Smt. B. Prathima
Prl.District and Sessions Judge
Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex · Sangareddy · Telangana
Based on 7 recent ordersSMT. B. PRATHIMA, Prl.District and Sessions Judge, is posted at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Sangareddy, Telangana, India. 7 court orders on record since 2018. 7 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles OS, SC, MVOP cases.
Featured Judgments
1
THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER THE
SCHEDULE CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989-CUM- V ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE: MEDAK
AT SANGAREDDY.
PRESENT: Smt. G. Rajani, Spl.Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cum-V Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Sangareddy,
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018
O.S. NO. 94 of 2012
Between
Vadde Sathyanarayana S/o Gandaiah, Aged about 46 years, Occ:Agriculture, R/o Gundlamachnoor village, Hathnoora mandal, Medak District.
.... Plaintiff
And
1. Vadde Jhanardhan S/o Radhaiah, Aged about 40 years, Occ: ARPC R/o Chekriyal village, Pulkal mandal, Medak District.
2. B. Vijaykumar Aged about 36 years, Occ: Police constable, R/o H.No.2-4-49, Basweshwara nagar, Sangareddy Town, Medak District.
3. Balraj S/o Laxmaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ: Business, R/o Sangareddy Town, Medak District.
... Defendants
This suit is coming on this day for hearing before me in the presence of
Sri M. Giridhar, Sri B. Sur Reddy, Advocates for the plaintiff and Sri C. Narsing Raj,
Advocate for the defendant No.1 , while defendant Nos. 2 and 3 remained exparte and after hearing, on perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following:-
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1. This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 for declaration of title, cancellation of registered sale deed vide document 2
No.12281/2011 dated 12.12.2011 and consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants
2.As per the pleadings in the plaint, the case of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of residential house bearing Municipal door
No.5-1-32/3/D constructed over plot No. 12 in Sy.No.243/A admeasuring 150Sq.
Yards within plinth area of 962 Sq. feet on the ground floor, 962 Sq. feet on the first floor, 962 Sq. feet on the second floor, 200 Sq. feet on the third floor, which comes to total plinth area of 3086 Sq. feet roof covered with RCC situated at
Shanthinagar, Old Kalvakunta, under the Municipal limits of Sangareddy Town,
Medak District ( hereinafter referred as “ the suit schedule property”).
The plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property through registered sale deed vide document No.7013/2008 dated 19.05.2008 from its original owner Smt. Balamani for valid sale consideration and on the date of sale deed, he was put in physical possession of the suit schedule property. Ever since then, he is in actual and exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He let out the house portion on monthly rent and regularly collecting the rents from the tenants. The name of the plaintiff is mutated in the
Municipal records and the ownership of the house is changed in the electricity board. The plaintiff has sold away his patta land in Sys.No.910, 911 and 943 admeasuring total extent of Ac.0-30 guntas situated at Ameenpur village,
Patancheru Mandal, Medak District in the year 2007 for a total sale consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/- and with that amount, he wanted to purchase a permanent asset and accordingly, he purchased the suit schedule property for a total consideration of Rs. 46,00,000/-, but the sale deed was registered as per the registered market value for Rs. 21,00,000/- vide document bearing No.7013 3 of 2008 dated 19.5.2008.
The defendant No.1 is distant relative of the plaintiff , working as police constable in Armed Reserve police at Sangareddy. After purchase of the said house, defendant No.1 took one portion for rent from the plaintiff on a monthly rent of Rs. 4,000/- about two years back and started living in the said house along with his wife and children by paying monthly rent regularly to the plaintiff. The defendant No.1 is also collecting monthly rents from other tenants of the plaintiff every month and pay to the plaintiff and thus, he made the plaintiff to believe that he is sincere towards the plaintiff. During the year 2010, the plaintiff has started construction of a new house at Gundlamachnoor village and therefore he required money for completion of the house and decided to avail bank loan by creating mortgage of the title deeds of the suit schedule property from the bank. As he is an illiterate, he does not know any person who help him in getting the loan from bank except defendant No.1. Accordingly, in the month of September, 2011, the plaintiff has approached the defendant No.1 for assistance and he assured to help the plaintiff and took the plaintiff to the bank situated opposite to the District Court building at Sangareddy twice and on his return, the defendant No.1 with dishonest intention made the plaintiff to believe that the bank authorities are refusing to sanction loan to the plaintiff as he is un-emplolyee and he advanced Rs. 3,00,000/- to the plaintiff on one occasion in the second week of November, 2011 and one month thereafter, he again paid Rs. 2,00,000/- and thus in total he paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. On the date of payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the defendant took the plaintiff to
Registration Office, Sangareddy representing that some documents have to be executed in favour of the bank for creation of mortgage of the house of the plaintiff.
4
At the Registration Office, the defendant No.1 has introduced two persons, who were new to the plaintiff stating that they are bank officials, brought some papers already prepared and by representing that they are bank mortgage papers, obtained the signatures of the plaintiff on the said papers and the plaintiff under the belief on defendant No.1, has put his signatures on the said papers without knowing their contents. On the same day, the plaintiff has handed over the original sale deed pertains to the suit house, to the defendant no.1 for depositing the same with the Bank. It is further contended that in order to clear the loan availed from the defendant No.1, the plaintiff has availed hand loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from one Golla Mallesham of Gundlamachnoor village and with that amount, the plaintiff has approached the defendant No.1 and requested him to clear the bank loan and for return of the original sale deeds, but the defendant No.1 with dishonest intention postponed the same on one reason or the other inspite of plaintiff approaching him several times. On 05.07.2012, the plaintiff came to know through his relatives that the defendant
NO.1 has disclosed them that he purchased the house of the plaintiff and on hearing that words, the plaintiff got shocked and immediately approached the
Registration Office, Sangareddy, obtained the documents pertaining to his house and came to know that on 12.12.2011 that is on the date of payment of
Rs. 2,00,000/- , the defendant No.1 having conspired with the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in collusion with them, had obtained registered sale deed of the suit house in his favour instead of mortgage deed in favour of the bank. The defendant nos. 2 and 3 knowing fully well that the defendant NO.1 has prepared the sale deed without the knowledge of the plaintiff, put their signatures as attesting witnesses for the registered document and the defendant No.1 has already realized the advance amount paid to the plaintiff by creating mortgage 5 of the suit schedule property in favour of the bank.
The defendant No.1 did not even pay single paise to the plaintiff as sale consideration except the hand loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- and the plaintiff has never offered to sell the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant No.1.
After obtaining the certified copies, the plaintiff along with his wife, sons, his brother and other relatives approached the defendant No.1 on 06.07.2012 , enquired as to why he has cheated him by obtaining false sale deed, then in the presence of other members, the defendant No.1 has admitted that he obtained the sale deed without knowledge of the plaintiff and without paying any amount to him towards sale consideration as shown in the alleged sale deed. He further disclosed that the bank authorities have refused to sanction the loan on the name of the plaintiff and since the defendant NO.1 is a government employee, if the documents are in his favour, they will sanction the loan and for that reason, he prepared the sale deed in his favour and he already realized the loan amount by mortgaging the suit schedule property from the bank. When the elders and relatives have advised the defendant No.1 to cancel the alleged sale deed by releasing the house from the charge of mortgage, the defendant No.1 did not cancel the said registered sale deed. Again on 12.07.2012, the plaintiff along with his family members approached the defendant No.1 and requested him to cancel the sale deed by receiving the loan amount, the defendant No.1 with a dishonest intention and evil eye over the suit schedule property, has bluntly refused stating that he had blank signatures of all the family members of the plaintiff on blank papers and also created one forged cash receipt so saying the defendant No.1 openly proclaimed that he never executed the cancellation deed. Therefore, immediately on the same day that is on 12.07.2012, the 6 plaintiff has lodged a written complaint to police Sangareddy Town, but instead of registering a case, they summoned the defendant No.1 to the police station, enquired him before the police, wherein he clearly admitted that he will execute the cancellation deed and on his assurance, the police did not take any action against the defendant No.1, but he failed to keep up his promise and the plaintiff has again approached the police, but they, under the influence of defendant
NO.1 being the employee of same department, did not register any case. Then, he lodged a complaint with higher authorities of the defendant No.1 on 16.07.2012, the SDPO of AR Head quarters, Sangareddy has forwarded the complaint to police Sangareddy Town for taking necessary action. Upon which, the Sangareddy police have registered a case in Cr.No.235 of 2012 against the defendant No.1 for the offence under sections 420, 506 IPC and apprehended him and remanded to judicial custody after enquiry. The defendant No.1 has admitted his guilt that he promised to execute the cancellation deed but with dishonest intention, he is creating hurdles to the plaintiff in enjoying the suit schedule property. Since from the date of taking the portion on rent from the plaintiff, he acted cunningly towards the plaintiff and induced him to deliver the valuable property under the false representation and created the alleged sale deed by conspiring with the defendants 2 and 3 and used the said forged documents as genuine and cheated the plaintiff and bank authorities by taking advantage of the alleged sale deed, filed a suit for perpetual injunction in
O.S.No.167 of 2012 on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy by
misrepresenting the truth and correct facts and obtained exparte temporary injunction.
It is further contended that even after the alleged sale deed to cheat the plaintiff he is paying monthly rents to the plaintiff regularly and even paid the 7 rent for the month of July, 2012 and under the guise of false and fabricated sale deed, got mutated his name in municipal records and the Municipal authorities without conducting any enquiry, on the very next day of filing application, issued proceedings without following the mandatory provisions of law. The alleged sale deed is sham and nominal document and not supported by any valid sale consideration, delivery of possession and the same is not acted upon and the defendant cannot get any valid right or title over the suit schedule property. The value of the suit house is more than Rs. 60,00,000/-. Since the plaintiff is initiating legal proceedings and filed criminal complaint, the defendant No.1 bore grudge and taking undue advantage of the alleged sale deed and mutation proceedings and sanction of mortgage loan, seriously trying to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of third parties and defendant No.1 and his family members are threatening the tenants demanding them to pay monthly rents to defendant NO.1 or else to vacate the suit house. On 05.08.2012, the plaintiff went to the suit property for collecting the rents from his tenants , at that time, the wife and brother-in-law of the defendant No.1 tried to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment saying that the plaintiff is no manner of right or title over the suit schedule property, by denying the title of the plaintiff for the first time. The defendant No.1 is working in police department,having muscle power and the defendants made up their minds to grab the valuable property of the plaintiff at any cost and with that intention they have created all false and fabricated documents. The plaintiff is innocent, illiterate person and not in a position to protect his valuable property from the evil designs of the defendants and therefore, this suit for declaration and cancellation of sale deed and perpetual injunction is filed.
8
3.On service of summons, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have remained exparte.
4.The defendant No.1 has filed written statement denying all the plaint averments and further stated that the plaintiff was the owner of the house bearing No. 5-1-32/3/D described in the suit schedule and he admits that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property by registered sale deed vide document No.7013 of 2008 and was in possession of the same by letting out the house portions. But,he denied the allegations in Para No.3 and he denied the allegations that he sold the property in Ameenpur for a consideration of Rs.
90,00,000/- and purchased the suit schedule property for Rs. 46,00,000/-, but in fact, this defendant has purchased the suit schedule property for Rs.
21,00,000/-. While admitting that the plaintiff is a distant relative of this defendant and the defendant is working as police constable in Armed Reserve police at Sangareddy and took one portion of the suit schedule property on rent from the plaintiff about three months prior to execution of sale deed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant he denied that he took the portion about two years back on rent and he also denied regarding collection of rents from the tenants and paying the same to the plaintiff. He also denied the contents of
Para Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 to 14 of the plaint and further stated that there is no cause of action arose on 05.08.2012 and that this defendant is in possession of the suit schedule property ever since the date of execution of sale deed by the plaintiff in his favour. The plaintiff is liable to pay the Court fee for recovery of possession and this suit is liable to be rejected for non payment of Court fee for recovery of possession. It is further contended by the defendant No.1 that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property consisting three floors, admeasuring 150Sq. Yards in Sy.No. 243/A of Shanthinagar, Old 9
Kalvakunta, Sangareddy. He further stated that he purchased the suit schedule property by way of registered sale deed vide document NO. 12281 of 2011
dated 12.12.2011, registered at Sub Registrar Officer, Sangareddy from the
plaintiff and the plaintiff has delivered the original title deed, document bearing
No. 7031/2008 and also possession of suit schedule property to this defendant on the same day and from the date of purchase, the defendant No.1 is in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he applied for mutation to the Municipal authorities and the Municipal
Commissioner, Sangareddy has also mutated the suit schedule property in the name of this defendant and issued mutation certificate and he obtained loan from State Bank of Hyderabad branch Sangareddy by mortgaging the suit schedule property and depositing the original sale deed.
It is further contended that on 14.07.2012 the plaintiff came to the suit schedule property with his henchmen and demanded to cancel the registered sale deed No. 12281 of 2011 executed by him in favour of this defendant saying that he is getting offers to buy the suit property at higher prices, but the defendant has refused to cancel the sale deed. Though the plaintiff and his henchmen have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession of the defendant, he resisted his illegal acts and he left that place along with his henchmen pronouncing that he will dispossess the defendant and therefore, this defendant filed O.S.No.167 of 2012 on the file of Junior Civil Judge at
Sangareddy against the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no right over the suit schedule property as he already sold the same to this defendant, who purchased it legally by way of registered sale deed in December, 2011. The plaintiff has no manner of right, interest or title in order to interfere with this defendant’s possession.
10
It is further contended that the plaintiff has approached the caste elders and the caste elders have pressurized this defendant to settle the matter out of the Court, otherwise this defendant will be out casted and under the fear of out caste, this defendant has approached before the caste panchayath on 3.11.2012 at Hyderabad and before the caste elders, the plaintiff has agreed that he sold the suit house in favour of this defendant for Rs.
20,00,000/- and his family members are pressurizing for cancellation of sale deed. The caste elders have advised and reduced their advise into writing to return the sale consideration to the defendant and to execute the cancellation deed. The plaintiff has executed a document that he sold the suit house for Rs.
20,00,000/- and the same is in possession of the defendant and he will return the sale consideration. The caste elders have obtained document from this defendant to the effect that on receipt of sale consideration from the plaintiff, the defendant should execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. This defendant under the pressure of caste elders and under the fear of outcasting him and coercion, has signed on the papers without application of the mind and the caste elders did not give time to think over and discuss with his family members and they obtained the signatures of this defendant in a hurried manner under the influence of the plaintiff and the so called documents are not binding on the plaintiff and therefore, he prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs, in the interest of justice.
5.Basing on the above pleadings, my learned predecessor has settled the following issues for trial :
1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property that is house bearing Municipal door No.5-1-32/3/D situated at Shanthinagar, Old Kalvakunta, under the limits of Sangareddy Town, 11
Medak District?
2. Whether the defendant NO.1 got executed the registered sale deed vide document NO.12281/2011 dated 12.12.2011 by playing fraud on the plaintiff as alleged?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pass a decree for cancellation of registered sale deed document NO.12281/2011, dated 12.12.2011 as null and void?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 restraining them, their men, servants and agents from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and from alienating, creating further charge or changing the nature of the suit schedule property?
5. To what relief?
6.On behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff got examined himself as
P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws. 2 and 3 and marked Exs. A.1 to A.21. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 got examined himself as D.W.1 and the defendant No.2 as D.W.3 and another witness namely Pandari as D.W.2 and got marked Exs. B.1 to B.10 in support of defendants case.
7.ISSUE NO.1:
This issue relates to whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.
The contention of the plaintiff is that he is the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property which he purchased from one Smt.
Balamani for a valid sale consideration by virtue of a registered sale deed vide document No.7013/2008 dated 19.05.2008 from its original owner Smt.
Balamani and on the date of sale deed itself the plaintiff was put in peaceful possession of the suit schedule property and ever since then the plaintiff has been in the exclusive enjoyment of the suit schedule property and let out the house portions for monthly rents and regularly collecting the rents from the 12 tenants and the name of the plaintiff was mutated in the Municipal records and ownership of the house is changed in the Electricity Board.
8.To substantiate this issue, the plaintiff while he got examined himself as P.W.1 marked Ex.A.1 which is the certified copy of sale deed vide document No. 7013 of 2008 dated 19.05.2008. The plaintiff in his chief examination also has reiterated the same. As seen from Ex.A.1, the certified copy of sale deed, it is the registered sale deed executed by the vendor of the plaintiff namely Smt. K. Balamani in favour of the plaintiff on 19.05.2008 for a valid sale consideration of Rs. 21,20,000/- and within the boundaries mentioned in the schedule of the sale deed which is a RCC roofed house bearing No.5-1- 32/3/D on open plot bearing No. 12 in Sy.No. 243/A admeasuring 150 Sq. yards or 124 Sq. meters, consisting of constructed house at Shanthinagar, Old
Kalvakunta, Sangareddy Town which also clearly shows the source of title of the said Balamani that she purchased the same vide document No. 3959/2005
dated 07.04.2005 of Registrar Office, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak District. The
description of the property in the suit schedule and the boundaries as mentioned in Ex.A.1 sale deed along with sketch map and parties to the sale deed exactly tallied with the suit schedule property which the plaintiff claims to be the absolute owner. There is no controversy regarding the purchase of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 during the cross examination of P.w.1 also. Therefore, Ex.A.1 and the evidence of P.W.1 clearly establishes that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which he has purchased under Ex.A.1 and as per Ex.A.1, there is no doubt that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Therefore, this issue is answered accordingly in favour of the plaintiff.
13
9.ISSUE NOS. 2 AND 3:
These two issues are inter related and therefore they are discussed together for the sake of convenience.
Issue No.2 relates to whether the defendant No.1 got executed the registered sale deed vide document No. 12281 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011 by playing fraud on the plaintiff and issue No.3 relates to whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of cancellation of the registered sale deed No.12281 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011 as null and void.
The main contention of the plaintiff and the stand is that the defendant No.1 by playing fraud upon the plaintiff when he approached the defendant No.1 for loan amount for construction of a new house in
Gundlamachnoor village and when he was in need of money for completion of the said house,he has decided to take bank loan by creating mortgage of the title deeds of the suit schedule property, as he is illiterate, he sought help of defendant NO.1 by approaching him for assistance, upon that the defendant
No.1 has assured to help him and took him to a bank situated opposite to
District Court complex, Sangareddy twice and with a dishonest intention made the plaintiff to believe that the bank authorities are refusing to sanction the loan to him as the plaintiff is an unemployee and therefore, the defendant No.1 has advanced an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- on one occasion in the second week of
November, 2011 and one month thereafter, he again paid Rs. 2,00,000/- and thus paid total of Rs. 5,00,000/- and on the date of payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-, the defendant No.1 took him to the Registrar Office, Sangareddy by representing that some documents have to be executed in favour of the Bank for creation of mortgage of the house and introduced two persons stating that they are the bank officials, brought some papers already prepared representing 14 that they are bank mortgage papers, obtained his signatures on the said papers and by believing the defendant No1., the plaintiff has put his signature on the above said two papers without knowing the contents and on the same day, he has handed over the original sale deed pertains to the suit house to defendant
No.1 for depositing the same with the bank. Thereafter, when he availed hand loan of Rs. 6,00,000/- from one Golla Mallesham of Gundlamachnoor village and brought the defendant No.1 to clear the bank loan and return back the original sale deeds, the defendant NO.1 with a dishonest intention postponed the same on one reason or the other and the plaintiff has approached the defendant NO.1 several times and on 05.07.2012, he came to know through his relatives that the defendant No.1 has disclosed them that he has purchased the suit house from the plaintiff and on knowing the same, when he approached the
Registrar Office at Sangareddy and obtained the documents pertaining to his house, he came to know that on 12.12.2011 that is on the date of payment of
Rs. 2,00,000/-, the defendant NO.1 conspired with defendant Nos. 2 and 3 and in collusion with them, has obtained the registered sale deed of the suit house in his favour instead of mortgage deed in favour of the bank and defendant Nos.
2 and 3 knowing fully well that the defendant NO.1 has prepared the sale deed without the knowledge of the plaintiff, put their signatures as attesting witnesses on the said document and the defendant NO.1 has already realized his amount advanced to the plaintiff by creating mortgage of the suit schedule property in favour of the bank, which itself clearly shows the dishonest intention of the defendant NO.1 in cheating the plaintiff by playing fraud upon him and as the plaintiff being an illiterate person, could not realize that he signed on registered sale deed and therefore, he along with his wife, sons, brother and relatives approached the defendant No.1 on 06.07.2012 and enquired about the false 15 sale deed obtained by cheating in the presence of family members, he admitted about obtaining the sale deed without his knowledge and without paying any consideration to the plaintiff as shown in the sale deed. Then the matter is placed before the elders and relatives and they advised the defendant nO.1 to cancel the alleged sale deed by releasing the house from the charge of mortgage, but the defendant NO.1 did not cancel the alleged sale deed and again on 13.07.2012, when the plaintiff approached him along with his family members and requested defendant NO.1 to cancel the said sale deed, he developed dishonest intention and with an evil eye, bluntly refused stating that he has already obtained the signatures of the plaintiff and his family members on the blank papers and also created one forged cash receipt and openly proclaimed that he will never execute cancellation deed and therefore, the plaintiff has lodged a written complaint before the police, Sangareddy Town on 13.07.2012, but the police instead of registering the case, summoned the defendant No.1, enquired him where upon the defendant NO.1 had admitted that he will execute the cancellation deed and gave assurance in the presence of police and therefore, the police did not take any action. Later, as the defendant NO.1 has failed to keep up his promise, he again approached the police, but at the influence of defendant NO.1 being the employee of the same department, they did not register any case. Then he lodged a complaint with higher authorities of defendant NO.1 on 16.07.2012 and the SDPO of AR Head
Quarters forwarded the same to police Sangareddy Town for necessary action, upon which Crime No. 235 of 2012 was registered against defendant No.1 for the offence under sections 420 and 506 IPC and the police have also apprehended D.1 and remanded him to judicial custody after enquiry. The defendant NO.1 has admitted his guilt and promised to execute the 16 cancellation deed but with dishonest intention without executing the cancellation deed, he is creating hurls in enjoying the suit schedule property taking advantage of the alleged sale deed and he also filed a suit in O.S.No.167 of 2012 for perpetual injunction on the file of Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Sangareddy by misrepresenting the true and actual facts and obtained exparte injunction and even after the alleged sale deed, which was obtained by playing fraud, the defendant No.1 has paid monthly rents till July, 2012 under the guise of fabricated sale deed and he got mutated his name in Municipal records and the
Municipal authorities without conducting any enquiry on the very next day of filing of application, issued Proceedings without following the mandatory provisions of law and therefore, the alleged sale deed is a sham and fabricated document. The suit house values more than Rs. 60,00,000/-. As the plaintiff has lodged a criminal complaint, he bore grudge and tried to alienate the suit schedule property, upon which, he filed this suit.
10.The plaintiff as P.W.1 while narrating all the above facts, has marked the alleged sale deed as Ex.A.2, which is the certified copy of sale deed vide document NO. 12281/2011 dated 12.12.2011 and Ex.A.3 certified copy of mortgage deed vide document NO.8762/2012 and Ex.A.4 certified copy of F.I.R in Cr.NO.235 of 2012 of P.S. Sangareddy Town and Ex.A.5 certified copy of
Encumbrance Certificate issued by the Sub Registrar Office, Sangareddy,
Ex.A.6 copy of notice dated 18.07.2012 issued by the defendant NO.1, which is the exparte ad-interim injunction order in O.S.No.167 of 2012. The above evidence of P.W.1 categorically shows that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property which he purchased under a registered sale deed from one
Smt. K. Balamani in the year 2008.But the issue is whether he has sold away 17 the suit schedule property in favour of defendant NO.1 under a valid sale transaction and for a valid sale consideration. The contention of the plaintiff is that in fact he approached the defendant No.1 for a loan and the defendant
No.1 has himself led them by taking into bank and obtaining signatures in the bank under the guise of mortgaging the said property and obtained his signatures on the sale deed and also obtained the original title deeds of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property for the purpose of mortgaging to the bank, but later it came to his knowledge that the document on which the defendant No.1 has obtained his signature is not the mortgage deed but it is a sale deed pertaining to the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant
NO.1 and therefore, he prays to cancel the sale deed as the same is obtained by defendant NO.1 by playing fraud upon him.
11.On the contrary, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant NO.1 is that the defendant NO.1 has never cheated nor played fraud upon the plaintiff nor obtained any sale deed without the knowledge of the plaintiff and the cross examination of the plaintiff as P.W.1, clearly shows that the plaintiff is well versed in the transaction relating to the execution of the registered sale deed and also financial transactions in respect of the immoveable properties as he admitted that he himself has negotiated the sale with one Raju in respect of his ancestral property and other properties, he purchased and executed the registered sale deed in the Registrar Office,
Sangareddy for a sale consideration of Rs. 90,00,000/- by himself preparing the said sale deed at Registrar Office, Sangareddy and therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that he has no knowledge about the sale deed and the same was obtained by playing fraud upon him and cheating him, is false and nothing but blatant lie and he himself sold the suit schedule property to the defendant No.1 18 for a valid sale consideration of Rs. 21,00,000/- and also issued a receipt under
Ex.B.1 and as such the contention of the plaintiff that he has no knowledge about the registered sale deed by which he sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant NO.1, is false and he categorically admitted during the cross examination that Ex.B.1 document which contains his signature, thumb impression which is a notarized receipt issued by the plaintiff in the presence of two witnesses and also executed Ex.B.2 declaration affidavit along with his wife and two sons and therefore, he cannot claim that he has no knowledge about the execution of sale deed and also issuance of Exs. B.1 and B.2 in favour of the defendant No.1 and his contention that Ex.A.1 is obtained by playing fraud upon him under the guise of mortgage deed is false and therefore, the defendant NO.1 has purchased the suit property for a valid sale consideration and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief sought and the suit is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted the following rulings:
1. CRP No. 4587/2013 dated 03.01.2017 between Bagyalakshmi and others (petitioners) Vs. Kanagaraj and others ( respondents), wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Madras held as follows:
“That his presence should be necessary to enable the Court to
effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions
involved in the suit, Impleadment of third party cannot be allowed to
change the character or the nature of the suit filed for specific
performance of an agreement for sale. When the plaintiff in the suit for
specific performance of the agreement for sale is the ‘ dominos litus’ he
cannot be forced to add parties, against whom he does not seek any
relief, unless it is a compulsion of the rule of law.
19
Therefore, in all the above consideration of the records and
judgments produced by either parties, I am of the firm opinion that in a
suit for specific performance, the validity of the sale agreement alone is to
be decided. A party to the agreement, against whom no claim is made, is
not entitled to be impleaded.
Apart from this, in a suit for specific performance of a contract for
sale the lis between the purchaser and the vendor shall only be gone into
and it is also not open to the court to decide whether the third party have
acquired any title and possession of the contracted property as that
would note be germane for decision in the suit for specific performance of
the contract for sale. Therefore, all the above judgments cited supra were
made clear that a third party or a stranger to a contract cannot be added
as a party to a suit for specific performance. The scope of a suit for
specific performance could not be enlarged to convert the same into a
suit for title and possession. A third party or a stranger to the contract
could not be added so as to convert a suit of one character into suit for a
different character. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity or
illegality in the order in I.A.NO.381 of 2013 in O.S.No. 760 of 2009
warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, this civil revision
petition is liable to be dismissed.
2.Civil Appeal Nos. 6656-6657 of 2010 between Meghmala
and others Appellants Vs. Narasimha Reddy and others Respondents,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:
The Special Court after appreciating the evidence, vide
Judgment and order dated 4.11.1997 came to the conclusion that the
appellant/applicant was the owner of the suit land and that the
20
respondents had no right, title or claim over the suit land. They had
forcibly occupied the land and they were land grabbers, thus, they were
liable to be evicted and orders for that purpose were passed.
The respondents, being aggrieved by both the orders, filed
Writ Petition Nos. 19962 and 19963 of 2006, which have been allowed by
the High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated 26.04.2007
directing the Special Court to decide both the applications afresh on
merit, as in the opinion of the High Court, the applications required
certain inquiry on factual matters and the claim of the respondents could
not have been rejected merely on the determinations and attaining finality
of orders in earlier proceedings. Hence, these appeal.
3. Civil Appeal No. 1723 of 2008 between Smnt. Badami ( deceased) by her L.Rs. Appellants Vs. Bhali respondents wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
“ The singular question that arises for consideration in this
appeal by way of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of
INdia is whether the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1973 passed by the
learned Sub Judge, Kaithal in Civil Suit NO.1422 of 1973 is to be declared
as a nullity being vitiated by fraud and manifest illegality being wrist
large and thereby the claim of right, title and interest and possession
based on the said judgment and decree by the respondent-plaintiff in the
subsequent suits, namely, Civil Suit No.401 of 1984 and Civil Suit No.784
of 1984 which have been decreed and got affirmance by a composite
order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra in Civil Appeal
NO.19/13 of 1987 and Civil Appeal No.18/13 of 1986 and further gained
concurrence by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in R.S.A Nos. 2001 of 1988 and 2002 of 1988, it is
bound to collapse and founder.
In the said case, it was clearly stated that the Courts of law are
meant for imparting justice between the parties and one who comes to the
Court, must come with clean hands. A person whose case is based on
falsehood has no right to approach the Court. A litigant who approaches
the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which
21
are relevant to the litigation. If a vital document is withheld in order to
gain advantage on the other side he would be guilty of playhing fraud on
court as well as on the opposite party.
In Laxaurs Estate Ltd., V. Beasley (19)Lord Denning observed
at pages 712 and 713,No. Judgment of a Court, noo rder of a Minister can
be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels
everything. In the same judgment Lord Parker LJ observed that fraud
vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of
solemnity.
Yet in another decision Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala and
another (20) it has been held that no court will allow itself to be used as an
instrument of fraud and no cruelty, by way of rule of evidence and
procedure, can allow its eyes to be closed to the fact it is being used as
an instrument of fraud. The basis principle is that a party who secures
the judgment by taking recourse to fraud should not be enable to enjoy
the fruits thereof.
4. Civil Appeal No.3535 of 2006 dt: 18.08.2006 between Hamza
Haji Petitioner Vs. State of Kerala and another wherein the Hon’ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
“ Where fraud is involved, it has been held, in some cases,
that a remedy at law by appeal, error, or certiorari does not preclude relief
in equity from the judgment. Nor, it has been said, is there any reason why
a judgment obtained by fraud cannot be the subject of a direct attack by
an action in equity even though the judgment has been satisfied.” “The position was reiterated by the same High Court in
Esmile-Ud-Din Biswas and another Vs. Shajoran Nessa Bewa and others
(132 INDIAN CASES 897) it was held that it must be shown that fraud was
practiced in relation to the proceedings in the Court and the decree must
be shown to have been procured by practicing fraud of some sort upon
the Court”.
22 “It is the settled proposition of law that a judgment or decree
obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and non est in the eye
of law. Such a judgment/decree by the first court or by the highest court
has to be treated as nullity by every court, whether superior or inferior. It
can be challenged in any court even in collateral proceedings”.
“ Fraud in deed, in the sense of a Court of Equity, properly
includes all acts, omissions and concealments which involves a breach of
legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence, justly reposed, and are
injurious to another, or by which an undue and unconscientious
advantage is taken of another”.
“ Fraud must be actual positive fraud, a meditated and
international contrivance to keep the parties and the Court in ignorance of
the real facts of the case, and obtaining that decree by that contrivance”.
“This Court in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others (2005 (7) SCC 605) held that “ Suppression of a
material document would also amount to a fraud on the Court”.
5. First Appeal No.209 of 2008 with First Appeal No.215 of 2008
dt: 27.05.2007 between Raju Khalkho and others Vs. Sukra Munda and
others , wherein the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court held as follows:
“ Fraud is a generic term which embraces all the multifarious
means which human ingenuity can devise and are resorted to by one
individual to gain an advantage over another by false suggestions or by
suppression of the truth. Fraud can be an affirmative cause of action or an
affirmative defense. The basis of fraud is depriving someone of his lawful
right, interest, or properly by fraudulent means. In the legal sense, fraud is
defined as an international perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing
another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to
him or to surrender a legal right”.
23
12.Therefore, he prays that in view of the above rulings and also admissions of the plaintiff, it is clear that Ex.A.1 is a registered sale deed executed by the plaintiff well within his knowledge and he cannot claim that the same is obtained by cheating and playing fraud and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
13.While the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff has executed the registered sale deed with full knowledge under the valid sale consideration and sold away the suit property in favour of the defendant NO.1 is as above, it is crucial to note regarding the admissions of
D.W.1 during his cross examination and also the recitals of Ex.A.1 sale deed under which the plaintiff allegedly sold the suit schedule property in favour of the defendant NO.1 and also the genuineness and validity of the receipts under
Exs. B.1 and B.2 and also the documents under Exs. A.11 to A .17 in the form of memorandum of understanding in the presence of village elders. Now, coming to the admissions of D.W.1 during his cross exclamation and suggestions made to P.W.1 during the cross examination are concerned, it is suggested to P.W.1 during the cross examination that he received Rs.
21,57,500/- from D.1 on the date of putting his signature on Ex.B.1, which he categorically denied. Further, while admitting during his cross examination that his wife and two sons have also signed on the declaration affidavit after his signature under ExB.2, P.W.1 has further stated that the signatures of his wife and sons are obtained as they also have to know about the receipt of cash of
Rs.3,00,000/- and he denied the suggestion that they have signed on Ex.B.2 as they have knowledge of receipt of Rs. 21,57,500/- cash and also acknowledging the registration of Ex.A.2. These admissions of P.W.1 and answers elicited during his cross examination that the signatures of his wife and sons are 24 obtained as they also have to know about the receipt of cash of Rs. 3,00,000/-, clearly shows that the signatures of plaintiff, his wife and sons were obtained in relation to the receipt of cash of Rs. 3,00,000/- but not in relation to their knowledge for receipt of Rs. 21,57,500/- cash and also acknowledging the receipt of Ex.A.2, which clearly shows that the alleged declaration and affidavit under Ex.B.2 does not pertain to the cash transaction of Rs. 21,57,500/- by the plaintiff from the defendant NO.1, but it pertains to the cash receipt of Rs.
3,00,000/- which clearly indicates the innocence and illiteracy of plaintiff in respect of transactions and also clearly establishes that himself and his wife and sons have signed in relation to cash receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- ( probably towards the alleged mortgage deed towards loan) but not towards the sale consideration for the sale of suit schedule property for Rs.21,57,500/0 as alleged by the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and also as contended by the defendant NO.1.
14. It is further admitted by the plaintiff during his cross examination that even after execution of Ex.A.2, D.1 is collecting rents from the tenants and even till July, 2012, he was collecting rents for the plaintiff as contended in his chief affidavit. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff is no way concerned with the suit schedule property after execution of Ex.A.2, cannot be accepted.
15.Now, it is also pertinent to read Ex.A.1 sale deed under which the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from one Balamani. Ex.A.1 shows that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from one Balamani on 19.05.2008 for a valid sale consideration of Rs. 21,20,000/- whereas Ex.A.2 alleged sale deed shows that the vendee has already paid total sale consideration of Rs.
25 21,57,500/- by way of cash to the vendor before execution of this sale deed, which is acknowledged by the vendor. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property under Ex.A.1 for a consideration of
Rs. 21,20,000/- in the year 2008 and if he is really selling the said property in the year 2011 after a gap of three years, definitely there will be some hike in the value of the property, but it will not be and cannot be sold in a margin of Rs.
37,500/- by a person, who purchased the same property and who sold the same subsequently. It is common sense that a person who purchases the property for a value of Rs. 21,20,000/- would sell the same at lease for a considerable profit but not for a marginal profit of Rs. 37,500/-. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff has sold the property purchased by him in the year 2008 for Rs. 21,20,000/- in favour of the plaintiff for Rs. 21,57,500/- after a gap of three years appears to be ridiculous.
Further, as seen from the recitals of Ex.A.2 it reads that “the vendor has delivered the vacant and peaceful possession of the schedule property and hereby conveyed to the vendee and further declares that henceforth it will be lawful for the vendee to occupy and enjoy the schedule property as his absolute property”, which clearly indicates that there is no date on which the alleged possession of the suit schedule property is delivered to the defendant No.1.
Further, as seen from Ex.A.1, the sale consideration of Rs. 21,57,500/- was allegedly paid by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff by way of cash for which there is no recital in the sale deed regarding the source of income or mode of paying cash to the plaintiff by the defendant No.1 and it is ridiculous to contend that he paid such a huge amount to the plaintiff without entering into any agreement of sale prior to the purchase and obtaining any receipt for the same prior to the execution of registered sale deed. Ex.A.2 sale deed is silent 26 regarding the date of payment and also the date whether any agreement of sale was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 and also regarding the date on which the cash was paid and the date on which the alleged cash receipt under Ex.B.1 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant NO.1.
16.Now, coming to the admissions made by D.W.1 during his cross examination, he categorically admitted that he has not mentioned in his chief affidavit or written statement that his father has agricultural land and they get income from the lands and that the plaintiff has informed the same that the house is in his name and he has not seen the document to know in whose name the construction permission stands, the plaintiff has informed that initially the plot was in the name of Venkata Subbaiah and from the name of Venkata
Subbaiah, it was changed to Balamani and from Balamani, he got and from him, defendant No.1 got it and he has not filed the house documents in the
Court, which clearly shows the intention of the defendant No.1 in gathering the information from the plaintiff regarding the house details which clearly shows the dishonest intention developed by the defendant NO.1 by these admissions in his cross examination. Further, he also admitted that he did not obtain permission from his department prior to purchasing the house property from the plaintiff though he is a government employee and all the service rules are applicable to him and that he has not made any paper publication prior to purchase of the house calling for any objections and he has not taken any legal opinion prior to purchase of the house and at the time of purchase, the plaintiff has brought the original sale deed of the house and he has not obtained any certificate from the Municipal officials prior to purchase of the property to know in whose name the house is registered and that he did not mention in the 27 written statement and also in his chief affidavit the source of amount from purchasing the suit house. These admissions of D.W.1 clearly show that he is a government employee, he allegedly purchased the suit property under Ex.A.2 without obtaining permission from his department and without even making any paper publication prior to purchase of the house calling for any objections and without even taking any legal opinion which clearly shows the hasty nature of defendant NO.1 in getting Ex.A.2 sale deed executed in his favour and it clearly indicates the dishonest intention and cheating nature of defendant No.1 and it appears that he did all these things hastily by creating the sale deed under the guise of creating mortgage deed for the purpose of obtaining loan from the bank, to the plaintiff giving him an impression that the original documents of the plaintiff are kept in bank for the purpose of mortgage loan. Further, the admissions of D.W.1 that he did not mention regarding the source of income for purchasing the house property and also not showing the purchase of house in income tax returns and also not filing the income tax returns though he contends that he has shown the amount of Rs. 21,57,500/- paid to the plaintiff in his income tax returns, clearly show that he has not paid the such consideration to the plaintiff. Further, though he contends that he sold his landed property in the village for the purpose of suit property, he clearly admitted that he did not file any proof for the said sale transaction under which he sold the land and got
Rs. 21,57,500/- in order to pay the same towards sale consideration to the plaintiff. He further admitted that the plaintiff has given a complaint to AR
Superintendent of police against the defendant that he has falsely registered his house in his name by cheating him and a case is registered in Sangareddy ( T) police in Cr.No.235 of 2012 and that the police have also enquired the tenants of the plaintiff namely Wife of Jangaiah, Pushpamma and Narasimha Reddy 28 and recorded their statements and after registration of crime No.235 of 2012, he was suspended from service and a departmental enquiry was conducted and the police have also examined the Field Officer of the bank in relation to that case and the police have also filed charge sheet against him in Cr.No.235 of 2012 and Ex.A.19 is the certified copy of charge sheet along with statements,
F.I.R and remand Case Diary in Cr.No.235 of 2012 and further stated that he does not know whether Vijay Kumar/Defendant No.2 herein was examined as a witness by the police in that case. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that these admissions of D.W.1 during the cross examination clearly show registration of crime against defendant NO.1 in regard to cheating committed by him and also fraud played by him on the plaintiff and also regarding examination of defendant NO.2 Vijay Kumar as a witness in that case.
17.As seen from Ex.A.19 which is the certified copy of charge sheet along with statements of the witnesses, it clearly shows that the said Vijay
Kumar was also examined as a witness by the police and he gave a statement against the accused/defendant No.1 that he was taken to the bank by the defendant No.1 along with another person namely Balraj and signed as a witness for the purpose of mortgage and from the State Bank of Hyderabad,
Sangareddy branch, Field Officer also went to the house of the plaintiff and later, Rs. 3,00,000/- at one time and Rs 2,00,000/- at one time were paid to the plaintiff in his presence and thereafter, he came to know that D.1 has got the suit property registered by making him to believe that he is taking him for the purpose of mortgage and obtained his signatures, which clearly shows that the defendant No.1 has not only cheated the plaintiff under the guise of mortgage by taking him to the bank and has also obtained a registered sale deed without 29 his knowledge as if he purchased the suit property from the plaintiff for a valuable sale consideration.
18.As discussed by me above, the sale consideration as mentioned in
Ex.A.1 and the sale consideration as mentioned in Ex.A.2 clearly shows the value as mentioned in both the documents is nothing but a difference of Rs.
37,500/- which is ridiculous and highly improbable to believe that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property for a sale consideration of Rs.
21,20,000/- and sold the same to the defendant No.1 for a sale consideration of
Rs. 21,57,500/-. Therefore, the admissions of D.W.1 during the cross examination clearly establish that the transaction under which the plaintiff was allegedly taken and made to sing is not a mortgage deed but only a registered sale deed which was allegedly got executed by the defendant No.1 by suppressing the same taking advantage of illiteracy and innocence of the plaintiff. Further, the memorandum of understanding and the notarized documents executed in the presence of elders, which are marked as Exs. A.11 to A.14 also clearly show that there is a counseling and mediation with respect to the suit property between the plaintiff and defendant NO.1 under which the defendant No.1 has agreed to execute a cancellation deed for Ex.A.2. D.W.1 during his cross examination has categorically admitted his signatures on Exs.
A.12 and A.13. As seen from Exs. A.12 and A.13, they are in the form of agreement of undertaking executed by the plaintiff as well as the defendant
NO.1 and the signatures on Ex.A.12 and Ex.A.13 are categorically admitted by
D.W.1 during his cross examination, but he contends that the signatures were obtained forcibly, but though he claims that his signatures were obtained forcibly on the said documents, he did not file any proof to show that he took steps for 30 the said act that he gave a police complaint or notice for obtaining his signatures on the said documents forcibly which clearly indicates that he is not speaking truth. He also admitted that Exs. A.14 and A.15 are the xerox copies of the same documents which are sent for impounding along with covering letter of this Court vide Dis. No.1025/2016 dated 12.09.2016 and Ex.A.16 is the covering letter. Exs. A.14 and A.15 are marked subject to objection raised by the learned counsel for the defendants. Though the said documents are marked subject to objection, it is pertinent to note that the defendant No.1 has admitted that Ex.A.16 is the covering letter of this Court under which the original documents of Exs. A.14 and A.15 are sent for impounding through this Court, since the said documents are misplaced in the revenue office and they are not returned by the impounding authorities, when xerox copies of the same which are in the Court record with covering letter are confronted to D.W.1, he admitted the same. Therefore, such objection as raised by the learned counsel for the defendants in this regard cannot be sustained.
19.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 has also submitted the rulings shown below;
1. 2014 0 Supreme ( AP) 428 between Kurella Venkata Satyavathi Vs.
Kanyamayini Devender Yadav, wherein it is held as follows:
“ An individual, however, high intellectual he may be,may not gain
the confidence of the other person within a short span of time. The
fiduciary relationship between two individuals always depends upon
relation by blood, by friendship and some times by operation of law such
as ward and guardian, trustee etc.
In a sale transaction of one of the parties to the document is in a
31
dominant position to other party, then the Court can suspect the
bonafides of the transaction. Taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is not a week person so as to act
as per the directions of the defendant. Even assuming that the plaintiff
has some family problems, she can capable of solving the problems by
taking the advice and help of her husband. Domestic problems are
common in a family lift. The problems of the plaintiff as mentioned in the
plaint by itself are not sufficient to blindly believe the words of the
defendant, who is a stranger to their family. The material placed before
this Court is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the defendant is
in a dominant position to gain unlawful advantage by influencing the
plaintiff at the time of execution of the sale deed. By any stretch of
imagination, it cannot be presumed that fiduciary relationship was existed
or subsisted between the plaintiff and the defendant as on22.11.2006.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, we have no hesitation
to hold that the facts of the case on hand will fall outside the purview of
Section 111 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The gist of the plaint is that the defendant obtained the sale
deed by playing fraud on her. A perusal of the plaint, at a glimpse, gives
an impression that the plaintiff is a defrauded party. Before adverting to
the findings of the trial Court on the plea of fraud, it is apposite to refer to certain precedents in order to resolve the lis involved in this case.
I. Bharat Dharma Syndicate Ltd Vs. Harish Chandra ( AIR 1937
PC 146) wherein the ratio laid down is that the person who alleges the
fraud has to give full particulars of allegations which he intended to
prove.
32
ii. A.L.N. Narayana Chettyar V.Official Assignee, High Court Rangoon ( AIR
1941 PC 93) wherein the principle enunciated is that fraud of any nature,
like any other charge of a criminal offence whether made in civil or
criminal proceedings, must be established beyond reasonable doubt”.
2. AIR 1976 SC 712 between Union of India, appellant Vs. M/s
Chaturbhai M. Patel and Co. Respondent, wherein it is held as follows:
“ It is well settled that fraud like any other charge of a criminal
offence whether made in civil o criminal proceedings, must be established
beyond reasonable doubt; per Lord Atkin in A.L.N. Narayan Chettyar Vs.
Official Assignee, High Court Rangoon, AIR 1941 PC 93. However
suspicious may be the circumstances, however strange the coincidences,
and however grave the doubts, suspicion alone can never take the place
of proof”.
3. 2004 (5) ALD 18 between Punuru Venkata Reddy appellant Vs.
Punuru Vijayalakshmi respondent, wherein it is held as follows:
“ D.W.1 also had taken a stand that the consideration recited in
Ex.A.1 is not the real consideration but something more was paid but for
the purpose of evading the stamp duty the sale deed was taken for lesser
amount. When the recitals of the document Ex.A.3 are clear and
categorical, this oral evidence cannot be given much weight, especially in
the light of the bar imposed by Section 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence
Act, 1872”.
4. 1968 0 Supreme (Raj) 111 between Narayan – Appellant Vs. The
Chamber of Commerce Ltd., Kishangarh – respondents, wherein it is held as follows:
“ In Gangamoyi Devi Vs.Troluckhya Nath Chowdhry (2). it was
observed by the Privy Council that registration is a solemn act to be
performed in the presence of a competent official appointed to act as
Registrar, whose duty it is to attend the parties and see that proper
persons are competent to act and are identified to his satisfaction and
things done in his presence will be presumed to have been done duly and
33
in order. Consequently, the admission of the executant before the
Registrar must be deemed to have been proved by the endorsement of the
Registrar in view of the Provisions of Secs. 59 and 60.
It must now be regarded as a settled law ever since the
decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Gopal Das Vs.Sri
Thakurji (Supra) that evidence of due registration is itself evidence of
execution against the parties”.
5. AIR 1999 SC 1823 BETWEEN Pavan Kumar Gupta- Appellant
Vs. Rochiram Nagdeo – Respondent, wherein it is held as follows:
“ The clear pleading of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit
property as per Ex.P.11- sale deed. Burden of proof cannot be cast on the
plai8ntiff to prove that the transaction was consistent with the apparent
tenor of the document. Ex.P.11- sale deed contains the recital that sale
consideration was paid by the plaintiff to Narain Prasad the transferor.
Why should there be a further burden of proof to substantiate that recitals
in the document are true? The party who wants to prove that the recitals
are untrue must bear the burden to prove it”.
6 2012 (3) ALD PAGE 327 between Lakkoji Mohana Rao Vs. Lakkoji
Viswanadham and others wherein it is held as follows:
“A)REGISTRATION ACT, 1908, Sections 17 and 49 -Stamp Act,
1899, Section 35:-A document purported to have been agreed upon as a
partition deed after the suit against the petitioner is allowed as the result
was held not to have satisfied and arrived as a compromise out of the
Court before the elder, it cannot be received in evidence as it is contrary
to Section 35 of the Act. The underlying principles examined.
Section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act is very clear and creates a clear
bar and therefore unstamped document is inadmissible in evidence for
any purpose. Admittedly, the alleged document i.e., partition deed is
chargeable with duty. In view of the settled legal position i.e., the bar
engrafted under section 35 of the Indian Stamp Act is an absolute bar and
therefore the document cannot be used for any purpose unlike the bar
contained in Section 49 of the Registration Act”.
34
7. AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT (SC) 1393 between Ram Rattan
( dead) by legal representatives, Appellants Vs. Bajrang Lal wherein it is
held as follows:
“RIGHT TO WORSHIP BY TURN IS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
GIFT OF WHICH CAN BE MADE BY REGISTERED INSTRUMENT –
Instrument not duly stamped admitted in evidence subject to objection –
effect -Right to worship an idol by turn – held to be immovable property –
as held in the case of Ram RattanVs. Bajrang Lal, AIR 1978 SC 1393,
when the document was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff while in
witness box, objection having been raised by the defendants that the
document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped and
for want of registration, it was obligatory on the learned trial judge to
apply his mind to the objection raised and to decide the objection in
accordance with law. Tendency sometimes is to postpone the decision to
avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence and, therefore, a
very convenient device is resorted to, or making the document in
evidence subject to objection. This, however would not mean that the
objection as to admissibility on the ground that the instrument is not duly
stamped is judicial decided; it is merely postponed. In such a situation at
a later stage before the suit is finally disposed of it would none the less be
obligatory upon the Court to decide the objection. If after applying mind to
the rival contentions the trial Court admits a document in evidence.
Section 36 of the Act would come into play and such admission cannot be
called in question at any stage of the same suit or proceeding on the
ground that the instrument had not been properly stamped. The Court,and
of necessity it would be trial Court before which the objection is taken
about admissibility of document on the ground that it is not duly
stamped, has not judicially determine the matter as soon as the
document is tendered in evidence and before it is marked as an exhibit in
the case and where a document has been inadvertently admitted without
the Court applying its mind as the question of admissibility, the
instrument could not be said to have been admitted in evidence with a
view to attracting Section 36, as also held in Javer Chand Vs. Pukhraj
35
Surana, AIR 1961 SC 1655. The endorsement made by the learned trial
judge that “ objected, allowed subject to objection”, clearly indicates that
when the objection was raised it was not judicially determined and the
document was merely tentatively marked and in such a situation this
Section would not be attracted.
When the document was tendered in evidence by the plaintiff
while in witness box,objection having been raised by the defendants that
the document was inadmissible in evidence as it was not duly stamped
and for want of registration, it was obligatory upon the learned trial judge
to apply his mind to the objection raised and to decide the objection in
accordance with law. Tendency sometimes is to postpone the decision to
avoid interruption in the process of recording evidence and, therefore, a
very convenient device is resorted to, of marking the document in
evidence subject to objection.
The endorsement made by the learned trial Judge that”
objected, allowed subject to objection”, clearly indicates that when the
objection was raised it was not judicially determined and the document
was merely tentatively marked and in such a situation S.36 would not be
attracted”.
8. 2017 0 AIR (SC) 1034 between Executive Officer, Arulmigu
Chokkanatha Swamy Koil Tgrust Virudhunagar – appellant Vs. Chandran
and others – Respondents, wherein it is held as follows:
“ In the present case, the plaintiff having been found not to be
in possession and having only sought for declaratory reliefs, the suit was
clearly not maintainable and has rightly been dismissed by the trial Court.
IN this context the reference is made to the judgment of this Court
reported in Ram Saran and Anr. Versus Smt. Ganga Devi AIR 72 SC 2685 ,
wherein Para 1 and 4 following was stated:
1. This is a plaintiffs’ appeal by special leave. Ram Saran and
Raghubir Saran, the plaintiffs are brothers. They jointly owned suit
property with Chhabili Kuer widow of Lalita Prasad. After the death of
Chhabili Kuer on February 8, 1971, Ganga Devi the defendant in the suit
came forward as the legal representative of Chhabili Kuer and got the
mutation effected in her name in the place of the deceased Chhabili Kuer.
IN 1958, the plaintiffs brought this suit for a declaration that they are the
36
sole owners of the suit properties. They did not claim possession either of
the entire or even any portion of the suit properties.
4. We are in agreement with the High Court that the suit is hit by
Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. As found by the fact finding Courts,
Ganga devi is in possession of some of the suit properties. The plaintiffs
have not sought possession of those properties. They merely claimed a
declaration that they are the owners of the suit properties. Hence, the suit
is not maintainable.
36. The plaintiff, who was not in possession, had in the suit claimed
only declaratory relief along with mandatory injunction. Plaintiff being out
of possession, the relief of recovery of possession was a further Lorelei
which ought to have been claimed by the plaintiff. The suit filed by the
plaintiff for a mere declaration without relief of recovery of possession
was clearly not maintainable and the trial Court has rightly dismissed the
suit. The High Court neither adverted to the above finding of the trial
Court nor has set aside the above reasoning given by the trial Court for
holding the suit as not maintainable. The High Court in exercise of its
jurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C could not reversed the decree of the
courts below without holding that the above reasoning given by the
Courts below was legally unsustainable. We, thus, are of the view that the
High Court committed error in decreeing the suit”.
The above rulings as contended by the learned counsel for the defendants are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case since
D.W.1 has categorically admitted the said documents when confronted to him that they are the same documents sent for impounding and they are the xerox copies of the said documents which are sent for impounding under the covering letter of this Court under Ex.A.16. Therefore, the objections raised by the learned counsel for the defendants regarding the admissibility of Exs. A.14 and
A.15 in view of the admission of D.W.1 and also since the said documents are sent by covering letter of this Court under Ex.A.16 to the impounding authorities, cannot be sustained and does not suit the ratio decidedness of the 37 above rulings.
20.Further, the admissions of D.W.1 during the cross examination that the police have also enquired the tenants of the plaintiff namely wife of
Jangaiah, Pushpa and Narasimha reddy and recorded their statements clearly show that the contention of the plaintiff that he has let out the suit property to the defendant No.1 as well as some other tenants on rent is fortified and the contention of the defendant that he has purchased the suit property under the registered sale deed for a valid sale consideration and he is in possession as absolute owner of the suit property from the date of his purchase, cannot be sustained and cannot be believed. Since the beginning, it is the contention of the plaintiff that he has let out the suit property to the defendant NO.1 as well as to some other tenants and the suggestion made to P.w.1 that he did not examine any tenants in this case, cannot be sustained since the defendant No.1 himself has admitted during his cross examination as D.W.1 regarding the names of the tenants living therein along with defendant No.1 in the suit property.
21.Further, the defendant No.2 the said Vijay Kumar, who is shown as one of the defendants in this case, who claims to be one of the attestors to the mortgage deed, as contended by the plaintiff’s counsel and the said Vijay
Kumar remaining exparte after receipt of summons from this Court and appearing before this Court as a witness on behalf of defendant NO.1 clearly shows that the defendant No.2 who is a police constable and colleague of
D.W.1 being influenced by D.1 has deliberately remained exparte, having given his statement before the police under Ex.A.19 charge sheet and denying his signatures and denying regarding execution of mortgage deed by defendant 38
NO.1 before the bank and also the registration authority, itself clearly shows that the defendant No.2 is won over by the defendant NO.1 and deliberately did not appear before this Court even after receipt of summons and remained exparte and gave evidence in support of D.W.1 being a colleague of D.W.1.
Therefore, the evidence of defendant NO.2 as D.W.3 cannot be believed.
22.Though the defendant No.1 has examined one T. Pandari as
D.W.2, who is allegedly purchased the property of defendant No.1 by registered sale deed in Sy.No. 474 for a sale consideration of Rs. 5,00,000/-, during the cross examination he clearly admitted that he has not filed any registered document for the land purchased in his name in Sy.No.474 or any mutation proceedings or the documents that the said property registered in his name in the month of March, 2013, clearly shows that the alleged transaction is no way concerned with the suit transaction or payment of consideration for the suit transaction that is subsequent to the alleged sale deed that is Ex. A.2 for the defendant to say that he has adjusted money for sale consideration from out of the sale amount received from D.W.2. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.2 is also cannot be relied upon. In view of my above discussion and the admissions of
D.W.1 and other witnesses on behalf of the defendant No.1 during their cross examination and the documents therein clearly establish that the alleged sale deed under Ex.A.2 said to have been executed by the defendant No.1 is not genuine document and the same is obtained by playing fraud on the plaintiff, for which the defendant No.1 has also faced departmental enquiry and kept under suspension after registering the crime in Cr.No.235 of 2012 on the complaint given by the plaintiff and the said sale deed is not a valid document and the same is collusive document and outcome of cheating and fraud played upon the 39 plaintiff. Therefore, Ex.A.2 sale deed cannot be relied upon and it is not genuine document and the plaintiff is able to establish that the alleged sale deed is obtained by playing fraud and therefore he is entitled for cancellation of the said document and the same is null and void and the plaintiff is entitled for a decree for cancellation of the said sale deed. Hence, these two issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff as against the defendants.
23.ISSUE NO.4:
This issue relates to whether the plaintiff is entitled for perpetual injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 restraining them, their men, servants and agents etc., from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and from alienating, creating further charge or changing the nature of the suit schedule property.
The defendant No.1 has failed to establish his possession over the suit schedule property and even according to his admissions there are tenants in the suit property, whose names he referred in his cross examination and even though he claims the possession, as per the recitals under alleged sale deed is not legal possession and the same is not supported by any valid, legal document and the defendant No.1 cannot claim any right or possession over the suit property since it lacks valid and legal document.
On the contrary, the documents filed by the plaintiff under Ex.A.1 and also the other documents that is Exs. A.2 to A.21 clearly establish that the defendant No.1 has obtained Ex.A.2 sale deed by playing fraud upon the plaintiff and cheated him without any valid sale consideration and without there being any legal and valid transaction and the possession of the plaintiff is legal possession and it is substantiated by Ex.A.1. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled 40 for grant of perpetual injunction as against the defendant Nos. 1 to 3. Hence, this issue is answered accordingly.
24.ISSUE NO. 5: To what relief:
In the result, this suit is decreed, with costs by declaring the plaintiff as the absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property.
Further, the registered sale deed vide document No.1 12281/2011
dated 12.12.2011 is hereby cancelled and declared as null and void. Further,
perpetual injunction is granted in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants 1 to 3, their men, servants, agents on their behalf from alienating, creating further charge or changing the nature of the suit schedule property and also restraining the defendants and their men, agents etc., from interfering with the lawful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property.
The suit is decreed accordingly as above, with costs.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open Court on this the 31 st day of December, 2018.
Spl.Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cum-V Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Sangareddy,
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR
PLAINTIFF
P.W-1 : Vadde Sathyanarayana P.W.2: Bonguru Venkateshwar Rao P.W.3: Golla Mallesham
DEFENDANT: D.W.1: Vadde Janardhan D.W.2: T. Pandari D.W.3: Baitha Vijay Kumar 41
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR
PLAINTIFFS
Ex.A.1: C.C. of sale deed document NO.7013/2008 dated 19.05.2008 Ex.A.2: C.C. of sale deed No.12281/2011, dated 12.12.2011 Ex.A.3: C.C. of mortgage deed No.8762/2012 Ex.A.4: C.C. of F.I.R in Cr.NO.235/2012 of P.S. Sangareddy Town Ex.A.5: C.C. of Encumbrance Certificate Ex.A.6: Notice dated 18.07.2012 issued by defendant No.1 Ex.A.7: C.C of F.I.R in Cr.No.9/2016 of P.S. Sangareddy Town Ex.A.8: Set of notices for departmental enquiry Ex.A.9: office copy of the complaint dated 13.3.2013 Ex.A.10: Order dt: 17.4.2013 of Human Rights Commission in HRC no. 1222/2013, dt: 17.04.2013 Ex.A.11: 1 -B (ROR) dated 13.09.2017 Ex.A.12:Agreement dated 3.11.2012 Ex.A.13: Agreement dated 3.11.2012 Ex.A.14: Xerox copy of agreement dated 3.11.2012 Ex.A.15: Xerox copy of agreement dated 3.11.2012 Ex.A.16: Covering letter of this Court dasted 12.09.2016 Ex.A.17: Pahani for the land in Sy.No. 472 Ex.A.18 Pahani for the land in Sy.No.474 Ex.A.19 :C.C of charge sheet in Cr.No.235 of 2012 of P.S. Sangareddy Town Ex.A.20: C.C of stay order in Criminal Revision Case No.2068/2015 dated 05.10.2015 Ex.A.21: Copy of Cash receipt for Rs. 21,57,500/-
DEFENDANTS:
Ex.B.1: Cash receipt for Rs. 21,57,500/- Ex.B.2 Declaration dt: 19.12.2011 Ex.B.3: Sanction letter of SBI dt: 24.4.2017 Ex.B.4: Original pattedar pass book Ex.B.5: Set of (2) original title deed books Ex.B.6: Set of C.C of (2) pahanies for the year 2017 Ex.B.7: Set of CC of (2) pahanies for the year 2011 Ex.B.8: C.C. of Form NO.IB Certificate for the year 2017 Ex.B.9: Signature of D.W.2 on Ex.B.1 Ex.B.10: Signature of D.W.3 on Ex.A.2
Spl. Judge for SC/ST (POA) Act Cum-V Addl. District & Sessions Sangareddy.
1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: SRI B.SAI KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI,
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE.
Monday, the 31st day of December, 2018.
S.C. No.63 OF 2017
(P.R.C. No.19 OF 2016)
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, ZAHEERABAD
OffencesU/Ss302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C. Report or complaint20.08.2015 AccusedA-1 : Begari Ravinder, S/o.Nagaiah, Age 27 years, S.C. (Mala), Occupation Coolie; A-2 : Talari Kistaiah, S/o. Roshaiah, Age 31 years, Caste : S.C. (Mala), Occupation: Coolie,R/o.Naredgunta(v), Andole Mandal; A-3 : Begari Laxmamma, W/o. Nagaiah Age 60 years, Caste : S.C.-Mala, Occupation : Labour;
And
A-4 : Begari Nagaiah, S/o.Arjaiah, Age 65 years, Caste: S.C. (Mala), Occupation: Labour, All R/o. Cherla Naganpally village, Raikode Mandal. Apprehension of accused30.08.2015 (A1 & A2) and 04.09.2015 (A3 & A4) Release of accused on15.12.2015 (A1 & A2) and 27.11.2015 bail (A3 & A4) Crime No. 49 of 2015 Committed byJudicial First Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad. Commencement of trial19.07.2018 Close of trial31.08.2018 Plea of accusedA1 to A4 Pleaded not guilty Finding of the CourtA1 & A2 are found guilty, while A3 & A4 are not found guilty. Sentence or OrderA1 & A2 are convicted U/S 235(2) Cr.P.C for the charges U/Ss302, 201, 109 r/w 34 I.P.C., while A3 & A4 are acquitted U/S 235(1) Cr.P.C for the above charges. Prosecution conducted by Public Prosecutor Accused defended bySri C.Vittal Reddy, Advocate.
2
The case came up before me for fnal hearing on this day (31.12.2018) in the presence of the learned Public Prosecutor for the
State and of Sri C.Vittal Reddy, Counsel for A1 to A4; having perused the material on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, the Court made the following:-
J U D G M E N T
The Circle Inspector of Police, Zaheerabad (Rural) fled Charge
Sheet against A1 to A4 in Crime No.49 of 2015 of P.S Raikode for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C.
2.The allegations in the Charge Sheet are as follows:
On 20.08.2015 at 08.00 A.M the de-facto-complainant-Munige
Sambalaxmi (L.W.1) lodged complaint in the P.S Raikode stating that during the year 2011 she performed the marriage of her second daughter-Swapna (deceased No.1) with Begari Ravinder (A1). The couple led marital life and blessed with a daughter-Aishwarya (deceased No.2). Accused used to harass the deceased with a demand for additional dowry. As such, a case in Crime No.4 of 2013 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. It was pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Zaheerabad. Because of harassment, Swapna could not stay with the accused and returned to her parents place. However, after birth of
Aishwarya, at the instance of A1, during the month of April 2015,
Swapna with her daughter-Aishwarya came back to the place of accused on the promise of A1 to look after them well. Thereafter, on 08.08.2015 both the wife and husband (deceased and A1) 3 compromised the case in the above crime, before the Lok Adalath at
Zaheerabad.
De-facto-complainant many times called up her daughter-Swapna on cell phone, and instead of her daughter, some others were responding. Being unable to know the whereabouts of deceased-
Swapna, de-facto-complainant suspected some foil play on the part of accused. She called up her son-in-law to know about her daughter-
Swapna and her granddaughter. However, there was no response from the accused. When their whereabouts were not known, de-facto- complainant complained to the police.
Basing on the above complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, P.S
Raikode (L.W.20) registered a case in Crime No.49 of 2015 under the provisions of the Woman and Child missing and informed all concerned. The Inspector of Police, Zaheerabad (Rural) took up further investigation, he gave press-communiqué through print media and flashed message to all Station House Ofcers in the State of Telangana through TSPMS. He recorded statements of witnesses, which revealed that there were disputes between A1 and deceased, who were quarreling with each other every time on the instigation of parents of
A1. All witnesses rose suspicion over A1. On 30.08.205 A1 was interrogated and his confession was recorded in the presence of two panch witnesses, Kurni Mallanna (L.W.12) and Karre Yellaiah (L.W.13).
In their presence, A1 confessed that himself (A1) and his wife (deceased-Swapna) fell in love with each other during their college studies and married during the year 2011 at Yadagirigutta. Parents of
A1 accepted their marriage. Thereafter, they were residing at 4
Shankarpally by doing labour work in a Dhaba Hotel. Due to fnancial crisis, they came to village Charla Naganpally. Since marriage, they were quarreling with each other on various issues and parents of A1, who are A3 & A4 were demanding the deceased for additional dowry.
They were harassing her mentally and physically. They used to abuse her in flthy language and also beat her for not doing labour work.
Village Sarpanch and other elders counseled them several times but there was no change in their attitude. As such, parents of Swapna lodged complaint in Crime No.4 of 2013 in P.S Raikode. Because of trouble in attending the Court, A1 and his brother-in-law, namely,
Talari Kistaiah (A2) hatched a plan to eliminate the deceased. After compromising the case in the Lok Adalat, A1 developed enmity with his wife deceased-Swapna. On 15.05.2015 at about 04.00 P.M A1 took his wife-Swapna and his minor daughter-Aishwarya on a motorcycle TS-07-
EF-4349 ridden by A2. Both A1 and A2 took them to a hut and stayed there. At about 10.00 P.M when Swapna was fast asleep, A2 caught hold her legs, while A1 throttled her to death. To screen evidence, A1 and A2 burnt down her dead body. They collected skull and bones in a gunny bag and thrown in Manjeera river at Chintakunta village at about 06.00 A.M on 16.05.2015. At the instance of the parents of A1, on 18.05.2015 A1 and A2 took minor child Aishwarya to Ausaloni Kunta in the outskirts of Yerraram village, where they throttled her to death and burnt her body. Thereafter, A1 went to Hyderabad and led normal life.
3.Basing on the above confession of A1, section of law was altered to the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 5
I.P.C. A1 and A2 were arrested, at the instance of A1, skull and bones of deceased-Swapna and small leg kadas of deceased-Aishwarya were seized. On 04.09.2015 A3 and A4 were apprehended, their confession was recorded in the presence of witnesses and produced before the
Court for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, the
Inspector of Police, Zaheerabad (Rural) fled charge sheet against A1 to
A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C.
4.Finding that there is prima facie material in the allegations of the
Charge Sheet, the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad,
before whom the Charge Sheet was fled, took cognizance and after
complying with all the legal formalities, committed the case to the
Sessions Division, Medak at Sangareddy, in P.R.C No.19 of 2016,
whereupon, the case was registered as S.C. No.63 of 2017 for trial and disposal in accordance with law.
5.This Court complied with all legal formalities, heard the learned
Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned defense counsel for A1 to A4, framed charges for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C against A1 to A4, read over and explained its contents to them in vernacular language, whereupon, A1 to A4 pleaded not guilty of the charges and claimed to be tried.
6.This Court conducted trial of the case. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P1 to P38 and 6
M.Os1 to 5 on its behalf. After conclusion of the prosecution evidence,
A1 to A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence found against them. They did not choose to adduce any oral evidence for their defense but they got marked Ex.D1 during cross-examining P.W.2.
7.Heard both sides.
8.The point for determination is :-
Whether the prosecution could prove the guilt of A1
to A4 for the charges of ofences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C beyond all
reasonable doubt?
POINT:
9.The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:
A1 contacted love-marriage with Swapna (deceased No.1). They were blessed with a female child, named-Aishwarya (deceased No.2).
A1 and Swapna had matrimonial disputes, for which, Swapna lodged complaint in Crime No.4 of 2013 for the offence punishable under
Section 498-A I.P.C against A1 and his parents, A3 & A4 in P.S Raikode.
However, in due course time, the said case was ended in compromise between them before a Lok Adalat in the Court at Zaheerabad.
Thereafter, A1 with the assistance of his brother-in-law, namely, Talari
Kistaiah (A2), hatched a plan to kill Swapna. Accordingly, 15.05.2015 7
A1 and A2 took Swapna on a motorcycle to the outskirts of
Neredugunta and stayed in a hut. When Swapna was fast asleep, A1 throttled her to death, while A2 caught hold her legs. A1 and A2 burnt her dead body to screen evidence. Thereafter, at the instance of parents of A1, i.e., A3 & A4, both A1 and A2 throttled baby-Aiswarya to death and burnt her dead body. Therefore, A1 to A4 rendered themselves liable for punishment for the offences punishable under
Section 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C.
10.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws1 to 20 and got marked Exs.P1 to P38 and M.Os1 to 5 on its behalf. P.W.1 happened to be the mother of deceased. She deposed that A1 is her son-in-law, A2 is brother in-law of A1, while A3 & A4 are parents of A1.
The deceased Swapna is her third daughter, who fell in love with A1 during their college-studies. When her deceased daughter was studying 12th class in Ambedkar College, Gachibowli, A1 also used to study in same college. They performed the marriage of the deceased with A1. As the mother of the accused A3 refuse A1 and deceased to stay along with them. She took a room for rent at Shankarpally, where the deceased and A1 started their matrimonial home and lead their matrimonial life happily for four months. A1 used to work in a dabha.
Thereafter, A3, A4 and their family members came and took A1 and deceased to their house to stay along with them. After taking the deceased to the house of A3 & A4, after one week the deceased called her and informed that A3 & A4 were beating and harassing deceased, 8 as deceased was not attending to any work, due to her pregnancy.
Immediately, P.W.1 went to the house of A3 & A4 and questioned them, then A3 asked P.W.1 not to stay there and ask P.W.1 to leave the place by saying that they have not given anything and A3 has also thrown all the articles belonging to deceased. P.W.1 also informed the said fact to the neighbors of A3 & A4 and requested them to question
A3 & A4, for that the neighbors refused to question A3, by saying that
A3 would abuse them and advised P.W.1 to take the deceased along with her. On that, P.W.1 questioned A1 about the physical harassment, then A1 replied to take away the deceased, as they cannot feed the deceased, who is pregnant. On that night, they stayed at the house of (L.W.4) S.Maruthi and also asked for his help. He gave food to them on that night and on the next day morning he stated that he can’t help them in any way as A3 doesn’t listen to his words. Immediately,
P.W.1 approached the Police Raikode and gave complaint and the same was registered a case in Cr.No.4/2013 U/Sec.498-A IPC. Later
P.W.1 took her daughter to her native place, Narsampet of Warangal
District, by that time, deceased was three months pregnant and gave birth to a female child after seven months. The deceased called A1 and also A2 and informed about the birth of child and thereafter A1 came to their house after one and half years of birth of the child and admitted his mistake and stated would rectify and would take care of deceased and his daughter well. A1 came to P.W.1 and promised that he would take care of the deceased daughter and her child well. A1 stated that he behaved in such a manner by listening to the words of his parents A3 & A4 and that he would not listen the words of his 9 parents. P.W.1 and family elder asked the deceased as to whether she was intending to go the matrimonial house. The deceased informed them that her husband (A1) is good person and that he behave in such a manner by listening to the words of A3. Then P.W.1 sent her daughter and granddaughter along with A1. While sending she presented silver anklets to her granddaughter and a cell phone to her daughter. After two days, P.W.1 called her daughter and she replied that she is doing well and after seven days, again when P.W.1 called her daughter, phone of deceased was not reachable. After ten days as the phone of her daughter was not reaching, P.W.1 went to the house of accused. By the time P.W.1 reached there, it was about 08.00 to 09.00 P.M. and the door was locked and P.W.1 enquired with the neighbors, who stated that they saw them in the morning and afterwards they do not know the whereabouts of her daughter and granddaughter. P.W.1 stayed in that night in the house of Sarpanch.
Everybody stated that they do not know the details of accused and deceased. P.W.1 went to the house of her uncle at Hyderabad and they also tried to call the accused, but the phone was not reachable.
Later P.W.1 returned to her house and after fve days, she again came to the house of accused and saw A3 and her daughter and then she questioned A3 & her daughter about the deceased and they started abusing P.W.1 and then P.W.1 immediately went to the house of
Sarpanch and told him as to what had happened. Then,
L.W.3/Sarpanch replied that A1 took the deceased and her daughter to
Hyderabad and started their matrimonial life at Hyderabad. P.W.1 made repeated calls to deceased and A1, but those calls were not 10 reachable. P.W.1 returned home and after fve or six days, P.W.1 again went to Nagalapally Village and went to the house of L.W.3 and asked him that the calls were reachable. Then L.W.3 informed that A1 is indebted an amount of Rs.20,000/- to A2 and as A1 did not pay the amount he forcible took A1 and deceased and their daughter along with him. P.W.1 asked L.W.3 for the cell phone number of A2 and informed him that she would pay the amount to A2. Then, L.W.3 replied P.W.1 that he doesn’t know the number of A2. Then, P.W.1 went to the Police Station, Raikode and informed all the facts to the
Police orally and subsequently P.W.1 lodged a complaint/Ex.P1. Police examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement. Later on Police Raikoide called P.W.1 and informed her that her daughter was killed.
Immediately they rushed to the police Raikode and there police shown them the bones of her deceased daughter and granddaughter in a box.
Thereafter the police took P.W.1 to Neredgunta Village to the place where her daughter was killed and also took her to the place, where her granddaughter was killed. M.O.1 are the skull bones of daughter of P.W.1, while M.O.2 is femur bones of her daughter and granddaughter. P.W.1 could identifed them because the police have shown her on that date. M.O.3 is the pair of silver anklets of her granddaughter that were found at the scene of offence, through which,
P.W.1 identifed the body of her granddaughter. M.O.4 is the cross (siluva) of daughter of P.W.1. Police asked P.W.1 to come to F.S.L.
ofce for the purpose of collecting the samples and collected her blood samples. Police examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement.
11
11.In her cross-examination, P.W.1 deposed that the Sub Inspector of Police recorded her statement and it was recorded prior to taking of samples at F.S.L. She admitted that the marriages performed in
Yadagirigutta as per Hindu Rights and Customs and Hindus alone would be entitled. The complaint was drafted by the writer in the police station as per narration of P.W.1. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that she had not stated before the police that as the mother of the accused A3 refused A1 and deceased to stay along with them, P.W.1 took a room for rent at Shankarpally, where the deceased and A1 started their matrimonial home and lead their matrimonial life happily for four months. She denied the suggestion that she had not state
before police that A3, A4 and their family members came and took A1
and deceased to her house to stay along with them and that the deceased & A1 never stayed with A3 & A4 at Nagulapally Village and that since deceased refused to come at Nagulapally Village, A1 left the deceased at stayed at Nagulapally, for that reason the deceased lodge complaint against A1 for the offence U/Sec.498-A. She further denied the suggestion that she had not stated before police that she went to the house of A3 & A4 and questioned them, then A3 asked her not to stay there and ask her to leave the place by saying they have not given anything and also thrown all the articles belonging to deceased.
P.W.1 further denied the suggestion that she had not stated before police and also informed the said fact to the neighbors of A3 & A4 and requested them to question A3 & A4, for that the neighbors refused to question A3, by saying that A3 would abuse them and advised her to take the deceased along with her. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that 12 she had stated before police that she questioned A1 about the physical harassment, then A1 replied to take away her daughter, as they cannot feed the deceased and as also she was pregnant and that on that night they stayed at the house of L.W.4 S.Maruthi and also asked his for help, he gave food to them on that night and on the next day morning he stated that he cannot help them in any way as A3 doesn’t listen to his words. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that the deceased was not carrying at that time when she taken her to the house of P.W.1 and that she took her daughter with her as she refused to stay along with her in-laws, but not for harassment and that she never informed about the birth of female child to the accused. P.W.1 questioned A1, that she brought her daughter when accused harassed her and now she was not ready to send unless accused brings the elders and that
A1 never came to their house to take his daughter to the village.
P.W.1 denied the suggestion that no panchayath was held at their village. The deceased and A1 never stayed at Sainikpur, Hyderabad.
P.W.1 admitted that some other person lifted the phone, when she called to her daughter but she could not say the phone number of her daughter. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that she never stated before police that A1 came to her and promised her that he would take care of her deceased daughter and her granddaughter well, till then he behave in such a manner by listening to the words of his parents A3 &
A4 and now he would not listen to the words of his parents and that
P.W.1 never stated before police that then, their family elder by name
Chinnapelli Babu asked the deceased whether she was intending to go the matrimonial house, then she informed that her husband is good 13 person and he behave in such a manner by listening to the words of
A3. P.W.1 also denied the suggestion that she never stated before police that by the time she reached there the time is 08.00 to 09.00P.M. and the door was locked and she enquired with the neighbors, they stated that they saw them in the morning and afterwards they do not know the whereabouts of her daughter and granddaughter and that she never stated before police that she returned to her house and after fve days, she again came to the house of accused and saw A3 and her daughter, then she questioned A3 & her daughter about her deceased daughter, they started abusing her.
P.W.1 further denied the suggestion that she never stated before police that in spite of her repeated calls to deceased and accused A1, the calls were not reachable and that she never stated before police that after fve or six days she again went to Nagalapally village and went to the house of L.W.3 and asked him that the calls were reachable then L.W.3 informed that A1 is indebted an amount of
Rs.20,000/- to A2 and as A1 did not pay the amount he forcible took A1 and deceased and their daughter along with him and that she never stated before police that she asked L.W.3 for the cell phone number of
A2 and informed him that she would pay the amount to A2 and he replied P.W.1 that he doesn’t know the number of A2. P.W.1 further denied the suggestion that her daughter was always in angry mood and used to leave the house and she used to do the same at
Shankarpally house. My husband is a coolie. He did not come to the
Court and he knows that she came to the Court. M.Os3 & 4 is available in the open market and denied the suggestion that M.Os3 & 4 14 are seems to be new articles. She denied the suggestion that after lodging complaint against the accused U/Sec.498-A, the deceased never stayed with accused and that the accused are no way concerned with the alleged offence and they were falsely implicated in this case and she deposed falsehood at the instance of police.
12.P.W.2, brother-in-law of A1, deposed that during the year 2005, his deceased sister Swapna joined in Intermediate at Ambedkar
College situated at Gachibowli and used to stay in hostel. A1 was staying in Boys hostel near by the hostel of his deceased sister. His deceased sister Swapna informed to their family members that she fell in love with A1. His father was not convinced with deceased as he had to perform two other elder daughters and sent the deceased to Bible
College at Guntur District. At frst instance, as the course duration was three years, after completion of one year, she was shifted to
Bandlaguda Bible college, Hyderabad. A1 used to visit their house at
Narsampet and request to marry his sister. During the year 2010.11,
P.W.1 agreed the proposal of A1 to perform the marriage of deceased with A1 after consulting parents of A1 i.e., A3 & A4. Later A1 again came to them and informed them that his parents A3 & A4 were not accepting for marriage with deceased. His deceased sister completed her studies I.e., Bachelor of Theology in Bible College in the year 2010.
During the year 2011, they performed the marriage of the deceased with A1 as per Hindu customs. Immediately, after marriage the deceased and A1 put up family at Shankarpally village and lived together for few months. Later his deceased sister informed him that 15 her mother in-law A3, took deceased and A1 to their village Cherla
Naganlapally to their house. After few days his deceased sister made a phone call to him informing that A1, A3 & A4 were harassing her for dowry as well as she was not good looking. Immediately, himself and
P.W.1 went to their village and approached village Sarpanch and other elders and informed about the harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands of A1, A3 & A4. The Sarpanch and elders of the village advised the accused to look after his deceased sister properly and they returned to their village. After two days, again his sister called him and informed that they used to give very hard work and also harassing her and also asking her to go to agricultural work. Upon that, he along with P.W.1 and other relatives visited the house of accused and lodged a report in Raikode Police Station and took the deceased to their house. At that time, his deceased sister was pregnant. On 17.03.2013 his sister gave birth to a female child. During Christmas days, in December, 2014, A1 came to their house and assured that he would look after his sister and her daughter properly by putting a separate family. A1 assured in the presence of elders, as such, they sent deceased and her daughter with A1 to the house of their grandfather, who resides in E.C.I.L., Hyderabad to live there for some time. During that period, A1 and deceased used to live amicably and attended J.F.C.M., Court, Zaheerabad. During the month of April or
May, 2015 deceased and A1, A3 & A4 approached before Lok Adalat,
Zaheerabad Court and compromised the matter. Subsequently, A1 took his deceased sister and her daughter to his house at Cherla
Nagandlapally. After few days, when he tried to make call to his sister, 16 it was out of coverage, as such he made a call to Sarpanch L.W.3
Sanjeevulu and asked about the whereabouts of A1, deceased and her daughter, for which, he informed that as A1 indebted an amount of
Rs.20,000/- to A2 and as A1 did not pay the amount, he took A1 and deceased and their daughter along with him, to Neredugunta village for search of a new job to A1. As there was no response by L.W.3
Sanjeevulu, whenever he was asked about the whereabouts of A1 and deceased No.1 & 2, himself and his mother went to Raikode Police
Station and informed about the facts. The police called the Sarpanch and asked about the whereabouts of deceased No.1 & 2 and A1. The
Sarpanch informed to the police that they left the village after informing him. During August, 2015, P.W.1 went to Zaheerabad Court to know the whereabouts of Deceased No.1 & 2, but she found A1, A3 & A4 there and on seeing her they left the place. Then, P.W.1 went to
P.S., Raikode and gave a report against the accused. After one week or ten days, Police Raikode informed them that the A1 & A2 killed D1 &
D2 at the instigation of A3 & A4 and that they burnt the dead bodies and police asked them to come to Raikode P.S. Police took them to the scenes of offences and also to the Manjeera River where the accused said to have thrown the burnt bones of both D1 & D2. By seeing
M.Os2 & 4 they identifed the bones belong to his sister and niece.
Police examined him and recorded his statement.
13.In his cross-examination, P.W.2 deposed that he completed
B.Pharmacy and at present, he is not doing any job. His father is a daily wage labour and his family is a joint family. After receiving phone 17 call on 30.08.2015, he directly went to P.S., Raikode and his statement was recorded by the writer at Manjeera bridge. He is the elder son to his father. His younger brother is doing Degree. The deceased is the third daughter to his father. He stated before the police that the deceased is the second daughter. Initially his deceased sister was got admitted into Guntur Bible College for frst year and for second year, the college people send her to Hyderabad College. He admitted that if a couple gets married at Yadagirigutta, the temple authorities give receipt and that in Yadagirigutta the marriages would be performed as per Hindu Rights and Customs and persons belonging to other religions cannot perform the marriages. He denied the suggestion that he had no personal relationship with L.Ws3 to 5. The deceased and A1 used to stayed at Shankarpally for six months. His mother used to go and visit his sister at Shankarpally and that his deceased sister used to go uninformed when she gets angry and he had not stated before the police that later his deceased sister informed him that her mother in- law A3, took deceased and A1 to their village Cherla Naganlapally to their house and that he had not stated before the police that after few days, his deceased sister made a phone call to him informing that A1,
A3 & A4 were harassing her for dowry as well as she was not good looking and that he had not stated before the police that immediately, himself and P.W.1 went to their village and approached village
Sarpanch and other elders and informed about the harassment meted out to the deceased in the hands of A1, A3 & A4, the Sarpanch and elders of the village advised the accused to look after his deceased sister properly and they returned back to their village and that he had 18 not stated before the police that after two days again his sister called him and informed that they used to give very hard work and also harassing her and also asking her to go to agricultural work. When His and his mother went to P.S., Raikode, friend of his grandfather accompanied them, but she could not say his name. He could not say the exact date of lodging complaint and the exact time, but his sister gave birth to a child on 17.03.2013. He does not know whether P.W.1 has gave the birth certifcate of his niece to the police. After the delivery, he only called A1 and informed him about the birth of his niece. After one and half years of birth of his niece, A1 came to them.
A panchayath was held in the presence of elders. One Chinnapally
Babu, Chunchu Ram Babu, Chinnapally Elisha, acted as elders for the panchayath. He admitted that he had not stated before the police that they sent deceased and her daughter with A1 to the house of their grandfather, who resides in E.C.I.L., Hyderabad to live there for some time, during that period A1 and deceased used to live amicably and attended J.F.C.M., Court, Zaheerabad. The name of my grandfather is
Narayana Jambhav, now he is residing at E.C.I.L. He admitted that he had stated before police that after few days when he telephoned her, some others used to talk and that he had not stated before the police that as the phone of his sister was not reachable, he made a call to
Sarpanch L.W.3 Sanjeevulu and asked about the whereabouts of A1, deceased and her daughter, for which, he informed that as A1 indebted an amount of Rs.20,000/- to A2 and, as A1 did not pay the amount, he took A1 and deceased and their daughter along with him to Neredugunta village for search of a new job to A1. There was no 19 response by L.W.3 Sanjeevulu, whenever he was asked about the whereabouts of A1 and deceased No.1 & 2. He denied the suggestion that he stated before the police as in Ex.D1 and that he never visited the police station at the time of giving complaint. He admitted that he had not stated before the police that the police called the Sarpanch and asked about the whereabouts of deceased No.1 & 2 and A1, the
Sarpanch informed to the police that they left the village after informing him. He denied the suggestion that for the frst time, he stated before the Court that the deceased and A1 used to reside at
Secunderabad and the said statement is false and that A1 never came to our house after his deceased sister gave birth a child and he never took the deceased to his matrimonial house and that his sister is adamant lady. He saw the bones M.Os1 & 2 at the scene of offence.
The elders of the panchayath did not come to the police station
Raikode and his father also did not come to the Police Station and his sisters also did not come to the Police Station. He denied the suggestion that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence and the accused have been falsely implicated in this case and he deposed false at the instance of police.
14.P.W.3 is Sarpanch of Naganpally village and he deposed that he does not know P.Ws1 and 2 and that he knows A1 and A4 and does not know the deceased No.1 and 2 and does not know anything about the case. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the learned
Public Prosecutor and in his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not state before Police as in Ex.P2 16 Cr.P.C 20 statement recorded by Police and now he deposed falsehood to help the accused, who belongs to their village. P.Ws.4 to 8 also turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution and stated that they do not know anything about the case.
15.P.W.9 deposed that he knows A2 but does not know A1, A3 & A4,
P.Ws1 to 8 and Deceased No.1 & 2 and that he does know know anything about this case. He purchased one motor cycle FZ Yamaha bearing No.4349 in the name of his son Anil. About three years ago, he kept the bike in the custody of Kistaiah A2 and went to the marriage of his niece to Tellapur Village and later on, he returned back to
Neredugunta Village. Later on, heI went to Tellapur Village, two months thereafter the Police Raikode called him and asked him to bring my motor cycle to the Police Station. Police informed him that some murders have took place alleging that he gave his motor cycle to
Kistaiah A2. He informed the police that he never gave his motor cycle to A2. Police seized his motor cycle. M.O.5 is the motor cycle.
Police examined me. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion that he stated
before police as in Ex.P8, now deposed false in order to help the
accused. In his cross-examination for the accused, he deposed that he parked hisbike in front of the house of A2 by locking the bike, where they keep their tools and later on, he took the motor cycle to Tellapur and after that, police called him and seized the vehicle. Police did not examine me.
21
16.P.W.10 deposed that he is a Village Servant. He know A1, A3 &
A4 but does not know A2 and both the deceased. About two years back on one day, Raikode Police came to his village and asked him to show the house of A4. Accordingly, he showed the house of A4. At that time, the house of A4 was locked. Police took a sketch of the house. Police did not examine me. He was declared hostile and cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor and in his cross- examination, he denied the suggestion that he did not state before police as in Ex.P9, 161 Cr.P.C. statement, recorded by police and now he deposed falsehood to help the accused.
17.P.W.11 V.R.O Singitham village deposed that he knows L.W.13
K.Yellaiah. About more than two years back, in the afternoon hours,
Police Raikode called him and L.W.13 K.Yellaiah to Police Station.
Two persons were present in the Police Station. S.I. of police questioned them and those two persons confessed about two months back, two people died and from there they have taken to Neredgunta
Village to a shed and there is a trench beside the shed and there they found ashes and seems to be a body has burnt. Police did not seize anything in his presence. There the police prepared the rough sketch.
Ex.P10 is the rough sketch. From there they have proceeded to
Manjeera bridge situated in the outskirts of Chinthakunta Village. A person in the custody of police shown the human bones. Police seized the bones. Police seized the same under the cover of scene of offence and seizure panchanama. Ex.P11 is the scene of offence 22 panchanama. Police drafted rough sketch of scene of offence after reaching police station. Ex.P12 is the rough sketch, as per our observation at the scene of offence/Ex.P11. All the documents are prepared in the police station and police asked him to sign on the papers and he signed on the papers. Again, police took them to the out skirts of a village, there we saw ashes. Police did not seize anything in his presence. Police did not prepare the scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch there and prepared subsequently in the police Station. EX.P13 is his signature on confession of A1. Ex.P14 is his signature on confession of A2. He was declared hostile and cross examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. He denied the suggestion in his cross examination that M.O.4 is seized by the police at the scene of offence in my presence and that Police conducted inquest at the scene of offence and seized M.O.3 in his presence from scene of offence and that the police drafted all the documents at the scene of offence and he signed on it and now he deposed falsehood to help the accused.
18.P.W.12 deposed that he is working as Panchayath Secretary,
Naganlapally Village from 2003. He knows P.W.11. About two years back, on one day, Police called him and P.W.11 to Raikode Police
Station. There they found A1 & A2 in the custody of Police. S.I. of
Police and he also questioned A1 & A2, who confessed the commission of offence. Police drafted confession panchanamas of A1 & A2. In pursuance of confession, the accused lead them to Neredgunta Village and took them to a shed and beside the shed there is a trench, where 23 they observed ashes and burnt wood. Police shown him M.O.4 at the scene of offence. Police drafted Ex.P15 scene of offence panchanama.
Police observed the scene of offence and prepared rough sketch in the police station. Ex.P16 is the rough sketch. Later Police took them to
Suraram Village and there they observed the ashes near a bund.
Police did not seize anything there. Police prepared the scene of offence panchanama and drafted a rough sketch. Ex.P17 is scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P18 is rough sketch of scene of offence.
From there the accused took them to a bridge, where there is a river.
There police showed them the human bones. Police drafted the panchanama on a paper and obtained their signatures in the Police
Station. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by the learned
Public Prosecutor and in his cross-examination, he admitted that police called them to the Police Station, Raikode and there A1& A2 present and they confessed the commission of offence and in pursuance of confession, the accused led them to Neredgunta village, and the accused showed them the place, where they burnt the deceased No.1 and from the ashes the police have taken M.O.4 and seized the same in his presence. He admitted that the police prepared inquest panchanama at the scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that
Police seized M.O.3 in his presence at the scene of offence and that
M.O.4 is seized from the scene of offence and that Police obtained our signatures on the scene of offence panchanamas and rough sketches at the scene of offence, but not at the Police station and that he deposed falsehood to help the accused. In his cross-examination for the accused, he deposed that they have not informed to their M.P.D.O., 24 about the visiting of Police Station and acting as panch witness. The
S.I. of police called them to the Police Station, he does not know the name of S.I. By the time he reached the Police Station, A1 & A2 were under the custody of Police. He admitted that A1 & A2 confessed
before them about the commission of offence. He had not signed on
any document initially. They went to the Neredgunta Village in the vehicle of S.I. M.O.4 was shown from the scene of offence by the
Constable. In the vehicle three police persons, himself and P.W.11 were present. He could not say the model of the vehicle. They reached Neredgunta Village at 09.30A.M. Police drafted the scene of offence roughly at the spot. He could not the name of the water body.
Police has taken the human bones from the spot and shown to him.
Police drafted the documents roughly at the scene of offence. He signed at the Police Station. They returned back to the Police station at 03.00 P.M. Police prepared all the documents in his presence and he signed on it. One Constable drafted all the documents. He signed on three panchanamas. He did not sign on any blank papers. He denied the suggestion that Police showed him A1 & A2 outside the
Court for the purpose of identifcation and that A1 & A2 did not confess before him about the commission of offence and that Police never took him to the Neredgunta Village and police did not seize anything before him.
19.P.Ws13 to 16 turned hostile and did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.17 is the Sub Inspector of Police. He deposed that on 20.08.2015 at 08.00 A.M., he received a complaint from P.W.1 and 25 registered a case in Crime No. 49 of 2015 under the head woman and child missing and issued Ex.P25 FIR and handed over C.D fle to L.W.21
V.Raghu for further investigation. In his cross-examination for accused he deposed that he received a written complaint. P.W.18 is the
Medical Ofcer. He deposed that on 30.08.2015 he received requisition from C.I. of Police, Zaheerabad and went to the scene of offence and observed the femur and skull bones and sent them for
F.S.L., for report. After receiving the report from F.S.L., gave fnal report stating that the bones are biologically relating to the D.N.A.
profle of Munige Samba Laxmi (P.W.1). Ex.P26 is the requisition,
Ex.P27 is the F.S.L report and Ex.P28 is his opinion. In his cross- examination for accused he deposed that he had not furnished the inquest panchanama. He admitted that he mentioned the particulars of the deceased basing on Ex.P26. The femur and skull bones are sent to F.S.L through Police. He had not submitted the said letter into the
Court and he received copy of F.S.L Report.
20.P.W.19 Inspector of Police deposed that on 28.08.2015, he took up the investigation from P.W.17 in Crime No.49/2015 for Woman and
Child missing. On the same day, he proceeded to Cherlanaganlapally
Village, Raikode Mandal and he examined P.W.3 & 4. On 30.08.2015, the S.I. of Police, Raikode brought the accused A1 to P.S. Raikode and produced before him. On interrogation, when accusedwas about to plead guilt, he secured the panch witnesses P.Ws.11 & 12. A1 confessed before the panchas. Basing on the confession, he altered the Section of Law from Woman and Child Missing to the offences 26 punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C and sent the memos to the Court and concerned ofcers. Ex.P29 is the Section alteration Memo. In pursuance of the confession of A1, A1 led them to
Neredugunta Village to the House of A2 Talari Kistaiah bearing H.No.1- 85, where he apprehended A2 and A2 on enquiry has confessed the commission of offence along with A1. Immediately, in the presence of
P.Ws.11 & 12, he recorded the confession panchanama of A2 and after recording the confession panchanama of A2, he examined P.W.5
Byagari Kistaiah. Later on A1 & A2 led them to the outskirts of
Neredugunta village to the agricultural land of Talari Durgaiah, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch in the presence of same panchas and also seized M.O.4 from the ashes. Ex.P30 is the relevant portion of confession panchanama. He examined P.Ws6 & 7. Subsequently A1 & A2 led them to Manjeera
River bridge outskirts of Chinthakunta Village, where they searched near the river and found one torn gunny bag with human skull and bones M.Os1 & 2. There he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch. Ex.P31 is scene of offence panchanama and
Ex.P32 is the rough sketch. He fled requisition to the doctor to conduct
P.M.E. on skull and bones. He also examined L.W.8 Manne Kistaiah and P.W.8. He also examined P.Ws1 & 2 at Manjeera River,
Chinthakunta. He also conducted inquest panchanama over the bones of deceased No.1. Later on he proceeded to Ausaloni Kunta outskirts of Yerraram Village, where he conducted scene of offence panchanama, drafted rough sketch and seized burnt silver anklets
M.O.3. Ex.P33 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P34 is the 27 rough sketch. He brought A1 & A2 to Police Station and effected their arrest and produced them before the J.F.C.M., Court, Zaheerabad for judicial remand. On 31.08.2015, he fled the requisition before the
Hon’ble Court to forward the bones and skull M.Os1 & 2 and also the
sample of P.W.1 for comparison of D.N.A. to the F.S.L. On 01.09.2015, he examined P.W.9. On 02.09.2015, he conducted property identifcation panchanama before the P.Ws15 & 16.Ex.P35 is the property identifcation panchanama. On 04.09.2015, he proceeded to
Cherlanaganlapally village and apprehended the accused A3 & A4 at their house and conducted confession panchanama in the presence of
P.W13 & 14 and in pursuance of confession of A4 he seized motor cycle M.O.5 bearing No.TS 07 EF 4349. Ex.P36 is the relevant portion of confession panchanama of A4. Later on, he brought the accused A3 & A4 and effected their arrest and produced them before the Court for judicial remand. On 04.09.2015, he deposited the case property M.Os 3 to 5 along with a gunny bag into Court. On 18.09.2015, he have applied for C.C. of docket order in Cr.No.4/2013 U/Sec.498-A IPC in CC
No.39/2013. Ex.P37 is the CC of docket order in C.C No.39/2013 on the fle of J.F.C.M., Court Zheerabad. After obtaining all the documents, he fled the charge sheet along with photos and C.D., which was taken during the investigation by him. Ex.P38 is bunch of photographs along with C.D. P.Ws3 to 10 stated before me as in Exs.P2 to P9.
21.In his cross examination for the accused, P.W.19 deposed that he received the C.D. fled from P.W.17 on the directions of S.D.P.O.,
Sangareddy vide Memo No.1154/SDSGR/2015, Dt.21.08.2015. On the 28 same day, he recorded the statements of P.Ws3 & 4. On 30.08.2015,
A1 was produced by P.W.17 before him and he fled Ex.P29 after recording the confession panchanamas of A1 & A2 and later on, he proceeded to the spot in Police Boleru Vehicle. He proceeded to the spot with accused, P.W.17 and panch witnesses. Three constables accompanied to the spot separately. He could not say the names of the constables and the survey number of the scene of offence at
Neredgunta Village. He did not examine the owner of the scene of offence at Neredgunta Village. The jurisdiction of Neredgunta Village scene of offence comes under Jogipet Police Station. He did not inform the Police Jogipet. The second scene of offence also comes under the jurisdiction of Jogipet Police Station and added that half of the river comes under Jogipert P.S., and half of the river comes under
Kowdipally Police Station. He admitted that he did not seized anything except M.O.4 from the frst scene of offence. He denied the suggestion that he did not seize M.O.4 from the scene of offence. He does not know that people are used to throw the bones in the river of their people who they have taken the fnal rites. He admitted that he did not collect any evidence to show that deceased No.1 having small child and that he had have not seized any bones or ash from the scene of offence at Yerraram Villge, except the silver anklets. He denied the suggestion that he had not seized any silver anklets from the scene of offence at Yerraram Village. He is aware that, if any quantity of bones are sufcient for conducting DNA test. He did not afx the panch chits on M.Os3 & 4 and added that he has attached the panch chits along with M.Os3 & 4 in the cover. He showed the M.Os3 & 4 29 and the panch chits were not afxed to the M.Os. The M.Os1 & 2 were not in his custody till sending the same to the F.S.L. M.Os3 & 4 are with his custody. Ex.P38 photographs are taken by their staff. He had not mentioned the same in the charge sheet. He admitted that in
Ex.P38 gunny bags are not found and that as per statement of P.ws1 & 2 there is a cell phone with deceased No.1 and whenever P.wS1 & 2 called some other persons used to lift the phone. P.Ws1 & 2 stated that some unknown person lifted the calls. He had not made any efforts to trace out the cell phone and also the phone number. He admitted that there is no evidence to show that deceased and A1 lived together. He denied the suggestion that deceased never lived with A1 after fling a case U/Sec.498-A. He had not enquired about the father of the deceased. He admitted that he did not collect any evidence to show that D2 is the daughter of A1. He did not collect made any efforts to collect the fnger prints of the accused on M.Os1, 2 & 5. He denied the suggestion that he did not conduct any panchanama on either of the scene of offences and that the panchanamas are prepared in the police station and M.Os1 to 5 are planted for the purpose of this case. He was confronted with the Confession panchanama of A4, the relevant portion of panchanama marked as Ex.D1. That as per Ex.D1 it clearly shows that as on 17.06.2015, the deceased No.1 is alive added that there is a mistake crept in mentioning the date in Ex.D1. He admitted that P.Ws 1 & 2 did not state before me that as A3 refused A1 and deceased to stay along with them, that P.W.1 took a room at
Shankarpally and where D1 and A1 started their matrimonial life and that P.Ws 1 & 2 did not state before me that A3 & A4 and their family 30 members came and took A1 and D1 to their house to stay along with them and that P.W1 did not state before me that when P.W.1 went to the house of A3 & A4 and questioned them, then A3 asked her not to stay there and asked her to leave the place by saying that they are not given any thing and also thrown all the articles belongs to the deceased and that P.W.1 did not state before me that she informed the said fact to the neighbors of A3 & A4 and requested them to question A3 & A4, on that neighbors refused to question A3 & A4 saying that A3 will abuse them and advised her to take deceased along with her and that P.W.1 did not state before me that when P.W.1 questioned A1 about the physical harassment of A1, then A1 replied to take away her daughter and he cannot feed the deceased as she was pregnant and that P.W.1 did not state before him that she stayed at
House of P.W.4 and also asked him for help and P.W.4 gave food to her on the night, next day morning P.W.4 stated that he can’t help her in any way as A3 doesn’t listen to his words and that P.W.1 did not state
before me that A1 came to her village and promised her that he will
take care of deceased and her daughter and till then he behave in such a manner by listening the words of A3 & A4 and now he will not listen the words of his parents and that P.W.1 did not state before me that her family elder viz., Chinnapally Babu asked the deceased why she was intending to go to the matrimonial life, then the deceased informed that her husband is good person and he behave in such a manner by listening the words of A3 and that P.W.1 did not state
before me that when she reached village at 08-00 to 09-00 P.M., and
she observed the doors was locked, she enquired with the neighbours 31 and they stated that they saw them in the morning and after that they do not know about the where abouts of her daughter and her granddaughter and that P.W.1 did not state before me that she returned to her house and after fve days again she came to the house of A3 and saw A3 and her daughter, then she questioned A3 & her daughter about her daughter and granddaughter, they started abusing her and that P.W1 did not state before me that in spite of her repeated calls to deceased and accused A1, the calls were not reachable and that P.W.1 did not state before me that after fve or six days she again went to Nagalapally Village and went to the house of L.W.3 and asked him that the calls were reachable then L.W.3 informed that A1 is indebted an amount of Rs.20,000/- to A2 and as A1 did not pay the amount he forcible took A1 and deceased and their daughter along with him and that P.W.1 did not state before me that they never stated
before me that they asked L.W.3 for the cell number of A2 and
informed him that she will pay the amount to A2, he replied me that he doesn’t know the number of A2 and that P.W.2 did not state before me that after few days her deceased sister made phone call to him and informed him that A1, A3 & A4 are harassing her for dowry and that
P.W.2 did not state before me that they sent her deceased sister and her daughter with A1 to the house of our grand father, who resides in
E.C.I.L., Hyderabad to live there for some time, during that period the
Accused A1 and deceased used to live amicably and attended J.F.C.M.,
Court, Zaheerabad and that P.W.2 did not stated before me that after few days when he telephoned to her sister, some others used to talk.
He denied the suggestion that the accused A1 to A4 did not confess 32
before me about the commission of offence and the M.Os1 to 5 are not
seized before the panchas P.Ws11 to 16 and that P.Ws3 to 10 did not state before me as in Exs.P2 to P9. It is not true to suggest that the
Police Station, Jogipet is having jurisdiction to investigate the matter in this case and that A1 & A2 never accompanied with us to the scene of offence pancahanamas and that the accused A1 to A4 are no way connected with this case and we implicated the accused falsely in this case.
22.P.W.20 deposed that he has been working Assistant Director,
Forensic Laboratory, Red Hills, Hyderabad from 1997. On 03.09.2015, he received a requisition letter from Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Zaheerabad for conducting D.N.A. examination and also received one sealed card board box containing bones and produced one person by name Munige Samba Laxmi/P.W.1. The card board box contains paper parcel contains broken long bone and bone piece, marked as Item
No.1. The second paper parcel contains skull pieces marked as Item
No.2. He collected blood sample from P.W.1/Munige Samba Laxmi marked as Item No.3. In the result of examination, the D.N.A.
extracted from item Nos.1 to 3 and subjected to Autosomal STR analysis by using investigator ID Plex Plus kit, the DNA profle obtained from item Nos.1& 2 are compared with the DNA profle obtained from
Item No.3. The allelic pattern of item Nos1 & 2 matches with the allelic pattern of item No.3. The autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that the source of item No.1(long bone) and item NO.2(skull) are biologically related to DNA profle of P.W.1 Munige Samba Laxmi 33 (Source of item NO.3). Ex.P27 is the F.S.L. Report already marked through P.W.18. In his cross-examination for accused, he deposed that any object can be subjected to DNA test depending on environment condition. Police referred only the mother of the deceased. He could not say whether the fngerprints are available on bones or not. He admitted that he had not mentioned the mode of examination of DNA
Test.
23. Coming to the documentary evidence – Ex.P1 is the complaint,
ExsP2 to P9 are respectively the 161 Cr.P.C statements of P.Ws3 to 10.
ExsP10 to P12 are rough sketches of the scene of offences, ExsP13 and
P14 are signatures on confession of A1 and A2 respectively, Ex.P15 is scene of offence panchanama, ExsP16 to 18 are rough sketches,
Ex.P19 to P25are signatures confession/recovery panchanamas, Ex.P26 is requisition, Ex.P27 is FSL report, Ex.P28 is opinion of P.W.18, Ex.P29 is section alteration memo, Ex.P30 is confession, Ex.P31 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P32 is rough sketch, Ex.P33 is scene of offence panchanama, Ex.P34 is rough sketch, Ex.P35 is objects identifcation panchanama, Ex.P36 is confession of A4, Ex.P37 is certifed copy of docket order in C.C No. 39 of 2013 of J.F.C.M.,
Zaheerabad, Ex.P38 is photographs with C.D. Ex.D1 is relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2. M.O.1 is skull bone of deceased,
M.O.2 is femur bone of deceased, M.O.3 is anklet, M.O.4 is cross (silva),
M.O.5 is motorcycle.
24.Now on an overall appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it has to be seen from the above oral and documentary 34 evidence on record as to whether the prosecution is successful in bringing home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C.
23.From the evidence available on record, P.W.1 happened to be mother of deceased. She deposed that deceased and A1 fell in love with each other and P.W.1 got their marriage. Deceased and A1 set up their matrimonial home at Shankarpally and after some, A3 and A4, who are parents of A1, shifted them to their house. After some time, deceased called P.W.1 and informed that A1, A3 and A4 were not looking after her properly and that they were harassing her, beating her. On that P.W.12 went to the house of A1, A3 & A4 and A1 also askedP.W.1 to take away the deceased with P.W.1. At that time, deceased was pregnant. Later, deceased gave birth to female child.
After one-and-half years of giving birth to child, A1 came to the house of P.W.1 and expressed sorry for what had happened and stated that on hearing the words of A3 and A4, he had not looked after the deceased and her daughter properly and he would take care of the welfare of deceased and her daughter properly. By saying so, he took the deceased to the house of A3 and A4. At the time of sending her daughter and granddaughter with A1, P.W.1 gave cell phone to P.W.1 and silver anklets to her granddaughter. After one week or ten days, when she called up her daughter, her phone was not reachable. P.W.1 went to the house of accused and learnt that accused left in the morning. P.W.3 stated to P.W.1 that A1 took deceased and her 35 daughter to Hyderabad and started their matrimonial life at
Hyderabad. After fve or six days, P.W.1 again went to Nagalapally to the house of P.W.3 and then P.W.3 informed her that A1 indebted
Rs.20,000/- to A2 and as A1 did not repay, A2 forcibly took A1 and deceased and the child along with him. When P.W.1 asked P.W.3 for cell phone number of A2, he could not give. P.W.1 also deposed that when the accused harassed the deceased, they approached Police,
Raikode and got registered a case in Crime No. 4 of 2013 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C against A1, A3 & A4. It was registered as C.C No. 39 of 2013 which ended in compromise through Lok Adalat.
24.P.W.2 is deposed in the same fashion as that of P.W.1. During cross-examination of P.Ws1 and 2, the learned counsel for accused tried to elicit omissions made by P.Ws1 and 2 but those omissions are not so vital or major to disbelieve their evidence. Those omission are not in a position to create any doubt in the mind of this Court as to the veracity of the evidence deposed by P.Ws 1 and 2 before this Court.
25.It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that later on, police, Raikode called her and informed her that her daughter and granddaughter were killed by the accused. After that, accused confessed about commission of offence in the presence of P.Ws11 and 12. P.W.11 stated that police called him to the Police Station and from there, they went to the scene of offence, where police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn up rough sketch. P.W.11 turned hostile and was cross- 36 examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. P.W.12 stated that he is working as Panchayat Secretary. He deposed that police called him to the Police Station, Raikode where A1 and A2 confessed about commission of offence. A1 and A2 led them to the scene of offence at
Neredgunta village and accused took them to a shed and beside the shed, there is a trench, where they observed ashes and burnt wood.
Police shown M.O.4 at the scene of offence and drafted Ex.P15 and
Ex.P16. Later, Police took them to Suraram village, where they observed ashes near a bund. Police prepared scene of offence panchanama Ex.P17 and rough sketch Ex.P18. P.W.13 was also declared hostile and during cross-examination, P.W.13 admitted that police called them to Police Station, Raikode and A1 and A2 confessed about commission of offence and in pursuance to confession, police seized M.O.4 in their presence and conducted inquest panchanama.
26.From the evidence of P.Ws11 and 12, it is clear that confession of
A1 and A2 led the police to discover incriminating material objects.
M.O.1 is skull bone of deceased and M.O.2 is femur bone of deceased.
M.O.3 is anklet and M.O.4 is cross (silva). P.W.20 Assistant Director of
Forensic Laboratory deposed that on requisition from the Judicial First
Class Magistrate, Zaheerabad, he conducted D.N.A examination. He received one sealed card board box containing bones. Police produced one person by name, Munige Samba Laxmi/P.W.1. The cardboard box contains paper parcel contains broken long bone and bone pieces marked as item No.1. The second paper parcel contains skull pieces marked as item No.2. He collected blood samples from P.W.1 marked 37 as item No.3. In the result of examination, D.N.A extracted from items
No.1 to 3 and subjected to autosomal STR analysis by using investigator ID Plex Plus kit, the DNA profle obtained from item Nos.1 and 2 are compared with the DNA profle obtained from item No.3. The allelic pattern of item Nos.1 and 2 matches with the allelic pattern of item No.3. The autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that the source of item No.1 (long bone) and item No.2 (skull) are biologically related to DNA profle of Munige Samba Laxmi (source of item No.3).
Ex.P27 is FSL report already marked through P.W.18.
27.As per the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, A1 took the deceased to their house and after one week, when P.W.1 called up the deceased, her cell phone was not reachable. P.W.1 called up P.W.3. Mere hostility of circumstantial witnesses is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. As per P.W.1 it is clear that A1 took the deceased to his house and thereafter, the whereabouts of deceased were not found.
During the confession of A1 that led to discovery of material objects, it is clinchingly established that A1 shown the place where accused killed the deceased. Bones seized from the scene of offence at the instance of accused were subjected to D.N.A test. P.W.20 categorically deposed that the autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that the source of item No.1 (long bone) and item No.2 (skull) are biologically related to
DNA profle of Munge Samba Laxmi P.W.1, who is source of item No.3.
It is clinchingly proved that those bones are the bones of deceased
No.1 and 2. Even though A1 is not charged for the offence punishable under Section 304-B I.P.C., the death of deceased No.1 (Swapna, wife of A1) occurred within seven years of her marriage with A1 otherwise 38 than under normal circumstances. To rebut the presumption, A1 did not lead any evidence to show that he was not responsible for the death of deceased-Swapna. The evidence is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. P.W.12’s evidence is very much clear that M.Os1 & 2 were recovered from the scene of offence. P.W.20 clearly stated that M.Os1 & 2 pertain to deceased No.1 and 2. Hence, mere hostility of remaining witnesses does not affect the case of the prosecution for the reason that the above scientifc evidence of P.W.20 and the other material evidence clinchingly established the guilt of the accused.
28.On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is clear that P.W.1, who is mother of deceased No.1 (Swapna) and maternal grandmother of deceased No.2 (Aishwarya) deposed that
A1 (husband of deceased-Swapna) was harassing the deceased-
Swapna with a demand for additional dowry. P.W.1 further asserted that A3 and A4 being parents-in-law of deceased-Swapna harassed the deceased-Swapna, when deceased-Swapna was unable to attend any work due to her pregnancy. When P.W.1 questioned A1, A3 and A4 for their harassing the deceased-Swapna, A3 thrown away the belongings of deceased-Swapna and forced her to go away. Showing the harassment meted out to the deceased-Swapna, a case in C.C No.39 of 2013 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 498-A
I.P.C in the Court of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate,
Zaheerabad, concerning Crime No.4 of 2013 of P.S Raikode.
29.The confession of A1 and A2 also established that they tried to screen the evidence by burning the dead bodies of deceased No.1 and 39 2 and hence, the offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34
I.P.C is established by the prosecution against A1 and A2. However, the evidence adduced by the prosecution falling short of establishing that A3 and A4 abated A1 and A2 in commission of the murder of deceased No.1 and 2, nor that they also screened the evidence by burning the dead bodies of the deceased No.1 and 2 and hence, the prosecution could not establish its case as against A3 and A4 for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C.
A2 having taken active part in commission of the above offences with
A1, is also liable for punishment under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C. Therefore, it is clear that the prosecution established the guilt of A1 and A2 for the charges of offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C. However, the prosecution could not establish the guilt of A3 and A4 for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C.
30.Therefore, this Court comes to the logical conclusion that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of A1 and A2 for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C.
, while the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of A3 and A4 for the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C. The point is answered accordingly.
31.In the result, A1 and A2 are found guilty of the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 109 read with 34 I.P.C and hence, they are convicted there-for under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
40
A3 and A4 are not found guilty of the charges of offences punishable under Sections 302, 2019, 109 read with 34 I.P.C and hence, they are acquitted there-for under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A3 & A4 shall stand cancelled.
A1 and A2 are to be questioned on the quantum of sentence.
However, A1 and A2 called absent, fled petition under Section 317
Cr.P.C., which is dismissed and N.B.Ws are issued for their arrest and case is adjourned to 18.1.19.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st December, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTIONFOR DEFENSE
P.W.1M.Samba LaxmiNIL
P.W.2M.Bhargav
P.W.3B.Sanjeevulu
P.W.4S.Maruthi
P.W.5B.Kistaiah
P.W.6B.Durgaiah
P.W.7Munnuru Sailu
P.W.8 Ch.Ramulu
P.W.9 Machkoori Raju
P.W.10 Machkoori Galaiah
P.W.11 K.Mallanna
P.W.12 K.Yellaiah 41
P.W.13 P.Mohan Reddy
P.W.14 B.Chandraiah
P.W.15 M.Laxmaiah
P.W.16 N.Mogulappa
P.W.17 S.ShivaPrasad
P.W.18 B.Mahesh Kumar
P.W.19 V.Raghu
P.W.20 Dr.G.Pandu
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P1complaint
Ex.P2161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3
Ex.P3161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4
Ex.P4161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5
Ex.P5161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6
Ex.P6161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7
Ex.P7161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.8
Ex.P8161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9
Ex.P9 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10
Ex.P10 rough sketch
Ex.P11 rough sketch
Ex.P12 rough sketch
Ex.P13 signature on confession panchanama of A1
Ex.P14 signature of confession of A2
Ex.P15 scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P16 rough sketch
Ex.P17 scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P18 signature on seizure report
Ex.P19 signature on confession of A3
Ex.P20 signature of P.W.13 on confession and seizure of A4
Ex.P21 signature of P.W.14 on confession and seizure of A3 42
Ex.P22 signature of P.W.14 on confession and seizure of A4
Ex.P23signature of P.,W.15 on property identifcation proceedings
Ex.P24signature of P.W.16 on property identifcation proceedings
Ex.P25 signature of P.W.18 on property identifcation proceedings
Ex.P26 requisition given by police
Ex.P27 FSL report
Ex.P28 opinion
Ex.P29 section alteration memo
Ex.P30 confession
Ex.P31 scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P32 rough sketch
Ex.P33 scene of offence panchanama
Ex.P34 rough sketch
Ex.P35 object identifcation panchanama
Ex.P36 confession of A4 (motorcycle)
Ex.P37 C.C of docket order in C.C No.39 of 2013 of JFMC Zaheerabad
Ex.P38 photographs with C.D
M.Os marked for prosecution
M.O.1 skull bone
M.O.2 femur bone
M.O.3 anklet
M.O.4 Cross (silva)
M.O.5 motorcycle
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Read by:
Compared by:
43
1
IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: SRI B.SAI KALYAN CHAKRAVARTHI,
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE.
MONDAY, THE 31st DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.41 OF 2018
1.From which Court thisAssistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy. Appeal is preferred
2.No. of the case in that CourtS.C No. 280 of 2015
3.Name and description ofA1 : M.Muralidhar @ Murali, S/o. the appellantLate Shashidhar, Age 51 years, Occupation: Government Employee, R/ o. Marriguda village, Mall Mandal, Nalgonda District and A2 : Mudigonda Shashidhar, S/o. Muralidhar, Age 27 years, Occupation: Student,R/o.H.No.5-8-124/39 Narayanreddy Colony, Sangareddy Town
4.Sentence and law underThe trial Court convicted the appellants which it was imposed byu/s 248(2) Cr.P.C of the charges of the lower courtofences punishable under Sections 451, 307 I.P.C and sentenced each of themtoundergorigorous imprisonment for fve years and to pay a fne of Rs.5,000/- each and in default to sufer simple imprisonment for three months for the charge of ofence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., and further sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fne of Rs.1,000/- each and in default to sufer simple imprisonment for one month each for the ofence punishable under Section 451 I.P.C. The sentences imposed against A1 shall run consecutively, while the sentences imposed against A2 shall run concurrently.
2
5.Whether the appeal isConviction imposed by trial court on the confrmed / modifed /appellants/A1 & A2 for the charge of ofence punishable under Section 451 I.P.C reversed is confrmed. The sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment, as imposed on the appellants/A1 and A2, by the trial Court, for the charge of ofence punishable under Section 451 I.P.C is reduced/minimized to that ‘till rising the court’, and each of them shall pay a fne of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty fve thousand only), and in default of payment of fne, each of them shall sufer simple imprisonment for si months.
Further, appellants/A1 & A2 are found not guilty of the charge of ofence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C., instead, they are found guilty of an ofence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C and convicted there-for under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Each of the appellants/A1 & A2 are sentenced to pay a fne of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ffty thousand only) each, and in default of payment of fne, each of them shall sufer simple imprisonment for two years. The fne amount of Rs.12,000/- each i.e., (Rs.6,000/- each paid in the trial Court), shall be adjusted on payment of remaining sum of fne amount.
Out of above total fne amount of Rs.7,50,000/-, Rs.7,49,000/- shall be paid towards compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C to the victim-injured / P.W.5 on proper identifcation.
(15) days time is allowed for payment of fne amount.
6.Date of presentation of04.06.2018 appeal
7.Date of fling of appeal04.06.2018
8.Notice issued by the06.07.2018 Court
9.Bail bond if appellant isBail bonds available let out on bail 10Appellant is ordered to06.07.2018 .appear 11Date of hearing04.12.2018 . 12Date of judgment31.12.2018 .
3
The case came up before me for fnal hearing on 04.12.2018 in the presence of M/s.M.Giridhar, Counsel for the appellants/A1 and A2, and of the learned Public Prosecutor for the State; having perused the material on record; having heard both sides and having stood over for consideration, the Court made the following:-
J U D G M E N T
This is a Criminal Appeal preferred by appellant against conviction and sentence passed by the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Sangareddy by judgment dated 04.06.2018 in C.C. No. 280 of
2015, where-under, appellants/A1 and A2 were convicted under
Section 235(2) Cr.P.C for the charges of ofences punishable under
Sections 307 and 451 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for fve years and to pay a fne of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to sufer simple imprisonment for three months for the charge of ofence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C and further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fne of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to sufer simple imprisonment for one month for the charge of ofence punishable under Section 451 I.P.C.
2.The main grounds urged in the appeal are as follows:
The judgment under appeal is contrary to law, facts of case and evidence on record. The trial Court passed the judgment in a prejudiced manner without proper appreciation of evidence on record.
The trial Court ought to have disbelieved the oral testimony of all witnesses, as there is no corroboration and as they deposed improved 4 version. The trial Court ought to have observed that P.Ws3 & 4 are not eyewitnesses and they gave only hear-say evidence. The trial Court ought to have rejected the evidence of P.Ws1 to 5, who are relates to each other and interested in the case of prosecution. The trial Court gave erroneous fndings. There are several improvements, omissions, contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The trial
Court ought to have observed that prosecution had not e amined independent witnesses in the neighborhood to prove its case against appellant. There are several weaknesses in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The sentence imposed on the appellants by the trial Court is severe. The judgment of trial court resulted in miscarriage of justice and hence, liable to be set aside. Hence, the appeal is to be allowed.
3.The brief case of the prosecution is as follows:
On 08.11.2013 at 11.15 P.M P.W.1 lodged a complaint stating that on that date at about 10.00 P.M when himself and his son-Vinod
Khanna, were in their house, A1 and A2 forcibly trespassed into their house, A1 slip through of his son-Vinod Khanna with a sharp weapon, while A2 broken left hand of Vinod Khanna and that thereby A1 and A2 tried to kill his son-Vinod Khanna and that the incident occurred because of previous disputes. On the basis of the above complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police, Sangareddy (Rural) P.S registered a case in
Crime No.212 of 2013 for the ofences punishable under Sections 307 and 451 I.P.C. He e amined the witnesses, conducted scene of ofence panchanama and drawn up rough sketch of scene of ofence. On 5 04.12.2013 A1 and A2 surrendered before the Police, confessed to have committed the ofence and they were released on bail. After completion of investigation, he fled Charge Sheet.
4.The trial court e amined A1 and A2 and framed charges for the ofences punishable under Sections 451, 307 I.P.C., read over and e plained its contents to them and when they pleaded not guilty of the same, posted the case for trial.
5.In support of the case of the prosecution, P.Ws1 to 12 were e amined and E s.P1 to P12 were marked.
6.Upon considering the material evidence available on record, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as referred above.
This judgment is assailed.
7.Now the point for determination is:- “Whether the appellants/A1 and A2 committed the
offences punishalle under sections 30,i 4511 I.P.C with which
they stood charged and whether the judgment of the trial
court suffers from any irregularityi infrmity or illegalityi
warranting to le set aside?”
POINT:
8.In order to prove its case, the prosecution got e amined P.Ws.1 to 12 and got marked E s.P1 to P12. P.W.1 happened to be the de- facto-complainant in this case. He deposed that on 08.11.2013 at about 10.00 P.M A1 and A2 trespassed into his house, caught hold his son, while A1 slit the neck of his son with a sharp weapon, A2 broke 6 the left hand of his son. On hearing the hues and cries made by them, when neighbourers gathered, A1 and A2 fed away from the scene.
P.Ws2 to 4 deposed that on hearing the hues and cries made by P.Ws1 & 5, they reached the spot and were told that P.W.5 was attacked.
9.P.W.5 is the victim in this case. He deposed that on 08.11.2013, at about 10.00 P.M A1 and A2 trespassed in to their house, A1 caught hold his neck, while A2 broken his left hand and that A1 inficted injury to his throat and chest with a sharp edged weapon i.e., knife.
Thereafter, he was shifted to Hospital, where he underwent treatment for ffteen days. P.W.5 admitted in his cross-e amination that his wife (L.W.6-Prasanna) got registered a case against him for the ofence punishable under Section 498-A I.P.C. He further admitted that he did not state to police that he sustained injury on his chest. P.Ws6 to 9 turned hostile. P.W.10 is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the case on receipt of E .P1 complaint from P.W.1, while
P.W.12 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who investigated into the case and fled charge sheet.
10.P.W.11 is the Medical Ofcer in this case. He deposed that on 08.11.2013 at about 10.45 P.M he received requisition from Police and e amined P.W.5 and found (i) lacerated wound 2 1 1 cm upper neck front, (ii) lacerated wound 3 1 1 cm below wound (1), (iii) lacerated wound 4 1 1 cm below and (iv) lacerated wound 5 1 1/2 cm below left clavicle and that he issued E .P10 wound certifcate certifying that the those injuries, which were caused with sharp edged weapon, were simple in nature. All the prosecution witnesses were cross-e amined.
7
11.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that only interested witnesses were e amined, P.Ws7 to 9 did not support the case of prosecution and no other independent witness was e amined and that therefore, it is not safe to base conviction of accused relying on the evidence of interested witnesses. The said contention of the accused cannot sustain for the reason that independent witness is not mandatory in each and every case and while appreciating the evidence, only the quality of the evidence is to be looked into and if the evidence of even one witness inspires confdence of the Court, it is sufcient to rely upon to base conviction of the accused, especially in the case on hand, which is a matrimonial ofence. There are no inconsistencies or legal lacunae in the evidence of P.Ws1 to 5. The evidence of investigating ofcers e amined as P.Ws10 & 12 also corroborated the evidence of P.Ws1 to 5. The evidence of P.Ws1 and 2 categorically established that A1 and A2 tress passed into their house.
Hence, the trial Court has made no error in fnding A1 and A2 guilty of the ofence punishable under Section 451 I.P.C. However, the ingredients of the charge of ofence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C are not established. Oral testimony of P.W.1 de-facto-complainant and father of injured/P.W.5 and the individual testimony of injured/P.W.5 coupled with the medical evidence of P.W.11 would establish that
P.W.5 sustained simple injuries in the hands of A1 and A2, as certifed by P.W.10 under E .P10 and that those injuries were caused with a sharp edged weapon. Through the evidence of P.Ws1, 5 & 10 corroborated by the testimony of other witnesses/P.Ws2 to 4, 10 to 12, prosecution established that A1 and A2 committed the ofence 8 punishable under Section 324 I.P.C. The prosecution had not established that A1 and A2 had any intention to kill P.W.7 to establish the charge of ofence of ofence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C.
Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution established the guilt of A1 and A2 only for the ofences punishable under Sections 451 and 324 I.P.C but not the charge of ofence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. E cept the above, the judgment of the trial Court does not sufer from any other irregularity, infrmity or illegality. The oral testimony of A1 e amined as D.W.1 coupled with
E .D1 Attendance Certifcate does not inspire confdence of the Court.
The grounds of appeal on this score, is devoid of any merit.
12.Coming to the sentence part, taking in to consideration of the age of the accused and the gravity of the ofence, this Court is inclined to modify the sentence. Accordingly, the conviction imposed by trial court on the appellants/A1 & A2 for the charge of ofence punishable under Section 451 I.P.C is confrmed. The sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment, as imposed on the appellants/A1 and A2, by the trial Court, for the charge of ofence punishable under Section 451
I.P.C is reduced/minimized to that ‘till rising the court’, and each of them shall pay a fne of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty fve thousand only), and in default of payment of fne, each of them shall sufer simple imprisonment for si months. Further, appellants/A1 & A2 are found not guilty of the charge of ofence punishable under Section 307
I.P.C., instead, they are found guilty of an ofence punishable under
Section 324 I.P.C and convicted there-for under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C.
Each of the appellants/A1 & A2 are sentenced to pay a fne of 9
Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) each, and in default of payment of fne, each of them shall sufer simple imprisonment for two years. Out of above total fne amount of Rs.6,50,000/-, Rs.6,49,000/- shall be paid towards compensation under Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C to the victim-injured / P.W.5 on proper identifcation. This point is answered accordingly.
13.In the result, Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The conviction imposed by trial court on the appellants/A1 & A2 for the charge of ofence punishable under Section 451 I.P.C is confrmed. The sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment, as imposed on the appellants/A1 and A2, by the trial Court, for the charge of ofence punishable under
Section 451 I.P.C is reduced/minimized to that ‘till rising the court’, and each of them shall pay a fne of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty fve thousand only), and in default of payment of fne, each of them shall sufer simple imprisonment for si months. Further, appellants/A1 &
A2 are found not guilty of the charge of ofence punishable under
Section 307 I.P.C., instead, they are found guilty of an ofence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C and convicted there-for under
Section 235(2) Cr.P.C. Each of the appellants/A1 & A2 are sentenced to pay a fne of Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees three lakhs ffty thousand only) each, and in default of payment of fne, each of them shall sufer simple imprisonment for two years. The fne amount of Rs.12,000/- each i.e., (Rs.6,000/- each paid in the trial Court), shall be adjusted on payment of remaining sum of fne amount. Out of above total fne amount of
Rs.7,50,000/-, Rs.7,49,000/- shall be paid towards compensation under 10
Section 357 (3) Cr.P.C to the victim-injured / P.W.5 on proper identifcation.
Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 31st day of December, 2018.
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
Read by:
Compared by:
OFFICE OF THE SPL. SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF OFFENCES UNDER
S.Cs/S.Ts (POA) ACT-CUM-V ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE ::
MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: SMT. B. PRATHIMA VI Addl.Dist.& Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. I/C V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
FRIDAY THIS THE DAY OF 25th JANUARY, 2019.
O.S.No: 3 of 2016
Between :
1. Smt. Neeradi Yadamma, W/o: Neeradi Veeraiah, D/o: Late Peddaboina Narsaiah @ Narsimulu Aged: 46 Years, Occ: House hold, R/o: H.No. 5-212, Mudhiraj Basti, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Medak District.
2. Smt, Talari Pushpamma @Pushpalatha W/o: T. Krishna, D/o: Late Peddaboina Narsaiah @Narsimulu, Aged: 44 Years, Occ: House hold, R/o: H.No. 11-52, Tellapur village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, Medak District.
3. Smt. Sumithra W/o: Narsimulu, D/o: Late Peddaboina Narsaiah @ Narsimulu Aged: 38 Years, Occ: House hold, R/o: Gopinagar, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ….Plaintiffs AND
1. Smt. Peddaboina Rajamani, W/o: Late Peddaboina Narsaiah @Narsimulu Aged: 65 Years, Occ: Household,
2. Peddaboina Anjaneyulu, S/o: Late Peddaboina Narsaiah @ Narsimulu Aged: 35 Years, Occ: Private Employee,
Both are R/o: H.No. 5-94/1, Mudhiraj Basti, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Medak District.
3. Safeway Symphony Park Homes A venture of M/s. Safeway infra Represented by its Managing Director I.V.S. Raju office at Safeway Infra Balaji Empire Plot No.6, Sy.No. 103/1, 105 & 106, Jayabheri Enclave, Gachibowli, Hyderabad. ….Defendants.
Claim: SUIT FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION In respect of lands bearing Sy.No. 232/AA, admeasuring: Ac: 0-14 Gts, in Sy.No. 242/AA, admeasuring: Ac: 0-13 Gts, in Sy.No. 498/A2, admeasuring: AC: 0-15 Gts, in Sy.No, 499/A2, admeasuring: Ac: 0-15 Gts, in Sy.No. 500/A2, admeasuring: Ac: 0-16 Gts, in Sy.No. 501/A2, admeasuring: AC: 0-10 Gts, in Sy.No. 502/A2, admeasuring: Ac: 0-08 Gts, in Sy.No. 504/AA2, admeasuring: Ac: 0-14 Gts, in Sy.No. 506/AA2, admeasuring: Ac: 0-13 Gts, in Sy.No. 507/AA2, admeasuring: Ac: 0-12 Gts, and in Sy.No. 508/AA2, admeasuring Ac: 2-03 Gts. Total admeasuring Ac: 5-13 Gts situated at Patancheru Village, 2
Patancheru Mandal, Medak District and the residential house bearing No. 5- 207,Adm: 160 Sq. Yards, built up area 621 Sq. Feet situated at Mudhirai (Tenugu) Basti, Patancheru Town and Mandal, Medak District.
This suit is coming before me in the presence of Sri M. Narsing Rao, Advocate
for the Petitionerss/Plaintiffss and that of the defendants No.1 to 3 are remained
exparte, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the court made the following:
DOCKET ORDER DATED 25-01-2019
Plaintiffs and Defendants are present. Counsel for both sides also present. At the intervention and upon advice by the members of the Lok Adalat bench and the learned counsel on either side, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into compromise. Accordingly award is passed (vide separate one) as per the terms of compromise mentioned in the award.
Pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25th day of January, 2019.
for V Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
TSME000000092018
Presented on : 06-01-2018 Registered on : 19-01-2018 Decided on : 31-12-2018 Duration : 0 years, 11 months, 25 days
IN THE COURT OF
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy
MVOP/32/2018
Gaddala Laxmi Age: 45 Address: Occ Household, R/o. H.No.5-33 Patelgudal Vi, Ameenpur M, Sangareddy District. 2: G.Venu Prasad 3: G.Krishna 4: G.Suguna VERSUS Shaik Jabber Age: 32 Address: Occ Driver of Tractor bearing NO.AP-23Y5931 and Trolley Bearing No.AP-23-Y-6179, R/o. H.No.3-75, Ameenpur vi, and M, Sangareddy District. 2:Aenugula Jai Ram reddy 3:The Manager M/s Magma Hdi General Insurance Company Ltd. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocate for : Vivekanand P Advocate for : Sri K.Krishna Rao appearing for Shaik Jabber: Advocate , appearing for 2, 3 respectively.
ORDER
Joint memo filed. Matter is referred to Lok Adalath 31-12-2018. The
Claimants and Respondent No.3 are present. Counsel for both sides also present. At the intervention and upon advice by the members of the Lok
Adalat bench and the learned counsel on either side, both the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement and entered into compromise. As per the compromise, mutually agreed between the parties, Respondent
No.3 has offered to pay an amount of Rs.8,75,000/- depositable within 30 days and in default to deposit along with interest @ 7.5 percent p.a., and the Claimant No.1 and 4 are entitled each an amount of Rs.2,18,750/-.
The claimants are permitted to withdraw his respective share at a time.
Thus, in terms of compromise stated above, an award is passed(vide separate one).
Date : 31-12-2018 Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Sangareddy
Order Record 7 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EP/221/2018 | M/s. Shriram City Union Finance rep. by authrised person K. Anjaiah vs K.V.S.S. Prasad and another | 25 Jan 2019 | Terminetted | — |
| OS/3/2016 | Neeradi Yadamma vs Peddaboina Rajamani | 25 Jan 2019 | order | — |
| OS/189/2017 | Bulkapuram Sathyamma and 3 others vs Gajjela Anjaiah and 4 others | 08 Jan 2019 | Dismissed | — |
| MVOP/32/2018 | Gaddala Laxmi vs Shaik Jabber | 31 Dec 2018 | settle before lokadalat | — |
| CRLA/41/2018 | Mudigonda Muralidhar vs P.S.Sangareddy- R | 31 Dec 2018 | Petition is partly allowed | Convicted |
| SC/63/2017 | P.S.Raikode vs Begari Ravinder and (3) Others | 31 Dec 2018 | Convict | Acquitted |
| OS/94/2012 | Vadde Sathyanarayana vs Vadde Janardhan | 31 Dec 2018 | Decreed | — |
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has SMT. B. PRATHIMA handled?
SMT. B. PRATHIMA has handled 7 court orders since 2018 at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 7 orders per month.
What types of cases does SMT. B. PRATHIMA hear?
Based on available records, SMT. B. PRATHIMA primarily handles Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) and Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
Where is SMT. B. PRATHIMA currently posted?
SMT. B. PRATHIMA is posted as Prl.District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex, Sangareddy, Telangana.
Are judgments by SMT. B. PRATHIMA available online?
Yes. 7 judgments by SMT. B. PRATHIMA are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does SMT. B. PRATHIMA dispose cases?
SMT. B. PRATHIMA disposes approximately 7 cases per month, based on 7 orders handled over their tenure at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex.
Since when is SMT. B. PRATHIMA serving?
SMT. B. PRATHIMA has been serving at Sangareddy, PDJ Court Complex since 2018.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Dec 2018 — Jan 2019Prl.District and Sessions Judge · 3 orders
-
Dec 2018 — Jan 2019II Addl. District and Sessions Judge · 2 orders
-
Dec 2018 — Jan 2019V Addl. Dist and Sessions Judge-cum-Spl for SC/ST · 2 orders
-
Dec 2018 — Jan 2019VII ADJ-cum-Judge, Family Court
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court