Sri. B. Hussain

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL

Friday, this the 16th day of November, 2018

PRESENT: B. HUSSAIN,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Parkal.

C.C. NO. 612 OF 2014

BETWEEN:

The state of A.P., represented by SHO, P.S. Parkal.

.... Complainant

AND

Alle Sambaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, 37 Years, Caste: Are, Occu: Agriculture and Tractor Driver, R/o. Korkishala village of Mogullapally Mandal.

…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 15-11-2018 in the presence of Sri K. Muralidhar Rao, learned A.P.P., for the state and of Sri K. Srinivas, learned Advocate for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following :

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Parkal filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of

IPC, in Cr.No.15/2014 of P.S. Parkal.

2. The brief allegations of charge sheet are as follows:-

On 26.01.2014 at 9-00 p.m., the complainant/LW1 - Bandari

Radha, came to P.S. Parkal and lodged a complaint stating that on26.01.2014 at morning the Tractor owner Alli Sambaiah (accused) called her husband

Bandari Sammaiah (deceased) for coolie works. Her husband loaded iron and cement bags at Model school at Korkishala of Mogullapally and proceeding to Mallakkapet village, meantime the tractor driver-cum-owner i.e., the accused Alli Sambaiah drove the tractor bearing No. AP36 AL 7053 in a rash ~ 2 ~ and negligent manner with high speed at about 1300 hours, the tractor reached near Srirama Rice Mill, Chinthal, he has been lost control over his driving, due to which the tractor turned turtle, her husband fell down under the tractor, as a result he received injury to his head and died instantaneously and remaining persons Bandari Kumara Swamy, Solenka Chanti,

Jamalapuram Rajeshwar Rao, Renukuntla Ramesh, Renukuntla Sammaiah and Renukuntla Thirupathi have sustained injuries. On receipt of information, she rushed to the spot and found her husband dead. Finally, she requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the above said complaint, LW21 - V. Vinay Kumar, S.I., of

Police, Parkal P.S., registered a case vide crime No.15/2014 under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC and issued FIR to all concerned and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW21 examined the complainant and recorded his statement. Later he along with LW1 visited mortuary of CHC

Parkal. There he has examined the LW2 - Gellu Vasantha, LW3 - Bandari

Prashanth, LW4 - Oruganti Brahmam, LW5 - Renukuntla Ramesh, LW6 -

Jamalapuram Rajeshwar, LW7 - Bandari Kumaraswamy, LW8 - Renukuntla

Sammaiah, LW9 - Sollenki Chanti, LW10 - Renukuntla Thirupathi and

LW11 - Rangu Purna Chander, recorded their statements, secured the presence of LW14 -Baddam Jayapal Reddy and LW15 - Dhanaveni Ramulu and in their presence, he held inquest over the dead body of the deceased

Bandari Sammaiah and sent the dead body for postmortem at Community

Health Center, Parkal under the escort. During the inquest, he has obtained the photographs over the dead body of the deceased with the help of LW11.

Later, he visited the scene of offence situated near Sri Rama Rice Mill and conducted the scene of observation panchanama duly drafting it in crime ~ 3 ~ details form with rough sketch of the scene in the presence of LW12 -

Rasamalla Ravi and LW13 - Pakide Srinivas, later LW21 brought the accused and crime vehicle to police station, Parkal for inspection of MVI.

After completion of further investigation done by LW21, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 338, 337 of IPC.

3.Considering the material on record, this Court took cognizance of offence under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC, against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/sec.251 of Cr.P.C., the substance of accusation for the offence under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC, were read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, for which he denied the same and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs. P1 to P10.

7.The learned APP has given up the evidence of LWs.2, 7, 11 to 13, 16 to 21 as PWs.1 to 10 did not support the prosecution case and they turned hostile. Hence, this court has constrained to close their evidence.

8.PW1 - Bandari Radha, is the complainant and wife of deceased and circumstantial witness. PW2 - Bandari Prashanth, is the son of deceased and circumstantial witness. PW3 - Oruganti Brahmam, is the eye witness to the incident. PW4 - Renukuntla Ramesh, PW5 - Jamalapuram Rajeshwar,

PW6 - Renukuntla Sammaiah, PW7 - Sollenki Chanti and PW10 - ~ 4 ~

Renukuntla Thirupathi, are the injured and eye witnesses to the incident.

PW8 - Baddam Jayapal Reddy and PW9 - Dhanaveni Ramulu are the panch witnesses of inquest.

Ex.P1 to P7 are 161 Cr.P.C., statements of PWs.1 to 7. Ex.P8 is the signature of PW8 on Inquest panchanama. Ex.P9 is the signature of PW9 on

Inquest panchanama. Ex.P10 is 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW10.

9.As there are no incriminating circumstances against the accused, the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

10.Heard arguments.

11.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence punishable U/secs. 304-A, 337, 338 of IPC” ?

POINT:

11.PW1 - B. Radha, is the complainant and wife of deceased

Sammaiah, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. She testified that about four years back, while she was at her house, somebody telephoned her that her husband died due to accident. Immediately, she rushed to the spot and the police came to spot and shifted her husband to the hospital. Somebody took her thumb impression on some white papers and she does not know the contents of the report. Police did not examine her and recorded her statement.

Declaring her as hostile, the learned APP cross-examined her, but nothing was elicited from her cross-examination in support of prosecution version, except marking her 161 Cr.P.C., statement, as Ex.P1.

~ 5 ~

12.PW2 - B. Prashanth, is the son of deceased and circumstantial witness, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. He testified that about four years back, while he and PW1 was at their house, somebody telephoned PW1 that his husband died due to accident. Immediately, he along with PW1 rushed to the spot and the police came to spot, and his father was shifted to the hospital and police did not examine him and recorded his statement.

Declaring him as hostile, the learned APP cross-examined him, but nothing was elicited from his cross-examination in support of prosecution version, except marking her 161 Cr.P.C., statement, as Ex.P2.

13.PW3 - O. Brahmam, PW4 - R. Ramesh, PW5 - J. Rajeshwar,

PW6 - R. Sammaiah, PW7 - S. Chanti and PW10 - R. Thirupathi, who are injured and eye witnesses to the incident, turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. They testified that they did not receive any injuries and accused is not responsible for the same and they do not know anything about this case. Further they deposed that police did not examine them and record their statements.

Declaring them as hostile, the learned APP cross-examined them, but nothing was elicited from their cross-examination in support of prosecution version, except marking their 161 Cr.P.C., statements, as Exs.P3 to P7 and

Ex.P10.

14.PW8 - B. Jayapal Reddy and PW9 - D.Ramulu, who are panch witnesses of inquest panchanama, turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Both PW8 and PW9 testified that about 4 years back while they went to police station on their personal work, where the police obtained ~ 6 ~ their signatures on some white papers and they do not know the contents of said panchanama. Ex.P8 and P9 are the signatures of PWs.8 and 9 on inquest panchanama.

Declaring them as hostile, the learned APP cross-examined them, but nothing was elicited from their cross-examination in support of prosecution version, except marking their signatures on inquest panchanama, as Ex.P8 and P9.

15.On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it shows that the crucial witnesses i.e., complainant, injured and eye witnesses, panch witnesses for inquest, turned hostile. Further the prosecution failed to produce the evidence of photographer, doctor who conducted postmortem and Investigating Officer. Therefore, there is no evidence to connect the accused that the accused has committed the offence, as alleged by the prosecution. The evidence of PWs.1, 3 to 10 did not support the prosecution case, as they turned hostile. As such, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, accused is entitled for acquittal.

16. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A, 337 and 338 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stands cancelled, after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by steno, after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of November, 2018)

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL ~ 7 ~

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE: - None -

PW1 - Bandari Radha/Complainant and wife of deceased PW2 - Bandari Prashanth/Son of deceased and circumstantial witness PW3 - Oruganti Brahmam/Injured and eye witness to the incident PW4 - Renukuntla Ramesh/Injured and eye witness to the incident PW5 - Jamalapuram Rajeshwar/Injured and eye witness to the incident PW6 - Renukuntla Sammaiah/Injured and eye witness to the incident PW7 - Sollenki Chanti/Injured and eye witness to the incident PW8 - Baddam Jayapal Reddy/Panch witness for Inquest PW9 - Dhanaveni Ramulu/Panch witness for Inquest PW10 - Renukuntla Thirupathi/Injured and eye witness

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 - 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW1 Ex.P2 - 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 Ex.P3 - 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3 Ex.P4 - 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW4 Ex.P5 - 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW5 Ex.P6 - 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW6 Ex.P7 - 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW7 Ex.P8 - Signature of PW8 on inquest panchanama Ex.P9 - Signature of PW9 on inquest panchanama Ex.P10 - 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW10.

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL

1

CC No.31/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT PARKAL

Tuesday, this the 5thday of October, 2021.

PRESENT: B. HUSSAIN,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Parkal.

C.C. No.31 OF 2015

BETWEEN: The state of Telangana through

the Station House Officer, Police Station, Parkal.... Complainant

AND

Siluveru Saraiah, S/o. Durgaiah, Age: 50 years, Caste: Madiga, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Venkatapur village of Parkal Mandal. … Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 01.10.2021 in the presence of Smt. K.Pavani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri B.Swamy,learnedCounsel for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Station House Officer, Police Station, Parkal, filed the charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/sec.324, 506 of IPC in

Cr.No.459/2014 of P.S. Parkal.

The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

2.That on 30.12.2014 at 17.00 hours, the complainant LW1-Polsani

Sampath Rao went to the Police Station, Parkal and lodged a complaint in

Telugu, stating that on 30.12.2014 in the morning at about 08.00 hours, after putting on electric motor and while returning to his house, on the way, his villager by name Siluveru Saraiah i.e., accused, keeping previous grudges in mind, attacked on the LW1 and beat him with a stone and caused injury to the left abdomen of LW1 and the accused threatened to kill the LW1 if he goes to the Police Station.

On receipt of the above complaint, the LW9-Tkattaswamy, HC-315, P.S.

Parkal, registered a case in Cr.No.459/2014 for the offence punishable

U/Sec.324, 506 of IPC and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. The accused was arrested on 06.01.2015 and he was released

2

CC No.31/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

on bail on furnishing sufficient sureties. After completion of investigation, the Station House Officer, Parkal filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/sec.324, 506 of IPC against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C and the charge under

Sections 324, 506 of IPC was framed, the contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PWs: 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The evidence of LW4-S.Lingaiah and LW5-S.Sampath, circumstantial witnesses, and LW9-T.Kattaswamy,

Investigating Officer, was given up by the learned Assistant Public

Prosecutor. Hence, this Court was constrained to close their evidence.

7.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec.313(1)(b) of

Cr.P.C. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard.

9.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its

contention levelled against the Accused beyond all reasonable

doubt that he has committed the offence punishable U/sec.324, 506

of IPC?”

3

CC No.31/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

POINT:

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution must place evidence on record, to the effect that the accused has committed the offence punishable

U/sec.324, 506 of IPC. To prove the case of the prosecution, the Pws: 1 to 6 were examined and they relied upon Exs.P1 to P5.

11.PW1-P.Sampath Rao, who is the defacto-complainant-cum-injured, deposed that on 30.12.2014, while he was returning from his agricultural fields after put on the electrical motor at Venkatapur village, all of a sudden the accused, keeping previous grudges in mind, attacked with a stone on

PW1, due to which the PW1 sustained injuries on the left side of his ribs.

Further, the accused threatened the PW1 with dire consequences to kill if he goes to the Police Station in this issue. After discussing with his wife/LW2 and village elders, he rushed to the Police Station and lodged the Ex.P1-

Report, then the Police referred him to the Hospital for treatment and medical certificate.

In his cross-examination, the PW1 stated that nobody was present at the time of the incident except himself and the accused.

12.The PW2 who is the wife of PW1 deposed on the same lines of PW1.

Further, she deposed that the Police did not examine her and recorded her statement.

In her cross-examination, the PW2 admitted that she is an illiterate and she was not an eye witness to the incident. Hence, her evidence cannot be taken into consideration.

13.PW3-M.Sampath Rao, circumstantial witness, pleaded ignorance about the facts of the case. Hence, the learned Assistant Public prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, cross-examined him, but nothing was elicited from the cross-examination except to mark Ex.P2.

4

CC No.31/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

14.PW4-S.Sampath and PW5-M.Kumaraswamy, Panch witnesses for CDF, deposed in one voice that they do not know about the facts of the case, when they went to the Police station on their personal work, the Police obtained their signatures on some white papers. They identified their signatures on the Crime Details Form. Exs.P3 and P4 are the signature of

Pws: 4 and 5 respectively on the Crime Details Form. At this stage, the learned Assistant Public prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, cross- examined the Pws: 4 and 5, but nothing was elicited from their cross- examination.

15.PW6-Dr. A. Rajender Reddy, Medical Officer, Community Health Center,

Parkal, who deposed that he received a requisition from the SHO, P.S., Parkal on 30.12.2014 at 12.00 noon to examine PW1, accordingly he examined the

PW1 and found the following injuries:

1) Abrasion 1 X ½ inch on right knee.

2) Pain and tenderness left side of chest.

3) Pain and tenderness right scalper area.

4) Pain and tenderness left side of face.

He deposed that the injuries were caused with a blunt object and they are simple in nature.

During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that the PW1 came to the hospital with a requisition without any police personnel for medical examination.

16.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the accused beat PW1 and caused injuries to him and the Ex.P5 clearly shows that the accused caused the injuries. Hence, prays to convict the accused.

17.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defence vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove their case as the accused caused the injuries to PW1 except medical evidence, the accused cannot be convicted. Hence, prays to acquit the accused.

5

CC No.31/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

18.On perusal of material available on record, it shows that the PW1 deposed that the accused beat him with a stone keeping previous grudges in his mind and caused the injuries. To prove the version of PW1, the PW1 clearly admitted that at the time of incident nobody was present. Further,

PW2 and PW3 who are the circumstantial witnesses, their evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Further, Pws: 4 and 5 who are the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama, turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not support the prosecution case. On perusal of the evidnece of PW6, who treated the PW1, his evidence can be taken into consideration to the extent of causing of injuries. The prosecution has failed to examine the investigating officer who filed the charge sheet in this case. If the investigating officer is examined in this case, the real facts would come out. Further, the investigating officer failed to seize the stone with which the accused beat the PW1. Other than the evidence of PW1, there is no direct evidence to connect the accused person with this crime. In the circumstances, this court is of the opinion that basing on the sole evidence of

PW1 the accused cannot be convicted and the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is given the benefit of doubt.

19.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 506 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 5th day of October, 2021.)

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL.

6

CC No.31/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFFENCE:

PW1: P.Sampath Rao – Victim/Defacto-complainant. - None - PW2: P.Padma – Wife and PW1 and circumstantial witness. PW3: M.Sampath Rao – Circumstantial witness. PW4: S.Sampath – Panch for CDF. PW5: M.Kumara Swamy – Panch for CDF. PW6: Dr. A.Rajender Reddy – Medical Officer who treated the PW1.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFFENCE:

Ex.P1: Report given by PW1 to the Police. - Nil - Ex.P2: Statement of PW3 U/Sec.161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P3: Signature of PW4 on the CDF. Ex.P4: Signature of PW5 on the CDF. Ex.P5: Medical Certificate, issued by PW6.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL.

1

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT PARKAL

Wednesday, this the 6th day of January, 2021.

Present:- SRI B.HUSSAIN,

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

ORIGINAL SUIT No. 04 OF 2013

Between:

Amudalapally Mallesham... Plaintiff

AND

1) Amudalapally Santhosham

2) Amudalapally Vidyasagar

3) Amudalapally Vinod... Defendants

This Suit having come before me for final hearing on 30.12.2020 in the presence of Sri G.Jagadeeshwar, learned Advocate for plaintiff and of Sri R.Sreehari Swamy, and upon hearing the arguments and perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:-

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

The suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their family members, agents, workmen and all those persons acting on their behalf from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

2.The averments of the plaint in brief are as follows:

a)The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of open land to an extent of Ac. 0-20 guntas in Sy.No.204, open land to an extent of Ac.0-13 guntas in

Sy.No.205/B, making a total extent of Ac. 0-33 guntas, forming one compact block, situated at Laxmipuram village, Parkal Mandal, Warangal district.

b)Originally, the father of the plaintiff purchased the land in

Sy.No.204 from its previous owner long back for a valid sale consideration with defacto delivery of possession and ever since he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. The father of the plaintiff was 2 allotted with the land in Sy.No.205/B from his ancestral properties long back, and ever since he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

The father of the plaintiff expired about four years back prior to filing of this

Suit. During his life time, the father of the plaintiff had allotted the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, and accordingly the name of the father of the plaintiff and the name of the plaintiff are recorded in all the revenue records, and at present, the name of the plaintiff is continuing in all the revenue records as owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.

c)It is further averred that, to meet the agricultural expenditure and his family requirements, the plaintiff has obtained the loan from P.A.C.S.,

Parkal, by pledging the suit schedule property and on keen verification of the documents and title of the plaintiff, they have sanctioned the said loan and at present there are arrears of loan, as such the said P.A.C.S. issued demand notice to the plaintiff.

d)The first defendant is the wife of junior paternal uncle of the plaintiff and the Defendants 2 and 3 are her sons. The Defendants 2 and 3 are cousins of the plaintiff and all of them are the agnates of the plaintiff.

The defendants are third parties, they have no manner of right, claim, interest over the suit schedule property, but they are having their land towards eastern side of the suit schedule property. The defendants being the agnates of the plaintiff, have bore grudge against the plaintiff and time and again they are trying to interfere in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property, but the plaintiff is resisting the same from time to time.

e)While things stood so, on 27.01.2013, the defendants tried to disturb the boundary of the suit schedule property on its eastern side, but the plaintiff has resisted the same. Again on 29.01.2013, the defendants with anti social elements tried to occupy the suit schedule property illegally, but the plaintiff and his neighbours have resisted their illegal acts. In the 3 circumstances, the Plaintiff cannot resist the illegal acts of the defendants without the aid and assistance of the Hon'ble Court. Hence, the suit.

3.On receipt of the summons, the defendants filed their written statement and denied all the material allegations made in the plaint and submitted that plaintiff is the owner and possessor of suit schedule property is false and baseless, he is not at all owning any land in the said survey numbers. The defendants are only the real owners of the land to an extent of Ac. 1-02 1/2 guntas out of Sy.No.204, 205/B of Laxmipuram Revenue

Shivar of Parkal Mandal, Warangal district, and the allegation of interference by the defendants in the suit schedule property does not arise at all, as the plaintiff is not having any inch of land in the above said survey numbers.

4.The defendants further contended that these defendants particularly 1st defendant has purchased the land to an extent of Ac. 1-02 1/2 gts. out of

Sy.Nos.204, 205/B of Laxmipuram Revenue Shivar from one A.Kranthi Kumar,

S/o. Veeraiah, R/o. Laxmipuram village of Parkal Mandal, Warangal district for a sale consideration of Rs.4,56, 875/- on execution of unregistered sale deed

dated 10.01.2013 and ever since these defendants are in possession and

enjoyment over the same without any interruption.

5.It is further contended by the defendants that there is no doubt the properties sold by the vendor of the 1st defendant, it is his exclusive property, though the vendor happened to be the own brother of the plaintiff, but there is no transaction between them. The vendor of the 1st Defendant is the rightful person in all respect, further soon after the purchase of the suit schedule property i.e., sale deed property the same has been mutated in the name of the 1st Defendant and ever since they are paying revenue to that effect.

6.It is further contended by the defendants that by fabricating a document by the plaintiff even without owning or possessing any land as 4 mentioned in the schedule by way of misrepresentation before the Hon'ble

Court, got filed the suit only with an intention to harass the defendants and for wrongful gain. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the suit. Therefore, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to dismiss the suit by granting exemplary costs to the defendants in the interest of justice.

7.Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial :

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

8. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the defendants, no evidence was adduced nor exhibited any documents on their behalf.

9.Heard.

Issue No.1:

10.To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, he himself examined as PW1 and reiterated the plaint averments on oath by submitting his affidavit in lieu of his chief examination. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he did not give any written application for mutation of the land from his father's name to his name in Revenue office, but he orally sked them and he did not file Sisth receipts of the suit schedule property before the Court. Further, he denied that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property.

11.The contention of the plaintiff is that his father had purchased the land to an extent of Ac. 0.20 guntas in Sy.No.204 and ancestral property to an 5 extent of Ac. 0.13 guntas in Sy.No.205/B and the same was recorded in the

Revenue records and obtained crop loan from P.A.C.S. Bank and relied upon

Pahanies and demand receipt of P.A.C.S. Bank, which are marked as Exs.A1 to A6. The defendants cross-examined PW1 at length, but nothing was elicited in his cross-examination to disbelieve that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit.

12.In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendants did not adduce any evidence in support of the plea taken by them in their written statement. Mere filing of written statement is not sufficient to disprove the claim of the plaintiff. As such, there is no basis for the plea taken by defendants. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that the plea of the defendants shall be supported by evidence. In this case on hand, the plea of defendants is not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. Hence, no probable value can be attached to unproved the pleadings of defendants.

13.Ultimately, there is nothing worth available on record to disbelieve the contention of the plaintiff, unilaterally, the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing his claim. The Issue No.1 is answered accordingly.

Issue No.2:

14. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants by way of granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, after his transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 6 th day of January, 2021.)

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Parkal 6

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff: For Defendants:

PW.1: Amudalapally Mallesham - None -

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff: Ex.A1: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2007-2008.

Ex.A2: Certified copy of Pahani for the year 2007-2008.

Ex.A3: Adangal Pahani 2008-2009. Ex.A4: Meeseva Pahani for 1422 F. Ex.A5: Meeseva Pahani for 1422 F. Ex.A6: Notice issued by P.A.C.S.

For Defendants: - Nil -

Sd/-

Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Parkal.

1

CC No.233/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS AT PARKAL

Friday, this the 8thday of October, 2021.

PRESENT: B. HUSSAIN,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Parkal.

C.C. No.233 OF 2015

BETWEEN: The state of Telangana through

the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Parkal.... Complainant

AND

Dugyala Chokka Rao, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 60 years, Caste: Velma, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Venkatapuram village. … Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 07.10.2021 in the presence of Smt. K.Pavani, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the state and of Sri B.Swamy,learnedCounsel for the Accused, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the Counsel on both sides, this Court delivered the following:

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station, Parkal, filed the charge sheet against the Accused for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of A.P.

Excise Act in Cr.No.282/2014 of P.S. Parkal.

The brief allegations in the charge sheet are as follows:-

2.That on 03.08.2014 at 17.00 hours, as per the instructions of superior officers, the complainant LW1-N.Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.,

Parkal, along with LW2-P.Anil, PC-3917 and LW3-P.Ashok, PC-3858 of P.S.

Parkal, left the Police Station, Parkal for conducting patrolling in Parkal town to control the illegal activities. During the course of patrolling, when they reached Venkatapuram village, a person found moving in a suspicious circumstances, immediately on seeing the Police, the said person tried to escape from the scene, the Police party tried to catch that person, but in vain. Immediately the LW1 summoned two panchas i.e., LW4-Siluveru

Chiranjeevi and LW5-Mushkula Sambamurthy and seized the IMFL bottles i.e., 1) Knockout strong beer bottles – 47 Nos., 2) OC whisky quarter bottles – 7 Nos., 3) IB quarter bottles – 23 Nos., 4) IB half bottles – 5 Nos., and 5) OC

2

CC No.233/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

whisky full bottles – 4 Nos. by drawing the samples in the presence of Lws: 4 and 5. On enquiry about the escaped person i.e., accused, the police came to know his name as Dugyala Chokka Rao. The LW1 returned to the Police

Station along with the seized property and lodged a report.

On receipt of the report along with seizure panchanama from the LW1, the LW11-V.Vinay Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Parkal, registered a case in Cr.No.282/2014 for the offence punishable U/Sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise

Act and issued FIR to all the concerned and took up the investigation. The accused was arrested on 05.08.2014. After completion of investigation, the

Sub-Inspector of Police, Parkal filed the charge sheet against the accused.

3.This case was taken on file for the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act against the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined U/sec.239 of Cr.P.C and the charge under

Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act was framed, the contents of charge were read over and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the same. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined

PWs: 1 to 4 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5.

7.The evidence of LW1-N.Satyanarayana, Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.

Parkal and LW3-P.Ashok, PC-3858 of P.S. Parkal, was given up by the learned

Assistant Public Prosecutor. In spite of giving sufficient time, the prosecution has failed to examine the LW4-S.Chiranjeevi, Panch for seizure panchanama,

LW8-P.Sanjeeva Rao, SDPO, Parkal, LW9-K.Sridevi, Govt. Chemical Examiner,

3

CC No.233/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

LW10-G.Narsa Reddy, Dy. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Warangal

Division, and LW11-V.Vinay Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Parkal. Hence, this Court was constrained to close the evidence of LW1, LW3, LW4, LW8 to

LW11.

8.On closure of the prosecution evidence, the Accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances that are appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses as contemplated U/Sec.313(1)(b) of

Cr.P.C. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

9.Heard.

Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its

contention levelled against the Accused beyond all reasonable

doubt that he has committed the offence punishable U/sec.34(a) of

A.P. Excise Act?”

POINT:

10.In order to prove its case, the prosecution must place evidence on record, to the effect that the accused has committed the offence punishable

U/sec.34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. To prove the case of the prosecution, the Pws:

1 to 4 were examined and they relied upon Exs.P1 to P5.

11.PW1-P.Anil, the then PC-3917 of P.S. Parkal, deposed that on the instructions of their superiors, he assisted to LW1-N.Satyanarayana, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Parkal and they went for patrolling on 03.08.2014 at about 05.30 PM to control the illegal activities.

During the course of patrolling, when they reached Venkatapuram village, a person found moving in a suspicious circumstances, immediately on seeing the Police, the said person tried to escape from the scene, the

Police party tried to catch that person, but in vain. Immediately the LW1

4

CC No.233/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

summoned two panchas i.e., LW4-Siluveru Chiranjeevi and LW5-Mushkula

Sambamurthy and seized the IMFL bottles i.e., 1) Knockout strong beer bottles – 47 Nos., 2) OC whisky quarter bottles – 7 Nos., 3) IB quarter bottles – 23 Nos., 4) IB half bottles – 5 Nos., and 5) OC whisky full bottles – 4 Nos. by drawing the samples in the presence of Lws: 4 and 5. On enquiry about the escaped person i.e., accused, they came to know his name as Dugyala

Chokka Rao. Then they returned to the Police Station along with the seized property and the LW1 lodged a report and handed over the seized property to the SHO, Parkal. The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Parkal examined and recorded his statement. He further deposed that he can identify the signature of LW1. Ex.P1 is the seizure panchanama and Ex.P2 is the report.

12.The PW2-M.Sambamurthy, panch for seizure panchanama, deposed that he does not know anything about this case and no Panchanama was conducted in his presence. On one day, while he was passing on his way, the Police obtained his signature on some papers. PW2 recognized his signature on the seizure panchanama. Ex.P3 is his signature on the seizure panchanama.

At this stage, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, with the permission of the Court, cross-examined the PW2, but nothing was elicited from his cross-examination.

13.PW3-V.Ashok and PW4-A.Kiran, who are the panchas for Destruction

Panchanama, deposed in one voice that they do not know anything about this case and no Destruction Panchanama was conducted in their presence.

On one day, while they were passing on their way, the Police obtained their signatures on some papers. Pws: 3 and 4 identified their signatures on the

Destruction Panchanama. Ex.P4 and Ex.P5 are the signatures of PW3 and

PW4 respectively on the Destruction Panchanama.

5

CC No.233/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

14.The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently argued that the accused committed the crime under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Hence, prays to convict the accused.

15.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defence vehemently argued that except the evidence of PW1, there is no evidence on record that the accused committed the crime. The PW1 is a Police personnel and interested witness in the prosecution case. Hence, prays to acquit the accused.

16.On perusal of material available on record, the PW1 in his evidence, reiterated the contents of the charge sheet. Further, the PW1 is an interested witness to the case of prosecution and there is no independent evidence to support his version. The Pws: 2 to 4 have turned hostile to the case of prosecution. In the circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the accused cannot be convicted only basing on the sole evidence of PW1 and the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused is given the benefit of doubt.

17.In the result, the Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 34(a) of A.P. Excise Act. Accordingly, he is acquitted under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over. The unmarked property if any shall be destroyed after the appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 8th day of October, 2021.)

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL.

6

CC No.233/2015 on the

file of J.F.C.M., Parkal.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFFENCE:

PW1: P.Anil, PC-3917 of P.S. Parkal. - None - PW2: M.Sambamurthy – Panch witness for Seizure Panchanama. PW3: V.Ashok – Panch witness for Destruction Panchanama. PW4: A.Kiran – Panch witness for Destruction Panchanama.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFFENCE:

Ex.P1: Seizure Panchanama. - Nil - Ex.P2: Report. Ex.P3: Signature of PW2 on the Seizure Panchanama. Ex.P4: Signature of PW3 on the Destruction Panchanama. Ex.P5: Signature of PW4 on the Destruction Panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- Nil -

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL

Friday, this the 16th day of November, 2018

PRESENT: B. HUSSAIN,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Parkal.

C.C. NO. 124 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

The state of A.P. represented by SHO, P.S. Parkal.

.... Complainant

AND

A1 - Thipireddy Krishna Reddy, S/o. Narsimha Reddy, Age: 35 Years, Caste: Reddy, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. Pangidipalli of Chityal (M).

A2 - Renikuntla Anil, S/o. Yadagiri, 28 Years, Madiga, Occu: Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 3377, R/o. Jayagiri of Hasanparthy (M).

…Accused

This case having come before me for final hearing on 15-11-2018 in the presence of Sri K. Muralidhar Rao, learned A.P.P., for the state and of Sri G. Jagadeeshwar, learned Advocate for the Accused No.1 and 2, upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the counsel on either side, this Court delivers the following :

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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Parkal filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 for the offences punishable under Section 379 of IPC, in

Cr.No.14/2013 of P.S. Parkal.

2. The brief allegations of charge sheet are as follows:-

Complainant/LW1 - V. Sarangapani, S.I., of Police, incharge of

Seetharampuram Check post, LW2 - D. Veeranna and LW3 - J. Sambaiah are the police personnel of P.S. Parkal. The accused No.1 is owner of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.AP 16 TY 3377, accused No.2 is the driver of crime vehicle and both the accused were loaded sand at Kalvapalli vagu ~ 2 ~ illegally on 27.01.2013 without having any valid licence or permission from the concerned authorities and they are transporting the same to Hanamkonda with a view to sell the same to needy persons with higher price for getting illegal benefit by violating the rules and regulations under 21 (1) of A.P.

Mines and Minerals Act. In this connection on 27.04.2012 at 1500 hours the

LW1 along with LWs.2 and 3 conducting vehicle checking at check post were stopped the crime vehicle, upon that A2 stopped the Lorry, the LW1 asked him to produce the relevant documents to transport the sand, but A2 failed to produce any valid documents, immediately, LW1 along with LWs.2 and 3 apprehended the A2 and summoned two mediators i.e., LW4 - Sadu

Naveen and LW5 - Allam Shiva and interrogated him before the mediators, the A2 disclosed his name and his lorry owner name as Thippireddy

Krishnareddy son of Narsimhareddy (A1). Further A2 stated that on 27.01.2013 he along with A1 were went to Kalvapalli Vagu and they have loaded the sand illegally with the help of labour without having any valid license from the concerned authorities. Thereafter as per the instructions of

A1 who is the owner of lorry, A2 left from Kalvapalli and proceeding towards Hanamkonda through Parkal to Erragattugutta road with a view to sell the sand illegally to the needy persons with higher price for getting illegal profit. While he reached near Seetharampuram outskirts, at Police check post at about 1500 hours he was caught hold by LW1. On the confessional statement of A2, LW1 recorded his confessional panchanama and seized the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No. AP 16 TY 3377 with sand under cover of confessional and seizure panchanama before the above two mediators, and brought the said seized lorry including the sand and A2 to police station, Parkal on 27.01.2013 at 1715 hours and handed over the ~ 3 ~ seized loaded lorry and the accused A2 along with a report and his confessional and seizure panchanama to take legal action against the accused

A1 and A2, according to law.

Basing on the above said complaint, and basing on the confessional and seizure panchanama of accused A2, LW6 - V. Kiran Kumar, Inspector of

Police, Parkal P.S. registered a case vide crime No.14/2013 under Section 379 IPC, 21 (1) (a) of A.P. Mines and Minerals Act and issued FIR to all concerned and took up investigation. During the course of investigation,

LW6 has examined and recorded the statements of LWs.1 to 3. After completion of further investigation, LW6 receiver property release order from this Court on 15.02.2013 vide Dis.No.194/2013, through A1 and released the case property by obtaining proper acknowledgement from A1 and filed charge sheet against the accused A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC.

3.Considering the material on record, this Court took cognizance of offence under Sections 379 of IPC against the accused A1 and A2.

4.On appearance of the accused A1 and A2, copies of case documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused A1 and A2 were examined U/sec. 239 of Cr.P.C and charge under Section 379 of IPC was framed, the contents of charge was read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

~ 4 ~

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

PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs. P1 and P2. The evidence of LWs.1 to 3 and 6 has closed.

7.PW1 - Sadu Naveen, PW2 - Allam Shiva, are panch witnesses for confessional and seizure panchanama. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on confession and seizure panchanama. Ex.P2 is the signature of PW2 on confession and seizure panchanama.

8.As there are no incriminating circumstances against the accused

A1 and A2, the examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

9.Heard arguments.

10.Now the point for consideration is :

“Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving its contention levelled against the accused A1 and A2, beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused A1 and A2 committed the offence punishable U/sec. 379 of IPC” ?

POINT:

11.PW1 - Sadu Naveen and PW2 - Alla Shiva, are the panch witnesses for confessional and seizure panchanama, turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Both the PW1 and PW2 testified that in the year 2013, police came to their office, on the instruction of Balaji Naik,

Revenue Inspector, Parkal instructed them to sign on some papers and police informed that it is sand case and they signed on it. Nobody confessed any offence before them and nothing was seized from the possession of accused ~ 5 ~ in their presence. Ex.P1 and P2 are their signatures on confession and seizure panchanama, dated 27.01.2013.

Declaring them as hostile, the learned APP cross-examined them, but nothing was elicited from their cross-examination in support of prosecution version except marking Exs.P1 and 2 on confession and seizure panchanama.

12.On perusal of the entire record, it shows that the important witnesses i.e., LW1, who is the complainant and his staff i.e., LW2 D.

Veeranna and LW3 - J. Sambaiah, who were assisted to LW1 for apprehension of accused and seized the crime vehicle along with sand were not examined by the prosecution. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 who are panch witnesses for confessional and seizure panchanama turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore, there is no evidence to connect the accused that the accused A1 and A2 have committed the alleged offence, as such prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, they are entitled for acquittal.

13. In the result, the accused A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 of IPC. Accordingly, they are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stands cancelled, after appeal time is over. The un-marked property which was given to interim custody to the owner of the property vide

Crl.M.P.No.724/2013 is made absolute, after appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation by steno, after correction, pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 16th day of November, 2018)

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL ~ 6 ~

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:FOR DEFENCE:

- None -

PW1 - Sadu Naveen/ Panch witness for confession & seizure PW2 - Allam Shiva/ Panch witness for confession & seizure

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 - Signature of PW1 on Confessional & seizure panchanama Ex.P2 - Signature of PW1 on Confessional & seizure panchanama

FOR DEFENCE: - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS: - Nil -

Sd/-

JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

PARKAL