Smt Anitha Damodar Rapol

CC No. 1372 of 2022, JFCM, Special Mobile Court,Sangareddy. Dt: 23.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPECIAL MOBILE COURT, SANGAREDDY.

Present:R. ANITHA Prl. Junior Civil, Sangareddy. FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special Mobile Court, Sangareddy.

Wednesday, this the 23rd day of April, 2025

CALENDAR CASE NO. 1372 OF 2022

Between: The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Hathnoora (crime No.189/2021) … Complainant AND

A1.Md Rafiq S/o Md Yousuf, age: 48 yrs, Caste: Muslim, Occ: Police Constable (PC-765), R/o H. No. 4-7-37/A, Ahmed Nagar colony, Nearby Rishi High School, Sangareddy.

A2.Variguntham Laxman S/o Ramulu, age: 32 yrs, Occ: Agril, R/o Nasthipur vig of Hathnoora mandal, Sangareddy dist

A3.Machunuri Raju S/o Mallesham, age: 33 yrs, Occ: Agril, R/o Nasthipur vig of Hathnoora mandal, Sangareddy dist.

...Accused

This case is coming on 16.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri C. Narsing Raj, learned Advocate for the accused persons and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused are being prosecuted for the offences under Secs. 379, 447, 427, 186 and 506 of IPC.

2.The allegations of the prosecution are – on getting information that some unknown persons trespassed into the govt land in Sy. No. 84, digging the soil with a JCB and transporting in tractors as theft, as per the instructions of RI, Hathnoora Mandal, M. Anjaneyulu/LW1 and N.

Ramulu/Lw2 went to the outskirts of Nastipur village in Sy.No. 84 of Govt. land. On 22.11.2021

Page No.1 of 7

CC No. 1372 of 2022, JFCM, Special Mobile Court,Sangareddy. Dt: 23.04.2025

at about 10.00 pm they saw that A1 was there digging the soil with the help of a JCB bearing

No. AP22P4436, transporting in tractors. when M. Anjaneyulu/LW1 questioned A1 who is digging this soil, then he replied to him as “nenu itti mattini thavisthunna, nivu itti vishayamunu evriki cheppaku nivu evarikayina chepthe ni sangathi chusta, ni duty pikepista” like this threatened him and disturbed his official duties. He intimated the matter to RI Hathnoora. As per the instructions of RI, M. Anjaneyulu/LW1 and N. Ramulu/Lw2 together brought the JCB,

Tractor and trolley No. AP 23 V9822 to the police.

2.1. After the incident, LW.1- M. Anjaneyulu filed a report at P.S. Hathnoora on 23.11.2021.

Based on the complaint, the police registered a case in Cr.No. 189/2021 for the offences U/secs.

379, 447, 427, 186, 506 of IPC, issued printed FIR, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and issued Section 41(A) Cr.P.C., notice to the accused. After investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet.

3.On appearance of the accused, they have been furnished with copies of documents and have been examined u/s. 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Secs. 379, 447, 427, 186 and 506 of IPC were framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4.The prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 marked on its behalf.

The evidence of G. Yellaiah/LW3, P. Venkatesh Goud/Lw6, Rasheed Khan/Lw7, V. Raju/Lw9,

Md. Khadeer/LW10, V. Srikanth/Lw15, G. Pavan/LW16 and P. Prabhaker/Lw18 has been given up by Ld. APP. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused have been examined u/S.

313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating matter appearing against them on record. They denied the allegations. No witnesses have been examined by the defence on their behalf.

5.Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

Page No.2 of 7

CC No. 1372 of 2022, JFCM, Special Mobile Court,Sangareddy. Dt: 23.04.2025

6.The point for determination is : whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offences u/secs. 379, 447, 427, 186 and 506 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

7.Pw1 is the complainant/eye witness, PW2 and PW3 are the eye witnesses, PW4, Pw8 and Pw9 are the witnesses, Pw5 and Pw6 are the panch for scene and panchanama, PW7 is the panch for confession and recovery panchanama, Pw10 is the official witness and PW11 is the investigating officer.

7.1The complainant Pw1 denied knowing anything about the case and claimed to have put his signature/Ex.P1 on a white paper as told by the police and denied his previous statement/Ex.

P2 in his cross examination by the Ld.APP.

7.2 The eyewitnesses and witnesses Pw2 to Pw4 and Pw8 completely turned hostile and denied knowing anything about the case, they even denied their previous statements ExP3 to P5 and Ex.P9 in their cross examination by the learned APP.

7.3 The panch witnesses PW5 and PW6 completely turned hostile and denied knowing anything about the case. They claimed that no panchanama was conducted in their presence and that they only put their signatures/Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 on a white paper as told by the police.

7.4.Another panch witness Pw7 completely turned hostile and denied knowing anything about the case. He claimed that no confession panchanama was conducted in his presence and no property was recovered and that he only put his signatures/Ex.P8/1,ExP8/2 and Ex.P8/3 on a white paper as told by the police.

Page No.3 of 7

CC No. 1372 of 2022, JFCM, Special Mobile Court,Sangareddy. Dt: 23.04.2025

7.5The witness Pw9 deposed that on 22.11.2021 at around 10.00pm, he received a call from a Nasthipur villager stating that the government land in Sy.No. 84 is being illegally dug by a

JCB. He called PW1 and PW2 on phone and asked them to check about the issue in Sy.No. 84.

When PW1 and 2 went and enquired at the land, they stopped the JCB and came to know that

Al was illegally digging the land and threatened that if they reveal the same to any body he will see that they will lose their jobs. The same was informed to him on phone by PW1. He asked them to keep the JCB and tractors at the Grampanchayath, Nasthipur and he handed them to the police on the next day morning. On 23.11.2021, the SI of police recorded his statement.

7.6 Pw9 admitted that he did not give the name or particulars of the person who gave information regarding phone call, he admitted that he did not give a complaint to the police and he did not state about asking Pw1 and Pw2 to got to Nastipur village, they stopped the JCB, tractors and Pw1 informed the same to him on phone. He admitted that he did not report the matter to the Tahsildar, never went to the scene and no panchanma was conducted while he was handing over the tractor and JCB.

7.7.The official witness PW10 deposed that she received a call from PW1 who informed her and PW9 that unknown persons were digging the government land. After that on the next date she came to know that they went to the police station. The SI of police sent her a requisition asking whether Sy.No. 84 is a government land or not and whether any permission is given to dig the land. she addressed a letter/Ex.P10 to the SHO PS. Hathnoora giving the required details. Pw10 admitted that she did not order any report from Pw9 regarding the digging of land in Sy. no. 84, she did not call for any report from the VRA, Sarpanch or the

Panchayath secretary. She further admitted that no adjacent farmers gave any report regarding the digging of land.

Page No.4 of 7

CC No. 1372 of 2022, JFCM, Special Mobile Court,Sangareddy. Dt: 23.04.2025

7.8.The remaining evidence is that of the IO/Pw11 who deposed to have received

Ex.P11/Report from PWI and registered Ex.P12/FIR in Cr.No.189/2021, U/sec. 379, 447, 427, 186 and 506 IPC. He examined PW1, PW2, visited the scene of offence and conducted

Ex.P13/scene of offence panchanama and drew Ex.P14/rough sketch in the presence of PW5 and PW6. He examined the eye witnesses and witnesses, seized one JCB and one tractor with trailer in presence of V. Srikanth/LW15 and G. Pavan/LW16 under Ex.P15 to Ex.P17 confession cum seizure panchanama of A1 to A3. He addressed a letter to the Tahasildar for the particulars of the land in Survey No.84 and got a reply under Ex.P10 letter. He issued Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

7.9.It is pertinent to note that except for Pw9 to 11, none of the other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant Pw1 claimed to have put his signature/ExP1 on a paper as told by the police and denied knowing anything about the case and his previous statement Ex.P2 in his cross examination by the ld APP. The eye witnesses Pw2 to PW4 and

Pw8 completely turned hostile and denied their previous statement Ex.P3 to P5 and Ex.P9 in their cross examination by the ld APP. The panch witnesses Pw5, Pw6 and Pw7 denied knowing anything about this case and claimed that the police took their signatures Ex.P6, P7,

Ex.P8/1,ExP8/2 and Ex.P8/3 on a white paper. In view of the hostile evidence of material witness, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused persons entered into the government land and commit theft of soil with a JCB.

7.10.In view of the above discussion, it is clear that there is no material in support of the prosecution allegations against the accused in view of the hostile evidence of PW1 to Pw8 and the evidence of PW9 to 10 who are the official witness remains unsupported, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused under Secs. 379, 447, 427, 186 and 506 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt.

Page No.5 of 7

CC No. 1372 of 2022, JFCM, Special Mobile Court,Sangareddy. Dt: 23.04.2025

8.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 379, 447, 427, 186 and 506 of IPC. and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offence under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds if any shall stand discharged after 6 months.

Note: The case property given in interim custody to the owners vide Crl. MP No.

776/2021 and 777/2021 dt. 02.12.2021 shall be made absolute after appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23 th day of April, 2025.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile court, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: M. Anjaneyulu -None-

PW2: N. Ramulu

PW3: M. Suresh

PW4: Md. Sajeed

PW5:T. Praveen

PW6: T. Swamy

PW7:M. Venkatesham

Pw8: Md. Azeez

Pw9:Gangadhar

PW10:K. Padmavathi

Pw11: P. Laxmareddy

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on report dt. 23.11.2021

Ex.P2: 161 Cr. P.C statement of Pw1

Page No.6 of 7

CC No. 1372 of 2022, JFCM, Special Mobile Court,Sangareddy. Dt: 23.04.2025

Ex.P3: 161 Cr. P.C statement of Pw2

Ex.P4: 161 Cr. P.C statement of Pw3

Ex.P5: 161 Cr. P.C statement of Pw4

Ex.P6: Signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P7: Signature of PW6 on rough sketch

Ex.P8/1: Confession cum recovery panchanama of A1

Ex.P8/2:Confession cum recovery panchanama of A2

Ex.P8/3: Confession cum recovery panchanama of A3

Ex.P9: 161 Cr. P.C statement of Pw8

Ex.P10: Letter to SHO HAthnoora

Ex.P11: Report dt. 23.11.2021

Ex.P12:FIR

Ex.P13: Scene of offence panchanama dt. 23.11.2021

Ex.P14: rough sketch

Ex.P15: confession cum seizure panchanama of A1

Ex.P16: confession cum seizure panchanama of A2

Ex.P17: confession cum seizure panchanama of A3

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-Nil -

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. FAC:Judicial Magistrate of First Class Special Mobile court, Sangareddy.

Page No.7 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE), FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM - II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY.

Present:R. ANITHA Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile court, Sangareddy.

Friday, this the 16th day of February, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO. 890 OF 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Sadashivpet (crime No.121/2019) … Complainant AND

Mohd. Mothi S/o Abdul Rahim, Aged: 57 years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No. 8-14, Alladurg village and Mandal, now residing at Rajampet pipe line Road, Sangareddy.

...Accused

This case is coming on 12.02.2024for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Thayal Lateef-Ur-Rahman, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri J. Narsimulu, learnedAdvocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is being prosecuted for the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC.

2.The allegations of the prosecution are – on the morning of 13.04.2019, Quteja

Begum/LW2 and the deceased came to Chiragpally village to see her father. When they were returning home on the bike of the deceased bearing No. AP 28 BP 7861, at Borabanda,

Hyderabad, on the way to Aroor village on NH-65 road at about 8.20 pm, the accused who is the driver of the car bearing No. TS 15 EV 6026 coming from Zaheerabad, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's bike. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries on his head, face and right ribs and Quteja Begum/LW2 sustained injuries on her face and hands. Immediately the deceased and the injured were shifted to Balaji Hospital,

Page No.1 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

Sangareddy for treatment. Then they were referred to Maxcure Hospital, where the deceased died while undergoing treatment.

2.1 Basing on the report of Syed Ateeq/LW1, the police registered a case in Cr.No. 121/2019, issued printed First Information Report, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, held inquest, referred the body for Post-Mortem Examination and obtained the presence of the accused on furnishing surety. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet.

3. On appearance of the accused person, he has been furnished with copies of documents and has been examined u/s. 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec. 304-A and 338 of IPC. The allegations leveled against him were explained to him in Telugu. He denied and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got Ex.P1 to P11 marked. The Ld. APP has given up D. Narsimulu/LW.6, Dr. Sujender Rao/Lw10 and K. Surender Reddy/Lw12. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused has been examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating matter appearing against him on record. He denied the allegations. No evidence has been let in by the defence.

5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution has established the charges against the accused u/s. 304-A and 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

7.Pw1 is the complainant, PW2 is the injured and wife of the deceased, PW4 is the son of the deceased and Pw5 is the brother in law of the deceased. Pw3 is the panch for the scene of offence, Pw6 and Pw7 are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, Pw8 is the MVI inspector, Pw9 is the PME doctor and PW10 is the investigation officer.

Page No.2 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

7.1.The complainant Pw1 deposed that when he was at Cheragpally, he received a phone call from his sister who told him about her husband’s accident and immediately he rushed to

Balaji Hospital and saw the deceased with injuries. From there the deceased was shifted to

Maxcure hospital for better treatment where he died and was shifted to Gandhi hospital for postmortem. Pw1 filed ExP1 report.

7.2.The injured Pw2 who is the wife of the deceased deposed that when she and her husband were traveling on his bike towards Hyderabad and reached Aroor chowrastha, one car dashed against their bike from behind, they fell down and her husband sustained severe injuries to his head and body. Then they shifted her husband to the hospital where he died. She identified the accused standing in the court hall. Pw2 admitted that it was a dark night when the accident occurred and they did not have helmets at the time of accident.

7.3.Pw4 who is the son of the deceased deposed that on 13-04-2019 at 08.20pm when he was at his house, he received a call from Pw1 informing him about the accident of his father at

Aroor and that he was shifted to the hospital where he died.

7.4.Pw5 who is the brother in law of the deceased deposed that he did not witness the accident but only came to know about it through a phone call.

7.5.The panch for the scene of offence Pw3 denied knowing anything about the case and claimed to have only put his signature/ExP2 and ExP3 on some papers on the request of police.

7.6.The panch witnesses for inquest panchanama Pw6 and Pw7 deposed that the police conducted inquest panchanma of the deceased and after knowing its contents, they put their

Page No.3 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

signatures ExP4 and ExP5 on the panchanama. Their evidence is silent regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased.

7.7.The MVI Pw8 on receiving requisition from the police examined the crime vehicle bearing no. TS 15 EV 6026 and issued ExP6 report opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. He admitted that at the time of his inspection, the vehicle was running and no insurance or details of the driver were provided to him.

7.8.The doctor Pw9 on receiving requisition conducted autopsy and issued ExP7 report opining the cause of death as head injury. There was no alcohol found as per ExP7.

7.9.The remaining evidence is that of the IO Pw10 who deposed that K. Surender

Reddy/LW12 received Ex.P1 report from PW1 and issued printed FIR/Ex.P8 vide Crime No.

121/2019 U/sec. 337 of IPC and handed over the file to him. He recorded the statement of

PW1, visited the scene of offence, conducted Ex.P9/1 scene of offence panchanama and drew

Ex.9/2 rough sketch in the presence of PW3 and D. Narasimuhulu/LW6. He received information on 16.04.2019 that the injured died while under going treatment and he altered the section of law from 337 of IPC to 304-A and 338 of IPC. He visited the Gandhi hospital,

Hyderabad, conducted Ex.P10/inquest panchanama in the presence of PW6 and PW7, examined the PW2, 4 and 5. He collected Ex.P11/MC of PW2 from Dr. Surender Rao/LW10,

Ex.P7/PME report from PW9, collected P6/MVI report from PW8 and issued Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

7.10.Pw10 deposed that he conducted spot inspection and the crime vehicle was on the correct side of the road, the car had insurance, it was damaged on the left side and the driver had valid license at the time of the incident.

Page No.4 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

7.11.The learned APP contended that nothing is elicited from the cross examination of the witnesses. He contended that even though Pw2 who is the injured did not state the vehicle number, she has identified the accused in the court hall and stated about a car. The evidentiary value of the injured is more than an eyewitness and prayed to convict the accused.

7.12.The learned counsel for the defence is reply contended that Pw2 for the first time has identified the accused in the court hall and the other witnesses Pw1, Pw3 and Pw4 are hearsay witness. He contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and prayed to acquit the accused.

7.13.As per the evidence of Pw1, Pw4 and Pw5 it is clear that they did not witness the accident but only came to know about the accident as informed to them. None of them stated the vehicle number or any other particulars. The injured Pw2 did not state the number of the vehicle, how it was driven or about being able to identify the driver. She has for the first time identified the accused standing in the court hall, there is no previous mention about it. Further the panch witness Pw3, Pw5 and Pw6 only identified their signatures and did not give any other details, as such their evidence is of no help to the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and that he drove it in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence charged and thus, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence underu/s. 304-A and 338 of

IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand discharged after six months.

Page No.5 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

Note: No case property has been produced before this Court, accordingly no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of February, 2024.

Judicial First Class Magistrate Special mobile court cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Syed Ateeq -None- PW2: Quteja Begum PW3: D. Shivaiah PW4: Mohd. Yakub Jaweed PW5: Mohd. Shafi PW6: Syed Athiq PW7: Mohd Thaiseeb Hussain PW8: H. Praveen Kumar PW9: Dr. Krupal Singh PW10: Laxminarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Report dt. 14.04.2019 Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Signature of Pw3 on rough sketch Ex.P4: Signature of PW6 on inquest panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of PW7 on inquest panchanama Ex.P6: MVI report dt 26.04.2019 Ex.P7: PME report dt.17.04.2019 Ex.P8: First Information Report Ex.P9/1: Scene of offence panchanama dt. 15.01.2022 Ex.P9/2: Rough sketch Ex.P10: Inquest panchanama dt.16.04.2019 Ex.P11: M.C of PW2

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-Nil-

Page No.6 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

Judicial First Class Magistrate Special mobile court cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Page No.7 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE), FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM - II JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY.

Present:R. ANITHA Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile court, Sangareddy.

Friday, this the 16th day of February, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO. 890 OF 2019

Between:

The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Sadashivpet (crime No.121/2019) … Complainant AND

Mohd. Mothi S/o Abdul Rahim, Aged: 57 years, Occ: Driver, R/o H.No. 8-14, Alladurg village and Mandal, now residing at Rajampet pipe line Road, Sangareddy.

...Accused

This case is coming on 12.02.2024for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Thayal Lateef-Ur-Rahman, learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri J. Narsimulu, learnedAdvocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused is being prosecuted for the offence under Sections 304-A and 338 of IPC.

2.The allegations of the prosecution are – on the morning of 13.04.2019, Quteja

Begum/LW2 and the deceased came to Chiragpally village to see her father. When they were returning home on the bike of the deceased bearing No. AP 28 BP 7861, at Borabanda,

Hyderabad, on the way to Aroor village on NH-65 road at about 8.20 pm, the accused who is the driver of the car bearing No. TS 15 EV 6026 coming from Zaheerabad, drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased's bike. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries on his head, face and right ribs and Quteja Begum/LW2 sustained injuries on her face and hands. Immediately the deceased and the injured were shifted to Balaji Hospital,

Page No.1 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

Sangareddy for treatment. Then they were referred to Maxcure Hospital, where the deceased died while undergoing treatment.

2.1 Basing on the report of Syed Ateeq/LW1, the police registered a case in Cr.No. 121/2019, issued printed First Information Report, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses, held inquest, referred the body for Post-Mortem Examination and obtained the presence of the accused on furnishing surety. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet.

3. On appearance of the accused person, he has been furnished with copies of documents and has been examined u/s. 251 Cr.P.C for the offence under Sec. 304-A and 338 of IPC. The allegations leveled against him were explained to him in Telugu. He denied and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got Ex.P1 to P11 marked. The Ld. APP has given up D. Narsimulu/LW.6, Dr. Sujender Rao/Lw10 and K. Surender Reddy/Lw12. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused has been examined U/Sec. 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating matter appearing against him on record. He denied the allegations. No evidence has been let in by the defence.

5. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material on record.

6.Now the point for determination is: “Whether the prosecution has established the charges against the accused u/s. 304-A and 338 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt”?

POINT:

7.Pw1 is the complainant, PW2 is the injured and wife of the deceased, PW4 is the son of the deceased and Pw5 is the brother in law of the deceased. Pw3 is the panch for the scene of offence, Pw6 and Pw7 are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama, Pw8 is the MVI inspector, Pw9 is the PME doctor and PW10 is the investigation officer.

Page No.2 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

7.1.The complainant Pw1 deposed that when he was at Cheragpally, he received a phone call from his sister who told him about her husband’s accident and immediately he rushed to

Balaji Hospital and saw the deceased with injuries. From there the deceased was shifted to

Maxcure hospital for better treatment where he died and was shifted to Gandhi hospital for postmortem. Pw1 filed ExP1 report.

7.2.The injured Pw2 who is the wife of the deceased deposed that when she and her husband were traveling on his bike towards Hyderabad and reached Aroor chowrastha, one car dashed against their bike from behind, they fell down and her husband sustained severe injuries to his head and body. Then they shifted her husband to the hospital where he died. She identified the accused standing in the court hall. Pw2 admitted that it was a dark night when the accident occurred and they did not have helmets at the time of accident.

7.3.Pw4 who is the son of the deceased deposed that on 13-04-2019 at 08.20pm when he was at his house, he received a call from Pw1 informing him about the accident of his father at

Aroor and that he was shifted to the hospital where he died.

7.4.Pw5 who is the brother in law of the deceased deposed that he did not witness the accident but only came to know about it through a phone call.

7.5.The panch for the scene of offence Pw3 denied knowing anything about the case and claimed to have only put his signature/ExP2 and ExP3 on some papers on the request of police.

7.6.The panch witnesses for inquest panchanama Pw6 and Pw7 deposed that the police conducted inquest panchanma of the deceased and after knowing its contents, they put their

Page No.3 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

signatures ExP4 and ExP5 on the panchanama. Their evidence is silent regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased.

7.7.The MVI Pw8 on receiving requisition from the police examined the crime vehicle bearing no. TS 15 EV 6026 and issued ExP6 report opining that the accident was not due to any mechanical defect. He admitted that at the time of his inspection, the vehicle was running and no insurance or details of the driver were provided to him.

7.8.The doctor Pw9 on receiving requisition conducted autopsy and issued ExP7 report opining the cause of death as head injury. There was no alcohol found as per ExP7.

7.9.The remaining evidence is that of the IO Pw10 who deposed that K. Surender

Reddy/LW12 received Ex.P1 report from PW1 and issued printed FIR/Ex.P8 vide Crime No.

121/2019 U/sec. 337 of IPC and handed over the file to him. He recorded the statement of

PW1, visited the scene of offence, conducted Ex.P9/1 scene of offence panchanama and drew

Ex.9/2 rough sketch in the presence of PW3 and D. Narasimuhulu/LW6. He received information on 16.04.2019 that the injured died while under going treatment and he altered the section of law from 337 of IPC to 304-A and 338 of IPC. He visited the Gandhi hospital,

Hyderabad, conducted Ex.P10/inquest panchanama in the presence of PW6 and PW7, examined the PW2, 4 and 5. He collected Ex.P11/MC of PW2 from Dr. Surender Rao/LW10,

Ex.P7/PME report from PW9, collected P6/MVI report from PW8 and issued Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice to accused. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.

7.10.Pw10 deposed that he conducted spot inspection and the crime vehicle was on the correct side of the road, the car had insurance, it was damaged on the left side and the driver had valid license at the time of the incident.

Page No.4 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

7.11.The learned APP contended that nothing is elicited from the cross examination of the witnesses. He contended that even though Pw2 who is the injured did not state the vehicle number, she has identified the accused in the court hall and stated about a car. The evidentiary value of the injured is more than an eyewitness and prayed to convict the accused.

7.12.The learned counsel for the defence is reply contended that Pw2 for the first time has identified the accused in the court hall and the other witnesses Pw1, Pw3 and Pw4 are hearsay witness. He contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased and prayed to acquit the accused.

7.13.As per the evidence of Pw1, Pw4 and Pw5 it is clear that they did not witness the accident but only came to know about the accident as informed to them. None of them stated the vehicle number or any other particulars. The injured Pw2 did not state the number of the vehicle, how it was driven or about being able to identify the driver. She has for the first time identified the accused standing in the court hall, there is no previous mention about it. Further the panch witness Pw3, Pw5 and Pw6 only identified their signatures and did not give any other details, as such their evidence is of no help to the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle and that he drove it in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident. Thus, it is clear that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence charged and thus, the accused is entitled for acquittal.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

8.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence underu/s. 304-A and 338 of

IPC and accordingly, he is acquitted for the said offence under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand discharged after six months.

Page No.5 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

Note: No case property has been produced before this Court, accordingly no property order is passed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th day of February, 2024.

Judicial First Class Magistrate Special mobile court cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: Syed Ateeq -None- PW2: Quteja Begum PW3: D. Shivaiah PW4: Mohd. Yakub Jaweed PW5: Mohd. Shafi PW6: Syed Athiq PW7: Mohd Thaiseeb Hussain PW8: H. Praveen Kumar PW9: Dr. Krupal Singh PW10: Laxminarayana

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1: Report dt. 14.04.2019 Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P3: Signature of Pw3 on rough sketch Ex.P4: Signature of PW6 on inquest panchanama Ex.P5: Signature of PW7 on inquest panchanama Ex.P6: MVI report dt 26.04.2019 Ex.P7: PME report dt.17.04.2019 Ex.P8: First Information Report Ex.P9/1: Scene of offence panchanama dt. 15.01.2022 Ex.P9/2: Rough sketch Ex.P10: Inquest panchanama dt.16.04.2019 Ex.P11: M.C of PW2

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-Nil-

Page No.6 of 7

CC No. 890 of 2019, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 16-02-2024

Judicial First Class Magistrate Special mobile court cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Page No.7 of 7

CC No. 527 of 2022, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 14-02-2024

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (MOBILE),

FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM - II ADDL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

SANGAREDDY.

Present:R. ANITHA Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile court, Sangareddy.

Wednesday, this the 14th day of February, 2024

CALENDAR CASE NO. 527 OF 2022

(Old Calendar case No. 119 OF 2015)

Between: The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, Jinnaram (Crime No.49/2015) … Complainant AND

A1.Varpula Parama Reddy, S/o. Veera Reddy, Aged: 36 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Solakpally village.

A2.Chakali Mahesh, S/o. Anjaiah, Aged: 21 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Solakpally village.

A3. Kummari Ramu, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 32 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Solakpally village. (The case against A3 stands abated on 27-06-2023).

...Accused

This case is coming on 12.02.2024 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri Thayal Lateef-Ur-Rahman , learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State, Sri A. Anji Reddy, learnedAdvocate

for the accused persons and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered

the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused No.1 to 3 are being prosecuted for the offences under Sections 379, 430 of

IPC and Sec. 27 and 35 of Walta Act.

2.The allegations of the prosecution are – on 21-03-2015 at 12.00pm on receiving reliable information about the accused illegally transporting the filter sand from Sy. No. 213 of Solakpally village, the SI of Police G. Lalu Naik/LW8 along with M. Sridhar/LW1 and Santhosh Kumar/LW2 1 of 6

CC No. 527 of 2022, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 14-02-2024

went to the scene and on seeing them the accused ran away leaving the tractors. They found newly constructed sand filter, two boulders and tractors filled with mud connected to a tractor bearing no.

AP 23 H 5389. The complainant in the presence of E. Shanthavarma Reddy/LW4 and K. Sudhakar

Yadav/LW5 conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized three tractors bearing no. AP 23 H 5389, AP 23 W 6991 and AP 04 K 3521 and drew a rough sketch.

2.1. After the incident, LW.8- G. Lalu Naik conducted confession and recovery panchanama on 23-03-2015 and registered a suomoto case in Cr. No. 49/2015 for the offence U/secs 379, 430 IPC and Sec. 27 and 35 Walta Act. He issued printed FIR, examined and recorded the statements of the witnesses and issued Section 41-(A) Cr.P.C. notice to the accused persons. After investigation, the

Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet.

3.On appearance of the accused persons, they have been furnished with copies of documents and have been examined U/sec. 239 Cr.P.C. Charges under Secs. 379, 430 IPC and Sec. 27 and 35

Walta Act were framed, read over and explained to them. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 marked on its behalf. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 have been examined U/sec. 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating matter appearing against them on record. They denied the allegations.

No witnesses have been examined by the defence on its behalf.

5. Heard arguments on both sides. Perused the material on record.

6. The point for determination is : whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the charges u/secs. 379, 430 IPC and Sec. 27 and 35 Walta Act beyond reasonable doubt?

2 of 6

CC No. 527 of 2022, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 14-02-2024

POINT:

7. PW8 is the complainant and IO; Pw1, Pw2 and Pw7 are the eye witnesses, Pw3 and Pw4 are the panch witness for the scene of offence panchnama and Pw5 and Pw6 are the panch witness for confession panchanama.

7.1The eyewitness PW1 deposed that he along with PW7 and PW8 were on patrolling duty on 21.03.2015 and at 01.30pm, PW8 received a call from Solakpally village regarding illegal sand filtering in survey No. 213, they went to the scene and found the tractors but the persons ran away.

Pw8 conducted panchanama in the presence of PW3 to PW6 and seized two 10 feet pipes and 3 tractors bearing No. AP 23 H 6991, AP 23 H 5329 and AP 4 K 5345.

7.2.Another eyewitness Pw7 deposed similar to Pw1 regarding the illegal sand filter in the land of PW2 by A1 to A3 and one V. Raji Reddy and claimed that on seeing them, they ran away. He identified them as the accused standing in the court hall. He deposed that in the presence of the panch witnesses two pipes and three tractors bearing No. 3521, 6690 and 5389 were seized. They took the tractors to the PS on the instructions of PW8.

7.3.The other eyewitness PW2 denied knowing anything about the case. He completely turned hostile and denied his previous statements/Ex.P1 in his cross examination by the learned APP .

7.4.The panch witness PW3 to PW6 denied knowing anything about the case and claimed that the police did not conduct any panchanama in their presence but only took their signatures/Ex.P2/1,

Ex.P2/2, Ex.P3/1, Ex.P3/2, Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 on a white paper.

3 of 6

CC No. 527 of 2022, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 14-02-2024

7.5.The remaining evidence is that of the IO/PW8 who on receiving information went to the scene along with PW1 and PW7 and conducted Ex.P6/1 scene of offence panchanama and drew

Ex.P6/2 rough sketch in the presence of PW3 and PW4 and seized property from the scene. He examined Pw1, Pw2 and Pw7, conducted Ex.P7 confession panchanama in the presence of Pw5 and

Pw6 and suomoto registered a case, issued printed FIR/Ex.P8 in Cr. No. 49 of 2015 against the accused U/Sec. 379, 430 IPC and Sec. 27 and 35 Walta act. He issued Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C notice to the accused No. 1 to 3 and after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.

7.6.PW8 admitted that he did not examine the owner of the land in survey No. 213 and anybody from the revenue department but curiously Pw7 deposed that the illegal sand filtering occured in the land of Pw2. However Pw2 did not support the case of the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that except for the official witnesses, none of the other witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.

Though PW1 and PW7 stated about taking the crime vehicles to the P.S, its seizure is not supported by PW5 and PW6. One of the eyewitness Pw2 and the panch witnesses Pw3 and Pw4 completely turned hostile. Their evidence is of no help to the prosecution. Further there are minor inconsistencies regarding the vehicle numbers in the evidence of Pw1 and Pw7.

7.7. Under the circumstances and the aforementioned discussion, the conclusion that can be drawn is that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the charges U/sec. 379, 430 IPC and Sec. 27 and 35 Walta Act beyond reasonable doubt.

8.In the result, the accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence under Section 379, 430 IPC and Sec. 27 and 35 Walta Act and accordingly, they are acquitted for the said offence under

Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds if any shall stand discharged after 6 months. The case against A3 stands abated.

4 of 6

CC No. 527 of 2022, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 14-02-2024

Note: The case property item No. 1 given in interim custody vide Crl.MP. No.651 of 2015

Dt. 08-04-2015, the case property item No. 2 given in interim custody vide Crl.MP. No.650 of 2015

Dt. 08-04-2015 and the case property item No. 3 given in interim custody vide Crl.MP. No.649 of

2015 Dt. 08-04-2015 shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal period. The case property item

No. 4 two pipes shall be destroyed.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 14 th day of February, 2024.

Judicial First Class Magistrate Special mobile court cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: M. Sreedhar -None-

PW2: P. Ashok Reddy

PW3: E. Shanthavarma Reddy

PW4: K. Sudhakar Yadav

PW5: P. Srinivas Reddy

PW6: Ch. Srikanth Goud

PW7: Santhosh Kumar

PW8: G. Lalu Naik

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Statement under Sec.161 Cr.P.C of PW2

Ex.P2/1: Signature of PW3 on Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P2/2: Signature of PW3 on rough sketch

Ex.P3/1: Signature of PW4 on Scene of offence panchanama

Ex.P3/2: Signature of PW4 on rough sketch

Ex.P4: Signature of PW5 on confession panchanama

Ex.P5: Signature of PW6 on confession panchanama 5 of 6

CC No. 527 of 2022, JFCM, Sangareddy. Dt: 14-02-2024

Ex.P6/1: Scene of offence panchanama Dt. 23-03-2015

Ex.P6/2: Rough Sketch

Ex.P7: Confession cum seizure panchanama Dt. 21-03-2015

Ex.P8: FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

-Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-Nil -

Judicial First Class Magistrate Special mobile court cum- II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

6 of 6

OS No. 54 of 2025, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, SRD Dt.24.04.2025

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(MOBILE), FOR TRIAL OF CASES UNDER PCR ACT-CUM II ADDITIONAL JUNIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, SANGAREDDY

PRESENT: R. Anitha, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy, FAC: II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy

THURSDAY, THIS THE 24 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

O.S.No. 54 of 2025

Between:

1. Kotha Laxmi W/o Late Kotha Shivaiah, Aged 70 years, Occ: Household, Rio H. No. 3-20, Pati Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy district.

2. Mangalarapu Susheela W/o Mangalarapu Narsimulu, Aged 48 years, Occ: Household, R/o H. No. 5-117, Mokila Village, Shankarpally Mandal, Rangareddy District.

3. Kotha Narsimha S/o Late Kotha Shivaiah, Aged 46 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H. No. 3-20, Pati Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy district.

4. Kotha Ravi S/o Late Kotha Shivaiah, Aged 43 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H. No. 3-20, Pati Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy district.

5. Kotha Mallesh S/o Late Kotha Shivaiah, Aged 41 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H. No. 3-20, Pati Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy district.

…...Plaintiffs

AND

1. The Tahsildar, Patancheru Mandal, Patancheru, Sangareddy District.

2. Esnagari Durga Mahesh S/o Esnagari Narsimulu, Aged 27 years, Occ: Pvt Work, R/o H. No. 1-44, Pati Village, Patancheru Mandal, Sangareddy district.

Page No. 1 of 5

OS No. 54 of 2025, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, SRD Dt.24.04.2025

3. ALL CONCERNED … Defendants.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri. G. Pentaiah and T Rat- nakar, Advocates for the Plaintiffs and defendants having chosen to remain exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

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

1.This suit is filed by the plaintiffs to declare them as the legal heirs of the deceased

Kotha Shivaiah for the schedule property.

2. The case of the plaintiffs: The plaintiff no. 1 is the wife and the plaintiffs no. 2 to 5 are the children of late Kotha Shivaiah who died on 30.04.2021 leaving them as his only legal heirs. During his lifetime, he purchased suit plot No.3 under a registered sale deed bearing No.

2969/2002 and ever since he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment.

2.1. The plaintiffs No.1 to 5 obtained the death certificate of deceased Kotha Shivaiah from gram panchayath pati village and on 07.07.2022 approached the defendant No.1 requesting to issue family members certificate, but they advised to approach the court.

2.2.The defendant No.2 who is a neighbor held a panchayath on 31.07.2022 in the village stating that the schedule property belongs to him since during the life time of late Kotha

Shivaiah, he obtained a loan by mortgaging the said plot and executed some documents in his favour. The plaintiffs asked to show the documents but the defendant failed to show the document but is blackmailing the plaintiffs and trying to snatch the suit property. Hence, the present suit.

Page No. 2 of 5

OS No. 54 of 2025, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, SRD Dt.24.04.2025

3.The defendants no. 1 and 2 have been served with summons and have been set exparte on 11.02.2025 as service was found sufficient. A publication has been issued against the defendant no. 3 and as no objections have been received, the defendant no. 3 has been set exparte on 11.02.2025 4.The plaintiffs examined plaintiff No.4 as Pw1/ Kotha Ravi and got exhibits A1 to A5 marked on their behalf.

5. Heard arguments and perused the material on record.

6. Now the point for determination is: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as the legal heirs of late Kotha Shivaiah for the schedule property ?

POINT:

7.1The plaintiffs examined plaintiff no. 4 as Pw1 who claims that the plaintiff no. 1 is the wife and Plaintiffs No.2 to 5 are the child of late Kotha Shivaiah who died on 30.04.2021, they relied on Ex.A3 death certificate of Kotha Shivaiah and ExA4 Aadhar card of Plaintiff

No.1,2,4 and 5. They claim that during his lifetime, Kotha Shivaiah purchased the suit property under Ex.A1 sale deed bearing No. 2969/2002 dt.09.05.2002 and is the absolute owner and possessor. After his death, being the only legal heirs, they are entitled to the property. They relied on Ex.A2 EC for 30 years reflecting Ex.A1 transaction. They further relied on Ex.A5 market value certificate in support of their case.After the death of the deceased, they approached the defendant No.1 on 07.07.2022 to issue family members certificate ofKotha

Shivaiah but the defendant No.1 advised them to approach the court. The defendant no. 2 who

Page No. 3 of 5

OS No. 54 of 2025, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, SRD Dt.24.04.2025

is a neighbor is denying the title of the defendants and claimed that K. Shivaiah during his lifetime executed some documents in his favour but he remained exparte.

7.2The evidence of PW1 along with Exs.A1 to A5 show that they are the legal heirs of late

Kotha Shivaiah for the suit property. The defendants remained exparte and did not contest the case. The claims of the plaintiffs remain unchallenged.

7.3 In view of the above discussion, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and they are declared as the legal heirs of late Kotha Shivaiah for the suit property. No costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24th day of April, 2025.

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. FAC: II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF: FOR DEFENDANT: P.W.1: Kotha Ravi None

DOCUMENTS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A1 CC of sale deed doc. No. 2969/2002 dt. 09.05.2002 regostered at SRO Sangareddy Ex.A2 CC of EC dt. 19.12.2024 Ex.A3 Online death certificate of Late Kotah Shivaiah S/o Shankaraiah dt. 18.05.2021 Ex.A4 Photo copy of Aadhar card of plaintiff No.1,2,4 and 5 ( Compared with the original and found correct)

Page No. 4 of 5

OS No. 54 of 2025, II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, SRD Dt.24.04.2025

Ex.A5 Market value certificate dt. 28.12.2024

FOR DEFENDANT:- Nil

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy. FAC: II Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy.

Page No. 5 of 5