Smt B Pushpalatha

1 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :: SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt B.Pushpalatha Asst.Sessions Judge Sangareddy

Monday the 23rd day of May, 2022

S.C. No. 156 of 2019

CRIME NO. 196 of 2018

Name of the The State of Telangana through, Sub Inspector of complainant.Police, Sadashivapet PS

Description of the A.1: Jattagoni Laxmaiah, S/o. Malappa, Aged: 38 accused.years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Malaphad Village, Sadashivapet Mandal.

A.2: Jattagoni Ranemma, W/o. Laxmaiah, Aged: 35 years, Caste: Golla, Occ: Agriculture, R/o: Malaphad Village, Sadashivapet Mandal.

Charge.U/S.307 R/w. 34 IPC

Plea of accused.Accused No.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge.Accused No.1 and 2 found not guilty

Sentence or order.Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence U/S. 307 R/w. 34 IPC and acquitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C.

Prosecution conducted Sri D.Raghu, Addl. Public Prosecutor. by

Accused defended bySri .M. Venkat Reddy, Advocate.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Raghu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri M.Venkat Reddy, Advocate for the accused No.1 and 2, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub Inspector of police, police station Sadashivapet laid charge 2 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019 sheet against the accused No.1 and 2 in Crime No. 196/2018 for the offence

U/S.307 R/w. 34 IPC.

2.The case of the prosecution in brief are that on 24-08-2018 at 1600 hours, while the complainant PW1, PW2 and 3 who are the parents of PW1 resident of Mallepadu Village of Sadashivapet Mandal went to their fields to remove grass heaps from cotton crop of their agricultural land and that PW1 and 3 were working in one field whereas PW2 was working in another field.

Meanwhile, A2 threw a heap of grass on PW3 and kicked a quarrel on the ground that PW2 and 3 were not complying with the decree in OS No.

320/2018 dt. 04-07-2018 on which PW3 stated that after cutting the cotton crop they would give their share and there was a shuffling between A2 and

PW3. A2 called her husband A1 and her sons juveniles who threw chilli powder on the face of PW3 and beat her. On seeing the said incident,

PW1/complainant tried to rescue his mother PW3 whereas the juveniles sons of A1 and A2 caught hold of PW1 from backside and A1 assaulted them with a stick. Meanwhile, PW2 who is the father of PW1 came to rescue

PW1 and 3 from the hands of A1 and A2 and their juvenile sons. During the said quarrel, A1 hit with an axe on the head of PW2 causing injury on his head. Due to the interference of neighbours, i.e., PW4, 5, 6,7, PW1 to 3 were rescued. Hence, PW1 lodged a complaint against the accused No.1 and 2 for the offence u/s. 307 R/w. 34 of IPC.

3 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019

Basing on the complaint filed by complainant namely: Sri Jattigoni

Naresh, Sri K. Surender Reddy, Inspector of Police (LW14) registered the case, issued FIR and entrusted further investigation to LW15. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of complainant at police station, he visited the government hospital,

Sangareddy where he found the injured LW2 and LW3, examined and recorded the statements of LW2 and 3. Subsequently, LW13 visited the scene of offence, secured the panchas LW9 and 10, in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch, seized a little portion of chilli powder. On 25-08-2018, LW15 visited Malaphad village, examined and recorded the statements of LW4 to 8. On 03-09-2018 at about 8:30 hours, the LW15 arrested the accused, recorded the confession panchanama of accused No.1 and 2, seized an axe concealed in an iron tins shed of accused No.1 at his residence, affected the arrest of the accused No.1 and 2 and sent them for judicial custody. Thereby the accused Nos.1 and 2 has committed the offence punishable U/S. 307 R/w 34 IPC.

3.Sri. Mohd. Abdul Jaleel, FAC Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special

Mobile Court, Sangareddy, took cognizance of the offence for the offence

U/S. 307 R/w 34 IPC in P.R.C.No.19/2019. As the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Hon’ble Prl. Dist. & 4 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019

Sessions Judge, Medak Division at Sangareddy after following the

procedure laid in Section 209 Cr.P.C. The case was registered in

S.C.No.156/2019 against the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the same offence and made it over to this Court for disposal according to law.

4.On appearance of accused Nos.1 and 2, a charge for the offence

U/S. 307 R/w 34 of IPC has been framed against the accused Nos.1 and 2, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined the PWs.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14, MO1 and 2 were marked and reported closure of the prosecution evidence.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating evidence found against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied the said evidence and accused Nos.1 got himself examined as DW1 and got marked

Ex.D1 on their behalf.

7.Heard both sides, written submission filed by the counsel for accused and perused.

5 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019

8.The point stood for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable U/S. 307 R/w 34 of IPC

as alleged beyond reasonable doubts?

POINT:-

9.In order to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13, Exs.P1 to P14 and MO’s.1 and 2 were marked in support of the prosecution case.

10.On behalf of A1 and A2, A1 himself was examined as DW1 and

Ex.B.1 was marked.

11.The following points are not disputed. Accused No.1 and 2 and PW1 to 3 are agnates and that there are civil disputes before the Court of law and that in a civil suit vide OS No. 320/2018 an exparte decree was 04-07-2018 directing PW2 to return back 30 gts of land to the mother of accused No.1 namely Jagu Sattamma.

12.The crux of the prosecution case is that on 24-08-2018 at 1600 hours, while the complainant PW1, PW2 and 3 who are the parents of PW1 resident of Mallepadu Village of Sadashivapet Mandal went to their fields to remove grass heaps from cotton crop of their agricultural land and that PW1 and 3 were working in one field whereas PW2 was working in another field 6 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019 meanwhile, A2 threw a heap of grass on PW3 and kicked a quarrel on the ground that PW2 and 3 were not complying with the decree in OS no.

320/2018 dt. 04-07-2018 on which PW3 stated that after cutting the cotton crop they would give their share and there was a shuffling between A2 and

PW3. A2 called her husband A1 and her sons juveniles who threw chilli powder on the face of PW3 and beat her. On seeing the said incident,

PW1/complainant tried to rescue his mother PW3 whereas the juveniles sons of A1 and A2 caught hold of PW1 from backside and A1 assaulted them with a stick meanwhile, PW2 who is the father of PW1 came to rescue

PW1 and 3 from the hands of A1 and A2 and their juveniles sons. During the said quarrel, A1 hit with an axe on the head of PW2 causing injury on his head. Due to the interference of neighbours, i.e., PW4 and 5 and 6,7 PW1 to 3 were rescued. Hence, PW1 lodged a complaint against the accused

No.1 and 2 for the offence u/s. 307 IPC.

13.Before discussing the evidence on the record, as per section 307 of

IPC, it is essential that there should be an intention and preparation leading to the action or commission of offence which shall be punishable. It is pertinent to mention here that in order to establish an offence u/s. 307 of

IPC, it is essential that intention and preparation has to be proved leading to the incident. No matter if the attempt is failed, still it is punishable.

14.In the instant case, except PW1 to 3 who are the family members and 7 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019 interested witnesses, no other witnesses has supported the prosecution case. PW4 and 5 who are alleged to be eye witness to the incident did not whisper about the facts of the incident and did not support the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW6 and 7 and 10 circumstantial witnesses also turned hostile. PW8 and 9 panch witness for scene of offence and seizure panchanama also turned hostile which gives a rise for a presumption that the material objects seized from the scene of offence by the investigating officer were not established. Though, PW1 has stated that A1 and A2 along with their juvenile sons attempted to murder PW2 and 3 but the entire evidence of PW1 to 3 did not disclose about the intention and preparation to commit an offence which is fatal to the prosecution case.

15.PW2 and 3 who has reiterated the evidence of PW1 and there are quite contradictions in the evidence of PW1 and 2 with that of PW3 who was the direct victim at the initial stage. According to PW3, PW1 called PW2 over phone and A2 kicked up quarrel and beat with the stick to both PW1 and 3 by sprinkling chilli powder on her face. It is further stated by PW3 that A1 along with his juvenile two sons beat PW2 with an axe causing grievous injury on his head.

16.Admittedly, as far as the injuries caused to PW1 and 3 is concerned, there is no medical certificate to substantiate their version. Further, there is also a contradiction with regard to the treatment taken by PW2 and 3. As per 8 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019 the evidence of PW2 and 3, they have taken treatment at Sadashivpet hospital but Ex.P11 medical certificate which appears to have been issued by government hospital, Sangareddy. In the entire evidence of the prosecution, no where it is mentioned about the injuries sustained by PW1.

As per the prosecution witnesses, LW13 is a doctor, who have been treated and issued MC which is marked as Ex.P.11. But for the better reason known to the prosecution, LW13 was not examined, which was the independent piece of the evidence to corroborate the version of PW3, the prosecution has not made any attempt to take second opinion on Ex.P11 which is quite contradictory to the evidence of PW1 to 3.

17.A1 himself was examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.D1 judgment and decree in OS No. 350/2018 dt. 04-07-2018 passed by Junior Civil

Judge, Sangareddy. Ex.D.1 goes to establish that there were civil disputes

between A1 and A2 and PW1 to 3 and they were supposed to hand over 30 gts of land in sy No. 110/A, 112/aa, 1265/e in favour of A1 and A2. Further,

Ex.P11 discloses that PW2 and 3 received a simple injury whereas the version of PW1 to 3, PW2 received grievous injury on his head caused by an axe. In fact, the injury certificate does to disclosed on which part of the body the injury caused. More particularly, when an medical certificate is issued by the government hospital at Sangareddy where PW1 to 3 were not all treated as per the prosecution, they were treated at Sadashivapet 9 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019 government medical officer. In such a circumstances, there is a shadow on the entire case of the prosecution and also gives arise a reasonable presumption that a false case is foisted against A1 and A2.

18.The counsel for the accused No.1 and 2 filed a number of citations in which 2017 (2) ALT (Crl.) 292 (SC) it was held that “once there is a clear

contradiction between the medical and the ocular evidence coupled

with severe contradictions in the oral evidence, clear latches in

investigation, then benefit of doubt has to go to the accused”

19.In the result, the accused Nos.1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence 307 R/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted U/S.235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused Nos.1 and 2 shall stand cancelled. MO’s.1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 23 rd day of May, 2022.

SD/-

Asst. Sessions Judge Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1: J. NareshDW1: Jattagoni Laxmaiah PW2: J. Ramulu PW3: J. Vittamma PW4: J. Amruthama 10 Of 10 S.C. 156 OF 2019

PW5: M. Venkaiah PW6: B. Sardar PW7: H. Manchaiah PW8: B. Ashok PW9: D. Santosh PW10: Yashwanth Rao PW11: M. Mohan PW12: Manne Gopal PW13: Shaik Shahabuddin

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION

Ex.P1: Complaint Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P3: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW5 Ex.P4: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6 Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW7 Ex.P6: Signature of PW8 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7: Signature of PW9 on scene of offence panchanama Ex.P8: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW10 Ex.P9: Signature of PW11 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P10: Signature of PW12 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P11: FIR Ex.P12: Scene of offence cum seizure panchanama Ex.P13: Confession panchanama of A1 and A2 Ex.P14: (02) medical certificates issued by LW13

DEFENCE

Ex.D1: CC of judgment in OS No. 320/2016

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1: Axe MO.2: Chilli powder

SD/-

Asst. Sessions Judge Sangareddy

1 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE ::

SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt B.Pushpalatha Asst.Sessions Judge Sangareddy

THURSDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

S.C. No. 166 of 2021

CRIME NO.174 of 2020

Name of the The State of Telangana through, Sub- complainant.Inspector of Police, Kondapur PS

Description of the Accused: Tonta Samson S/o. Yesudas, Aged accused.45 years, Caste: SC (Madiga), Occupation: Labour, R/o. Ananthsagar Village of Kondapur Mandal, Sangareddy District.

Charge.U/S.498-A and 306 of the IPC

Plea of accused.Accused pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge.Accused found not guilty

Sentence or order.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC and, accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted Sri D.Raghu, Addl. Public Prosecutor. by

Accused defended bySri C. Narsing Raj, Advocate.

2 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021

This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Raghu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri C. Narsing Raj, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, police station Kondapur laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.174/2020, for the offence under

Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).

2.The case of the prosecution in brief are that:

(I)The complainant/LW1 by name Madiga Narsimulu, lodged a report with police stating that the marriage of his deceased sister by name Tonta Amrutamma, aged 42 years, was performed about 25 years back with the accused, who hails from Ananthasagar village.

They were blessed with two sons and one daughter.

(ii)Since, last four years, differences arose between the deceased and the accused, following which, they started quarreling with each other, on petty issues. Unable to bear the harassment meted out by the deceased, she informed the same to her parents and the complainant. In this regard, the complainant and his parents went to

Ananthasagar and counseled them and also warned the accused to change his attitude and behave properly in front of his children.

3 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021

(iii)Two months back, the complainant came to know that his deceased sister and accused quarreled with each other and started residing separately. Upon which the complainant went to Ananthsagar and discussed the issue. The accused stated that he would kill the deceased. As the matter stood thus, on 05-01-2020, at about 7.00 am, the complainant’s nephew Tonta Naveen Kumar/LW4 called to complainant’s mobile phone and informed that on 5-10-2020, at 6.30 am the deceased committed suicide by hanging with her chunni to their bathroom roof pipe and died.

(iv)On receipt of such information, the complainant along with his family members rushed there and with the help of her two sons, lifted down his sister Amruthamma from hanging. Immediately, she was shifted to Sangareddy Govt. Hospital, where the duty doctors declared as brought dead. Thus, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC.

3. (a) Basing on the complaint filed by complainant, Sri K. Raju,

Sub-Inspector of Police (LW10) registered a case in Cr.No.174 of 2020, under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC, issued FIR. During further course of investigation, LW10, examined and recorded the 4 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021 statement of LW1. He rushed to Ananthsagar village and visited the scene of offence and shifted the dead body of the deceased to Govt.

Hospital, Sangareddy. By securing the presence of LW4 and LW6, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch.

(b) LW10, examined and recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 5 at Govt Hospital, Sangareddy, conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased and subjected the same for post mortem examination. LW9, Medical officer held autopsy and issued

PME report opining the death is due to “Asphyxia due to hanging”. On 27-10-2020, LW10, effected the arrest of the accused and sent for judicial remand. After completion of investigation, filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC.

4.Smt A. Nirmala, Judicial First Class Magistrate, Special Mobile

Court, Sangareddy, took cognizance of the offence for the offence under Section 498-A, 306 of the IPC in P.R.C.No.18/2021. As the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Hon’ble Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Medak Division at

Sangareddy after following the procedure laid in Section 209 Cr.P.C.

5 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021

The case was registered in S.C.No.166/2021, against the accused for the same offence and made it over to this court for disposal according to law.

5.On appearance of accused, a charge for the offence under

Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC has been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him, in his vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined the

PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and reported closure of the prosecution evidence.

7.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/S.313 Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the said evidence and reported that there is no defence evidence on his behalf.

8.Heard both sides.

6 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021

9.The point stood for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306

of IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt?

10.POINT:-In order to prove the guilt of accused, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 6, Exs.P1 to P10 were marked in support of the prosecution case.

11.The main crux of the prosecution case is that the marriage of the deceased by name Tonta Amrutamma, aged 42 years, was performed about 25 years back, with the accused, who hails from Ananthasagar village. They were blessed with two sons and one daughter. Since, last four years, differences arose between the deceased and the accused, following, which, they started quarreling with each other, on petty issues. Unable to bear the harassment meted out by the deceased, she informed the same to her parents and the complainant.

Two months back, the deceased and accused quarreled with each other and started residing separately. On 05-01-2020, at about 6.30 am, the deceased committed suicide by hanging with her chunni to their bathroom roof pipe and died. Thus, the accused has committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC.

7 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021

12.(I)In this case, there is no dispute about the death of Tonta

Amrutamma. PW1, PW2, PW3, who are the brother, sister and son of the deceased, are completely turned hostile and they stated that about 2 ½ years back, the deceased Amruthamma died and that they do not know the cause of her death. These witnesses did not support the prosecution case on any aspect. Pws 1 to 3 even resiiled from their earlier statements recorded by police marked as Exs.P1 to P3, respectively.

(ii)PW4 who is the mediator for scene of offence and inquest panchanama stated that about 1 1/2 years back, the Police obtained his signatures on some papers and he do not know the contents of the said papers. He can identify his signatures which are marked as

Ex.P4 and Ex.P5. Pw4 is declared hostile.

(iii)PW5 who is the complainant/brother of the deceased, stated that about 2 1/2 years back, Police obtained his signature on some papers at Sangareddy Government hospital Mortuary and he do not know the contents of the said papers. He can identify his signature which is marked as Ex.P6. This witness did not support the prosecution case and he even resiiled from his earlier statement recorded by police marked as Ex.P7.

8 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021

(iv)PW6 who is the investigating officer, stated that he registered this case basing on the report of Pw5 and examined Pws 1 to 5 and arrested the accused.

13.Though, the prosecution examined Pws1 to 6, the Pws 1,2,3, & 5 who are the family members of the deceased, did not support the case of the prosecution. Pws 1 to 5, who are material witnesses in this case, did not speak anything in favour of the prosecution, as to the harassment and cruelty commited by the accused against the deceased and the abatement on the part of accused leading to commit suicide. They even resiled from their earlier statements and the proceedings recorded by police. Though, Pws 1 to 5 are cross examined at length by the prosecution, no useful material could be elicited to throw light on its case. In view of these circumstances, as all the material witnesses i.e., Pws 1,2,3, and 5 are turned hostile and as the mediator i.e., Pw 5 also turned hostile, this court holds that the impeached version of Pw7 who is the investigating officer, cannot be considered to uphold the prosecution case against the accused. Thus the prosecution failed to establish its case for the offence U/S. 498-A and 306 of the IPC, in such situation, benefit of doubt is given to the accused.

9 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021

14.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under

Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC and, accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused persons shall stand cancelled, after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of August, 2022.

SD/-

Asst. Sessions Judge Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

PW1 M. GopalNIL

PW2 N. Pushpamma

PW3 T.Naveen Kumar

PW4 M. Srikanth

PW5 M. Narsimulu

PW6 K. Raju

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1 - NIL -

Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2

Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3

Ex.P4 Signature of PW4 on scene of offence 10 Of 10 S.C. No.166 OF 2021

Panchanama

Ex.P5 Signature of PW4 on inquest panchanama

Ex.P6 Signature of PW5 on Scene of offence Panchanama Ex.P7 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5

Ex.P8 FIR

Ex.P9 Scene of offence panchanama along with Rough Sketch

Ex.P10 Inquest panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS

- NIL -

SD/-

Asst. Sessions Judge Sangareddy

1H.M.O.P. 49 OF 2018

0IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt.B.Pushpalatha

Senior Civil Judge

Sangareddy

Wednesday the 25th day of May, 2022

H.M.O.P.No. 49 of 2018

Between:-

Smt. Machkuri Sujatha, W/o. Kiran Kumar, D/o. Machku Pentaiah, Aged: 38 years, Occ: Government Teacher, R/o: H.No. 5-3-3, Maqdoom Nagar, Sangareddy Town and District.

…..Petitioner

A N D

Begari Kiran Kumar, S/o. Vinay Sagar, Aged: 39 years, Occ: VAO, R/o: H.No. 1-5-14, Harijanwada, Sadasivpet Town, Sangareddy District.

….Respondent.

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P. Bal Reddy, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Md. Akbar Ali, Advocate for respondent upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner U/S.13(1)(ia)(iii) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, seeking decree of divorce on dissolution of marriage.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner and respondent were in love with each other and their marriage was solemnized on 10-05-2009 at Shivalayam Temple, Gudpally village, 2H.M.O.P. 49 OF 2018

Mominpet Mandal, Vikarabad District as per Hindu Law. During their conjugal life the petitioner blessed two daughters. Thereafter, since from the year 2015 the respondent used to harass the petitioner, he is a habitual drinker, come to house in late hours in drunken condition, beat and assaulted her in the presence of children and tried to kill her. On 24-06-2016 police called the respondent and advised him to treat the petitioner and his children in well manner but the respondent did not changed his attitude and continued harassing the petitioner.

It is further submitted that on 06-03-2018 when the petitioner was returning to her home after completion of her duty the respondent stopped her and forcibly took her into his house and beat her with chappal and the parents of the respondent also encouraged the respondent to kill the petitioner. The respondent even came to the place where the petitioner work and created nuisance, used to take the entire salary of the petitioner by ATM card and spend the amount lavishly. The respondent is womanized person and moving with ladies but when the petitioner questioned the same he beat and abused her in unparliamentary language. The petitioner vexed with her life and cannot tolerate the torture and harassment of the petitioner. Due to abnormal attitude of the respondent, the carrier of the petitioner and her children are spoiled and she is not in a position to show her face in the society. Hence, the petitioner has no other alternative except to seek the 3H.M.O.P. 49 OF 2018 relief of decree of divorce dissolving her marriage with the respondent.

Hence the petition.

3.Notice served to the respondent, who filed counter, denying all the allegations in the petition. The brief averments of the counter are that the petitioner is a widow and her first husband died by attempting suicide but he loved the petitioner and got married her and his parents treated the petitioner as their own daughter and with love and affection with his hard earned income the respondent purchased gold items to the petitioner. The petitioner and the respondent lived happily for a period 3 years, thereafter, the petitioner went to her parents house for maternity of second daughter but she didn’t come back and her parents interfered in the marital life and misguiding the petitioner and suggesting her to get separate from the family of the respondent and started harassing the respondent on each and every small issue and tortured the respondent. The parents of the petitioner also harassing the respondent on petty issue and shouted loudly on him and threatened him that they will file false cases on him and father of the petitioner also used to beat the respondent. On several times, the respondent requested the petitioner to join the matrimonial life but the petitioner refused the same and said they she will meet the respondent only

in the court. The petitioner staying at her parents own house and her father

is earning as such the petitioner is no need of any monetary benefits or 4H.M.O.P. 49 OF 2018 residence benefits and the petitioner is well educated and working as Govt.

teacher secondary school teacher at Minpoor village. The petitioner filed false cases against the respondent and his family members and suppressing all the material facts. The parents of the petitioner misguiding the petitioner and they are trying to spoil the life of the petitioner and respondent and children by separated them from the marital life of each other. The respondent is ready to lead the marital life with petitioner and children. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4.In order to prove the petition averments, the petitioner examined herself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 documents. The respondent though not examined got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B8.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage as prayed for?”

POINT:-

7.This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking decree of divorce

U/S.13(1)(ia)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is the burden on the 5H.M.O.P. 49 OF 2018 petitioner to establish that she is entitled for seeking decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent deserted the petitioner.

8.In the instant case, respondent contested the case but was not examined and his right to file evidence is forfeited.

9.In order to prove the case, the petitioner got examined herself as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is marriage photos and Ex.A2 is original tuition fee certificate (2 in number). During the cross examination of PW1, she deposed that her marriage with respondent was the second marriage and it was a love marriage and that the first marriage was also love marriage. Her first husband died within 6 months due to heart problem.

After marriage, she lived happily till 19-11-2012 and she started living with the respondent at Sangareddy after 2012. She has not mentioned about the person who has witnessed the nuisance that was created by the respondent at her work place. She did not file any proof to show that the respondent was a womanizer and she is not willing to join the company of respondent.

10.This petition is filed by petitioner against the respondent/husband on the ground that respondent is harassing and that petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Admittedly, respondent did not choose to contest but got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 photographs which 6H.M.O.P. 49 OF 2018 were taken on the occasion of festival, birthdays which do not establish that petitioner was not subject to cruelty. It is the contention of the respondent counsel that petitioner has celebrated all the occasions which does not establish or disprove the allegation of petitioner against the respondent.

However, since the respondent/husband did not choose to lead evidence in order to disprove the allegation levelled against him. In such a circumstance, a presumption arises that the respondent has subjected to cruelty upon petitioner and that it is reasonably impossible to lead marital life with the respondent. Hence, in the above circumstances, this Court is of considerable view that petitioner established that she was subjected to cruelty during wedlock and it is reasonably be expected to lead marital life with respondent.

11.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 10-05-2009 is hereby dissolved and decree of divorce is passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 25 th day of May, 2022.

SD/-

Senior Civil Judge

Sangareddy 7H.M.O.P. 49 OF 2018

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

PW1: Machkuri SujathaNIL

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Marriage photos Ex.A2: Original tuition fee certificate (2 in number)

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

Ex.B1: Photograph showing family members along with respondent at the rented house at Sangareddy on 26-11-2018 Ex.B2: Photograph taken on the eve of Dussehra on 29-11-2020 Ex.B3: Photograph dt. 03-08-2020 celebrating birthday of brother in law’s children Ex.B4: Photograph showing the daughter of respondent’s sister Ex.B5: Photograph showing the birthday celebration of her second daughter Ex.B6: Photograph dt. 07-12-2020 showing the birthday celebration of her sister’s son Ex.B7: Photograph dt. 22-10-2020 showing Bathukamma celebration Ex.B8: Photograph along with her mother in law dt. 04-11-2020

SD/-

Senior Civil Judge

Sangareddy

1

IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE – CUM- ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE :: SANGAREDDY

Present : Smt B.Pushpalatha Assistant Sessions Judge Sangareddy

THURSDAY, THIS THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

S.C.No.41 of 2019

CRIME NO. 127 of 2018

Name of the The State of Telangana through, complainant.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Sangareddy Rural

Description of the Accused : Begari Bhasker S/o. Mallesham, accused.Age 22 years, Occupation: Pvt Employee, Caste: SC (Mala), R/o. Venkata Kistapur @ Devuni Angadipet village, Pulkal Mandal, Sangareddy District.

Charge.under Section 366(A) IPC

Plea of accused.Accused pleaded not guilty

Finding of the Judge.Accused found not guilty

Sentence or order.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) of the IPC and, accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled, after lapse of appeal time.

Prosecution conducted Sri D.Raghu, Addl. Public Prosecutor. by

Accused defended bySri C. Vittal Reddy, Advocate.

2 This case is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri D.Raghu, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the state and Sri C. Vittal Reddy, Advocate for the accused, upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments the court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Sub-Inspector of police, police station Sangareddy Rural laid charge sheet against the accused in Crime No. 127/2018 for the offence under Section 366(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”).

2.The case of the prosecution in brief are that:

(i)The complainant by name Itikyala Mallaiah lodged a report with police stating that his daughter by name Itikyala

Madhavi is studying II year in Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Vocational college, Sangreddy. On 03-08-2021, the complainant’s daughter went to college and did not return home till evening. The complainant searched for his daughter in surrounding places and at their relatives, but in vain. They went to college and enquired.

On enquiry, it is revealed that on the said date, his daughter has not attended the college and that he is suspicious on the accused.

3

(ii) So far as the investigation is done, it is revealed that the accused is also studying II year MLT, in the same college, the accused told said Madhavi that he loves her and he will marry her.

On 03-08-2019, when Madhavi went to college, the accused had kidnapped her on the pretext of marrying her and taken her away to Yadagirigutta from Sangareddy and returned to Hyderabad on 04-08-2018. Later they both went to Thirupathi from

Secunderabad and stayed for three days upto 07-08-2018 at

Thirupati. On 08-08-2018, morning at 0700 hours, the accused took her to Pothireddypally and left.

(iii) Basing on the complaint filed by complainant, LW5

Sri K. Srikanth, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case in

Cr.No. 127 of 2018, under Section 366(A) IPC and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of complainant/LW1. LW5 visited

Mamidipally village, examined Lw2 and recorded her statement.

On 08-08-2018, LW3/victim girl, came to police station. LW5, examined and recorded her statement.

4

(iv)On 24-08-2018, at 1100 hours, LW5 along with staff apprehended the accused at Pothireddypally X roads. On interrogation the accused confessed to have committed the offence. Later effected the arrest of the accused and sent him to judicial remand.

3.Sri Mohd Abdul Jaleel, Principal Junior Civil Judge, Fac Addl.

Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, took cognizance of the offence for the offence under Section 366(A) of IPC in

P.R.C.No.65/2018. As the case is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Hon’ble Prl. Dist. &

Sessions Judge, Medak Division at Sangareddy after following the

procedure laid in Section 209 Cr.P.C. The case was registered in

S.C.No.41/2019 against the accused, for the same offence and made it over to this court, for disposal, according to law.

4.On appearance of accused, charges for the offence under

Section 366(A) of IPC has been framed against the accused 5 person, read over and explained to him in their vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined the

PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and reported closure of the prosecution evidence.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused person was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to incriminating evidence found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the said evidence and reported that there is no defence evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard both sides.

8.The point stood for consideration is:-

Whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of

the accused person for the offence punishable under Section

366(A) of IPC, as alleged beyond reasonable doubt?

6

9.POINT:- The case of prosecution is that accused induced the minor girl by name Madhavi, to go from Sangareddy, made her believe that on the pretext of marriage, took her to

Yadagrigutta and other different places and on 08-08-2018, the accused took her to Pothireddypally and left, and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable under section 366(A) of the IPC.

10.PW1, is the father of the victim girl. He deposed that in the year 2018, his daughter/PW3, went to college and did not come home in the evening, as such he lodged a complaint under Ex.P1.

Later his daughter came home after attending a function. PW1, in his cross-examination deposed that he does not know the contents of the report. As he did not support the prosecution, the learned

APP examined him under section 154 of Indian Evidence Act.

11.PW2 is the mother of PW3. She deposed that she does not know any facts of the present case. As she also failed to support the prosecution, her statement to the police was marked as Ex.P2.

7

12.PW3 is the victim girl. She deposed that about two years back, she went to attend a function at her friend’s house, without intimation to her parents, upon which her parents lodged a complaint. She returned back after two days and came to know about her father lodging complaint. As PW3 failed to support the prosecution, her statement to the police was marked as Ex.P3.

13.PW4 is the head master of ZPHS school, Mamidipally. He deposed that on the request of police, he issued bonafide certificate of PW3, under Ex.P4.

14.On perusal of evidence of PW1 to PW4, nothing is elicited in favour of Prosecution and that the Prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence charged. There is no evidence to believe that PW3/victim girl was kidnapped by the accused, from lawful guardianship, with an intention to seduce her to illicit intercourse. Pw1 and PW2 are the parents of the victim, they did not support the prosecution case. PW3 who is the victim, did not say anything against the accused. Thus, the Prosecution 8 has failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 366(A) of the IPC. Accordingly, this point is answered.

15. In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) of the IPC and, accordingly, accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled, after lapse of appeal time.

T yped to my dictation by the Stenographer , corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 11 th day of August, 2022.

SD/-

Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Asst.

Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

Appendix of evidence Witnesses examined on behalf of

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

PW1 Muthyala Mallaiah -NIL- PW2 Narsamma PW3 I. Madhavi PW4 Nawaz Reddy PW5 K. Srikanth 9 Exhibits marked for PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 Complaint -NIL- Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P4 Bonafide certificate Ex.P5 FIR

Material Objects marked for -NIL-

SD/-

Senior Civil Judge-Cum-Asst.

Sessions Judge, Sangareddy

1H.M.O.P. 52 OF 2017

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: SANGAREDDY

Present: Smt.B.Pushpalatha

Senior Civil Judge

Sangareddy

Tuesday the 24th day of May, 2022

H.M.O.P.No. 52 of 2017

Between:-

M. Srinivas, S/o. Sangameshwar, Aged: About 30 years, Occ: Unemployee, R/o: H.No. 2-12, Kyasaram (V), Patancheru (M), Sangareddy District.

…..Petitioner.

A N D

H. Anuradha, W/o. Srinivas, D/o. Ramulu, Aged: About 25 years, Occ: Household and tailooring, R/o: H.No. 47 SRT 302 Prakash Nagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad.

….Respondent.

This petition is coming on before me for final hearing in the presence of M/s. S.N. Chary, Advocates for the petitioner whereas respondent was set exparte upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the court delivered the following:-

O R D E R

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner U/S.13 (ib) B (iii) of Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955, seeking decree of divorce on dissolution of marriage.

2. The brief averments mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner and respondent’s marriage took place on 26-11-2010 in the presence of elders as per Hindu customs at Ramalingeshwara Temple, Begumpet, 2H.M.O.P. 52 OF 2017

Secunderabad. After marriage they enjoyed marital life happily due to which they blessed a male child namely Gowtham. After marriage within a short period of some months, the respondent proposed to shift petitioner and to stay in her parents house, the petitioner refused the proposal. When the respondent carrying 9 months pregnancy, she left the company of the petitioner for the reason of delivery at her parents house, the petitioner believed the respondent. After going to her respondents house, the respondent repeated the previous proposal of shifting petitioner’s residence and forced to live in her parents house. Though, the petitioner refused her proposal and tried his level best to convince the respondent, but the respondent not in a position to understand the difficulty of petitioner to shift his residence. The petitioner is having old aged parents and they are depended on the earnings of the petitioner. The petitioners mother is having poor eye sight and she require a person assistance to discharge her normal duties.

It is further submitted that when the petitioner was working in a company and he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month in the year 2010 and 2011, when the petitioner not accepting her proposal, she warned petitioner to file harassment case against petitioner and his parents, if the petitioner not stayed in her parents house. The respondent left the company of petitioner in the month of February, 2012 and not returned to petitioner 3H.M.O.P. 52 OF 2017 house till today. The petitioner used to contact the respondent once in a day on phone and the petitioner used to convince her to come to his village to lead marital life or he requested the respondent has to inform about her arrival to receive the respondent, but she adamantly refused to live with petitioner and lastly she filed a false complaint with all baseless allegations

before police Begumpet on 12-12-2012 to reach her goal for the offence u/s.

498-A IPC and section 3 and 4 of DP Act, the same is pending before the

XV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad. The respondent not informed about performing cradle ceremony function to petitioner and his parents. After filing of criminal case, the petitioner decided to face the trial but he is always ready to maintain respondent without any trouble or inconveniences only to bend the petitioner to separate from his parents, the respondent filed a DVC case No. 116 of 2014 with all baseless allegations on the file of IV th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad, the petitioner is facing the same. The respondent also filed a maintenance case

No. 374 of 2015 on the file of Hon’ble Family Court Judge at Hyderabad. To face all the cases, the petitioner is not attending to his duties the petitioner lost his job due to filing of false cases.

It is further submitted that the Magistrates and Judges in Trial Courts conducted several conciliation due to adamant nature of respondent. The

Magistrates and Judges conducting proceedings, the petitioner is facing the

4H.M.O.P. 52 OF 2017 same. The only desire of respondent is that the petitioner has to live in her parents house by doing some job. The respondent voluntarily deserted the petitioner left the company of petitioner without any reason in the month of 2012 and staying in her parents house till today. Hence, the petition.

3. Notice was served to the respondent who did not appear before the

Court. Hence, she was set exparte on 23-02-2022.

4.In order to prove the petition averments, the petitioner examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2 documents.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.Now the point for consideration is:- “Whether the petitioner is entitled for dissolution of marriage as prayed for?”

POINT:-

7.This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking decree of divorce

U/S.13(ib) B (iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is the burden on the petitioner to establish that he is entitled for seeking decree of divorce on the ground that the respondent left the company of the petitioner.

5H.M.O.P. 52 OF 2017

8.In the instant case, respondent did not choose to contest the case in order to rebutt the allege allegation made against the respondent therefore, a presumption arise to believe the version of the petitioner.

9.In order to prove the case, the petitioner got examined himself as

PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 and A2. Ex.A1 is marriage card and Ex.A2 is marriage photo. This evidence of PW1 remained un-rebutted, unquestioned and proved the case of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner and respondent are entitled for decree of divorce. Accordingly, the point is answered.

10.In the result, the petition is allowed and the marriage between the petitioner and respondent solemnized on 26-11-2010 is hereby dissolved and decree of divorce is passed.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 24 th day of May, 2022.

SD/-

Senior Civil Judge

Sangareddy

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PETITIONER RESPONDENT

PW1: M. SrinivasNIL 6H.M.O.P. 52 OF 2017

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

Ex.A1: Marriage card Ex.A2: Marriage photo

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

NIL

SD/-

Senior Civil Judge

Sangareddy