Smt A Padma

OS 605/2016 1 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

CNR No.APAN020011392016

Presented on : 18-11-2016 Registered on : 18-11-2016 Decided on : 02-04-2026 Duration : 9 years, 4 months, 14 days

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION)

ANANTHAPURAMU.

PRESENT:- Smt.A.Padma

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of April, 2026.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 605 /201 6

Between:

1) Golla Polla Akkamma (died) by LRs.

2) Golla Polla Sreenivasulu S/o.Late Golla Yerrappa @ Polla Pedda Yerrappa, 50 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

3) Golla Polla Ramakrishna S/o.Late Golla Yerrappa @ Polla Pedda Yerrappa, 40 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

4) Golla Polla Manjunath S/o.Late Golla Yerrappa @ Polla Pedda Yerrappa, 35 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

5) Golla Polla Yerriswamy S/o.Late Golla Yerrappa @ Polla Pedda Yerrappa, 30 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

6) Doddi Naga Lakshmi D/o.Late Golla Yerrappa, 56 years, Hindu, Housewife,

7) Kallu Lakshmidevi D/o.Late Golla Yerrappa, 52 years, Hindu, Housewife,

8) Y.Subadra D/o.Late Golla Yerrappa, 48 years, Hindu, Housewife,

9) Golla Akkamma D/o.Late Golla Yerrappa, 44 years, Hindu, Housewife,

10) Golla Malleswari D/o.Late Golla Yerrappa, 42 years, Hindu, Housewife,

OS 605/2016 2 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

(Plaintiffs 6 to 10 are added as per orders in IA 247/2023 dated

23.08.2023). … Plaintiffs.

A N D

1) Polla Chinna Yerrappa S/o.P.Narasimhappa, 62 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

2) Polla Yerrinagappa S/o.P.Narasimhappa, 58 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

3) Polla Buseppa S/o.P.Narasimhappa, 56 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

4) Polla Muthyalappa S/o.P.Narasimhappa, 52 years, Hindu, Cultivation,

Defendants 1 to 4 are residing at Bodiganidoddi village, B.K.Samudram mandal, Ananthapuramu district. … Defendants.

This suit coming on 23.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri.Allu Narayanappa, Advocate for the plaintiffs, Sri.A.Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the 1 st defendant and defendant Nos.2 to 4 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration to this day the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1) This suit is filed for declaration of title of plaintiffs and recovery of possesion of the plaint schedule property from the defendants.

2)Brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

a) The plaint schedule property was purchased by Golla Yerrappa @

Polla Pedda Yerrappa i.e., the husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 vide registered sale deed dated 03.06.1967 for valid consideration. After the demise of Golla Yerrappa, the plaintiff

OS 605/2016 3 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

Nos.2 to 5 have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property without any interference from anybody.

b)After the demise of the 1st plaintiff, her daughters i.e., plaintiffs

Nos.6 to 10 are impleaded as her legal representatives, her sons plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 were already on record. The defendants having no manner of right or title over the plaint schedule property about one month prior to from the date of filing of the plaint, occupied some extent in the plaint schedule property. By taking advantage of their trespass into the plaint schedule property, the defendants are making hectic efforts to alienate the same to 3rd parties ignoring the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiffs also otherwise perfected their right and title by adverse possession over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed the Court to declare their right and title over the plaint schedule property and for delivery of possession of the property by the defendants.

3)The 1st defendant filed his written statement. The defendant Nos.2 to 4 remained exparte. The 1st defendant denied the averments of the plaint. The contention of the 1st defendant in brief is as follows:

(a)The name of the 1st defendant is Yerrappa @ Chinna Yerrappa.

The plaint schedule property was purchased out of their joint family funds and subsequently, the same was partitioned among the husband of the 1st plaintiff, this defendant and their other brothers i.e., defendant

Nos.2 to 4 by names Pedda Yerrappa, Chinna Yerrappa, Yerri Nagappa,

Buseppa and Muthyalappa orally and in the said partition, each brother

OS 605/2016 4 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

got Ac.1.53 cents with specific boundaries. The names of the defendant

Nos.1 to 4 and the husband of the 1st plaintiff were mutated in the revenue records. The plaintiffs together are in possession of Ac.1.53 cents with specific boundaries. The plaintiffs have intentionally suppressed the material facts and filed this suit.

(b)At the time of partition among the brothers, the registered sale deed dated 03.06.1967 was kept with the husband of the 1st plaintiff namely Pedda Yerrappa, he being the elder in the family. The plaintiffs taking into advantage of the custody of the document in their possession, filed this suit by creating the dubious allegations. The plaintiffs are never in possession of the entire plaint schedule property.

They are in possession only to extent of Ac1.53 cents. The defendants never made any efforts to alienate the property. Even otherwise, each brother has got exclusive and marketable title to an extent of only

Ac.1.53 cents. There are existing rights in the lands for each branch. On apparent observation of the physical possession of the land, it is clear that the land is divided among the brothers and they are in possession subject to their entitlement. There is no cause of action to file this suit.

Hence, the 1st defendant prayed the Court to dismiss the suit.

4)Basing on the pleadings of both parties, the then Presiding Officer framed the following issues for trial.

1) Whether the plaint schedule property is the absolute

property of Golla Yerrappa @ Polla Peda Yerrappa, husband of 1 st

OS 605/2016 5 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 as claimed by the

plaintiffs?

2) Whether the plaintiffs could establish their rightful title over the plaint schedule property?

3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of right

and title over the plaint schedule property and also for delivery of

possession of the property, as claimed by them?

4) To what relief?

5)Heard both sides. Gone through the entire material on record.

6) The counsel for the plaintiff relied following two judgments.

i) Hyder Vali Vs. G.Venkatramana reported in 2014 0 Supreme (AP) 118 = 2014 5 ALT 165:2014 4 CivCC 801.

ii) Bayyarapu Narayana Raidu and another Vs. Mrs.Pagadala Varalaxmi reported in 2013 0 Supreme (AP) 974 = 2014 2 ALD 176:2014 4 ALT 808.

7)The counsel for the 1st defendant relied following two judgments.

i) Paturu Sundaraiah Vs. Suri Ranganayakamma and another reported in 2022(2) ALT 469 (AP).

ii) Vytla Venkatrao and another Vs. Edupuganti Narayana Rao and another reported in 2024(5) ALT 760 (AP).

Evidence on Record:

OS 605/2016 6 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

8)The 4th plaintiff got examined himself as PW1. The 3rd plaintiff got examined himself as PW2. The plaintiffs exhibited Exs.A1 to A6 i.e., registered sale deed dated 03.06.1967, registered partition deed dated 21.12.2010, land revenue receipts, genealogy issued by VRO, original

LIC bond taken in favour of the 4th plaintiff and attested copy of SSC

Certificate of 3rd plaintiff. The 1st defendant got examined himself as

DW1 and no documents are marked on his behalf.

ISSUE Nos .1 and 2 :

1) Whether the plaint schedule property is the absolute

property of Golla Yerrappa @ Polla Peda Yerrappa, husband of 1 st

plaintiff and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 as claimed by the

plaintiffs?

2) Whether the plaintiffs could establish their rightful title over the plaint schedule property?

9)In order to avoid repetition, the issue Nos.1 and 2 are discussed together. To establish their case, the 4th plaintiff filed his chief- examination affidavit as PW1 and the 3rd plaintiff filed his chief- examination affidavit as PW2. Both PWs.1 and 2 have reiterated the contents of the plaint in all material facts. Their evidence is that their father Golla Yerrappa purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed dated 03.06.1967. The defendants who are brothers of father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 having no right and title, trespassed into the plaint schedule property and they are making hectic

OS 605/2016 7 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

efforts to sell the same. To establish their contention, the plaintiffs filed registered sale deed dated 03.06.1967 executed in favour of Golla

Yerrappa S/o.Narasimhappa. Golla Yerrappa purchased Ac.7.65 cents out of Ac.15.30 cents in Sy.No.131 of Bodiganidoddi, Korrapadu

Panchayat, as per Ex.A1 sale deed.

10)The contention of the 1st defendant is that he is called as Golla

Yerrappa @ Chinna Yerrappa and that the plaint schedule property was purchased with the joint family funds and that the father of the plaintiff

Nos.2 to 5, this defendant and defendant Nos.2 to 4 have partitioned the plaint schedule property and each of them got Ac.1.53 cents and that they have been in possession of the same and their names were mutated in the revenue records. Since the 1st defendant took a plea that the plaint schedule property was purchased with the joint family funds and that it was partitioned among the brothers of the 1st defendant, the burden shifts on the 1st defendant to prove those facts. In fact, the 1st defendant did not produce any evidence to show that the plaint schedule property was purchased with the joint family funds.

11)Ex.A1 is the sale deed dated 03.06.1967 shows that the plaint schedule property was purchased by Golla Yerrappa for the amount already given by him to the vendor therein. It does not contain any recitals that the property was purchased with the joint family funds or that it was purchased in the name of the joint family. As per rule of the best evidence, the contents of the document can be contradicted by way of any other document but not by way of oral evidence.

OS 605/2016 8 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

12)The 1st defendant contended that his name is Golla Yerrappa and that he is also called as Golla Chinna Yerappa and that the property was purchased in his name and that at the time of partition of the property among he and his brothers, the registered sale deed was kept with the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5, he being an elder of the family.

The plaintiffs contention is that their father is called as Golla Yerrappa and Pedda Yerrappa and that their father alone purchased the property in his name and that the plaint schedule property was not partitioned amiong their father and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and that it was partitioned among the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 under Ex.A2-registered partition deed, after demise of their father.

13)In order to establish their contention that the father of the plaintiff

Nos.2 to 5 was called as Golla Yerrappa, the plaintiffs filed two documents i.e., Exs.A5 and A6. Ex.A5 is the LIC bond taken by the 4th plaintiff in the year 2007 i.e., much prior to filing of this suit, in the year 2016. The name of the father of 4th plaintiff is mentioned as Golla

Yerrappa in Ex.A5. Ex.A6 is the attested photocopy of SSC Certificate of 3rd plaintiff. The name of the father of the 3rd plaintiff is mentioned as

G.Yerrappa. This Certificate was issued in March, 2009, much prior to filing of the suit. It is clear from the evidence of plaintiffs and their documents under Exs.A5 and A6 that the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 namely Golla Pedda Yerrappa is also called as Golla Yerrappa.

14)Ex.A3 is the land revenue receipts 3 in number. 2 receipts out of 3 receipts are seen that the land revenue tax was paid by Golla Yerrappa

S/o.Narasimhulu. In one receipt it is seen that the tax was paid by Golla

OS 605/2016 9 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

Pedda Yerrappa. The receipts are for the years 1989, 1991 and 1992.

Ex.A2 the registered partition deed shows that the land purchased under Ex.A1 by the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 was partitioned among the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5. The 1st defendant did not file the document with respect to the alleged partition of the plaint schedule property among the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 and defendant

Nos.1 to 4.

15)The 1st defendant also contended that each of them got Ac.1.53 cents to their share in the plaint schedule property and that they were issued pattadar pass book and that their names were mutated in the revenue records. In fact, the 1st defendant did not file any such partition deed, pattadar pass book or any other revenue record to show that such partition was effected and that the defendants were issued pattadar pass books so also their names were mutated in the revenue records with respect to the plaint schedule property. The other defendants i.e., defendant Nos.2 to 4 being the beneficiaries under the alleged partition remained exparte. They did not contest the suit.

16)During the cross-examination of PWs.1 and 2, the learned counsel for the 1st defendant posed questions as to the partition of the plaint schedule property among the brothers of their father and that their obtaining pattadar pass books and revenue records. PWs.1 and 2 denied the same. They clearly deposed that the plaint schedule property was partitioned by the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 but not by the defendant Nos.1 to 4 and the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5. They filed

Ex.A2-partition deed dated 21.12.2010 in support their contention that

OS 605/2016 10 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

the property partitioned among the plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 but not by the defendants 1 to 4 and the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5.

17)During the cross-examination of DW1, he admitted that they are five brothers and that their joint family got more than Ac.20.00 cents of land and that it is true on 27.06.2005 he and his brothers and the sons of his deceased brother Yerrappa got prepared the partition list of their joint family properties except the suit schedule property. This admission is crucial admission. At the time of partition of their joint family properties, the plaint schedule property was excluded as per the admission of DW1. If at all the plaint schedule property is the property of their joint family, it would have been included in their joint family properties and would have been partitioned along with the other properties but, this property was not partitioned along with other properties at the time of partition of joint family properties of 1st defendant and it was excluded from the partition.

18)Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that the father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 and on the other hand, the 1st defendant failed to disprove the contention of the plaintiffs and also to prove his contention that the plaint schedule property was purchased with the joint family funds and that it was partitioned among the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 and the defendant

Nos.1 to 4.

OS 605/2016 11 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

19)The learned counsel for the 1st defendant relied upon the judgment between Vytla Venkatarao and another Vs. Edupuganti

Narayana Rao and another reported in 2024(5) ALT 760 (AP) and contended that in a suit for declaration of title, the burden lies on the plaintiffs to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weaknesses if any of the case set up by the defendants would not be a ground to grant the relief to the plaintiffs.

20)It is true the learned counsel for the 1st defendant rightly contended that the burden of proof in a suit for declaration would always be on the plaintiffs. Here, in the present suit, the plaintiffs proved their contention that the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 purchased the plaint schedule property under Ex.A1 in the year 1967 and that the plaintiff

Nos.1 to 5 have partitioned the plaint schedule property after the demise of the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 and that the father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 paid the land revenue tax and that the name of father of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 is G.Yerrappa by producing Exs.A5 and A6 i.e.,

LIC bond and attested copy of SSC certificate. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiffs herein have proved their case by producing their evidence and that they did not rely on or depend on the weaknesses in the defense of the 1st defendant. Hence, the issue Nos.1 and 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No.3: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of

right and title over the plaint schedule property and also for

delivery of possession of the property, as claimed by them?

OS 605/2016 12 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

21)In the light of the result of issue Nos.1 and 2, the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their right and title over the plaint schedule property and they are also entitled for delivery of plaint schedule property. Accordingly, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

ISSUE No. 4 : To what relief?

22)In view of the findings in issue Nos.1 to 3, this issue is answered in favour of the plaintiffs.

23)In the result, the suit is decreed declaring the right and title of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property and directing the defendants to deliver the vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiffs within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which the plaintiffs are at liberty to get possession from the defendants through process of law. There is no order as to the costs, in view of the relationship between the parties.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-II, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the open Court on this the 2 nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A.Padma

Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Oral Evidence

Plaintiffs: Defendants: PW1: Golla Polla Manjunath. DW1: Golla Chinna Yerrappa. PW2: Golla Polla Ramakrishna.

Exhibits marked for Plaintiffs

OS 605/2016 13 Prl.Civil Judge’s Court (Senior Division),

Ananthapuramu.

Ex.A1: Original registered sale deed dated 03.06.1967 executed in favour of Golla Yerrappa @ Polla Pedda Yerrappa i.e., husband of the 1st plaintiff and the father of the other plaintiffs. Ex.A2: Original registered partition deed dated 21.12.2010 executed in between the plaintiffs 1 to 5 in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A3: Land revenue receipts 3 in number paid by Golla Yerrappa @ Pedda Yerrappa for the years 1989, 1991 and 1992 in respect of suit schedule property. Ex.A4: Genealogy tree of the plaintiffs and defendants issued by VRO, BK Samudram. Ex.A5: Original LIC of 4th plaintiff showing the father name as Golla Yerrappa dated 12.09.2007. Ex.A6: Attested copy of SSC Marks list of plaintiff No.3 and his father name as Golla Yerrappa.

Exhibits marked for Defendants: NIL

Sd/- A.Padma

Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ananthapuramu.

SC 2/20241 Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Ananthapuramu.

CNR No.APAN020000122024

Presented on : 08-01-2024 Registered on : 08-01-2024 Decided on : 06-04-2026 Duration : 2 years, 2 months, 29 days

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU.

Present: Smt. A.Padma,

Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu.

Monday, this the 6th day of April, 2026.

SESSIONS CASE No.2 OF 2024

Between: The State represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu 4th town police station. … Complainant.

AND

Yerikala Chandra @ Gujjala Chandra, Age 21 years, S/o.G.Muthyalappa, R/o.#5/182, Vikalangula kottala, Rudrampeta, Ananthapuramu, Caste: Yerikala, Occupation: Mason. … Accused.

This case was presented before me on 01.04.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the Additional Public Prosecutor for the Complainant and of Sri.E.Venkataramudu, Advocate for accused, and after hearing both sides, and upon having perused the material available on record, and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court has delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

SC 2/20242 Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Ananthapuramu.

1)The Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu 4th town police station filed charge sheet in Crime No.395/2020 for the offences under Section 307 and 427 of Indian Penal Code against accused.

2)Brief facts of the charge sheet are that:-

(i) LW1-Palthya Meetu Naik is the native of Vepacherla thanda village,

Atmakur mandal and now residing in Adarsha colony, Ananthapuramu town and since 3 years he is working as Cooking Master in Sreerasthu Catering. On 21.06.2020 at Rudrampeta, where LW1-Palthya Meetu Naik was waiting for his friend for collecting money of Rs.400/-, in the meanwhile, the accused came on motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and stopped nearer to

LW1-Palthya Meetu Naik. On that LW1-Palthya Meetu Naik asked why he was driving motorcycle at high speed. In that regard, the accused pushed LW1-

Palthya Meetu Naik to the ground and beat him with cricket stump (wicket stick) and tried to kill LW1-Palthya Meetu Naik by throwing big boulder, resulting LW1-Palthya Meetu Naik sustained bleeding injuries on his body. The accused went away in rash and negligent manner.

(ii)Basing on the report of LW1-Palthya Meetu Naik, LW8-S.Jamala Basha,

Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu 4th town police station registered a case in Crime No.395/2020 for the offences under Sections 307 and 427 of

IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, on 22.06.2020, LW8-S.Jamala Basha, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu 4th town police station examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 4 namely Palthya Meetu Naik, Bestha Vijay Kumar, Bestha Vinod Kumar and

Bestha Ramakrishna and visited the scene of offence and seized material object i.e., crime weapon under cover of scene observation and seizure mahazarnama in the presence of LWs.5 and 6 namely Chitra Venkatesh and

SC 2/20243 Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Ananthapuramu.

Avaligonda Pothulaiah and drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence. On the same day, he arrested the accused and seized Cricket Stump (wicket) from him under a cover of confession, arrest and seizure mahazarnama in the presence of LWs.5 and 6 namely Chitra Venkatesh and Avaligonda Pothulaiah and produced the accused before the Court for his judicial custody.

(iii)During the course of further investigation, on 26.08.2020, LW8-S.Jamala

Basha, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu 4th town police station seized vehicle i.e., black colour Pulsur from the possession of accused under the cover of seizure mahazarnama in the presence of LWs.5 and 6 namely Chitra

Venkatesh and Avaligonda Pothulaiah. Later, he obtained wound certificate of

LW1-Palthya Meetu Naik from LW7-Dr.V.Santha Swaroop, Medical Officer,

Government General Hospital, Ananthapuramu wherein it was opined that the injuries of LW1-Palthya Meetu Naik are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, LW8-S.Jamala Basha, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu 4th town police station filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 307 and 427 of IPC.

3)The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ananthapuramu took the cognizance of offence and numbered the case as PRC 14/2022 and committed the matter to Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court,

Ananthapuramu. The Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Court,

Ananthapuramu numbered the same as SC 2/2024 and made over same to this Court for disposal in accordance with law.

4)On appearance of the accused, charges under Section 307 and 427 of

IPC was framed against him and the contents of the charge was explained to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

SC 2/20244 Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Ananthapuramu.

5)To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P12 and material objects i.e., MOs.1 to 4.

6)The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining incriminating material appeared against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which, the accused denied the evidence and reported that he was falsely implicated in the crime and that he has no defence evidence.

7)Heard both sides. Perused the entire material available on the record.

8)Now the points for determination are:

1) Whether accused came on motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and beat the defacto complainant with a Cricket Stump and attempted to commit murder of the defacto complainant which are punishable under Sections 427 and 307 of IPC?

2) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 427 and 307of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT No.1: Whether accused came on motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and beat the defacto complainant with a Cricket Stump and attempted to commit murder of the defacto complainant which are punishable under

Sections 427 and 307 of IPC?

9)In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 4. PW1 is the de facto complainant and injured. PWs.2 and 3 are eye witnesses of the incident. PW4 is the Investigating Officer.

10)The defacto complainant i.e., PW1 specifically stated before the Court that he does not know the accused and that he does not know the facts of the case and the contents of the report and the signature shown to him by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor is of his signature. He further stated that he do

SC 2/20245 Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Ananthapuramu.

not remainder when he put his signature in the report shown to him. The eye witnesses of the incident i.e., PWs.2 and 3 deposed before the Court that they do not know the facts of the case and that police did not examine them. PWs.1 to 3 were declared to be hostile. The learned Addl.Public Prosecutor examined

PWs.1 to 3 in the nature of cross-examination to elicit truth. Though he suggested the facts of the case of the prosecution to the witnesses, PWs.1 to 3 denied the suggestions during their examination in the nature of cross- examination by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor. Nothing material to the case of prosecution could be elicited by the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor through PWs.1 to 3 during their examination before the Court.

11)The investigating officer PW4-S.Jamala Basha, Sub-Inspector of Police,

Ananthapuramu 4th town police station deposed with regard to all the steps that were taken up by him during investigation such as receiving information about the occurrence of offence, admission of injured at Government General

Hospital, Ananthapuramu, securing the presence of injured and recorded his statement, registering the case in Crime No.395/2020 for the offences under

Sections 307 and 427 of IPC, recording the statements of witnesses, visiting the scene of offence, preparing rough sketch, seizing Vivo VII mobile phone, boulder of 1 foot length and half foot width, cricket stump (wicket), black colour

Pulsar bearing registered No.AP-04-AN-4509 from the scene of offence, receiving wound certificate, arresting the accused and filing of charge sheet against the accused.

12)The evidence of the investigating officer was not supported by any other witness even by the injured witness. When the injured witness also does not support the evidence of the investigating officer, it is very unsafe to rely on the evidence of the investigating officer alone to find guilt of the accused. What is remained on record is the uncorroborated testimony of the investigating officer

SC 2/20246 Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Ananthapuramu.

with the other evidence available on record. Under these circumstances, this

Court is of the considered view that the evidence placed before the Court through PWs.1 to 4 is not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and that it cannot form basis for conviction of the accused. Hence, this point is answered against the prosecution.

POINT No.2: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences under Section 427 and 307of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

13)In view of above discussed facts and circumstances and the evidence placed before the Court, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to prove the guilty of accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Sections 307 and 427 of Indian Penal Code against accused and that the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

14)In the result, the accused is not found guilty for the offences under

Sections 307 and 427 of IPC and as such he is acquitted under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C for the charges levelled against him under Sections 307 and 427 of

IPC. The bail bonds of accused along with his sureties shall remain in force for six months from the date of this judgment as required under Section 437-A

Cr.P.C. MOs.2 and 3 i.e., boulder of 1 foot length and half foot width and one cricket stump (wicket) shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO.1 i.e.,

Vivo V11 mobile and M.O.4 i.e., black colour Pulsar bearing registered

No.AP-04-AN04509 shall be returned to the owner of the property on production of the documents relating to their ownership within 3 months from the date of judgment.

Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 6 th day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A.Padma

Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

SC 2/20247 Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge’s Court,

Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution

PW1: Palthya Meetu Naik. PW2: Bestha Vijay Kumar. PW3: Bestha Ramakrishna. PW4: S.Jamala Basha, Sub-Inspector of Police, Ananthapuramu 4th town police station.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence

-NONE-

Exhibits marked on behalf of the prosecution

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1. Ex.P2: Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P3: Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P4: Section 161 of Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex.P5: Report dated 22.06.2020. Ex.P6: Original FIR dated 22.06.2020 in Crime No.395/2020 of Ananthapuramu 4th town police station. Ex.P7: Rough sketch. Ex.P8: Scene observation mahazar. Ex.P9: Confession arrest cum seizure mahazar. Ex.P10: Police proceedings dated 22.06.2020. Ex.P11: Seizure mahazar dated 26.08.2020. Ex.P12: Wound certificate of PW1.

Exhibits marked on behalf of the defence

NIL

Material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution

MO1: Vivo V11 mobile phone. MO2: Boulder of 1 foot length and half foot width. MO3: Cricket stump (wicket). MO4: Black colour Pulsar registered No.AP-04-AN-4509.

Sd/- A.Padma

Prl.Assistant Sessions Judge, Ananthapuramu.

APAN020005002016

Presented on : 28-01-2016 Registered on : 25-04-2016 Decided on : 02-04-2026 Duration : 10 years, 2 months, 5 days

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.D) ::ANANTAPURAMU

Present: Smt A.Padma,

Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anantapuramu

Thursday, the 2 nd day of April, 2026

O.S.No.259/2016

Between:- 1.P.Lakshmi w/o Late Venkatappa, Hindu, aged 25 years, coolie, 2.P.Abhi s/o Late Venkatappa, Hindu, aged 7 years, coolie, 3.P.Aravind s/o Late Venkatappa, Hindu, aged 5 years,

Plaintiffs 2&3 are minors Ret by mother 1st Plaintiff.

All are residing at Sodanapalli Village of Singanamala Mandal, Ananthpuramu

Dist.. ...Plaintiffs

Vs

1.Parimi Venkataramana s/o Subbaiah, major, agriculturist, resident of Kodapuramu village of Putlur Mandal.

2. The Assistant Engineer A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Peddapappur Mandal

3. The Superintending Engineer, A.P.S.P.D.C.L, Ananthapuramu District.

4.P.Narayanaswami s/o Venkatappa, aged 57 years, coolie, residing at Peravali Village of Singanamala Mandal, Ananthapuramu Dist. (died)

…..Defendants

Suit for recovery of Rs.9,00,000-00 from the defendants 1 to 3 towards compensation and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming before me on 02.04.2026 for filing of cheque petition in the presence of Sri P.L.Eswar Reddy, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri

G.Lakshmi Narayana Reddy, advocate for Defendant No.1, Sri D.Sreedhar, Sri

S.Nagappa, advocates for defendant No.2 and No.3 and D.4 died and this

Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

This suit stands posted for cross examination of P.W.2. Plaintiff filed a memo not pressing the suit. The suit is dismissed as not pressed in view of payment of Rs.5,00,000/- by defendant in the Court towards full and final settlement.

Pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 2nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-A.Padma

Prl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anantapuramu

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

Plaintiff Defendant

P.W.1 – P.Lakshmi Nil P.W.2 – Peddi Raju

Exhibits marked

Plaintiff

Ex.A.1 – CC of FIR in Cr.No.38/2014, dt.17.3.14 of Peddapappuru PS

Ex.A.2 – CC of inquest report, dt.17.3.14

Ex.A.3 – CC of PME, dt.17.3.14

Ex.A.4 – CC of charge sheet in CR.No.38/14, dt.18.9.14

Ex.A.5 – Notice issued to the defendants

Ex.A.6 – Postal Acknowledgments (2)

Defendant

Nil

Sd/-A.Padma

P.C.J (Sr. D) /ATP

O.S.407 OF 2018 P.C.J (SR.D), ATP Dt.21.04.2026

APAN020008492018

Presented on : 29-08-2018 Registered on : 29-08-2018 Decided on : 21-04-2026 Duration : 7 years, 7 months, 23 days

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.D) ::ANANTAPURAMU

Present: SMT A.PADMA,

PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SENIOR DIVISION), ANANTAPURAMU

Tuesday, the 21 st day of April, 2026

O.S.No.407 of 2018

Between:-

1. Sakunthalamma W/o Chithambara Reddy, aged about 62 years, Hindu, cultivation, residing at Marutla village, Kuderu Mandal, Ananthapuramu district.

2. M.Suguna, W/o M.Ananthagiri reddy, aged about 58 years, Hindu, cultivation residing at Janbuladinne village, Garladinne mandal, Ananthapuramu district.

3. G.Sreedevi, W/o G.Radhakrishna Reddy, aged about 54 years, Hindu, Cultivation, residing at Kotanka village, Garladinne mandal, Ananthapuramu district.

...Plaintiffs

Vs

1. Sri K.Sankara Reddy, S/o K.Sreenivasa reddy, aged about 65 years, Hindu, Lecturer, Housing board, M.L.G.95, D.No.28-5-211, Ananthapuramu district.

…..Defendants

O.S.407 OF 2018 P.C.J (SR.D), ATP Dt.21.04.2026

Suit for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs together 3/4th share and 1/4th share to the defendant in the suit schedule mentioned properties by metes and bounds and for costs of the suit.

This suit is coming before me on 21.04.2026 for trial on cost in the presence of Sri S.B.Subbaiah, Sri B.Prakash Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiffs and of Sri N.R.K.Mohan, Advocate for Defendant and this Court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

The suit stands posted for trial on cost of Rs.300/-. Costs not paid. Trial is not commenced. Plaintiff is called absent. No representation for plaintiff till 5.00 p.m. Hence the suit is dismissed for default.

Pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 21 st day of April, 2026.

Sd/- A.Padma

Prl.Civil Judge (Senior Division), Anantapuramu

Appendix of Evidence

Witness examined

Plaintiff Defendant

Nil Nil

Exhibits marked

Plaintiff Defendant

Nil Nil

Sd/- A.Padma

P.C.J (Sr.D)/ATP

Daily Status

In the Court of :Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur

Case No. :CRL.MP/0000301/2025 Shriram Finance limited, Anantapur Vs B.Suryanarayana and 3 others

Date  : 08-04-2026

Business: Advocate commissioner filed report.Hence this petition is closed. Nature of Disposal: CLOSED Disposal Date: 08-04-2026 Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur