Kum. Apurva Ravali

C.C No.75 of 2018

Dated 17.09.2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MIRYALAGUDA.

Present: Ms. N. Apurva Ravali ,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Miryalaguda.

(Dated, this the 17 th day of September, 2024)

C.C. No. 75 OF 2018

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Miryalaguda Rural.

…Complainant

AND

Lokasani Srinivasa Reddy, S/o Saidi Reddy, Age: 46 years, Occ: Agriculture (Rider of motorcycle bearing no.TS-05-EF-5497) , R/o Kattaiahgudem, H/o Volvapuram village, Nidamanoor.

...Accused

This case is coming up before me on 13-09-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Kameshwar Reddy Counsel for the Accused and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available on record, today this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural Police Station filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for sake of brevity).

C.C No.75 of 2018

Dated 17.09.2024

2

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows : -

a) On 22-01-2016 at 15:00 hours, the complainant Sajjala Srinivasa Reddy/LW-1 went to the police station and lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 22-01-2016 at afternoon 3:00 pm, his mother/Sajjala Saidamma who was crossing the road, one Srinivasa Reddy/rider of motorcycle bearing no.TS-05-EF-5497 who is coming in a rash and negligent manner from Miryalaguda to Thripuraram dashed his mother. As a result, she received bleeding injuries over her right hand and other parts of the body. On knowing the same, he rushed to the spot and admitted her in a hospital for treatment and on the advice of doctors, she got shifted to Gandhi hospital Hyderabad for better treatment and on 22-01-2016 at afternoon 1:20 pm, his mother died. Finally, he requested to take legal action against the said person.

b) Based on the report, LW-12/V.Sardar Naik, S.I of PS Miryalaguda Rural registered a case in Cr.No.24 of 2016 for the offence punishable under section 304A IPC and took up the investigation.

c)During the course of investigation, LW-12 examined and recorded the statement of LW-1 at the police station. Immediately LW-12 deputed LW-11/N.Buchaiah, ASI of Police PS Miryalaguda Rural to conduct inquest at Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad. Later, LW-12 visited the scene of offence situated at Srinivasa Nagar, H/o Thungapahad conducted panchanama in the presence of LW-5/Mandali Ravi and LW-6/Muchapothula Srinu and drew a rough sketch. On the instructions of LW-12, LW-11 visited Gandhi hospital, collected the death summary of the deceased, observed her dead body and took photographs. Later, he examined and recorded the statements of LW-2/Sajjala Nagi Reddy, LW-3/Gali Prameelamma and LW-4/Sajjala Anwesh Reddy, and also held inquest over the corpse of the deceased in the presence of LW-7/Thalla Sandhya and LW-8/Thalla Ramakrishna Reddy and subjected the dead body for PME to the same hospital. On requisition, LW-9/Dr.G.Lavanya Kowsil, Asst Professor Department of Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Hospital Secunderabad conducted autopsy over the corpse of the deceased and issued PME report opining that the cause of death of the deceased is due to “Complications of Multiple Injuries”. LW-10/GV.Srinivas Goud, MVI Miryalaguda inspected the crime vehicle and issued a report opining that the accident occurred

C.C No.75 of 2018

Dated 17.09.2024

3 not due to any mechanical defects. Later, LW-12 verified the investigation done by LW-11 and found it on proper lines.

d) On 23-01-2016, LW-12 has served notice under Sec.41 (A) (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C in short) to the accused with a direction to appear before him at the police station. LW-12 verified the documents of the crime vehicle and driving licence of the accused and found valid and correct. On 30-04- 2016, he has served notice under Sec.41 (A) (3) Cr.P.C to the accused with a direction to appear before the Hon'ble Court on the receipt of summons.

e) After the completion of investigation, LW-12 filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under section 304A of IPC.

3. Based upon the contents of the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC Act against the accused and issued summons to him.

4. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C wherein the substance of accusation levelled against him for offence u/s 304A of IPC was read over and explained to him in his vernacular language, after having understood the same, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. To prove his case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3 and Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are marked. PW-1 is a witness, PW-2 is ASI of Police who held inquest, PW-3 is Motor Vehicle Inspector. Ex.P1 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 and Ex.P2 is MVI report. Police filed a report and attested copy of death certificate stating that LW-1/Sajjala Srinivasa Reddy died on 15-03-2024, hence his evidence was closed on 28-05-2024. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW-3 to LW-8, as it doesn't serve its purpose. The evidence of LW-9 and LW-12 was closed by this Court.

C.C No.75 of 2018

Dated 17.09.2024

4

6. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating materials appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and both requested the Court to decide the case on merits. Perused the material on record.

8. Now the point germane for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable u/sec 304A of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT: -

9. The essence of accusation levelled against the accused is that on 20-01-2016 the accused drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the deceased/mother of PW-1, due to which she sustained severe bleeding injuries on her right hands and other parts of the body and succumbed to the said injuries.

10. PW-1 deposed in his examination-in-chief that LW-1 who is no more is his brother and the deceased is his mother. He further deposed that when he was at Hyderabad, LW-1 made a phone call to him and informed that their mother met with an accident and by the time he reached Miryalaguda, the deceased was admitted in Govt Area hospital at Miryalaguda and later shifted to Gandhi hospital, Hyderabad and died after 30 hours of admission. He also deposed that his mother met with an accident as one motorcycle hit her and the complaint was lodged by his brother/LW-1. He further deposed that he did not know anything about the accident and details of the said motorcycle and its driver and also did not know the facts of the case and that the police never examined and recorded his statement. He also deposed that he compromised the matter with the accused and did not want to proceed with the case as LW-1 died. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-1 denied that

C.C No.75 of 2018

Dated 17.09.2024

5 he stated before the police as in Ex.P1 and deposing false as he compromised the matter with the accused.

11. PW-2 deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 22-01-2016, LW-12 handed over the CD file to him for further investigation, then he went to the mortuary room at Gandhi hospital in Hyderabad. He further deposed that initially he examined and recorded the statements of PW-1, LW-3 and LW-4 and later conducted inquest over the corpse of the deceased in the presence of LW-7 and LW-8. He also deposed that he made a requisition to PW-3 for conducting postmortem examination, collected photographs and handed over the CD file to LW-12. During the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-2 stated that he didn't gave summons to the panch witnesses before conducting inquest. He admitted that PW-1 and LW-3 whom he examined are not eyewitnesses. Further he denied that he didn't examine PW-1, LW- 3 and LW-4 and that he didn't conduct inquest and that he conducted table investigation and prepared the case record.

12. PW-3 deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 02-05-2016 he received a requisition from SI of Police, Miryalaguda Rural PS to inspect the crime motorcycle bearing no.TS-05-EF-5497 and that he inspected the same on 03-05-2016 and found damaged front bumber and opined that the accident was occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the crime vehicle and to that effect, he issued MVI report/Ex.P2 on the next day. During the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-3 denied that he didn't inspect the crime vehicle and that he issued Ex.P2 at the instance of the police.

13. Upon perusal of material on record, it is evident that LW-1/defacto complainant who sets the criminal law into motion has died. Though PW-1 stated that his mother died in an accident, he didn't disclose further details like particulars of the crime vehicle and its driver, date, place and in what manner the alleged accident took place. Hence, no identification of the accused was brought on record. Further, PW-1 stated that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and that the police never examined and recorded his statement. Thus it appears that PW-1 didn't support the prosecution. In view of his evidence, the prosecution has given up the evidence of LW-3 to LW-8, and this Court has closed the evidence of LW-9/Medical Officer who

C.C No.75 of 2018

Dated 17.09.2024

6 conducted PME and LW-12/Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet, as no purpose would be served in examining them for which the learned APP raised no objection.

14. Now the only evidence available on record is that of PW-2/ASI and PW-3/MVI. PW-2 stated that he conducted an inquest over the corpse of the deceased in the presence of LW-7 and LW-8 and later sent a requisition to LW-9 for conducting PME. However, it doesn't gain much weight, as there is not even a single witness to corroborate his evidence. On the other hand, PW-3 stated that he inspected the motorcycle bearing no.TS-05-EF-5497 and opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the said vehicle. However, it doesn't gain much weight, as no witness testified that it is the crime vehicle with which the accused had caused the alleged accident.

15. Considering the totality of the circumstances, it is pertinent to note that to attract the offence u/s 304A of IPC, it is the sole burden on the prosecution to prove that there is a death of the deceased, identity of the accused and that the crime vehicle was driven by the accused in a rash or negligent manner. From the discussion supra, there is no material on record to establish that on the date and time of the alleged accident, the accused was the driver of the crime vehicle who drove the same in a rash or negligent manner and caused the death of the deceased.

16. Thus, it can be said that the prosecution didn't produce cogent evidence to attach the culpability of the accused with the offence arraigned for. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence under Sec 304A of IPC. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

C.C No.75 of 2018

Dated 17.09.2024

7

17. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after the lapse of appeal period. As seen from the record, there is no case property seized, hence no specific order is passed in that regard. (Typed by myself and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of September, 2024.)

II ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA.

C.C No.75 of 2018

Dated 17.09.2024

8

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

:; WITNESSES EXAMINED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1 (LW-1) : Sajjala Nagi Reddy/witness PW-2 (LW-11) : N.Buchaiah/ASI who held Inquest PW-3 (LW-10) : G.V.Srinivas Goud/Motor Vehicle Inspector

FOR DEFENCE:

-- NONE --

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P2 : MVI Report

FOR DEFENCE: --NIL--

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA.

C.C No.86 of 2024

Dated 17.09.2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MIRYALAGUDA

Present: Ms. N.Apurva Ravali,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Miryalaguda.

(Dated, this the 17 th day of September, 2024)

C.C. No. 86 of 2024

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Miryalaguda Rural. …Complainant

AND

Bhukya Nagu Naik, S/o: Bheemla Naik @ Kheema, Age: 32 years, Occ: FCI employee, R/o: Dubbathanda, H/o Thakkellapahad thanda village, Miryalaguda Mandal.

…Accused

This case is coming up before me on 13-09-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri M.Ramulu Counsel for the Accused and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available on record, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural Police Station filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 448, 354 of IPC (hereinafter referred to as IPC for brevity)

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows: -

a) On 04-12-2023 at 08:00 hours, the complainant Bhukya Koma/LW-1 went to the police station and lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 30-11-2023 night hours, she and her husband LW-3/Bhukya Mangya after having night supper, he

C.C No.86 of 2024

Dated 17.09.2024

2 slept inside the house and she slept on a cot in waranda of their house. Then in the early morning at about 03:50 am, on 01-12-2023, their villager namely Bhukya Nagu Naik S/o Bheemla Nayak @ Kheema entered into their house by jumping the compound wall, caught hold the hands of LW-1 and outraged her modesty. On hearing her hues and cries, her husband came from the house, then the said Bhukya Nagi Naik left the house and ran away. Later, LW-1 narrated the facts to her son Bhukya Linga Naik/LW-2 and her neighbouring house owner Bhukya Surya/LW-4 and he followed the said Bhukya Nagu Naik, but he ran away. Finally she requested to take legal action against him.

b) Based on the report, LW-7/B.Nageshwar Rao, HC Miryalaguda Rural Police Station has registered a case in Cr.No: 297 of 2023 for the offences under section 448, 354 of IPC and took up the investigation.

c)During the course of investigation, LW-7 examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 and LW-2 at the police station. Later, he visited the scene of offence situated at Dubbathanda village, examined and recorded the statements of LW-3 and LW-4 and also conducted panchanama in the presence of LW-5/Bhukya Nagu and LW-6/Bhukya Shankar and also drew a rough sketch.

d) On 04-12-2023, LW-7 issued a notice to the accused u/sec 41 (A) (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C for brevity) with a direction to appear before him. Subsequently, LW-8/D.Narsimhulu, S.I of Police Miryalaguda Rural took up further investigation and on 07-12-2023, he issued a notice u/s 41 (A) (3) of Cr.P.C to the accused with a direction to appear before the Hon'ble Court after the receipt of summons.

e) After the completion of investigation, LW-8 filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s 448, 354 of IPC.

3. Based upon the contents of the charge sheet, the Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 448, 354 of IPC against the accused and issued summons to him.

C.C No.86 of 2024

Dated 17.09.2024

3

4. On the appearance of the accused, the copies of documents were furnished to him as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused was examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, wherein the charges for offence U/s. 448, 354 of IPC had been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu, after having understood the same, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove their case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-7 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 are marked. PW-1 is the Complainant and victim, PW-2 and PW-4 are Circumstantial witnesses, PW-3 is an Eye witness, PW-5 and PW-6 are Panch witnesses for Scene of Offence Panchanama and PW-7 is Investigating officer who issued FIR. Ex.P1 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, Ex.P2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2, Ex.P3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3, Ex.P4 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4, Ex.P5 is Signature of PW-5 on Crime Detail Form, Ex.P6 is Signature of PW-6 on Crime Detail Form, Ex.P7 is First Information Report and Ex.P8 is Crime Detail Form. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW-8, as it doesn't serve its purpose.

7. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating materials appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The same was read over and explained to him in Telugu, to which he denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused who submitted to dispose of the case on merits. Perused the record.

9. Now the point germane for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences

punishable u/sec 448, 354 of IPC of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?"

C.C No.86 of 2024

Dated 17.09.2024

4

POINT: -

10.The essence of accusation levelled against the accused is that he trespassed into the house of PW-1, caught hold of her hand and outraged her modesty.

11. PW-1 who is cited as a Complainant and Victim deposed in her examination-in-chief that PW-2 is her son and PW-3 is her husband and she knows LW-4. She further deposed that she did not know anything about the facts of the case and that the police never examined and recorded her statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-1 denied that she stated before the police as in Ex.P1 and deposing false before the Court as she had compromised the matter with the accused.

12. PW-2 who is cited as a Circumstantial witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that PW-1 is his mother, PW-3 is his father and PW-4 is his uncle. He further deposed that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and that the police never examined and recorded his statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-2 denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P2 and is deposing false before the Court to save the accused.

13. PW-3 who is cited as an Eye witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that PW-1 is his wife, PW-2 is his son and PW-4 is his brother. He further deposed that he did not witness any incident and that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and that the police never examined and recorded his statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-3 denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P3 and is deposing false before the Court to save the accused.

14. PW-4 who is cited as a Circumstantial witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knew PW-1 to PW-3. He further deposed that he did not witness any incident and that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and that the police never examined and recorded his statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-4 denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P4 and is deposing false before the Court to save the accused.

C.C No.86 of 2024

Dated 17.09.2024

5

15. PW-5 who is cited as a Panch witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knows PW-6 and that panchanama was conducted in his presence at Dubbathanda village, but he does not know its contents. He further deposed that the police obtained his signatures on blank papers. He identified that Ex.P5 is his signature on the Crime Detail Form. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-5 denied that on 04-12-2023, police conducted panchanama at Dubbathanda village and he appended his signatures after its contents were read over to him and deposing false before the Court to save the accused.

16. PW-6 who is cited as a Panch witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knows PW-5 and that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and that the police obtained his signatures on blank papers. He identified that Ex.P6 is his signature on the Crime Detail Form. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-6 denied that on 04-12-2023, police conducted panchanama at Dubbathanda village and he appended his signatures after its contents were read over to him and deposing false before the Court to save the accused.

17. PW-7 who is cited as an Investigating officer deposed chronological investigation of the case in his examination-in-chief which are similar to the contents of the charge sheet and Ex.P7 is FIR issued by him and Ex.P8 is Crime Detail Form. During the cross examination by the learned defence counsel, PW-3 denied the following:  He didn't examine and record the statements of any witnesses.  He did not visit the scene of offence and conducted panchanama in the presence of PW-5 and PW-6.  He didn't serve sec 41 (A) (1) Cr.P.C to the accused.  He registered a false FIR basing on a false complaint lodged by PW-1.  The accused is no way concerned with the present case.

18. Upon perusal of material on record, it is evident that PW-1 to PW-6 didn't support the prosecution. During their cross examination by the learned APP, nothing worthwhile material could be elicited to show that they are deposing false. In view of their evidence, the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW-8. Now, the only evidence available on record is that of PW-7/Investigating officer who admittedly deposed with regard to the investigation procedure he adopted and in his cross

C.C No.86 of 2024

Dated 17.09.2024

6 examination, he denied all of the suggestions put forward by the learned defence counsel. Thus, it appears that the evidence of PW-7 went on procedural aspects and without corroboration with the evidence of a single witness. As the material witnesses did not support the prosecution on any fact to incriminate the accused for the charges framed against him, much credence cannot be given to the evidence of PW-7 and is highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of the investigating officer who is interested in the outcome of the case. Therefore, it can be said that there is absolutely no iota of evidence to connect the accused with the offences arraigned for. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences u/s 448, 354 of IPC. Hence, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences under section 448, 354 of IPC. Hence, the accused is acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offences under section 448, 354 of IPC. The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled, after the expiry of the appeal period. No order as to property, as nothing was deposited before this Court.

(Typed by me and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of September, 2024)

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA.

C.C No.86 of 2024

Dated 17.09.2024

7

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

:: WITNESSES EXAMINED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1 (LW-1) : Bhukya Koma/Complainant and Victim PW-2 (LW-2) : Bhukya Linga Niak/Circumstantial witness PW-3 (LW-3) : Bhukya Mangya Naik/Eye witness PW-4 (LW-4) : Bhukya Surya/Circumstantial witness PW-5 (LW-5) : Bhukya Nagu/Panch for Scene of Offence Panchanama PW-6 (LW-6) : Bhukya Shankar/Panch for Scene of Offence Panchanama PW-7 (LW-7) : B.Nageswar Rao/Investigating officer who issued FIR

FOR DEFENCE:

-- NONE --

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3 Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-4 Ex.P5 : Signature of PW-5 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P6 : Signature of PW-6 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P7 : First Information Report and Ex.P8 : Crime Detail Form.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA.

C.C No.1463 of 2021

Date: 17.09.2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MIRYALAGUDA

Present: Ms. N. Apurva Ravali,

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Miryalaguda.

(Dated, this the 17 th day of September, 2024)

C.C. No. 1463 OF 2021

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Vemulapally …Complainant

AND

1.Mangumuri Hari @ Hari Krishna, S/o Hanumatha Rao, Age: 36 years, Occ: Private employee and Driver of car bearing no.AP-28-BF-5787, R/o: H.no.1-186, Nagulapadu, Addanki, Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh

2.Mande Zion, S/o Jacob, Age: 32 years, Occ: Electrican, R/o: H.no.7-62, Pittalavanipalem Mandal, Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh.

...Accused no.1 and 2 / A1 and A2

This case is coming up before me on 13.09.2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri D.Ramulu Counsel

for the Accused and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available

on record, this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Vemulapally Police Station filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 304A of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC in short) and section 196 A of Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as MV Act in short).

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows: -

a) On 17-06-2021 at 08:00 hours, the complainant Mamidi Uma/LW-1 went to the police station and lodged a telugu written complaint stating that her brother Chennaboina Laxminarayana is working as a tractor mechanic at Miryalaguda and every day he

C.C No.1463 of 2021

Date: 17.09.2024

2 goes to Miryalaguda from Kalvapally village on his bike bearing no.AP-24-AJ-3691 for his work. That on 16-06-2021 at about 20:00 hours, she received a phone call from one Chittimodu Anil wherein he told that her brother met with an accident at the outskirts of Shettipalam Village in front of Mahateja rice mill, as a result he sustained injuries on his head and legs and was shifted to government Area Hospital Miryalaguda. Then she and her relatives went to the said hospital and found her brother dead and further came to know that the driver/Mangamuri Hari, S/o Hanumantha Rao of one Maruti car bearing no. AP-28-BF-5787 drove his car at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her brother’s bike which was coming in the same way from Guntur to Nalgonda. That due to late night, they kept the dead body of the deceased at the Area Hospital mortuary and on the next day she along with her relatives visited the scene of offence and went to the police station and reported the same. Finally, she requested to take legal action against him.

b) Based on the report, LW-13/D Raju, S.I of Police PS Vemulapally registered a case in Cr.No.119 of 2021 for the offence punishable under section 304A of IPC and took up the investigation.

c)During the course of investigation, LW-13 has examined and recorded the statement of LW-1 at the police station. Later, he visited the scene of offence, examined and recorded the statements of LW-2/Chittimodu Anil and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of LW-5/Daida Prem Kumar and LW-6/Meesala Janaiah, besides drawing a rough sketch. Later, he along with his staff and two mediators i.e., LW-7/Chennaboina Veeriah and LW-8/Thalakoppula Saidulu proceeded to mortuary at Government Area hospital Miryalaguda and conducted an inquest over the corpse of the deceased. At that time, he also examined and recorded the statements of LW-3/Enakani Venkanna and LW-4/Bommakanti Ramu. LW-11/Dr.Eslavath Nahu, CAS, Govt. Area hospital conducted an autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death of the deceased was “head injury”. After autopsy, the dead body was handed over to his relatives for final rites. LW-12/Jilani Shaik, MVI, Unit office Miryalaguda inspected the crime vehicle bearing no. AP-28-BF-5787 and opined that the accident occurred not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.

C.C No.1463 of 2021

Date: 17.09.2024

3

d) On 27-06-2021, LW-13 has served notice under Sec.41 (A) (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C in short) to the accused no.1 with a direction to appear before him on 30-06-2021 and accordingly the accused appeared and admitted his guilt and produced his vehicle documents i.e., RC and DL and are found to be valid, but he failed to produce insurance certificate of the vehicle. As such, LW-13 conducted confession cum seizure panchanama in the presence of LW- 9/Challabotla Srinivas Reddy and LW-10/Mamidi Saidulu and seized the crime vehicle. Later, he served notice under Sec.41 (A) (3) Cr.P.C to the accused no.1 with a direction to appear before the Hon’ble court on the receipt of summons.

e) On 02-09-2021, LW-13 served notice under Sec.41 (A) (1) Cr.P.C to accused no.2 who is the owner of the crime vehicle with a direction to appear before him on 05-09- 2021 accordingly the accused appeared and admitted his guilt and produced his vehicle documents i.e., RC and DL and are found to be valid, but he failed to produce insurance certificate of the vehicle. As such, LW-13 has added section 196 A of MV Act to the existing section of law. As well the accused no.2 has submitted a bond vide Sl.no.5654 dated 10-06-2021 stating that he purchased the crime vehicle/car from one Mande Vistom Paul S/o Devid Raju for an amount of Rs.1,09,000/-. Later, LW-13 served notice under Sec.41 (A) (3) Cr.P.C to the accused no.2 with a direction to appear before the Hon’ble court on the receipt of summons.

f)After the completion of investigation, LW-13 has filed a charge sheet against the accused no.1 and 2 for the offence under section 304A of IPC.

3. Based upon the contents of the charge sheet, this Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC, 196A of MV Act against the accused no.1 and 2 and issued summons to them

4. On appearance of the accused no.1 and 2, copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused no.1 and 2 were examined under Section 251 Cr.P.C wherein the substance of accusation levelled against them for offences u/s 304A of IPC, 196A of MV Act was read over and explained to them in Telugu, after having understood the same, the accused no.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

C.C No.1463 of 2021

Date: 17.09.2024

4

6. To prove his case, the prosecution examined PW-1 and Ex.P1 and P2 are marked. PW-1 is the complainant. Ex.P1 is the Signature of PW-1 on the report and Ex.P2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW-2 to LW-10 and this Court has closed the evidence of remaining witnesses i.e., LW-11 to LW-13.

7. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused no.1 and 2 u/s 313 Cr.P.C has been dispensed with, as no incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused who submitted to dispose of the case on merits. Perused the material on record.

9. Now the point germane for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence

punishable u/sec.304A of IPC and section 196A of MV Act beyond all

reasonable doubt?”

POINT: -

10. The essence of accusation levelled against the accused persons is that on 16-07- 2021 the accused no.1 drove the car belonging to the accused no.2 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the bike of the deceased, as such the deceased/brother of PW-1 sustained injury on his head and legs and succumbed to the said injury.

11. Among listed (13) prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has examined only (01) witness.

12. PW-1 who is cited as a Complainant deposed in her examination-in-chief that She does not know LW-2, LW-3, LW-4 and that the deceased is her brother. She further deposed that she did not know anything about the facts of the case and that she appended her signature on blank paper. She admitted that Ex.P1 is her signature on

C.C No.1463 of 2021

Date: 17.09.2024

5 report and further stated that the police never examined and recorded her statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-1 denied that on 17-06-2021, she filed a complaint against A1 and A2 and also denied that she stated before the police as in Ex.P2 and deposing false before the Court as she has compromised the matter with the accused.

13. Upon perusal of entire material on record, it is evident that PW-1/defacto complainant who sets the criminal law into motion didn't support the prosecution on any fact to incriminate the accused persons for the charges framed against them. In these circumstances, the prosecution has given up the evidence of LW-2 to LW-10. As such, this Court has closed the evidence of LW-11/Medical Officer, LW-12/Motor Vehicle Inspector and LW-13/Investigating Officer, as no purpose would be served in examining them for which the learned APP raised no objection. Thus, it can be said that the prosecution didn't produce cogent evidence to attach the culpability of the accused no.1 and 2 with the offences arraigned for. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under Sec 304A of IPC and section 196A of MV Act. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.

14. In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under section 304A of IPC and section 196A of MV Act. Hence, they are acquitted under section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled, after the expiry of the appeal period. The unmarked case property which was given to its owner for interim custody vide Cri.M.P.no. 64 of 2022 shall be made absolute after the lapse of appeal period.

(Typed by myself and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of September, 2024)

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA.

C.C No.1463 of 2021

Date: 17.09.2024

6

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

:: WITNESSES EXAMINED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1 (LW-1) : Mamidi Uma/Complainant

FOR DEFENCE:

-- NONE --

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : Signature of PW-1 on report Ex.P2 : Section 161 CrPC statement of PW-1

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA

C.C No.665 of 2022

Dated 17.09.2024

1

IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT

MIRYALAGUDA

Present: Ms.N.Apurva Ravali, II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Miryalaguda. (Dated, this the 17 th day of September, 2024)

C.C. No. 665 of 2022

Between:

The State of Telangana, through, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Miryalaguda Rural.

…Complainant

AND

1.Karnati Sudarshan Reddy, S/o: Late Bala Venkat Reddy, Age: 33 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o: Medlacheruvu Village and Mandal, Suryapet District

2.Karnati Indumathi, W/o: Sudarshan Reddy, Age: 26 years, Occ: House wife, R/o: Medlacheruvu Village and Mandal, Suryapet District …Accused no.1 and 2 / A1 and A2

This case is coming up before me on 13-09-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri V. Rama Chandra Charyulu Counsel for the Accused and having heard both sides and upon perusal of material available on record, today this court delivered the following:

: J U D G M E N T :

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Miryalaguda Rural Police Station filed the Charge Sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under section 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC for brevity)

2. The brief facts of the case of prosecution are as follows: -

a) On 04-05-2022 at 10:00 hours, the complainant Chennu Jayamma/LW-1 went to the police station and lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 02-05-2022 at

C.C No.665 of 2022

Dated 17.09.2024

2 afternoon about 01:00.hours while she was alone at her house, her elder daughter/Karnati Indumathi and her husband Karnati Sudarshan Reddy went to her house, discussed regarding agricultural land issue, in which her son-in-law asked

additional one acre of agricultural land and picked up a quarrel with her. They both

beat on the shoulder of LW-1 with a stick, kicked her on her face and mouth, as such LW-1 sustained bleeding injury on her lips. On hearing her hues and cries, her mother/Sukkama and her neighbour/Samala Saidi Reddy rushed to her house and the above said Sudarshan and Indumathi had left. Then, LW-1 was taken to govt area hospital, Miryalaguda for treatment. Finally she requested to take legal action against them.

b) Based on the report, LW-8/D.Narsimulu, SI of Police Miryalaguda Rural Police Station has registered a case in Cr.No: 102 of 2022 for the offences under section 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and took up the investigation.

c)During the course of investigation, LW-8 examined and recorded the statements of LW-1 and her husband LW-2/Chennu Raghava Reddy at the police station and sent her to govt. area hospital, Miryalaguda with a medical requisition. Subsequently, he visited the scene of offence situated at Chinthapally village, examined and recorded the statements of LW-3/Lakka Sukamma and LW-4/Samala Saidi Reddy and also conducted panchanama in the presence of LW-5/Chinna Venkat Reddy and LW-6/Kolli Hari Gopal and seized one stick length about 3 ½ feet and width 3 inches which was used by the accused in the commission of the offence under the cover of panchanama, besides drawing a rough sketch. Further, LW-8 obtained the wound certificate from LW-7/Dr.K.Vijaya Durga, Duty Medical Officer, Govt. Area hospital Miryalaguda who treated LW-1 and opined that the injuries are “Simple in nature”.

d) On 05-05-2022, LW-8 issued a notice to the accused no.1 and 2 u/sec 41 (A) (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C for brevity) with a direction to appear before him within 3 days and on 07-05-2022, LW-8 issued a notice u/s 41 (A) (3) of Cr.P.C to the accused no.1 and 2 with a direction to appear

before the Hon'ble Court after the receipt of summons.

C.C No.665 of 2022

Dated 17.09.2024

3

e) After the completion of investigation, LW-8 filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Based upon the contents of the charge sheet, the Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under section 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against the accused no.1 and 2, and issued summons to them.

4. On the appearance of the accused no.1 and 2, the copies of documents were furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused no.1 and 2 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C, wherein the charges for offence u/s 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC had been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, after having understood the same, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove their case, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-3 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 are marked. PW-1 is the Complainant and injured, PW-2 is Circumstantial witness and PW-3 is Eye witness. Ex.P1 is Signature of PW-1 on report, Ex.P2 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1, Ex.P3 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 and Ex.P4 is Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3. The prosecution has given up the evidence of LW-3, LW-5 and LW-6, as it doesn't serve its purpose. This Court has closed the evidence of LW-7 and LW-8.

7. After the completion of prosecution evidence, the examination of the accused no.1 and 2 u/s 313 Cr.P.C has been dispensed with, as no incriminating circumstances appeared against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

8. Heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused who submitted to dispose of the case on merits. Perused the record.

9. Now the point germane for determination is:

C.C No.665 of 2022

Dated 17.09.2024

4

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offences

punishable u/sec 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?"

POINT: -

10.The essence of accusation levelled against the accused no.1 and 2 is that they went to the house of PW-1, picked up a quarrel with her regarding an agricultural land dispute, beat on her shoulder with a stick, kicked on her face and mouth, due to which she sustained bleeding injuries.

11. PW-1 who is cited as a Complainant and injured deposed in her examination-in-chief that PW-2 is her husband, LW-3 is her mother and LW-4 is her neighbour. She further deposed that she did not know anything about the facts of the case and that she gave a report to the police, but did not know its contents. She also deposed that she appended her signature on blank papers and identified that Ex.P1 is her signature on the report and that the police never examined and recorded her statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-1 denied that she stated before the police as in Ex.P2 and deposing false before the Court as she had compromised the matter with the accused no.1 and 2.

12. PW-2 who is cited as a Circumstantial witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that PW-1 is his wife, LW-3 is his mother-in-law and he knows LW-4. He further deposed that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and that the police never examined and recorded his statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-2 denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P3 and is deposing false before the Court as he had compromised the matter with the accused no.1 and 2.

13. PW-3 who is cited as an Eye witness deposed in his examination-in-chief that he knows PW-1, PW-2 and LW-3. He further deposed that he didn't witness any incident and that he did not know anything about the facts of the case and that the police never examined and recorded his statement. During the cross examination by the learned APP, PW-3 denied that he stated before the police as in Ex.P4 and is deposing false before the Court to save the accused no.1 and 2.

C.C No.665 of 2022

Dated 17.09.2024

5

14. Upon perusal of material on record, it is evident that PW-1/defacto complainant and PW-2/Circumstantial witness who are the wife and husband and PW-3/eye witness who is their neighbour didn't support the prosecution on any fact to incriminate the accused persons for the charges framed against them. During their cross examination by the learned APP, nothing worthwhile material could be elicited to show that they are deposing false. In view of their evidence, the learned APP has given up the evidence of LW-3, LW-5 and LW-6. As such, this Court has closed the evidence of LW-7/Medical Officer and LW-8/Investigating Officer, as no purpose would be served in examining them for which the learned APP raised no objection. Thus, it can be said that the prosecution didn't produce cogent evidence to attach the culpability of the accused no.1 and 2 with the offences arraigned for. Hence, this Court holds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused no.1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences under section 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Hence, A1 and A2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution and in favour of the accused persons.

15. In the result, the accused no.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offences under section 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C for the offences under section 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Their bail bonds and surety bonds shall stand cancelled, after the expiry of the appeal period. The unmarked case property i.e., one stick length about 3 ½ feet and width about 3 inches deposited before this Court vide CPR no: 56 of 2022 shall be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period. (Typed by me and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 17th day of September 2024)

II ADDL. JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA.

C.C No.665 of 2022

Dated 17.09.2024

6

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

:: WITNESSES EXAMINED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1 (LW-1) : Chennu Jayamma/Complainant and Injured PW-2 (LW-2) : Chennu Raghava Reddy/Circumstantial witness PW-3 (LW-4) : Samala Saidi Reddy/Eye witness

FOR DEFENCE:

-- NONE --

:: EXHIBITS MARKED ::

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P1 : Signature of PW-1 on report Ex.P2 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-1 Ex.P3 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.P4 : Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-3.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

II ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS,

MIRYALAGUDA.

OS.No.65/2023

Page 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: AT NIDMANOOR

PRESENT: Ms. N.Apurva Ravali II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda FAC: Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nidmanoor

(Date this the 29th Day of August, 2024)

O.S.No. 65 OF 2023

Between:- Eslavath Shiva, S/o.Babbi, Age:34 years, Occ:Private Employee, R/o.Eslavath Thanda of Thripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. …Plaintiff AND

Eslavath Sravanthi, W/o.Shiva, D/o.Ramavath Thirpu, Age:25 years, Occ:Household, R/o.Kanya Thanda of Thripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda District. …Defendant

This Original Suit is coming up before me final hearing and disposal in the presence of Sri Mucharla Kalyan Babu Counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant remained exparte and the matter having stood over for consideration, today this Court delivered the following:

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

01.The suit is filed by plaintiff seeking the relief for declaration of marriage solemnized on 16-03-2015 between the plaintiff and the defendant as null and void and to grant any other reliefs as may deem fit and proper.

02.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

a)That the plaintiff and defendant hails from schedule tribe and are governed by customs and traditions of “Lambada” community. That their marriage was solemnized at about eight years back i.e., 16-03-2015 at the house of the defendant at

JCJ, Nidamanoor

OS.No.65/2023

Page 2 of 6

Kanyathanda village, Tripuraram Mandal, Nalgonda district as per their customs and traditions. At the time of their marriage, parents of the defendant didn't gave any dowry and marriage expenses to the plaintiff, as the defendant’s parents are poor.

That the plaintiff and the defendant lead happy marital life for a period of six years and out of their wedlock they were blessed with one daughter namely Amrutha aged about five years.

b)That the defendant used to go to her parents house without his consent and used to torture him and his family members physically and mentally, as such he changed his residence to

Miryalaguda from his native village and lived there for some days. But, the defendant didn't change her attitude and demanded the plaintiff to shift the residence to her parents house at Kanyathanda to which the plaintiff has refused.

c)That the defendant is having illegal contacts with one Eslavath

Anji, S/o Manga, due to which she didn't care about their daughter, the plaintiff and his mother. Being vexed with the attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff had placed the matter

before the village and caste elders who advised the defendant to

change her attitude but in vain. That he also lodged a complaint at Tripuraram police station against the defendant and the said

Eslavath Anji. That the plaintiff with a fond hope lived with the defendant, but the defendant didn't co-operate with the same

JCJ, Nidamanoor

OS.No.65/2023

Page 3 of 6 and continued her illicit relationship with the said Eslavath Anji and she eloped with him by taking Rs.4,00,000/- and 8 tulas of gold. That when the plaintiff questioned regarding the same, the defendant developed personal grudges and field a complaint against him and his family members at Miryalaguda I Town

Police Station with false and baseless allegations and a case was registered under section 498A of IPC and section 3, 4 of DP Act.

d)That though the plaintiff and the caste elders attempted for reunion, the parents of the defendant didn't co-operate and the defendant threatened that she will file criminal and maintenance cases against them. However, the elders convened a panchayat on 02-03-2023 wherein the defendant expressed her disinterest to continue her marital life with the plaintiff. As the plaintiff and the defendant hails from schedule tribe, the Hindu Law is not applicable to them and having no other alternative, the plaintiff filed this suit.

03.After registering the suit, summons were served on the defendant. Despite receipt of summons, the defendant didn't appear

before the Court either personally or through a Counsel. Since no

representation was made, the defendant was set exparte on 02.05.2023.

JCJ, Nidamanoor

OS.No.65/2023

Page 4 of 6

04.During the course of trial, PW-1 was examined and got marked

Exs.A1 to A3 and one Dhanavath Kishan was examined as PW-2 on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand, none were examined and no exhibits were marked on the defendant side.

05.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.

06.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether plaintiff is entitled to declare his

marriage performed on 16-03-2015 with the defendant as

null and void ? If so, to what relief?”

07.To substantiate his case, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and deposed his evidence by way of filing a chief examination affidavit and reiterated the entire contents of the plaint. PW-2 was examined as independent witness who deposed his evidence by filing a chief examination affidavit and supported the version of PW-1.

08.Further, the plaintiff has relied upon Ex.A1 which is the original wedding card of the plaintiff and the defendant, Ex.A2 which is their wedding colour photo and Ex.A3 is community and nativity certificate of the plaintiff. On perusal of Ex.A1 and A2, it is evident that the plaintiff and the defendant are legally wedded couple whose marriage took place on 16-03-2015 and on perusal of Ex.A3, it is evident that the plaintiff belongs to “Lambada (ST)” community.

JCJ, Nidamanoor

OS.No.65/2023

Page 5 of 6

09.Upon the perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that the plaintiff and the defendant are legally wedded husband and wife and their marriage was solmenized on 16-03-2015. After their marriage, they lived happily under one roof for some period and blessed with a daughter, thereafter some disputes arose between them. Being vexed with the adamant attitude of the defendant, the plaintiff got conducted panchayat before the elders, but in vain. Despite the efforts of the plaintiff, his family and the elders, there was no hope for the reunion of the plaintiff and the defendant. Furthermore, the defendant remained silent and did not choose to contest the matter, as such there is no oral or documentary evidence on behalf of the defendant and the testimony of PW-1, PW-2 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A3 remained unchallenged and clearly establishes the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff proved his claim as alleged against the defendant.

10.At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that generally the family

Court alone has got jurisdiction to grant the relief as to the marital status of a person. However, in view of the specific bar, it is not applicable to the parties herein as they belong to Schedule Tribe community as seen from the case record. Thus, the plaintiff knocked the doors of this court seeking appropriate relief as he has no other go. Here it is also pertinent to mention that, every person has a right to live as per his own terms and wishes for which the un-broken

JCJ, Nidamanoor

OS.No.65/2023

Page 6 of 6 marriage between the parties should not be burden-some on them.

Therefore, keeping in view of the above discussion and to protect the plaintiff’s right as discussed supra, this Court is inclined to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the point is answered.

11.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs declaring the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant solemnized on 16- 03-2015 as null and void.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of August 2024).

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda FAC: Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nidmanoor

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

PW-1 : Islavath Shiva :: NONE :: PW-2 : Dhanavath Kishan

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF

Ex.A1 : Wedding card of the plaintiff and defendant, dt.16.03.2015 Ex.A2 : Marriage photograph of the plaintiff and defendant. Ex.A3 : Community, Nativity and date of birth certificate of plaintiff, dt.28.07.2017

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT

:: NIL ::

II Addl.Junior Civil Judge, Miryalguda FAC: Junior Civil Judge-Cum-Judicial

Magistrate of First Class,

Nidmanoor

JCJ, Nidamanoor