Smt. Ch. Narmada

1 CC No.225 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

PRESENT: SMT. CH.NARMADA, Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon

Wednesday, the 07th day of September, 2022

C.C.NO.225 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through

Police, Bachannapet. ...Complainant

AND

Challa Janardhan Reddy, S/o late Sugunakar Reddy, Age : 25 yrs, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Bndanagaram (v), Bachannapet (m).

...Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and of Sri M.Steeven, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Bachannapet has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/ss 290, 324 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.

2. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that:

(a) On 25.04.2013 at 1600 hours the complainant / Challa

Sudhakar Reddy lodged a written complaint in which he stated that on the same day at anpit 0930 hours while he was cutting the trees with the help of coolies in his land in their village under 2 CC No.225 of 2013

Upadhi Hami Scheme, the accused came to their land, threatened the coolie workers to leave out from his land and abused his parents, when he reached there, the accused also beat him with iron spade and caused injuries on his hand and wrist. The accused also fisted in his stomach with spade stick, due to which the complainant received injuries over his right hand, wrist and stomach.

(b)Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.9/Head Constable-1820,

Bachannapet P.S registered a case as in Crime No.54/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 290, 324 and 506 IPC and issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, at the police station he recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant and referred the LW1 to

Area Hospital, Jangaon for treatment. Later, he has visited the scene of offence, situated at Bandanagaram village and prepared a crime detail form in the presence of mediators, Lws 6 and 7.

Subsequently, LW.10/S.I of Police, P.S Bachannapet took up the investigation, examined and recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 5 under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 30.04.2013 at 0900 hours at

Bandanagaram village, LW.10/SI fo Police, Bachannapet apprehended the accused. On interrogation the accused 3 CC No.225 of 2013 confessed to have committed the offence. On completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused before this Court.

3. On perusing the material on record, the case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 290, 324 and 506

IPC and summons were issued to the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of doucments were furnished to them U/S. 207 Cr.PC.

5. The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., and Charges under Sections 290, 324 and 506 of the IPC were framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW6 and got marked Exs.P1 to P4. No oral or documentary evdience adduced by the accused.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, explained to him in telugu, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8. Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.

4 CC No.225 of 2013

9. Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S. 290, 324 and 506 IPC?”

10.Point: In order to prove the guilt of the accused for the charged offences, the prosecution has to prove that accused abused the PW.1 in public place, voluntarily caused hurt by means of dangerous weapon and threatened PW.1 with dire consequences.

11.PW.1 is the alleged victim of the crime who lodged a report

before the police as Ex.P.1. He deposed in his evidence that on

25.04.2013 at about 09.00 a.m., LW.2, PW.2, PW.5 and other coolies along with is parents in his field under Upadhi Hami

Scheme, when PW.1 went to field at about 9.30 a.m., he noticed that accused was quarellign with his parents and other coolies not to work in their land, when PW.1 questioning with his parents and other coolies not to work in their land, when PW.1 questioned, accused abused him in filthy language and beat him with spade over his right hand and hit PW.1 in stomach and legs. He informed the same to village elders and lodged Ex.P.1 in Police

Station at 4.00 p.m. which was scribed by village elders. In cross examination PW.1 admitted that he omitted names of village 5 CC No.225 of 2013 elders, coolies and also reasons for delay in lodging Ex.P.1. He denied suggestion that Pws 2 and 5 are not coolies and are shown as witnesses. He admitted that CC.No.232/2013 is pending in this

Court. PW.1 admitted that the accused is his agnate and there were property disputes with him and he omitted to mention the survey number and description of scene of offence in Ex.P.1. He further denied that as a counter blast to CC No.232/2013, the present case is foisted and accused is not responsible for injuries sustained by him. He also denied that accused is implicated in two cases due to previous disputes and PW.1 was not present on the day of incident at scene of offence.

12.PW.2 who was cited as eye witness to the incident deposed that he is the neighbouring land owner of PW.1. He supported the case of prosecution. PW.1 deposed that when the quarrel took place between PW.1 and accused, the accused pushed PW.1 on the ground and as such, PW.1 sustained injuries. PW.2 in his cross examination deposed that certificates were issued to the farmers to work under Upadhi Hami Scheme, but he cannot say the number assigned to his certificate. He denied suggestion that he is deposing false to help PW.1.

6 CC No.225 of 2013

13.PW.4 is the panch witness who deposed the Crime Details

Form / Ex.P.3 is prepared in his presence. PW.3 is the doctor who issued Ex.P.2 / Wound Certificate certified that injuries might have caused due to stick.

14.The prosecution further relied upon the oral evidence of one of the eye witnesses examined as PW.5 who deposed that about nine years back while he was working under Upadi Hami Scheme in the land of PW.1 accused told to PW.1 that the said land bleongs to accused and on that issue both PW.1 and accused quarrelled with each other and accused hit PW.1 with hoe and stated that many other people witnessed the incident. In his cross examination he deposed that Field Officer maintains Upadi

Hami Coolies list and also provides identity lands to all Upadi

Hami Workers. He further stated that only those who do not possess land will work in Upadi Hami Scheme. There are few omissions in the evidence of PW.3 as to quarrel that took place between PW.1 and accused and many people working there also witnessed the incident and that accused told to PW.1 that the said land belongs to accused.

15.The prosecution further relied upon the oral evidence of

PW.6, the Investigating Officer of this case. He testified before 7 CC No.225 of 2013 this Court the manner in which he conducted investigation. He further testified the charge sheet allegations in the chief examination once again. The PW.4 was cross examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused witgh regard to the investigation and the criminal procedure aspects. He deposed that spade which was used for committing offence was not recovered as it was thrown away somewhere else. In cross examination of PW.6, he stated that there was a case and counter case with regard to this offence and two FIR’s were registered for same offence. The crime number of this case is 54/2013 and counter case crime number is 55/2013. The witnesses investigation in both crime numbers are different except one panch witness. Variation of time gap between these two crimes is 30 minutes. He further de posed that all witnesses of both the cases were present at the place of alleged offence. He further deposed that he did nto collect information with regard to

Attendance Register of labours and I.D Cards of labours who were examined as witnesses.

16.Learned defence counsel argued that investigation in a case and counter case cannot be conducted by single Investigating

Officer and relied upon Judgment in AIR 1975 SC 149. But the 8 CC No.225 of 2013 said Judgment is not related to the Investigation by single

Investigating Officer in trial case. The said judgment clearly explains that in a case and cross case each case must be decided on the evidence recorded in it and evidence recorded in another case cannot be taken into account in arriving at the decision.

17.Moreover, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of

Madhya Pradesh Vs Mishri Lal has emphasized that in cross cases investigation should be conducted by one and the same

Investigating Officer. If both the cases are investigated by one and the same Investigating Officer truthfully, sincerely and objectively it would not be difficult to find out as to who was the aggressor.

18.Coming to the present case, legal objection is cast u pon the

Investigating Officer to make an endeavour to find out the truth and to cull out the truth from the falsehood. Unfortunately, the

Investigating Officer has failed to discharge the obligation. Since the alleged incident occurred at the same time and same place, the witnesses in one case are not cited as witnesses in cross case.

As per evidence of Investigating Officer in his cross examination witnesses of both the cases were present at the place of alleged offence but Investigating Officer failed to examine those 9 CC No.225 of 2013 witnesses in the present case. The Investigating Officer failed in investigate whether there were any civil disputes pending in between PW.1 and accused. No material witneses are examined in this case to prove the prosecution case. The prosecution failed to examine LW.9 who registered FIR.

19.Further PW.1 in his cross examination admitted that there were civil disputes between him and the accused. On careful perusal of the evidence of prosecution, no material witnesses who were present at the scene of offence were made as witnesses and none of the material witnesses were examined. PW.1 deposed that accused beat him with spade but the said spade was not recovered by the police during investigation. Nor the

Investigating Officer collected evidence whether there was any

Upadi Hami Scheme conducted. There is no direct evidence to prove that accused commited offence under sections 324, 290 and 506 IPC. Therefore, it must be held that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Accordingly, point is answered against prosecution.

In the result accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 324, 290 and 506 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said 10 CC No.225 of 2013 offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of six months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed by Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 07th day of September, 2022).

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 Ch Sudhakar Reddy -None- PW.2 E.Yella Reddy PW.3 Dr.A.Sreenivas PW.4 Ch.Karunakar Reddy PW.5 E.Prathap Reddy PW.6 K.Srinivasa Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Defence:

Ex.P.1 is the Report-NIL- Ex.P.2 is the Wound Certificate Ex.P.3 is the Crime Details Form Ex.P.4 is the FIR

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon // True copy //

AJFCM Court, C.C.No.284 of 2021 Jangaon Dt.22.09.2023

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS

MAGISTRATE: JANGAON

Present: Smt. Ch. Narmada,

Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Jangaon

Friday, this the 22nd day of September, 2023

CALENDAR CASE No.284 of 202 1

Between: The State of Telangana through the Sub Inspector of Police, Police station Palakurthy (crime No.128/2019).… Complainant

/ / AND / /

A-1 Velpula Ashok, s/o llaiah, age: 26 yrs, caste Golla. Occ Private employee, R/o Dardepally (V). Palakurthy (M), now at Sithafal mandi, Secunderabad.

A-2 Velpula Mounika, w/o Ashok, age: 23 yrs, caste Golla, Occ Housewife, r/o Dardepally (V). Palakurthy (M), now at Sithafal Mandi, Secunderabad.

A-3: Bakka Venkatamma, w/o Somaiah, age: 50 yrs, caste: Golla, Occu:

Agril r/o Thirumalagiri (V), Palakurthy (M). ...Accused

-o0o-

This case is coming for final hearing before me on 28.06.2023 in the presence of Sri N. Ramesh, Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate for the accused and the matter 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, Police Station Palakurthy filed a charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 1

AJFCM Court, C.C.No.284 of 2021 Jangaon Dt.22.09.2023 420, 468 and 471 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (In short IPC).

2. The Case of the prosecution is that:

On 18-09-2019 at 1330 hrs complainant/PW5 lodged a Telugu written complaint before LW16/Byreddy Rajasekhar Reddy stating that

Bakka Somaiah's daughter Mounika/A2’s marriage was performed with

Ashok/A1, the said Ipula Ashok/A1 created fake marriage invitation card and mentioned the marriage date as 28-04-2019 and approached

Panchayath Secretary of Thirumalagiri village, later went to Kodakandla

Sub-Registrar office and obtained marriage certificate, further he enquired about their marriage and he came to know that A1 and

Mounika/A2 were married 3 years back, on this issue he enquired with

Panchayath secretary and he revealed that the said A1 misguide the officials and created fake documents.

3.On receipt of above complaint from PW51, LW-16 registered the case in Cr. No. 128/2019, U/s 468, 471 IPC issued FIR and handed over the CD file to PW11 further investigation of the case. During the course of investigation the PW11 examined and recorded the statement of PW5 in Part-II CD at PS. Later, PW11 proceeded to Thorrur (V), Palak secured the crime scene in the presence of mediators PWs1 & 2 and prepared 2

AJFCM Court, C.C.No.284 of 2021 Jangaon Dt.22.09.2023 rough sketch and incorporated the physical features of crime scene in

CDF, examined the witness PW3 & LW-5/Eerla Raju and recorded statements, visited Sub-Registrar Office Kodakandla and secured the presence of witnesses PWs4 and 6, examined them and recorded their detailed statement in part-II CDs and then came to Palakurthy secured the presence of witnesses PW-10 & LW-10/Rapolu Rambabu, examined them and recorded their detailed statements. On 03-02-2021, the LW- 15/D. Ajay Kumar, Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Jangaon, recorded 164 Crpc statement of PW10.

4.On 13-11-2019 PW11 has filed requisitions to the Thasildar

Palakurthy to conduct departmental enquiry and to submit the report against K. Satish, Panchayath Secretary of Thirumalagiri (V), Palakurthy (M) and also filed requisition to the Sub-Registrar Kodakandla with a request to provide the attested copies of details of witnesses signed at the time of marriage of A-1 and A-2 vide registered document No.HM. No.

185/HM/2019, Dt. 01-05-2019. The Tahsildar, Palakurthy has submitted the enquiry report and the Sub-Registrar has submitted attested copies of witnesses who signed on the marriage certificate. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 for the offences u/Ss.

420, 468, 471 IPC.

3

AJFCM Court, C.C.No.284 of 2021 Jangaon Dt.22.09.2023

5.Based on the police report, cognizance has been taken against A1 to A3 u/Ss. 420, 468, 471 IPC. On appearance of A1 to

A3, copies were furnished upon them under section 207 Cr.P.C.

Later,A1 to A3 were examined under section 239 Cr.P.C. and framed charges under sections u/Ss. 420, 468, 471 IPC, read over the contents of charges to them for which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.The prosecution out of the seventeen cited witnesses, examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Exs.P1 to P10.

7. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statements of both the accused were recorded U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C and their case is of total denial. No evidence was produced by them.

8. Heard both sides and perused the record.

9. Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused for the offences u/Ss. 420, 468, 471 IPC beyond reasonable doubt"

10. POINT:

10.1.PWs1 and 2, who are the panch-witnesses for Crime Details

Form deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. One day Sub Inspector of police came to their village Thirumalagiri 4

AJFCM Court, C.C.No.284 of 2021 Jangaon Dt.22.09.2023 and obtained their signatures on blank paper under Exs.P1 and P3.

During the course of cross-examination, they denied the suggestion that police conducted scene of offence panchanama and prepared CDF.

10.2 PW3, who is the panchayat secretary deposed that on 01-06- 2019 A1 came to him and requested to issue declaration certificate for making an application in Kalayana Laxmi Scheme. Later. on knowing that accused was married earlier. he called him to Gram panchayat on the next day and took back the original declaration certificate issued by him and subsequently, he warned him not make an application for Kalayana Laxmi

Scheme. After 3 months he came to know that he made an application for

Kalayana Laxmi Scheme, then he addressed letters to the MRO and Sub

Inspector of Police, but accused concealed that his marriage was commenced earlier but he is falsely making application for Kalyana Laxmi

Scheme by taking declaration certificate. He was not examined by police.

10.3 PW4 deposed that about 2 to 3 years back A1 came to me for the purpose of getting registration of marriage and asked me the procedure for obtaining marriage certificate. On that, he informed him that following documents are required for getting marriage registration certificates: 10th memo Aadhar card, Wedding card, three marriage photos, witnesses and their Aadhar cards. On production of the 5

AJFCM Court, C.C.No.284 of 2021 Jangaon Dt.22.09.2023 documents an application was made by him and he acted as one of the attesting witness. Later, he signed on the document. One more person named MD Javed/LW7 was also present along with me and stood as witness.

10.4 PW5 is the de facto complainant stated before this court that about 4 years back, he went to Shathapuram villlage for enquiry and after coming back from enquiry to Tahaslidar office, Tahasildar asked him to sign on one letter and to hand over the same to Sub Inspector of police. Palakurthy.

10.5 PW6 deposed that he do not anything about the case. About 4 years back on the instructions of his superior he kept his signature on one paper but he does not know- on which paper he affixed his signature.

10.6 PW7 deposed that he received a requisition dated 13-11-2019 from Tahasildar Palakurthy to conduct enquiry on Panchayat secretary/K.Sathish, who issued Marriage declaration certificate to the accused. On that he instructed Mandal Panchayat officer to conduct enquiry on Panchayat secretary and submit the report. On that he conducted enquiry and submitted declaration. Later, he forwarded the same report to the Tahasildar Palakurthy along with letter dated 19-12- 2019.

6

AJFCM Court, C.C.No.284 of 2021 Jangaon Dt.22.09.2023 10.7 PWs8 and 9 are the panch-witnesses for confession-cum- seizure panchanama deposed that about 4 years back upon the instructions of police Palakurthy, they went to police station and police obtained their signatures on confession and seizure panchanama under

Ex:P7 and Ex.P8.

10.8 PWs10 and 11 deposed before this court they did not know anything about this case and were cross-examined by the learned Asst.

Public prosecutor, in which they denied the contents of their earlier statements recorded by police u/S.161 Cr.P.C.

10.9 The evidence of investigating officer is formal in nature as he deposed from registering the case to filing the charge sheet. His evidence is no useful to connect the accused.

11.On careful scrutiny and evaluation of evidence on record, no evidence was brought on record by the prosecution in connecting the accused with the crime. It is the duty of the prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. If there is any reasonable doubt, the accused is always entitled to the benefit of doubt. Considering the cumulative circumstances and the evidence, this Court is of the view that accused is entitled for acquittal.

12. IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offences 7

AJFCM Court, C.C.No.284 of 2021 Jangaon Dt.22.09.2023 charged u/Ss. 420, 468, 471 IPC and accordingly, they are acquitted under section 248(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of A1 to A3 shall remain in force for a period of six months, as mandated under section 437-A Cr.P.C. The case property if any shall be destroyed after completion of the appeal period.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on the 22 nd day of September, 2023).

ADDITIONAL JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

PW1: B. Nagaraju -None-

PW2: M. Smith

PW3: K. Satish

PW4: K. Srikanth

PW5: K. Ravi

PW6: Md. Javeed

PW7: V. Ashok Kumar

PW8: B. Supraja

PW9: Ch. Mahendar

PW10: B. Rami Murthy

PW11: N. Srinivas Reddy

PW12: G. Satish 8

AJFCM Court, C.C.No.284 of 2021 Jangaon Dt.22.09.2023

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1: Signature of PW1 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P2: Signature of PW2 on Crime Details Form

Ex.P3: Statement of PW4 u/S.161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P4: Signature of PW5 on report

Ex.P5: Statement of PW5 u/S.161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P6: Statement of PW6 u/S.161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P7: Signature of PW8 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama

Ex.P8:Signature of PW9 on confession-cum-seizure panchanama

Ex.P9: Statement of PW10 u/S.161 Cr.P.C.

Ex.P10: Statement of PW11 u/S.161 Cr.P.C.

FOR DEFENSE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS:

-NIL-

ADDITIONAL JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

JANGAON

9

1 CC No.232 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

PRESENT: SMT. CH.NARMADA, Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon

Wednesday, the 07th day of September, 2022

C.C.NO.232 OF 2013

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through

Police, Bachannapet. ...Complainant

AND

Challa Sudhakar Reddy, S/o Narsi Reddy, Age : 43 yrs, Occ : Agriculture, R/o Bandangaram (v), Bachannapet (m).

...Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and of Sri P.Srinivas, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Bachannapet has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/ss 290 and 324 of Indian Penal Code.

2.In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that:

(a) On 25.04.2013 at 1630 hours the complainant / Challa

Janardhan Reddy lodged a written complaint in which he stated that he has patta land in Sy.Nos.162, 154 and 155, on the same day while he was working in his land under Upadi Hami Scheme 2 CC No.232 of 2013 on the same day at about 0930 hours while he was proceeding to his agricultural well, work is going on, he asked Pallapu

Ramakrisha, Field Assistant why the work is going on in his land without consent of his mother who is pattedar of said land, meanwhile the accused came from back side, abused him in filthy language alleging that the said belongs to him and beat him with spade on his hand and leg and tried to slash him.

(b)Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.9Head Constable-1820,

Bachannapet P.S registered a case as in Crime No.55/2013 for the offences punishable under sections 290 and 324 IPC and issued

FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, at the police station he has recorded the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant and referred the LW1 to

Area Hospital, Jangaon for treatment. Later, he has visited the scene of offence, situated at Bandanagaram village and prepared a crime detail form in the presence of mediators, Lws 6 and 7.

Subsequently, LW.10/S.I of Police, P.S Bachannapet took up the investigation, examined and recorded the statements of Lws 2 to 5 under section 161 Cr.P.C. On 01.05.2013 at 1100 hours at

Bandanagaram village, LW.10/SI fo Police, Bachannapet apprehended the accused. On interrogation the accused 3 CC No.232 of 2013 confessed to have committed the offence. On completion of entire investigation he filed charge sheet against the accused before this Court.

3.On perusing the material on record, the case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 290 and 324 IPC and summons were issued to the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of doucments were furnished to them U/S. 207 Cr.PC.

5.The accused were examined U/s.239 Cr.P.C., and Charges under Sections 290 and 324 of the IPC were framed, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. No oral or documentary evdience adduced by the accused.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, explained to him in telugu, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.

4 CC No.232 of 2013

9.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/S. 290 and 324 IPC?”

10.Point: The defacto complainant in the present case who also happend to be the victim is examined as PW.1. He deposed in his evidence that his mother has got land in Sy.Nos.154, 155 and 162 at Bandanagaram (v) and their village group were carrying out agricultural activities under Upadi Hami Scheme on 25.04.2013 at about 09.30 a.m. accused along with his parents came to the land of PW.1 and carrying out agricultural activities along with his parents like cleaning and levelling the land. PW.1 objected their activities with that mother of the accused picked up quarrel and brother of the accused informed about the quarrel to the accused. On that accused went to the land of PW.1 and attacked PW.1 by picking up a spade by which he received injuries over his hand and forehead. Immediately, after the incidents he along with his mother lodged Ex.P.1 in the Police Station. PW.1 further stated that police examined him and recorded his statement and he was referred to Area Hospital, Jangaon for treatment.

5 CC No.232 of 2013

During the course of cross examination PW.1 stated that there are civil disputes between him and the accused and there is civil suit is O.S.No.10/2017 on the file of Hon’ble Senior Civil

Judge’s Court, Jangaon. PW.1 admitted that his mother and

accused have got pattedar passbooks for the land in Sy.Nos.154, 155 and 162 but PW.1 do not have patta in his name. He denied suggestion that he had fallen down when he took his cattle near the well. PW.1 admitted that there is a partition suit pending but denied that he filed the present case after the accused partition suit. He further denied suggestion that in order to compel the accused to withdraw the partition suit, he filed the present case.

He further denied that handwriting in Ex.P.1 does not belong to him and he foisted false case to grab the land of the accused.

11.In the evidence of PW.2, he deposed that he is a Field

Assistant in Upadi Hami Scheme and on receiving a phone call from coolies in Upadi Hami Scheme, he went to their lands and came to know that quarrel occurred between PW.1 and accused and they were claiming lands. In his cross examination he stated that he did not witness the incident and he had no knwoledge about the civil suits pending between PW.1 and the accused. He 6 CC No.232 of 2013 denied a suggestion that he do not know anything about the case and he is deposing false at the instance of police.

12.The PW.6 deposed in his evidence that the injuries received by PW.1 might be caused due to stick. He stated in his cross examination that injuries might have cause due to falling down from a moving two wheeler.

13.PW.7 is the police officer who investigated the case and filed charge sheet. He chronologically stated the investigation done by him. He further stated that he had no idea whether PW.1 and A1 had simultaneously lodged their reports before him and he do not konw that there are land disputes between PW.1 and accused. He denied suggestion that he foisted the present case in order to counter blast crime no.54/2013 filed by accused.

14.On perusal of the evidence of PW.4, he deposed that injuries were caused due to beating with spade whereas Ex.P.5 shows that injuries were caused with stick and as per evidence of PW.6 also he deposed that injuries were caused with stick. Moreover PW.7 failed to recover the weapon which is fatal to the prosecution case. Pws 3 and 4 who are cited as eye witnesses to the incident did not support the case of prosectuion and turned hostile. PW.5 7 CC No.232 of 2013 who is cited as panch witness for the Ex.P.7 Crime Details Form did not support the case and turned hostile.

15.Basing on the evidence on record, it is observed that it appears that the Investigating Officer who investigated the present case and also counter case in Crime No.54 of 2013 states in his cross examination that he has no idea whether both PW.1 and Accused have simultaneously lodged their reports before him.

No evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer as to the object used for causing injuries to the accused. No documents or

Revenue Records were collected during investigation as there were land disputes between PW.1 and accused. It seems that the investigation was done by Investigating Officer in a casual manner. There is no other evidence of independent witnesses or eye witnesses to corroborate their evidence. In the circumstances, it is held that prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence with which the accused is charged with. Therefore, the accused is entitled for aquittal, the point is answered accordingly.

In the result Accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 290 and 324 of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds 8 CC No.232 of 2013 of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of six months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed by Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 07th day of September, 2022).

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 Ch.Janardhan Reddy -None- PW.2 P.Ramkrishna PW.3 U.Madhava Reddy PW.4 I.Laxmi PW.5 Ch.Karunakar Reddy PW.6 Dr.A.Srinivas PW.7 K.Srinivas Rao.

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Defence:

Ex.P.1 is the Report-NIL- Ex.P.2 is the Statement of PW.3 under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.3 is the Statement of PW.4 under section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.4 is the Signature of PW5 on Crime Details Form Ex.P.5 is the Wound Certificate Ex.P.6 is the FIR Ex.P.7 is the Crime Details Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- Nil -

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon // True copy // 9 CC No.232 of 2013

1 CC No.102 of 2010

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE

JANGAON

PRESENT: SMT. CH.NARMADA, Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon

Thursday, the 08th day of September, 2022

C.C.NO.102 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through

Police, Bachannapet. ...Complainant

AND

Akula Babu, S/o Venkata Papaiah, Age : 28 yrs, Occ : Driver of Auto bearing No.AP 36 TV 0344 TATA ACE, R/o Kishtampet (v).

...Accused

This case is coming up for final hearing before me in the presence of Learned Asst. Public Prosecutor and of Sri P.Maheedhar Rao, Advocate for the accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, the court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

1. The Sub- Inspector of Police, Bachannapet has filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable

U/ss 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code.

2.In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that:

(a) On 27.12.2009 at 07.30 hours the complainant / Pakala

Lingaiah lodged a telugu petition in which he stated that on 26.12.2009 Pakala Kishan, Auto Driver took the passengers in his 2 CC No.102 of 2010

Auto to Cherial and while was returning to Bachannapet along with LW.7/Sandela Sagar, Passenger at about 19.15 hours when the auto reached near Petrol Pump, Bachannapet, the accused being the driver of Auto bearing No.AP 36 TV 0344 TATA ACE drove the same in rash and negligent manner with high speed and while over taking the LW.8/B.Abbaiah, Cyclist, the accused dashed his Auto against the Auto of Pakala Kishan, as a result of which Pakala Kishan and Lws 5 to 7 sustained severe injuries.

Immediately, all the injured were shifted to Hospital for treatment, as the condition of Pakala Kishan become serious he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for better treatment and while undergoing treatment, Pakala Kishan was succumbed to injuries on 27.12.2009 at about 3.00 p.m.

(b)Basing on the report of LW.1, LW.18/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Bachannapet P.S registered a case as in Crime No.135 of 2009 for the offences punishable under sections 337 and 304-A

IPC and issued FIR to all concerned and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, LW.18 examined and recorded the statement of complainant in detail. Later, he visited the scene of offence, examined the scene and conducted the scene of offence panchanama before mediators, incorporated all physical 3 CC No.102 of 2010 features in Crime Details Form in detail. Later LW.18 visited MGM

Hospital, Warangal conducted Inquest Panchanama over the dead body of the deceased Pakala Kishan in the presence of mediators, photographed the dead body of the deceased with the help of photographer, secured the presence of Lws 2 to 9, examined and recorded their statements in detail U/s 161 Cr.P.C., and referred the dead body of the deceased for Post Mortem Examination and

Report. Subsequently, LW.19 took up the investigation done by

LW.18 and found it on correct lines.

(c) On 31.12.2009 at 1300 hours the accused along with

LW.10/Panjala Narasimhulu came to Police Station and surrendered before LW.19, enquired the accused, for which accused revealed his identity and confessed about the offence.

As accused voluntarily confessed about the offence. LW.19 arrested the accused and produced before this Court for judicial remand. LW.16 / Medical Officer who conducted Post Mortem

Examination on the dead body of the deceased opined that the cause of death is due to “Blunt injury on Chest and Abdomen”.

The LW.17/Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the crime vehicle and issued Inspection Report opined that the “Accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defect of the vehicle” and after 4 CC No.102 of 2010 completion of investigation, LW.20 filed charge sheet before this

Court against the accused for the offences under sections 337 and 304-A IPC.

3.On perusing the material on record, the case was taken on file for the offences punishable under sections 337 and 304-A IPC and summons were issued to the accused.

4.On appearance of the accused, copies of doucments were furnished to him U/S. 207 Cr.PC.

5.The accused was examined U/s.251 Cr.P.C., and explained the accusation for the offence punishable under sections 337 and 304-A IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined PW1 to PW15 and got marked Exs.P1 to P17. No oral or documentary evdience adduced by the accused.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to incriminating material available in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, explained to him in telugu, to which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard both sides and perused the entire material on record.

5 CC No.102 of 2010

9.Now the point for determination is “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable U/Ss. 337 and 304-A IPC ?”

10.Point:

PW.10 Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police deposed in his evidence that on receipt of a written report from LW.1 he registered a case as in Ex.P.10 U/ss 337 and 304-A IPC. During the course of investigation he prepared Ex.P.11 which is Crime

Details Form. Later he handed over the case to LW.19. In cross examination he denied a suggestion that he did not examine

PW.11 and further denied that he had conducted table investigation.

11.PW.11 who is the injured deposed in his evidence that on 26.12.2009 he was proceeding to Cherial in a TATA Sumo passenger vehicle. When the vehicle reached near Cheruvukunta an Auto proceeding in opposite direction colluded with TATA Sumo and he received injuries due to that accident and became semi- conscious. He also deposed that he had not seen the auto driver.

In cross examination he stated that he was not conscious and as such police did not examine him.

6 CC No.102 of 2010

12.PW.10 denied in his cross examination that he did not examine PW.1 whereas PW.1 in his cross examination stated that police did not examine him as he was unconscious. There is no corroboration among both statements.

13.PW.12 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Jangaon isued Exs.P13,

P14 and P15 i.e., Wound Certificates of PW.11, PW.3 and PW.4.

14.PW.13 deposed that he conducted autopsy over the deadbody of the deceased and opined that deceased died due to blunt injuries on chest and abdomin. Ex.P.6 is Post Mortem

Examination Report.

15.PW.14 deposed that police conducted Inquest in his presence. Inquest panchanama marked as Ex.P.17.

16.PW.15 deposed that he verified investigation done by LW.19 fount it on correct lines and after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

17.The prosecution ought to prove that the death of deceased was occurred due to rash and negligent act in order to constitute the offence under sections 337 and 304-A IPC. But from the evidence of witnesses stated (supra) prosecution failed to establish the case. Prosecution failed to examine the eye witnesses to the incident. The prosecution also could not 7 CC No.102 of 2010 examine the defacto-complainant who lodged Ex.P.10 in the Police

Station due to death of the LW.1. Pws 1 to 4 turned against the case of prosecution. Pws 7 to 9 turned hostile and the learned

Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission to cross examine

the witnesses but could not elicit any material facts from them.

The material witnesses to the prosecution case did not support the case of prosecution. For the fact that injured and eye witnesses did not support the case of prosecution, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused with which he was charged. Accordingly, the point is answered against the prosecution.

In the result accused is found not guilty for the offences under sections 337 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code, accordingly, he is acquitted u/s 248(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after the expiry of six months in view of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

(Typed by Stenographer to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on the 08th day of September, 2022).

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon 8 CC No.102 of 2010

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

PW.1 P.Mallaiah -None- PW.2 P.Uppalamma PW.3 Y.Srinivas PW.4 S.Sagar PW.5 R.Shanthaiah PW.6 G.Samba Murthy PW.7 P.Rajeshwar PW.8 B.Abbaiah PW.9 P.Rajeshwar PW.10 A.Sambaiah PW.11 P.Brahmaiah PW.12 Dr.V.Venkatesh Chandra PW.12 Md.Abbad PW.13 Dr.B.V.Naga Mohan Rao

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution : For Defence:

Ex.P.1 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW1 -NIL- Ex.P.2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 Ex.P.3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3 Ex.P.4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P.5 is the Set of photographs (06 in No’s) Ex.P.6 is the Motor Vehicle Report of PW.6 Ex.P.7 is the Motor Vehicle Report of PW.6, Ex.P.8 is the Signature of PW.7 on Crime Details Form Ex.P.9 is the Signature of PW.9 on Inquest Panchanama Ex.P.10 is the FIR Ex.P.11 is the Crime Details Form Ex.P.12 is the Inquest Report Ex.P.13 is the Wound Certificate of PW.11 9 CC No.102 of 2010

Ex.P.14 is the Wound Certificate of PW.3 Ex.P.15 is the Wound Certificate of PW.15 Ex.P.16 is the Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.P.17 is the Inquest Panchanama.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Jangaon // True copy //

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

JANGAON

PRESENT: SMT.CH.NARMADA, Addl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Jangaon

Monday, the 05th day of September, 2022

O.S.No.160 of 2021

Between:

Bandi @ Kodem Padma, D/o Late Bandi Venkataiah, W/o Neelaiah, Age : 40 yrs, Occ : Nil, R/o H.No.1-104, Kondapur (v), Dulimitta (m), Siddipet District. … Plaintiff

And

1. Bandi Mallesham, S/o Venkataiah, Age : 42 yrs, Occ : Agriculture, R/o H.No.9-100/9, Narmeta (v) & (m), Jangaon District,

2. Bandi Anasurya, W/o Venkataiah, Age : 70 yrs, Occ : Nil, C/o Vallakatla Yellaiah, R/o H.No.4-30, Narmetta (v) & (m), Jangaon District,

3. Bandi @ Kundena Nagalaxmi, W/o Kanakaiah, D/o Late Venkataiah, Age : 50 yrs, Occ : Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-75, Kundanavanipalle (v), Akkannapeta (m), Siddipet District,

4. Bandi @ Vallakatla Vijaya, W/o Yellaiah, D/o Late Venkataiah, Age : 47 yrs, Occ : Agriculture, R/o H.No.4-30, Narmetta (v) & (m), Jangaon District.

... Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 01.09.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri N.Satyanarayana, counsel for the plaintiff and defendant remained set ex parte and having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

This suit is filed under Sec.26 r/w Order-VII Rule-1 Order IV of

C.P.C. to pass a Decree in favour of Plaintiff for partition and separate possession of total suit schedule joint family land into (5) equal shares,

O.S.No.160 of 2021

2 and out of such (3) shares, allot one share to the Plaintiff with metes and bounds and direct the Tahsildar, Narmetta Mandal to rectify the entries in the Revenue Records in respect of suit schedule properties.

2. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows :

The plaintiff, defendant nos.1, 3 and 4 are the childrens of defendant no.2 and Late Bandi Venkataiah. The father of plaintiff by name Bandi Venkataiah was the pattedar and possessor of agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-38 gts., out of Sy.No.708/A/1, to an extent of

Ac.1-38 gts., out of Sy.No.708/A/4, to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts., out of

Sy.No.708/B/1, to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts., out of Sy.No.708/B/4, to an extent of Ac.2-01 gts., out of Sy.No.716/EE, to an extent of Ac.2-00 gts., out of Sy.No.706/A/8 and to an extent of Ac.0-30 gts., out of Sy.No.718 situated at Narmetta (v) & (m), Jangaon District (herein after referred as Suit Schedule A to C Properties). One House bearing No.5-35 to an extent of 300 square yards and another house bearing No.9-100/9 to an extent of 500 square yards situated at Narmetta (v) & (m), Jangaon

District (herein after referred as Suit Schedule D and E Properties).

During the life time of father of plaintiff, the properties were maintained by him as Kartha of Hindu Un-divided Family till his death.

After the death of Bandi Venkataiah, plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 4 succeeded the properties of Bandi Venkataiah.

The plaintiff further submitted that the plaintiff demanded defendant nos.1 to 4 for amicable partition and separate possession of

O.S.No.160 of 2021

3 her 1/5th share from the total suit schedule joint family properties, as they are not extended their cooperation, the plaintiff got issued Legal

Notice, dt.15.02.2021 to defendant nos.1 to 4 but they neither came forward to settle the matter nor they gave any reply for the notice.

The Suit schedule properties are in joint possession till today.

The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant No.1 is trying to alienate or transfer the suit schedule joint family properties to his wife’s name or third parties, if the same is done by defendant no.1, the plaintiff sustains irreparable and heavy loss. The Plaintiff apprehends danger in the hands of the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 and if they succeeded in their attempts to sale or alienates the same to third parties, in that event the Plaintiff sustains heavy and irreparable loss. Hence the suit for partition of the schedule joint family properties into five equal shares, out of such five shares, the Plaintiff and Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to one share each, as such the Plaintiff entitled for 1/5th share out of five shares. Thus the plaintiff and the Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are entitled to 1/5th shares each from the total suit schedule joint family properties.

3.After numbering the suit, summons were ordered to the defendants. The defendants remained set ex parte. Accordingly the suit was posted for the evidence of plaintiff.

4.In support of the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6.

O.S.No.160 of 2021

4

5.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties?“

6.POINT:

As it is the plaintiff who had approached the Court, the burden lies on the plaintiff to show that she is entitled for the relief of

Preliminary Decree. It is made clear that though the defendants were set ex parte, the burden of proof on the plaintiff had not been lessened.

The plaintiff in support of her case, examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the contents of plaint in her chief examination affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. Ex.A.1 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010- 11 (05 sheets), Ex.A.2 is the attested copy of proceedings issued by

Tahsildar, Narmetta (m) in the year 2017, Ex.A.3 is the Original House

Tax receipt, dt.27.11.2017, Ex.A.4 is the copy of legal notice, dt.15.02.2021, Ex.A.5 is the Postal Receipts, dt.15.02.2021 and Ex.A.6 is the Postal Acknowledgment Cards (03 in No’s). PW.1 deposed that defendant no.1 is her own brother, defendant no.2 is her mother, defendant nos.3 and 4 are her sisters. PW.1 further deposed that her father by name Late Bandi Venkataiah, S/o Sailoo was the pattedar and possesor of suit schedule A to E properties and her father died on 18.03.2002 at their house in Narmetta village leaving behind plaintiff and defendant nos.1 to 4 as his legal heirs.

O.S.No.160 of 2021

5

PW.1 further deposed that since the death of her father all legal heirs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and no partition occurred during the life time of her father.

PW.1 further deposed that her father was the possessor and pattedar of Schedule-A to E properties. In support of her contention PW.1 filed

Ex.A1 which are the certified copies of pahanies for the year 2010-11.

The pahanies shows that the defendnat no.1 is the pattedar and possessor in Sy.No.708/B/4 to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts., and in

Sy.No.716/E/E to an extent of AC.2-01 gts., and Bandi Venkataiah father of plaintiff is pattedar and possessor of land to an extent of Ac.1- 38 gts., out of Sy.No.708/A/1, to an extent of Ac.1-38 gts., out of

Sy.No.708/A/4, to an extent of Ac.1-00 gts., out of Sy.No.708/B/1. PW.1 did not produce any documents as to how her father acquired the property. PW.1 did not produce evidence showing that her father

Bandi Venkataiah was the woner and possessor of Schedule “D” and “E” properties also. As defendants set ex parte in partition suit, burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the case and cannot leave any inch of evidence. Absence of documents showing ownership of late

B.Venkataiah is a serious infirmity. Ex.A.2 marked by PW.1 also shows that land to an extent of Ac.1-38 gts., out of Sy.No.708/A/4 and to an extent of Ac.1-20 gts., out of Sy.No.708/B/4 and to an extent of Ac.5-18 gts., out of Sy.No.706/A/8 total to an extent of Ac.5-18 gts., are acquired by defendant no.1 through Virasat (Inheritance).

O.S.No.160 of 2021

6

7.As observed above when the ownership of the father of the plaintiff is unclear over suit schedule properties, partition of the suit schedule properties are not possible. Accoridngly, the point is answered against the plaintiff.

In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

(Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 5th day of September, 2022.)

Sd/-

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Jangaon

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For Plaintiff: For Defendants: PW1: Kodem Padma - None -

Exhibits Marked

For Plaintiff: Ex.A.1 is the CC of pahani for the year 2010-11 (05 sheets), Ex.A.2 is the attested copy of proceedings issued by Tahsildar, Narmetta (m) in the year 2017, Ex.A.3 is the Original House Tax receipt, dt.27.11.2017, Ex.A.4 is the copy of legal notice, dt.15.02.2021, Ex.A.5 is the Postal Receipts, dt.15.02.2021 Ex.A.6 is the Postal Acknowledgment Cards (03 in No’s)

For Defendants: - Nil -

Sd/-

Additional Junior Civil Judge

Jangaon // True copy //