Ms. B. Deeksha

Page 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE I- ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL MOBILE), KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: Smt.B. Deeksha

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy.

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

O.S. NO. 38 OF 2025

BETWEEN

Cherlapally Ashok Kumar S/o Ch. Yadaiah Goud, Aged about 51 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o Villa No.25, Manasarovar Villas, Phase -II, Sri Sai Nagar, Military Dairy Farm Road, Kanajiguda, Near Srinidhi Telangana Food, Alwal, Medchal-Malkajgiri District - 500 015. . . . . Plaintiff AND

1) Chakali Peddolla Narayana S/o Balalah, Aged:45, Occ: Agriculture,

2) Chakali Peddolla Bala Narsu S/o Balalah, Aged: 35, Occ: Agriculture,

3) Chakali Yerrolla Chinna Rajaiah S/o Ventaiah, Aged: 45, Occ: Agriculture,

4) Chakali Uppalvwai Chinna Ramulu S/o Not Known to the Plaintiff, Aged: 55, Occ: Agriculture,

5) Chakali Peddolla Rajulu S/o Peddolla Balalah, Aged: 55, Occ: Agriculture,

6) Chakali Potholla Gampa Balalah S/o Not Known to the Plaintiff, Aged: 55, Occ: Agriculture,

7) Chakali Anjaiah S/o Parvaiah, Aged: 55, Occ: Agriculture, 55

8) Chakali Karrolla Bakka Sailu S/o Mallaiah, Aged: 55, Occ: Agriculture,

9) Chakali Peddolla Sailu S/o Nadipi Balaiah, Aged: Major, Occ: Agriculture,

10) Chakali Yerrolla Pedda Rajaiah S/o Balaiah, Aged: 53, Occ: Agriculture,

11) Chakali Potholla Bhaskar S/o Balaiah, Aged: 40, Occ: Agriculture, (All are R/o Thirmanpally Village, Sadashiv Nagar Mandal, Kama Reddy District, Telangana State) . . . . Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 17.04.2026 in the presence of M/s. C.Ravindranath Reddy, Sri N. Ravinder Reddy, Sri Sailu Matkam, Sri K. Rajulu, Sri K. Radhika, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, and the defendants were set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered following:

Page 2 of 7

::JUDGEMENT::

This is a suit filed Suit filed by the plaintiff for declaring the plaintiff as absolute owner of the piece of land admeasuring 300 Square Yards in Sy.No.197/1A/2, admeasuring Acres 2-20 Guntas, Sy.No.197/1B, admeasuring Acres 1-31 Guntas, Total admeasuring Acres 4-11 Guntas, situated at Thirmanpally Village, Sadashivanagar Mandal, Kamareddy District, Telangana State towards the South Eastern corner of the land of the plaintiff situated at Thirmanpally Village, Sadashivanagar Mandal, Kamareddy District, Telangana State and bounded as under: NORTH: Remaining land of plaintiff

SOUTH: Kunta Katta

EAST : Main Road, and

WEST: Remaining land of plaintiff same is hereinafter called as “Suit Schedule B Property”, declaring the construction made by the defendants upon the suit schedule B property as illegal, recovery of possession of the suit schedule B property, directing the defendants to demolish the construction made in the Suit schedule B property and grant perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making any further construction upon the Suit schedule B property and to award costs of the suit.

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

2.The plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner Pattedar and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.140/1/1, admeasuring Acres 0-045 Guntas, Sy.No.140/1/2, admeasuring Acres 0-02 Guntas, Sy.No.140/4D, admeasuring Acres 0-10 Guntas,

Sy.No.140/ఆ, admeasuring Acres 0-04 Guntas, Sy.No.141/1A/1, admeasuring

Acres 0-06 Guntas, Sy.No.141/1A/2, admeasuring Acres 0-03 Guntas, Sy.No.141/2/2/2, admeasuring Acres 0-17 Guntas, Sy.No.141/3, admeasuring Acres 0-115 Guntas, Sy.No.197/1A/2, admeasuring Acres 2-20 Guntas, Sy.No.197/1B, admeasuring Acres 1-31 Guntas, Total admeasuring Acres 6-07 Guntas, situated at Thirmanpally Village, Sadashivanagar Mandal, Kamareddy District by virtue of purchase through a registered Sale Deed bearing document No.319/2018, dated 20-08-2018, registered in S.R.O. Sadashiv Nagar from the recorded pattedar and possessor Smt. Padigela Majula and Smt. Bandaru

Page 3 of 7

Parvatamma through their General Power of Attorney holder Mohammed Zameeruddin S/o Mohammed Lateefuddin vide registered Document No.2700/2018, registered in S.R.O. Kamareddy. The Plaintiff after purchasing the land got his name mutated in the Revenue Records and he was issued the Pattedar Pass Book with Khata No.60083 and Pass Book No.T12200090665 by the Revenue Authorities and the Revenue Record and I B ROR Namuna is also reflecting the name of the plaintiff as pattedar and possessor of the lands in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff after purchasing the said land admeasuring Acres 6-07 Guntas, in the said survey numbers situated at Thirmanpally Village, Sadashiv Mandal, Kamareddy District got the same surveyed and demarcated it by erecting stone pillars around his purchased land and is in possession of his property since the day of his purchase i.e., 20-08- 2018. The Defendants have no manner of right upon the land purchased by the plaintiff and in enjoyment of the plaintiff. But the Defendants together grabbed an extent of 300 Square Yards in the said survey numbers towards the South Eastern corner of the land of the plaintiff situated at Thirmanpally Village, Sadashiv Nagar Mandal, Kamareddy District which is the Suit Schedule B Property. The Defendants who have ganged up have raised the pillars upon the Patta land of the plaintiff by grabbing an extent of 300 Square Yards and have put upon the scaffolding for laying the roof upon the pillars raised. The plaintiff informed the Gram Panchayat, Thirmanpally of the illegal construction being under taken by the Defendants grabbing the patta land of the plaintiff and the Gram Panchayat officials informed the plaintiff to approach the civil court for redressal of his grievance. The plaintiff visited the Suit Schedule Property on 02- 02-2025 and requested the Defendants to stop the illegal construction but the Defendants have threatened the plaintiff and are bent upon proceeding with their illegal construction and if the Defendants the are not restrained by way of Perpetual Injunction not to make any further the construction they may proceed with the construction and deprive the the plaintiff of his Suit Schedule B Property. Therefore, it is prayed to decree the suit as stated above.

3.Defendants were set ex parte.

4.The plaintiff to prove his case, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 were marked. Further, PW2 was examined on behalf of the plaintiff.

Page 4 of 7

5.Heard the learned counsel for plaintiff and perused the record. The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments.

6.Now the point for consideration are:

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to be declared as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule B property?

2)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit schedule B property from the defendants as prayed for?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaring the construction made by the defendants upon the suit schedule B property as illegal as prayed for?

4)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to demolish the construction made in the Suit schedule B property as prayed for?

5)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making any further construction upon the Suit schedule B property as prayed for?

6) To what relief?

7.POINT 1 and 2: The plaintiff to prove his case, got examined himself as PW1 and further examined PW2. PW.1 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the entire contents of the plaint and hence, the same are not reproduced here to avoid repetition. Through PW.1, Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. Ex.A1 is the Original Pattadar Passbook No.T12200090665, Ex.A2 is the 1 B Namuna and Ex.A3 are the Photographs(3) with Pendrive. PW2 who has served as a Sarpanch of Thirmanpally Village and is currently functioning as the Village Development Committee President has filed his chief examintion affidavit in the similar lines as PW1.

8.As seen from the material placed on record, a perusal of Ex.A1 shows that the plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the land bearing Sy.No.140/1/1, admeasuring Acres 0-045 Guntas, Sy.No.140/1/2, admeasuring Acres 0-20

Guntas, Sy.No.140/4D, admeasuring Acres 0-10 Guntas, Sy.No.140/ఆ,

Page 5 of 7 admeasuring Acres 0-04 Guntas, Sy.No.141/1A/1, admeasuring Acres 0-06 Guntas, Sy.No.141/1A/2, admeasuring Acres 0-03 Guntas, Sy.No.141/2/2/2, admeasuring Acres 0-17 Guntas, Sy.No.141/3, admeasuring Acres 0-115 Guntas, Sy.No.197/1A/2, admeasuring Acres 2-20 Guntas, Sy.No.197/1B, admeasuring Acres 1-31 Guntas, total admeasuring Acres 6-07 Guntas, situated at Thirmanpally Village, Sadashivanagar Mandal, Kamareddy District. Ex.A2 substantiates the same. Ex.A3 photographs depict construction work. It is clear that Suit Schedule B Property is a part of the aforementioned land.

9.By virtue of this documentary evidence coupled with unchallenged testimony of PW1, plaintiff proves that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule B property. Further PW1, deposed in his examination-in-chief about the defendants raised pillars and have put upon the scaffolding for laying the roof upon the pillars raised in the Suit Schedule B Property and on 02-02- 2025, the plaintiff requested the Defendants to stop the illegal construction but the Defendants have threatened the plaintiff and are bent upon proceeding with their illegal construction and it is an unchallenged one. In order to rebut the said version of the plaintiff, the defendants were reluctant to contest the suit and remained exparte. Unless the contrary is proved, the plaintiff cannot be non- suited and thus the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for. By virtue of documentary evidence coupled with unchallenged evidence of PW1, the plaintiff is able to prove his ownership of the suit schedule B property and as well as the denial of the defendants of such ownership. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for decree of declaration as absolute owner of suit schedule B property. As a consequence, plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of suit schedule B property from the defendants. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

10. POINT NO 3 and 4: The plaintiff claims that the defendants have raised pillars and put upon the scaffolding for laying the roof upon the pillars raised in the Suit Schedule B Property, which is an unchallenged one. Even Ex.A3 substantiates the same. At the cost of repetition, in order to rebut the said version of the plaintiff, the defendants were reluctant to contest the suit and remained exparte. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaring the construction made by the defendants upon the suit schedule B property as illegal. Consequently, the plaintiff is entitled for Mandatory Injunction directing the defendants to demolish the construction made in the Suit schedule B

Page 6 of 7 property as prayed for. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

11. POINT NO.5: It is the case of the plainiff that if the Defendants the are not restrained by way of Perpetual Injunction not to make any further the construction they may proceed with the construction and deprive the the plaintiff of his Suit Schedule B Property. In view of finding in point no.1 to 3, the plaintiff have proved his ownership over the suit schedule B property and that the contructions of the defendants on the suit schedule B property are illegal, which are directed to be demolished. Thus, the case of PW1 that if the defendants are not restrained from making further contruction, they may proceed with the construction and deprive the the plaintiff of his Suit Schedule B Property remained unchallenged and unrebutted. By virtue of documentary evidence coupled with unchallenged evidence of PW1, the plaintiff is able to prove his rightful ownership of the suit schedule B property and the inference of such ownership by way of constructions by the defendants. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for the decree of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making any further construction upon the Suit schedule B property. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

11. POINT NO 6: In view of the finding in point no.1 to point no.5, the suit is liable to be decreed with cost.

In the result, suit is decreed with cost declaring plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule B property, for recovery of possession of the suit schedule B property by the plaintiff from the defendants, declaring the construction made by the defendants upon the suit schedule B property as illegal, directing the defendants to demolish the construction made in the Suit schedule B property and granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from making any further construction upon the Suit schedule B property.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07th day of May, 2026.

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.

Page 7 of 7

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1 Cherlapally Ashok Kumar Nil PW2 Madhusudhan Rao

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Original Pattadar Passbook No.T12200090665

Ex.A2: 1 B Namuna(Sec. 63 BSA certificate filed)

Ex.A3: Photographs(3) with Pendrive (Sec. 63 BSA certificate filed).

For Defendant:

-Nil-

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDL.

JUDICAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL MOBILE), AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Smt.B.DEEKSHA I- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

Calendar Case No 05 of 2020

Between:- The State through Police Station, Bhiknoor.

… Complainant

AND

Guddemgari Swamy s/o. Ramaiah, aged: 36 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No. Baswapoor

Village of Bhiknoor Mandal, Kamareddy

District.

… Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.05.2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri P.Srinivas Rao, Sri K.Devaraj, learned counsel for the accused and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This case is filed by the State represented by the Sub Inspector of

Bhiknoor Police Station against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 304A, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”).

2. Brief averments of the case of prosecution:- 2.1On 11.09.2019 in the occasion of Ganesh Immersion, the son of

PW1/Kagithala Sathyanarayana by name Kagithala Shekar went to Ranga

Samudhram Tank at Baswapoor Village Shivar for immersion of the Rajaka

Sanagam Ganesh Idol on Tractor bearing No. TS1789529 along with 2 trolley No. TS17C8015. After completion of Ganesh Idol immersion, they were returning to village on the same tractor. While on the way, when the tractor reached near newly constructed power substation at about 18:45 hours, meanwhile the tractor driver Guddamgari Swamy drove his tractor in rash and negligent manner and the tractor turned turtle on the road. As a result, PW1’s son received injuries over back and other body of the parts and fell unconscious. Arella Swamy, Lingaraju Sathish, Muthannolla

Mahesh, Muthannolla Swamy, Guddamgari Nagaraj, Muthannolla

Harivardhan and P. Sanjeev along with others received injuries.

Immediately the son of PW1/Kagithala Sathyanarayana and other injured persons were shifted to Ramayampet Government Hospital in 108 ambulance. Some other injured were shifted to various hospitals. Upon examination, the Duty medical officer declared that the son of Pw1 died at 19:15 hours and thereafter, Pw1’s son was shifted to Kamareddy hospital mortuary room. Hence, PW1 approached Police Station and lodged

Ex.P1/report.

2.2.Basing on the facts of the above report, Sub Inspector of Bhiknoor

Police Station registered a case vide Cr. No. 109/2019 under Sec. 304A, 337 of IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation.

2.3. During the course of investigation, the Police Bhiknoor have recorded the statements of the witnesses, scene of offence panchnama and inquest panchanama was conducted in the presence of panchas. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. Duty Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased issued post-mortem examination report. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle involved in this case, has opined that there is no mechanical defect to the vehicle. During the course of investigation, the police issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. Police obtained the

Medical certificates of the injured. Basing on the Medical certficates of

Lw12/Pedda Swamy and Pw10/Prashanth, the police added Sec.338 to the existing section of law. After collecting the documents and after completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhiknoor has 3 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.304A, 338, 337 of IPC.

3. This Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sec.304A, 337, 338 of IPC. On appearance of the accused person, copies of the documents were furnished to him in compliance of section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’).

4. Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under section Sec. 304A, 337, 338 of IPC. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in the vernacular language, for which he denied the same, and pleaded not guilty.

5. In the course of trial, to prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW15 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P17. The

Evidence of Lw3/Kagithala Suresh, Lw14/Kummari Chandram,

Lw16/Dr.Pasha, Lw17/Dr.B.Chandrashekhar Reddy and Lw21/A.Naveen

Kumar were given up by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. The evidence of Lw12/Arepally @ Arella Pedda Swamy was closed basing on the report filed by the prosecution.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the prosecution evidence against the accused and he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

7. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused person. Perused the record

8. Now the point for determination is:-

Did the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable under Sec. 304A, 337, 338 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

9. Point:-PW1/Kagithala Sathyanarayana who is the defacto complainant has deposed that on 11.09.2019 during the occasion Ganesh

Nimmajjanam/Immersion, while few passengers along with his son were returning in a Tractor, then, accused who drove the Tractor in a rash 4 manner due to which the Tractor turned turtle. As a result, the passengers of the Tractor fell outside the Tractor and his son fell down and got stuck in the wheels of the Tractor. Immediately, his son was shifted to

Ramayampet Hospital and the duty doctor declared that his son died by the time he reached the hospital. PW2/Kagithala Bal Laxmi who is the wife of Pw1 has deposed in similar lines as Pw1.

10.Pw3/Sathish, Pw5/Muthannolla Mahesh and Pw11/Sanjeev who are cited as eye witnesses in the chargesheet have resiled from their earlier statements and stated that about 7 years ago, they went to Ganesh

Nimajjanam at Baswapoor, the trolley in which they were traveling fell down towards one side and they sustained injuries and that they do not know anything else about the case.

11. Pw4/Muthannolla Swamy, PW6/Harivardhan, Pw7/Muthannolla Swamy,

Pw8/Akula Chandu, Pw9/Nagaraju, Pw10/Prashanth who are cited as eye witnesses in the chargesheet have resiled from their earlier statements and stated that they do not know anything about the case. As such, Pw3 to Pw11 were declared as hostile by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor with the permission of the court but nothing was elicited from the witnesses when questions were posed by her.

12. Pw12/ Venka Biksham is the pancha to scene of offence panchanama/Ex.P11 and inquest panchanama/Ex.P12. Pw13/Dr. Vijay

Kumar is the doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of

Kagithala Shekar and issued Postmortem Examination report/Ex.P13.

Pw14/R.Venkat Swamy inspected the crime vehicle i.e., bearing no.TS 17B 9529 (Tractor) and TS 17C 8015(Trailer) and issued MVI/Ex.P14.

Pw15/L.Raju has deposed the entire chronology of investigation.

13.In order to prove the accusation under section 304A of IPC the prosecution has to establish the death of deceased Kagithala Shekar in road traffic accident and the same was caused by the accused due to rash or negligent act. In order to prove the accusation under section 338 of IPC the prosecution has to establish Lw12/Pedda Swamy and Pw10/Prashanth 5 sustained grievous injuries in road traffic accident and the same was caused by the accused due to rash or negligent act.

14. The evidence of Pw1, Pw2, Pw12 and Pw13 coupled with

Ex.P1/Report, Ex.P12/Inquest Panchanama and Ex.P13/Post Mortem

Examination Report goes to establish the death of the deceased. EX.P16/

Medical Certificate of Lw12/Pedda Swamy and Ex.P17/Medical certificate of Pw10/Prashanth establishes that Lw12/Pedda Swamy and Pw10 sustained grievous injuries. Further, the line of cross examination of the accused discloses that the death of the deceased and injuries to the injured are not disputed.

15. Secondly, the prosecution has to establish that the death of the deceased and injuries to the injured were caused by the accused due to rash or negligent act of the accused.

16. The evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 discloses that it is received from one of the passengers of the tractor. Hence, it is in the form of hearsay. Thus, the evidence of Pw1 and Pw2 is not relevant. Pw3 to Pw11 have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW3 to PW12 have not stated anything against the accused. PW14 has not deposed anything incriminating against the accused. The evidence of PW15 is only confined to the mode of investigation. Hence, the evidence of PW15 is not of much help to the prosecution. Further, absolutely there is no iota of evidence in the evidence of the eye witnesses as regard to the rash or negligent act of the accused at the relevant time.

17. The material on record referred to above only establishes the death of the deceased i.e., Kagithala Shekar and grievous injuries were sustained by Pw10 and Lw12/Pedda Swamy at the relevant time. The crucial point in this case is that whether accused drove the Tractor in a rash or negligent manner due to which the deceased died and injured sustained grievous injuries. But there is no iota of evidence produced by the prosecution to prove its case. Therefore, for the lack of adequate evidence this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of accused as well as rash or negligent act by the accused. Therefore, this Court holds 6 that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused for the offense punishable under Sec. 304A, 337, 338 of IPC beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

18. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.304A, 337, 338. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled subject to Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by my Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 12th day of May, 2026.

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1Kagithala Sathyanarayana - None - PW2Kagithala Bal Laxmi PW3Lingaraju Satish PW4Muthannolla Swamy PW5Muthannolla Mahesh PW6Muthannolla Harivardhan PW7Muthannolla Swamy PW8Akula Chandu PW9Geddemgari Nagaraju PW10 Gudemgari Prashanth PW11 Papigari Sanjeev PW12 Vanka Biksham PW13 Dr.Vijay Kumar PW14 R.Venkata Swamy PW15 L.Raju 7

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1ReportNil Ex.P2Sec.161Cr.P.C statement of Pw3 Ex.P3Sec.161Cr.P.C statement of Pw4 Ex.P4Sec.161Cr.P.C statement of Pw5 Ex.P5Sec.161Cr.P.C statement of Pw6 Ex.P6Sec.161Cr.P.C statement of Pw7 Ex.P7Sec.161Cr.P.C statement of Pw8 Ex.P8Sec.161Cr.P.C statement of Pw9 Ex.P9Sec.161Cr.P.C statement of Pw10 Ex.P10 Sec.161Cr.P.C statement of Pw11 Ex.P11 Crime Detail Form Ex.P12 Inquest Panchanama Ex.P13 Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P14 MVI Report Ex.P15 First Information Report Ex.P16 Medical Certificate of Lw12/Pedda Swamy Ex.P17 Medical Certificate of Pw10

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy 8

(CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF P.D.F., IN C.D.)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS SPL(MOBILE), KAMAREDDY.

C.C.No. 05 of 2020

1Date of offence 11.09.2019 2Date of complaint 11.09.2019 3Date of apprehension or notice u/s 29.10.2019 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice A Cr.P.C 4Date of release --- 5Date of commencement of trial 03.03.2026 6Date of closure of trial 08.05.2026 7Date of Judgment 12.05.2026 8Explanation of delay or remarks : -

Complainant: The State through P.S. Bhiknoor in Cr.No.109/2019

Description of accused person/s: Guddemgari Swamy s/o. Ramaiah, aged: 36 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No.

Baswapoor Village of Bhiknoor Mandal, Kamareddy District.

Offence Under Section Sec. 304A, 337, 338 of IPC

Finding Accused is found not guilty

Sentence acquitted under Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.Magistrate of

First Class Spl.(Mobile), Kamareddy

To The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDL.

JUDICAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL MOBILE), AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Smt.B.DEEKSHA I- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

Calendar Case No 1879 of 2021

Between:- The State through Police Station, Machareddy.

… Complainant

AND

Thula Suman s/o. Gangaram, aged: 31 years,

Occ: Driver, R/o. Mopal, Nizamabad.

… Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.05.2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri B.Surender Reddy, Sri J.Rajinikanth, learned counsel for the accused and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This case is filed by the State represented by the Sub Inspector of

Machareddy Police Station against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec. 304A, 338 of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”).

2. Brief averments of the case of prosecution:- 2.1On 13-08-2021 at about 1920 hours the younger father of

PW1/Potharaju Swamy by name Potharaju Lingam and Sangani Suresh went to Palvancha Marri for their personal work on his motor cycle

AP25AP0979. On the same day, after completion of their work, they were returning to home on the same vehicle. While on the way, when they reached Sri Laxmi Narsimha filling station at Palvancha village shivar on 2

SH-11 road, the accused person drove his Ertiga car bearing No.

TS08ED6089 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle

No. AP25AP0979 in opposite direction. As a result, the rider of the Motor cycle and pillion rider fell down on the road and received injuries on right leg and right hands and also head injuries. They were shifted to

Government Hospital, Kamareddy for treatment through 108 ambulance.

Later, on the advice of duty doctor, they were referred to Lotus Cure

Hospital, Kompally, Hyderabad. Hence, PW1 approached Police Station and lodged Ex.P1/report.

2.2.Basing on the facts of the above report, Sub Inspector of

Machareddy Police Station registered a case vide Cr. No. 197/2021 under

Sec. 337 of IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation.

2.3. During the course of investigation, the Police Machareddy have recorded the statements of the witnesses, scene of offence panchnama was conducted in the presence of panchas. The police received information regarding the death of Potharaju Lingam. Then, the police conducted inquest panchanama in the presence of the panchas and police altered Sec.337 IPC to Sec.304A IPC. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. Duty Medical Officer, who conducted post- mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased issued post- mortem examination report. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle involved in this case, has opined that there is no mechanical defect to the vehicle. During the course of investigation, the police issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused and collected Medical Certificate of the injured, who sustained grevious injuries. Accordingly, the Police altered

Sec.337 of IPC to Sec.338 of IPC. After collecting the documents and after completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Machareddy has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.304A, 338 of IPC .

3. This Court has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sec.304A, 338 of IPC. On appearance of the accused person, copies of the documents were furnished to him in compliance of section 207 of the 3

Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’).

4. Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under section Sec.304A, 338 of IPC. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in the vernacular language, for which he denied the same, and pleaded not guilty.

5. In the course of trial, to prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW9 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P9. The evidence of Lw8/Pandiri Ravinder was closed basing on the report filed by the prosecution. The Evidence LW5/Potharaju Shravan, Lw6/Sangam

Bhulaxmi, Lw12/Dr.Harisingh, Lw13/Dr.Libin, Lw14/sathyanarayana and

Lw15/S.Hanmandlu were given up by the Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the prosecution evidence against the accused and he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

7. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused person. Perused the record

8. Now the point for determination is:-

Did the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable under Sec. 304A, 338 of IPC beyond all

reasonable doubt?

9. Point:-PW1/Potharaju Swamy who is the defacto complainant has resiled from his earlier statement and stated that in the year 2022, one car dashed one bike in which the deceased sustained injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy and he received the said information through phone call and he lodged Ex.P1/report. Pw2/Potharaju

Radha who is the wife of the deceased has resiled from her earlier statement and stated that her husband met with an accident and she does not know anything else about the case. PW3/ Potharaju Srinivas,

PW4/Sangani Suresh and PW5/Jangam Gangaram who are cited as circumstantial witnesses in the chargesheet have resiled from their earlier 4 statements and stated that they do not know anything about the case.

10. PW6/Kotha Aravind and PW7/Gurram Mallaiah who are the panchas to the inquest panchanama have only deposed that police obtained their signatures on some blank papers. Similarly, PW8/Kalyan Goud who is a pancha to scene of offence panchanama has only deposed that police obtained his signatures on some blank papers. As such, Pw1 to Pw8 were declared as hostile by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor with the permission of the court but nothing was elicited from the witnesses when questions were posed by her.

10.PW9/K. Srinivas Reddy has deposed the entire chronology of investigation.

11.In order to prove the accusation under section 304A of IPC the prosecution has to establish the death of deceased Potharaju Lingam in road traffic accident and the same was caused by the accused due to rash or negligent act. In order to prove the accusation under section 338 of IPC the prosecution has to establish that grievous injuries were caused to

Sangani Suresh/PW4 in road traffic accident and the same was caused by the accused due to rash or negligent act.

12. The evidence of Pw1 coupled with Ex.P1/Report, Ex.P12/Inquest

Panchanama and Ex.P13/Post Mortem Examination Report goes to establish the death of the deceased. Ex.P15/Medical Certificate establishes that PW4 sustained grievous injuries. Further, the line of cross examination of the accused discloses that the death of the deceased and injuries caused to the injured are not disputed.

13. Secondly, the prosecution has to establish that the death of the deceased and injuries to the injured/PW4 was caused by the accused due to rash or negligent act of the accused.

14. Prime witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW1 to PW8 have not stated anything against the accused. The evidence of

PW9 is only confined to the mode of investigation. Hence, the evidence of

PW9 is not of much help to the prosecution. Further, absolutely there is no iota of evidence in the evidence of the prime witnesses as regard to the 5 rash or negligent act of the accused at the relevant time.

15. The material on record referred to above only establishes the death of the deceased i.e., Potharaju Lingam and that grievous injuries were caused to PW4 at the relevant time. The crucial point in this case is that whether accused drove the car in a rash or negligent manner due to which the deceased died and PW4 sustained injuries. But there is no iota of evidence produced by the prosecution to prove its case. Therefore, for the lack of adequate evidence this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of accused as well as rash or negligent act by the accused. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused for the offense punishable under

Sec. 304A, 338 of IPC beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.304A, 338 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled subject to Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by my Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 12thday of May, 2026.

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 Potharaju Swamy - None - PW2 Potharaju Radha PW3 Potharaju Srinivas PW4 Sangani Suresh PW5 Jangam Gangaram PW6 Kotha Aravind PW7 Gurram Mallaiah PW8 Naadem Kalyan Goud 6

PW9 K.Srinvas Reddy

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1Report Nil Ex.P2Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw1 Ex.P3Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw2 Ex.P4Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4 Ex.P5Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw5 Ex.P6Signature of Pw6 on inquest panchanama Ex.P7Signature of Pw7 on inquest panchanama Ex.P8Signature of Pw8 on Crime Detail Form Ex.P9Report Ex.P10 First Information Report Ex.P11 Crime Detail Form Ex.P12 Inquest Panchanama Ex.P13 Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P14 MVI Report Ex.P15 Medical Certificate of Pw4

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy 7

(CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF P.D.F., IN C.D.)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS SPL(MOBILE), KAMAREDDY.

C.C.No. 1879 of 2021

1Date of offence 13.08.2021 2Date of complaint 14.08.2021 3Date of apprehension or notice u/s 30.08.2021 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice A Cr.P.C 4Date of release --- 5Date of commencement of trial 01.04.2026 6Date of closure of trial 08.05.2026 7Date of Judgment 12.05.2026 8Explanation of delay or remarks : -

Complainant: The State through P.S. Machareddy in Cr.No.197/2021

Description of accused person/s: Thula Suman s/o. Gangaram, aged: 31 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. Mopal,

Nizamabad.

Offence Under Section Sec. 304A, 338 of IPC

Finding Accused is found not guilty

Sentence acquitted under Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.Magistrate of

First Class Spl.(Mobile), Kamareddy

To The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.

Page 1 of 7

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL MOBILE), KAMAREDDY

PRESENT: Smt.B. Deeksha

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy.

TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MAY,

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

O.S. NO. 60 OF 2025

BETWEEN

C.Panduranga Rao S/o. Late Venkatarathnam Naidu, Aged about 69 years, Occ: Private Employee R/o. H.No.12-7-137/26/1, Anjaiah Nagar, Moosapet, Balanagar, Ranga Reddy District.

. . . . Plaintiff AND

1) C.Chandrakala W/o. C.Panduranga Rao D/o. Late Chinna Ramulu, Aged about 41 years, Occ: Housewife,

2) D.Laxmi W/o. Late D.Srinu, C/o. P.Anjaneyulu, Aged about 50 years, Occ: Business,

3) D.Bunny S/o. Late D.Srinu, Aged about 22 years, Occ: Student,

4) P.Gouravva W/o. Late P.Chinna Ramulu, Aged about 76 years, Occ: Household,

5) C. Aishwarya W/o. Sandeep, Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student,

All are C/o. Anjaneyulu, H.No.3-87, Ugrawai Village, Kamareddy District.

. . . . Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 22.04.2026 in the presence of Sri G.M Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, and the defendants were set ex-parte and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered following:

::JUDGEMENT::

This is a suit filed for grant of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, and their men, etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff of New RCC Roof No.3-80,

Page 2 of 7 constructed over Northern portion of Open plot, admeasuring North to

South: 22.5 feet and East to West: 45.0 feet and the total of which 1012.5sq.feet(112.5sq.yards)=94.0 sq.mtrs, in which the RCC Roof plinth area is 933.75sq.feet, as shown in the map marked with red colour, situated Uggarwai Village, Kamareddy Mandal and District, bounded by as under:

North: Road

South: Open Plot of Laxmi,

East : Road,

West: Road, (Hereinafter referred as Suit Schedule Property) and to award costs of the suit.

The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

2. The plaintiff is the husband of defendant no.1 and defendant no.2 is the sister of defendant no.1, Defendant No.3 is the son of the Defendant

No.2 and Defendant No.4 is the Mother-in-Law of the Plaintiff and

Defendant No.5 is the Daughter of Defendant No.1. The Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are two daughters of the Defendant No.4. The father-in-law of the

Defendant No.1 i.e. P.Chinna Ramulu was sole and absolute owner of Suit

Schedule Property. The Husband of the Defendant No.4 has executed the

Registered Gift Settlement Deed in favour of Defendant No.4, vide bearing

Document bearing No. 2957/2018 dated 11/04/2018 registered in the

Office of SRO Kamareddy. After the said Gift Settlement Deed, the

Defendant No.4 has executed a Registered Gift Settlement Deed in favour of Defendant No.1 on 13/04/2018 vide Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing Document No. 3130/2018 registered in the Office of SRO

Kamareddy, who is the daughter of the Defendant No.4 in respect of Suit

Schedule Property. After execution of said Registered Gift Settlement

Deed the Defendant No.1 has executed Registered Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the Plaintiff vide Registered Gift Settlement Deed bearing

Page 3 of 7

Document No. 10423/2018 dated 31/12/2018 registered in the Office of

SRO Kamareddy in respect of Suit Schedule Property. The Defendant No.4 has executed Registered Gift Settlement Deed in favour of Defendant

No.2 admeasuring 112.5 sq.yds, out of 225 sq.yds, Situated at Uggarwai

Village, Kamareddy Mandal and District, Telangana State, through

Registered Gift Settlement Deed dated 13/04/2018 and remaining 112.5 sq.yds was executed a Registered Gift Settlement Deed in favour of the

Plaintiff vide bearing Document No. 3130/2018 dated 13/04/2018 and later on the Defendant No.1 has executed Registered Gift Settlement

Deed in favour of the Plaintiff vide bearing Document No.10423/2018

dated 31/12/2018.

2.1The Plaintiff has married the Defendant No.1 after the death of the first wife of the Plaintiff on 07/01/2013 and the Defendant No.1 has obtained Divorce from her first Husband, the second husband of defendant no.1 died in and around 2014 and after the death of her second

Husband, the Defendant No.1 has married the Plaintiff. At the time of marriage of the Plaintiff with the Defendant No.1, the Defendant No.4 has presented the Suit Schedule Property in favour of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has applied for Permission for the construction of the House before the

Gram Panchayat Ugrawai, Kamareddy Mandal and Kamareddy District and accordingly the Gram Panchayat Ugrawai has accorded permission for construction of Ground Floor on 01/08/2020 vide GP No. 06/2018 and after obtaining the said permission by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has applied for

Housing Loan from the Bank and after obtained the Bank Loan granted by the Bank.

2.2.The Plaintiff had commenced and completed the construction as per the Sanction Plan and after the said completion of Construction the Suit

Schedule Property was mutated in the name of the Plaintiff by Gram

Panchayat of Ugrawai Village, Kamareddy Mandal and District on 29/12/2020 and after the said Mutation in the name of the Plaintiff, the

Plaintiff is paying the Gram Panchayat Tax regularly to the said

Department. After completion of the construction made by the Plaintiff in

Page 4 of 7 respect of Suit Schedule Property, the Plaintiff has let-out for Tenant on rent. The Plaintiff has also mutated his name in Electricity Department in respect of Suit Schedule Property.

2.3.The Plaintiff is having two daughters who were born through the first wife of the Plaintiff and the Defendant No.5 who is the daughter of the

Defendant No.1 who has born through Defendant No.1 through her second

Husband. After the marriage of the Plaintiff with the Defendant No.1, on 31/08/2015 there arose a matrimonial dispute and differences between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 and several panchayats were held between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 for settling the matrimonial disputes and differences, but the efforts put by the Plaintiff, relatives and friends are vain. The Defendant No.1 started demanding to transfer the property in order to give the Suit Schedule Property to Defendant No.5 and the Defendant No. 2 to 5 were instigating the Defendant No.1 to harass the Plaintiff mentally to transfer the Suit Schedule Property to

Defendant No.1. The Plaintiff has refused and rejected the said proposal made by the Defendant No.1 to the Plaintiff.

2.4.While so, the Defendants No.1 to 5 came to the Suit Schedule

Property on 10/03/2025 and threatened to dispossess the Plaintiff from the Suit Schedule Property. Then, the Plaintiff has lodged a Police

Complaint to the concerned Police against the Defendants No.1 to 5, but the Police has investigated the Plaintiff's Complaint and directed the

Plaintiff the matter is in Civil in nature and directed the Plaintiff to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, it is prayed to decree the suit as stated above.

3.Defendants were set ex parte.

4.The plaintiff to prove his case, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to

Ex.A7 were marked.

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

6.Now the point for consideration are:

Page 5 of 7

1) Whether the plaintiff was in lawful possession of suit schedule property as on date of filing the suit?

2) Whether the defendants tried to interfere in the possession of plaintiff over suit schedule property?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

4) To what relief?

7.POINT 1 and 2: The plaintiff to prove his case, got examined himself as PW1. PW1 filed his chief affidavit reiterating the entire contents of the plaint and hence, the same are not reproduced here to avoid repetition. Through PW.1, Ex.A1 to A7 were marked. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of Registered Gift settlement Deed bearing Document no.2957/2018 dated.11.04.2018, Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of Registered Gift settlement Deed bearing Document no.3130/2018 dated.13.04.2018,

Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of Registered Gift settlement Deed bearing

Document no.10423/2018 dated.31.12.2018, Ex.A4 is the Original gram

Panchayat Sanction Plan, Ex.A5 is the Original Mutation copy dated.

29.12.2020, Ex.A6 is the Original copy of Electricity connection dated.17.02.2021 and Ex.A7 is the Mutation fees receipt dated.01.08.2020.

8.As seen from the material placed on record, a perusal of Ex.A3 shows that plaintiff is the owner and possessor of the suit schedule property. Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 substantiate the same. Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 shows the course of transfer of interest in the suit schedule property.

9.By virtue of this documentary evidence coupled with unchallenged testimony of PW1, plaintiff proves his possession in and over the suit schedule property. Further PW1 deposed in his examination-in-chief about interference of defendants on 10.03.2025 with the possession of plaintiff and it is an unchallenged one. By virtue of Ex.A3, Ex.A5 and Ex.A6 coupled

Page 6 of 7 with unchallenged evidence of PW1 the plaintiff is able to prove his lawful possession in and over the suit schedule property and as well as the interference of the defendants in such lawful possession. Accordingly, these points are answered in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

10. POINT NO 3: In view of finding in Point no.1 and 2, the Court holds that the plaintiff is entitled for decree of perpetual injunction. It is needless to mention that this decree of perpetual injunction is granted only against the defendants herein and their men and not against anyone else. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.

11. POINT NO 4: In view of the finding in point no.1, 2, and 3, the suit is liable to be decreed with cost.

12. In the result, suit is decreed with cost granting perpetual injunction restraining the defendants, and their men, etc. from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

Typed to my dictation by the typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 07th day of May, 2026.

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendant:

PW1 C. Panduranga Rao

Nil

Page 7 of 7

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Certified copy of Registered Gift settlement Deed bearing Document no.2957/2018 dated.11.04.2018 Ex.A2: Certified copy of Registered Gift settlement Deed bearing Document no.3130/2018 dated.13.04.2018 Ex.A3: Certified copy of Registered Gift settlement Deed bearing Document no.10423/2018 dated.31.12.2018 Ex.A4: Original gram Panchayat Sanction Plan. Ex.A5: Original Mutation copy dated. 29.12.2020 Ex.A6: Original copy of Electricity connection dated.17.02.2021 Ex.A7: Mutation fees receipt dated.01.08.2020.

For Defendant:

-Nil-

I-Addl. Junior Civil Judge cum

Judl. Magistrate of First Class,

Kamareddy.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I-ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-ADDL.

JUDICAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS (SPECIAL MOBILE), AT

KAMAREDDY

Present: Smt.B.DEEKSHA I- Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy

TUESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MAY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

Calendar Case No 465 of 2023

Between:- The State through Police Station, Sadashivanagar.

… Complainant

AND

Mohammad Naseer Ahmed s/o. Abdulla, aged:

30 years, Occ: Driver, R/o. H.No. 9-15-106,

Ahmedpura colony Nizamabad.

… Accused

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.05.2026 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the complainant, and of Sri B.Damodhar Reddy, Sri P.Sandeep, learned counsel for the accused and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration to this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

This case is filed by the State represented by the Sub Inspector of

Kamareddy Police Station against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 304A of the Indian Penal Code (in short “IPC”).

2. Brief averments of the case of prosecution:- 2.1PW1/Raj Mohammad is running a Taaz Dabha at Mallupet village shivar near NH-44 road with few employees working in his Dabha. One of the employee is Chikkalwar Kishan. On 21.08.2023 at 07:30 hours

Chikkalwar Kishan went out from his Dabha but he did not return. On 22.08.2023 at 14:00 hours PW1 received information that one unknown 2 vehicle dashed one person who died on the spot near Sathyapeerlu on

NH-44 road leading from Nizamabad towards Kamareddy. Upon receipt of the information, Pw1 rushed to spot. Instantly Police showed the deceased clothes and footwear along with his Phone. On that, Pw1 identified that the said dead body belongs to Chikkalwar Kishan. Hence, PW1 approached

Police Station and lodged Ex.P1/report.

2.2.Basing on the facts of the above report, Sub Inspector of

Sadashivanagar Police Station registered a case vide Cr. No. 163/2023 under Sec. 304A of IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation.

2.3. During the course of investigation, the Police Sadhashivanagar have recorded the statements of the witnesses, scene of offence and inquest panchnama was conducted in the presence of panchas. The dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. Duty Medical Officer, who conducted post-mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased issued post-mortem examination report. The Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the vehicle involved in this case, has opined that there is no mechanical defect to the vehicle. During the course of investigation, the police issued 41A Cr.P.C notice to the accused. After collecting the documents and after completion of the investigation, the Sub-Inspector of

Police, Sadashivanagar has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec.304A of IPC.

3. This Court has taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Sec.304A of IPC. On appearance of the accused person, copies of the documents were furnished to him in compliance of section 207 of the

Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’).

4. Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under section Sec.304A of IPC. The substance of accusation was read over and explained to him in the vernacular language, for which he denied the same, and pleaded not guilty.

5. In the course of trial, to prove the guilt of the accused person, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW8 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The

Evidence of Lw6/Nagesh Nayak was given up by the learned Assistant 3

Public Prosecutor.

6. After completion of prosecution evidence accused person was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating evidence available in the prosecution evidence against the accused and he denied the same and reported no defense evidence.

7. Heard arguments of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for accused person. Perused the record

8. Now the point for determination is:-

Did the prosecution bring home the guilt of the accused for the

offences punishable under Sec. 304A of IPC beyond all reasonable

doubt?

9. Point:-PW1/Raj Mohammad has deposed that the deceased by name

Kishan worked under him in his Dhaba; that on 21.08.2023, deceased went out and on the next day, he came to know that an unknown body met with an accident at Sathyapeerla Darga; that he immediately went to the spot and found flesh and blood of some dead body and he recognized that the unknown dead body belonged to Kishan upon seeing the footwear, phone and dress. The witness lodged Ex.P1/report before the police. Pw3/Thihari, PW4/Ahmed have deposed on the similar lines as

PW1.

10. PW2/Dr.Vijay Kumar is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Chikkalwari Kishan and issued

Postmortem Examination Report/Ex.P2. PW5/Mohammad Kaza is the pancha to scene of offence panchanama/Ex.P3 and inquest panchanama/Ex.P4. Pw6/J.N.Srinvas Rao is the MVI who inspected the crime vehicle and issued MVI report/Ex.P5.

15. Pw7/ Kasam Ravindhar has deposed that on 22.08.2023, he noticed some flesh and blood of some dead body during his patrolling duty and he identified it as belonging to a human; that he immediately informed the same to Police Sadashivanagar.

4

16. Pw9/N.Raju has deposed the entire chronology of investigation.

17.In order to prove the accusation under section 304A of IPC the prosecution has to establish the death of deceased Chikkalwar Kishan in road traffic accident and the same was caused by the accused due to rash or negligent act.

18. The evidence of Pw1 to 5, Pw7 coupled with Ex.P1/Report,

Ex.P4/Inquest panchanama and Ex.P2/Post Mortem Examination Report goes to establish the death of the deceased. Further, the line of cross examination of the accused discloses that the death of the deceased is not disputed.

19. Secondly, the prosecution has to establish that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused due to rash or negligent act of the accused.

14. None of the witnesses have not stated anything against the accused.

PW1 to PW7 have not deposed anything incriminating against the accused. The evidence of PW8 is only confined to the mode of investigation. Hence, the evidence of PW8 is not of much help to the prosecution. Further, absolutely there is no iota of evidence in the evidence of the prime witnesses as regard to the rash or negligent act of the accused at the relevant time.

20. The material on record referred to above only establishes the death of the deceased i.e., Chikkalwar Kishan at the relevant time. The crucial point in this case is that whether accused drove the car in a rash or negligent manner due to which the deceased died. But there is no iota of evidence produced by the prosecution to prove its case. Therefore, for the lack of adequate evidence this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove the identity of accused as well as rash or negligent act by the accused. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused for the offense punishable under

Sec. 304A of IPC beyond any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

5

21. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sec.304A of IPC. Accordingly, the accused is acquitted under section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused, if any, shall stand cancelled subject to Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by my Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 12thday of May, 2026.

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 Raj Mohammad - None - PW2 Dr. Vijay Kumar PW3 Shaik Thihari @ Ashok PW4 Ahmed PW5 Mohammad Kaza PW6 J.N.Srinvasa Rao PW7 Kasam Ravindhar PW8 N.Raju

DOCUMENTS MARKED

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1ReportNil Ex.P2Postmortem Examination report Ex.P3Crime Detail Form Ex.P4Inquest Panchanama Ex.P5MVI report Ex.P6First Information Report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

I-Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class (Special Mobile), Kamareddy 6

(CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT (IN THE FORM OF P.D.F., IN C.D.)

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS SPL(MOBILE), KAMAREDDY.

C.C.No. 465 of 2023

1Date of offence 21.08.2023 2Date of complaint 22.08.2023 3Date of apprehension or notice u/s 06.09.2023 41-A Cr.P.C. Notice A Cr.P.C 4Date of release --- 5Date of commencement of trial 06.10.2025 6Date of closure of trial 08.05.2026 7Date of Judgment 12.05.2026.

8Explanation of delay or remarks : -

Complainant: The State through P.S. Sadashivanagar in Cr.No.163/2023

Description of accused person/s: Mohammad Naseer Ahmed s/o. Abdulla, aged: 30 years, Occ: Driver, R/o.

H.No. 9-15-106, Ahmedpura colony Nizamabad.

Offence Under Section Sec. 304A of IPC

Finding Accused is found not guilty

Sentence acquitted under Sec. 255(1) of Cr.P.C

I Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.Magistrate of

First Class Spl.(Mobile), Kamareddy

To The Hon’ble I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kamareddy.