Sri. Agnoor. Nagaraju

1

CC No.621 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE XXII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL

Tuesday, 28th day of September, 2021 PRESENT:- Sri A. Nagaraju, B.A., L.L.B XXII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal

CC. No.621 of 2017

Between: The State of Telangana represented by Sub Inspector of Police PS Medchal

…..Complainant

A N D

A.1 Sattari Jagadeesh S/o. S. Narender, Age: 28 yrs, Occ: Transport Business, R/o. H.No.2-58, Kandlakoya (V), Medchal (Mdl & Dist)

A.2 Koneru Sudarshan S/o. Pentaiah, Age: 26 yrs, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.3-10, Kandlakoya (V), Medchal Mdl & Dist.

A.3 Kunchala Anand S/o. K. Srinu, Age: 19 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. Kandlakoya (V), Medchal (Mdl & Dist)

…..Accused

This case came up for final hearing before me on 22.09.2021 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri B. Jayaramulu, Advocate for the Accused, upon hearing on both sides, upon considering the material available on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal, filed charge sheet against

A.1 to A.3 in Crime No.471 / 2017 for the Offences U/s.341, 323 r/w 34

IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 10.09.2017 at 8.45 p.m. as per the instructions of their higher officials Pws.1,2 and

Lw.3 proceeded to a RMP Doctor at Kandlakoya for treatment of Lw.3 for his ill health in the Government Toyota Qualis vehicle bearing no.AP-09/P- 4328. At about 9.00 p.m., while they were returning to the police training centre, after crossing South Indian Bank while Pw.1 was taking U-turn, he stopped the vehicle to give side to another vehicle. Then the accused came on a Hero Honda motorcycle, questioned Pw.1 as to why he stopped the vehicle obstructing their vehicle and A.1 slapped Pw.1 on his cheek and also warned. In this regard, on receipt of complaint from Pw.1, a 2

CC No.621 of 2017

case in the above crime number was registered and investigated into.

During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded, scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of

Pws.3 and 4. Meanwhile Pw.5 – the Investigating Officer apprehended the accused, issued notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C. Pw.5 collected the injury certificate of Pw.1 and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused.

3.On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to the accused. They were examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. for the offences

U/s.341, 323, 353 r/w 34 IPC. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.6. Police failed to produce Lw.3 inspite of granting number of adjournments. Hence the evidence of Lw.3 was closed.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same, reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence was closed.

6.The learned APP has argued that in this case the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is consistent, cogent and reliable. They have no enmity with the accused who are stranger to them. As such filing of false complaint against them does not arise. She also argued that Pw.1 filed the complaint on the next day after informing the incident to his higher officials. Since Pws.1 and 2 were in Police Training Centre, it is their duty to inform about any incident occurred outside the Training Centre and then proceed with. Accordingly the same has occurred, as such lodging of complaint on the next day is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

Though Lw.3 was not examined, it is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as Lw.3 was suffering from Eye problem, as such even if he is examined, he can only depose about the occurrence of the incident and he could not see the culprits who attacked Pw.1. As such non examination of

Lw.3 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The mediators Pws.3 and 3

CC No.621 of 2017

4 have turned hostile, but it does not affect the case of the prosecution and also do not disprove the occurrence of the incident. The incident was occurred at about 9.00 p.m. Pws.1 and 2 have also identified the accused and Pw.2 specifically identified A.1 as the culprit who slapped Pw.1.

Hence, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 can be believed as their evidence is consistent, cogent. Hence she prayed to consider the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and convict the accused.

7.On the other hand the learned counsel for accused has vehemently argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of Sec.353 IPC. Further the complaint is lodged on the next day of incident and the identification of accused by Pws.1 and 2 after gap of three years is not believable. Apart from that Pws.3 and 4 have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. He also argued that except Pws.1 and 2, no independent witnesses are examined before the Court. The RMP Doctor to whom Lw.3 was taken by the Pws.1, and 2 and Lw.3 are not examined before the Court. Hence, the interested testimony of Pws.1 and 2 cannot be considered and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges leveled against them. Hence he prayed to acquit the accused.

8.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences leveled against them?

POINT:

9.The accused were charged with the offences U/s.341, 323, 353, r/w 34 IPC. Now, it is to be seen, in order to attract the offence U/s.353 IPC, whether the prosecution proved that the Pws.1, 2 and Lw.3 were on duty as Public Servants.

10.None of the witnesses - Pws.1 and 2 have stated that they were on duty. As per the Pws.1 and 2 and the case of the prosecution, while they were returning from RMP Doctor at Kandlakoya after treatment of Lw.3 for his eye problem, the incident was occurred. Hence, from the above evidence, it is clear that Pws.1 and 2 were not on duty discharging their 4

CC No.621 of 2017

duties as Public Servants and due to said assault they were deterred from discharging their duties as such Public Servants. Hence, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence

U/s.353 IPC.

11.Now it is to be seen whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences U/s.341, 323 r/w 34 IPC. Pw.1 deposed that on 10.09.2017 in the night at 9.00 p.m., he along with Pw.2 took one Trainee constable Lw.3 to a clinic of RMP at Kandlakoya as he was suffering from eye problem as fevi quick solution was mistakenly fell into his eyes. After cleaning the eyes of Lw.3, while they were returning to Training Centre, after crossing South Indian Bank branch near Gandhi

Statute, he was waiting for side, then three persons came on a motorcycle, picked up quarrel with him stating that as to how much time he stop the vehicle on the road. Though he informed about his designation and problem to take side, one of them opened the door of the vehicle and slapped on his cheek. The culprits threatened him, Pw.2 and

Lw.3. Meanwhile Public gathered and stopped the culprits from further attack. In this regard, he filed complaint before the Police, Medchal vide

Ex.P.1. He identified all the accused and also gave the name of A.1.

12.Pw.2 also deposed in the same lines as deposed by Pw.1. He further stated that after getting treatment to Lw.3, while they were returning to training centre, near a crossing at South Indian Bank branch, they stopped the vehicle for a while to take U-turn. Then three persons came on a Hero Honda motorcycle and picked up quarrel with Pw.1 stating that as to why he stopped the vehicle on the road, and out of the three persons, one slapped Pw.1. He identified all the accused and specifically identified A.1 as the culprit who slapped Pw.1. He further deposed that the culprits threatened him and Lw.3, and as the public gathered there intervened, the culprits went away.

13.Pw.5 the Investigating Officer has deposed about the registration of crime by him and recording of statements of Pws.1, 2 and Lw.3. He also deposed about referring Pw.1 to hospital. Later he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pws.3 and 4 and collected the 5

CC No.621 of 2017

medical certificate. He also deposed that on the registration of the crime itself, he took A.1 to A.3 into custody and issued notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C.

14.The FIR was registered on 11.09.2017 at about 7.30 a.m., for which

Pw.1 has stated in his cross examination that the incident occurred on 10.09.2017 in the night at 9.30 p.m. and on the next day he filed complaint after informing the Duty Officer as per his instructions. The complaint was filed on the next morning at 7.30 a.m., as such the explanation given by Pw.1 with regard to giving information to his higher officials is plausible and can be accepted, since Pws.1 and 2 are under training in Police Training centre. As such the delay of 10 hours in filing the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.

15.Pw.1 has failed to give the Registration number of the motorcycle on which the accused came, for which he stated that at the place of incident, it was dark, as such he could not observe the registration number of the motor vehicle. Though Pws.1 and 2 are subjected to cross examination at length by the learned counsel for defence, but nothing could be elicited in their cross examination to discredit their testimony.

16.Pws.1 and 2 have stated in their cross examination that they did not give the specific overt acts and descriptive particulars of the culprits in their statements before the Police, but from their evidence nothing is elicited to show that they are having enmical terms with the accused to implicate them. Pws.1 and 2 have identified the accused as the culprits and Pw.2 specifically identified A.1 as the person who slapped Pw.1. Pw.1 has also given the name of A.1 as Jagadeesh as he came to know the name of the culprit. The incident was occurred on 10.09.2017 in the night at 9.00 p.m., and Pws.1 and 2 are examined before the Court in

November 2020 and February 2021.

17.The Hon’ble Apex Court in 2014 (14) SCC 628 …. at Para

No.22 held that the evidence of witness who is an injured in the said case was consistent and also held that in that case the witness saw the accused for 90 seconds and he deposed before the Court after 7 ½ years after the 6

CC No.621 of 2017

incident. The testimony of said witness is not challenged as to his credibility, as such his evidence can be considered.

18.In this case also, the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 and the credibility of their testimony is not shaken. In the case, the injured saw the accused for only 90 seconds when he was shot by the accused, but whereas in this case, Pws.1 and 2 had an opportunity to see the culprits for a period of 10 to 15 minutes as they came, picked up quarrel with Pw.1, removed the door and slapped Pw.1and when the public intervened, they went away.

Further nothing is elicited from Pws.1 and 2 to show that they are having enemical terms with the accused to implicate them in this case. From the evidence on recored, it is clear that Pws.1 and 2 and accused are not known to each other prior to incident and the incident occurred in a spur of moment. Hence, I feel that the evidence of Pws.1 and 2 is consistent, cogent and reliable. The evidence of Pws.1 and 2 inspires confidence to believe about the occurrence of the incident.

19.The accused are charged with the offences U/s.341, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

None of Pws.1 and 2 have stated that the accused have restrained them from moving. It is their evidence that when they stopped the vehicle and

Pw.1 was waiting for side, the accused came on a motorcycle and picked up quarrel with Pw.1, questioning as to why he stopped the vehicle and while he was explaining about the problem to take side, A.1 opened the door and slapped him. As such there was no question of wrongful restrainment of Pws.1 and 2 by the accused. Except slapping Pw.1 by A.1 and threatening Pw.2 and Lw.3, no other specific overt acts are deposed by Pws.1 and 2. Pws.1 and 2 have also not stated anything about the specific overt acts of threatening words used by the accused. Pws.1 and 2 have also stated that meanwhile the public gathered and stopped the accused from further attacking them. Thus from the evidence, it can be said that the A.1 to A.3 have developed common intention to attack Pws.1 and 2 and A.1 slapped Pw.1. Hence, I find that the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.323 r/w 34 IPC, failed to prove the offence U/s.341 IPC.

7

CC No.621 of 2017

20.In view of the above discussion, I find that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences U/s.341, 353 r/w 34 IPC and they are acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

The accused are found guilty for the offence U/s.323 r/w 34 IPC.

Dictated to Stenographer; transcribed and typed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in open court on this the 28th day of September, 2021.

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal

21.The accused are questioned with regard to quantum of sentence.

They pleaded mercy of the Court and requested to take lenient view as they are married and the incident occurred due to mistake and in a spur of moment.

22.The offence U/s.323 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a period of One year or with fine which may extend to Rs.1,000/- or with both. Considering the nature of incident and in order to give a chance to the accused to correct themselves in their behaviour, I feel that imposition of fine will meet the ends of justice.

23.IN THE RESULT, A.1 to A.3 are found guilty for the offence U/s.323 r/w 34 IPC. They are convicted U/sec.255(2) Cr.P.C and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each; in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of Three (3) months. The accused are explained about their right to prefer appear against the judgment of this Court.

Dictated to Stenographer, typed and transcribed by him, corrected

and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this 28th day of September 2021.

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate Cyberabad, Medchal 8

CC No.621 of 2017

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Prosecution

Pw.1S. Sharavan Babu, Complainant / Victim

Pw.2B. Gopal Rao, Eye witness Pw.3Om Prakash, mediator for scene of offence panchanama Pw.4Y. Nagender Babu, mediator for scene of offence panchanama Pw.5K. Naidu, SI of Police and IO

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked

For Prosecution

Ex.P1 Complaint dt 11.09.2017 Ex.P2 Signature of Pw.3 on crime details form Ex.P3 Signature of Pw.4 on crime details form Ex.P4 FIR dt 11.09.2017 Ex.P5 Crime details form dt 11.09.2017 Ex.P6 Medical certificate of Pw.1

For DefenceNil

Material Objects marked

Nil

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate,

Cyberabad, Medchal

1

CC No.735 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL

Monday, 04th day of October 2021

Present: Sri A. Nagaraju, B.A., LL.B., XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal

CC No.735 of 2016

Between:- Smt. Narsamma W/o. Late Nageshwar Rao, Aged: 49 yrs, Occ: Labour, R/o. H.No.8-53, Jayaram Nagar, Jeedimetla, Quthbullapur Mdl, RR District

….. Complainant

AND

A.2Gopal S/o. Not known, Aged: 35 yrs, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.2-6-299, Plot No.299, Jayaram Nagar, Jeedimetla, Quthbullapur Mdl, RR District …Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 16-09-2019 in the presence of counsel for complainant Sri S. Rajasekhar Reddy, Sri S. Ravi Kumar and Sri M. Raghavendar Reddy, Sri D. Santhosh Rao, Advocates for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

This is a Complaint filed U/s.200 Cr.P.C., against the A.1 and A.2 for the offences

U/s.420 and 506 IPC.

2.The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was working as a labourer and landless poor. During 1998 she acquired 68 Sq. yards of Government land and constructed a small room in Plot No.299, now the house number is 2-6-299, Old No.8- 135 in Survey number 217, situated at Jayaram Nagar, Jeedimetla village and started living with her husband and son. The RDO, East Division, RR District vide Proceedings

No.B/3132/95 dt 18.05.1999 regularized her Plot and issued Assignment Orders. During the year 2000, her husband died, as such she took the dead body of her husband for the last rites to her native place in Prakasham District. During the said depressed period, A.1 who is the brother of her husband approached the complainant saying that for the above said property, her signatures are required for its protection and induced the complainant to affix her thumb impression on some Stamp papers and white papers. The complainant in good faith fixed the thumb impressions at the instance of A.1 thinking that he would help to protect her property. After sometime she returned back to Jeedimetla and shocked 1

CC No.735 of 2016

2

CC No.735 of 2016

to find that her house was occupied by A.1 - her brother in law and he removed all her belongings and occupied the property in her absence. Due to the high handed act of A.1, the complainant became shelter less, as such she approached the local welfare Committee and Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District. The committee members issued a letter dt 30-11-2006 and requested A.1 to render justice to the complainant. The complainant also got issued a legal notice on 21-04-2010 to A.1 calling upon him to vacate the house property. A.1 gave reply on 14.06.2010 falsely claiming the property and stated that she sold the property to A.1 and he will not vacate the said house at any cost. The complainant made representation to the District Collector on 15.08.2010 requesting him to got vacate A.1 and to restore her possession. Unfortunately there was no action till date by the Revenue officials. A.1 continued his illegal possession over the

House property. The complainant was advised that under the provisions of Assignment of Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act 1977, the District Collector or any other Officer can take possession of the assigned land after evicting the persons who are in unauthorized occupation and restore its possession to the original assignee. The complainant is a widow, landless poor and labourer, A.1 - her own brother in law cheated her with dishonest intention to cause wrongful loss to her and also deprived of her shelter.

The complainant understood that A.1 in collusion with A.2 trying to create multiple claims over the house property and created false documents for wrongful gain. The complainant also approached the Hon’ble High Court as there was no support from the

Government authorities in restoring her possession. A.1 and A.2 colluded with each other and created false documents making false claims over the house property of the complainant. In the last week of December 2013, the accused threatened her with dire consequences if she questions their illegal occupation. The accused also approached the complainant at Jeedimetla in the second week of December 2014 and warned her to leave the area and to go to her native place, if not, she has to face dire consequences. Hence the complaint.

3.The said complaint was referred to Police U/s.156(3) Cr.P.C., but the Police filed

Final report stating that the complainant does not have any evidence to prove her ownership, as such the matter was referred as “Lack of Evidence”. Against the Final report, the Complainant filed Protest Petition reiterating the averments made in the complaint and contended that she has got evidence and she wants to place the same, as 2

CC No.735 of 2016

3

CC No.735 of 2016

such the Sworn Statements of the Complainant and other witness were taken by my

Learned Predecessor and accordingly the cognizance was taken U/secs.420 and 506 IPC against A.1 and A.2.

4.During the course of inquiry, A.1 was found absconding and inspite of issuing

NBW, the same could not be executed and complainant has also not taken any steps for execution of NBW. As such the case against A.1 was dismissed on 30.01.2019. The complainant was permitted to proceed with the inquiry U/s.244 Cr.P.C. She examined herself as Pw.1 and also examined one M. Kalavathi as Pw.2. Pw.1 got marked Exs.P.1 to

P.5 in support of her case. After the inquiry, the A.2 was examined U/s.246 Cr.P.C.

Charges U/s.406, 420 and 506 IPC were framed, read over and explained to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The complainant was again permitted to lead further evidence after examination of accused, but she reported no further evidence. As such the accused was examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same and initially reported defence evidence, but he did not lead any defence evidence and ultimately reported that there was no defence evidence. Accordingly, the defence evidence was closed.

6.Now the Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

7.The charges leveled against the accused are U/secs.420 and 506 IPC. The complainant has examined herself as Pw.1 and also examined one Kalavathi as Pw.2. In support of her case, she exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.5 and deposed that prior to the year 2000 a patta was granted to the extent of 68 sq. yards in Plot No.299 at Jayaram Nagar in her favour. Due to ill health of her husband, she went to their native Kalavalla of Ongole

District. There her husband died. At the time of death of her husband, her brother in law – Kondaiah (A.1) obtained her thumb impressions on some papers stating that he has to perform obsequies of her husband. She stayed in the house of her parents in law for 2 to 3 months and thereafter when she returned to her house, she found her household articles 3

CC No.735 of 2016

4

CC No.735 of 2016

were thrown outside and A.2 is staying in her house. On enquiry, A.2 informed that he purchased house and threatened her to kill if she come to the house. Hence, she filed complaint, but police did not take any action, as such she approached the Court and A.1 –

Kondaiah is not available and his whereabouts are not known.

8.Pw.2 deposed that she knows Pw.1 for the last 25 years as they stay in the same locality. Herself and Pw.1 were allotted house plots in the year 2000 and they obtained patta certificates and constructed rooms. Pw.1 resided in her house till 2002 and after death of her husband, she took the dead body of her husband to her native. Three months thereafter she returned, but Kondaiah (A.1) claimed that the house belongs to him and threw away the household articles of Pw.1 out of the house and now Bhoopal is staying in that house. A.1 and one Bhoopal cheated Pw.1. She identified the accused present in the

Court hall as said Bhoopal and stated that he is staying in the house of Pw.1. She also stated that whereabouts of Kondaiah are not known.

9.In fact the case is filed against A.1 and A.2 and the main allegations of cheating and misusing of alleged signatures of Pw.1, but said Kondaiah was absent for long period and as the complainant did not take any action for execution of NBW against him, the complaint against A.1 was dismissed on 30.01.2019. Thereafter the matter is proceeded against A.2.

10.After recording the depositions of Pws.1 and 2 and after they were cross examined by the learned counsel for defence, the charges U/s.420, 448 and 506 IPC were framed against the accused. Thereafter the complainant reported no further evidence, as such the accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C.

11.In the cross examination, Pw.1 stated that she filed complaint against A.1 before the Police, Pet Basheerabad in the year 2009 and also before MRO, Quthbullapur with regard to grant of Patta in her favour and on the said complaint, notices were issued to

A.2 and his wife. She admitted that MRO stated that the Patta granted in her favour and the patta given to the wife of A.2 are different and advised her to approach the Civil court. She also admitted that the wife of A.2 filed OS No.117/2014 against her for grant of injunction. The said suit was filed for grant of injunction to the extent of 60 Sq. yards 4

CC No.735 of 2016

5

CC No.735 of 2016

and she is claiming land to the extent of 68 Sq. yards. Except the Patta certificate, Pw.1 has not filed any other documents to show her possession. In the cross examination, she stated that as she is not having any Electricity bill, water bill or property tax, she has not filed the same into the Court. Pw.1 stated in her cross examination that one day police interfered to give possession of the property to her, on that the wife of A.1 refused to vacate the room and committed suicide by hanging.

12.Pw.2 has also stated in her cross examination that the accused and his wife purchased a house under Registered Sale Deed and residing in the said house, but she pleaded ignorance that the wife of accused got decree in OS No.117/2014. She also stated that she does not know whether A.2 purchased the property from third parties, but not from A.1.

13.As seen from the Ex.P.2 – Patta, no boundaries are given to the patta. Since already a Civil suit is pending between the parties and no document is placed by the complainant to show that the accused has cheated her and also did not file any document to show that A.2 is in illegal possession of her property, I find that the complainant has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for any of the charges

U/s.420 and 448 IPC.

14.Coming to the offence U/s.506 IPC. Though Pw.1 stated that the accused herein threatened Pw.1 to kill if she comes to the house, and claimed that he purchased the property; she has not stated the date, time and place of occurrence of the incident. No where in her sworn statement also, complainant has not stated anything about the alleged threat made by the accused against her. Mere statement of threatening Pw.1 by the A.2, when the very incident of cheating and illegal possession of A.2 in the house of Pw.1; is not proved, the said statement does not inspire any confidence on the Court to believe the testimony of Pw.1 even to the extent of alleged threat to attract the offence U/s.506 IPC.

Hence, I find that the complainant has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused for any of the charges U/s.420, 506 and 448 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

5

CC No.735 of 2016

6

CC No.735 of 2016

15.In the result, accused A.2 is found not guilty for the charges U/s.448, 420 and 506

IPC and he is acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required U/s 437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer; transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court this the 04th day of October 2021.

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution

Pw.1 Narsamma, Complainant Pw.2 M. Kalavathi, witness

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 Private Complaint dt 21.01.2014 Ex.P2 CC of Patta granted in Proc.No.B/3132/1995 dt 05/1999 Ex.P3 CC of Household Ration Card Ex.P4 CC of application given by the Committee Members, Jayaram Nagar dt 30.11.2006 Ex.P5 CC of Proceedings issued by the Nodal Officer in ROC No.221/3/1998-99

dt 08.07.1999

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal 6

CC No.735 of 2016

1

CC No.348 of 2016

IN THE COURT OF XV METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL

Wednesday, 22nd day of September 2021 Present: Sri A. Nagaraju, B.A., LL.B., XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal

CC No.348 of 2016

Between:- The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal

...Complainant

AND

Mohd. Khaleel S/o. Kareem, Age: 44 yrs, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.23-2-313, Moghulpura, Hyderabad …Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 17-09-2021 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri B. Vijay Gopal Rao, Advocate for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal, filed charge sheet against the accused in

Cr.No.143/2016 for the offence U/s.304-A IPC.

2.The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on 08.04.2016 in the midnight at 12.30 p.m., when Lw.1while proceeding from Ahmedabad to Hyderabad in the Container bearing no.HR-55/Q-5892 reached near Gowdavelly on the ORR, they noticed that there was smoke and flames from Taxi vehicle bearing no.AP-09/TVA-3860 parked by the side of the road and the said driver was trying to extinguish the flames by pouring water. On that Lw.1 stopped the Container lorry and rushed to the said car caught in flames along with his cleaner to help the said taxi driver. Meanwhile the accused who is driver of Lorry bearing no.TS-15/UB-2122 loaded with Gypsum, came nearby the said place and stopped beside the Taxi car without any indications and was watching the incident by standing nearby. Meanwhile another Lorry driver bearing no.AP-29/TA-6855 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the Stationed lorry of the accused, due to which a big size iron wheel on the Trolley lorry bearing no.AP-29/TA-6855 fell on the cleaner (Irfan) of Lw.1, due to which he sustained severe injuries and died on the spot and some iron rods as penetrated through the belly of the said Trolley lorry driver bearing no.AP-29/TA-6855 and he received severe bleeding injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Gandhi hospital for treatment, and the dead body of the cleaner (Irfan) was shifted to Government hospital, Medchal.

2

CC No.348 of 2016

3.In this regard, on receipt of complaint from Lw.1, a case in the above crime number was registered and investigated into. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded, scene of offence panchanama was conducted in the presence of mediators Lws.6 and 7. The inquest was held over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of very same mediators (deceased herein) and handed over the dead body to his relatives. The statements of Lws.2 and 3 were also recorded. While undergoing treatment, the driver of Trolley bearing no.AP-29/TA-6855 (Nawazul

Rahaman) died on 09.04.2016 at 4.57 p.m. at Gandhi hospital. On receipt of death intimation, Lw.14 / Pw.4 rushed to Gandhi hospital and held autopsy over the dead body of the second deceased in the presence of Lws.8 and 9 and after PME, dead body was handed over to the relatives of Lws.4 and 5 and their statements were also recorded. On 12.04.2016, notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C., was issued to the accused. After receipt of MVI and

PME reports, Pw.4 filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence U/s.304-A IPC.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to him. He was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C. for the offence U/s.304-A IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.Prosecution failed to produce Lw.1 – Complainant and other circumstantial witnesses stating that they are residents of Rajasthan and their address is not traced out and requested to close their evidence. The police also failed to locate Lws.6 and 7 stating that they left to Rajasthan and Haryana and their whereabouts are also not known. Hence the evidence of Lws.6 and 7 was closed. Police filed report stating that Lw.8 is residing in Anantapur and his whereabouts are also not known, as such the evidence of Lw.8 is also closed. Police also failed to produce Lws.3 and 4, as their whereabouts are not known. Hence their evidence was also closed.

6.In support of its case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.P.1 to P.9.

7.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined U/s.313 Cr.P.C, explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the same, reported no defence evidence. Hence the defence evidence was closed.

8.Heard the arguments.

9.Now the Point for consideration is:

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.304-A IPC leveled against him beyond all reasonable doubt?

3

CC No.348 of 2016

POINT:

10.In this case, Lw.3 – Eye witness is examined as Pw.1, Pws.2 & 3 are the circumstantial witnesses and relatives of the deceased and further Pw.3 acted as mediator for inquest over the dead body of the second deceased and Pw.4 is Investigation Officer.

11.The complaint is marked through the Investigation Officer as Ex.P.2. In view of marking of complaint through the Investigation Officer, now it is to be seen whether the contents of complaint as to the occurrence of incident and role of the accused in the accident is made out or not. In this regard, there is only the evidence of Pw.1.

12.According to Pw.1, on 08.04.2016 in the midnight while he was proceeding from

Shamshabad Airport to Shamirpet in his car, in the limits of Medchal, there was heavy smoke from the bannet of his car, as such he stopped his car and got down the passenger and kept the luggage by the side of the road. When he opened the bannet, there was sudden flame in the car. Meanwhile one driver came and tried to extinguish the fire, but as the fire was not extinguished fully, another lorry came and extinguished the fire with water. While things stood thus, the driver of lorry bearing no.TS-15/2122 stopped the lorry in the middle of the road and watched the incident. Then another trolley lorry loaded with Big iron wheel came and dashed the stationed lorry, due to which big iron wheel fell down on the lorry stationed initially and thereafter on the cleaner of the said lorry causing instantaneous death. The trolley driver also sustained severe injuries. The injured driver was shifted to hospital in ambulance. The driver who stationed the lorry, which is cause for the accident, fled away from the place. He further identified the accused as the driver of the lorry who stationed the lorry which is cause for the incident.

But in the cross examination, he stated that he did not see the driver of the stationed lorry (accused) properly due to darkness and he also cannot say in conformity that accused was the driver of the said stationed lorry.

13.According to the case of the prosecution, when the car of the Pw.1 caught fire,

Lw.1 stopped his lorry and tried to extinguish the flames along with his cleaner (Irfan).

Meanwhile the accused stopped the lorry by the side of the taxi and watching without any indications. Thereafter the driver of trolley bearing no.AP-29/TA-6855 driven by the second deceased came and dashed to stationed lorry, but according to Pw.1 in between the stopping of lorry by the accused and Lw.1, another lorry driver came and extinguished the fire. The said lorry driver is not examined by the Investigation Officer.

14.Pw.4 – Investigation Officer has deposed about conducting of scene of offence panchanama and also drew rough sketch, Exs.P.4 and P.5 in the presence of mediators 4

CC No.348 of 2016

Lws.6 and 7, but the Lws.6 and 7 are not examined. Since the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch are marked through the Investigation Officer, I would like to refer the sketch which show the scene of offence.

15.As seen from the rough sketch, Lw.1 stopped the lorry in front of the car of Pw.1 at a considerable distance and the container lorry having Iron wheel driven by second deceased dashed another stationed lorry by the side of the Car of Pw.1. According to the evidence of Pw.1, the Iron wheel fell on the stationed lorry initially and thereafter on the cleaner of the said lorry (Irfan), but this sketch of scene of offence is totally a different one. The lorry of Lw.1 was stationed at far of place from the place of incident, as such the evidence of Pw.1 as to the actual occurrence of incident and witnessing the incident is not believable. Further the incident occurred on 08.04.2016 in the midnight. Though in the chief examination he stated that accused is the driver of the lorry who stationed which is cause for the incident, has stated in the cross examination that he cannot say in conformity that the accused was the driver of stationed lorry and he did not see the accused properly due to darkness. Hence the only evidence of Pw.1 with regard to the incident, does not inspire any confidence to believe the version of the prosecution. No doubt as per the evidence of Pws.2 and 3, the death of the second deceased occurred in the accident and so far as death of first deceased (Irfan) is not deposed by any of the witnesses and police also failed to produce concerned witnesses.

16.When an incident of burning a Car in flames was occurring on the road and when the deceased driver (second deceased) of lorry bearing no.AP-29/TA-6855 drove it in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the stationed lorry bearing no.TS-15/UB-2122.

As per the charge sheet and the evidence of Pw.1, due to impact of the said dash, the lorry bearing no.AP-29/TA-6855 cabin was totally damaged and the rods loaded in the front of lorry, pierced through the belly of second deceased. Thus the rash and negligence can be attributed to the second deceased, but not to the stationed lorry driver. Since he died, it appears that the Investigation Officer has filed charge sheet against the accused herein.

17.According to Pw.4, Investigation Officer, on 12.04.2016 the accused surrendered

before him, as such he issued notice U/s.41-A Cr.P.C. on 12.04.2016. Without examining

the owner of said lorry, it is not known as to how Pw.4 could come to know that accused was the driver of the stationed lorry. Further Pw.1 has also stated in the cross examination that in his 161 Cr.P.C. statement he has not given any physical features of the driver of the stationed lorry. Hence, I find that the evidence of Pw.1 witnessing the accused as the driver of stationed lorry is not believable. When the only evidence of 5

CC No.348 of 2016

Pw.1 is doubtful and the IO has not collected any material and when there is no other evidence against accused, I feel that the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the crime lorry and failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.304-A IPC.

18.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence U/s.304-A IPC and he is acquitted U/s.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force for a period of six months as required U/s.437-A Cr.P.C.

Dictated to Stenographer; transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court this the 22nd day of September 2021.

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution

Pw.1 Vavilla Sudheeva Reddy, Eye witness Pw.2 Masoom Moinuddin, circumstantial witness Pw.3 Md. Mahamood, Panch witness for inquest of 2nd deceased Pw.4 M. Kishore, IO

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 Inquest report of 2nd deceased Nawab Ex.P2 Complaint dt 08.04.2016 Ex.P3 FIR dt 08.04.2016 Ex.P4 Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P5 Rough sketch of scene of offence Ex.P6 Inquest report of 1st deceased Irfan Exs.P7 and 8 Postmortem reports of the deceased Ex.P9 MVI report Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal

1

CC No.539 of 2017

IN THE COURT OF XXII ADDL. METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE

CYBERABAD AT MEDCHAL

Wednesday, 29th day of September, 2021

Present: Sri A. Nagaraju, B.A., LL.B., XXII AMM Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Medchal

CC No.539 of 2017

Between:- The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal … Complainant AND A.1Ramesh Puri S/o. Ummed Puri, Age: 34 yrs, Occ: Shop Employee, R/o. H.No.14- 250, Kistapur (V), Medchal (Mdl & Dist.); N/o. Gosvamiya Ka bas (V), Nimbera Khurd, Pali District of Rajasthan State

A.2Suresh Sahu S/o. Bala Sahu, Age: 37 yrs, Occ: Kirana shop, R/o. H.No.13-21, Medchal check post, Medchal (Mdl & Dist.); N/o. Jajpur Road, Kevuzar of Odisha State … Accused

This case came up before me for final hearing on 23-09-2021 in the presence of APP for the State and of Sri A. Srinivas, Sri C. Hanumanth Reddy, Advocates for the Accused and having stood over for consideration till this day this court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, PS Medchal, filed charge sheet against A.1 and A.2 in Cr. No.414/2017 for the Offences U/s.3 and 7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

2.The brief facts of the case of the Prosecution are that on 09.08.2017 at 6.00 p.m.

Pw.4 received credible information that A.2 is selling small Commercial cylinders in his

Kirana shop at Medchal check post without any permission from the concerned authorities. On that he along with his staff conducted raid over the said shop and found 3 nos. Bharat Gas Domestic cylinders, 10 small cylinders. On enquiry, the accused revealed his name as Suresh Sahoo, native of Jajpur Road, Kevjhar of Odisha State and confessed that he get small cylinders from Ramesh Puri (A.1) R/o. Kistapur and said

Ramesh Puri fill the gas from Big cylinders to small cylinders and selling the same to the needy customers at marginal benefits on the small cylinders. Immediately he took A.2 into custody and secured the presence of Pws.2 and 3, conducted confession cum seizure panchanama and seized the above said material from the possession of A.2. Then he brought A.2 along with the seized property to Police station and registered a case in crime number 414/2017 and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of Pw.1 and Lw.1, issued notices U/s.41-A Cr.P.C., to both the accused.

Thereafter on completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against A.1 and A.2.

2

CC No.539 of 2017

3.On appearance of the accused, they were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C. Charge U/s.7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.In support of its case, prosecution could examine Pws.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.P1 and P.2. Police failed to produce the Lw.1 – Police constable who was present in the raid inspite of granting number of adjournments, as such the evidence of Lw.1 was closed.

5.After closure of prosecution side evidence, the accused were examined U/s.313

Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same, reported no defence evidence.

Hence the defence evidence was closed.

6.Heard both sides.

7.Now the point for consideration is: Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of accused for the charge leveled against them beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.In this case, Pw.1 is the police constable who said to have accompanied Pw.4.

Pws.2 and 3 are the independent mediators for the alleged confession cum seizure of stolen property at the instance of A.2. Pw.1 deposed that on 09.08.2017 at about 6.00 p.m., he along with Lw.1 accompanied Pw.4 to Medchal check post on receipt of phone call about sale of gas cylinders illegally. They visited Kirana shop bearing Door No.13- 21 at Medchal check post and on seeing them, one person tried to ran away. They caught hold of him. On enquiry he revealed about selling of gas cylinders illegally. On search of the house, they found 3 nos. Bharat Gas cylinders, 10 small cylinders in the said

Kirana shop. Pw.4 seized the cylinders in the presence of mediators and brought the person along with the seized cylinders to the police station. He revealed the name of the person whom they caught hold as Suresh Sahoo (A.2). The said A.2 also revealed the name of Ramesh Puri (A.1) stating that he was also selling cylinders. He identified the

A.2 as the person whom they caught hold.

9.Pw.4 also deposed about the conducting of raid in the same lines as deposed by

Pw.1. Pw.4 further stated that he searched the shop and found 3 nos. gas cylinders. On search of the house, they found 3 nos. Bharat Gas Domestic cylinders, 10 small cylinders in the Kirana shop. On further enquiry, A.2 revealed that he get the cylinders filled with one Ramesh (A.1) at Kistapur, then he conducted scene of offence, confession cum seizure panchanama at the shop of A.2 and seized all the cylinders and brought to police 3

CC No.539 of 2017

station. Later he registered the case and issued notice to A.2 U/s.41-A Cr.P.C., and sent the cylinders to the Civil Supplies Department. He also stated that he apprehended A.1 on 05.09.2016 and issued notice to him U/s.41-A Cr.P.C.

10.Coming to the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 mediators. Pw.2 stated that on 09.08.2017 at 7.00 or 7.30 p.m., while he was in his shop, he found SI of Police came to the Kirana shop of A.1, on the information of selling of gas cylinders and on seeing him, A.1 tried to ran away. But on verification of the shop, they found one cylinder, as such police conducted panchanama in his presence and in the presence of Pw.3 and they both signed on the panchanama. Pw.3 has also stated that he knows Pw.2 and also the accused. In the month of August 2017 on 8th or 9th date in the evening at 5.00 or 6.00 p.m., he stopped at the shop of Pw.2. Meanwhile SI of Police and constables came to the Kirana shop and in the said shop, the accused were present. On the search of shop, police found 3 or 4 gas cylinders, then police conducted panchanama and obtained signatures of him and Pw.2 and two others. In the cross examination, both the witnesses have stated that their signatures were obtained in the police station. Pw.2 admitted that he does not know what was written in the panchanama and what for the panchanama was conducted at that time and he does not know the Door number of the shop. He also stated that he does not remember whether police recovered any cylinders in his presence. Pw.3 also stated that he does not know as to which accused the shop belongs and also the Door number. He also stated that he does not know what was seized by the police. The evidence of Pws.2 and 3 is contradicting with regard to alleged conducting of raid. According to Pw.2, it was conducted at 7.00 or 7.30 p.m., but as per Pw.3 it was conducted at 5.00 or 6.00 p.m.

According to Pw.2, A.1 tried to ran away, but the police caught hold of him. The version of Pws.2 and 3 is against to the case of the prosecution. According to Pws.1 and 4 –

Police officials, A.2 was found in the Kirana shop and he confessed that he bring the cylinders from A.1. Thus the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 as to their presence at the time of alleged confession cum seizure panchanama is doubtful. Further both the witnesses have not stated anything about the seizure of any cylinders. According to Pw.2, Police found one cylinder, but according to Pw.3, 3 or 4 cylinders were found. Both the witnesses have not stated whether they or domestic cylinders or small cylinders. As per the case of the prosecution, 3 domestic gas cylinders of Bharat Gas Company and 10 small cylinders were found, but none of the Pws.2 and 3 have stated about the same. Thus the evidence of Pws.2 and 3 with regard to the alleged conducting of panchanama in their presence and seizure of any cylinders is not believable. Further both the witnesses have stated that 4

CC No.539 of 2017

their signatures were obtained in the police station. As such the Ex.P.1 – Panchanama cannot said to be conducted in the presence of Pws.2 and 3 at the place of offence. As per

Ex.P.1, Pw.1 has conducted panchanama and seized 3 nos. domestic cylinders and 10 small cylinders in the presence of Pws.2 and 3 under cover of panch chits. But none of the witnesses have stated about obtaining of their signatures on the panch chits. Pw.4 stated that he handed over the cylinders to the Civil supplies department. But as per the list of property sent to the Court, he deposited 3 nos big cylinders, 10 small cylinders which were given to the police for safe custody. Without there being any order from the

Court, Pw.4 said to have handed over the cylinders to the Civil Supplies Department.

The said piece of evidence of Pw.4 goes to show that he has not conducted the panchanama and seized any of the cylinders from the shop of A.2.

11.Coming to the evidence of Pw.1, he deposed that they conducted raid at 6.00 p.m., though he gives the House number as 13-21, but he does not give the number of the shop.

He further stated that he did not verify to whom the domestic cylinders belong. He also stated that no notices were issued to the accused. Pw.1 as given the boundaries of the said shop, but none of the boundaries as deposed by him are mentioned in the rough sketch said to have been drawn by Pw.4.

12.In view of the above evidence of Pws.2 and 3, contradicting with each other with regard to any raid and the evidence of Pws.1 and 4 is not in one voice as to the conducting of said raid. Apart from that Pw.4 has also not followed any due procedure

U/s.100 Cr.P.C., for seizure. None of the cylinders said to have seized by Pw.4 are placed

before the Court for the purpose of marking. Hence, in the above circumstances, I find

that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt about conducting of raid or seizure of any domestic or small cylinders from the shop of A.2 and so also the involvement of A.1 in the said sale of cylinders by

A.2. Hence, In find that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence U/s.7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

5

CC No.539 of 2017

13.In the result, I find that A.1 and A.2 are found not guilty for the charge U/s.7 of

Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and they are acquitted U/s.248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand in force till expiry of appeal period for six months.

The Domestic cylinders returned to the police for safe custody are ordered to be returned to the Civil Supplies Department and the small cylinders are ordered to be confiscated to the State.

Dictated to Stenographer; typed and transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced

by me in the Open Court this the 29th day of September 2021.

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal

Appendix of Evidence Witnesses Examined For Prosecution

Pw.1 T. Mallesh, Police constable

Pw.2 Md. Shakil, mediator for panchanama cum seizure panchanama

Pw.3 Erolla Kanakaiah, mediator for panchanama cum seizure panchanama

Pw.4 K. Naidu, SI of Police and IO

For DefenceNone

Exhibits Marked for Prosecution

Ex.P1 confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P2 FIR dt 09.08.2017

Exhibits Marked for Defence

Nil

Material Objects marked

Nil

XXII Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, Medchal

OS.No:206 of 2016 Page.No: 1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

AT: MEDCHAL

PRESENT:- Sri G. Venu., B.A., LL.M., (PGDCL & IPR), Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Medchal

Wednesday this the 8 th day of March 2017

Original Suit No: 206 of 2016

Between:-

1. Muthyala Manohar, S/o.M.Ramulu, Aged about 47years, Occ: Pvt. Employee

2. Muthyala Naveen, S/o.M.Manohar, Aged about 17 years, Occ: Student,

3. Muthyala Chandana, D/o.M.Maohar, Aged about 13 years, Occ: Student,

4. Muthyala Digvijay, S/o.M.Maohar, Aged about 10 years, Occ: Student, (Plaintiff No.2 to 4 are the minors represented by their natural father/ Guardian i.e. plaintiff No.1/ Mr. M.Manohar)….Plaintiffs

and

1. The Tahsildar, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R.District

2. All concerned….Defendants

This suit is coming before me for final hearing and disposal on this 08-03-2017 in the presence of Sri. P. Sanjay Reddy, learned counsel for the plaintiffs, and the defendants having remained exparte and having stood over for consideration, this Court delivers the following:-

-:JUDGMENT:-

1. This is a suit filed for seeking declaration of the plaintiffs as the only legal heirs of deceased/M.Sangeetha.

2. The case of plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is the husband of deceased, whereas plaintiff

No.2 to 4 are the children of plaintiff No.1 and the deceased. The said deceased died on 20-07-2013 in Ramdev Hospital at Kukatpally of Hyderabad due to the heart attack, hence, plaintiffs could obtain the death certificate to that effect from the

Dt.08-03-2017Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No:206 of 2016 Page.No: 2 concerned GHMC authorities. During the lifetime of the deceased, plaintiff No.1 purchased an open plot bearing Plot No.86 admeasuring 100 Sq.yards in Sy.No. 267 situated at Gajularamaram village of Quthbullapur Mandal on her name from one

E.Srinivas Kumar represented by his Agreement of sale-cum-GPA holder Y.Shiva

Koteshwar Rao. Ever since the purchase of the same, plaintiffs have been in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Originally, said E. Srinivas Kumar purchased the said plot from one Saida Begum and others under a Sale deed bearing document No.18795/2006. Now, as the plaintiff No.1 intends to sell the said property for the better education of the plaintiff No.2 to 4, he approached the Tahsildar of

Quthbullapur with a request to issue Legal heir certificate, but as the said Tahsildar refused to issue the same and further, advised him to approach the competent court of

Law, he along with the remaining plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.

3. Having received the summons, learned Asst. Government Pleader filed a Memo to permit him to file the Written statement on behalf of defendant No.1, but as he failed to file the same though ample opportunity is given even after the completion of 90 days, his right to file the same is forfeited. Though publication is effected in the 'Eenadu' daily News paper of concerned local Edition against the all concerned, none of the interested person appeared before the court, hence, suit is heard in exparte.

4. Heard the plaintiffs. Now, the point for determination is :

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration as prayed for ?.

2. To what relief ?

5. In order to establish the suit claim, plaintiff No.1 himself was examined as PW-1 and got marked the Ex.A-1 to A-11. His oral evidence coupled with the Ex.A-4 goes to

Dt.08-03-2017Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No:206 of 2016 Page.No: 3 show that his wife/Sangeetha was died on 20-7-2013. Ex.A-1 & 2 establishes that one

Ejju Srinivasa Kumar represented by his registered Agreement of Sale-cum-GPA holder namely Siva Koteshwara Rao alienated the Plot No. 86 admeasuring 100 Sq.yards in

Sy.No. 267 situated at Gajularamaram village of Quthbullapur Mandal to the M.

Sangeetha i.e. wife of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A-3 establishes that above E. Srinivas Kumar purchased the above property from one Saida Begum & four others under the registered Sale deed. Ex.A-11 goes to show that the transaction of Ex.A-1 and Ex.A-2 are reflected in the Encumbrance Certificate. Ex.A-6 is the Household Card wherein the names of deceased, plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are shown as the wife and children respectively of plaintiff No.1. Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-7 to 10 are the Aadhar cards of the deceased and plaintiffs. Thus, these documents establishes the relationship between the deceased and Plaintiffs interse. Now, the question is whether the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased or not?. In this regard, it is just and necessary to know who is the Legal heir under the law and which heir among the other heirs of the deceased would be given preference in priority order in case of the death of Hindu female dying intestate as the parties in the present suit governs by Hindu Law.

6. Sec. 3(f) of Hindu Succession Act, defines heir as heir means any person, male or female who is entitled to succeed to the property of an intestate under this Act.

Section 15 & 16 of the said Act contemplates the order of succession for a Hindu female dying intestate. According to the said provision,

1. firstly, upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any predeceased son or daughter) and the husband;

2. secondly, upon the heirs of husband;

3. thirdly, upon the mother and father;

Dt.08-03-2017Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No:206 of 2016 Page.No: 4

4. forthly, upon the heirs of the father; and

5. lastly, upon the heirs of mother”

7. As per Section 16, the order of succession among the heirs referred to in Section 15 is that those in first/one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry, and those included in the same entry shall take simultaneously. In the present case, as the plaintiffs come under the first entry, the property of the deceased as she died intestate would be devolved on all of them simultaneously. So all the plaintiffs will have equal share in the property left by the deceased.

8. Here in the present case, as per the pleadings of the plaintiffs, plaintif No.1 purchased the house property in the name of the deceased, but he has not produced any documentary evidence to ascertain that out of his own source of income only, he purchased the house property in the name of the deceased. In these circumstances, it shall be inferred that the said property is the absolute and self acquired property of the deceased. So, as stated supra, all the plaintiffs will have equal rights over the said house property left by her. As per the further pleadings of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 intends to alienate the said house property to the third parties for the welfare of the plaintiffs No.2 to 4 who are minors by way of providing better education, hence, he approached the concerned Tahasildar to obtain the legal heir certificate, but as he refused to issue the same by advising him to approach the competent civil court, it constrained the plaintiffs to file the present suit.

9. Admittedly, as per the provisions of Guardian and Wards Act 1890, for the alienation of any minor's property, leave of the concerned competent District court is required,

Dt.08-03-2017Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No:206 of 2016 Page.No: 5 hence, without being obtained the same, as it can not be alienated and for which any legal heir certificate is not required, it gives rise to draw an inference that under the guise of alienation of property, for one reason or other, plaintiffs approached this court to obtain the relief of declaration of their legal character to the deceased. Admittedly, the relief of declaration is a discretionary one. The same cannot be granted merely it is asked unless the party seeking declaration satisfies the requirements of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. Here, as stated supra, as per the pleadings in the plaint, with the aid of declaration sought, plaintiffs want to alienate the property left by the deceased, but they did not furnish the particulars of any schedule of the such house property. Further, they are not asking for any consequential direction either against defendant No.1 or against the concerned authorities. More over, the pleadings nowhere discloses that defendant No.2 received their legal status i.e. character to the deceased. As per the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, no Court shall grant the mere relief of declaration, if the plaintiff, being in a position to claim other relief, did not pray for it.

10. In this regard, the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of A.P in the case of V.Hanya

Naik v. M.Krishna Reddy 1 becomes relevant wherein it was held that “From a perusal of the proviso, it becomes clear that no Court shall grant the mere relief of declaration, if the plaintiff, being in a position to claim other relief; did not pray for it. Even, a vague idea about this provision would have persuaded the trial Court, to refuse numbering of the suit. As pointed out at the threshold, the sky rocketing of prices of land has manifested its effect in various fields, including the approach of the Courts, in deviation of the settled norms. It is hoped that the Civil Courts, particularly in the districts, where the value of the land has increased substantially, in the recent past, would evidence required amount of interest and attention before the suits filed in respect of the immovable properties are numbered, lest, the innocent citizens become victims of the ingenious methods resorted to, by vested interests.” 1.2009 (6) ALT 221

Dt.08-03-2017Prl.JCJ, Medchal

OS.No:206 of 2016 Page.No: 6

11. This decision of the Hon'ble High Court squarely applies to the factual situation existed in the present case. In the instant case also, plaintiffs without attaching the schedule of the property stated to have been left by deceased and without paying the court fee on the benefit to be derived from the declaration sought and also without claiming any ancillary relief i.e., a direction to the concerned authorities to mutate their name for the said left over property of the deceased is seeking to declare their status as the legal heir of the deceased. Hence, in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble High

Court, plaintiffs are not entitled for any discretionary relief of declaration, as sought for, hence, suit is liable to be dismissed.

In the result: this suit is dismissed without costs as the defendants remained exparte.

Typed to my dictation by the Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of March 2017.

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal

-:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::-

Witnesses examined on behalf of

For Plaintiff For Defendants

Pw.1: Muthyala Manohar/ Plaintiff No.1 --None--

Exhibits marked

Ex. A - 1 - C.C. of registered sale deed bearing doc. No.5672/2013 Ex. A - 2 - C.C. of registered Agreement of sale cum GPA deed bearing doc. No.13043/2008 Ex. A - 3 – C.C. of registered sale deed bearing doc. No.18795/2006 Ex. A - 4 – Certified copy of Death Certificate of Sangeetha Ex. A - 5 – Aadhaar Card of Sangeetha Ex. A - 6 – Household card of plaintiff and deceased Ex. A – 7 - Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.1 Ex. A – 8 - Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2 Ex. A – 9 – Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.3 Ex. A -10 – Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.4 Ex. A -11 – Encumbrance Certificate, dated 07-04-2016

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Medchal

Dt.08-03-2017Prl.JCJ, Medchal