Basing on the above said pleadings the learned trial judge framed the following issues.

(I) Whether the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the suit land?

(ii) Whether the defendant encroached the suit land?

(iii) Whether the defendant constructed the house and obtained permission from G.P.?

(iv) Whether the defendant laid down pipeline?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit land from the defendant?

(vi) To what relief?

7.The following additional issue is also framed.

(vii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

8.After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned trial court dismissed the suit, on which the present appeal is filed.

5 9.Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant adduced oral or documentary evidence in this appeal.

10.Evidence on Record.

11.On behalf of the plaintiff 4 witnesses i.e., Pws1 to 4 are examined and 10 documents are exhibited 12. Pw1, Badithela Ramaiah. Pw2, Kadiyala Mallaiah. Pw3, Executive Officer,

Manthani and Pw4, Raghotham Reddy.

Ex.A1 is the electronic DVD. Ex.A2 is the receipt issued by G.P. Ex.A3 is the permission for house construction. Ex.A4 is the plain approved by G.P.

Ex.A5 is the application made to Panchayathi Secretary. Ex.A6 is the letter addressed to plaintiff’s advocate. Ex.7 is the office coy of legal notice. Ex.A8 is the Urdu application made to Chairman Local Fund Municipality. Ex.A9 is the construction plan in Urdu along with translation. Ex.A10 is the report of

Human Rights Commission. 

13.On behalf of the defendant 2 witnesses are examined as Dw1 and 2 and 8 documents are exhibited. 

14. Dw1, Marpaka Ramesh. Dw2, Marpaka Prahlad. 

Ex.B1 is the original registered sale deed along with map. Ex.B2 is the ownership issued by G.P. Ex.B3 is the tax receipt. Ex.B4 is the tax receipt.

Ex.B5 is the EC. Ex.B6 is the permission letter. Ex.B7 is the approval map.

Ex.B8 is the clearance certificate.

6 15. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned trial judge dismiss the suit. The learned trial judgment observed that

Pw1 admitted in his cross examination that the house of the defendant situated towards the southern side of his property and there is open land towards southern side of the house of the defendant, therefore, it is very clear that the defendant is having open place towards the northern side of the house of the plaintiff. Further the learned trial judge observed that a perusal of Ex.A4, sketch map, of the house of the plaintiff does not show that there is a open place towards southern side of his house. Further the trial judge while dismissing the suit observed that Pw1 categorically admitted that the defendant having open place towards northern side of his house. More over, the plaintiff and defendant did not get their lands including the suit house measured.

Further the trial judge observed that even according to the Commissioner

Report there was open place to the house of the plaintiff and defendant and defendant constructed compound wall by fixing gate. Further it is observed that the documents filed by the defendant are not disproved by the plaintiff. Further it is observed by the learned trial judge that the defendant has not obtained permission from the G.P. for construction of compound wall and for fixing gate.

However, only on the ground of permission not obtained by the defendant from

G.P. it cannot be said that the open place where the defendant constructed compound wall belongs to the plaintiff. Further the learned trial judge observed in the Judgment and Decree under challenge that since the suit is filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and he was in possession over the suit land prior to construction of compound wall. Further it is observed by the learned trial judge is that by

Ex.A1 to A4 plaintiff did not show in documentary evidence that the suit schedule property is also part of the house bearing No.13­1. On the other hand, 7 the defendant produced Ex.B1 showing that the defendant purchased the land with house which was in dilapidated condition and it was not disproved by the plaintiff. Further the learned trial judge observed that admittedly the defendant constructed compound wall by erecting the gate in the suit schedule property, since the plaintiff failed to establish that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and failed to establish the prior possession over the suit schedule property the plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. Further the learned trial judge observed in the Judgment and

Decree under challenge that there is no dispute regarding the laying of the pipeline by the defendant and also construction of house by obtaining permission and there is no dispute regarding laying pipeline. Further the learned trial judge observed as to limitation that the limitation for mandatory injunction is 3 years and the suit was filed on 10.11.2005, but as per the pleadings and evidence of Pw1 the defendant occupied the suit schedule property in the year 2002, but the plaintiff did not mention the date of cause of action in the plaint of the plaintiff and the Pw1 admitted that the defendant constructed house in the suit schedule property which shows that the defendant made a construction before 2002 or in the year 2001, but the suit was filed after completion of 3 years, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. Thus, giving findings the learned trial judge dismissed the suit.

16. It is the aforesaid Judgment which is under challenge. The appeal is contested with the pleas in the grounds of appeal that the lower court did not appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and failed to arrive at right decision. Further it has been pleaded in the grounds of the appeal that the lower court wrongly observed that Pw1 in his cross examination admitted that there is a open land towards northern side of the house of the respondent, but the lower court did not take the evidence of Pw1 that his father built a well for 8 charity purpose in the open land of the appellant/plaintiff. The lower court observed that the plaintiff did not prove the open land under encroachment belongs to him, but Ex.A3 and A8 and Ex.A9 clearly proves that the open land exclusively is under the ownership and possession of the appellant. The another point which has been raised by the plaintiff is that the land under encroachment belongs to G.P., the Panchayathi Secretary, Pw3, categorically stated that there is no document to show that the land belongs to G.P. and he also stated that a wall was not constructed by the G.P. local fund. The another point that has been raised by the plaintiff in the grounds of the appeal is that

Commissioner also in his cross examination stated that the alleged gate and wall was constructed by the defendant in the dilapidated state belongs to the defendant, but was not supported by witnesses statement which clearly proves the defendant made illegal construction of gate and wall with encroachment, but the lower court failed to take note of that fact. The another point that has been raised by the plaintiff in the grounds of appeal is that the total land which was under ownership and possession of only 200 Square Yards, but the approved map shows that the land under construction was 298.3 Square

Yards, which means there is a difference of land between what the respondent purchased through Ex.B1 and approved map which is Ex.B7. Further it is pleaded that 200 Square Yards which is exclusively under the ownership of the respondent and the rest of the land is belongs to appellant. When the G.P. did not own the said land it shall be deemed that the said land exclusively belongs to the plaintiff. Further it has been pleaded in the grounds of appeal that Ex.B7 did not show any gate or wall towards his northern side of the house and later he made illegal construction of the said gate and wall under encroachment. In the absence of figuring of gate and wall in Ex.B7 it is clistar clear that the defendant by encroaching the land of the appellant made illegal construction in the land of the appellant, but the lower court strangely ignored that fact and 9 supported illegal construction of the respondent inspite of his admission of encroachment. Further it has been contended in the grounds of appeal that the lower court held that the suit is barred by limitation. In fact, the respondent took permission in the year 1995 and constructed the wall and gate in the year 2002. Immediately, the appellant filed application before G.P., Manthani for demolition for the said gate and wall. Further it is submitted that the appellant did not sleep over of over his rights and he went on agitating the matter before the concerned authorities it is only after the G.P. authorities did not take any action the appellant approached the court. Further it is pleaded in the grounds of appeal that a wrong committed by the respondent is continuous wrong and as per the Section 23 of Limitation Act, the suit is within the limitation and not barred by limitation. Thus, raising grounds touched various observations made in the Judgment under challenge sought to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court.

17.Heard the learned counsels appearing for the appellant and respondent.

18.Perused the Judgment under challenge oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiff and defendant.

19.The points that arises for consideration is whether:

(i) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court is erroneous and liable to be set aside and allow this appeal?

(ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

20. Point No.1.

The case of plaintiff is that he is the owner of the house bearing No.13­1 and the defendant has got a house towards southern side of his house and the defendant purchased the open land from Palakanti Prameela five years ago and built a house therein, but he encroached 3X15 feets of his land and 10 constructed compound wall and fixed gate and laid pipeline touching the compound wall. The plaintiff contends that his land by 3X15 was encroached by the defendant, but the plaintiff did not file any single piece of document to show that how much land he has got. Except pleading that he had house bearing No.13­1 he did not give particulars as to in how much area the said house was constructed and how much area was left over. If the total area of the suit house is placed before the court it can be said that out of that total area the defendant encroached 3X15 feets and the plaintiff is in possession of 465

Square Yards of land, but the plaintiff without placing any material before the court in how much area the said house was constructed and what is the left over place in the premises of the suit house if he simply pleads that the defendant encroached 3X15 Square Yards it is by no means helps the plaintiff.

Though plaintiff exhibited 10 documents he failed to place any document which can show the total area of the land of the plaintiff wherein the house was constructed. As rightly observed by the learned trial judge both the plaintiff and defendant did not get their lands measured to establish that whose land who occupied. In the absence of any proof pertaining to the area of the suit schedule house mere admission of the Panchayathi Secretary that there is no document to show that the land belongs to Gram Panchathi it can not be said that the alleged land belongs to the plaintiff. Without placing any document by the plaintiff to establish that to an extent of what area he was the owner and possessor simply filing Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 application made to the Local Fund

Chariman will not help the appellant/plaintiff. 

21. In the absence of any document to show that the plaintiff is the owner to an extent of such and such land though the defendant had the land in excess to what is mentioned in the Ex.B7 it cannot be said that the said excess land belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall stand on his own legs to establish his 11 case, but shall not depend on the weakness of the defendant. The plaintiff failed to place layout of his land and without placing layout and document which shows the total area of the suit house simply pleading that the defendant encroached his land by 3X15 feets is not tenable. If the measurements of the house of the plaintiff and defendant are placed before the court then the court would be in a position to say that whether the defendant encroached the land of the plaintiff or the defendant constructed the compound wall within his land, but that was not done.

22. In the light of what has been discussed, I hold that as the plaintiff failed to place any material before the court to show the actual area of the suit house it cannot be said that that the defendant encroached the land of the plaintiff and I seen no reason to interfere with the Judgment and Decree passed by the lower court. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

23.Point No.2.

The lower court dismissed the suit observing that the suit was barred by limitation. The plea of the appellant/plaintiff in the appeal is that the act of encroaching is continuing wrong therefore, within limitation, but I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant because limitation prescribed for the mandatory injunction is pertaining to the suits to be filed before the civil court and not before the revenue authorities or G..P. authorities. As rightly observed by the learned trial judge the plaintiff did not mention the date of cause of action in the plaint and admittedly the suit was filed on 10.11.2005, but in the plaint it was pleaded that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff against the defendant in the year 2002 when the defendant illegally constructed wall and fixed gate and laid pipeline, but as rightly observed by the lower court the date and month when the defendant constructed the wall, and gate was not 12 mentioned. 2002 means it may be in the month of January also and the suit was filed in the month of November, 2005, therefore it may be deemed that the plaintiff filed the suit after 3 years, therefore, it is barred by limitation. The proceeding before the Revenue Authorities and G.P. Authorities as stated supra shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation. 

24.In the light of what has been discussed, I hold that the learned trial court

judge rightly observed that the suit was barred by limitation. Therefore, I see no

reason to interfere with the observation of the learned trial court as regards the limitation point. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered.

25.In the light of what has been discussed, I see no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the lower court. Therefore, confirming the Judgment and

Decree under challenge appeal is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of February, 2019. 

 Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

­NIL­ 13

:: D E C R E E ::

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT: MANTHANI.

PRESENT: SRI A. JAYA RAJU, 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Wednesday, the 14th day of February, 2019

A.S. NO. 10 OF 2017

BETWEEN: Badithela Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.13­1, Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar.

..Appellant

AND

Marupaka Ramesh, S/o. Vissaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: SCCo. Ltd, Employee, R/o. Ankammamula of Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar. …Respondent

On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2015 in

OS No.71 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani

Between:

Badithela Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.13­1, Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar.

...Plaintiff

A N D

Marupaka Ramesh, S/o. Vissaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: SCCo. Ltd, Employee, R/o. Ankammamula of Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar. …Defendant

Date of presentation of the appeal: 21.09.2017 Date of filing of the appeal: 21.12.2015 

­O0O­

This appeal is coming before me for Judgment in the presence of Sri A. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri KVLN Hari Babu, Advocate

for the Respondent, having been heard and having stood over consideration to

this day, this COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

14 1. That the Appeal of the Appellant be and are hereby dismissed.

2. That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, on this the 14th day February, 2019.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI. 

:: PARTICULARS OF COSTS ::

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE RESPONDENT:

1. Stamp on petitionRs.732­00 1. Stamp on power Rs.2­00

2. Stamp on powerRs. 2­00

3. Stamp on process Rs.35­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Total: Rs. 769­00Total: Rs.2­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Note: 1) That the suit is for mandatory injunction on which a court fee of Rs. 732/­ is paid U/Sec. 26 (C) of APCF and SV Act and in this appeal also a C.F. of Rs.732/­ is paid U/Sec.49 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

2) F.Cs. and Memo of costs are not filed by either side.

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT: MANTHANI.

PRESENT: SRI A. JAYA RAJU, 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Wednesday, the 14th day of February, 2019

A.S. NO. 10 OF 2017

BETWEEN: Badithela Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.13­1, Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar.

…..Appellant

A N D

Marupaka Ramesh, S/o. Vissaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: SCCo. Ltd, Employee, R/o. Ankammamula of Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar. …Respondent

On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2015 in

OS No.71 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani.

Between:

Badithela Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.13­1, Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar.

…..Plaintiff

AND Marupaka Ramesh, S/o. Vissaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: SCCo. Ltd, Employee, R/o. Ankammamula of Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar. …Defendant

­O0O­

This appeal is coming before me for Judgment in the presence of Sri A. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri KVLN Hari Babu, Advocate for the Respondent, having been heard and having stood over consideration to this day, the Court made the following:

2

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Manthani in OS 71/2005

dated 13.10.2015. 

2.The appellant herein filed OS 71/2005 against the respondent/defendant herein for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession to an extent of 3X15 feets from the possession of the respondent/defendant.

3.For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the trial court.

4.The brief case of the plaintiff in OS 71/2005 is as under:

 The plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the house bearing

No.13­1 (The said house herein after referred to as suit house) situated at

Ankammamula, Manthani. The defendant is the immediate neighbor of the plaintiff and he got house towards southern side of the suit house. The defendant purchased the open land of Late Radharapu Lingaiah, which is situated towards southern side of the suit house and had a house built therein about 05 or 6 years ago. The plaintiff being the teacher had to reside away from

Manthani. However, the defendant taking undue advantage of absence of the plaintiff in Manthani encroached the land of the plaintiff to an extent of 3X15 feet towards the northern side of the defendant and had a wall built and fixed gate illegally and unauthorizedly against his approved plan. The measurement shown in the approved map of the defendant and the actual construction made by him do not tally with each other. By encroaching the land of the plaintiff the defendant causing the plaintiff financial loss of Rs. 3,00,000/­. Further it is submitted that the defendant laid a pipeline from his toilet along with the border line of the northern wall of the house of the plaintiff by deeply digging footage, of his wall whereby damaging the wall from it’s very roots. As the 3 defendant laid pipeline the wall got damaged and grew weak and feeble and it is about to collapse and there is every likely wood of it being collapsed. Therefore, the pipeline requires to be removed which totally damaged the said wall.

Further submission of the plaintiff in his plaint is that the defendant grew a guava tree touching the border land of the southern wall of the house of plaintiff. The defendant aggrieved by the plaintiff growing guava tree got issued legal notice on 13.08.2005 calling upon him to cut down the same. On that the defendant approached the counsel of the plaintiff and executed a deed dated 17.08.2005 and cut down the said guava tree. The plaintiff many a times objected the defendant for his act of encroaching his land, but taking advantage of his absence in the village, the defendant hurriedlyfinished the encroachment.

Further submission of the plaintiff is that he approached the G.P. Manthani, with a prayer to demolish the illegal wall constructed by the defendant, but the

G.P. Manthani did not take heed of his words. The plaintiff had a panchayat for restoration of the encroached land. But the defendant gave deaf hear. Further submission of the plaintiff is that he made application before the G.P. Manthani on 16.08.2005 for removal of the encroached wall and get pipeline but the G.P.

Manthani did not take any action, hence, this suit. 

5.The defendant filed written statement in OS 71/2005 contending that the averments of the plaint are false. The contention of the defendant is that he constructed compound wall and fixed gate about 7 years ago by purchasing dilapidated house. He further submitted that he constructed wall on the old foundation itself and the plaintiff has no connection with the said land of the defendant and there was no encroachment of the land of the plaintiff by the defendant and the defendant is in absolute ownership and possession of the suit house without any interference by anybody since the date of it’s purchase.

Further submission of the defendant in his written statement is that the alleged 4 land claimed by the plaintiff which is on the northern side of the land of the defendant house and compound wall of the defendant belongs to G.P.

Manthani. Further it is submitted that there is a wall constructed by local found at about 60 years back and the defendant laid pipeline with the permission of the G.P. and the land in which the pipeline was laid by the defendant is through G.P. land and the land of the defendant only. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the plaintiff that the defendant constructed wall illegally and laid pipeline by encroaching his land. Further it is submitted that the plaintiff has got no open land either towards west of his compound wall and south of his house and the plaintiff filed the suit against him with an intention to harass and cause loss to the defendant.

6.Basing on the above said pleadings the learned trial judge framed the following issues.

(I) Whether the plaintiff is owner and possessor of the suit land?

(ii) Whether the defendant encroached the suit land?

(iii) Whether the defendant constructed the house and obtained permission from G.P.?

(iv) Whether the defendant laid down pipeline?

(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit land from the defendant?

(vi) To what relief?

7.The following additional issue is also framed.

(vii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

8.After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned trial court dismissed the suit, on which the present appeal is filed.

5 9.Neither the plaintiff nor the defendant adduced oral or documentary evidence in this appeal.

10.Evidence on Record.

11.On behalf of the plaintiff 4 witnesses i.e., Pws1 to 4 are examined and 10 documents are exhibited 12. Pw1, Badithela Ramaiah. Pw2, Kadiyala Mallaiah. Pw3, Executive Officer,

Manthani and Pw4, Raghotham Reddy.

Ex.A1 is the electronic DVD. Ex.A2 is the receipt issued by G.P. Ex.A3 is the permission for house construction. Ex.A4 is the plain approved by G.P.

Ex.A5 is the application made to Panchayathi Secretary. Ex.A6 is the letter addressed to plaintiff’s advocate. Ex.7 is the office coy of legal notice. Ex.A8 is the Urdu application made to Chairman Local Fund Municipality. Ex.A9 is the construction plan in Urdu along with translation. Ex.A10 is the report of

Human Rights Commission. 

13.On behalf of the defendant 2 witnesses are examined as Dw1 and 2 and 8 documents are exhibited. 

14. Dw1, Marpaka Ramesh. Dw2, Marpaka Prahlad. 

Ex.B1 is the original registered sale deed along with map. Ex.B2 is the ownership issued by G.P. Ex.B3 is the tax receipt. Ex.B4 is the tax receipt.

Ex.B5 is the EC. Ex.B6 is the permission letter. Ex.B7 is the approval map.

Ex.B8 is the clearance certificate.

6 15. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record the learned trial judge dismiss the suit. The learned trial judgment observed that

Pw1 admitted in his cross examination that the house of the defendant situated towards the southern side of his property and there is open land towards southern side of the house of the defendant, therefore, it is very clear that the defendant is having open place towards the northern side of the house of the plaintiff. Further the learned trial judge observed that a perusal of Ex.A4, sketch map, of the house of the plaintiff does not show that there is a open place towards southern side of his house. Further the trial judge while dismissing the suit observed that Pw1 categorically admitted that the defendant having open place towards northern side of his house. More over, the plaintiff and defendant did not get their lands including the suit house measured.

Further the trial judge observed that even according to the Commissioner

Report there was open place to the house of the plaintiff and defendant and defendant constructed compound wall by fixing gate. Further it is observed that the documents filed by the defendant are not disproved by the plaintiff. Further it is observed by the learned trial judge that the defendant has not obtained permission from the G.P. for construction of compound wall and for fixing gate.

However, only on the ground of permission not obtained by the defendant from

G.P. it cannot be said that the open place where the defendant constructed compound wall belongs to the plaintiff. Further the learned trial judge observed in the Judgment and Decree under challenge that since the suit is filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and he was in possession over the suit land prior to construction of compound wall. Further it is observed by the learned trial judge is that by

Ex.A1 to A4 plaintiff did not show in documentary evidence that the suit schedule property is also part of the house bearing No.13­1. On the other hand, 7 the defendant produced Ex.B1 showing that the defendant purchased the land with house which was in dilapidated condition and it was not disproved by the plaintiff. Further the learned trial judge observed that admittedly the defendant constructed compound wall by erecting the gate in the suit schedule property, since the plaintiff failed to establish that he is the owner of the suit schedule property and failed to establish the prior possession over the suit schedule property the plaintiff is not entitled for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. Further the learned trial judge observed in the Judgment and

Decree under challenge that there is no dispute regarding the laying of the pipeline by the defendant and also construction of house by obtaining permission and there is no dispute regarding laying pipeline. Further the learned trial judge observed as to limitation that the limitation for mandatory injunction is 3 years and the suit was filed on 10.11.2005, but as per the pleadings and evidence of Pw1 the defendant occupied the suit schedule property in the year 2002, but the plaintiff did not mention the date of cause of action in the plaint of the plaintiff and the Pw1 admitted that the defendant constructed house in the suit schedule property which shows that the defendant made a construction before 2002 or in the year 2001, but the suit was filed after completion of 3 years, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation. Thus, giving findings the learned trial judge dismissed the suit.

16. It is the aforesaid Judgment which is under challenge. The appeal is contested with the pleas in the grounds of appeal that the lower court did not appreciate the evidence on record in right perspective and failed to arrive at right decision. Further it has been pleaded in the grounds of the appeal that the lower court wrongly observed that Pw1 in his cross examination admitted that there is a open land towards northern side of the house of the respondent, but the lower court did not take the evidence of Pw1 that his father built a well for 8 charity purpose in the open land of the appellant/plaintiff. The lower court observed that the plaintiff did not prove the open land under encroachment belongs to him, but Ex.A3 and A8 and Ex.A9 clearly proves that the open land exclusively is under the ownership and possession of the appellant. The another point which has been raised by the plaintiff is that the land under encroachment belongs to G.P., the Panchayathi Secretary, Pw3, categorically stated that there is no document to show that the land belongs to G.P. and he also stated that a wall was not constructed by the G.P. local fund. The another point that has been raised by the plaintiff in the grounds of the appeal is that

Commissioner also in his cross examination stated that the alleged gate and wall was constructed by the defendant in the dilapidated state belongs to the defendant, but was not supported by witnesses statement which clearly proves the defendant made illegal construction of gate and wall with encroachment, but the lower court failed to take note of that fact. The another point that has been raised by the plaintiff in the grounds of appeal is that the total land which was under ownership and possession of only 200 Square Yards, but the approved map shows that the land under construction was 298.3 Square

Yards, which means there is a difference of land between what the respondent purchased through Ex.B1 and approved map which is Ex.B7. Further it is pleaded that 200 Square Yards which is exclusively under the ownership of the respondent and the rest of the land is belongs to appellant. When the G.P. did not own the said land it shall be deemed that the said land exclusively belongs to the plaintiff. Further it has been pleaded in the grounds of appeal that Ex.B7 did not show any gate or wall towards his northern side of the house and later he made illegal construction of the said gate and wall under encroachment. In the absence of figuring of gate and wall in Ex.B7 it is clistar clear that the defendant by encroaching the land of the appellant made illegal construction in the land of the appellant, but the lower court strangely ignored that fact and 9 supported illegal construction of the respondent inspite of his admission of encroachment. Further it has been contended in the grounds of appeal that the lower court held that the suit is barred by limitation. In fact, the respondent took permission in the year 1995 and constructed the wall and gate in the year 2002. Immediately, the appellant filed application before G.P., Manthani for demolition for the said gate and wall. Further it is submitted that the appellant did not sleep over of over his rights and he went on agitating the matter before the concerned authorities it is only after the G.P. authorities did not take any action the appellant approached the court. Further it is pleaded in the grounds of appeal that a wrong committed by the respondent is continuous wrong and as per the Section 23 of Limitation Act, the suit is within the limitation and not barred by limitation. Thus, raising grounds touched various observations made in the Judgment under challenge sought to set aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial court.

17.Heard the learned counsels appearing for the appellant and respondent.

18.Perused the Judgment under challenge oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiff and defendant.

19.The points that arises for consideration is whether:

(i) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court is erroneous and liable to be set aside and allow this appeal?

(ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

20. Point No.1.

The case of plaintiff is that he is the owner of the house bearing No.13­1 and the defendant has got a house towards southern side of his house and the defendant purchased the open land from Palakanti Prameela five years ago and built a house therein, but he encroached 3X15 feets of his land and 10 constructed compound wall and fixed gate and laid pipeline touching the compound wall. The plaintiff contends that his land by 3X15 was encroached by the defendant, but the plaintiff did not file any single piece of document to show that how much land he has got. Except pleading that he had house bearing No.13­1 he did not give particulars as to in how much area the said house was constructed and how much area was left over. If the total area of the suit house is placed before the court it can be said that out of that total area the defendant encroached 3X15 feets and the plaintiff is in possession of 465

Square Yards of land, but the plaintiff without placing any material before the court in how much area the said house was constructed and what is the left over place in the premises of the suit house if he simply pleads that the defendant encroached 3X15 Square Yards it is by no means helps the plaintiff.

Though plaintiff exhibited 10 documents he failed to place any document which can show the total area of the land of the plaintiff wherein the house was constructed. As rightly observed by the learned trial judge both the plaintiff and defendant did not get their lands measured to establish that whose land who occupied. In the absence of any proof pertaining to the area of the suit schedule house mere admission of the Panchayathi Secretary that there is no document to show that the land belongs to Gram Panchathi it can not be said that the alleged land belongs to the plaintiff. Without placing any document by the plaintiff to establish that to an extent of what area he was the owner and possessor simply filing Ex.A8 and Ex.A9 application made to the Local Fund

Chariman will not help the appellant/plaintiff. 

21. In the absence of any document to show that the plaintiff is the owner to an extent of such and such land though the defendant had the land in excess to what is mentioned in the Ex.B7 it cannot be said that the said excess land belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall stand on his own legs to establish his 11 case, but shall not depend on the weakness of the defendant. The plaintiff failed to place layout of his land and without placing layout and document which shows the total area of the suit house simply pleading that the defendant encroached his land by 3X15 feets is not tenable. If the measurements of the house of the plaintiff and defendant are placed before the court then the court would be in a position to say that whether the defendant encroached the land of the plaintiff or the defendant constructed the compound wall within his land, but that was not done.

22. In the light of what has been discussed, I hold that as the plaintiff failed to place any material before the court to show the actual area of the suit house it cannot be said that that the defendant encroached the land of the plaintiff and I seen no reason to interfere with the Judgment and Decree passed by the lower court. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

23.Point No.2.

The lower court dismissed the suit observing that the suit was barred by limitation. The plea of the appellant/plaintiff in the appeal is that the act of encroaching is continuing wrong therefore, within limitation, but I am unable to agree with the contention of the appellant because limitation prescribed for the mandatory injunction is pertaining to the suits to be filed before the civil court and not before the revenue authorities or G..P. authorities. As rightly observed by the learned trial judge the plaintiff did not mention the date of cause of action in the plaint and admittedly the suit was filed on 10.11.2005, but in the plaint it was pleaded that the cause of action arose to the plaintiff against the defendant in the year 2002 when the defendant illegally constructed wall and fixed gate and laid pipeline, but as rightly observed by the lower court the date and month when the defendant constructed the wall, and gate was not 12 mentioned. 2002 means it may be in the month of January also and the suit was filed in the month of November, 2005, therefore it may be deemed that the plaintiff filed the suit after 3 years, therefore, it is barred by limitation. The proceeding before the Revenue Authorities and G.P. Authorities as stated supra shall not be computed for the purpose of limitation. 

24.In the light of what has been discussed, I hold that the learned trial court

judge rightly observed that the suit was barred by limitation. Therefore, I see no

reason to interfere with the observation of the learned trial court as regards the limitation point. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered.

25.In the light of what has been discussed, I see no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the lower court. Therefore, confirming the Judgment and

Decree under challenge appeal is dismissed.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14th day of February, 2019. 

 Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

­NIL­ 13

:: D E C R E E ::

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE: AT: MANTHANI.

PRESENT: SRI A. JAYA RAJU, 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Wednesday, the 14th day of February, 2019

A.S. NO. 10 OF 2017

BETWEEN: Badithela Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.13­1, Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar.

..Appellant

AND

Marupaka Ramesh, S/o. Vissaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: SCCo. Ltd, Employee, R/o. Ankammamula of Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar. …Respondent

On appeal from the judgment and decree dated 13.10.2015 in

OS No.71 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Manthani

Between:

Badithela Ramaiah, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 71 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. H.No.13­1, Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar.

...Plaintiff

A N D

Marupaka Ramesh, S/o. Vissaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: SCCo. Ltd, Employee, R/o. Ankammamula of Manthani Mandal, District, Karimnagar. …Defendant

Date of presentation of the appeal: 21.09.2017 Date of filing of the appeal: 21.12.2015 

­O0O­

This appeal is coming before me for Judgment in the presence of Sri A. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for Appellant and of Sri KVLN Hari Babu, Advocate

for the Respondent, having been heard and having stood over consideration to

this day, this COURT DOTH ORDER AND DECREE:

14 1. That the Appeal of the Appellant be and are hereby dismissed.

2. That there be no order as to costs.

Given under my hand and the seal of this Court, on this the 14th day February, 2019.

Sd/-

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, 

MANTHANI. 

:: PARTICULARS OF COSTS ::

FOR THE APPELLANT: FOR THE RESPONDENT:

1. Stamp on petitionRs.732­00 1. Stamp on power Rs.2­00

2. Stamp on powerRs. 2­00

3. Stamp on process Rs.35­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Total: Rs. 769­00Total: Rs.2­00 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ ­­­­­­­­­­­­­

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Note: 1) That the suit is for mandatory injunction on which a court fee of Rs. 732/­ is paid U/Sec. 26 (C) of APCF and SV Act and in this appeal also a C.F. of Rs.732/­ is paid U/Sec.49 of A.P.C.F. and S.V.Act.

2) F.Cs. and Memo of costs are not filed by either side.

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE:AT: MANTHANI

PRESENT: SRI A. JAYA RAJU,

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of February, 2019.

SESSIONS CASE NO.296 OF 2018

(On committal made by the Learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani vide PRC No. 64 of 2017)

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mahadevpur, P.S. (Cr.No.68 of 2005 of P.S. Mahadevpur)

Name of the Accused : Kummari Mallaiah, S/o. Bakkaiah, Age: 30 years, R/o. Saravaipet. Charge:U/Sec. 5 of ES Act

Plea of the Accused:“ Not Guilty “ Finding of the Court:“ Not Guilty“

Sentence or Order :The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 5 of ES Act and he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec. 235 Cr.P.C. the bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six months from the date of judgment. Prosecution conducted by:Sri K.Venkata Ram Reddy, Addl.P.P.,

Accused defended bySri. Siguru Srinivas, Advocate.

This case is coming before me 12.02.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Venkata Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri. Siguru Srinivas, Advocate, for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1. Accused has been prosecuted by the State represented by the Sub

Inspector of police, Mahadevpur for the offence U/Sec. 5 of ES Act in Cr.No.

68 of 2005 of P.S. Mahadevpur.

2. The brief story of the prosecution that led to accused being prosecuted is as follows:

On 05.07.2005 at 0600 hours, A. Srinivas (Pw5), SI of Police, PS

Mahadevpur, when he along with Akula Ramulu (Pw3), Bodem Venkatesham 2 (Pw1), Y. Janardhan (Lw3), D. Rajaiah (Lw5), A. Srinivas (Pw2), B. Bheemaiah (Lw6) and L. Gangaram (Lw7) and District Guard party checking the shelters and hide outs of extremists in Bommapur, Suraram and Ambatipally. At about 0800 hours, they found two persons under suspicious circumstances.

On that he apprehended them. On search they found them in possession of the accused gelatin sticks and detonators. Then he secured the presence of

Pw3 and Pw1 and interrogated the persons i.e., A1 and A2. Both the accused

No.1 and 2 disclosed their identify as Chilumula Sammaiah, A1 and Durgam

Ankulu, A2 and they confessed that they have been working for the

Prathigatana Naxals Group. As per the directions of Anil, C.O., and as per the appointment that day at about 0600 hours, at Ambatpalli outskirts they met

Kummari Mallaiah (accused No.3), who has handed over each three gelatin sticks and three detonators to be handed over to Anil, C.O. On the confessional statement of A1 and A2 they seized the gelatin sticks and detonators in the presence of Pw1 and Pw3. Later he brought the accused

No.1 and 2 to police station and sue motto registered the case.

3. Basing on the confessional statement A. Srinivas, Pw5, Sub Inspector of

Police, registered a case in Cr.No.68/2005 U/Sec. 5 of ES Act. G. Sadan Kumar,

Pw4, SI of police, PS Mahadevpur, took up investigation from Pw5 and found it to be on proper lines and made his efforts to apprehend the accused No.3, but in vain. Later M. Srinivas, Lw10, Sub Inspector of Police, took up investigation from Pw4 and verifed the investigation done by Pw4 and 5 and found it to be on proper lines. After investigation was over he fled the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 U/Sec. 5 of ES Act showing the accused

No.3 as absconding.

This is the brief story of the prosecution for prosecuting the accused.

3

4. The case was taken on fle for the offence punishable U/Sec. 5 of ES Act against the accused by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Manthani vide PRC No. 64 of 2017 and on appearance of the accused the copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207

Cr.P.C. and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Karimnagar

U/Sec.209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

5. The charge U/Sec. 5 of ES Act was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove it’s case the prosecution examined Pws1 to 5 and exhibited 5 documents.

7. Bodem Venkatesham (Pw1) and Akula Ramulu (Pw3) are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of A1 and A2. A. Srinivas (Pw2), PC No. 619, is the one who assisted to the Investigating Ofcer. G.

Sadan Kumar (Pw4), is the second Investigating Ofcer. A. Srinivas (Pw5), is the frst Investigating Ofcer.

Ex.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pw1 on confession panchanama.

Ex.P3 is the signature of Pw3 on confession-cum-seizer panchanama. Ex.P4 is the sanction proceedings of District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar.

Ex.P5 is the attested copy of FIR (Ex.P5 is marked with the consent of the accused counsel).

8. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined

U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C the accused denied the incriminating material found against him and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

9. Heard both sides.

4 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable U/Sec. 5 of ES Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. Now let us see, what the prosecution witnesses deposed before the court:- 12. Evidence on Record.

(For the sake of convenience of the parties and to know what

exactly the witnesses testifed before the court, I would like to

reproduce the chief and cross examinations of all the witnesses in

the same words spoken by the witnesses).

13. The evidence of Pw1 in-chief

I do not know anything of this case. No one has ever confessed before me and nothing was seized in my presence. However, at the request of police

I made my signature on a paper. Ex. P1 and P2 are my signatures (on confession).

14. The evidence of Pw1 in-cross examination by the Addl. Public

Prosecutor.

It is not true to suggest that on 05.07.2005 at about 08:15 am, and on the same day at 08:45 am, at Peddampeta vaadu Chilumala Sambaiah, A1 and Durgam Uncle, A2 have confessed before me that Kummari Mallaiah, accused would hand over gelletin sticks and three detonators. It is not true to suggest that I am giving false evidence to help the accused being gained over by him.

15. The evidence of Pw2 in-chief examination.

At present, I am working police constable Mahamutharam PS.

Previously, during the period 28.08.2001 to December, 2005 I was PS of

Mahadevpur Police station. On 05.07.2005, I along with HC No.2412, 5

Gangaram,Lw7, PC 2343, Janardhan, Lw3, PC 2321, Rajaiah, Lw5, PC No.5.

Bheemaiah, Srinivas, Lw10, Sub Inspector and district guard were petrolling in Mahadevpur police station limits. At about 08:00 am, we found at

Peddampeta vaadu two persons namely Sambaiah and Uncle in suspicious manner we apprehended them. On being interrogated by our SI they disclosed their names as Sambaiah (A1) Durgam Uncle (A2). When we searched their bags we found gelletin sticks and detonators. A1 and A2 confessed that they belongs to Prathigatana Naxalite group and their dala commander was Anli and they further stated that they went to the accused,

Kummari Mallaiah, on the instructions of CO, Anil and going by taking gelletin sticks and detonators from the accused, Mallaiah. Our SI seized the gelletin sticks and detonators from A1 and A2. My statement was recorded by our SI.

16. The evidence of Pw2 in-cross examination.

I have not fled any certifcate that on 05.07.2005, I was deputed for petrolling. It is not true to suggest that since I have not fled duty certifcate it shows that on 05.07.2005 I was not on petrolling duty. My statement was recorded by our SI at Peddampet village. It is not true to suggest that since I am working in the police department I am giving false evidence in support of the prosecution. It is not true to suggest that A1 and A2 and Mallaiah, A3 have nothing to do with the offence they are innocents.

17. The evidence of Pw3 in-chief examination

I do not know anything of this case. No one has ever confessed before me about any offence and nothing was seized in my presence. However, at the request of police I made my signatures on some papers. Ex.P3 is my signature (on confession-cum-seizer panchanama).

18. The Evidence of Pw3 in-cross examination by the Addl. Public

Prosecutor.

It is not true to suggest that on 05.07.2005 (accused) confessed before me and in the presence of Pw1 at Peddampeta Vaagu to have committed the 6 offence and recovered 3 gellitin sticks and 3 detonators under cover of panchanama It is not true to suggest that I am giving false evidence to help the accused being gained over by him.

19. The evidence of Pw4 in-chief examination

At present, I am working as Inspector of Police in Intelligence

Peddapalli. Previously, I worked as SI of Police, Mahadevpur from 12.03.2006 to 10.03.2008. I took up investigation in this case from Lw8, A. Srinivas. I verifed the investigation done by Lw8 and found it to be on correct lines. I forwarded the material objects Gelletin sticks and detonators to the FSL through court for examination. On my request the District Collector issued sanction proceedings to prosecute the accused. Ex.P4 is the sanction proceedings of District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar. Further investigation was done by Srinivas Chowdary (Lw10).

20. The Evidence of Pw4 in-cross examination.

It is not true to suggest that I have not verifed the investigation done by Lw8.

21. The Evidence of Pw5 in-chief examination.

At present, I am working as Circle-Inspector of Police, Husnabad.

Previously during the period from 22.08.2003 to 01.03.2006, I was SI of

Police, Mahadevpur. On 05.07.2005 at 0800 hours, when I along with

Janardhan, PC No.2343, Lw3, PC No.619, A. Srinivas, Pw2, PC NO.2321, D.

Rajaiah, Lw5, PC NO.05, Bhimaiah, Lw6, HC 2412, L. Gangaram, Lw7, were on petrolling duty, at Peddampeta vaagu we found two persons moving under suspicious manner. On that, we apprehended the said two persons. On being interrogated the said two persons disclosed their names as Chilumula

Sambaiah, A1 and Durgam Uncle, A2. Further on being interrogated they confessed to have committed two offences earlier. On search I found three gilletin sticks and three detonators each at A1 and A2. On that I got recorded the confessional statement of A1 and A2 in the presence of Akula Ramulu, 7

Pw3 and Venkatesham, Pw1 and I recovered those gilletin sticks and detonators. In their confessional statement A1 and A2 stated that they collected the gilletin sticks and detonators from Kummari Mallaiah, A3. I brought the A1 and A2 to police station after being arrested and basing on the confessional statement I registered the case against A1 to A3 U/Sec. 5 of

Explosive Substance Act vide Cr.No.68/2005. I also recorded the statements of the above said our staff. Ex.P5 is the attested copy of FIR. (Ex.P5 is marked with the consent of the accused counsel as original FIR is in the split up case). I caused the A1 and A2 to be produced before the court. In confessional statement of A1 and A2 the involvement of A3 was found. The bomb disposal squad defused the gilletin sticks and detonators with the permission of the court. Further investigation was done by my successors

Sadan Kumar and Srinivas Chowdary, who forwarded the samples of gilletin sticks and detonators to FSL and fled the charge sheet after obtaining FSL report. The A3, got anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court. I can identify the signature of Srinivas Chowdary.

22. The Evidence of Pw5 in-cross examination.

It is true in this case I am the complainant and one of the Investigating

Ofcers. It is not true to suggest that I being the complainant I should not proceed with the investigation. It is not true to suggest that before registering the case I got recorded the confessional statement and recovered material objects and it is against law. It is not true to suggest that I foisted a false case against the accused and the accused is the innocent person.

23. It is in the light of the evidence let us see how far the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused.

24. In this case except the Investigating Ofcers i.e., Pw4 and Pw5 all other witnesses including the panch witness for the confession completely turned hostile. There is no evidence to show that A1 and A2 against whom case was 8 ended in acquittal collected gelatin sticks from A3. More over, Pw5 being the complainant who should not associate with the investigation investigated the case without entrusting the case to other ofcer. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence and in view of the material witnesses have turned hostile conviction can not be passed on merely basing on the evidence of Pw4 and

Pw5, who are the police people. Therefore, I hold that prosecution miserably failed to prove it’s case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

25.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec. 5 of ES

Act and he is acquitted U/Sec. 235 of Cr.PC. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six months from this day.

Typed to dictation, corrected by me and pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of February, 2019.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANTHANI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE Pw1Bodem Venkatesham -NIL- Pw2: A. Srinivas Pw3: Akula Ramulu Pw4: G. Sadan Kumar Pw5: A. Srinivas ::EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 are the signatures of Pw1 on confession panchanama. & Ex.P2 Ex.P3: is the signature of Pw3 on confession-cum-seizer panchanama. Ex.P4: is the sanction proceedings of District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar Ex.P5: is the is the attested copy of FIR (Ex.P5 is marked with the consent of the accused counsel).

9

FOR DEFENCE: -

Material Objects MARKED: -NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE:AT: MANTHANI

PRESENT: SRI A. JAYA RAJU,

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of February, 2019.

SESSIONS CASE NO.296 OF 2018

(On committal made by the Learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani vide PRC No. 64 of 2017)

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mahadevpur, P.S. (Cr.No.68 of 2005 of P.S. Mahadevpur)

Name of the Accused : Kummari Mallaiah, S/o. Bakkaiah, Age: 30 years, R/o. Saravaipet. Charge:U/Sec. 5 of ES Act

Plea of the Accused:“ Not Guilty “ Finding of the Court:“ Not Guilty“

Sentence or Order :The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 5 of ES Act and he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec. 235 Cr.P.C. the bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six months from the date of judgment. Prosecution conducted by:Sri K.Venkata Ram Reddy, Addl.P.P.,

Accused defended bySri. Siguru Srinivas, Advocate.

This case is coming before me 12.02.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Venkata Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri. Siguru Srinivas, Advocate, for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1. Accused has been prosecuted by the State represented by the Sub

Inspector of police, Mahadevpur for the offence U/Sec. 5 of ES Act in Cr.No.

68 of 2005 of P.S. Mahadevpur.

2. The brief story of the prosecution that led to accused being prosecuted is as follows:

On 05.07.2005 at 0600 hours, A. Srinivas (Pw5), SI of Police, PS

Mahadevpur, when he along with Akula Ramulu (Pw3), Bodem Venkatesham 2 (Pw1), Y. Janardhan (Lw3), D. Rajaiah (Lw5), A. Srinivas (Pw2), B. Bheemaiah (Lw6) and L. Gangaram (Lw7) and District Guard party checking the shelters and hide outs of extremists in Bommapur, Suraram and Ambatipally. At about 0800 hours, they found two persons under suspicious circumstances.

On that he apprehended them. On search they found them in possession of the accused gelatin sticks and detonators. Then he secured the presence of

Pw3 and Pw1 and interrogated the persons i.e., A1 and A2. Both the accused

No.1 and 2 disclosed their identify as Chilumula Sammaiah, A1 and Durgam

Ankulu, A2 and they confessed that they have been working for the

Prathigatana Naxals Group. As per the directions of Anil, C.O., and as per the appointment that day at about 0600 hours, at Ambatpalli outskirts they met

Kummari Mallaiah (accused No.3), who has handed over each three gelatin sticks and three detonators to be handed over to Anil, C.O. On the confessional statement of A1 and A2 they seized the gelatin sticks and detonators in the presence of Pw1 and Pw3. Later he brought the accused

No.1 and 2 to police station and sue motto registered the case.

3. Basing on the confessional statement A. Srinivas, Pw5, Sub Inspector of

Police, registered a case in Cr.No.68/2005 U/Sec. 5 of ES Act. G. Sadan Kumar,

Pw4, SI of police, PS Mahadevpur, took up investigation from Pw5 and found it to be on proper lines and made his efforts to apprehend the accused No.3, but in vain. Later M. Srinivas, Lw10, Sub Inspector of Police, took up investigation from Pw4 and verifed the investigation done by Pw4 and 5 and found it to be on proper lines. After investigation was over he fled the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 U/Sec. 5 of ES Act showing the accused

No.3 as absconding.

This is the brief story of the prosecution for prosecuting the accused.

3

4. The case was taken on fle for the offence punishable U/Sec. 5 of ES Act against the accused by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Manthani vide PRC No. 64 of 2017 and on appearance of the accused the copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207

Cr.P.C. and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Karimnagar

U/Sec.209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

5. The charge U/Sec. 5 of ES Act was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove it’s case the prosecution examined Pws1 to 5 and exhibited 5 documents.

7. Bodem Venkatesham (Pw1) and Akula Ramulu (Pw3) are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of A1 and A2. A. Srinivas (Pw2), PC No. 619, is the one who assisted to the Investigating Ofcer. G.

Sadan Kumar (Pw4), is the second Investigating Ofcer. A. Srinivas (Pw5), is the frst Investigating Ofcer.

Ex.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pw1 on confession panchanama.

Ex.P3 is the signature of Pw3 on confession-cum-seizer panchanama. Ex.P4 is the sanction proceedings of District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar.

Ex.P5 is the attested copy of FIR (Ex.P5 is marked with the consent of the accused counsel).

8. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined

U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C the accused denied the incriminating material found against him and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

9. Heard both sides.

4 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable U/Sec. 5 of ES Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. Now let us see, what the prosecution witnesses deposed before the court:- 12. Evidence on Record.

(For the sake of convenience of the parties and to know what

exactly the witnesses testifed before the court, I would like to

reproduce the chief and cross examinations of all the witnesses in

the same words spoken by the witnesses).

13. The evidence of Pw1 in-chief

I do not know anything of this case. No one has ever confessed before me and nothing was seized in my presence. However, at the request of police

I made my signature on a paper. Ex. P1 and P2 are my signatures (on confession).

14. The evidence of Pw1 in-cross examination by the Addl. Public

Prosecutor.

It is not true to suggest that on 05.07.2005 at about 08:15 am, and on the same day at 08:45 am, at Peddampeta vaadu Chilumala Sambaiah, A1 and Durgam Uncle, A2 have confessed before me that Kummari Mallaiah, accused would hand over gelletin sticks and three detonators. It is not true to suggest that I am giving false evidence to help the accused being gained over by him.

15. The evidence of Pw2 in-chief examination.

At present, I am working police constable Mahamutharam PS.

Previously, during the period 28.08.2001 to December, 2005 I was PS of

Mahadevpur Police station. On 05.07.2005, I along with HC No.2412, 5

Gangaram,Lw7, PC 2343, Janardhan, Lw3, PC 2321, Rajaiah, Lw5, PC No.5.

Bheemaiah, Srinivas, Lw10, Sub Inspector and district guard were petrolling in Mahadevpur police station limits. At about 08:00 am, we found at

Peddampeta vaadu two persons namely Sambaiah and Uncle in suspicious manner we apprehended them. On being interrogated by our SI they disclosed their names as Sambaiah (A1) Durgam Uncle (A2). When we searched their bags we found gelletin sticks and detonators. A1 and A2 confessed that they belongs to Prathigatana Naxalite group and their dala commander was Anli and they further stated that they went to the accused,

Kummari Mallaiah, on the instructions of CO, Anil and going by taking gelletin sticks and detonators from the accused, Mallaiah. Our SI seized the gelletin sticks and detonators from A1 and A2. My statement was recorded by our SI.

16. The evidence of Pw2 in-cross examination.

I have not fled any certifcate that on 05.07.2005, I was deputed for petrolling. It is not true to suggest that since I have not fled duty certifcate it shows that on 05.07.2005 I was not on petrolling duty. My statement was recorded by our SI at Peddampet village. It is not true to suggest that since I am working in the police department I am giving false evidence in support of the prosecution. It is not true to suggest that A1 and A2 and Mallaiah, A3 have nothing to do with the offence they are innocents.

17. The evidence of Pw3 in-chief examination

I do not know anything of this case. No one has ever confessed before me about any offence and nothing was seized in my presence. However, at the request of police I made my signatures on some papers. Ex.P3 is my signature (on confession-cum-seizer panchanama).

18. The Evidence of Pw3 in-cross examination by the Addl. Public

Prosecutor.

It is not true to suggest that on 05.07.2005 (accused) confessed before me and in the presence of Pw1 at Peddampeta Vaagu to have committed the 6 offence and recovered 3 gellitin sticks and 3 detonators under cover of panchanama It is not true to suggest that I am giving false evidence to help the accused being gained over by him.

19. The evidence of Pw4 in-chief examination

At present, I am working as Inspector of Police in Intelligence

Peddapalli. Previously, I worked as SI of Police, Mahadevpur from 12.03.2006 to 10.03.2008. I took up investigation in this case from Lw8, A. Srinivas. I verifed the investigation done by Lw8 and found it to be on correct lines. I forwarded the material objects Gelletin sticks and detonators to the FSL through court for examination. On my request the District Collector issued sanction proceedings to prosecute the accused. Ex.P4 is the sanction proceedings of District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar. Further investigation was done by Srinivas Chowdary (Lw10).

20. The Evidence of Pw4 in-cross examination.

It is not true to suggest that I have not verifed the investigation done by Lw8.

21. The Evidence of Pw5 in-chief examination.

At present, I am working as Circle-Inspector of Police, Husnabad.

Previously during the period from 22.08.2003 to 01.03.2006, I was SI of

Police, Mahadevpur. On 05.07.2005 at 0800 hours, when I along with

Janardhan, PC No.2343, Lw3, PC No.619, A. Srinivas, Pw2, PC NO.2321, D.

Rajaiah, Lw5, PC NO.05, Bhimaiah, Lw6, HC 2412, L. Gangaram, Lw7, were on petrolling duty, at Peddampeta vaagu we found two persons moving under suspicious manner. On that, we apprehended the said two persons. On being interrogated the said two persons disclosed their names as Chilumula

Sambaiah, A1 and Durgam Uncle, A2. Further on being interrogated they confessed to have committed two offences earlier. On search I found three gilletin sticks and three detonators each at A1 and A2. On that I got recorded the confessional statement of A1 and A2 in the presence of Akula Ramulu, 7

Pw3 and Venkatesham, Pw1 and I recovered those gilletin sticks and detonators. In their confessional statement A1 and A2 stated that they collected the gilletin sticks and detonators from Kummari Mallaiah, A3. I brought the A1 and A2 to police station after being arrested and basing on the confessional statement I registered the case against A1 to A3 U/Sec. 5 of

Explosive Substance Act vide Cr.No.68/2005. I also recorded the statements of the above said our staff. Ex.P5 is the attested copy of FIR. (Ex.P5 is marked with the consent of the accused counsel as original FIR is in the split up case). I caused the A1 and A2 to be produced before the court. In confessional statement of A1 and A2 the involvement of A3 was found. The bomb disposal squad defused the gilletin sticks and detonators with the permission of the court. Further investigation was done by my successors

Sadan Kumar and Srinivas Chowdary, who forwarded the samples of gilletin sticks and detonators to FSL and fled the charge sheet after obtaining FSL report. The A3, got anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court. I can identify the signature of Srinivas Chowdary.

22. The Evidence of Pw5 in-cross examination.

It is true in this case I am the complainant and one of the Investigating

Ofcers. It is not true to suggest that I being the complainant I should not proceed with the investigation. It is not true to suggest that before registering the case I got recorded the confessional statement and recovered material objects and it is against law. It is not true to suggest that I foisted a false case against the accused and the accused is the innocent person.

23. It is in the light of the evidence let us see how far the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused.

24. In this case except the Investigating Ofcers i.e., Pw4 and Pw5 all other witnesses including the panch witness for the confession completely turned hostile. There is no evidence to show that A1 and A2 against whom case was 8 ended in acquittal collected gelatin sticks from A3. More over, Pw5 being the complainant who should not associate with the investigation investigated the case without entrusting the case to other ofcer. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence and in view of the material witnesses have turned hostile conviction can not be passed on merely basing on the evidence of Pw4 and

Pw5, who are the police people. Therefore, I hold that prosecution miserably failed to prove it’s case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

25.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec. 5 of ES

Act and he is acquitted U/Sec. 235 of Cr.PC. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six months from this day.

Typed to dictation, corrected by me and pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of February, 2019.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANTHANI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE Pw1Bodem Venkatesham -NIL- Pw2: A. Srinivas Pw3: Akula Ramulu Pw4: G. Sadan Kumar Pw5: A. Srinivas ::EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 are the signatures of Pw1 on confession panchanama. & Ex.P2 Ex.P3: is the signature of Pw3 on confession-cum-seizer panchanama. Ex.P4: is the sanction proceedings of District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar Ex.P5: is the is the attested copy of FIR (Ex.P5 is marked with the consent of the accused counsel).

9

FOR DEFENCE: -

Material Objects MARKED: -NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE:AT: MANTHANI

PRESENT: SRI A. JAYA RAJU,

ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Wednesday, this the 13th day of February, 2019.

SESSIONS CASE NO.296 OF 2018

(On committal made by the Learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani vide PRC No. 64 of 2017)

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Mahadevpur, P.S. (Cr.No.68 of 2005 of P.S. Mahadevpur)

Name of the Accused : Kummari Mallaiah, S/o. Bakkaiah, Age: 30 years, R/o. Saravaipet. Charge:U/Sec. 5 of ES Act

Plea of the Accused:“ Not Guilty “ Finding of the Court:“ Not Guilty“

Sentence or Order :The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 5 of ES Act and he is acquitted for the said offence U/Sec. 235 Cr.P.C. the bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six months from the date of judgment. Prosecution conducted by:Sri K.Venkata Ram Reddy, Addl.P.P.,

Accused defended bySri. Siguru Srinivas, Advocate.

This case is coming before me 12.02.2019 for hearing in the presence of Sri K. Venkata Ram Reddy, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant and of Sri. Siguru Srinivas, Advocate, for the accused, upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1. Accused has been prosecuted by the State represented by the Sub

Inspector of police, Mahadevpur for the offence U/Sec. 5 of ES Act in Cr.No.

68 of 2005 of P.S. Mahadevpur.

2. The brief story of the prosecution that led to accused being prosecuted is as follows:

On 05.07.2005 at 0600 hours, A. Srinivas (Pw5), SI of Police, PS

Mahadevpur, when he along with Akula Ramulu (Pw3), Bodem Venkatesham 2 (Pw1), Y. Janardhan (Lw3), D. Rajaiah (Lw5), A. Srinivas (Pw2), B. Bheemaiah (Lw6) and L. Gangaram (Lw7) and District Guard party checking the shelters and hide outs of extremists in Bommapur, Suraram and Ambatipally. At about 0800 hours, they found two persons under suspicious circumstances.

On that he apprehended them. On search they found them in possession of the accused gelatin sticks and detonators. Then he secured the presence of

Pw3 and Pw1 and interrogated the persons i.e., A1 and A2. Both the accused

No.1 and 2 disclosed their identify as Chilumula Sammaiah, A1 and Durgam

Ankulu, A2 and they confessed that they have been working for the

Prathigatana Naxals Group. As per the directions of Anil, C.O., and as per the appointment that day at about 0600 hours, at Ambatpalli outskirts they met

Kummari Mallaiah (accused No.3), who has handed over each three gelatin sticks and three detonators to be handed over to Anil, C.O. On the confessional statement of A1 and A2 they seized the gelatin sticks and detonators in the presence of Pw1 and Pw3. Later he brought the accused

No.1 and 2 to police station and sue motto registered the case.

3. Basing on the confessional statement A. Srinivas, Pw5, Sub Inspector of

Police, registered a case in Cr.No.68/2005 U/Sec. 5 of ES Act. G. Sadan Kumar,

Pw4, SI of police, PS Mahadevpur, took up investigation from Pw5 and found it to be on proper lines and made his efforts to apprehend the accused No.3, but in vain. Later M. Srinivas, Lw10, Sub Inspector of Police, took up investigation from Pw4 and verifed the investigation done by Pw4 and 5 and found it to be on proper lines. After investigation was over he fled the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 3 U/Sec. 5 of ES Act showing the accused

No.3 as absconding.

This is the brief story of the prosecution for prosecuting the accused.

3

4. The case was taken on fle for the offence punishable U/Sec. 5 of ES Act against the accused by the learned Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Manthani vide PRC No. 64 of 2017 and on appearance of the accused the copies of case documents were furnished to him as required U/Sec.207

Cr.P.C. and as the offence is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of

Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Karimnagar

U/Sec.209 Cr.P.C and subsequently, the case was made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

5. The charge U/Sec. 5 of ES Act was framed against the accused and the contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove it’s case the prosecution examined Pws1 to 5 and exhibited 5 documents.

7. Bodem Venkatesham (Pw1) and Akula Ramulu (Pw3) are the panch witnesses for confession and recovery panchanama of A1 and A2. A. Srinivas (Pw2), PC No. 619, is the one who assisted to the Investigating Ofcer. G.

Sadan Kumar (Pw4), is the second Investigating Ofcer. A. Srinivas (Pw5), is the frst Investigating Ofcer.

Ex.P1 and P2 are the signatures of Pw1 on confession panchanama.

Ex.P3 is the signature of Pw3 on confession-cum-seizer panchanama. Ex.P4 is the sanction proceedings of District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar.

Ex.P5 is the attested copy of FIR (Ex.P5 is marked with the consent of the accused counsel).

8. After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused is examined

U/Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C the accused denied the incriminating material found against him and reported no defense evidence on his behalf.

9. Heard both sides.

4 10. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charge punishable U/Sec. 5 of ES Act beyond all reasonable doubt?

11. Now let us see, what the prosecution witnesses deposed before the court:- 12. Evidence on Record.

(For the sake of convenience of the parties and to know what

exactly the witnesses testifed before the court, I would like to

reproduce the chief and cross examinations of all the witnesses in

the same words spoken by the witnesses).

13. The evidence of Pw1 in-chief

I do not know anything of this case. No one has ever confessed before me and nothing was seized in my presence. However, at the request of police

I made my signature on a paper. Ex. P1 and P2 are my signatures (on confession).

14. The evidence of Pw1 in-cross examination by the Addl. Public

Prosecutor.

It is not true to suggest that on 05.07.2005 at about 08:15 am, and on the same day at 08:45 am, at Peddampeta vaadu Chilumala Sambaiah, A1 and Durgam Uncle, A2 have confessed before me that Kummari Mallaiah, accused would hand over gelletin sticks and three detonators. It is not true to suggest that I am giving false evidence to help the accused being gained over by him.

15. The evidence of Pw2 in-chief examination.

At present, I am working police constable Mahamutharam PS.

Previously, during the period 28.08.2001 to December, 2005 I was PS of

Mahadevpur Police station. On 05.07.2005, I along with HC No.2412, 5

Gangaram,Lw7, PC 2343, Janardhan, Lw3, PC 2321, Rajaiah, Lw5, PC No.5.

Bheemaiah, Srinivas, Lw10, Sub Inspector and district guard were petrolling in Mahadevpur police station limits. At about 08:00 am, we found at

Peddampeta vaadu two persons namely Sambaiah and Uncle in suspicious manner we apprehended them. On being interrogated by our SI they disclosed their names as Sambaiah (A1) Durgam Uncle (A2). When we searched their bags we found gelletin sticks and detonators. A1 and A2 confessed that they belongs to Prathigatana Naxalite group and their dala commander was Anli and they further stated that they went to the accused,

Kummari Mallaiah, on the instructions of CO, Anil and going by taking gelletin sticks and detonators from the accused, Mallaiah. Our SI seized the gelletin sticks and detonators from A1 and A2. My statement was recorded by our SI.

16. The evidence of Pw2 in-cross examination.

I have not fled any certifcate that on 05.07.2005, I was deputed for petrolling. It is not true to suggest that since I have not fled duty certifcate it shows that on 05.07.2005 I was not on petrolling duty. My statement was recorded by our SI at Peddampet village. It is not true to suggest that since I am working in the police department I am giving false evidence in support of the prosecution. It is not true to suggest that A1 and A2 and Mallaiah, A3 have nothing to do with the offence they are innocents.

17. The evidence of Pw3 in-chief examination

I do not know anything of this case. No one has ever confessed before me about any offence and nothing was seized in my presence. However, at the request of police I made my signatures on some papers. Ex.P3 is my signature (on confession-cum-seizer panchanama).

18. The Evidence of Pw3 in-cross examination by the Addl. Public

Prosecutor.

It is not true to suggest that on 05.07.2005 (accused) confessed before me and in the presence of Pw1 at Peddampeta Vaagu to have committed the 6 offence and recovered 3 gellitin sticks and 3 detonators under cover of panchanama It is not true to suggest that I am giving false evidence to help the accused being gained over by him.

19. The evidence of Pw4 in-chief examination

At present, I am working as Inspector of Police in Intelligence

Peddapalli. Previously, I worked as SI of Police, Mahadevpur from 12.03.2006 to 10.03.2008. I took up investigation in this case from Lw8, A. Srinivas. I verifed the investigation done by Lw8 and found it to be on correct lines. I forwarded the material objects Gelletin sticks and detonators to the FSL through court for examination. On my request the District Collector issued sanction proceedings to prosecute the accused. Ex.P4 is the sanction proceedings of District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar. Further investigation was done by Srinivas Chowdary (Lw10).

20. The Evidence of Pw4 in-cross examination.

It is not true to suggest that I have not verifed the investigation done by Lw8.

21. The Evidence of Pw5 in-chief examination.

At present, I am working as Circle-Inspector of Police, Husnabad.

Previously during the period from 22.08.2003 to 01.03.2006, I was SI of

Police, Mahadevpur. On 05.07.2005 at 0800 hours, when I along with

Janardhan, PC No.2343, Lw3, PC No.619, A. Srinivas, Pw2, PC NO.2321, D.

Rajaiah, Lw5, PC NO.05, Bhimaiah, Lw6, HC 2412, L. Gangaram, Lw7, were on petrolling duty, at Peddampeta vaagu we found two persons moving under suspicious manner. On that, we apprehended the said two persons. On being interrogated the said two persons disclosed their names as Chilumula

Sambaiah, A1 and Durgam Uncle, A2. Further on being interrogated they confessed to have committed two offences earlier. On search I found three gilletin sticks and three detonators each at A1 and A2. On that I got recorded the confessional statement of A1 and A2 in the presence of Akula Ramulu, 7

Pw3 and Venkatesham, Pw1 and I recovered those gilletin sticks and detonators. In their confessional statement A1 and A2 stated that they collected the gilletin sticks and detonators from Kummari Mallaiah, A3. I brought the A1 and A2 to police station after being arrested and basing on the confessional statement I registered the case against A1 to A3 U/Sec. 5 of

Explosive Substance Act vide Cr.No.68/2005. I also recorded the statements of the above said our staff. Ex.P5 is the attested copy of FIR. (Ex.P5 is marked with the consent of the accused counsel as original FIR is in the split up case). I caused the A1 and A2 to be produced before the court. In confessional statement of A1 and A2 the involvement of A3 was found. The bomb disposal squad defused the gilletin sticks and detonators with the permission of the court. Further investigation was done by my successors

Sadan Kumar and Srinivas Chowdary, who forwarded the samples of gilletin sticks and detonators to FSL and fled the charge sheet after obtaining FSL report. The A3, got anticipatory bail from the Hon'ble High Court. I can identify the signature of Srinivas Chowdary.

22. The Evidence of Pw5 in-cross examination.

It is true in this case I am the complainant and one of the Investigating

Ofcers. It is not true to suggest that I being the complainant I should not proceed with the investigation. It is not true to suggest that before registering the case I got recorded the confessional statement and recovered material objects and it is against law. It is not true to suggest that I foisted a false case against the accused and the accused is the innocent person.

23. It is in the light of the evidence let us see how far the prosecution is able to prove its case against the accused.

24. In this case except the Investigating Ofcers i.e., Pw4 and Pw5 all other witnesses including the panch witness for the confession completely turned hostile. There is no evidence to show that A1 and A2 against whom case was 8 ended in acquittal collected gelatin sticks from A3. More over, Pw5 being the complainant who should not associate with the investigation investigated the case without entrusting the case to other ofcer. Therefore, in the absence of the evidence and in view of the material witnesses have turned hostile conviction can not be passed on merely basing on the evidence of Pw4 and

Pw5, who are the police people. Therefore, I hold that prosecution miserably failed to prove it’s case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

25.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the charge U/Sec. 5 of ES

Act and he is acquitted U/Sec. 235 of Cr.PC. The bail bonds executed by the accused shall be in force for six months from this day.

Typed to dictation, corrected by me and pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of February, 2019.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANTHANI.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE Pw1Bodem Venkatesham -NIL- Pw2: A. Srinivas Pw3: Akula Ramulu Pw4: G. Sadan Kumar Pw5: A. Srinivas ::EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 are the signatures of Pw1 on confession panchanama. & Ex.P2 Ex.P3: is the signature of Pw3 on confession-cum-seizer panchanama. Ex.P4: is the sanction proceedings of District Collector and Magistrate, Karimnagar Ex.P5: is the is the attested copy of FIR (Ex.P5 is marked with the consent of the accused counsel).

9

FOR DEFENCE: -

Material Objects MARKED: -NIL-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.