Sri.B.Suresh

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD :: R.R. DISTRICT

PRESENT; SRI B.SURESH,

XIII ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

R.R.DISTRICT AT L.B.NAGAR.

(FAC) XII ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD, R.R.DISTRCT.

DATED THIS 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019.

S.C.No. 114 of 2013 1Name of the complainant : The State through P.S. Peddemul 2Cr. No. : 67/2012 3Name & description of the : A1 Nasreen Begum w/o.Rafiq, accused. age: 28 years, occ: house wife, A2 Md.Rafiq s/o.Md.Aneef, age: 36 years, occ: beaf shop, A3 Md.Thaher s/o.Md.Raheem, age: 27 years, occ: beaf business, A4 Md.Saleem s/o.Md.Waheed, age: 19 years, occ: chicken shop, A5 Md.Jakeer s/o.Md.Raheem, age: 22 years,

All R/o.Kotepally village of Peddemul Mandal.

4Offences under Section 305, 506 I.P.C.

5Prosecution conducted bySri G.Narayana, Addl. Public Prosecutor 6Defence conducted by Sri P.Sampurna Anand 7Finding of the Court Found not guilty 8Sentence or order of the : IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 to 5 are Court found not guilty for the offences punishable

U/s.305 and 506 I.P.C., as such they are acquitted U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

2

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This case is coming on before me for final hearing on 23-08-2019 in the presence of Sri G.Narayana, Addl.Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Sampurna Anand, Advocate for accused upon hearing both sides, perusing the material on record and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day; this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Peddemul filed charge sheet against accused herein in Cr. No.67/2012 for the offences punishable U/s.305 and 506 I.P.C.

2.The brief averments of charge sheet as per the Sub-Inspector of police,

P.S. Peddemul are that on 26.05.2012 at 3-00 pm., PW.1 turned up to the

Police Station and lodged complaint stating that on 20.05.2012 the sister of the defacto-complainant Mahabuja Begum was sitting in front of the house of the defacto-complainant. A1 to A5 came to the deceased. A1 asked the deceased that her husband is not blessed with children if she got married with her husband he would be blessed with children. For which the deceased refused to marry him. After sometime all the accused herein came to the house of the defacto-complainant and quarreled with the deceased and threatened her to get marry with A2 or else he would kidnap her and commit rape upon her and kill her. Likewise they threatened her. Due to the said act the deceased vexed with her life and on 21.05.2012 at 11-00 am. he hanged herself and killed herself. When the defacto complainant wanted to lodge complaint with the police all the accused herein prevented him from lodging complaint and threatened him that they would also kill him. Thereafter the 3 defacto complainant without knowing to the accused came to the Police

Station and lodged complaint.

3.The said complaint is registered as a case in Cr. No.67/2012 for the offence U/s.305 and 506 I.P.C. and investigated into. During the course of investigation the Investigating Officer herein i.e. PW.8 examined PWs 1 to 3, 6 and 7 and LW.4 Md.Himad, LW.6 B.Sammaiah and recorded their statements. Then he proceeded to the grave yard where the deceased buried with mediators i.e. PW.5 and LW.9 Smt.S.Susheela and observed scene of offence and prepared scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch and PW.4 conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased by exhuming the body from grave yard and LW.10 Dr.S.Mohan

Singh who is Medical Officer herein conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued his report opining that the cause of death is due to hanging. Thereafter on 04.06.2012 all the accused herein were apprehended and sent to the Court for remand.

4.So through investigation it establishes the fact that the accused herein have committed the offences punishable U/s.305 and 506 I.P.C. Hence the

Charge.

5. The learned J.F.C.M. Tandur took the cognizance of the offences

U/Sec. 305 and 506 I.P.C. against the accused No.1 to 5.

6. The learned J.F.C.M., Tandur furnished the case documents to accused as contemplated U/s.207 Cr.P.C.

7. Since the offences U/Sec. 306 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, the learned J.F.C.M., Tandur committed the case to 4 the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, R.R.District vide PRC. 13/2013 vide her orders dt.03-06-2013 which in turned as made over to this court for trial.

8. On appearance of accused No.1 to 5, charges U/Sec. 305 and 506

I.P.C. were framed against them and the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu, but accused denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. Schedule of dates for the examination of the witnesses is fixed and process for compelling the witnesses were issued U/sec. 230

Cr.P.C.

10.During the course of trial on behalf of prosecution, PWs 1 to 8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked.

11. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 5 were examined U/s.313 Cr.p.c. by explaining the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, but accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

12.Now point for consideration is:

Whether all the accused herein went to the house of defacto- complainant and quarreled with his sister and threatened her with dire consequences to get marry her with A2, if not A2 would kidnap her and commit rape and kill her, due to such threatening the deceased vexed with her life and committed suicide. As such whether the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence U/s.305 and 506 I.P.C. beyond all reasonable doubt?

13.Heard arguments on both sides.

5

14.PW.1 is defacto complainant and brother of the deceased herein, PW.2 is mother of the deceased herein and PW.3 is brother of the deceased herein.

They all deposed that the deceased committed suicide due to stomach pain.

Whereas PW.1 is defacto complainant herein, he deposed that at the time of her sister’s death police came there and obtained his signatures on some papers. He does not know the contents of complaint. Signature is Ex.P1. As they failed to support the prosecution they were declared hostile and cross examined. In their cross examination they stated that they did not state

before the police that on 25.05.2012 all the accused herein came to the house

of the defacto-complainant and they demanded the deceased to marry A2 for which the deceased refused to marry A2. Then all the accused threatened the deceased that they will kidnap and forcibly get her marriage to A2. As such she committed suicide as in Exs.P2 to P4. So the brothers and mother of the deceased failed to support the prosecution in establishing fact that due to threat of the accused the deceased committed suicide.

15.PW.4 is Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. His evidence is that on 31.05.2012 he received requisition from

S.I. of police, Peddemul to conduct inquest panchanama. Accordingly he proceeded to Kotpally village minority burial ground. There when police exhumed the dead body and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.5 and LW.9. The said panchanama is

Ex.P5. He further deposed that he came to know that the deceased died by hanging. The evidence of PW.4 is only with regard to conducting inquest over the dead body of the deceased which discloses that the deceased died and she died due to hanging.

16.PW.5 who is VRO who accompanied Tahsildar, Kotpally i.e. PW.4 at the time of exhuming of body. His evidence is that he accompanied Tahsildar 6 to minority burial ground. There police exhumed body Kumari Mahabjani

Begum and Tahsldar conducted inquest panchanama, then they came to know that she committed suicide. So the evidence of PW.5 is also with regard to the deceased committed suicide by hanging.

17.PW.6 who is circumstantial witness to this case, he deposed that about seven years back police called him to the minority burial ground. There police asked him to exhume the body of Kumari Mahabjani Begum. So he dug the pit and removed the body from grave yard and again buried it.

18.PW.7 K.Venkatesh who is photographer, he deposed that about seven years back police called him to minority burial ground. There police exhumed the dead body of Kumari Mahabjani Begum. They asked him to take photograph and videograph of the dead body. So accordingly he took the photograph and videograph of the dead body and handed over to police. So this evidence of PW.7 is with regard to taking photograph and videograph at the time of exhuming body.

19.PW.8 who is Investigating Officer herein, his evidence is that on 26.05.2012 at 3-00 pm. he received complaint from PW.1 and registered the same as a case in Cr. No.67/2012 U/s.305 and 506 I.P.C. and issued F.I.R.

which is Ex.P6. Then he examined PW.1 and recorded his statement. He gave requisition to MRO, Peddemul to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased. On the same day he visited Kotpally and there he secured

PW.2 and PW.3 examined them and recorded their statement. On 31.05.2012 he along with Tahsildar, Peddemul and team of doctor of Gnadhi

Hospital visited Kotpally village. There PW.8 secured two mediators i.e. PW.5 and LW.9 S.Sushila and observed scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drew rough sketch which is Ex.P7. Thereafter 7

PW.4 held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter PW.8 secured LW.4 Md.Himed and LW.6 B.Samaiah and PW.7 examined them and recorded their statement. On 04.06.2012 he apprehended A1 to A5 at

Kotpally village and interrogated them. At that time they confessed to have committed this offence. Then he effected the arrest of the accused and sent them through Court for remand. After completion of investigation he filed

Charge sheet. So this evidence of PW.8 is with regard to investigation done by him.

20.On careful perusal of evidence of PWs 1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P7 there is no incriminating evidence appearing against the accused to establish the guilt of the accused for the charge alleged against them. Hence accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.

21.IN THE RESULT, accused No.1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offences punishable U/s.305 and 506 I.P.C., as such they are acquitted

U/s.235 (1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months. The unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court on this 30 th day of August, 2019.

(FAC) XII ADDL.DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:-

P.W.1. Md.Khadir-Nil- P.W.2. Shahajadi Begum P.W.3. Md.Adil 8

P.W.4. A.Anthony, Tahasildar P.W.5. Laxmikantha Rao, VRO P.W.6. K.Ananthaiah P.W.7. E.Venkatesh P.W.8. K.Raju, S.I. of police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P.1 Signature of PW.1 on complaint-NIL- Ex.P.2 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.1 Ex.P.3 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.2 Ex.P.4 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW.3 Ex.P.5 Inquest panchanama Ex.P.6 F.I.R. Ex.P.7 Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch

M.Os. MARKED -Nil-

(FAC) XII ADDL.DIST.& SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE XII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE; VIKARABAD.

RANGAREDDY DISTRICT.

PRESENT: B. SURESH,

XIII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

(FAC) XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD.

DATED THIS 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019

G.W.O.P.No. 16 of 2018

BETWEEN:-

Thadisina Shaila Puthri D/o.Tadisina Konda Reddy, aged about 12 years, occ: student, petitioner is minor and represented by her father Sri T.Konda Reddy S/o.T.Mohan reddy, aged about 43 years, occ: business, R/o.Flat No.402, Eldritch Towers, Plot No.4-27, 28, Muppa Panchavathi Town Ship, Manikonda, Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy District, T.S.

...Petitioner

And

1. Smt.Thadisina Sandhya Reddy W/o.T.Konda Reddy, aged about 38 years, occ: housewife, R/o.Flat No.402, Eldritch Towers, Plot No.4-27, 28, Muppa Panchavathi Town Ship, Manikonda, Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy District, T.S.

2. All concerned.

3. T.Konda Reddy S/o.T.Mohan Reddy, aged about 43 years, occ: business, R/o.Flat No.402, Eldritch Towers, Plot No.4-27, 28, Muppa Panchavathi Town Ship, Manikonda, Puppalaguda, Ranga Reddy District. …Respondents

This petition is coming for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Goverdhan Reddy, advocate for the petitioner and upon hearing and upon perusal of the record, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This petition is filed U/s.8 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act R/w

Sec. 29 of Guardian and Wards Act to grant permission to the petitioner father to sell petition schedule property for welfare of the minor.

2

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the petition schedule property was purchased by the father of the petitioner in the name of petitioner. The petitioner is studying VIII class at Delhi Public School, Khajaguda, Gachibowli,

Hyderabad. At present the father of the petitioner is not in position to meet the educational expenditure of the petitioner herein and also manage his family.

Therefore he intends to sell the petition schedule property.

3.Therefore petitioner prayed to permit him to sell petition schedule property for seeking of welfare of the minor.

4.After filing of the petition notices were issued to the respondents, the respondents were set exparte.

5.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether the petitioner herein is entitled to sell property of the minor for the welfare of the minor?

POINT:

6.The contention of the petitioner is that he got purchased the property in the name of the minor and now he is unable to bear educational expenses of the minor and also to meet his family necessities. Therefore he intends to sell the petition schedule property.

7.In support of his contention he got examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the same facts as stated in the petition and relied upon Exs.A1 to A3.

Ex.A1 is Registered sale deed, Ex.A2 is Marks sheet and Ex.A3 is Aadhar card.

3

8.On perusal of Ex.A1 it discloses that the father of petitioner herein got purchased the property in the name of the minor. Ex.A2 discloses that the petitioner is studying Delhi Public School, if his father is unable to meet the educational expenses of the minor the studies of the minor be effected which in turn effect the career of the petitioner. As the property is being intended to be sold for the welfare of the petitioner as such he is entitled to sell the same which is for welfare of the minor. So the petitioner is entitled to sell the petition schedule property with some conditions. This Court feels that at least 1/4th sale consideration shall be deposited in the fixed deposit in the name of the minor prior to execution of sale deed. Accordingly point is answered.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed permitting the petitioner to sell the petition schedule property with a condition that 1/4th of sale consideration shall be deposited in the name of the minor till attains majority. Accordingly petition is allowed.

Dictation to Stenographer Gr.I, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in Open Court on this the 30 th day of August 2019.

(FAC) XII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONERFOR RESPONDENT

P.W.1. Thadisina Konda Reddy-Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITIONER:- FOR RESPONDENT

Ex.A1: Registered sale deed vide-Nil- Doc. No.435/2017 dt. 06.02.2017 Ex.A2: Marks sheet issued by the Delhi Public School

dt. 13.10.2017

Ex.A3: Copy of Aadar card of PW.1 (verified with original)

(FAC) XII ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE

VIKARABAD.

IN THE COURT OF THE HON'BLE XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS

JUDGE,VIKARABAD AT RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT:B.SURESH

FAC XII ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD.

DATED THIS THE 30TH AUGUST, 2019

E.P.NO. 8 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

1. Syed Masiuddin S/o Syed Riazuddin Aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, H.No. 22-1-8-875/2/1, Sultanpura, Hyderabad.

2. Mohd.Issaq S/o. Md.Shafi, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Business, H.No. 17-2-1206, Yakutpura, Rein Bazar Road, Hyderabad.

3. Mohd.Munawar Hussian S/o Late Md.Sardar Hussain, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Business, H.No. 16-6-253/1, Osmanpura, Chaderghat, Hyderabad.

4. Mohd.Imran S/o. M.A.Azeem, Aged about 28 years, Occ: Business, H.No. 22-1-8-875/2/1, Sultanpura, Hyderabad.

5. Taha Zubair Amer S/o Shaik Shabbir Ali, Aged about 29 years, Occ: Business, H.No. 22-1-744, Noorkhan Bazar, Hyderabad. …. Decree Holders

A N D

1. Smt.Zehra Khan W/o. Late M.A.Mannan Khan, Aged about 48 years, Occ: Household.

2. M.A.Arbaz Khan,S/o Late M.A.Mannan Khan, Aged about 19 years, Occ: Student,

3. M.A.Abrar Khan S/o. Late. M.A.Mannan Khan, Aged about 18 years, Occ: Student, All are R/o H.No. 13-6-436/5/C/10, Rock Hills Colony, Khader Bagh, Nanalnagar, Hyderabad. ….Judgment Debtors CLAIM: E.P.FILED UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 35 OF C.P.C.

****

This petition is coming before me in the presence of Sri.Md.Azher Ali Khan for Decree Holders after hearing this court deliver the following

DOCKET ORDER DATE 30-08-2019

As warant executed. E.P is terminated. As purpose is secured.

XII ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,

VIKARABAD