Currently Serving

Ms.bhavya Kovi

Principal Junior Civil Judge

Kodad, SCJ Court Complex · Suryapet · Telangana

Ms.BHAVYA KOVI, Principal Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana, India. 1,498 court orders on record since 2023. 35 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, OS, EP cases.

1,498

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

CC/826/2015 Acquitted

shaik shakeela vs Vsg samuel goud and others

10 Feb 2025

Page No.1 of 8 C.C.No. 826 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

Dated, this, the 10 th day of February, 2025

Present: Sri. P.Maruthi Prasad,

Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Huzurnagar.

C.C.No. 826 of 2015

(Cr.No.194/2015 of P.S Huzurnagar) BETWEEN: The State of Telangana rep., by S.H.O, Huzurnagar Police Station. …Complainant AND

A-1:- Gundu Samuel Goud S/o Shambaiah, Age: 30 years, Occ: Pastor, R/o Donddanalachervu Colony, Huzurnagar.

A-2:-Thammarapu Padma W/o Late Lalaiah, Occ; House wife, R/o Govindapuram village of Huzurnagar mandal.

A-3:- Basati Ruthu W/o Shiva Ramakrishna, Age: 24 years, Occ: Private Nurse, R/o Govindapuram village of Huzurnagar mandal.

.....Accused

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 07.02.2025 and upon hearing the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and of Sri Madhavarapu Rama Krishna, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

1.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Huzurnagar filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.194/2015 for the offence U/sec.354-D(I)(i), 295-A, 323 r/w 34 IPC.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 26.07.2015 at 22:30 Hrs, the Defacto-complainant/LW1/Shaik Shakeela W/o Janimiya,

R/o Daddanalachervu, Huzurnagar went to the P.S and lodged a report stating that about 2 years ago, herself and her husband attended the Coolie

Page No.2 of 8 C.C.No. 826 of 2015 work for the construction of Church near their house at Doddanalchervu, by that time, the Church pastor is Samuel Goud (accused No.1) induced her to adopt Christianity, as there is no use to continue in Muslim community.

Further, the said Samuel Goud induced her by stating that he would pray the god for her good health, as she was suffering from ill health, she believed the illusion words of Samuel Goud (accused No.1) in the month of

August-2013, she adopted Christianity. Then, the said Samuel Goud (accused No.1)harassed her mentally and insisted her to approach every

Muslim woman and to canvass about Christian Community. Further, he commented that she is very beautiful and insisted her to fulfill his lust and he used to criticize muslim head i.e,. Mohammad Sollahu and she vexed with the harassment of Samuel Goud (accused No.1) and in the month of

June, again she changed into Muslim community. Since then, the said pastor harassing her and used to question her as to why she is not coming to church. On 26.07.2015 afternoon at about 01:00 P.M, Samuel Goud (accused No.1), Padma (accused No.2) and Ruthi (accused No.3) came to her and questioned her as to why she is not coming to church, picked quarrel with her and husband and beat her husband. Again in the night at about 08:30 P.M, the above said persons came to her house and tried to attack her and her husband. Due to fear she complaint the matter to S.P Nalgonda over phone. Immediately, police came to the spot and took the said person to police station. Thus, she requested to take legal action.

03.Basing on the above, LW6/Shaik Akhil Jama, Sub-Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.194/2015 for the offence U/Sec.354-D(I)

Page No.3 of 8 C.C.No. 826 of 2015

(i), 295-A, 323 r/w 34 of IPC, issue FIR and tookup the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW6 examined and recorded the statement LW1/Shaik Shakeela and LW2/Shaik Janimiya. On 27.07.2015,

LW6 visited the scene of offence situated at Daddanalachervu Colony,

Huzurnagar, examined LW3/Akula Vara Laxmi and recorded her statement and later, he examined and recorded the statement of LW4/Shaik Mogulabee and LW5/Balaboina Nagalaxmi. On 27.07.2015, LW6 served notice

U/sec.41-A(1) Cr.P.C on accused No.1 to 3 directing them to appear before him to ascertain the facts and circumstances of the case, upon such notice, the accused No.1 to 3 are appeared before the LW6 and voluntarily admitted their guilt and upon such appearance, LW6 served notice U/sec.41-A(3)

Cr.P.C directing them to appear before court, after receipt of the summons.

After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

04.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 354-D, 295-

A, 323 r/w 34 of IPC. On appearance of the accused No.1 to 3 copies of the documents furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused No.1 to 3 are examined U/Sec.251 Cr.P.C for the accusation U/s.323, 504 of IPC read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied the accusation, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.

06.During the course of trial, to substantiate of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3, got marked Ex.P1 to P5. The S.H.O, P.S

Huzurnagar filed a report through APP enclosing a death certificate of

Page No.4 of 8 C.C.No. 826 of 2015 LW1/Shaik Shakeela. The details of death certificate are tallied with the details of LW1 mentioned in the charge sheet. Hence, the evidence of LW1 is closed.

07.After, closure of prosecution evidence, accused No.1 to 3 are examined under Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating material leveled against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which they denied and reported no defence evidence on their behalf.

08. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused.

09.Now, the point for determination:

“Whether, the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, for the accusation U/sec.323, 506 of IPC?”

10.POINT:

In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 who is the eye witness in this case and he deposed in his evidence in chief that he is resident of Huzurnagar from the past 30 years and he is mason workers and he have three children and his wife died on 08th day of May, 2023 and in that year, 2013, on one day, he along with his wife/LW1 went to church work

Daddanala Cheruvu in Huzurnagar, for which the accused No.1 is the pastor to the Church and the accused No.1 developed acquaintance with his wife/LW1. Later on, the accused No.1 advised his wife/LW1 to convert into the Christianity from the Muslim community, the accused No.1 also stated that prophet Mohammad is not a messenger of Allah and the Holy Khuran is not written by Allah, but was written by a person and stated that Bible is the only Holy book and asked her to convert into Christianity, so that the

Page No.5 of 8 C.C.No. 826 of 2015 accused No.1 will cure ill health. Upon believing the words of the accused

No.1, his wife/LW1 has converted her religion in the month of August, 2013 and the accused No.1 harassed his wife/LW1 to convert her Muslim community friends to Christianity. Due to unbearable harassment from the accused No.1, his wife again converted to Muslim in the month of June, 2014. One day, the accused No.1 came to their house and forced her wife/LW1 and also questioned her why she is not coming to the church. On the same day, his wife/LW1 went to her Mother’s house, which is located nearby their house. Then, two members A2 and A3, who are working in church came to his Mother-in-law’s house and quarreled with her wife/LW1 and said that his wife/LW1 is defaming that A3 is kept mistress with the A1.

Then, his wife/LW1 told to A2 and A3 that her father is not present at the house and to come later point of time to her house. Then, A3 telephoned the accused No.1, then, the accused No.1 came to the house and the accused

No.1 abused in filthy language against his wife/LW1 and beat her and left the premises. At that time, when he reached the place, A2 and A3 dragged down his wife/LW1 and beating with hands. When he intervened to stop the same, A2 and A3 also beat him. The incident was witnessed by LW3 to

LW5 and at that time, LW3 to LW5 came to their house to meet his Father- in-law. On the same day, at night hours, he along with his wife/LW1 with their three children, while going on bike to their house and at that time, when they reached their house, then a group of people attacked them. He cannot identify the said people. Then, immediately, due to fear they returned back to their Mother-in-law’s house. Then, his wife/LW1 called to

Page No.6 of 8 C.C.No. 826 of 2015 Superintendent of Police and after that, they went to police station on the same day and his wife/LW1 lodged a report. At the time of lodging report, he was present with his wife/LW1 and he can identify the signature of LW1 and accordingly, the signature of his wife on the report is marked as Ex.P1.

11.It is pertinent to mention that in the entire evidence of the PW1 has not deposed when, the accused No.2 & 3 quarreled with LW1/Shaik

Shakeela and beat her, but he simply deposed as on one day. Further, he categorically deposed that the incident was witnessed by LW3, LW4 &

LW5, who examined as PW3, PW2 & PW4, but upon perusal of the evidence of the PW2 to PW4 is otherwise and contrarily to the evidence of

PW1 deposed that they do not know the facts of the case.

12.Further, the PW1 deposed in his 161 Cr.P.C statement that the A2 and

A3 are tried to beat him, but he deposed before the court by improving his version as A2 and A3 bet him.

13.Further, in order to substantiate its case the prosecution has also examined PW2 to PW4, who are the eye witness to the alleged incident, but the said witnesses are not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

14.The prosecution has also examined the investigating officer as PW5, who deposed to the extent of registered of case on the report lodged by LW1 and examination of the witness. It is pertinent to mention that the PW5 categorically deposing that he examined the PW2 to PW4, but upon perusal of the evidence of PW2 to PW4, contrarily to the evidence of PW5 they deposed that the police never examined them, during the cross examination

Page No.7 of 8 C.C.No. 826 of 2015 of PW2 to PW4 by the learned APP, they denied the suggestions made by the learned the APP with regard to commission of the offence made by the accused.

15.In view of the above facts and circumstances, it is evident that there are several discrepancies crept in the evidence of PW1 and PW5, consequently, the Court concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence U/sec. 323, 506 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused No.1 to 3 are entitled for the acquittal.

16.In the result, the accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences under Section 323, 506 of IPC and they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 3 shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 10th day of February, 2025)

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.8 of 8 C.C.No. 826 of 2015

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: Shaik Janimiya, Eye witness. PW-2: Shaik Mogula Bee, Eye witness. PW-3: Akula Vara Laxmi, Eye witness. PW-4: Baleboina Naga Laxmi, Eye witness. PW-5: Shaik Akhil Jama, Eye witness.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Signature of LW1 on report. Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex.P-5: Report. Ex.P-6: FIR.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- NIL --

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

CC/431/2014 Acquitted

B SWAROOPA RANI vs G RAMULU

30 Jan 2025

Page No.1 of 7 C.C.No. 431of 2014

THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

This, the 30 th day of January, 2025

Present: Sri. P.MARUTHI PRASAD, Junior Civil Judge-cum-,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Huzurnagar.

C.C.No. 431 of 2014

(Cr.No.161/2014 of P.S Nereducherla) BETWEEN: The State of Telangana rep., by S.H.O, Nereducherla Police Station. …Complainant AND

Gajula Ramulu S/o Mangaiah, Age: 35 Years, Occ: RTC Driver, R/o Nereducherla.

.....Accused

This case coming before me on 27.01.2025 for final hearing, and upon hearing the learned A.P.P appearing for the State and Sri.Kalva Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for Accused and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, Nereducherla Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.161/2014 for the offence

U/sec.354(A) of IPC.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 10.06.2014 at about 10:00 Hrs, the Defacto-complainant/LW1/Swaroopa Rani W/o Sunder Rai,

R/o Nereducherla (V) & (M) went to P.S Nereducherla and lodged a report stating that on 06.04.2014 at about 16:15 Hrs, when the LW1 was alone in her house, one Gajula Ramulu (accused) RTC Driver, R/o Chinthabanda village of Nereducherla mandal went to her house and asked about her husband, on that LW1 stated that his husband went to election duty, then the accused said that every month he has paying the money, but why her

Page No.2 of 7 C.C.No. 431of 2014 husband sent a legal notice to him and he closed the doors and caught hold her and outraged her modesty, on that the LW1 thrown the powder tin on his face and later, the said person went away from her house. Thus, she requested to take legal action.

3.Basing on the above report, LW7/S.Rajashekar Reddy, Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.161/2014 for the offence U/sec.354-B of

IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statement of LW1 and and later, he visited the scene of offence situated at Nereducherla and caused enquiries and examined and recorded the statements of LW2/Bachalakuri Sunder Rao,

LW3/Kondtu Nagesh and LW4/Kunbham Shiva and secured the presence of

LW5/Sk.Janimiya and LW6/Sk.Hafeez. On 24.06.2014, LW17 effected the arrest of the accused and after complying the due procedure, he was sent to

Judicial remand and on completion of investigation, charge sheet filed.

04.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 354-A of

IPC. On appearance of the accused copies of the documents furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused is examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C Charge under Sec.354(A) of IPC has been framed, read over and explained to the them in Telugu, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

06.During the course of trial, to substantiate of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6, got marked Exs.P1 to P4. The S.H.O, P.S

Page No.3 of 7 C.C.No. 431of 2014 Garidepally filed DC of LW4/Kumbham Shiva. Hence, the evidence of LW4 is closed.

07.After, closure of prosecution evidence, accused is examined under

Sec.313 Cr.P.C by read over incriminating material leveled against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

08. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused.

09.Now, the point for determination:

“Whether, the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence with which accused is charged?”

10.POINT:

In order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined defacto complainant as PW1 and she deposed in her examination in chief that on 06.04.2014 at about 06:15 P.M, the accused went to her house and asked her where is her husband and she answered that her husband went to the Election duty and then, the accused told that every month, he is paying monthly interest and why unnecessarily issuing notice to accused and abused her and caught hold her hand, on that she took powder tine in her hand and sprinkled on the face of the accused and immediately, the accused left her house and she informed the neighbors of her house, but the accused already left her house premises and she reported to the police, after two months of the incident. Then she tried her level best to conduct panchayat

before elders to resolve the dispute, but the accused did not came forward.

Lastly, she lodged report against the accused.

Page No.4 of 7 C.C.No. 431of 2014

11.Upon keen perusal of the evidence of PW1, she deposed that she lodged the report, after two months from the date of incident, but she failed to disclose on which date she lodged report, moreover, during the cross examination, she deposed contrarily to the questions posed by the learned defence counsel that she gave report on 06.04.2014, which is the alleged date of incident, but upon perusal of the Ex.P1 report, it was lodged on 10.06.2014. Moreover, she has not stated any reason for the delay in lodging the Ex.P1 report and in the 161 Cr.P.C statement, but she deposed for the first time before he court as she tried to resolve the dispute by placing the matter before the elders and also the PW1 stated in Ex.P1 and in her 161

Cr.P.C statement that the offence took place at about 04:15 P.M, but before the court she deposed that the offence took place at 06:15 P.M.

12.Further, the prosecution has also examined the PW2, who is the circumstantial witness and he deposed in his chief examination is that on 06.04.2014, while he was on election duty, he came to know that the accused came to his house and threatened his wife with regard to issuing of notice to the accused and abused in filthy language and caught hold the hand of PW1 and she pulled out her hand by sprinkling the powder bottle and after returning to the home on the next day morning, PW1 informed about this incident. Further, the PW2 categorically deposed that he was not examined the by the police, but later, he resiled from his statement and deposed that his statement was recorded by the police. Further, during the cross examination, he categorically stated that PW1 lodged report prior to intimating him about the incident, but as per the Ex.P1, it was lodged after more than two months.

Page No.5 of 7 C.C.No. 431of 2014

13. Further, the prosecution has examined the circumstantial witness as

PW3, but he did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile.

14.Further, the prosecution has also examined the panch witness as PW4 and he deposed in his examination in chief that on 10.06.2014 at 12:30 P.M panchanama was conducted in the house of Swaroopa Rani/PW1 by the police constable and drawn the rough sketch in his presence and obtained his signature and the panchanama was conducted as one person came to the house of PW1 and sprinkled powder on her and tried to hug her. During the cross examination of PW4, he categorically deposed that he and PW2 work in the same union and the PW1 called him to the scene of offence and moreover, he categorically admitted that he has close relation with PW1. It is pertinent to mention that a panch witness must be a neutral and an independent one, but in this case PW4 categorically admitted that he is having a close relationship with PW2 and he came to the scene of offence on the instructions of the PW2. Hence, the evidence of PW4 cannot be relied and cannot considered.

15.The prosecution has also examined the investigation officer as PW5, who deposed to the extent of registering of the case on the report lodged by

PW1 on 10.06.2014 in Cr.No.161/2014 for the offence U/sec.354-B of IPC and examining the witnesses i.e,. PW1 to PW3 and LW4 and conducting of the scene of offence panchanama and preparing of rough sketch in the presence of PW4 and LW6 on 10.06.2014. It is pertinent to mention that the

I.O has categorically deposed that he went to the scene of offence and

Page No.6 of 7 C.C.No. 431of 2014 prepared the panchanama in the presence of PW4 and LW6, who examined and PW6, but upon perusal of the evidence of panch witness i.e, PW4 and

LW6/PW6, they contrarily deposed to the evidence of PW5 is that only one police constable came to scene of offence to conduct panchanama. Further, the I.O has stated that he examined and recorded the statement of PW3 also, but upon perusal of the evidence of PW3 is otherwise and deposed that he was never examined by the police.

16.Thus, from the evidence available on record, it is evident that there are contradictions, which are crept in the evidence of the prosecution, In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence with which he is charged and as such, the accused is entitled for acquittal of the said offences.

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

Section 354(A) of IPC and he is acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the bail bonds of the accused, shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2025)

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

Page No.7 of 7 C.C.No. 431of 2014

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW-1: B.Swaroopa Rani, Defacto-complainant/Victim. PW-2: B.Sunder Rao, Circumstantial witness. PW-3: Konduru Nagesh, Circumstantial witness. PW-4: Jhajnimiya, panch witness. PW-5: S.Rajashekhar Reddy, I.O. PW-6: Sk.Azeez, panch witness.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL –

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Report, dated: 10.06.2014. Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P-3: Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch, dated: 10.06.2014. Ex.P-4: FIR.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- NIL --

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

CC/20273/2018 Acquitted

SHO KODAD RURAL vs CHATTU SAHADEVULU

09 Jun 2025

C.C.No. 273 of 2018Pg. no. 1 of 6

IN THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KODAD

PRESENT: Ms.K.Bhavya, Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad FAC: I-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad

Dated this the 09 th day of June, 2025

C.C.No. 273 of 2018

Between:

The State: Sub- Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural ....Complainant

AND Chattu Sahadevulu S/o Seshaiah, Age 47years, R/o. Komarabanda(V), Kodad(M)

...Accused

This case has come up before me today for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri U. Narsaiah , counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

[1]The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Rural, filed a charge sheet in

Crime No. 36/2018 against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code,Section 3 read with 181 of MV Act.

[2]The Case of Prosecution is that on 25.02.2018 at 08:30hrs, the accused being the driver of the white car bearing No. TS 29 A-6996 drove his car in rash and negligent manner at high speed and has hit the deceased.

As a result the deceased sustained severe injuries and succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment.

C.C.No. 273 of 2018Pg. no. 2 of 6 [3]After taking cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read with 181 of MV Act against the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to the accused and he was examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C and substance of accusation for the aforementioned offence was read over and explained to him for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

[4]The prosecution in support of its case examined the PWs 1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P15 documents. Despite ample chances police failed to serve summons to LWs 8, 11 to 15 as such their evidence was closed. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defense evidence and the defence is accordingly closed.

[5]Heard arguments on both sides.

[6] The point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

[7] The evidence of PW1 is that on 25.02.2018, head on collision took place between the bike of deceased bearing no.TS-29-C-1212 and a white

C.C.No. 273 of 2018Pg. no. 3 of 6 colour car bearing no. TS-29-A-6996 due to the negligence of driver of car.

As a result the deceased sustained severe injuries and he was shifted to

Kodad hospital in ambulance by LW4 and LW5 and others. After receiving the information from LW4, he immediately rushed to hospital and found the deceased in unconscious state. On advice of doctors the deceased was shifted from one hospital to other, but on 02.03.2018 the deceased succumbed to injures. As such he lodged a report. PW2 who is mother of deceased deposed in similar lines of PW1.

[8] PW3 who is younger brother of deceased, PW4, PW5 who are the alleged eye-witnesses in this case, PW6 who as per prosecution case produced the accused before police, turned hostile and deposed in a single tone that they do not know anything about the facts of this case. PWs 7 to 9 who are the alleged mediators in this case turned hostile and deposed that police never conducted any panchanama in their presence. PW10 who is the investigating officer in this case deposed in the lines of charge-sheet.

Appreciation of evidence:

[9]On perusal of evidence of PWs 1, 2 though they deposed that the deceased died in road accident due to negligence of car driver, they are mere hear say evidence and much weight cannot be given to their evidence.

PW3 to PW6 who are the witnesses in this case turned hostile to the case of

C.C.No. 273 of 2018Pg. no. 4 of 6 prosecution. Though cross-examined by Learned APP nothing much was elicited by him.

[10] The Hon’ble Apex Court in Murli & Anr V. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2010 SC(SUPP)333, held: “the contents of the

Panchanama are not the substantive evidence. The law is settled on that issue. What is substantive evidence is what has been stated by the Panchas or the concerned person in the witness box.” In the case at hand the alleged mediators to Scene of offence panchanama, Inquest viz., PW7 to PW9 turned hostile. Hence the so called panchanama is inadmissible in evidence.

It is not safe to rely upon the sole testimony of PW10 who is Investigating officer without any corroborating evidence.

[11]In a case under Section 304-A I.P.C., the prosecution has to prove the culpable act of rashness or negligence on the part of the accused apart from establishing his identity. The evidence in this case is therefore too scanty to fasten the accused with the alleged offence.Looking from any angle, I find that the prosecution has ultimately failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the case of prosecution is sans-merit and this court is of the view that the accused be exonerated from the allegation leveled against him.

C.C.No. 273 of 2018Pg. no. 5 of 6 [12] In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code, Section 3 read with 181 of MV Act and accordingly he is acquitted under Section 255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time under section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Since no property is produced

before this court, there is no order as to property.

Typed by me personally, pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 09 th day of June, 2025

Sd/-

FAC:I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODAD.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Accused:

PW1: J. Durgaiah/Complainant --None-- PW2: J. Gopamma/Cir.Witness PW3: J. Vamshi Kumar/Cir-Witness PW4: G. Kanakaiah/Eyewitness PW5: D. Madhubabu/Eye-witness PW6: Ch. Ramakrishna/witness PW7: D. Srinivasa Rao/Panch-witness PW8: K. Srinu/Panch-witness PW9: L. Vinay Kumar/Panch-witness PW10: M.Vijayprakash/Investigating Officer

C.C.No. 273 of 2018Pg. no. 6 of 6

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Prosecution: For Accused:

Ex.P1: Report --Nil-- Ex.P2: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P3: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4 Ex.P4: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5 Ex.P5: Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW6 Ex.P6: Signature of PW7 in scene of offence panchanama Ex.P7: Signature of PW7 in rough sketch Ex.P8: Signature of PW8 in inquest Ex.P9: Signature of PW9 in inquest Ex.P10: First Information Report Ex.P11: Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P12: Rough sketch Ex.P13: Inquest Ex.P14: Postmortem Examination report Ex.P15: Motor vehicle inspection report

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

Sd/-

FAC:I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODAD.

I N THE COURT OF I-ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

:: KODAD

C.C. No. 273 of 2018 :: The State: represented by Sub- 1 Name of Complainant Inspector of Police, PS Kodad rural :: Chattu Sahadevulu 2 Name of Accused :: u/s. 304-A IPC, S. 3 r/w 181 MV Act. 3 Nature of Offence :: Not guilty 4 Finding :: Acquitted 5 Sentence 6 Date of Occurrence of offence :: 25-02-2018 7 Date of Report :: 26-02-2018 8 Date of Commencement of trial :: 17-03-2025 9 Date of Closure of trial :: 03-06-2025 10 Date of Sentence or Order :: 09-06-2025 11 Explanation of delay :: ---

Sd/-

FAC:I-ADDL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KODAD

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Suryapet.

CC/937/2023 Acquitted

SHO HUZURNAGAR vs YELURU VIJAYALAKSHMI AND 3 OTHERS

30 Jan 2025

Page No.1 of 5 C.C.No. 937 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDICIAL

MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS: HUZURNAGAR

This, the 30 th day of January, 2025

Present: Sri. P.Maruthi Prasad, Junior Civil Judge-cum-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Huzurnagar.

C.C.No. 937 of 2023

(Cr.No.243/2023 of P.S Huzurnagar) BETWEEN: The State of Telangana rep., by S.H.O, Huzurnagar Police Station. …Complainant AND

A-1:- Yeluri Vijayalaxmi W/o Subba Rao, Age; 70 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Miryalaguda road in Huzurnagar town. A-2:- Yeluri Subbarao S/o Venkataramaiah, Age; 72 years, Occ: House hold, R/o Miryalaguda road in Huzurnagar town. A-3:- Yeluri Satyanarayana S/o Subba Rao, Age; 44 years, Occ: Business, R/o Miryalaguda road in Huzurnagar town.

A-4:- Yeluri Sowmya @ Savitri W/o Satyanarayana, Age; 42 years, Occ: House wife, R/o Miryalaguda road in Huzurnagar town.

.....Accused

This case coming up before me for final hearing on 29.10.2024 and upon hearing the learned Asst. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and of Sri.CH.Krishnaiah, Advocate for Accused, and having stood over till this today for consideration, and upon perusing the material this court made the following:

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

01.The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S Huzurnagar filed charge sheet against the accused in Crime No.243/2022 for the offence U/sec.498-A, 354-A r/w 34 of IPC.

02.The brief allegations in the charge sheet that on 16.09.2023 at 13:30 Hrs, the Defacto-complainant/LW1/Yeluri Madhavi W/o Late

Rambabu, R/o Miryalaguda road in Huzurnagar town came to the police station and lodged a report stating that on 11.03.2012 and her marriage solemnized with Yeluri Rambabu R/o Huzurnagar town and out of their

Page No.2 of 5 C.C.No. 937 of 2023 wedlock they blessed with two child namely, Karthi Sai and Jaiswith age about six years. On 09.06.2018 her husband was died in a road accident, from that day onward she resides with her aunt Yeluri Vijayalaxmi (accused

No.1), uncle Yeluri Subbarao @ Putnala Subbarao (accused NO.2) and brother-in-law, Yeluri Sathyanarayana (accused No.3) and Co-sister Yeluri

Sowmya (accused No.4) at Huzurnagar as joint family and the above said persons were doing work as house keeper and they did not look her well wishes, she asked some money about her child, but they did not give and harassed to do work any shop and insulted her. In this regard, her Brother- in-law harassed her for sexually, when she alone her house, and he demanded to satisfy him to look well her child and they did not given her husband property and further, after 15 days of her husband died, her

Brother-in-law and his uncle were transferred her husband property, which is situated at Hyderabad. On knowing the same, her parents came to

Huzurnagar on 18.07.2023 and tried to ask about this property issues, but

Yeluri Vijayalaxmi, Yeluri Subbarao, Yeluri Sathyanarayana, Yeluri

Sowmya were attacked on her relatives. Hence, she requested to take legal action.

03.Basing on the above report, LW7/P.Hari Krishna, Sub-Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No.243/2023 for the offence U/sec.498-A, 354-A of IPC, issued FIR and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, LW7 examined and recorded the statement of LW1/Yeluri

Madhavi, LW2/Katepalli Suryanarayana, LW3/Katepalli Padma and

LW4/Rampalli Harish and later, he visited the scene of offence panchanama

Page No.3 of 5 C.C.No. 937 of 2023 situated at Huzurnagar, examined the LW5/Uppalamanchu Ramakrishna and LW6/Kambala Srinivas and caused enquiries about the occurrence of offence. On 29.09.2023, LW7 issued served notice U/sec.41-A Cr.P.C directed them to appear before the Court, after receipt of summons. After completion of entire investigation, he filed charge sheet.

04.The case was taken on file for the offence under Section 498-A, 354(A) of IPC against Accused No.3 and 498-A of IPC against Accused

No.1, 2 & 4. On appearance of the accused No.1 to 4 copies of the documents furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

05.The accused No.1 to 4 are examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C and Charge under Section 498-A, 354(A) of IPC against Accused No.3 and 498-A of

IPC against Accused No.1, 2 & 4 has been framed, read over and explained to them in Telugu, to which accused No.1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried for the said offence.

06.During the course of trial, to substantiate of its case, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW3, got marked Ex.P1 to P4. Learned APP has given up the evidence of LW4 to LW7.

07.After closure of trial, as there is no incriminating evidence found in the testimonials of the prosecution witnesses against the accused No.1 to 4, examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has been dispensed with.

08. Heard learned A.P.P. for prosecution and learned counsel for the accused.

09.Now, the point for determination: “Whether, the prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, for the offence under section S Section 498-A, 354(A) of IPC against Accused No.3 and 498-A of IPC against Accused No.1, 2 & 4?

Page No.4 of 5 C.C.No. 937 of 2023

10.POINT: In order to prove the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined defacto complainant as PW1 and she deposed in her examination in chief that she does not know anything about the facts of the case, but the police obtained her signature on white paper and she was declared hostile by learned Assistant Public Prosecutor and in the cross examination by the prosecution, she denied the suggestion about commission of offence by the

Accused.

11.Further, the prosecution has examined the PW2 & PW3, but they are also did not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile.

12.Since the PW1 to PW3 turned hostile, the learned APP has given up the evidences of LW4 to LW7.

13.Therefore, the evidence of prosecution shows that absolutely there is no iota of evidence whatsoever on record to connect the accused No. 1 to 4 for the offence alleged against them. In these circumstances, the only conclusion that can be drawn that, the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, for the offence Section 498-A of IPC against Accused No.3 and 498-A, 354-A r/w 34 of IPC against Accused No.1, 2 & 4, as such the accused No.1 to 4 are entitled for acquittal of the said offence.

14.In the result, the accused No.3 is found not guilty for the offence under Sections 498-A, 354-A of IPC and the accused No.1, 2 & 4 are acquitted for the offence U/sec. 498-A of IPC, accordingly, they are

Page No.5 of 5 C.C.No. 937 of 2023 acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C, the bail bonds of the accused shall stands discharged after expiry of appeal time.

(Directly computerized to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30th day of January, 2025)

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW-1: Yeluri Madhavi, Defacto-Complainant. PW-2: Katempalli Surya Narayana, Circumstantial witness. PW-3: Katepalli Padma, Circumstantial witness.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P-1: Signature of PW1 on the Report. Ex.P-2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex.P-3: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex.P-4: 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3.

FOR DEFENCE: -- NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

-- NIL --

sd/-

Junior Civil Judge-Cum

Judicial Magistrate of First Class

Huzurnagar

CC/287/2025 Acquitted

SHO KODAD TOWN vs Murali Kamma

11 May 2026

C.C. No. 287 of 2025Pg. no. 1 of 5

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST

CLASS :: KODAD

PRESENT:- Ms.K.Bhavya,

Prl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kodad

Dated this the 11 th day of May, 2026

C.C. No. 287 of 2025

Between: The State: Sub- Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Town

....Complainant

A N D

1. Kamma Murali, S/o. Rama Rao, Age: 44 years, Caste: Kamma, Occ: Milk Business, R/o. Srimannarayana Colony, Kodad Town.

2. Yada Govind Rao, S/o. Venkateswarlu, Age: 49 years, Caste: Vysya, Occ: Electrician, R/o. Srimannarayana Colony, Kodad Town

3. Yamagani Siddu, S/o. Kotaiah, Age: 41 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Business, R/o. Venkateswara Nagar, Kodad Town

4. Naradasu Srinu, S/o. Narsaiah, Age: 40 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Coolie, R/o. Rajeev Nagar, Kodad Town

5. Naradasu Srinu, S/o. Veeraiah, Age: 40 years, Caste: Goud, Occ: Welding work, R/o. Akupamula Village, Munagala Mandal

6. Sagi Shiva Krishna, S/o. Srinu, Age: 36 years, Caste: Munnurukapu, Occ: Business, R/o. Rajeev Nagar, Kodad Town

...Accused

This case has come up before me today for final hearing in the presence of Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of prosecution and of Sri V.Sravan Kumar, counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

01.The Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Town, filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging that – “On 05-04-2025 at 15.30 hours, based on credible information, Pw6 along with his staff raided the belt shop of A3 and found accused playing cards by betting money. So, Pw6 recorded the confessional

C.C. No. 287 of 2025Pg. no. 2 of 5 statements of accused and seized the case property in the presence of mediators.

Basing on the confession panchanama, suomotto case was registered against the accused and PW6 investigated into matter and filed charge-sheet against the accused.”

02.After taking Cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act against A1 to A6, Copies of case documents were furnished to the accused and examined them under Section 274 BNSS and substance of accusation for aforementioned offences were read over and explained to them for which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

03.The prosecution in support of its case examined the Pws 1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents. After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 351 BNSS by explaining the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defense evidence and the defense is accordingly closed.

04. Heard arguments on both sides.

05.The point for consideration is:“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

06.The evidence of PW1 is that on 05-04-2025 at 16:00 hrs they got information that the accused were playing cards at the belt shop of A3. Basing on

C.C. No. 287 of 2025Pg. no. 3 of 5 that information, PW6 along with Pw1, LW2/B.Venkateshwarlu,

LW-3/K.Mahendra Chary raided the belt shop of A3. and found the A1 to A6 playing “Andhar Bahar” with playing cards by betting money. They apprehended

A1 to A6 and brought them to Police Station, PW6 recorded confessional statement of accused in the presence of mediators and recovered case property.

07. PW2 to PW5 who are alleged mediators for confession and seizure panchanama testified in single tone that police never conducted any panchanama in their presence. Pw6 who is investigating officer in this case deposed on the lines of charge-sheet.

08.It is admitted fact that except the evidence of police officials there is no evidence of record to show that the accused committed the said offence.

Moreover prosecution has not got marked the alleged case property for the reasons best known to them.

09.The Hon’ble Apex Court in Murli & Anr V. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 2010 SC(SUPP)333,held: “the contents of the Panchanama are not the substantive evidence. The law is settled on that issue. What is substantive evidence is what has been stated by the Panchas or the concerned person in the witness box. ” In the case at hand the alleged panch witness viz.,

PW2 to PW5 who are the alleged mediators for confession and recovery panchanama did not support the version of prosecution. Hence the so called panchanama is inadmissible in evidence.

C.C. No. 287 of 2025Pg. no. 4 of 5

10. Looking from any angle, I find that the prosecution has ultimately failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the inevitable conclusion is that the case of prosecution is sans-merit and this court is of the view that the accused be exonerated from the allegation leveled against them.

11.In the result, A1 to A6 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 and 4 of T.S. Gaming Act and accordingly they are acquitted under Section 278(1) BNSS. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand canceled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case properties received vide CP.No.

44/2025 i.e., two mobile phones (Oppo Android Phone, Redmi Android phone),

Bajaj Discover 125 ST shall be returned to its owners on proper identification and acknowledgment after expiry of appeal period, and the unmarked properties i.e., Honda Passion pro, Glamour bike, Honda Shine bike which were already returned to their owners towards interim custody vide Crlmp.No.111/2025, 112/2025, 113/2025 holds good after appeal period, 52 playing cards shall be destroyed after appeal period, Net cash of Rs.1500/- (converted into FDR) shall be confiscated to state after appeal period.

Typed by me personally, pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 11 th day of May, 2026

Sd/-

PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KODAD

C.C. No. 287 of 2025Pg. no. 5 of 5

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Accused: PW1: B.Nageswara Rao/Witness -None-- PW2: M.Madhu/Panch witness PW3: SK.Karimulla/Panch witness PW4: Y.Venu/Panch witness PW5: D.Krishna/Panch witness PW6: A.Ranjith/Investigation Officer.

DOCUMENTS MARKED.

For Prosecution:For Accused: Ex.P1: Signature of PW2 in Confession and seizure Panchanama of A1 & A2 . Ex.P2: Signature of PW3 in Confession and seizure Panchanama of A1 & A2. Ex.P3: Signature of PW4 in Confession and seizure Panchanama of A3 to A6. Ex.P4: Signature of PW5 in Confession and seizure Panchanama of A3 to A6. Ex.P5: Confession and seizure panchanama of A1 & A2. Ex.P6: FIR. Ex.P7: Confession and seizure panchanama of A3 to A6.

For Accused:- -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

--Nil--

Sd/-

PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KODAD.

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS ::

KODAD

C.C. No. 287 of 2025

1Name of Complainant:: The State: represented by sub- Inspector of Police, PS Kodad Town :: 1. Kamma Murali 2Name of Accused

2. Yada Govind Rao,

3. Yamagani Siddu,

4. Naradasu Srinu,

5. Polampalli Anjaneyulu,

6. Sagi Shiva Krishna, :: under Section 3 &4 of TS Gaming Act 3 Nature of Offence :: Not guilty 4Finding 5Sentence:: Acquitted 6Date of Occurrence of offence:: 05-04-2025 7Date of Report:: 05-04-2025 8Date of Commencement of trial:: 04-05-2026 9Date of Closure of trial:: 07-05-2026 10Date of Sentence or Order:: 11-05-2026 11Explanation of delay:: ---

PRL. JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KODAD.

To The Hon’ble I-Addl. District &Sessions Judge, Suryapet.

Order Record 1,454 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
OS/68/2020	SOMAGANI KHAJAGOUD vs KUMBAJADA RAMU	13 May 2026	decreed with costs	—
EP/72/2021	Nuthalapati Nirmala vs Mundra Babu Rao	12 May 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/185/2021	Eega Ramarao vs Siddhela Srinivasa Rao and another	11 May 2026	Dismissed. No costs.	—
OS/215/2025	Shaik Hassain vs Shaik Nasreen	11 May 2026	Partly Decreed	—
CC/287/2025	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Murali Kamma	11 May 2026	Acquitted	Acquitted
CC/78/2015	THE STATE OF TELANGANA FIRE SERVI CE DEP vs K RAHIMAN AND OTHERS	07 May 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/755/2025	SHO NADIGUDEM vs Damarla Venkanna	07 May 2026	Acquitted	—
EP/19/2025	Kapil Chits Telangana Private Limited vs Yaramadi Harinarayana	06 May 2026	Reference is closed	—
OS/75/2021	Kandaraboina Renuka vs Mattapalli Chinna Raghu	06 May 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/88/2020	Nakka Rajamahendra vs MD Gousuddin	06 May 2026	decreed with costs	—
EP/11/2022	Boggavarapu @ Bogavarapu Sreelakshmi vs Badrishetty Veeraiah	05 May 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/177/2021	Palagudu Lakshmi vs Samineni Srinivasa Rao and another	05 May 2026	Dismissed	—
STC.NI/89/2022	Kukkala Vinay Kumar vs Somapangu Pullaiah	05 May 2026	Acquitted	—
OS/53/2020	CHOWDOJU KALIKAMBA vs RAJULA VEERABABU AND OTHERS	04 May 2026	Dismissed	—
CC/606/2014	KARLA ANAND BABU vs CHEEDELLA VIKAS	04 May 2026	Dismissed	—
STC.NI/21/2023	Akavarapu Bhaskara Chary vs Nenavath Rao @ Nenavath Nageswar Rao	04 May 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/127/2021	CHILKURI SAI KISHORE SASTRY vs AMARABOINA NAGARAJU AND OTHERS	30 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/314/2024	Pidathala Srinivasa Rao vs Pidatala Shankar Rao	30 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
EP/45/2019	KATEPALLI NARASIMHA vs BELLAM KONDA PURUSHOTHAM	29 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
EP/99/2020	M/s Shiram chits Pvt Limited vs Kasani Madhubabu and others	29 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/32/2026	Jilla Aruna alias Jalla Aruna vs Jonnalagadda Srinivasa Rao	29 Apr 2026	Petition is allowed	—
MC/32/2020	Singirikonda Laxmi and other vs Singirikonda Ramesh	29 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
EP/12/2022	Boggavarapu Sreelakshmi vs Badrishetty Venkateshwarlu	28 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
CC/660/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Naga Brahma Chary Kolloju	23 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
EP/11/2023	Akshara Chit Funds Pvt Ltd vs Vuppala Madhavi	22 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
EP/97/2020	Shriram Chits Pvt.Limited vs P.Babu rao and others	21 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/135/2024	M/s. Shriram Finance ltd rep by A. Jagadaiah vs Dasharadha Kolakonda	21 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/138/2025	Shriram Finance Limited vs Mangamma Madasu	21 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/185/2024	M/s. Shriram Finance ltd rep by A. Jagadaiah vs Maragani Yadagiri	21 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/267/2024	M/s. Shriram Finance ltd rep M. Rama Krishna Thandu vs Sk. Nazeer Pasha	21 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
CC/810/2025	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Munaganti Brahma Chary	21 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/1047/2024	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Banothu Rupla	21 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
EP/70/2025	SHEELAM BHADRMMA vs SHAIK AZAGHAR BEE	20 Apr 2026	Reference is closed	—
OS/118/2025	Devabathini Suresh Prasad vs Devabathini Ramesh Prasad	20 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/165/2021	SHAIK AZGHAR BEE vs SHEELAM BHADRAMMA	20 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/200256/2018	Md.Yakub Pasha vs Allakonda Srinivas	20 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
CC/769/2022	SHO PS KODAD TOWN vs Julakanti Venkata Rama Rao	17 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
MC/3/2023	Shaik Rafiya vs Shaik Hussain Pasha	17 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/178/2020	Syndicate bank vs Mutthavarapu Shoba	15 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/14/2020	Gunda Narsimha Kumar vs Pasupuleti Raghu	13 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/49/2020	ARE SHESHAMMA vs MUSKULA LINGAMMA	13 Apr 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/135/2021	BHUKYA LAXMAN vs BANOTHU BALAJI	13 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/236/2021	Shaik Madaar vs Shena Rural Development Society, Huzurnagar and another	13 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
CC/97/2015	SUNDARAM FINANCE LTD vs AVULA SRAVANTHI	13 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/294/2019	Smt. MD. Salma vs Barinala Hymavathi	13 Apr 2026	Convicted	—
CC/483/2018	SHO KODAD TOWN vs KUNDURI SREENIVASA	13 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/200707/2017	SHO KODAD TOWN vs VELARAM CHOWDARY AND OTHERS	13 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/471/2024	SHO NADIGUDEM vs Munaganti @ Bhuma Rama	10 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/547/2018	SHO KODAD TOWN vs KUMBHAJADA RAMU	10 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
MC/29/2019	Shaik Shahena vs Shaik Isub @ Yusuf	10 Apr 2026	Petition is partly allowed	—
EP/33/2023	KAPIL CHITS (KOSTA)PRIVATE LIMITED vs Madapa Srinivasa Rao	09 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
EP/100/2024	Kapil Chits Telangana Private Limited vs Pasupuleti Kiran Kumar	09 Apr 2026	Reference is closed	—
OS/149/2020	ANDHRA PRADESH GRAMEENA VIKAS BANK MUNAGALA BRANCH REP.BY ITS MANAGER vs GANNA RAVI	08 Apr 2026	decreed with costs	—
DVC/3/2025	Yathakula Peramala Manisha vs Yathakula Mani Kumar	08 Apr 2026	Petition is partly allowed	—
MC/4/2025	Yathakula Peramala Manisha vs Yathakula Mani Kumar	08 Apr 2026	Petition is allowed	—
STC.NI/56/2026	CHEVULA ASHOK vs MANCHU RAVI	08 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
EP/28/2022	M/s KAPIL CHITS (KOSTA) PRIVATE LIMITED, KODAD BRANCH vs Mohammed. Fakeer Mohammed	06 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/274/2021	Kethireddty Ram Reddy vs Boda Saidhaalu@saidhulu	06 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
STC.NI/141/2024	Bhukya Neela vs Bolisetty Ramu	06 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
EP/49/2023	Margadarsi Chit Fund (P) Ltd vs Tummala Vedavathi and Others	02 Apr 2026	Reference is closed	—
EP/74/2024	M/s. Kapil Chits rep by M. Narsimha Raju vs Daravathu Lakya	01 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
CC/543/2018	SHO KODAD TOWN vs PAGIDIMUKKALA RAJU	01 Apr 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/200208/2018	B LAXMANA vs R SREENU	01 Apr 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
STC.NI/34/2021	Dongari Gopi Chand vs Bojja Arun Sai	01 Apr 2026	Dismissed	—
OS/122/2025	Shaik Nagulmeera vs Shaik Ruksana	30 Mar 2026	Partly Decreed	—
CC/19/2016	SHO KODAD TOWN vs K SRINIVAS AND OTHERS	30 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/152/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Hussain Shaik	30 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/17/2026	SHO NADIGUDEM vs Sai Madgula	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/62/2022	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Kadiyam Veeraiah	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/86/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Sai Durga rao Yadagiri	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/97/2025	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Gandhi Repakula	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/127/2021	STATE OF TELANGANA vs Bejavada Sravan Kumar	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/149/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Hemantha Raju Thummeda	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/159/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Krishna Rupavath	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/160/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Suresh Bhukya	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/161/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Lakshma Reddy Yarabolu	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/165/2026	SHO NADIGUDEM vs Keshagani Laxman	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/171/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Nagulu Dharavath	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/175/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Khaja Nasiruddin Baba Shaik	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/200/2020	S.H.O P.S NADIGUDEM vs KINNERA MADHU @ MADAVA REDDY AND OTEHR	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/241/2020	S.H.O PS NADIGUDEM vs CHALLA RAMU @ RAMAVATHAR	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/477/2018	SHO KODAD TOWN vs VELISHA LAXMSHI	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/657/2025	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Chintha Dhanaraj	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/791/2018	SHO NADIGUDEM vs KUkkadapuPadma	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/1137/2019	SHO Kodad Town vs S Rama rao and others	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/1505/2020	SHo Kodad Town vs Ch Praveen	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/1943/2020	THE SHO PS KODAD TOWN vs PATHAKOTI NARESH	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
STC.NI/25/2025	Koppera Venkateswarlu vs Mohammad Jani	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
STC.NI/163/2025	SIRI RICE INDUSTRIES MANAGING PARTNER PASYA NARASIMHA REDDY vs SAI VIKAS GRAIN MARCHANT Prop SAI VIKAS RANGA	28 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
EP/25/2021	M/S KAPIL CHITS (KOSTA) PRIVATE LIMITED, KODAD BRANCH vs Jonnalagadda Subrahmanyam and others	26 Mar 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
EP/43/2014	KAPIL CHIT FUNDS PVT LTD vs MD ABDULLAH AND OTHERS	26 Mar 2026	Dismissed	—
CC/150/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Venkateswarlu Vemula	26 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/151/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Bala Goud Konda	26 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/153/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Venkatesh Cheedara	26 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/154/2026	SHO KODAD TOWN vs Durgamma Uppelli	26 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/155/2026	SHO Kodad Town vs Lingaraboina Gopi	26 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
CC/157/2026	SHO Kodad Town vs Valluri Anantha Laxmi	26 Mar 2026	Acquitted	—
EP/88/2024	Shriram Chits Private Limited, Kodad Branch vs Kalava Venugopala Rao	25 Mar 2026	Dismissed for Default	—
OS/182/2025	Telangana Grameena Bank Branch code 6224 Earlier Andhra Pradesh Grameena Vikas Bank vs Kandaraboina veeraswamy	25 Mar 2026	decreed with costs	—
OS/28/2025	Dharavath Kiran Kumar vs Dharavath Babu	24 Mar 2026	Dismissed	—

Showing 100 of 1,454 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

May 2026		16
Apr 2026		48
Mar 2026		47
Feb 2026		15
Jan 2026		68
Dec 2025		36
Nov 2025		98
Oct 2025		42
Sep 2025		111
Aug 2025		34
Jul 2025		69
Jun 2025		134

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Ms.BHAVYA KOVI handled?

Ms.BHAVYA KOVI has handled 1498 court orders since 2023 at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 41 orders per month.

What types of cases does Ms.BHAVYA KOVI hear?

Based on available records, Ms.BHAVYA KOVI primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex.

Where is Ms.BHAVYA KOVI currently posted?

Ms.BHAVYA KOVI is posted as Principal Junior Civil Judge at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex, Suryapet, Telangana.

Are judgments by Ms.BHAVYA KOVI available online?

Yes. 35 judgments by Ms.BHAVYA KOVI are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Ms.BHAVYA KOVI dispose cases?

Ms.BHAVYA KOVI disposes approximately 41 cases per month, based on 1498 orders handled over their tenure at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Ms.BHAVYA KOVI serving?

Ms.BHAVYA KOVI has been serving at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex since 2023. and is currently posted there.

Case Types

CC 66%

OS 16%

EP 9%

STC 5%

DVC 2%

MC 1%

PRC 0%

OP 0%

Posting History

Jun 2025 — Present

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 651 orders
Jun 2025 — Jun 2025

I Additional Junior Civil Judge · 12 orders
Jun 2025 — Jun 2025

II Additional Junior Civil Judge · 26 orders
Apr 2025 — Jun 2025

Addl JudlMagistrate of First Class Huzurnagar
Dec 2024 — Jun 2025

Junior Civil Judge · 8 orders
Oct 2024 — Oct 2024

I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet
Oct 2024 — Oct 2024

II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Suryapet
Oct 2024 — Oct 2024

Junior Civil Judge
Oct 2024 — Jun 2025

Principal Junior Civil Judge · 249 orders
Feb 2024 — Jun 2025

II Additional Junior Civil Judge · 373 orders
May 2023 — Jun 2025

I Additional Junior Civil Judge · 179 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 15

Convicted 11

Other Judges at this Court

Sri.mohammad Umar

I Additional Junior Civil Judge

452 orders

Syed Zakiyyah Sulthana

II Additional Junior Civil Judge

255 orders

Sri K.Suresh

Senior Civil Judge Court, Kodad

593 orders

← View all judges at Kodad, SCJ Court Complex