Sri C. Muralidhar

1 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDUR

Present:- Sri C.Muralidhar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, this the 28th day of March, 2024

S.C.No.83/2022

(P.R.C.No.1/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri connected with Crime No.116/2021 of Balayapalli Police Station.)

State: Inspector of Police,

1. Name of the complainant Venkatagiri Circle.

2. Name of the Accused1. Panduru Mohith (A1) S/o Perumallu, 24 years, Kamsali, N/o Maralapalli village, Naidupeta Mandal, JLM, Katragunta Sachivalayam, Balayapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Peramsetty Subrahmanyam @ Subbu (A2), S/o Veera Swamy, 28 years, Kaikala, Batlakanupur village, Ozili Mandal, Utlapalli Sachivalayam, Balayapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Deceased:

Thirumuru Subba Rao, S/o late Ankaiah, 30 years, caste by Rajaka, Nidigallu village, Balayapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Charge U/s.304 part II of IPC.

3. Nature of offence

Pleaded not guilty.

4. Plea of the Accused

5. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

6. Sentence or Order In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. .

2 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024

This case is coming on before me on 26.3.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri P.Srinivasulu,

Advocate for accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this

Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Inspector of Police, Venkatagiri Circle has filed the charge sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 in Crime No.116/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C).

2.The case of the prosecution is that:

A1 and A2 are working as Junior Line Men in A.P.S.P.D.C.L in the limits of Katragunta and Utlapalli Sachivalayams, Balayapalli Mandal. The offence took place at electrical pole (No.30/5/83) situated in an agricultural fields of Gorthala Chandra/LW8 in Sy.No.151-2 of Nidigallu village, Balayapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. Thirumuru Subba Rao (herein after called deceased) used to attend electrician work with the electricity department and assist the department staff in repairing power lines and power supply line broke down at Nidigallu. Due to torrential rain fall pigilam feeder of 3 face power line broken down at Nidigallu. Then

Pasupuleti Vijay Kumar/LW10 endorsed A1 and A2 to rectify the line repair. On 30.11.2021 morning 6-00pm., A1 and A2 went to the house of deceased and took the deceased to electrical pole No.30/5/83 (Pigilam

Feeder) for rectify the 11 KV power line, there the A1 and A2 who well versed with safety precautions did not take line clear from Sub-Station and without intimate to LW10/P.Vijaya Kumar entrusted the deceased to climb the pole to rectify the line, the deceased climbed the electrical pole and got electrocuted and flash erupted the deceased received burn 3 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024 injuries all over the body and fell into the percolate of telephone wires besides the power line. Then, deceased was scummed to injuries on 6.12.2021 at SVRR Government General Hospital, Tirupathi.

On receipt of hospital intimation, LW19/T.Ravi Kumar, HC,

Balayapalli Police Station visited the SVRR (Ruia) Government General

Hospital, Tirupathi and recorded the statement of LW1/T.Sujatha on 3.12.2021 at 15-30 hours as the injured person T.Subba Rao was in unconscious state.

Basing on the statement of LW1, LW20/Sk.Jilani, SI of Police,

Balayapalli Police Station registered the same as a case in Cr.No.116/2021

U/s.337 IPC of Balayapalli Police Station and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation, on 4.12.2021 LW20 visited SVRR hospital, Tirupathi, examined LW1 and recorded her statement and then, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch. Then the injured persons (deceased) died on 6.12.2021 at 21-48 hours while underwent treatment.

On receipt of death intimation from the hospital, LW20 altered the section of law from 337 to Section 304-II IPC. During the course of investigation, LW21/N.Nagamalleswara Rao, Inspector of Police,

Venkatagiri Circle visited SVRR hosital, Tirupathi, held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of mediators and drafted scene observation report, which is attested by the mediators. Then,

LW21 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.

LW10/P.Vijay kumar who received a requisition from Lw21, issued his report. LW21 arrested the accused/A1 and A2 on 11.12.2021 at 12-45 4 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024 hours and sent them for judicial remand. LW18/Dr.K.Chandra Vathi, MD, who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased at Mortuary,

SV Medical College, Tirupathi, issued post mortem report with opinion that deceased died due to electrical burns and its complications. After completion of investigation, L.W.21 filed the charge sheet against the accused under section 304 part-II of IPC.

3.The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri took the cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of IPC vide

P.R.C.No.1/2022. On appearance of the accused/A1 and A2 copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.). She committed the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Nellore as the offence punishable under Section 304 part-II of I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the Court of

Sessions. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge numbered the same as

S.C.No.83/2022 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

4. On appearance of the accused/A1 and A2, after hearing the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the accused, this court framed a charge

for the offence punishable under Section 304 part-II of IPC of IPC against

A1 and A2 read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 15 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P16. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW12/T.Kalyan Babu, LW14/Ch.Dasaradha Rami Reddy, 5 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024

LW15/V.Narayana Reddy, LW17/A.Pavan Kumar, LW18/Dr.K.Chandra Vathi and LW21/N.Nagamalleswara Rao, Inspector of Police, Venkagiri Circle.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused/A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C the incriminating evidence against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied and reported no defence witnesses.

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

proved the offence punishable under Section 304-II of IPC

against A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.It is the case of the prosecution that on 30-11-2021 morning at about 06-00 A.M., A1 and A2 went to the house of deceased/Thirumuru

Subba Rao, to the electrical pole No.30/5/83 (Pigilam Feeder) for rectify the 11 KV Power Line, there both accused though well known the safety precautions, but did not take line clear from Sub-Station negligently, entrusted the deceased to climb the pole to rectify the line, then the deceased climbed the electrical pole and got electrocuted and flash erupted the deceased, upon which he received burn injuries all over his body and fell down into the percolate of telephone wires besides the power line and died with injuries.

9.Perused the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 15 and Exs.P1 to P16 and other connected records. As seen from the evidence of PW1/T.Sujatha that she is resident of Nidiguallu village of Balayapalli Mandal. She does not know the accused. Deceased Subba Rao is her husband. He died of current 6 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024 shock and it is informed by neighbours. PW1 further deposed that at about 2 years back on one day while she was present at her house

Balayapalli Police informed her that her husband with electric shok and got admitted at Government hospital, Tirupathi and that herself and her family members rushed there and found deceased was IC ward not able to speak as such she gave her statement to police, which is recorded by them and she put her signature on the statement, which is marked as

Ex.P1 and she did not read over the contents of her statement. police did not examine her. She turned hostile and not stated anything against the accused.

10.PW2/T.Polaiah, brother of deceased deposed that he does not know how he died and he does not know manner of accident. PW2 further deposed that he came to know that he admitted in the hospital in

Tirupati due to injuries sustained in electrical shock. Himself and PW1 visited government hospital, Tirupathi and found that deceased undergoing treatment and later died. Police did not examine him and he does not know who are responsible for the death of deceased Subba Rao.

He turned hostile and not stated anything against the accused.

11.P.Ws.3 to 7, 9 to 13 are deposed in the same lines of P.Ws.1 and 2.

They turned hostile and they simply stated that they do not know anything about the case facts and they have not witnessed any offence, which took place at the scene of offence. All the witnesses including

Pws.1 and 2 turned hostile and though they were cross-examined the prosecution, but not elicited anything or any other facts which incriminate the offence against the accused. It seems all the witnesses have compromised the case with the accused. They denied the participation of 7 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024 accused in this crime and even they denied the presence of accused at the scene of offence.

12.PW8/K.Krishna Reddy, inquestdar deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of this case and his signature on the inquest report. Police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased

T.Subba Rao and in his presence and another person at Government hospital, Tirupathi police prepared inquest report. PW8 further deposed that himself and Dasaradharami reddy signed as inquest panchayatdars and after inquest they found deceased died of injuries sustained in electrical accident. Ex.P9 is the inquest report, dt.8.12.2021.

13.PW14/T.Ravi Kumar, Head Constable deposed that on 3.12.2021 on receipt of hospital intimation he proceeded to SVRR hospital, Tirupathi and recorded the statement of PW1 and handed over the same to

LW20/Sk.Jeelani the the SI of Police Balayapalli Police Station.

14.PW15 is the investigating officer in a routine manner deposed the evidence as per CD that he received report from PW1, registered the same, visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet. Since PW1 and other eye witnesses turned hostile and the evidence of PW15 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution in establishing the guilt of the accused for any of the charges levelled against them. Prosecution failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt and they are entitled for acquittal.

15. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a 8 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024 period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of March, 2024.

Sd/- C.Muralidhar,

Fair Copy:ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:T.Sujatha -None-

P.W.2:T.Polaiah

P.W.3:T.Subhashini

P.W.4:A.Ramachandra Reddy

P.W.5:V.Chandraiah

P.W.6:G.Chandra

P.W.7:G.Guravaiah

P.W.8:K.Sreenivasulu Reddy

P.W.9:K.Prasad

P.W.10 P.Vijaya Kumar

P.W.11 T.Nagabhashanam

P.W.12 Sk.Zaheer Ahamad

P.W.13 Sk.Shabeer

P.W.14 T.Ravi Kumar, Head Constable, Balayapalli Police Station. P.W.15 Sk.Jilani, the then SI of Police, Balayapalli Police Station.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Statement of PW1.

Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

9 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024

Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P5: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P6: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.5.

Ex.P7:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.6.

Ex.P8:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.7.

Ex.P9:Inquest report, dt.8.12.2021.

Ex.P10: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.9.

Ex.P11: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.10.

Ex.P12: Signature of PW11 on the mahazar, dt.11.12.2021.

Ex.P13: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.12.

Ex.P14: Signature of PW13 on the mahazar, dt.11.12.2021.

Ex.P15: FIR in Cr.No.116/2021 of Balayapalli Police Station.

Ex.P16: Rough sketch.

For Defence: - NIL-

Material Objects Marked

NIL.

Id/- C.M.,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR. Copies submitted to: -

1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Amaravathi. Through the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

2.The Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Copies to:

1.The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Venkatagiri.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Nellore.

3.The Director of Prosecution, Mangalagiri.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Gudur.

5.The Inspector of Police, Venkatagiri Circle.

// True Copy //

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR.

10 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDUR

Present:- Sri C.Muralidhar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, this the 28th day of March, 2024

S.C.No.83/2022

(P.R.C.No.1/2022 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Venkatagiri connected with Crime No.116/2021 of Balayapalli Police Station.) State: Inspector of Police,

1. Name of the complainant Venkatagiri Circle.

2. Name of the Accused1. Panduru Mohith (A1) S/o Perumallu, 24 years, Kamsali, N/o Maralapalli village, Naidupeta Mandal, JLM, Katragunta Sachivalayam, Balayapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Peramsetty Subrahmanyam @ Subbu (A2), S/o Veera Swamy, 28 years, Kaikala, Batlakanupur village, Ozili Mandal, Utlapalli Sachivalayam, Balayapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Deceased:

Thirumuru Subba Rao, S/o late Ankaiah, 30 years, caste by Rajaka, Nidigallu village, Balayapalli Mandal, SPSR Nellore District.

Charge U/s.304 part II of IPC.

3. Nature of offence

Pleaded not guilty.

4. Plea of the Accused

5. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

6. Sentence or Order In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 part II of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C. .

11 S.C.No.83/2022, dated 28.3.2024

DATES OF

Occurrence : 30.11.2021

Complaint : 3.12.2021

Apprehension of accused : 11.12.2021

Released on bail : 6.1.2022

Committal : 18.7.2022

Commencement of trial : 20.11.2023

Close of trial : 19.3.2024

Judgment : 28.3.2024

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY:

In this case entire case record was received on 17.4.2023 from the Hon'ble

Prl. District & Sessions Judge's Court, Nellore. Since then the case was posted for engaging Advocate by the accused/A1 and A2. Charges were framed on 15.7.2023 and summons were issued to listed witnesses fixing schedule for trial. The prosecution failed to produce the witnesses within time. On 20.11.2023 Pws.1 to 6 were examined. On 21.11.2023, P.Ws.7 and 8 were examined. On 28.11.2023,

Pws.9 to 11 were examined. On 19.12.2023, PW12 was examined. On 7.2.2024,

Pws.13 and 14 were examined. On 19.3.2024, PW15 was examined and Exs.P1 to

P16 are marked and prosecution evidence was closed on the same day. The accused were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C examination on 25.3.2024 and arguments were heard on 26.3.2024. Judgment is pronounced on 28.3.2024.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/- C.Muralidhar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

// True Copy //

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

1 S.C.No.113/2018, dated 28.3.2024

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDUR

Present:- Sri C.Muralidhar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, this the 28th day of March, 2024

S.C.No.113/2018

(P.R.C.No.33/2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur connected with Crime No.53/2017 of Chillakur Police Station.)

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

1. Name of the complainant Chillakur Police Station

2. Name of the Accused1. Kothipaka Bhaskar, (A1) S/o Venkataiah, 35 years,

2. Kothipaka Balaiah (A2) S/o Venkataiah, 27 years,

3. Kothipaka Koteswara Rao (A3) S/o Venkataiah, 24 years,

4. Kothipaka Pondaiah, (A4) S/o Venkataiah, 37 years,

All are SC Madiga by caste, Muthyalapadu village, Chillakur Mandal. Charge U/ss.448, 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Nature of offence

Pleaded not guilty.

4. Plea of the Accused

5. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

6. Sentence or Order In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months under sect ion 437-A Cr.P.C.

This case is coming on before me on 27.3.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri M.Venkata

Krishnaiah, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

2 S.C.No.113/2018, dated 28.3.2024

J U D G M E N T

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chillakur Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused/A1 to A4 in Crime No.53/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C).

2.The case of the prosecution is that:

There are disputes in between the two groups in Muthyalapadu village and for that crime No.49/2017 U/s.447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC, crime

No.51/2017 U/s.323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and section 3(i)(r)(s) SC & ST (POA)

Act and crime No.52/2017 U/s.307 323, 324 r/w 34 IPC and section 3(i)(r)

(s) SC & ST (POA) Act are reported from Muthyalapadu village of Chillakur

Mandal.

Due to the above incidents grudges prevailed in between the two groups and on the night of 20.4.2017 at about 22-00 hours A1 to A4 are trespassed into the house of LW1/G.Chiranjeevi in furtherance of their common intention to do away the LW1, among them A1 hacked LW1 with a knife on his head and caused bleeding injury. A2 beat LW1 with an iron rod below his left shoulder. A3 beat LW1 with a stick on his right hand and caused swelling. A4 beat LW1 with a stick on his right part of the body.

Lws.2 to 6/G.Suneetha, G.Kiran, V.Venkatamma, G.Polaiah and

N.Raghavaiah were witnessed the occurrence and L.ws.2 and 3 were shifted the injured LW1 to the Government Area hospital, Gudur for treatment.

Later on receipt of hospital intimation, LW10/B.Nageswar Rao, ASI,

Chillakur Police Station recorded the statement of LW1 at Government area hospital, Gudur on 21.4.2017 at 12-20 hours, after receiving 3 S.C.No.113/2018, dated 28.3.2024 statement of LW1, LW11/K.Ankamma, SI of Police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.53/2017 u/s.448, 307 r/w 34 IPC of Chillakur Police Station on 21.4.2017 at 01-00 hours and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW11 examined L.Ws.1 to 3 at GAH, Gudur, examined witnesses at the scene of offence, recorded their statements, visited the scene of offence, prepared rough sketch, drafted scene observation report in the presence of mediators. LW11 arrested the accused/A1 to A4 on 21.4.2017 and sent them to remand for judicial custody.

LW9/Dr.M.Sakunthala,CAS, treated the LW1 and issued wound certificate opining that the injuries sustained by LW1 are simple in nature. After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.The learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur took the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 448, 307 r/w 34 IPC vide P.R.C.No.33/2017. On appearance of the accused/A1 to A4, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of

Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.). She committed the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Nellore as the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge numbered the same as

S.C.No.113/2018 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

4. On appearance of the accused/A1 to A4, after hearing the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the accused, this court framed the

charges for the offences punishable under sections 448, 307 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4 S.C.No.113/2018, dated 28.3.2024

5. During the course of trial, to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P10 and

MO1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW4/V.Venkatamma, LW6/N.Raghavaiah, LW7/T.Srinivasulu Reddy,

LW8/G.Jayaramaiah, LW9/Dr.M.Sakunthala, CAS and LW11/K.Ankamma, SI of Police, Chillakur Police Station.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, the incriminating evidence against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied and reported no defence witnesses.

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

proved the offences punishable under sections 448, 307 r/w 34

IPC against A1 to A4 beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, who is the injured and defacto complainant in this case deposed that prior to the date of offence there are disputes between him and accused and that they were number of cases registered against his group of people and against accused group.

About seven years back on one day night hours at 10-00pm., while he was present at his house a group of people came to his house and beat him unnecessarily with stick and knife. One person among him caused injury with a knife on his head. He sustained injuries on his left shoulder, right hand on the right side of body. He does not know who caused injuries to him. Somebody shifted him government hospital, Gudur where 5 S.C.No.113/2018, dated 28.3.2024 police recorded his statement. He turned hostile and not stated anything against the accused. He did not support his own case even he denied the presence of accused and stated to the extent that accused were not present there and they have not caused injuries to him and denied the entire case of the prosecution including he sustained injuries from the hands of accused.

9.PW2 is alleged eye witness, who is the wife of PW1. She also turned hostile. She simply stated that she came to know about sustaining of injuries by PW1 and she does not know how he sustained injuries. She also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

10.P.Ws.3 and 4, who are alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence, they deposed that they do not know about the facts of this case and further they deposed that they do not know who caused injuries to PW1.

They also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

11.PW5 investigating Officer is simply stated that on the statement of

PW1, he registered the same and investigated. During the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, seized the crime weapons and thereafter, he arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

12.P.W.1 not stated in his evidence that he sustained injuries with the crime weapon i.e., stick, which is marked by the prosecution. Even they denied the crime weapon. Since the injured witnesses and other eye witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 have not stated anything about the involvement of accused that they are responsible for the injuries 6 S.C.No.113/2018, dated 28.3.2024 sustained by PW1 and that evidence of PW5 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. PW5 is not an eye witness and he never stated on his evidence that he was present on the date of offence and saw the incident. In the absence of incriminating evidence on record accused should not be punished. In view of the above discussion, this court hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1 to A4 for the offence punishable under sections 448, 307 r/w 34 IPC and they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

13. In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months under sect ion 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of March, 2024.

Sd/- C.Muralidhar,

Fair Copy:ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:G.Chiranjeevi -None-

P.W.2:G.Suneetha

P.W.3:G.Kiran

P.W.4:G.Polaiah

P.W.5:B.Nageswar Rao, ASI, Chillakur Police Station.

7 S.C.No.113/2018, dated 28.3.2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1:Signature of P.W.1 on the statement.

Ex.P2: 161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P5:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P6: FIR in Cr.No.53/2017 of Chillakur Police Station.

Ex.P7:Rough sketch

Ex.P8:Scene observation report.

Ex.P9:Wound certificate of PW1.

For Defence: - NIL-

Material Objects Marked

MO1: Stick.

Id/- C.M.,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR.

Copies submitted to: -

1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Amaravathi. Through the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

2.The Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Copies to:

1.The Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Gudur.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Nellore.

3.The Director of Prosecution, Mangalagiri.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Gudur.

5.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Chillakur Police Station.

// TRUE COPY //

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR.

8 S.C.No.113/2018, dated 28.3.2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDUR

Present:- Sri C.Muralidhar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, this the 28th day of March, 2024

S.C.No.113/2018

(P.R.C.No.33/2017 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Gudur connected with Crime No.53/2017 of Chillakur Police Station)

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

1. Name of the complainant Chillakur Police Station

2. Name of the Accused1. Kothipaka Bhaskar, (A1) S/o Venkataiah, 35 years,

2. Kothipaka Balaiah (A2) S/o Venkataiah, 27 years,

3. Kothipaka Koteswara Rao (A3) S/o Venkataiah, 24 years,

4. Kothipaka Pondaiah, (A4) S/o Venkataiah, 37 years,

All are SC Madiga by caste, Muthyalapadu village, Chillakur Mandal. Charge U/ss.448, 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Nature of offence

Pleaded not guilty.

4. Plea of the Accused

5. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

6. Sentence or Order In the result, A1 to A4 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 448, 307 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A4 shall be in force for a period of six months under sect ion 437-A Cr.P.C.

DATES OF

Occurrence : 20.4.2017

Complaint : 21.4.2017

Apprehension of accused : 21.4.2017

Released on bail : 17.5.2017 9 S.C.No.113/2018, dated 28.3.2024

Committal : 13.3.2018

Commencement of trial : 13.3.2024

Close of trial : 26.3.2024

Judgment : 28.3.2024

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY:

In this case entire case record was received on 7.6.2018 from the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Judge's Court, Nellore. Since then the case was posted for engaging Advocate by the accused Nos.1 to 4. Charges were framed on 1.3.2024 and summonses were issued to listed witnesses fixing schedule for trial. The prosecution failed to produce the witnesses within time. On 13.3.2024 Pws.1 to 4 were examined. On 26.3.2024, PW5 was examined and Exs.P1 to P9 and MO1 are marked and prosecution evidence was closed on the same day. On 27.3.2024, the accused/A1 to A4 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C examination and arguments were heard on the same day. Judgment is pronounced on 28.3.2024.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/- C.Muralidhar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

// True Copy //

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

1 S.C.No.55/2022, dated 28.3.2024

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDUR

Present:- Sri C.Muralidhar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, this the 28th day of March, 2024

S.C.No.55/2022

(P.R.C.No.22/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupet connected with Crime No.70/2018 of Pellakur Police Station.)

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

1. Name of the complainant Pellakur Police Station

2. Name of the Accused1.Velpuru Munisekhar @ Munisekhar Reddy (A1) S/o late Dwaraka Reddy, 31 years, Farmer, Kalavakur village, Pellakur Mandal.

2. Velpuru Muneeswar Reddy @ Muneeswar (A2) @ Sekhar, S/o late Dwaraka Reddy, 25 years, Farmer, Kalavakur village, Pellakur Mandal.

Charge U/ss. 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Nature of offence

Pleaded not guilty.

4. Plea of the Accused

5. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

6. Sentence or Order In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 307, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

This case is coming on before me on 27.3.2024 for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri T.Sai Srinivas,

Sk.Amanulla, Advocate 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

The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pellakur Police Station has filed the charge sheet against the accused/A1 and A2 in Crime No.356/2017 for 2 S.C.No.55/2022, dated 28.3.2024 the offences punishable under Sections 307, 506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code (hereinafter referred as I.P.C).

2.The case of the prosecution is that:

There are disputes around between the accused and LW1/Velpuru

Muni Reddy in connection with their land properties. While so, on the evening of 26.4.2018 at about 16-30 hours while LW1 was arranging “Madavalu” at his filed. At that time A1 came to hid filed and questioned

LW2/Burra Subrahmanyam Reddy, who damaged his “Madavalu”. On that

LW2 replied that he do not know. A1 suspected that LW1 removed the madavalu and on that A1 picked up quarrel with LW1 and beat him with hands and legs by catching his throat with hand, then threw him down on the ground and tried to squeeze his throat with his leg. Seeing the same

LW2 rushed to the fields of LW1 and chastised the A1. Then on the same evening at about 6-30pm., while LW1 was proceeding to his house after completion of cultivation works. While LW1 reached on the road nearby his house, when A1 along with A2 were went to LW1 in furtherance of their common intention to assault LW1, among them A1 beat LW1 with a boulder on his left side of head by saying as “yeraa naa kodaka maa polamlo neela madavalu theesthavaa ninnu champesthaa” and caused severe head bleeding injury. A2 beat LW1 with hands on his right side of head and caused swelling injurer and both they threatened the LW1 with dire consequences. L.Ws.2 to 6/B.Subrahmanyam Reddy, V.Venkata

Reddy, D.Ramanaiah, D.Chandra Reddy and Ch.Eswar Reddy witnessed the occurrence and on their intervention, both accused went away. Then, the injured LW1 was admitted at Government hospital, Naidupet for treatment.

3 S.C.No.55/2022, dated 28.3.2024

On receipt of hospital intimation, LW10/Sk.A.Rasheed, SHO, Pellakur

Police Station rushed and recorded the statement of LW1 on 27.4.2018 at 00-30 hours registered the same as a case in Cr.No.70/2018 U/s.307, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Pellakur Police station and took up investigation. During the course of investigation, LW10 examined L.Ws.1 to 6 and recorded their statements, inspected the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, drafted scene observation mahazar and prepared the rough sketch. He also seized the crime weapon i.e., boulder and photographer the scene of offence with the help of digital camera. A1 surrendered before the court on 21.5.2018. LW11 arrested A2 on 12.6.2018 and sent him to remand for judicial custody. LW9/Dr.S.Chandrakanth, Medical Officer, treated the LW1 and issued wound certificate opining that the injury is simple in nature.

After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupet took the cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 506 r/w 34 IPC vide P.R.C.No.22/2019. On appearance of the accused/A1 and A2, copies of the documents were furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred as Cr.P.C.). She committed the case to the Hon’ble Sessions Judge, Nellore as the offence punishable under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C. is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions. The Hon’ble Sessions Judge numbered the same as

S.C.No.55/2022 and made over the same to this court for disposal according to law.

4. On appearance of the accused/A1 and A2, after hearing the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor and the accused, this court framed the

charges for the offences punishable under sections 307, 506 r/w 34 of IPC 4 S.C.No.55/2022, dated 28.3.2024 against A1 and A2, read over and explained to them in Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW4/D.Ramanaiah, LW7/D.Subba Rao, LW8/N.Damu,

LW9/Dr.S.Chandrakanth, Medical Officer and LW10/Sk.A.Rasheed, SHO,

Pellakur Police Station.

6.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C, the incriminating evidence against them, read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they denied and reported no defence witnesses.

7.Now the point for determination is whether the prosecution

proved the offences punishable under sections 307, 506 r/w 34

IPC against A1 and A2 beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:

8.As seen from the evidence of P.W.1, who is doing cultivation and he know LW1/Velpru Munireddy, injured, who is no more now, has deposed that he does not know anything about the facts of this case. He did not witness any alleged incident, which took place at the fields of LW1 and in the house of LW1. Police did not examine him. He turned hostile and not stated anything against the accused.

5 S.C.No.55/2022, dated 28.3.2024

9. P.Ws.2 to 4, who are alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence, they deposed that they do not know about the facts of this case and further they deposed that they do not know who caused injuries to LW1. They also turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

10.PW5 investigating Officer is simply stated that on the statement of

LW1, he registered the same and investigated. During the course of investigation, visited the scene of offence, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements, seized the crime weapon and thereafter, he arrested the accused and after completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet.

11.The LW1/injured, Velpuru Muni Reddy, who is no more, police also filed death certificate of LW1. Though Additional Public Prosecutor to that effect, since the witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 have not stated anything about the involvement of accused that they are responsible for the injuries sustained by LW1 and that evidence of PW5 is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution. PW5 is not an eye witness and he never stated on his evidence that he was present on the date of offence and saw the incident. In the absence of incriminating evidence on record accused should not be punished. In view of the above discussion, this court hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of A1 and A2 for the offence punishable under sections 307, 506 r/w 34 IPC and they are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly the point is answered.

12. In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 307, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted 6 S.C.No.55/2022, dated 28.3.2024 under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court, this the 28 th day of March, 2024.

Sd/- C.Muralidhar,

Fair Copy:ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDUR.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1:B.Subrahmanyam -None-

P.W.2:V.Venkata Reddy

P.W.3:D.Chandra Reddy

P.W.4:Ch.Eswar Reddy

P.W.5:Sk.Mohamma Haneef, the then SI of Police, Pellakur Police Station.

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.1.

Ex.P2:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.2.

Ex.P3:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.3.

Ex.P4:161 Cr.P.C statement of P.W.4.

Ex.P5:FIR in Cr.No.70/2018 of Pellakur Police Station.

Ex.P6: Statement of LW1.

Ex.P7:Rough sketch

Ex.P8:Scene observation report.

Ex.P9:Four photos.

Ex.P10: Wound certificate of PW1.

For Defence: - NIL- 7 S.C.No.55/2022, dated 28.3.2024

Material Objects Marked

NIL.

Id/- C.M.,

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR.

Copies submitted to: -

1. The Registrar (Judicial), Hon'ble High Court of A.P., Amaravathi. Through the Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

2.The Hon'ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Nellore.

Copies to:

1.The Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Naidupet.

2.The Superintendent of Police, Nellore.

3.The Director of Prosecution, Mangalagiri.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Gudur.

5.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Pellakur Police Station.

// TRUE COPY //

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

GUDUR.

8 S.C.No.55/2022, dated 28.3.2024

CALENDAR AND JUDGMENT

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE, GUDUR

Present:- Sri C.Muralidhar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

Thursday, this the 28th day of March, 2024

S.C.No.55/2022

(P.R.C.No.22/2019 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Naidupet connected with Crime No.70/2018 of Pellakur Police Station.)

State: Sub-Inspector of Police,

1. Name of the complainant Pellakur Police Station

2. Name of the Accused1.Velpuru Munisekhar @ Munisekhar Reddy (A1) S/o late Dwaraka Reddy, 31 years, Farmer, Kalavakur village, Pellakur Mandal.

2. Velpuru Muneeswar Reddy @ Muneeswar (A2) @ Sekhar, S/o late Dwaraka Reddy, 25 years, Farmer, Kalavakur village, Pellakur Mandal.

Charge U/ss. 307 r/w 34 of IPC.

3. Nature of offence

Pleaded not guilty.

4. Plea of the Accused

5. Finding of the JudgeFound not guilty

6. Sentence or Order In the result, A1 and A2 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 307, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and they are acquitted under

Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall be in force for a period of six months under section 437-A Cr.P.C.

DATES OF

Occurrence : 26.4.2018

Complaint : 27.4.2018

Apprehension of accused : A1 surrendered on 21.5.2018

A2 on 12.6.2018

Released on bail : A1 on 21.6.2018

A2 on 6.8.2018 9 S.C.No.55/2022, dated 28.3.2024

Committal : 28.9.2021

Commencement of trial : 14.3.2024

Close of trial : 26.3.2024

Judgment : 28.3.2024

EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY:

In this case entire case record was received on 9.6.2022 from the Hon'ble

District & Sessions Judge's Court, Nellore. Since then the case was posted for engaging Advocate by the accused Nos.1 and 2. Charges were framed on 11.3.2024 and summonses were issued to listed witnesses fixing schedule for trial.

The prosecution failed to produce the witnesses within time. On 14.3.2024 Pws.1 to 4 were examined. On 26.3.2024, PW5 was examined and Exs.P1 to P10 are marked and prosecution evidence was closed on the same day. On 27.3.2024, the accused/A1 and A2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C examination and arguments were heard on the same day. Judgment is pronounced on 28.3.2024.

Hence, the delay.

Sd/- C.Muralidhar,

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

// True Copy //

Assistant Sessions Judge, Gudur.

1O.S.No.51/2018, dated 25.3.2024

In the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gudur

Present: Sri C.Muralidhar,

Senior Civil Judge,Gudur.

Monday, this the 25 th day of March, 2024

O.S.No.51/2018

Yarrabothu Polaiah….Plaintiff.

Vs.,

Yarrabothu Subrahmanyam….Defendant

This suit is came on this day for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri M.Narasaiah, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri N.Madhusudana Rao, Advocate for the defendant and the matter is having been stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction to restraining the defendant, his men, agents and followers from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s plaint schedule property and costs of the suit.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit schedule property and since long time he was in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property, which is an extent Ac.5-00 of wet land situated in survey No.16-2 under khatha No.59 situated at Kummarapalem village, Chittamuru Mandal.

Revenue authorities also recognized possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule land and they also incorporated the name of plaintiff in revenue records i.e., 1-B namuma and pattadar adangal/phani and other records.

Plaintiff further submitted that defendant has no right, title or possession over the suit schedule property, but defendant is unnecesarily interfering the possession of the suit schedule property. While so, two days prior to 2

O.S.No.51/2018, dated 25.3.2024

the filing of the suit defendant try to trespass into the suit schedule property, however, plaintiff obstructed the defendant and with great difficulty prevented defendant and his highhanded acts. Thereafter plaintiff filed the suit.

3. On receipt of notice from this court defendant filed written statement

4.The brief averments of the written statement are that:

The defendant denied all the averments of the plaint. Further, he stated that the defendant father has occupied the suit schedule property, which is the property of government and after spending huge amount he got the said land fit for cultivation and while he was cultivating the land revenge authorities also recognized possession of the father of the defendant in the suit schedule property and issued pattadar passbook, title deed in favour of the father of the defendant for the suit schedule property. Further, defendant submitted that after death of his father he succeeded the said property while he was in possession and enjoyment of the same for the last 20 years. But the plaintiff colluded with revenue officials and got issued revenue records in favour of the plaintiff and that he represented to the revenue officials and brought to the notice of revenue officials that plaintiff taken the advantage of his name as Polaiah and exposing as if he is the Polaiah, who is the father of defendant.

Plaintiff has taken advantage of similarity in the names plaintiff got created 1-B namuma and No.3 adangal in his name and that at the out set defendant requested the court to dismiss the suit.

3O.S.No.51/2018, dated 25.3.2024

5. Basing on the above pleadings the following issues are settled for trial.

1) Whether the plaintiff simple suit for injunction is maintainable?

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for ?

3) To what relief?

6.During the course of trial on behalf of the plaintiff, himself is examined as P.W.1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A3. Defendant examined as DW1 and got exhibited Exs.B1 to B15 are marked. Defendant got examined Dws.2 and 3.

7.Both parties filed written arguments. Heard both sides.

Issues Nos.1 and 2:

1) Whether the plaintiff simple suit for injunction is maintainable? And

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for ?

Both issues are taken up together to avoid repetition of evidence and discussion.

8.As seen from the evidence of PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. It is the simple case of plaintiff that he is the owner of suit schedule property and that since long time he was in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property in cultivating the said land. Plaintiff possession also recognized by the revenue authorities and issued revenue records in his name i.e., Exs.A1 to A3. Since defendant is obstructing he filed the suit.

The same is denied by the defendant saying that suit schedule property stands in the name of defendant father, whose name is Polaiah and taking the advantage of name of the father of defendant Polaiah plaintiff 4

O.S.No.51/2018, dated 25.3.2024

got issued revenue records in his favour by the revenue authorities and that he requested the court that suit to be dismissed. It is the evidence of PW1 and Dws.1 to 3.

9.As seen from the evidence of both sides, PW1 stated in his cross- examination that he acquired the suit schedule property from the government as government has allotted the said property to him for cultivation and after recognized his possession Exs.A1 to A3 issued showing that plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Since the suit is filed for mere injunction this court need not enquired about the title of the parties. Exs.A1 to A3 indicates that the suit schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff by the government and he was in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. Whereas defendant not filed any proof of records that government has allotted the said suit schedule property to the father of the defendant or to the defendant. No pattadar pass books and no patta issued by the government in the name of defendant not filed. Exhibits which are marked for the defendant are secured through right to information act that after filing of the suit. As such no sanctity is attached to the said

Exs.B3 to B15. Exs.B1 and B2 are the original pattadar passbook and original title deeds stands in the name of father of defendant. As per the evidence of DW1, defendant father has occupied government land that means without the knowledge and permission of government father of defendant occupied the land, however he died. As father of defendant died this defendant cannot automatically get any right, title and possession over the suit schedule property through heredity as the suit schedule property is a government land. Unless government allotted the 5O.S.No.51/2018, dated 25.3.2024 same to the defendant or permitted the defendant to continue the said land this defendant cannot acquire any right or possession. Non filing of any revenue records showing that defendant was in possession of the suit schedule property, it can be said that defendant is not possession of suit schedule property. Plaintiff has proved the suit claim by way of production of Exs.A1 to A3 and that this court found that plaintiff is in possession of suit schedule property even as on the date of filing of the suit and thereafter also as Exs.A1 to A3 are still in force and not cancelled by the revenue authorities and that it is proved that plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same and that he is entitled relief as prayed by him. In view of above discussion both issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issues No.3:

10.In the result, the suit is decreed without costs by granting permanent injunction restraining the defendant, his men, agents and followers from in any manner interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s plaint schedule property.

Typed to my dictated by the Stenographer Grade-II, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 25 th day of March, 2024.

Fair Copy: Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT:

P.W.1: Yarrabothu PolaiahD.W.1:Yarrabothu Subrahmanyam D.W.2:Yarrabothu Changaiah

D.W.3:Yarrabothu Rammoorthy 6

O.S.No.51/2018, dated 25.3.2024

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Certified copy of 1-B Ex.A2: Certified copy of adangal for 1427 fasali. Ex.A3: copy of 1-B namuna.

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENDANT :-

Ex.B1: Original pattadar passbook stands in the name of the father of the defendant. Ex.B2: Original title deed. Ex.B3: Adangal for the fasali 1403 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B4: Adangal for the fasali 1404 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B5: Adangal for the fasali 1406 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B6: Adangal for the fasali 1408 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B7: Adangal for the fasali 1410 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B8: Adangal for the fasali 1411 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B9: Adangal for the fasali 1412 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B10: Adangal for the fasali 1415 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B11: Adangal for the fasali 1416 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B12: Adangal for the fasali 1418 obtained through RTI Act. Ex.B13: Cist receipt, dt.9.3.2018. Ex.B14: Order passed by the Tahsildar, Chittamur in RCB.No.551/2020. Ex.B15: Cist receipts (two in number).

Senior Civil Judge,

Gudur.

1 OS No.3 of 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, ATMAKUR, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

Dated this the 9th day of August, 2018

Present: - Sri C.MURALIDHAR, Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur

Original Suit No : 3 of 2018

Shaik Rizwana W/o.Alla Bakshu, 25 Years, residing at D.No.161, Muslim Street, Kaluvoy Village & Mandal, SPSR Nellore District. … Plaintif

Versus

1. Shaik Shabana W/o.Mastan,

2. Shaik Rizwana W/o.Jony Basha

3. Shaik Yasmin W/o.Murugesh … Defendants 1 to 3

4. Shaik Allabakshu S/o.Khajavali (Proforma Defendant – No relief claimed against him) ( D1 is resident of Somasila Village, Ananthasagaram Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, D2 is resident of Thurupu Kambampadu village, Chejarla Mandal, SPSR Nellore District, D3 is resident of Balajinagar, Nellore town, SPSR Nellore District, Proforma Defendant (D4) is resident of D.No.161, Muslim street, Kaluvoy Village and Mandal, Presently at Street No.1, Block No.1, Firdos, Kuvait.)

This suit coming before this court on 02-08-2018 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. K.V.Sesha Reddy, Advocate for plaintif and and there is no representation on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 remained ex-parte and D3 against suit is dismissed, and upon perusing the material on record, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintif for want of permanent injunction against defendants.

2. Brief averments of the plaint are that plaint schedule house site properties situated in Kaluvoy village. Which are originally belonging to one Shaik

Khajavali S/o.Khadar Saheb. He is having children namely Shaik Shabana, Shaik

Rizwana, and Shaik Alla Bakshu who are born to him through his 1st wife Thahera.

D3 is the daughter of Khajavali born through his 2nd wife Shameem. Since mother of defendants are died. Khajavali father of defendants performed the marriages of

D1 to D3 and given all marriage formalities to them. The said Khajavali also performed marriage of D4 with plaintif and thereafter he used to live with plaintif and 4th defendant in the suit schedule house No.2. Defendant No.4 along 2 OS No.3 of 2018 with his father khajavali living together and running shop No.1 which is Item No.1 of the suit schedule property and earning something on it. When Khajavali became sick he has given suit schedule properties to the plaintif and 4th defendant through gift deed with his sound state of mind. Both parties also agreed the gift and received the possession of suit schedule properties. Since then they are in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and they also paying electricity charges and other cist to the suit schedule properties. When it is so defendants 1 to 3 are interfere and causing disturbance and causing obstruction to the plaintif and D4 and obstructed their possession and enjoyment and that plaintif filed the suit for want of permanent injunction.

3. Though noticed received by Defendants 1 and 2, they failed to attend the court and that they are set ex.parte. Since Defendant No.3 is not available and summons are not served and that plaintif herself not paid court fee for sending summons to D3 and that suit against D3 is dismissed.

4. Heard counsel for plaintif. Perused the material on record.

5. Now the point for consideration is:

(i) whether the plaintif is entitle for permanent injunction or not?

(ii) To what relief?

Point No.1:

6. During course of trial plaintif filed chief affidavit and examined as

Pw1 and marked Ex.A1 to A7. Ex.A1 is the Dana Nirupana Patram dated 01-06- 2015 which disclosed clearly that Khajavali who is the father of D4 have executed this Dana Nirupana Patram in favour of plaintif and D4 and handed over suit schedule properties 1 and 2 to them. Further it is established that both plaintif and D4 are accepted the Dana Nirupana Patram and took the possession of suit schedule property. Ex.A2 to A4 electricity consumption bills and house tax receipts further proved that plaintif and D4 are in possession and enjoyment of suit 3 OS No.3 of 2018 schedule property. Ex.A5 is death certificate of Khajavali who executed Ex.A1 in favour of plaintif and D4 and later died and that Ex.A1 is in force at present and that it can be taken into consideration for proving possession of plaintif in the suit schedule properties. Ex.A7 is the complaint given by Allabakshu (D4) and Ex.A6 is the copy of FIR further established that defendants 1 to 3 are obstructed the plaintif in enjoying the suit schedule property. The oral testimony of Pw1 and

Ex.A1 to A7 are well established case of the plaintif and further proved that she is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. To disprove this fact no other witnesses and documents filed by the defendants and that the evidence of

Pw1 is remained unchallenged.

Point No.2 :

In view of my finding on point No.1 the suit is to be decreed with costs.

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs granting permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 and their men and supporters from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of plaintif over the plaint schedule properties in any manner whatsoever.

Typed to dictation to the Process Server who is acting as Personal Assistant, transcribed by him corrected and pronounced by me in Open Court, this the 9th day of August, 2018.

Sd/- C.Muralidhar

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintif: For Defendants: Pw1: Shaik Rizwana -NONE -

Documents Marked For Plaintif:

Ex.A1: Dana Nirupana Patram dated 01-06-2015

Ex.A2: Electricity consumption charges bill

Ex.A3 : Electricity consumption charges bill

Ex.A4 : House tax receipts 2 in number

Ex.A5 : Death certificate of Shaik Khajavali 4 OS No.3 of 2018

Ex.A6 : Copy of FIR in Crime No.74/2015 of Kaluvoy PS (xerox)

Ex.A7 : Complaint given by Shaik Alla bakshu (xerox)

For Defendants:

-NIL- Sd/- C.Muralidhar

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

ATMAKUR