Smt. Angadi Nirmala

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

JANGAON: WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present: SMT.C.M. RAJYA LAKSHMI,

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

Dated this the 18 th day of November, 2016.

C. C. NO: 106 OF 2011

Between: -

The State of Telangana, through the Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon.

...Complainant.

And

Sk.Bhajee, S/o. Ali Sahab, Age: 36 years, Occu: Driver of Lorry No. AP 16 TY 5141, R/o. Paritala Village, Kanchikacherla Mandal, Krishna District.

...Accused

This case is coming before me, for final hearing and disposal on this day in the presence of Sri Nagaraju M, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Maheedhar Rao, Advocate for the accused; upon perusing the material papers on record, upon hearing the arguments on both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following.

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, P.S. Jangaon, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 of I.P.C., in Crime No. 67/2011 of P.S. Jangaon.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that on 10-03-2011 at about 12-30 hours, the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 5141, drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed coming from Jangaon to Siddipet side and dashed to the auto of one Thipparaboina Ilaiah, near Obulkeshavapur 2

Bus Stage, due to which the said Thipparaboina Ilaiah (deceased No.1), who was the driver of auto and the inmates of auto namely Valigonda

Srinivas and Peddaboina Yellaiah (deceased Nos. 2 and 3) struck in the auto and sustained severe injuries and died on the spot and other inmates namely Peddaboina Siddamma (PW-5), Peddaboina Navya (PW-6), Peddaboina Lakshmi (PW-8), Gangula Balaiah (PW-14) and Pulle

Saraswathi (PW-9), have sustained severe injuries. Immediately, the injured were shifted to Area Hospital, Jangaon.

3.On the strength of the written complaint of PW-1, son of deceased

No.1, a case in Crime No. 67/2011 under Sections 304-A, 337 I.P.C., was registered by the Police, Jangaon, and investigated. After completion of investigation, Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 338 I.P.C., .

4.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable under

Sections 304-A, 337, 338 I.P.C., against the accused.

5.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished u/Sec.207 Cr.P.C. The accused was examined u/Sec.251

Cr.P.C., for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337, 338

I.P.C., and explained the substance of accusation against him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined PWs 1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-14.

3

7.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and incriminating evidence is read over and explained to him. Having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

8.Now the point for consideration is :

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/Sections 304-A, 337, 338 I.P.C.?

9.It is the case of the prosecution that on 10-03-2011 at about 12-30 hours, on Jangaon – Siddipet State Highway-9, near

Obulkeshavapur Bus Stage, the accused being the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 5141, drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the Auto bearing

No. AP 23 U 3995, due to which the driver of auto by name

Thipparaboina Ilaiah and inmates of auto namely Valigonda Srinivas and

Peddaboina Yellaiah succumbed to the injuries and PWs 5, 6, 8, 9 and 14 sustained simple injuries.

10.The plea of the accused, as can be seen from the tenor of the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and also as per his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and also as argued by the learned defence counsel, is one of total denial and false implication. He did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence in support of his defence.

11.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution could successfully prove the guilt of accused in commission 4 of offence beyond reasonable doubt and that the evidence of PWs 5 to 9 and PW-14, who are inmates of the auto and sustained injuries in the said accident, clearly proved that the accused was the driver of crime vehicle at the relevant point of time and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and caused the incident. The evidence of PWs 5 to 9 and 14 is also supported by the other evidence of Medical Officers, examined as PWs 10 and 11, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased 1 to 3 and issued post mortem examination reports, opined that the deceased persons died due to “Shock Hemorrhage caused due to multiple injuries” and the

Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was examined as PW-3 and issued Motor

Vehicle Inspection Report-Ex.P-2 opining that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle and even the evidence of

PWs 16 and 17, who are the Investigating Officers and PWs 12, 13 and 15, who are panch witnesses for Inquest Panchanamas of the deceased 1 to 3 and Crime Details Form, is corroborated in all material aspects with regard to registering F.I.R., conducting Crime Details Form and

Inquest Panchanamas, including arrest of the accused. As such the evidence of PWs 1 to 18 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-14 has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, he prays the

Court to convict the accused as per law.

12.On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has vehemently argued that the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 cannot be relied and acted upon as they are circumstantial witnesses and PW-2, who is cited as eye witness, has not identified the accused as after the incident the driver of 5 crime vehicle fled away from the scene. He also argued that PWs 5 to 9 and 14, cannot be relied upon as they did not specifically identify the accused that he drove the crime vehicle at the relevant point of time of incident and caused the incident.

The learned defence counsel has strenuously argued that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is inconsistent and incorroborative and does not inspire confidence to base conviction of the accused and the accused is not the driver at the relevant of time and the investigating agency also failed to examine the owner of crime vehicle to prove that the accused drove the crime vehicle at the time of accident. With the said pleas, he sought for acquittal of the accused.

13.Heard both sides. Perused the case record.

14.To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined

PWs 1 to 18 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-14. PW-1 is the defacto complainant and son of deceased No.1 Thipparaboina Ilaiah, PW-2 is an eye witness, PW-3 is Motor Vehicle Inspector, PW-4 is wife of deceased

No.2 Valigonda Srinivas, PWs 5 to 9 and PW-14 are injured persons and eye witnesses, PWs 10 and 11 are Medical Officers, who conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased 1 to 3 and issued Post Mortem Examination Reports-Exs.P-3 to P-5 and issued

Medical Certificates of the injured persons PW-9, PW-14 and PW-16 under Exs.P-6 to P-8, PWs 12, 13 and 15 are the panch witnesses for

Inquest Panchanamas and Crime Details Form and PWs 16 and 17 are the Investigating Officers.

6

15.The accused did not examine any witnesses on his behalf and no documents have been marked on his behalf.

16.PW-1 is defacto complainant and son of deceased No.1 (Thipparaboina Ilaiah). He deposed that his father used to eke out his livelihood by plying auto bearing No. AP 23 U 3995 in Jangaon. On 10-03-2011 his father went with his auto on hire to one Bonala Yakaiah of Wadlakonda in connection with a marriage function by carrying the relatives of said Yakaiah. They were proceeding towards Bondugula

Village from Wadlakonda. When the auto of his father reached at

Obulkeshavapur Bus Stage, a lorry bearing No. AP 16 5141 came and hit the auto of his father at about 12-30 PM. As a result of which his father and two others sustained multiple injuries and died on the spot. Some other inmates of the auto sustained injuries. On information through his friend over phone, he immediately rushed to the hospital and saw his father's dead body. Later he lodged Ex.P-1-written complaint before the

Police.

PW-1 in his cross-examination though deposed that he do not know the contents of Ex.P-1 as they were not read over and explained to him but he further deposed that on his narration the Sub-Inspector of

Police drafted Ex.P-1 at the scene of offence and he put his signature on it. PW-1 is only a circumstantial witness and his evidence is hear-say evidence about the occurrence of offence.

17.PW-2, who cited as eye witness, deposed in his chief-examination that while he was returning from Obulkeshavapur Village to his village on his motor cycle, when he reached at the bus stage of 7

Obulkeshavapur Village one auto, which was going towards

Obulkeshavapur Village from Peddapahad Village at that time one Lorry, which was coming from Jangaon side and proceeding towards Siddipet side came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, as a result of which the auto went and hit to a road side tree, due to which three passengers, who were traveling in the auto sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot and some other persons sustained injuries. Then, they called 108 Ambulance and shifted the injured to

Government Area Hospital, Jangaon, for treatment.

Though he deposed in his chief-examination that he can identify the driver of crime lorry but as the accused was absent on that day and the matter was posted to 17-04-2014 at request of the learned Assistant

Public Prosecutor, and when during the course of recording chief- examination, PW-2 deposed that he cannot identify the accused due to lapse of time and after the incident, the driver of crime vehicle fled away from the scene of offence, which is contrary to his earlier evidence. As such, his evidence cannot be relied upon in connecting the accused with the alleged offences.

18.PW-4, wife of deceased No.2 (Valigonda Srinivas), deposed that her husband met with road accident while he was proceeding in an auto at Obulkeshavapur Village and she came to know further that one lorry dashed towards the auto. PW-4 is also a circumstantial witness.

19.PWs 5 to 9 and 14, inmates of the auto and injured persons, deposed that while they were proceeding in hired auto, which belongs to one Ilaiah from Vadlakonda to Bondugula Village and when their auto 8 reached near Obulkeshavapur Bus Stage at about 12-30 PM, at that time one lorry came from Jangaon, proceeding towards Cherial and dashed towards their auto, due to which their auto dashed towards a

Neam Tree and due to which they sustained multiple injuries and the auto driver, Srinivas and husband of PW-5 by name Yellaiah died on the spot. Later they were shifted to Area Hospital, Jangaon. They further deposed that at the time of accident, the Lorry came in high speed and they identified that the accused is the driver of crime vehicle and the number of crime vehicle is AP 16 TY 5141.

During cross-examination of PWs 5 to 9, they admitted that after the accident, the accused brought them to the Area Hospital, Jangaon, and they gave descriptive particulars of the accused to the Police. They also admitted that earlier to the incident, they have not seen the accused at any point of time. It is suggested to them that the auto was over loaded with 8 to 10 passengers at the time of incident, which is denied by them. There are no material contradictions or omissions elicited in their evidence and that their evidence proves that the lorry came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto.

20.PW-3 (M.Samba Murthy), Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the crime Lorry after the accident, opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and accordingly, issued Motor Vehicle Inspection Report-Ex.P-2. The evidence of PW-3 (M.Samba Murthy), Motor Vehicle Inspector, clearly 9 proved that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle.

21. PWs 10 and 11, Medical Officers, who conducted Post Mortem

Examination over the dead bodies of deceased 1 to 3, opined that the cause of death is shock due to hemorrhage due to multiple injuries, which are possible in a road traffic accident. Exs.P-3 to P-5 are post mortem examination reports of the deceased 1 to 3. PW-11 also examined the injured persons namely P.Saraswathi (PW-9), Balaiah (PW-14) and P.Navya (PW-6) and issued Medical Certificates under

Exs.P-6 to P-8. On perusal of Medical Certificates of injured persons under Exs.P-6 to P-8, it is found that they sustained simple injuries.

PW-5 deposed that she sustained injuries all over her body and also on her forehead, PW-7 deposed that she sustained head injury and also sustained injuries all over her body and PW-8 deposed that she sustained spinal cord injury and also sustained multiple injuries all over her body but to that effect there are no medical certificates filed.

Hence, there is no evidence to show that the injured sustained grievous injuries attracting the ingredients of the offence punishable under

Section 338 I.P.C.

22.PWs 12, 13 and 15, who are panch witnesses for Inquest

Panchanama of the deceased 1 to 3 and Crime Details Form, deposed that in their presence, Police conducted the Inquest Panchanamas and

Crime Details Form under Exs.P-9, P-10 and P-14-Inquest Panchanamas of deceased 1 to 3 respectively and Crime Details Form under Ex.P-11.

10

23.PW-17 (M.Jithender), Inspector of Police, Jangaon, deposed that on receipt of Ex.P-1-complaint from PW-1, he registered a case in Crime No.

67/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 I.P.C., and issued First Information Report under Ex.P-12, then he proceeded to the scene of offence by securing the presence of PW-13 and LW-14 and observed the scene of offence, prepared Crime Details Form under

Ex.P-11 and summoned the Photographer (PW-18) and had taken the photos of the scene of offence. The photos along with compact disc is marked under Ex.P-14. Then he shifted the dead bodies for conducting inquest panchanamas and post mortem examinations and on 15-03-2011 he arrested the accused.

24.PW-16 (D.Upender), Sub-Inspector of Police, Jangaon, deposed that on 10-03-2011 on the instructions of Station House Officer,

Jangaon, he proceeded to Area Hospital, Jangaon and conducted Inquest

Panchanama over the dead body of the deceased Peddaboina Yellaiah under Ex.P-14.

25.Therefore, this Court believing the version of PWs 5 to 9 and 14, which is corroborated with the evidence of PW-3, PWs 10 to 18 and held that their evidence shows that the accused had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and committed the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 I.P.C.

26.The learned defence counsel argued that the Investigating Agency has not cited the owner of crime vehicle as a witness and all the witnesses ascertained the name of accused on the basis of Cell Number, 11 which was written on the Crime Lorry and no material has been collected by the Investigation Officer from the owner of the vehicle to show that the accused was actually driving the vehicle on that particular day.

During the cross-examination of PW-16-Investigating Officer, the learned defence counsel elicited that he did not mention the cell number in the statements of witnesses and the witnesses have not given any descriptive particulars of the accused in their statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., and PW-2 stated before him that after the accident, the driver of crime vehicle jumped from the Lorry and ran away from the spot.

When the eye witnesses and injured persons, who travelled in the auto, clearly identified the accused as the driver of crime lorry and after the accident, the accused shifted the injured to the Area Hospital,

Jangaon, their evidence is held sufficient to base conviction of the accused.

The learned defence counsel further argued that PW-2, who is cited as eye witness, has not identified the accused as driver of crime vehicle at that particular time and he further deposed that after the incident the driver of crime vehicle fled away from the scene and PW-9 also admitted that she do not know how many persons were proceeding in the crime lorry on the date of incident.

The learned defence counsel vehemently argued that all the witnesses ascertained the name of accused through the cell number, which was written on the Crime Lorry, which is not reliable and the owner of the vehicle has not been examined, as such, the prosecution 12 failed to prove that the accused was actually driven the vehicle on that particular day and when there is any doubtful circumstance with regard to the identity of the accused, that benefit should always be given in favour of the accused.

To that effect, he relied on the decision reported in a case of

State of Karnataka Vs. S.Manoharan (2014 Crl.L.J. Page

No.3307) (2014 1 ACC 841) (2014 Supreme (Kar) 759). But the same is not found to the relevant with the present case as the injured persons, who travelled in the auto, clearly identified the accused that he is the driver of crime lorry and driven the vehicle in a speedy manner and after the accident, the accused brought them to the Area Hospital,

Jangaon.

27.At this juncture, this Court referred to the decision of two-Judge

Bench in Dalbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana ((2000) 5 SCC 82), a hall mark decision with regard to road accidents in which it is held as follows: :- “When automobiles have become death traps any leniency shown to drivers, who are found guilty of rash driving would be at the risk of further escalation of road accidents. All those who are manning the steering of automobiles, particularly professional drivers, must be kept under constant reminders of their duty to adopt utmost care and also of the consequences befalling them in cases of dereliction. One of the most effective ways of keeping such drivers under mental vigil is to maintain a deterrent element in the sentencing sphere. Any latitude shown to them in that sphere would tempt them to make driving frivolous and a frolic.” 13 “Bearing in mind the galloping trend in road accidents in India and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, criminal courts cannot treat the nature of the offence under Section 304-A

I.P.C., as attracting the benevolent provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. While considering the quantum of sentence to be imposed for the offence of causing death by rash or negligent driving of automobiles, one of the prime considerations should be deterrence. A professional driver pedals the accelerator of the automobile almost throughout his working hours. He must constantly inform himself that he cannot afford to have a single moment of laxity or inattentiveness when his leg is on the pedal of a vehicle in locomotion. He cannot and should not take a chance thinking that a rash driving need not necessarily cause any accident; or even if any accident occurs it need not necessarily result in the death of any human being; or even if such death ensues he might not be convicted of the offence; and lastly, that even if he is convicted he would be dealt with leniently by the Court.

He must always keep in his mind the fear psyche that if he is convicted of the offence for causing death of a human being due to his callous driving of the vehicle he cannot escape from a jail sentence. This is the role which the

Courts can play, particularly at the level of trial courts, for lessening the high rate of motor accidents due to callous driving of automobiles.”

The Hon'ble Supreme Court even in one of the latest Judgments i.e. State of Punjab Vs. Saurabh Bakshi dated 30-03-2015 in

Criminal Appeal No. 520 of 2015 also adopted the same view by citing the case law supra and conviction was accordingly upheld.

14

28.In view of the aforesaid discussion of oral and documentary evidence and in view of the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this

Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved the charges under Sections 304-A, 337 I.P.C. Accordingly, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 I.P.C.

The accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C.

(Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 18th day of November, 2016.)

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON.

ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE

29.Accused is questioned about the quantum of sentence, to which he submitted that he has wife and children, who are dependent on him and he is the sole bread-winner in the family and requested this Court to take a lenient view.

Having regard to the nature of the offences proved and keeping in view that three persons have lost their lives and six others sustained injuries and the devastating consequences visiting the victims and their families, it is not a fit case to invoke the benevolent provisions of the

Probation of Offenders' Act, in favour of the accused, as he committed the offence under Section 304-A I.P.C., and a lenient view cannot be taken in awarding sentence, hence, this Court is of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met only if a deterrent view is adopted in punishing the accused. Therefore, the accused is sentenced to undergo 15

Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of

Rs.800/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., and to pay fine of Rs.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C., total fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine he shall undergo

Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months each for the said offences. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

30. In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 I.P.C., accordingly, he is convicted under Section 255(2) Cr.P.C., and sentenced to undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.800/- for the offence punishable under Section 304-A I.P.C., and to pay fine of

Rs.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 337 I.P.C., total fine of

Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo Simple

Imprisonment for a period of three months each. Both the sentences shall run concurrently.

The period of remand undergone by the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The accused is acquitted under Section 255 (1) Cr.P.C., for the offence punishable under Section 338 I.P.C.

He is also apprised of his right to have legal aid to prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions, if he has no sufficient means to engage his Advocate before the Hon’ble Court of Sessions.

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

16

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW-1: Thipparaboina Sathish – Defacto Complainant -None-

PW-2: Anreddy Prathap Reddy – Eye Witness

PW-3: M.Samba Murthy – Motor Vehicle Inspector

PW-4: Valigonda Radha – Circumstantial Witness

PW-5: Peddaboina Siddamma – Injured

PW-6: Peddaboina Navya – Injured

PW-7: Rajaboina Lakshmi – Eye Witness

PW-8: Peddaboina Lakshmi – Injured

PW-9: Pulle Saraswathi – Injured

PW-10: Dr. Srihari – Medical Officer

PW-11: Dr. Poli Reddy – Medical Officer

PW-12: Gone Kistaiah – Panch witness for Inquest

Panchanama of deceased No.1

PW-13: Dandeboina Satyanarayana – Panch witness for Inquest

Panchanama of deceased No.2 and Crime Details Form

PW-14: Gangula Balaiah – Injured

PW-15: Chada Surender Reddy – Panch Witness for Inquest Panchanama of deceased No.3

PW-16: D.Upender – Investigating Officer

PW-17: M.Jithender – Investigating Officer

PW-18: Ghanapuram Dayakar – Photographer

EXHIBITS MARKED

< FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1 : Written complaint of PW-1 dated 10-03-2011

Ex.P-2 :Motor Vehicle Inspection Report dated 11-03-2011

Ex.P-3 :Post Mortem Examination Report of Thipparaboina Ilaiah (D-1) dated 26-03-2011

Ex.P-4 :Post Mortem Examination Report of Peddaboina Yellaiah (D-3) dated 26-03-2011 17

Ex.P-5 :Post Mortem Examination Report of Valigonda Srinivas (D-2)

dated 24-04-2011

Ex.P-6 : Medical Certificate of PW-9 dated 10-03-2011

Ex.P-7 : Medical Certificate of PW-14 dated 10-03-2011

Ex.P-8 : Medical Certificate of PW-6 dated 10-03-2011

Ex.P-9 :Inquest Panchanama dated 10-03-2011 of Thipparaboina

Ilaiah (D-1)

Ex.P-10:Inquest Panchanama dated 10-03-2011 of Valigonda

Srinivas (D-2)

Ex.P-11: Crime Details Form dated 10-03-2011

Ex.P-12:Inquest Panchanama dated 10-03-2011 of Peddaboina

Yellaiah (D-3)

Ex.P-13:First Information Report dated 10-03-2011

Ex.P-14:Photographs along with Compact Disc

FOR DEFENCE:

- Nil -

:MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-Nil-

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

1 C.C. No.614/2008 A.J.F.C.M., Jangaon

IN THE COURT OF ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE :::

JANGAON

Monday this the 23rd day of April, 2018

Present: Smt. Angadi Niramala, Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate, Jangaon.

C.C. No.614 of 2008

Between: The State of A.P., rep., by Sub­Inspector of police, P.S. Cherial. … Complainant.

And

Thirupathi Kankaiah, S/o Ramulu, Age:24 yrs, Caste: Mudiraj, R/o: Duddeda village of Kondapaka mandal of Medak District, driver of Tractor bearing No.AP­23­T­8498. … Accused -o0o-

This case coming on for final hearing before me on 04/01/2018 in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor, for the State and of Sri K. Sreenivasa Reddy, counsel for the accused and the matter stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub­Inspector of Police, P.S. Cherial filed the charge sheet against the accused in Cr. No.34 of 2006 for the offence punishable u/S.304­A IPC.

2.The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:

On 08.03.2006, the complainant, Edulapuram Vasthna,PW1 went to police station Cherial and lodged complaint with police alleging that she was resident of Dattojipet village of Ramadugu mandal of Karimnagar

District. On 07.03.2006, she along with the deceased Edulapuram Adi

Laxmi, Gopu Anjali (PW3), Jakkula Amruthamma (PW6) and Jakkula Raju (LW5) reached to Siddipet at about 1900 hours, where all of them boarded an auto bearing No. AP­36­W­4314 driven by Kadari Narasimhulu (PW7) for Komuravelli temple. When they were proceeding towards Komuravelly at about 2030 hours, when the auto reached at the outskirts of

Komuravelly village, at that time the accused droving the tractor bearing 2 C.C. No.614/2008 A.J.F.C.M., Jangaon No.AP­23­T­8498 who was proceeding from Komuravelli drove the tractor in a rash manner with high speed and dashed their auto in an opposite direction. As a result, the deceased Adi Laxmi sustained severe injuries.

Then they shifted Adi Laxmi to Government hospital, Siddipet. Where the doctors said the Adi Laxmi was died. 

B. Praveen, Sub­Inspector of Police, PW9 registered the complaint as a case in Cr. No.34/2006 u/S.304­A IPC and issued FIR. During the course of investigation, he examined Pws1 to 3, PW6 and PW7 and Jakkula

Raju (LW5) AND Bonagiri Veera Brahmam (LW6) and recorded their statements. PW9 visited the scene of offence situated at the outskirts of

Komuraveli village, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW8 and Gollapalli Kistaiah (LW11) and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW4 and 5 and Devireddy

Venkatamma (LW10).

3.When the investigation was in progress on 24.03.2006, the accused surrendered before him. On that PW9 arrested the accused and caused him to be produced before the Court. After investigation was over PW9 filed the charge sheet against the accused u/Sec.304­A of IPC.

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

3.The case was taken against the accused for the offence u/Sec.304­A

IPC in Cr. No.34/2006.

4.On appearance of the accused copies of the documents were furnished to him as required u/S.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined u/S.251 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the allegations in the charge sheet, read over and explained to him in Telugu for which he denied his involvement in the said offences, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3 C.C. No.614/2008 A.J.F.C.M., Jangaon

6.During the trial, in support of their case, the prosecution has examined PWs1 to 9 and marked Exs.P.1 to P14.

Edulapuram Vasantha (PW1), is the complainant, daughter of the deceased, eyewitness. Edulapuram Laxmi Rajam (PW2) is the husband of the deceased. Gopu Anjali (PW3), Jakkula Amrutha (PW6) and Kadari

Narsimhulu (PW7) are the eye­witnesses. Gantla Narsimha Reddy (WP4)

AND Gantla Madhava Reddy (PW5) are the panch­witnesses for inquest.

Lingampalli Vishnu Murthy (PW8) is the panch witness. B. Praveen (PW9) is the invesetigating officer. 

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the complaint. Ex.P2 is the 161

Cr.P.C. statement of PW1. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2.

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW4 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P6 is the signature of PW5 on inquest panchanama. Ex.P7 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. Ex.P8 is the signature of PW8 on CDF. Ex.P9 is the FIR. Ex.P10 is the CDF. Ex.P11 is the inquest panchanama. Ex.P12 are the photographs (5 in number) along with negatives. Ex.P13 is the postmortem examination report. Ex.P14 is the MVI report. 

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/S.313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied the same and reported no defence, and nothing was marked on behalf of defence.

8.Heard the learned APP and the counsel for the accused.

9.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offences with which he was charged?” 4 C.C. No.614/2008 A.J.F.C.M., Jangaon

10. POINT:

Let us see what the prosecution witnesses deposed before this court.

Edulapuram Vasantha, PW1 testified that in the year 2006 herself and her mother Adi Laxmi deceased boarded an auto to go to Komuravelli temple. When they reached near to Komuravelli village one tractor came opposite direction to their auto and dashed to their auto. On that her mother, Adi Laxmi received injuries. She further testified that she was shifted her mother to Siddipeta hospital where the doctor told them that her mother was died. She further stated that the complaint was drafted by her villager. She did not know the contents of the complaint. She further stated that she could not say who was responsible for the accident and she could not say the number of the crime vehicle. PW1, being the eyewitness and daughter of the deceased have not supported the case. She was declared to be hostile witness and was cross­examined by the Assistant

Public Prosecutor. During her cross­examination she denied to have stated as in Ex.P2 (161 Cr.P.C. statement) according to which the accused drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner and dashed their auto and the accused responsible for the death of her mother. PW2 being the husband of the deceased also not supported the case. He deposed that he did not know who was responsible for the accident. PW3 and PW6 who are the eyewitnesses also not supported the case they deposed that he did not know who as responsible for the accident. 

Kadari Narasimhulu, PW7 testified that on 07.03.2006 at 03.00 p.m., he started to went to Komuravelli from Siddipet. One tractor came from opposite direction with rash and negligent manner and dashed to their auto. On account of it, PW1, PW3, PW6 and LW5 received minor injuries and Adi Laxmi received severe injuries. He further testified that they 5 C.C. No.614/2008 A.J.F.C.M., Jangaon shifted her to hospital. He further stated that the crime vehicle No.AP­23­

T­8498. Police examined him and recorded his statement.

During the course of cross­examination he denied that on 07.03.2006, he was not travelled in the auto. He also denied the suggestion that the driver of the tractor not driven the tractor in rash and negligent manner. 

B. Praveen PW9, Investigating officer, testified in his chief examination that on the complaint lodged by the PW1 on 08.03.2009 at 10.00 a.m., he registered a case in Cr. No.34/2006 u/Sec.304­A IPC and issued FIR Ex.P9. His further evidence is that he examined Pws1 to 4 and

PWs6 and 7 and recorded their statements. He further testified that he visited the scene of offence situated outskirts of Komuravelli village where he conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW8 and

Gollapalli Kistaiah (LW11). PW9 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW5 and 6 and Devireddy Venkatamma (LW10).

 His further evidence is that on 24.03.2006 the accused surrendered

before me. On that he arrested the accused and caused him to be

produced before the Court. Yet, further he stated that as per his investigation accused committed the offence. During the course of his cross examination he denied that he foisted a false case against the accused and filed charge sheet with false allegations. He also denied the suggestion that he did not even visit the scene of offence and he did not examine any of the witnesses and the accused has nothing to do with the offence.

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

6 C.C. No.614/2008 A.J.F.C.M., Jangaon Except investigating Officer and PW7 all other witnesses cited by the prosecution have not supported the case. All of them completely turned hostile. Under the circumstances basing on the evidence of Investigating

Officer and PW7, it cannot be held that the accused had committed the offence. Hence, I hold that prosecution miserably failed to prove it’s case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

11. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence

u/S.304­A IPC, and he is acquitted of the said offences u/S.255(1) of

Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 

(Typed to my dictation by the Steno, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this 23rd day of April, 2018.)

Sd/­xxxxxxxxxxx

ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW­1: Edulapuram Vasantha ­ NONE –

PW­2: Edulapuram Laxmi Rajam 

PW­3: Gopu Anjali

PW­4: Gantla Narsimha Reddy

PW­5: Gantla Madhava Reddy

PW­6: Jakkula Amrutha

PW­7: Kadari Narasimhulu

PW­8: Lingampalli Vishnu Murthy

PW­9: B. Praveen

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on the complaint. 

Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1.

Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2. 

Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3.

Ex.P5 is the signature of PW4 on inquest panchanama.

7 C.C. No.614/2008 A.J.F.C.M., Jangaon Ex.P6 is the signature of PW5 on inquest panchanama. 

Ex.P7 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6. 

Ex.P8 is the signature of PW8 on CDF. 

Ex.P9 is the FIR.

Ex.P10 is the CDF.

Ex.P11 is the inquest panchanama.

Ex.P12 are the photographs (5 in number) along with negatives. 

Ex.P13 is the postmortem examination report.

Ex.P14 is the MVI report. 

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

­NIL­

Sd/­xxxxxxxxxxx

ADDL. JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

// True copy //

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON, WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present: SMT. C.M. RAJYA LAKSHMI,

PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

Dated this the 18 th day of November, 2016.

O.S.NO. 255 of 2011

Between:

Pittala Keshavulu …Plaintiff A N D

1.Pittala Ramulu

2.Pittala Kishtaiah …Defendants

This suit is coming on 04-11-2016 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri G.Nagarajeshwar Rao, Advocate for the Plaintiff and of Sri A.Siddi Ramulu & Sri G.Babu Rao, Advocates for Respondents-Defendants; upon hearing the arguments and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This is a suit for perpetual injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property i.e.

agricultural dry land admeasuring Ac.1.05 gts., in Sy.No. 597, situated at Pochannapet Village, Bachannapet Revenue Mandal,

Warangal District, which is more vividly described in the plaint schedule.

2.The brief averments in the Plaint are as follows:-

i)The Plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of agricultural land admeasuring Ac.1-05 gts., in Sy.No. 597, situated 2 at Pochannapet Village, Bachannapet Revenue Mandal, Warangal

District, having acquired the same by virtue of gift settlement deed bearing document No. 3039/2011 dated 12-08-2011 from his mother by name Pittala Lachamma. Since then the plaintiff and his family members have been cultivating the suit land without any interruption and the Plaintiff has got entered his name in the revenue records as owner and possessor. The defendants, who are strangers to the suit schedule land, without having any legal right over the suit schedule property, have been trying to occupy the same by dispossessing the plaintiff illegally and made such attempt on 15-12-2011 and removed the boundary stones of the suit land, which could be resisted and replanted the boundaries with the help of saner elements of the locality. Hence, this suit.

3.The defendants have filed written statement denying the ownership and possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property basing on registered gift settlement deed executed by his mother as the mother of plaintiff is not the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the gift settlement deed is false and sham document. The documents filed by the plaintiff do not constitute any rights to the plaintiff to claim the alleged possession in respect of the suit land and the plaintiff is neither the owner nor the possessor of the suit schedule land at any point of time and in fact the mother of the defendants by name Pittala Mallamma is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land. The mother of defendants filed a suit vide O.S.No.

13/2012 on the file of this Court against the plaintiff and his father, which is pending. The plaintiff filed this false suit to grab the land 3 of defendants. The alleged cause of action is false and incorrect and the suit is barred by limitation and the suit is under valued.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and the whole suit is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

4.Based on above pleadings, this Court has settled the following issues:-

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for

perpetual injunction as prayed for?

ii)To what relief ?

5.On behalf of Plaintiff, PW-1 is examined and got marked

Exs.A-1 to A-14. No evidence was let in by the defendants.

6.Heard.

ISSUE NO.1 :

7.The plaintiff has filed the suit for simplicitor of injunction against the defendants 1 and 2. Thus, the plaintiff is under the obligation to prove the possession as on the date of filing of the suit. In doing so, the plaintiff himself got examined as PW-1 and reiterated the plaint averments. In support of his evidence, Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. The defendants denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and pleaded that the suit schedule property is in possession and enjoyment of their mother by name Pittala Mallamma and the documents filed by the plaintiff are fabricated and false documents, but they did not choose to cross-examine the witness on the said aspects. The defendants did not choose to file any documents in support of their pleadings and so as to rebut the claim put forth by the plaintiff.

According to PW-1, his mother Pittala Lachamma has gifted the suit schedule property under Ex.A-1-original registered gift 4 settlement deed and thereafter, he has been cultivating the same and his name entered in the revenue records and his name also reflecting in the pahanies. The certified copies of pahanies under

Exs.A-13 and A-14 clearly show that the plaintiff is in possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. The certified copies of pahanies for the years from 1999-2000 to 2009-2010 marked under Exs.A-2 to A-12 clearly shown that the mother of plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

8.The pleadings of defendants go to show that the plaintiff's mother has no right to gift the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff and their mother is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property and a suit in O.S.No. 13 of 2012 is pending

before this Court. The defendants have availed sufficient time to

testify the testimony of PW-1 in respect of the alleged ownership and possession of their mother and ownership of plaintiff over the suit schedule property but failed to file a single document in support of their version. Therefore, the evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-14 has to be taken into consideration that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of suit. As the defendants have not filed any scrap of document showing that the suit schedule property is in possession of their mother, the pleadings put up by the defendants 1 and 2 presumed to be false and incorrect. On perusal of O.S.No.13 of 2012, on the file of this Court, which is filed after filing of the present suit, it is found that the suit schedule property is differing with the present suit schedule property and the said suit was dismissed for default on 29-09-2016. The 5 testimony of PW-1 goes unchallenged and therefore, can be acted upon. Exs.A-1 to A-14 documents go to show that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule land as on the date of filing of the suit. The testimony of PW-1 further buttressed that the defendants without having any right or title over the suit schedule property, tried to disturb the possession. Thus, the plaintiff has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience and also entitled for perpetual injunction. Issue answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff and as against the defendants.

9.ISSUE NO.2 : in view of finding of Issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed.

10.IN THE RESULT, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed, restraining the defendants permanently from interfering into the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. However, in the circumstances, there is no order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court, on this the 18th day of

November, 2016.

Sd./-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS:

P.W.1: Pittala Keshavulu-NONE- 6

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANTS: -NIL-

Ex.A-1 : Original Gift Settlement Deed vide Document No.

3039/2011 dated 12-08-2011.

Ex.A-2 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 1999-2000

Ex.A-3 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2000-2001

Ex.A-4 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2001-2002

Ex.A-5 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2002-2003

Ex.A-6 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2003-2004

Ex.A-7 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2004-2005

Ex.A-8 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2005-2006

Ex.A-9 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2006-2007

Ex.A-10:Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2007-2008

Ex.A-11:Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2008-2009

Ex.A-12 :Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2009-2010

Ex.A-13 :Computerized Pahani for the Fasli No. 1420

Ex.A-14 :Computerized Pahani for the Fasli No. 1421

Sd./-

PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE:

JANGAON, WARANGAL DISTRICT.

Present: SMT.C.M. RAJYA LAKSHMI,

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

Dated this the 18 th day of November, 2016.

C.C.No. 266 OF 2015

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Jangaon.

… Complainant AND

1. Thallapally Srinivas, S/o. Ayodhya, Age: 41 years, Occu: Coolie,

2.Balla Radha, W/o. Balaramulu, Age: 40 years, Occu: Coolie,

Both are R/o. Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, Warangal District.

… Accused

This case is coming for final hearing and disposal on this day, in the presence of Sri Nagaraju M, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Ch.Bixapathi, Advocate for the accused; upon hearing and upon perusing the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

The Prohibition and Excise Sub-Inspector, Jangaon, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable u/Sec.7-A r/w. 8(e) of the

A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, in COR No. 394/2014-2015.

2.The brief averments of the case of the prosecution are that :

On 21.07.2014 at about 9-30 A.M., on reliable information that some persons are selling the I.D. Liquor, PW-3 (Ch.Pavan), Prohibition & Excise

Sub-Inspector, Jangaon, along with his staff proceeded near to Bus Stand of

Tharigoppula Village, Narmetta Mandal, for conducting Raids and secured panch witnesses PWs 1 and 2 (Md.Shakeel and Potharaju Bhasker), during the raids they found that the accused are in suspicious manner carrying bags in their hands and on suspicion, they searched bags and found (6) liters of I.D. Liquor in each bag, totaling (12) liters of I.D. Liquour, on that 2 they seized the same by taking samples and recorded Seizure

Panchanama in the presence of mediators and apprehended the accused.

Thereafter, PW-3 returned to Excise Station, Jangaon, registered a case vide COR No. 394/2014-2015 dated 21-07-2014 against the accused and during the course of investigation, he effected the arrest of accused and remanded them for judicial custody and after completion of usual investigation, PW-3 filed charge-sheet against the accused.

3.After considering the material papers on record, this case was taken on file for the offence punishable u/S.7-A r/w.8 (e) of the A.P. Prohibition

Act, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished u/Sec. 207 Cr.P.C., and the accused were examined u/Sec. 239 Cr.P.C., and the accusation for the offenceu/S.7-A r/w.8(e) A.P. Prohibition

Act,is read over and explained to the accused, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.The prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to

P-6.

6.After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C., and incriminating evidence is read over and explained to them. Having understood the same, the accused denied the incriminating evidence and reported no defence evidence.

7.Now the point for consideration is “whether the prosecution has

proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the

offence punishable u/Sec.7-A r/w. 8(e) of A.P. Prohibition Act?”

8.The learned prosecutor argued that both the accused are indulging in selling of I.D. liquor without any licence and permit and accordingly,

PW-3 and his staff searched and seized (12) liters of I.D. liquor from their possession on 21.07.2014 in the presence of mediators.

9. The learned prosecutor further argued that the evidence of PW-3 is quite corroborates with regard to the contents of Exs.P-3 and P-4, which are Seizure Panchanama and Written Report respectively, and also further argued that though the PWs 1 and 2, who are panch witnesses for seizure panchanama, did not support to the case of the prosecution with regard to 3 the seizure of I.D. liquor from the possession of the accused, but the evidence of PW-3 is clearly proved that the accused are doing I.D. Liquor business without any licence and PW-3 seized (12) liters of I.D. Liquor from their possession. Hence, the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P-1 to P-6 has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and prayed to convict the accused in accordance with law.

10. On the other hand, the learned Defence Counsel vehemently argued that though the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 3, among them

PW-3 is the Police Official and interested witness and though his evidence is corroborated with regard to recording seizure panchanama, seizure of contraband, registering case against the accused including the arrest of accused, but at the same time, his evidence is not supported by any independent witness and the prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused. Hence, he prays the Court to acquit the accused from the accusation leveled against them.

11.Heard both sides. Perused the record.

12. The learned prosecutor relied on the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and though the evidence of PW-3 is corroborated with regard to seizure of case property, recording seizure panchanama, registering the case including arrest of accused, but at the same time, his evidence is not supported by any independent witness and though the prosecution examined PWs 1 and 2 as panch witnesses for Seizure Panchanama, but they did not depose single word against the accused about the seizure of I.D. liquor from the possession of the accused. More over, PW-3 is the defacto complainant and Investigating Officer and naturally he is interested witness in his case. Hence, it is unsafe to rely upon the solitary testimony of interested witness i.e. PW-3 without corroborating with the evidence of any independent witness.

13.On considering the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with Exs.P-1 to

P-6, the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged confession and seizure of the property from the possession of accused and after scrutinizing the evidence of prosecution, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused are found not guilty for the offence u/Sec.7-A r/w. 8(e) A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995.

4

14. IN THE RESULT, the accused (A-1 and A-2) are found not guilty for the offence punishable u/S.7-A r/w.8(e) A.P. Prohibition Act, 1995, and accordingly, they are acquitted of the same u/Sec. 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled. The unmarked property (samples), shall be destroyed after appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of November, 2016.)

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:-NONE-

PW-1: Md. Shakeel – Panch Witness for Seizure Panchanama

PW-2: Potharaju Bhasker– Panch Witness for Seizure Panchanama

PW-3: Ch.Pavan – Prohibition & Excise Sub-Inspector, Jangaon.

EXHIBITS MARKED

Ex.P-1:Signature of PW-1 on Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-2:Signature of PW-2 on Seizure Panchanama

Ex.P-3:Seizure Panchanama dated 21-07-2014

Ex.P-4:Written Report of PW-3 dated 21-07-2014

Ex.P-5:Destruction Panchanama dated 15-10-2014

Ex.P-6:Laboratory Analysis Report dated 28-08-2014

:MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED:

-Nil-

Sd./-

JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON.

// TRUE COPY //

TSJN020006632015

Presented on : 24-06-2015 Registered on : 29-06-2015 Decided on : 23-04-2018 Duration : 2 years, 9 months, 29 days

IN THE COURT OF

Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum- Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class (Juvenile Court), Jangaon (Presided Over by Smt. Angadi Nirmala )

MC/100010/2015

1. Dodda Swathi Through Police Station Officer , Edunoothula Village, Kodakandla Revenue Mandal, presently residing at her maternal uncles house Sri Goli Somi, So. Anantha Reddy, 1-44, Devaruppula Village and Revenue Mandal, Warangal District

JANAGAON

2: Dodda Akilesh Reddy, R/o. Edunothala Village Kodakandla Revenue Mandal Warangal District (minor) per Guardian and next friend and natural mother Dodda Swathi

VERSUS

Dodda Prathap Reddy, R/o. Edunoothla Village, Kodakandla Revenue Mandal, Warangal District ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- APP for State }: M.Jan Reddy, Advocate for appearing for Dodda Prathap Reddy Advocate appearing for , respectively. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Offence punishable under : 125 of CODE OF CRIMINAL

PROCEDURE,

ORDER

Business: Complainant and respondent present, complainant reported that the matter settled between them out of the court and complainant not willing to proceed further with MC, she endorsed the same on petition, hence this MC is not pressed and closed as not pressed. Nature of Disposal: DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED

Date : 23-04-2018 sd/-

Additional Junior Civil Judge -cum-

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class

(Juvenile Court), Jangaon

Visit ecourts.gov.in for updates or download mobile app “eCourts Services ” from Android or iOS