Ms D.B.Sheetal

Pg.1 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

On Monday, this the 16th day of May, 2022

Present:- Ms. D.B. SHEETAL, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

SC.No. 65 of 2019

Preliminary Register Case No.3 of 2019 committed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet in Crime No.40 of 2018 of P.S, Egalapenta for the offence under sec.436 IPC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prosecution:Smt. G. Bhavani Bai, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nagarkurnool.

Defence :Sri. Mohd. Hameed Ali, Counsel for the accused

Description of accused : Koneti Srinivasulu s/o Anjaneyulu, age : 30yrs, Caste : Dasari, Occ : Mason, r/o Sundipenta village of Athmakur mandal, Kurnool District

Offence under section:436 IPC

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court: Found not guilty for the offence 436 IPC

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 436 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. MO.1 i.e., Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing No.AP21-BU-7041 which is given to PW7/K. Srinu Naik towards interim custody shall hold good after expiry of appeal time. MO.2 i.e., 1.25Ltr capacity sprite bottle which is deposited in this court vide CPR.No.4/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Pg.2 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

This Sessions Case is coming up for hearing before me on 11.05.2022 and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following :

JUDGMENT

1. The SI of police, Egalapenta filed charge sheet against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet for the offence punishable u/s 436 IPC in Cr.No.40 of 2018 of P.S. Egalapenta.

2.It is the case of prosecution that the accused hails from Domalapenta village and he used to come to Amrabad to consume liquor. On one occasion the accused was warned by Forest Beat Officer for consuming liquor.

Keeping the same in his mind, the accused developed grudges and according to his plan on 12.10.2018 at 2200hrs he asked his friend for motorcycle i.e., Hero HF Deluxe bearing No.AP21-BU-7041 to visit

Domalapenta on his personal work. Later, he came down at the outskirts of

Vatavarlapally village near Rasamallabavi Forest base camp; removed petrol from his bike in the plastic bottle; broke open the door and set fire to the solar battery, clothes, registers, bed sheets and cooking vessels with petrol and during the return journey he left the bike at a distance of half kilometer from the scene due to shortage of fuel and absconded from the spot.

Therefore the accused is liable for punishment for the offence 436 IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet has taken cognizance of the offence u/s 436 IPC against the accused following committal procedure, committed the accused to the Court of Sessions,

Mahabubnagar along with case records vide PRC.No.3 of 2019. The Hon'ble

Pg.3 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence against accused and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

4.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court framed the charges for the offence u/s 436 IPC against the accused, readover and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and MO.1 and MO2 and reported closure of evidence.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness against him, for which he denied incriminating evidence and reported no defense.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 436 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point :

9.During the course of trial, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW1/defacto complainant basing on his death report filed by the police.

10.PW1 to PW5 are Forest Protection Watchers and PW8 is the Forest

Beat Officer and they deposed at par stating that on 13.10.2018 at 09.00am they observed the articles i.e., solar battery, registers, bed sheets and

Pg.4 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

cooking vessels burning in fire at base camp and also observed that a Hero

HF Deluxe bearing No.AP21-BU-7041 was stationed at a distance of half kilometer from the base camp and they went near the above mentioned motorcycle and found POP powder on the said bike and immediately informed the above mentioned facts to LW1/Guruvaiah who inturn reported the matter to PW6 and that PW6 visited and inspected the spot and reported the matter to the police.

11.PW6 is the Forest Range Officer who worked as incharge of Forest

Range Officer, Domalapenta during the time of incident. PW6 deposed that on 13.10.2018 at 09.15am she received a phone call from LW1/Guruvaiah stating that the door lock of the base camp situated at Rasamalla Bavi was broke open and that the articles in the base camp i.e., solar battery, registers, bed sheets and cooking vessels are burnt in fire. That immediately she rushed to the spot and found the said information to be true and looked out in the surrounding area for evidence against the culprits. She further deposed that at a distance of half kilometer from the base camp, she found a stationed motor bike bearing No.AP21-BU-7041 and on examining the said motor bike she found POP material spilled and broom sticks kept on the said bike. That since the POP material and broom sticks are used at the base camp, she raised suspicion that the rider of the above mentioned motor bike might have broke open the locks of the base camp and set fire to the articles in the said base camp and thereafter she reported the matter to the police.

12.As seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW6 and PW8, except testifying to the effect that the articles in the base camp were burnt in fire and that they found a Hero Motorcycle bearing No.AP21-BU-7041 stationed at a distance of half kilometer from the base camp, it is noticed that none of the said witnesses have testified about the identity of the person who allegedly set

Pg.5 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

fire to the articles in the base camp. It is to be noted here that none of the above mentioned witnesses claimed to be the eye witnesses to the said incident. As per the case of prosecution, the accused is allegedly said to have set fire to the articles at the base camp on 12.10.2018 at 2200hrs. PW1 in his cross examination categorically stated that there are total five Forest

Watchers at the base camp and out of five Forest Watchers, four Forest

Watchers sleep in the base camp from 06.00pm to 06.00am. Having regard to the facts elicited in the cross examination of PW1 about Forest Watcher sleeping at the base camp from 06.00pm to 06.00am, an inference can be drawn that the Forest Watchers were also deputed at the base camp on the date of alleged incident i.e., on 12.10.2018 at 2200hrs. But surprisingly none of the said Forest Watchers i.e, PW1 to PW5 herein have testified about witnessing the alleged incident nor they have testified about the identity of the person who allegedly burnt the articles at the base camp. Further, except vague testimony of PW1 to PW6 and PW8 about the burning of articles at the base camp, surprisingly, none of the alleged burnt articles were produced

before the court to substantiate the prosecution case.

13.Be that as it may, except vague suggestion, the learned counsel for accused has not elicited any facts from PW1 nor chose to cross examine

PW2 to PW5 to discredit their testimony about their observation of articles in the base camp being burnt in fire. However, as stated supra since PW1 to

PW6 and PW8 are not eye witnesses to the incident and in view of the fact that there is no iota of evidence from them regarding the identity particulars of the culprit who set fire to the articles in the base camp, I am of the considered opinion that their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to connect the guilt to the accused.

14.PW9 is one of the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama

Pg.6 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

and he deposed that in the year 2018 at about 08.00am the police P.S.

Egalapenta called him at Rasamalla bavi base camp and conducted scene of offence panchanama in his presence and in presence of LW11/Chigurla

Malleshand prepared rough sketch of the scene in their presence and obtained their signatures and that on observing the scene of offence, it was found that the articles i.e., clothes, vessels, registers, etc were burnt in fire.

The scene of offence panchanama (CDF) was got marked as Ex.P1 through

PW9. During cross examination PW9 categorically stated that he does not know the contents of Ex.P1 and admitted that by the time he reached the scene of offence, the police had already prepared the panchanama and obtained his signatures and further admitted that he does not know anything about the panchanama. Though PW9 in his cross examination denied having knowledge about the panchanama, the fact that the articles at the base camp were burnt in fire is not disproved by the counsel for accused. But it may be noted here that mere proving the damage in the articles in the base camp in fire, is not helpful to the prosecution to connect the guilt to the accused unless the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that it is the accused who caused such damage by burning articles in fire.

15.The only evidence relied upon by the prosecution to connect guilt to the accused is that of PW10 who is one of the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama and PW11 who is the investigating officer who conducted investigation in the present case. PW10 deposed that about 2½ years ago the SI of police, P.S. Egalapenta called him at

Vatavarlapally bus stop and the accused was in the custody of police. That he called the accused aside and enquired him as to why he is in custody of police, upon which he stated to him that he set fire to the articles in a room situated near Rasamalla Bavi base camp and further stated that he was

Pg.7 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

fleeing away on his motorcycle and that since the motorcycle was running out of fuel, he left the motorcycle at a distance of about half kilometer from the scene of offence and started escaping from the spot, but the police caught hold of him. PW10 further deposed that the police seized a 1.25Ltr capacity sprite bottle (MO.2) and motorcycle key from the possession of accused in his presence and in presence of LW13/Methari Ramesh under cover of panchanama and read over its contents to them and obtained their signatures. The confession cum seizure panchanama dt.09.11.2018 was marked as Ex.P2 through PW10.

16.As per the evidence of PW10, the police have said to conducted the confession cum seizure panchanama on 09.11.2018 at Vatavarlapally bus stop whereas on the contrary, PW11 i.e., investigating officer who is said to have conducted the said panchanama categorically stated in his evidence that he recorded the confession statement of the accused in presence of

PW10 and LW13/Methari Ramesh vide Ex.P2 at Domalapenta village, but he no where deposed about the seizure of 1.25ltrs capacity sprite bottle or the motorcycle keys from the possession of accused. PW11 further categorically stated in his cross examination that he seized MO.2 near by the base camp on 09.11.2018 at 09.30am but he has not seized any material objects at Domalapenta bus stand. The said facts deposed by PW11 is also in contradiction with the contents of Ex.P2. A perusal of Ex.P2 i.e., confession cum seizure panchanama dt.09.11.2018 also discloses that the place of panchanama is at Domalapenta bus stand as against Vatavarlapally village bus stop as deposed by PW10. The evidence of PW10 and PW11 is in contradiction with each other as regards the place of conducting the panchanama and seizure of 1.25lts capacity sprite bottle (MO.2) and motorcycle keys allegedly from the possession of accused. Therefore, the

Pg.8 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

contradictory evidence of PW10 and PW11 regarding the seizure of MO2 and motorcycle keys allegedly from the possession of accused, is not inspiring any confidence to believe the testimony with regard to the recovery/seizure of the said articles from the possession of accused.

17.Further PW11/investigating officer categorically stated that on 13.10.2018 after registering FIR (Ex.P3) basing on the complaint (Ex.P4) lodged by LW1, he rushed to the scene of offence situated at Rasamalla Bavi forest base camp near Vatavarlapally village and secured the presence of

PW9 and LW11/ChigurlaMallesh as mediators and conducted scene of offence panchanama vide Ex.P1 and that after concluding the scene of offence panchanama, he seized a motorcycle which was stationed at a far off distance from the scene of offence under Ex.P5 i.e., seizure panchanama dt.14.10.2018 at 1000hrs. Surprisingly, PW9 who is one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama has no where deposed about the alleged seizure of motorcycle bearing No.AP21-BU-7041 (MO.1) more particularly under Ex.P5 thereby creating a doubt with regard to the seizure of said motorcycle. PW11 in his cross examination categorically stated that he visited the scene of offence only once on 13.10.2018 (wrongly typed as 30.10.2018 in the deposition of PW11 due to typographical mistake). No where in the evidence of PW11, he has deposed about visiting the scene of offence on 14.10.2018. In view of the facts elicited in the cross examination of PW11 that he visited the scene of offence only on 13.10.2018, it is not explained as to who seized the motorcycle (MO.1) under cover of Ex.P5 on 14.10.2018. Therefore, the evidence of PW11 is doubtful with regard to the seizure of MO.1 under cover of Ex.P5 more particularly when there is no spec of evidence from PW9 (one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama) with regard to the seizure of MO.1. Be that as it may, it is not

Pg.9 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

the version of PW11 or either the case of prosecution that MO.1 has been seized from the possession of accused. In such a case, it is not explained as to on what basis the accused was implicated for the said offence. Therefore, the seizure of MO.1 is also not proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

18.Coming to the evidence of PW7, who is the owner of MO.1, he deposed that on 12.10.2018 at 10.00pm the accused asked him and took his motorcycle bearing No.AP21-BU-7041 (MO.1) on some work and that the next day one of the known persons informed him that his motorcycle is stationed at Vatavarlapally forest area upon which he immediately went to the spot but on reaching there he came to know that his motorcycle has been taken to the police station, Mannanoor. He further deposed that he received back his Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing No.AP21-BU-7041 (MO.1) from

JMFC Court, Achampet towards interim custody. The learned Additional

Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW7 is suffice to connect the guilt to the accused as it disclosed that the accused has taken MO.1 from

PW7. But during cross examination PW7 admitted that on 10.10.2018 he had lodged a complaint to P.S. Egalapenta about missing of MO.1 and that three days after lodging the complaint of theft of MO.1, he himself handed over the accused to the police, Mannanoor. It is to be noted here that when admittedly on 10.10.2018 PW7 lodged a complaint to P.S. Egalapenta about missing of his motorcycle bearing No.AP21-BU-7041 (MO.1), the question of the accused taking MO.1 from him on personal work on 12.10.2018 does not arise. In other words, the facts elicited in the cross examination of PW7 about he lodging a complaint about missing of his motorcycle on 10.10.2018, invariably belies his version about the accused taking his motorcycle (MO.1) on 12.10.2018 thereby making his testimony in chief evidence untrustworthy of credit. Therefore, the evidence of PW7 is also not helpful to the

Pg.10 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

prosecution to connect the guilt to the accused. There is no cogent evidence on record to establish the involvement of the accused in the alleged offence.

The prosecution miserably failed to prove the guilt of accused for the offence u/s 436 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled to acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 436 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. MO.1 i.e., Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing No.AP21-

BU-7041 which is given to PW7/K. Srinu Naik towards interim custody shall hold good after expiry of appeal time. MO.2 i.e., 1.25Ltr capacity sprite bottle which is deposited in this court vide CPR.No.4/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 16 th day of May, 2022.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For prosecution:- For defence:-

PW1 : Dasari Muralidhar/circumstantial witness None

PW2 : Sankati Srihari/circumstantial witness

PW3 : Guddeti Nagaraju/circumstantial witness

PW4 : Charagonda Ramaswamy/circumstantial witness

PW5 : Mandli Pedda Edaiah/circumstantial witness

PW6 : Vani Kumari/circumstantial witness

PW7 : Kodavath Srinu Naik/owner of the bike

PW8 : Chinthala Muthyalu/circumstantial witness

PW9 : Mandli Kotaiah/panch for scene of offence

PW10 : Md. Mahamood/panch for confession cum seizure

PW11 : K. Badya Naik/investigating officer

Pg.11 of 11

SC.No.65 of 2019

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution : For defence:

Ex.P1 : CDF, dt.14.10.2018NIL

Ex.P2 : confession cum seizure panchanama, dt.09.11.2018

Ex.P3 : FIR issued by PW11

Ex.P4 : complaint lodged by LW1

Ex.P5 : seizure panchanama, dt.14.10.2018

MATERIAL OBJECTS

MO.1 : Hero HF Deluxe motorcycle bearing No.AP21-BU-7041

MO.2 : 1.25Ltr capacity sprite bottle

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Pg.1 of 9

SC.No.169 of 2021

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

On Wednesday, this the 4th day of May, 2022

Present:- Ms. D.B. SHEETAL, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

SC.No. 169 of 2021

Preliminary Register Case No.14 of 2020 committed by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Achampet in Crime No.123 of 2020 of P.S,

Achampet for the offence under sec.306 IPC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prosecution:Smt. G. Bhavani Bai, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nagarkurnool.

Defence :Sri. M. Srinivas Gupta, Counsel for the accused

Description of accused : Gokamoni Jayanth s/o Kurmaiah, age : 26yrs,

Caste : SC-Mala, Occ : Driver, r/o Vattipally village of Telkapally mandal

Offence under section: 306 IPC

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court: Found not guilty for the offence u/s 306 IPC.

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 306 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property which is lying in the committal court, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The committal court is directed to destroy the unmarked case property after expiry of appeal time and report compliance.

This Sessions Case is coming up for hearing before me on 29.04.2022 and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered

Pg.2 of 9

SC.No.169 of 2021

the following :

JUDGMENT

1. The SI of police, Achampet filed charge sheet against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC in Cr.No.123 of 2020 of P.S. Achampet.

2.It is case of prosecution that on 19.08.2020 during morning hours PW1 to PW3 went to their agricultural fields and returned home at about 1700hrs and found that the daughter of defacto complainant (PW1) by name Polumuri

Saritha was not opening the door. Then they forcibly opened the door and found that she (Polumuri Saritha) committed suicide by hanging herself from the fan with a saree. That on verifying the mobile phone of the deceased they came to know that the accused and deceased loved each other. That in the month of March, when the accused came to PW1’s house, the deceased asked him to marry her but he refused and scolded her in front of PW1 to

PW3 stating that “nenu pelli chesukonu ekkadaina sachipo” and few days prior to the incident also he scolded the deceased on phone stating that “nee chavu nuvvu chavu naku avasaram ledu.” That despite repeated requests, the accused refused to marry the deceased due to which the deceased got mentally depressed and committed suicide by hanging herself from the fan in her home with a saree. Therefore the accused is liable for punishment for the offence u/s 306 IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Achampet has taken cognizance of the offences u/s 306 of IPC against the accused following committal procedure, committed the accused to the court of Sessions,

Mahabubnagar along with case records vide PRC.No.14 of 2020. The

Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence

against accused and made over the case to this court for disposal according

Pg.3 of 9

SC.No.169 of 2021

to law.

4.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court framed the charges for the offence u/s 306 IPC against the accused, readover and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5 and reported closure of evidence.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him, for which he denied incriminating evidence and reported no evidence on his behalf.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point :

10.PW1 is the defacto complainant and mother of deceased and she deposed that about one and half year ago, the accused promised to marry the deceased but later he betrayed her by refusing to marry and as such the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself from a fan with a saree in her house. She further deposed that she (PW1) was at agricultural fields when the incident occurred and that when she returned home from agricultural fields at about 06.00pm, nobody opened the door that was bolted from inside and that when she opened the door with the help of PW3 and

PW4, she saw the deceased hanging from the ceiling fan and immediately

Pg.4 of 9

SC.No.169 of 2021

they brought down the deceased and rushed her to Government Hospital,

Achampet but the deceased was declared brought dead and immediately she lodged a complaint to the police vide Ex.P1. PW1 further testified that on checking the mobile phone of the deceased, she found phone calls, video calls and messages of the accused.

11.PW2 is the sister of the deceased and she deposed that the deceased died by suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan on 19.08.2020 and further deposed that the accused and deceased were in a love affair and the accused promised to marry the deceased but later refused to marry her due to which the deceased felt depressed and committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan in the house and that on checking the mobile phone of the deceased, she found phone calls, video calls and messages of the accused.

12.PW3 is the brother of the deceased and he too deposed that the deceased died by suicide by hanging herself from a ceiling fan about two years ago. He further deposed that on the date of incident he had gone out on some work and by the time he returned, he saw the body of the deceased hanging from ceiling fan in the house. He further stated that at the time of leaving the house, he saw the deceased talking on phone.

13.PW4 is the cousin brother of the deceased and he too deposed that the deceased died by suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan about one and half years ago and that she (deceased) was in a love affair with the accused and that the accused promised to marry the deceased but later he refused to marry her due to which she (deceased) committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree from the ceiling fan in her house. He further deposed that he came to know about the death of deceased from the neighbours and that on verifying the mobile phone of the deceased, he saw

Pg.5 of 9

SC.No.169 of 2021

phone calls, video calls and messages of the accused.

14.PW5 is the elder sister of the deceased and she deposed that the deceased died by suicide about one and half years ago. She further deposed that the accused and deceased were in a love affair with each other and that the accused promised to marry the deceased but later he refused to marry her and as such deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree from the ceiling fan when nobody were present in the home. That on verifying the mobile phone of the deceased, she saw phone calls, video calls and messages of the accused.

15.PW6 is one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama and inquest panchanama and he deposed that on 18.08.2020 the police P.S.

Achampet conducted inquest panchanama over the body of deceased/

Saritha in his presence and in presence of LW8/Polumuri Bala Kistaiah,

LW9/Vaddeman Bhavani and LW6/Beeram Madhava Reddyand also conducted scene of offence panchanama in their presence and seized a cell phone, red colour saree from the scene of offence and obtained his signature. The inquest panchanama was got marked as Ex.P2 and the scene of offence panchanama (CDF) was got marked as Ex.P3 through PW6.

16.PW7 is the medical officer who conducted autopsy over the body of deceased on 20.08.2020 at 04.30pm on the requisition received by him from

SHO, P.S. Achampet and he deposed that he conducted autopsy over the body of deceased and he further deposed that while conducting autopsy, he found abrasions over the neck of the deceased which are ante mortem in nature and fracture of hyoid bone and that the approximate time of death of the deceased was on 19.08.2020 at 05.00pm and the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief was due to suddenrespiration and cardiac arrest due to hyoid bone fracture and hanging. Ex.P4 is the PME report of

Pg.6 of 9

SC.No.169 of 2021

the deceased dt.20.09.2020 issued by PW7.

17.PW8 is the investigating officer who deposed about the investigation done by him pursuant to registering Ex.P5 (FIR).

18.On a perusal of the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and their cross examination, the fact that the deceased died by suicide by hanging herself with a saree from the ceiling fan at her house when nobody were present at home, is not disputed. The cause of death is also corroborated by the evidence of PW7 i.e., medical officer, who opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to hanging. Mere proving the manner and cause of death of the deceased is not helpful to the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

In order to prove the guilt of accused for the said offence, the prosecution is required to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide. From the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5 who are none other than the mother, brothers and sisters of the deceased, it is alleged that the accused and the deceased were in a love affair and that though the accused promised to marry the deceased, he later refused to marry her due to which the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself with a saree from the ceiling fan. PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5 further testified that on verifying the mobile phone of the deceased, they saw phone calls, video calls and messages of the accused.

19.On the contrary, the learned counsel for accused by way of suggestion to PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5 denied any love affair between accused and deceased or promise of marriage by the accused to the deceased or the refusal of the accused to marry the deceased and further suggested that the accused is no way concerned with the alleged offence. The said suggestion was however denied by the said witnesses. Be that as it may, the basis of

Pg.7 of 9

SC.No.169 of 2021

suspicion on the accused for the suicide committed by the deceased, is said to be the phone calls, video calls and messages of the accused found on the mobile phone of the deceased. But except vaguely stating that they found phone calls, video calls and messages of the accused on the mobile phone of deceased, PW1, PW2, PW4, PW5 no where alleged or testified that there was any communication from the accused either allegedly promising to marry the deceased or thereafter refusing to marry her, thereby driving the deceased to commit suicide. PW8 (investigating officer) in his cross examination categorically stated that PW1 came to know about the reason behind the death of deceased, through the contents on her mobile phone and also when in the month of March, 2020 the accused came to the house of deceased and abused her. It is significant to note here that though PW8 (investigating officer) deposed that he seized a red colour saree and MI company mobile phone from the scene of offence in the presence of mediators, but surprisingly neither the said saree or mobile phone has been deposited in this court for examining the same. That apart, the call data record pertaining to the mobile number of the deceased is also not forthcoming from the prosecution to substantiate that there has been communication between the accused and deceased or that the accused allegedly initially promised and subsequently allegedly refused to marry the deceased. For a moment even if the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 that they have found video calls, phone calls and messages of the accused on the mobile phone of the deceased is assumed to be true, then in my considered opinion mere calls and messages from the accused does not constitute any act of abetment of suicide, when there is no iota of evidence on record to establish that the accused instigated, provoked or aided the deceased to commit suicide.

20.Further as seen from the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5, they

Pg.8 of 9

SC.No.169 of 2021

are said to have came to know about the alleged incident between the deceased and accused just few days prior to the incident, but except their vague testimony who are admittedly the family members who are the interested witnesses in this case, none of the independent witnesses more particularly the neighbours to the house of accused or deceased have been examined by the investigating officer (PW8) during the course of investigation to establish the alleged love affair between accused and the deceased. Therefore, the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW5 is not helpful to the prosecution to connect the guilt to the accused for the offence alleged against him.

21.As regards the evidence of PW3, except stating that the deceased died by suicide by hanging herself from ceiling fan, nothing incriminating has been deposed by him against the accused. Be that as it may, in view of the discussion supra, I am of the considered opinion that the case in hand does not satisfy the ingredients/elements of the offence u/s 306 IPC and hence I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused for the offence u/s 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled to acquittal.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 306 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property which is lying in the committal court, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The committal court is directed to destroy the unmarked case property after expiry of appeal time and report compliance.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 4 th day of May, 2022.

Pg.9 of 9

SC.No.169 of 2021

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For prosecution:-

PW1 : Polumuri Balamma/complainant

PW2 : Polumuri Sravani/younger sister of deceased

PW3 : Polumuri Mani Kumar/younger brother of deceased

PW4 : Polumuri Srikanth/circumstantial witness

PW5 : Jalli Manjula/elder sister of deceased

PW6 : Ulpara Sree Ramulu/panch for scene of offence

PW7 : Bikku Naik/medical officer

PW8 : V. Pradeep Kumar/SI of police

For defence:-

None

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution :

Ex.P1 : complaint lodged by PW1

Ex.P2 : inquest panchanama, dt.20.08.2020

Ex.P3 : CDF, dt.20.08.2020

Ex.P4 : PME report of the deceased, dt.20.09.2020

Ex.P5 : FIR issued by PW8

For defence :

NIL

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

Pg.1 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

IN THE COURT OF ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT NAGARKURNOOL

On Wednesday, this the 18th day of May, 2022

Present:- Ms. D.B. SHEETAL, Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

SC.No. 179 of 2019

Preliminary Register Case No.01 of 2019 committed by the Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool in Crime No.155 of 2017 of P.S,

Telkapally for the offence under sec.306 IPC.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Prosecution:Smt. G. Bhavani Bai, Addl. Public Prosecutor, Nagarkurnool.

Defence :Sri. B. Rajashekar, Counsel for the accused

Description of accused : Sama Ramakrishna s/o Bondaiah, age : 22yrs, Caste : Mala, Occ : Agriculture, r/o Ramreddipally village of Telkapally mandal

Offence under section:306 IPC

Plea of accused:Pleaded not guilty

Finding of the court: Found not guilty for the offence 306 IPC

Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 306 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This Sessions Case is coming up for hearing before me on 16.05.2022 and upon perusing the material on record, upon hearing the arguments, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day the court delivered the following :

Pg.2 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

JUDGMENT

1. The SI of police, Telkapally filed charge sheet against the accused in the court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC in Cr.No.155 of 2017 of P.S. Telkapally.

2.It is the case of prosecution that the defacto complainant is the grandfather of the deceased Nageshwari. The deceased stayed in the house of defacto complainant situated at Gaggalapally village of Nagarkurnool mandal and was studying 9th standard in ZPHS school, Telkapally mandal.

That the deceased and accused were having close acquaintance with each other and were roaming together and that taking advantage of the same the accused harassed the deceased for love. Due to unbearable harassment of the accused, the deceased consumed pesticide poison on 09.09.2017 at 06.30 hours. Immediately she was shifted to Gayathri Hospital, Nagarkurnool for treatment, later to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar and thereafter to Gandhi

Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. The deceased died on 13.09.2017 at 000hrs while undergoing treatment. Therefore, the accused is liable for punishment for the offence u/s 306 IPC.

3.The learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nagarkurnool has taken cognizance of the offence u/s 306 IPC against the accused following committal procedure, committed the accused to the Court of Sessions,

Mahabubnagar along with case records vide PRC.No.01 of 2019. The

Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Mahabubnagar took cognizance of the offence

against accused and made over the case to this court for disposal according to law.

4.Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material on record, this court framed the charges for the offence u/s 306 IPC against the accused,

Pg.3 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

readover and explained to him in Telugu, for which he denied the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to prove its case, prosecution examined PW1 to PW10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 and reported closure of evidence.

6.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined u/s 313 Cr.P.C. by putting incriminating material appearing in the evidence of prosecution witness against him, for which he denied incriminating evidence and reported no defense.

7.Heard the arguments of both sides.

8.Now the point for determination is :

Whether the prosecution could able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

Point :

9.PW1 is the defacto complainant and grandfather of deceased, PW2 is the grandmother, PW3 is the mother, PW4 is the father of the deceased

Nageshwari. PW5 is the circumstantial witness and uncle of deceased. PW1 to PW5 deposed at par stating that the deceased Nageshwari was living in the house of defacto complainant/PW1 and was studying 9th standard in

Government School in Telkapally village and that the accused is living in the house situated opposite to PW1’s house. Further they deposed that about five years ago the deceased consumed pesticide poison to commit suicide and immediately she was shifted to private hospital at Nagarkurnool for treatment and thereafter to SVS hospital, Mahabubnagar and thereafter

Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment but she died five days later while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. The complaint

Pg.4 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

lodged by PW1 was got marked as Ex.P1 through PW1. PW1 and PW3 who are none other than grandfather and mother respectively of deceased deposed that when the deceased was undergoing treatment at Gandhi

Hospital, Hyderabad they enquired her as to the reason behind consuming pesticide poison upon which she (deceased) stated to them that the accused has been harassing her to love him and that unable to bear his harassment, she consumed pesticide poison. PW2 too stated that the accused harassed the deceased by insisting her to love him thereby causing the deceased to commit suicide. Whereas PW4 and PW5 categorically stated that they came to know that the deceased disclosed to PW1 to PW3 about the unbearable harassment by the accused to the deceased to love him and that unable to bear the harassment of accused, the deceased consumed pesticide poison.

10.Coming to the evidence of PW6, he is cited as circumstantial witness who deposed about the death of deceased by suicide in the year 2017 by consuming pesticide, but pleaded ignorance about the reason behind the suicide committed by the deceased. Basing on the evidence of PW6, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor declared him hostile and during cross examination PW6 denied having stated before the police as in Ex.P2 (Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6).

11.PW8 is one of the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama and she deposed that about four years ago the police P.S. Telkapally conducted inquest panchanama over the body of deceased Nageshwari in presence of her, LW9/Bandari Venkatesh and LW11/Kommu Bangaraiah at Gandhi

Hospital, Hyderabad and that on observing the body of deceased, she came to an opinion that the deceased died due to consuming pesticide. The inquest panchanama, dt.14.09.2017 was got marked as Ex.P4 through PW8.

Pg.5 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

12.PW9 is one of the panch witnesses for scene of offence panchanama but he did not support the case of prosecution and turned hostile.

13.PW10 is the investigating officer who conducted the investigation pursuant to registering of FIR vide Ex.P6.

14.It is to be noted here that despite giving several adjournments and ample time, the concerned police did not serve summons to LW12/medical officer who conducted autopsy over the body of deceased and LW14/K.

Kanakaiah, LW15/G. Venkatesh who are the investigating officers who took up investigation from PW10 and hence their evidence stood closed.

15.Be that as it may, on a perusal of evidence on record, the date of death of deceased, the scene of offence and also the fact that the deceased died by suicide by consuming pesticide, is not disputed in the present case in hand. But the learned counsel for accused by way of suggestion to PW1 to

PW5 vehemently denied the involvement or any alleged act of the accused in causing the deceased to commit suicide. As per the evidence of PW1 to

PW5, the deceased is alleged to have committed suicide due to unbearable harassment by the accused to love him. None of the said witnesses have testified that they have witnessed the alleged harassment by the accused demanding the deceased to love him. But PW1 and PW3 who are none other than the grandfather and mother respectively of deceased, categorically stated that the deceased while undergoing treatment at Gandhi Hospital,

Hyderabad had herself informed them that she consumed pesticide poison as the accused harassed her to love him. The learned counsel for accused by way of suggestion to PW1 to PW5 vehemently denied the same and suggested to them that the deceased was not in a condition to speak from the date of incident till her death and that as such there is no possibility of the

Pg.6 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

deceased herself disclosing to PW1 and PW3 about the reason behind committing suicide more particularly the alleged involvement of the accused herein.

16.As per the version of PW1 and PW3, the place of disclosure by the deceased about the reason behind committing suicide by her, is Gandhi

Hospital, Hyderabad while she was undergoing treatment. On the contrary,

PW1 in his cross examination categorically stated that the deceased was in a position to speak till they reached SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar but she could not speak thereafter as she became unconscious. Coming to the evidence of PW2, she categorically stated that the deceased was not in a condition to speak while shifting her to hospital at Nagarkurnool till her death.

Whereas PW3 categorically stated that the deceased was undergoing treatment at Nagarkurnool hospital till 11.00am and she was not in a condition to speak and further admitted that the deceased was not in a condition to speak at SVS hospital, Mahabubnagar though she vehemently denied that the deceased was not in a condition to speak at Gandhi Hospital,

Hyderabad till her death. PW4 also admitted that the deceased was not in a condition to speak when she was shifted to Gayathri Hospital, Nagarkurnool.

The said facts elicited in the cross examination of PW1 to PW4 more particularly the evidence of PW1 and PW2 would invariably go to show that the deceased was not in a condition to speak when she was being shifted to the hospital. The facts testified by PW1 in his cross examination that the deceased could not speak after they reached SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar and also the evidence of PW2 that the deceased was not in a condition to speak while shifting her to hospital at Nagarkurnool till her death, would invariably belie and negate the testimony of PW1 and PW3 that the deceased herself disclosed to them about the reason behind suicide

Pg.7 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

committed by her.

17.That apart, PW10 who is the first investigating officer who registered

FIR (Ex.P6) basing on the complaint (Ex.P1) lodged by PW1, categorically stated in his cross examination that he has not examined either the doctor or any nurse from Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad; Gayathri Hospital,

Nagarkurnool or SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar to ascertain the condition of the deceased while she was undergoing treatment at the said hospitals.

When the condition of the deceased to speak after consuming pesticide poison is itself is in dispute, it is not explained as to what prevented PW10 to examine the medical officers of the hospitals where the deceased had undergone treatment to establish as to in what condition she was brought to the said hospital. That apart, it is significant to note here that there is no dying declaration of the deceased in the present case. As per the case narrated by the prosecution, the deceased is said to have consumed pesticide poison on 09.09.2017 at 0630hrs and she died five days later on 03.09.2017 at 0500hrs. But it is not explained as to what prevented PW10 from giving requisition to concerned magistrate to record dying declaration of the deceased to ascertain the reason behind the suicide committed by the deceased. Therefore, the failure and inaction on the part of investigating officers to obtain the dying declaration of the deceased more particularly when she was undergoing treatment for a period of five days from the date of incident, proved the fatal to the case of prosecution thereby giving rise to a doubt as to the ability of the deceased to speak during course of her treatment in order to disclose the facts leading her to commit suicide.

18.Another important aspect which is to be noted here is that except the self serving, omnibus and uncorroborated testimony of PW1 to PW5 who are admittedly the family members of the deceased, there is no evidence

Pg.8 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

produced by the prosecution to establish that the accused harassed the deceased to love her and thereby abetted her to commit suicide. PW10 categorically stated in his cross examination that he has not examined any witnesses from the school where the deceased was studying, nor he examined any other students who were travelling in the bus from

Ramreddipally village of Telkapally village to go to school, nor examined any neighbours to the scene of offence. When admittedly PW10 has not examined any witnesses either from neighborhood of the place of abode of the deceased or any students from the school where she was studying or the students who were travelling in the bus along with her to go to school, it is not explained as to on what basis the prosecution has laid allegation of harassment on the part of accused demanding the deceased to love him.

That apart, PW10 categorically stated that he cannot say whether the deceased was in an unconscious state from the time of incident till her death.

The said facts elicited in the cross examination of PW10 would invariably go to show that there are many lacunas and latches on the part of PW10 in conducting investigation in the present case in hand. Further, there is no iota of evidence on record to establish that the accused had either harassed, instigated, provoked or aided the deceased commit suicide. In such a case, I am of the considered opinion that mere uncorroborated and omnibus testimony of PW1 to PW5 alleging harassment on the part of accused, is not suffice for the prosecution to connect the guilt to the accused for the offence u/s 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.

19.The case in hand does not satisfy any elements of the offence u/s 306

IPC and the prosecution miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence u/s 306 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt and hence he is entitled to acquittal.

Pg.9 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence u/s 306 IPC and accordingly he is acquitted of the same u/s 235(1) Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The unmarked case property if any, shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 18 th day of May, 2022.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For prosecution:- For defence:-

PW1 : Kommu Krishnaiah/grandfather of deceased None

PW2 : Kommu Alivela/grandmother of deceased

PW3 : Vaddeman Bala Kistamma/mother of deceased

PW4 : Vaddeman Mogulalu/father of deceased

PW5 : Kommu Santhosha/circumstantial witness

PW6 : Kommu Bharath Kumar/circumstantial witness

PW7 : Cheemarla Sandeep Reddy/panch for scene of offence

PW8 : Nallganti Vijaya/panch for inquest

PW9 : Karne Kurmaiah/panch for scene of offence

PW10 : D. Anjaiah/investigating officer

EXHIBITS MARKED

For prosecution : For defence:

Ex.P1 : complaintNIL

Ex.P2 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW6

Ex.P3 : signature of PW7 on CDF, dt.14.09.2017

Ex.P4 : inquest panchanama, dt.14.09.2017

Ex.P5 : signature of PW9 on CDF, dt.14.09.2017

Ex.P6 : FIR issued by PW10

Ex.P7 : CDF, dt.14.09.2017

MATERIAL OBJECTS

NIL

Assistant Sessions Judge,

Pg.10 of 10

SC.No.179 of 2019

Nagarkurnool.

Pg. 1 of 9

OS.No.102 of 2015

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NAGARKURNOOL

On Thursday, this the 11th day of August, 2022

Present:- Ms. D. B. SHEETAL,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

OS No.102 of 2015

Between:-

Beereddy Gopal Reddy s/o Beereddy Ramulu @ Ramreddy, age : 46yrs,

Occ : Agriculture, r/o Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal

... Plaintiff

And

1) Kondaparti Venkataiah s/o Mashaiah, age : 75yrs, Occ : Agriculture (died) per LRs defendants No.3 to 12 herein

2) Thummala Galaiah s/o Nagaiah, age : 30yrs, Occ : Agriculture & Poultry business, r/o Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal

3) K. Yellamma w/o K. Venkataiah, age : 68yrs

4) K. Pedda Kondaiah s/o K. Venkataiah, age : 56yrs

5) K. Bala Nagaiah s/o K. Venkataiah, age : 54yrs

6) K. Manyam s/o K. Venkataiah, age : 52yrs

7) K. Mashaiah s/o K. Venkataiah, age : 50yrs

8) I. Chinna Kondaiah s/o K. Venkataiah, age : 48yrs

9) K. Krishnaiah s/o K. Venkataiah, age : 44yrs

10) C. Kondamma w/o C. Balaiah, D/o K. Venkataiah, age : 46yrs

Defendants No.3 to 10 are Occ : Agriculture, r/o Gorita village of

Thimmajipet mandal

11) Yerrolla Gouramma w/o Shekar, age : 24yrs, Occ : Agriculture, r/o

Karvena village of Bhoothpur mandal, Mahabubnagar District

12) Chitikala Manisha w/o Shashi Babu, age : 20yrs, Occ : Agriculture, r/o

Annasagar village of Bhoothpur mandal, Mahabbnagar District

(The defendants No.3 to 12 were brought on record vide orders in

IA.No.310/2017, dt.27.12.2017)

... Defendants

***

Pg. 2 of 9

OS.No.102 of 2015

This suit came up before me for hearing on 21.07.2022 for disposal in the presence of Sri. A. Parvath Reddy and Sri. S. Shyamprasad Rao,

Advocates for plaintiff and Sri. S. Sreenivasulu, Advocate for defendant

No.1 and 2 [the defendant No.1 (died)] per LRs defendants No.3 to 12 have been set exparte and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendants No.1 and 2 [defendant No.1 (died) per LRs defendants No.3 to 12], in respect of the land in Sy.No.19/AA1 extent Ac.1-20gts situated at

Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property).

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :-

The plaintiff and defendants are residents of Gorita village of

Thimmajipet mandal but there is no relationship between them. The father of plaintiff namely Beereddy Ramulu @ Ramreddyhas got ancestral property of land in Sy.No.19/AA1 extent Ac.5-38gts dry, situated at Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal and that after his death, his sons i.e, Buchi

Reddy, Gopal Reddy (plaintiff herein), Shekar Reddy and Chenna Krishna

Reddy have succeeded the said property by way of succession and accordingly the revenue authorities have mutated the land in

Sy.No.19/AA1 extent Ac.1-20gts situated at Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal i.e., suit property herein by way of succession in the name of the plaintiff as pattedar and possessor. Thus, the plaintiff became absolute owner, pattedar and exclusive possessor of the suit property by way of succession. That a 33ft wide road was formed from the middle of the land

Pg. 3 of 9

OS.No.102 of 2015

in Sy.No.19/AA1 extent Ac.5-38gts situated at Gorita village and the said road leading from Gorita village to Gummakonda village is existing between the suit property. The defendant No.2 has got land to an extent of

Ac.1-20gts after the said road, but the defendants are no way concerned with the suit property. That on 16.08.2015 when the plaintiff was preparing the suit property for sowing paddy crop, the defendants came to the suit property and tried to occupy the suit property by evicting the plaintiffs and threatened to occupy the same forcibly. That if the defendants succeed in their attempts, the plaintiff will face irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated by any means. Hence, this suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, their men, relatives and all other persons claiming through them, from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs over suit schedule property.

3.The defendant No.1 filed written statement which was adopted by defendant No.2 by filing adoption memo.

4.The defendant No.1 in his written statement denied the averments of the plaint in toto and submitted that he (defendant No.1) is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.454/34 extent Ac.1-00gts including two sheds consisting three bore wells situated within the limits of

Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal bounded by East : land of Chakali

Sayamma,West : channel of cheruvu, North : channel of cheruvu and

South : R&B road. That the plaintiff is not having any manner of right or interest over the said property of defendant No.1, but he (plaintiff) tried to interfere in the said property several times with an intention to occupy the same, upon which the defendant No.1 filed a suit vide OS.No.148/2015

before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Nagarkurnool for grant of permanent

injunction against the plaintiff herein and the same is pending till date.

Pg. 4 of 9

OS.No.102 of 2015

That the plaintiff is not having any manner of right over the said property of defendant No.1. The plaintiff filed the present suit by suppressing real facts by mentioning false boundaries with an intention to occupy the property of defendant No.1. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.After filing written statement, the defendant No.1 had been reported died. Hence his LRs were brought on record as defendants No.3 to 12 vide orders in IA.No.310/2017, dt.27.12.2017.

6. The defendants No.3 to 12 entered their appearance on receipt of summons but did not choose to filed written statement. Hence, their right to file written statement stood forfeited.

7.Basing on pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed for trial :-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

2) To what relief ?

8.During the course of trial, PW1 and PW2 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. On the other hand,

DW1 and DW2 were examined and Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the defendants.

9.Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendants and perused the record.

Issue No.1 :

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for ?

10.The plaintiff in support of his case, examined himself as PW1 who

Pg. 5 of 9

OS.No.102 of 2015

filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief examination by reiterating the contents of the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. The plaintiff also examined one B. Janardhan Reddy as PW2 who filed his chief affidavit in support of case of the plaintiff stating that he (PW2) is the Southern side boundary owner to the suit schedule property and that the plaintiff succeeded the suit property from his father by way of succession and that he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

11.It is asserted by the plaintiff that his father B. Ramulu had got ancestral property i.e., land in Sy.No.19/AA extent Ac.5-38gts situated at

Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal and that after his death in the year 2006, the said property has been succeeded by his sons i.e., B. Buchi

Reddy, B. Gopal Reddy (plaintiff herein), B. Shekar Reddy and B. Chenna

Krishna Reddy and that accordingly the suit property has been mutated in the name of plaintiff in the revenue records as pattedar and possessor by way of succession thereby making the plaintiff herein as the absolute owner and peaceful possessor of the suit property herein. The entries under Exs.A1 to A3 i.e., certified copies of pahanis for the year 2001-02, 2004-05 to 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively substantiates the contention of the plaintiff that his father B. Ramulu has been recorded as pattedar and possessor of the land in Sy.No.19/AA extent Ac.5-38gts situated at

Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal. Further, Ex.A4 i.e., pattedar pas book of the plaintiff vide patta No.921 substantiates the contention of the plaintiff that after the death of his father B. Ramulu, the suit property has been mutated in his name as pattedar and possessor by way of succession. The entries under Ex.A3 i.e., certified copy of pahani pertaining to the year 2009-10 and Ex.A5 i.e., certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-12, Ex.A6 i.e., certified copy of 1-B Namuna ROR

Pg. 6 of 9

OS.No.102 of 2015

dt.22.07.2015, Exs.A7 to A10 i.e., certified copies of pahanis for the year 1422 Fasli to 1425 Fasli (corresponding calendar year 2012 to 2015 respectively) discloses that the name of plaintiff herein is recorded as pattedar and possessor of the suit schedule property for the above mentioned period.

12.As seen from the cross examination of PW1 and PW2, nothing substantive has been elicited from them by the learned counsel for defendants to disprove their evidence or the entries in Ex.A3 to A10 with regard to the possession of plaintiff over the suit property, having succeeded the same from his father by way of succession. The evidence of PW2 who is none other than the Southern side boundary owner to the suit property also substantiates the case of the plaintiff with regard to the possession of plaintiff over the suit property. Nothing substantive either has been elicited from PW2 by the learned counsel for defendants to disprove his evidence with regard to the possession of plaintiff over the suit property.

13.It is pertinent to note here that DW1 too who is none other than the defendant No.2 herein admitted in his cross examination that the land in

Sy.No.19/AA1 extent Ac.5-38gts situated at Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal belongs to the father of plaintiffs. Further, he (DW1) categorically stated that the father of plaintiff B. Ramulu has got four sons namely B.

Buchi Reddy, B. Gopal Reddy (plaintiff herein), B. Shekar Reddy and B.

Chenna Krishna Reddy and further admitted that after the death of father of plaintiff, the land to an extent of Ac.5-38gts in Sy.No.19/AA1 situated at

Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal has been mutated in the revenue records in the name of his four sons in individual extents and that an extent of Ac.1-20gts of land out of Ac.5-38gts in Sy.No.19/AA1 i.e., suit

Pg. 7 of 9

OS.No.102 of 2015

property herein has been recorded in the name of plaintiff in the revenue records. One Telugu Srinivasulu s/o Balaiah who was examined as DW2 on behalf of the defendants also categorically admitted in his cross examination that the father of plaintiff is known as Beereddy Ramulu @

Ramreddy and that he (father of plaintiff) has got Ac.5-38gts of land in

Sy.No.19 situated at Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal and that he died leaving behind his four sons and that after the death of Beereddy Ramulu @ Ramreddy, his four sons succeeded the Ac.5-38gts of land in Sy.No.19 situated at Gorita village and that the plaintiff herein is the 2nd son of

Beereddy Ramulu @ Ramreddy. The said admitted facts by DW1 and

DW2 in their respective cross examinations supports the case of the plaintiff that he (plaintiff) succeeded the suit property from his father and has been in possession of the suit property.

14.It is pertinent to note here that it is no where suggested to PW1 or

PW2 by the learned counsel for defendants that the plaintiff is not the owner or possessor of the suit property herein. That apart, DW1 who is none other than the defendant No.2 herein categorically stated in his cross examination that he is no way concerned with the suit property herein. The only contention of the defendants is that the defendant No.1 has got land in Sy.No.454/34 extent Ac.1-00gts including two sheds and 3 bore wells situated within the limits of Gorita village of Thimmajipet mandal and that the plaintiff without having any right over the said property has been trying to interfere over the said property of defendant No.1 and that the plaintiff filed the present suit by suppressing real facts and by mentioning false boundaries. Though the defendants have taken a plea in their written statement that the plaintiff filed the present suit by mentioning wrong boundaries, but surprisingly no suggestion to that effect was made by the

Pg. 8 of 9

OS.No.102 of 2015

learned counsel for defendants to PW1 and PW2 in their cross examination nor anything worthy has been elicited from them to disprove the boundaries of the suit property. Therefore, it can be said that the said contention of defendants is vague without any basis of evidence.

15.Be that as it may, as stated supra, DW1 categorically stated in his cross examination that he is no way concerned with the suit schedule property. As regards the claim of defendants that the defendant No.1 is the owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.454 extent Ac.1-00gts situated at Gorita village, I am to state that the said land is neither the subject matter in the present suit nor it is the case of the defendants that the said land is part and parcel of the suit property herein. Therefore, Ex.B1 i.e., proceedings dt.10.09.2019 in file No.A/1597/1/2019 issued by the

Tahsildar, Thimmajipet in respect of land in Sy.No.454/34, is neither relevant to the present case in hand nor it is helpful to the defendants to disprove the case of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff with the help of valid ocular and documentary evidence has established his lawful possession over the suit property as on the date of filing of the suit and hence he is entitled to relief of permanent injunction against the defendants as prayed for.

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue No.2 :

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of plaintiff

and against the defendants [defendant No.1 (died) per LRs

defendants No.3 to 12] granting permanent injunction restraining the

defendants, their men, relatives and all other persons claiming

Pg. 9 of 9

OS.No.102 of 2015

through them, from interfering with the peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the plaintiff over suit schedule property.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 11 th day of August, 2022.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiffs:- PW1 : Beereddy Gopal Reddy

PW2 : Beereddy Janardhan Reddy

For Defendants:-

DW1 : Thummala Galaiah

DW2 : Telugu Srinviasulu

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:- Ex.A1 : certified copy of pahani for the year 2001-02

Ex.A2 : certified copy of pahani for the year 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07

Ex.A3 : certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08 and 2009-10

Ex.A4 : pattedar pass book of plaintiff vide patta No.921

Ex.A5 : certified copy of pahani for the year 2011-12

Ex.A6 : certified copy of 1-B Namuna ROR, dt.22.07.2015

Ex.A7 : certified copy of pahani for the year 1422 Fasli

Ex.A8 : certified copy of pahani for the year 1423 Fasli

Ex.A9 : certified copy of pahani for the year 1424 Fasli

Ex.A10 : certified copy of pahani for the year 1425 Fasli

Ex.A11 : slab pass book for electricity charges vide SC.No.217

For Defendants:-

Ex.B1 : proceedings, dt.10.09.2019 in file No.A/1597/1/2019

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

OS.No.31 of 20131 of 9 Dt.04.07.2019

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE :: AT

NAGARKURNOOL

On Thursday, this the 4th day of July, 2019

Present:- Ms. D. B. SHEETAL,

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

OS.No.31 of 2013

Between:- Bettela Chinnaiah s/o Bettela Pentaiah, age : 50yrs, Occ : Agriculture, r/o Koratikal village of Uppununthala mandal

... Plaintiff

And

1. Bettela Bakkaiah s/o Bettela Pentaiah, age : 55yrs

2. Bettela Mallaiah s/o Bettela Bakkaiah, age : 35yrs

3. Bettela Srisailam s/o Bettela Bakkaiah, age : 31yrs

All Occ : Agriculture, r/o Koratikal village of Uppununthala mandal

... Defendants

-0o0-

This suit came up before me for hearing on 13.06.2019 for disposal in the presence of Sri. S. Shyamprasad Rao, Advocate for the

Plaintiff and Sri. S. Sreenivasulu, Advocate for defendants and the matter having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following :-

JUDGMENT

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendants No.1 to 3 for partition and separate possession and allotment of half share in the agricultural land in Sy.No.111/EE extent Ac.9-05gts dry land situated at

Koratikal village of Uppununthala mandal (hereinafter referred to as the suit schedule property).

OS.No.31 of 20132 of 9 Dt.04.07.2019

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that :

The plaintiff is the younger brother of defendant No.1 and they are sons of Bettela Pentaiah. The defendant No.2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No.1 and the plaintiff and defendants are natives of

Koratikal village of Uppununthala mandal. That originally the land in

Sy.No.111 extent Ac.19-05gts of Koratikal village of Uppununthala mandal belongs to one Gopireddy Kurma Reddy. The father of plaintiff

Bettela Pentaiah purchased land in Sy.No.111 extent Ac.9-05gts from its original owner Gopireddy Kurma Reddy and the same is recorded in revenue records in the name of Bettela Pentaiah by making sub division as Sy.No.111/EE extent Ac.9-05gts i.e., suit property herein.

The father of plaintiff and defendant have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property as joint family members, though the patta stands in the name of father of plaintiff. The father of plaintiff died about 6 ½ years ago leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant herein as his legal heirs to the property. The plaintiff is entitled to get his share in the partition of the suit schedule property. As such after the death of Bettela Pentaiah, the plaintiff several times and finally on 10.02.2013 demanded defendant No.1 for partition of the suit schedule property into two shares between the plaintiff and defendant

No.1 by metes and bounds as the suit property is ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants. But the defendant No.1 refused for the same in order to knock away the entire share of the plaintiff and the defendants are trying to create false and fabricated documents with the help of revenue officials in order to alienate the suit property to avoid the share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule property. Hence, this suit.

OS.No.31 of 20133 of 9 Dt.04.07.2019

3.The defendants filed common written statement admitting that the plaintiff is younger brother of defendant No.1 and the defendant

No.2 and 3 are sons of defendant No.1. They also admitted that the father of plaintiff namely Bettela Pentaiah had purchased the land bearing Sy.No.111 extent Ac.9-05gts situated within the limits of

Koratikal village of Uppununthala mandal from its original owner i.e., suit property herein and that after the purchase of the same, he got implemented the said land in his name in revenue records by making sub divisions as 111/EE in the revenue records. The defendants denied the remaining averments of the plaint in toto and submitted that the defendant no.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing

Sy.No.111/EE1 to an extent of Ac.4-02gts dry land situated within the limits of Koratikal village of Uppununthala mandal. That the defendant

No.3 is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing

Sy.No.111/EE2 extent Ac.04-02gts dry land situated within the limits of

Koratikal village of Uppununthala mandal. The defendant No.2 and 3 got the above mentioned lands from defendant No.1 and got implemented their names in revenue records vide proceeding dated 30.03.2011 issued by the Tahsildar, Uppununthala mandal. That the plaintiff is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.111/EE3 extent of Ac.01- 01gts only but he filed the present suit in respect of suit schedule property claiming half share in the suit property by suppressing the proceedings issued by the Tahsildar. That the defendants obtained title deeds and pattedar pass books in their favour in respect of their extent of land and they are in peaceful possession of the same till date. The plaintiff is not at all in joint possession of the suit schedule property

OS.No.31 of 20134 of 9 Dt.04.07.2019

along with defendants at any point of time and he is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property or any relief from this court in respect of suit schedule property. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by my learned predecessor for trial.

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to preliminary decree for partition declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property ?

2) To what relief ?

5.During the course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On the other hand, the defendants examined DW1 to DW3 on their behalf and got marked Exs.B1 to B3.

6.Heard learned counsel for plaintiff and learned counsel for defendants and perused the record.

7. Issue No.1 :

The plaintiff in support of his claim of half share in the suit schedule property by way of partition, examined himself as PW1 and filed chief affidavit in lieu of is chief examination by reiterating the contents of the plaint and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Ex.A1 is old Rytu pass book, Ex.A2 is the pattedar pass book, Ex.A4 to A7, A10 to A13 are the certified copies of pahanis and Ex.A8, A9 are certified copies of old and new ROR respectively. The entries under Ex.A1,A2,A4 to A13 would go to show that the name of Bettela Pentaiah who is the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 herein is recorded as pattedar and possessor of suit property herein, in the revenue records. Ex.A3 is the

OS.No.31 of 20135 of 9 Dt.04.07.2019

certified copy khasra pahani for the year 1954-55 wherein the name of one Gopireddy Kurma Reddy from whom the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 is said to have purchased the suit land herein is recorded as pattedar of land in Sy.No.111 i.e, the suit survey number.

On a perusal of the pleadings and evidence on record, the fact that the plaintiff is the younger brother of defendant No.1 and they are sons of

Bettela Pentaiah and that the defendant No.2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No.1 is not disputed. It is also admitted by the defendants herein that the father of plaintiff and defendant No.1 by name Bettela

Pentaiah purchased the suit property from Gopireddy Kurma Reddy and that it is the self acquired property of the said Bettela Pentaiah.

The fact the said Bettela Pentaiah died about 6 ½ years ago prior to filing of the present suit leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as his legal heirs, is also not disputed. Therefore, according to Sec.8 of

Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 being Class-I legal heirs of the deceased Bettela Pentaiah who died intestate, are entitled to a share in the suit schedule property. But it is contended by the defendant that the defendant No.2 is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing Sy.No.111/EE1 extent Ac.4-02 gts and defendant No.3 is the absolute owner and possessor of land bearing

Sy.No.111/EE2 extent Ac.4-02 gts dry land, both situated within the limits of Koratikal village of Uppununthala mandal and that the same is implemented in their name in revenue records vide proceedings dt.30.03.2011 of Tahsildar, Uppununthala mandal. It is further contended by the defendant that the plaintiff is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.111/EE3 extent Ac.1-01 gts only and that he is not

OS.No.31 of 20136 of 9 Dt.04.07.2019

entitled to half share in the suit property and that the present suit by the plaintiff claiming half share in the suit property is not maintainable and hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

The defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and also examined DW2 and DW3 as supporting witnesses to substantiate his contention that the plaintiff is not entitled to half share in the suit property and also got marked Exs.B1 to B3. Ex.B1 is the original proceeding No.E/57 of 2011, dt.30.03.2011 issued by Tahsildar,

Uppununthala mandal which discloses that the land measuring Ac.4-02 gts in Sy.No.111/EE1 is mutated in the name of defendant no.2 herein, land measuring Ac.4-02gts in Sy.No.111/EE2 is mutated in the name of defendant No.3 herein and land measuring Ac.1-01gts in

Sy.No.111/EE3 is mutated in the name of plaintiff herein in revenue records by way of Virasat. Ex.B2 is the certified copy of ROR, Ex.B3 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1423 Fasli respectively, the entries under which would show that the names of defendant No.2 and 3 herein are recorded as pattedars and possessors of Ac.4-02 gts each in Sy.No.111/EE1 and Sy.No.111/EE2 situated at Koratikal village of

Uppununthala mandal respectively in the revenue records. The fact that the names of defendant No.2 and 3 herein is recorded as pattedar and possessor of Ac.04-02 gts each in Sy.No.111/EE1 and 111/EE2 respectively is admitted by PW1 in his cross examination. Though the entries in Ex.B1 to B3 is admitted by the plaintiff herein, but it is not explained as to on what basis the proceedings under Ex.B1 were issued by the Tahsildar, Uppununthala mandal thereby mutating the land in the names of defendant No.2, 3 and plaintiff herein revenue

OS.No.31 of 20137 of 9 Dt.04.07.2019

records. There is no whisper in the written statement of defendants as to in what manner the defendant No.2 and 3 acquired the said Ac.4-02 gts each of land in Sy.No.111/EE1 and Sy.No.111/EE2 respectively as entered in Exs.B1 to B3. DW1 who is none other than the defendant

No.1 herein categorically stated in his cross examination that his father executed a document in his favour transferring the suit schedule property on his name and that as the plaintiff went in adoption, they gave Ac.1-01gts of land in Sy.No.111 to his share and a document to that effect was executed and the same is with the plaintiff. He further went on to say that he has not executed any document in favour of his sons i.e, D2 and D3 by giving Ac.4-02gts each in Sy.No.111. On the contrary, it is suggested by the learned counsel for defendants to PW1 in his cross examination that the land measuring Ac.8-04 gts fell to the share of defendant No.1 in partition and later the said land was mutated in the name of defendant No.2 and 3 equally. Surprisingly the factum of partition as suggested by the learned counsel for defendants to PW1 in his cross examination is not pleaded in the written statement. So also, the factum of plaintiff allegedly being given in adoption and the father of defendant No.1 allegedly executing a document in favour of defendant No.1 transferring the suit property to his name (D1’s name) is also not pleaded in the written statement and the same was whispered for the first time by DW1 in his cross examination. Be that as it may, even if the evidence of DW1 is taken into consideration, then the document allegedly executed by his father thereby transferring the suit property in his name, is not forthcoming from the defendants to show that the defendant No.1 became the

OS.No.31 of 20138 of 9 Dt.04.07.2019

owner of entire suit schedule property thereby enabling him to transfer the said property equally in the name of defendant No.2 and 3.

Therefore, the proceedings (Ex.B1) issued by the Tahsildar,

Uppununthala mandal thereby mutating the land measuring Ac.4-02 gts, Ac.4-02 gts, Ac.01-01 gts in Sy.No.111/EE1, Sy.No.111/EE2,

Sy.No.111/EE3 respectively in the names of defendant No.2, defendant

No.3 and plaintiff herein respectively without any basis of document of transfer as contemplated under The Transfer of Property Act, 1882 is invalid and thus the defendants No.2 and 3 cannot claim the ownership of land measuring Ac.4-02 gts each in Sy.No.111/EE2, Sy.No.111/EE3 respectively on the basis of Ex.B1, nor the said proceedings would preclude the plaintiff from claiming his share in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiff and so also the defendant No.1 being

Class-I legal heirs of Bettela Pentaiah are entitled to equal share in the suit schedule property. The defendant No.2 and 3 who are the sons of defendant No.1 do not constitute Class-I legal heirs as per the schedule under Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and hence they are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property.

Therefore the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit schedule property by way of partition as prayed for.

Issue No.1 is answered accordingly in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.

Issue No.2 :

In the result, the suit is preliminarily decreed for partition

and separate possession of suit schedule property and

accordingly the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit

OS.No.31 of 20139 of 9 Dt.04.07.2019

schedule property. The defendant No.1 is also entitled to half

share in the suit schedule property. The parties shall bear their

own costs.

Dictated to Personal Assistant, transcribed by him, corrected and

pronounced by me in open court, on this the 4 th day of July, 2019.

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For Plaintiff:-

PW1 : Bettela Chinnaiah For Defendants:-

DW1 : Bettela Bakkaiah DW2 : Konki Lalaiah DW3 : Neelam Venkataiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1 : old Rythu pass book

Ex.A2 : original pattadar pass book

Ex.A3 : CC of khasra pahani for the year 1954-55

Ex.A4 : CC of pahani for the year 1973-74, 1980-81

Ex.A5 : CC of pahani for the year 1984-85

Ex.A6 : CC of pahani for the year 1991-92

Ex.A7 : CC of pahanis for the years 1995-96, 2000-01, 2005-06

Ex.A8 : CC of old ROR

Ex.A9 : CC of new ROR

Ex.A10 : CC of pahani for the year 2010-11, 2011-12

Ex.A11 : CC of computerized ROR

Ex.A12 : CC of computerized pahani for the year 2011-12 (Fasli 1421)

Ex.A13 : CC of computerized pahani for the year 2012-13 (Fasli 1422)

For Defendants:-

Ex.B1 : original proceeding No.E/57 of 2011dt.30.03.2011 issued by

Tahsildar, Uppununthala mandal

Ex.B2 : CC of ROR (2) dt.03.08.2013

Ex.B3 : CC of pahanis for the Fasli year 1423 (2)

Senior Civil Judge,

Nagarkurnool.