Smt.D Indira

1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt.D.Indira B.Com., LLM., Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Spl. Mobile Court cum: XI M.M. Cyberabad

Dated 29th day of April, 2017

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASE NO. 31 OF 2015

Between: V. Sujatha, W/o. V. Gopalakrishna, aged 27 years, Occ: house wife, presently R/o. P.No.53, Tapovan Colony, Ranga Reddy District. ….Petitioner

And

1.V. Gopala Krishna, S/o.Basavapunnaiah, Aged about 32 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee, R/o. P.No. 506, Shobana Towers, Vivekananda Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

2.V. Ammanamma, W/o.Basavapunnaiah Aged about 55 years, Occ: House wife

3. Basavapunnaiah, S/o.not known Aged about 58 years

R2 and R3 are R/o. Patamatalankapally Village, Pamidimukkala, Krishna District.

….Respondents No. 1 to 3

This case came before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri B. Sunitha Counsel for the Petitioner and of Sri Saibaba Pampana, counsel for the Respondents, after hearing and considering all the material on record this Court delivered the following:- . 2

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 12 of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') with a prayer to grant (I) An order of protection under section 18 of the Act to protect the complainant from the respondents restraining them from causing harm to the complainant .

(ii) An order of granting maintenance to a sum of Rs.25,000/- under section 20(1)(d) of the Act against respondent No.1 for the maintenance of the complainant.

(iii) An order granting compensation and damages of Rs.15,00,000/- under section 22 of the Act for physically and mental torture and violence caused towards complainant by the respondents

(iv) For refund of Cash of Rs.20 lakhs, gold ornaments etc.

(v) An order of interim relief granting of Rs.20,000/- p.m under section 23 of the Act

(vi) costs of the petition and to pass such other order or orders as the Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

2. Undisputed facts are: Respondents No.2 and 3 are the parents of respondent No.1. The marriage of the

Aggrieved person with respondent No.1 was performed on 5.8.2009 in M.S.Function hall, Mallapur, near Nacharam,

Hyderabad as per the Hindu rites and customs. The Aggrieved person is staying away from respondent No.1.

3.The case of the Aggrieved person as averred in the complaint, in brief, is as follows:

(i) At the time of marriage, on the demand of the respondents, the parents of Aggrieved person paid an amount of Rs.20,00,000/- and gave 20 tulas of gold and performed the marriage lavishly as per their demand. But the 3 respondents did not satisfy with that amount and gold and started harassing her stating that the gold and cash given by her parents was very low and if they would hve married another girl they would have got more dowry and always used to harass her stating that her parents did not perform the marriage lavishly and did not show any respect towards them at the time of the marriage.

(ii) Respondent No.l marriage was performed five years after the marriage of his younger brother and after the marriage she came to know that respondent No 1 is not at all fit for conjugal life, he had not shown any interest in leading sexual life and on the first night itself he said that he is not all interested in the marriage and he had agreed for the marriage only on the force of his parents. She informed the same to her parents who inturn informed the same to the mediator Sri Jayaprakash and when everybody questioned him he started harassing her mentally and physically in order to mask his impotency. He used to insist her to go to her parents home and stay there with them, used to come to home late hours and beat her for silly reason and one day he necked her from out of his house. After a week again he asked her to come back and promised that he would behave properly and shall not beat her, but he did not change his attitude.

(iii) In the month of April 2010, he kicked her on her stomach due to which she was profusely bleeding from her . 4 mouth, on coming to know the same her parents took her to the hospital were she was treated for few days and after the discharge went to her parental home. The same was informed to R2 and R3 and a panchayath was convened at her parental home and respondent No.1 promised that he shall not harass her and believing the same she joined with him. In the month of September, 2010 , respondent No.1 picked up quarrels with her, abused her and beat her seriously. On two occasions in the month of February 2011 and may 2011 he tried to push her from their fifth floor balcony, but she could somehow managed to escape.

(iv) In the month of August/September, 2011,

Respondent No.1 beat her due to which she received fracture to her hand. In the month of May 2012, Respondent No.1 bashed her against the wall near stair case causing injuries to her head and continued harassing her to bring additional dowry. The mediators tried to convince respondent No.1 and later opined that he is a sadist and will never change. Under these circumstances, she and her parents apprehended danger to her life in the hands of respondent No.1 and as such she along with her parents went to her parents house and lodged a report before the Police and after mediation respondent No.1 executed an undertaking and then they filed

Mutual Divorce petition vide OP No.751 of 2013 on the file of the Hon'ble Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District. But the respondent No.1 dragged 13 months time, did not attend the Court and finally the case was dismissed for non appearance of respondent no.1.

5

(v)After dismissal of the OP, respondent No.1 requested her to join him and promised that he shall not harass any more and after the intervention of the elders she joined respondent,but there was no change in the behaviour of respondent No.1. He locked the room from out side by keeping her inside the house and did not provide proper food and when the same was informed to his parents, they used to support their son. One day when all the respondents were beating her, she dialed 100 and then the Police came and arrested all the respondents. In the Police station, in the presence of mediators and Police a Memorandum of

Understanding was executed and all the parties agreed to settle the matter within one month, but respondent No.1 had not come forward to settle the dispute. Again he requested to join with him promising that he shall look after properly and then she joined with him. But one day while she was sleeping, respondent No.1 pulled her out from the bed, pinned down her and attempted to kill her. Being afraid of this and apprehending danger from the respondents, she came back to her parents house and lodged a report before the

Police, Medipally.

(vi) Respondent No.1 neglected to maintain her, she is not able to meet the expenditure, she depended on her brother and father , recently her father died and thereafter she shifted to rented premises plot No.53, Tapovan colony,

Dilsukhnagr and residing there, she is paying rent of

Rs.5,000/- p.m and requires Rs.20,000/- per month for her . 6 food, medicines and clothes apart from the rent and prayed to grant the reliefs as claimed.

4.Respondent No.1 filed a counter-affidavit. Respondents 2 and 3 remained exparte. The case of respondent No.1 is as follows:

(i) The aggrieved person filed this case by misusing the process of law as she had already filed a Mutual divorce petition under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

before the Hon'ble Family Court, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar in

OP No.751/2013 in which she had withdrawn her consent for

mutual divorce on the date of divorce which resulted dismissal of the petition.

(ii) The parents of the aggrieved person had not informed about her psychiatric disorder to him and by suppressing that issue got married him. But he had understood her problem and taken her for treatment. He is perfectly alright and only to defame this respondent, she is creating false story and spreading false propaganda. The

Aggrieved person having psychiatric problems used to sit idle in the house without doing any household works and this respondent never used to harass knowing her medical condition. He had taken her to different doctors like Dr.Gowri

Devi and Dr.Chandra Shekar of Aasha Hospital for treatment and she always on medication for her psychiatric problems.

(iii) In the month of September, 2011 before 10.9.2011 she had left the matrimonial home taking gold items worth 7

Rs.10 lakhs, Sarees and other household articles without informing to respondent No.1. There was no proper mediation by Jaya Prakash though he is his relative, but not acted in proper way by applying his mind and left his family in dark on many issues.

(iv) He had always in danger to the mental illness of the aggrieved person but shown pity on her condition and always adjusted though there was no marital relations between both due to the her attitude towards marital relationship. She always under the influence of her mother and brother and acted according to their will. She used to leave the matrimonial home without informing to this respondent and he came to know the same after his returning to the home only. She lodged a false report before the Police, the police refused to register case and thereafter they both filed mutual divorce case on condition of payment of Rs.10 lakhs which was duly paid by him. But on the date of divorce the complainant had reversed back on her promise to give divorce and demanded another Rs.10 lakhs and while he refused the same she got the divorce petition dismissed.

(v) They never lived together after the dismissal of the divorce case and she created story of his request to join with him and they both stayed together. The aggrieved person and her brother conspired together to kidnap him and with great difficulty he could escape from the clutches of Venkat Reddy and in this regard he lodged a report before the Police. The . 8 complainant and her brother came to the house of this respondent and even stolen gold and silver ornaments and with the intervention of the other flat owners and police he was protected but lost the valuable items.

(vi) Respondents 2 and 3 never stayed with them. But when he refused to pay additional amount of Rs.10 lakhs she got registered a police case by creating a story only to cover her psychiatric problems and to show him in shabbily. They lastly resided together till 16.9.2011, there was no reunion till the date of filing counter and as such the application under

Section 12 of the Act is liable to be dismissed on this ground.

She completed her MCA but never used to work and that he is unemployed and cannot pay any maintenance to her and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.

5.On the basis of the above rival pleadings, the following points would arise for consideration.

1.Whether there was domestic relationship in between the Aggrieved person and Respondents 1 to 3 or not?

2.Whether the Aggrieved person established that she was subjected to domestic violence or not ?

3.Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled to claim maintenance from respondent No.1 as claimed or not ?

4.Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled for a direction to the respondents to refund the cash of Rs.20 lakhs, gold ornaments, etc. or not?

9 5.Whether the Aggrieved person is entitled to claim compensation of Rs.15 lakhs under section 22 of the Act or not?

6.To what relief?

6.On behalf of the Aggrieved person, she herself is examined as PW1 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. Ex.P1 is the application under section 12 of the Act filed by the aggrieved person. Ex.P2 is the wedding photograph along with correspondent C.D. Ex.P3 is the Electricity bill. The respondent is not disputing the marriage and also the present residence of the aggrieved person. Ex.P4 is the domestic incident report which was recorded by the Project officer.

Ex.P5 is the certified copy of the order in Mutual Divorce petition vide OP No.751/2013. Ex.P6 is the death certificate of her father. Ex.P7 is the copy of resume of respondent. Ex.P8 is the copy of mutual consent petition. Exs.P7 and P8 are marked through the cross examination of RW1. The respondent No1 got examined himself as RW1. Exs.R1 to R3 are marked through the cross examination of PW1. Ex.R1 is the Copy of prescription issued by Dr.M.Gowri Devi on the name of Aggrieved person. Ex.R2 is copy of report lodged by the aggrieved person before the Medipally police station.

Ex.R3 is the copy of the report lodged before the Women

Police Station, Saroornagar. Exs.R1 to R3 are marked through the cross examination of PW1.

7.Heard the learned counsel for the aggrieved person.

She submitted that on the demand of the respondents, the . 10 parents of the aggrieved person presented dowry of Rs.20 lakhs, 20 tulas of gold ornaments and spent Rs.6 lakhs for the marriage expenses as demanded by the respondents that the marriage should be performed in a grand manner, but they did not satisfy with the same and started harassing the aggrieved person stating that the if respondent No.1 would have married, they would have get more dowry. She further submitted that respondent No.1 is not fit for the marriage, the marriage is not consummated, when the aggrieved person questioned the same he said that he married her on the force of his parents and used to harass her physically and mentally to mask her impotency. She further submitted that after lodging report before the Police, respondent No.1 came forward, agreed to pay Rs.27 lakhs for mutual divorce, agreed to pay Rs.10 lakhs on the date of filing the divorce petition and the balance amount of Rs.17 lakhs will be paid on the date of divorce, he paid Rs.10 lakhs but later did not appear before the Court due to which the Mutual Divorce petition was dismissed. She finally submitted that after dismissal of the said petition, respondent No.1 asked the aggrieved person to come back, accordingly she joined with him and then respondent No.1 taken back the said amount of

Rs.10 lakhs and prayed to direct the respondent to return the said amount which is the amount of dowry as agreed tobe paid by respondent No.1 for filing Mutual divorce petitin.

Respondent No.1 filed written arguments and perused the same.

11

8.Point No.1:

(i)In the written arguments filed by the counsel for respondent No.1, it is submitted that the aggrieved never stayed with him after filing or dismissal of the Mutual divorce petition and she was never subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent and that the applicant is not an aggrieved person as defined under section 2(a) of the

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act.

(ii) To decide the point whether or not the complaint is maintainable against respondents No..1 to 3, it is to be seen first whether there is 'domestic relationship', as defined in

Section 2(f) of the Act, between the Aggrieved person and respondents No.1 to 3, As per Section 2(f) of the Act “domestic relationship” means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. As noticed above, there is no dispute about the inter se relationship between the Aggrieved person and respondent No.1, section 2(f) says 'lived together' and that there is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

(iii)From the reading of Section 2(f) of the Act, it is obvious that to constitute ‘domestic relationship’ two persons i.e., the aggrieved person and the respondent Nos.2 and 3, must have . 12 been living or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household as joint family members. There is no dispute about the proposition that a relative of the husband of an aggrieved wife can be shown as a respondent in an application filed for any of the reliefs under the Act. But, mere relationship of respondents No.2 and 3 with respondent No.1 is not sufficient to rope them as respondents in this case, unless there is ‘domestic relationship’ between respondents

No.2 and 3 and the aggrieved person as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act, which is noticed above, and during such relationship respondents No.2 and 3 must have committed an act of domestic violence, as defined in Section 3 of the Act, against the the aggrieved person.

(iv)It is contended by the learned counsel for the aggrieved person that respondents No.2 and 3 have also harassed the aggrieved person supporting the acts of respondent No.1 saying that as to why he allowed her inside their house and advised him to neck away her from their house and one day when all the respondents were beating her, she dialed 100 and the police came and arrested the respondents. Except her evidence, no other person was examined on her behalf to prove this type of serious allegations against respondents 2 and 3. Even in the application, the aggrieved person did not mention the date of the alleged incident of harassment by R2 and R3. There is no averment in the complaint that the Aggrieved person and respondents No.2 and 3 have been living together or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household as 13 joint family members and thus it can be said that there is no 'domestic relationship' between respondents No.2 and 3 and the aggrieved person and, therefore, the question of respondents No.2 and 3 committing any act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person does not arise.

(v)For the reasons recorded supra, respondents No.2 and 3 are not necessary and proper parties to this complaint and, therefore, this case is not maintainable against them. This point is, therefore, answered accordingly.

9. Point No.2

(i) The case of the aggrieved person is that her parents presented Rs.20 lakhs and 20 tulas of gold and performed her marriage in a grand manner by spending Rs.6 lakhs on the demand of the respondents, respondent No.1 did not satisfy with the same and started harassing her saying that the same were low and if they would have married another girl they would have got more dowry and used to harass her parents did not perform the marriage lavishly. According to the application, her parents presented cash dowry of Rs.20 lakhs and 20 tulas of gold and performed the marriage by spending Rs.6 lakhs. But during the course of cross examination she admitted that in her report before the Police she mentioned the presented dowry as Rs.10 lakhs, thirty tulas of gold and marriage was performed by spending three lakhs. No Sthridhana list that was prepared prior to or at the time or after the marriage is filed in proof of her case.

. 14

(ii)It is the case of the aggrieved person that respondent

No.1 had not shown any interest in leading sexual life and on the first night itself he said to her that he is not at all interested in the marriage and he accepted the marriage only on the force of his parents. On the other hand, the case of respondent No.1 is that he is perfectly alright that she was suffering from psychiatric disorder and only in order to coverup her problem she is making allegations him. At paragraph No.9 of page No.5 of the counter, respondent No.1 also stated that there was no marital relations between both of them, but stated that the same was due to her indifferent attitude towards the marital relationship. During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel for the aggrieved person has submitted that the respondent is an impotent and only to coverup the same respondent No.1 always used to harass her on silly issues. Both the parties have made allegations against each other in this regard which they know themselves. The aggrieved person during the cross examination admitted that in her two reports before the Police, she did not mention that

Respondent No.1 is impotent. Except their evidence, none of the parties have placed any medical record. Hence, it is required to consider the other evidence of the parties to come to conclusion as to whether respondent No.1 committed an act of domestic violence against the aggrieved person.

(iii)It is her further case that respondent No.1 harassed her physically in the month of April, 2010 due to which she was profusely bleeding from her mouth and she was admitted and treated in a hospital for few days and in the panchayat 15 convened by her parents, respondent No.1 promised that he shall not harass her and then she joined with him. It is her case that in the month of September 2010 respondent No.1 beat her seriously and on two occasions in the month of

February 2011 and May 2011, the respondents tried to push her from the balcony. It is her further case that in

August/September 2011 respondent no.1 beat her due to which she received fracture to her hand. It is her further case that in May 2012, respondent bashed her head against the wall near the stair case causing injuries to her head. But no medical record is filed and no other witness is examined even to say about the injuries sustained by her in the hands of respondent No.1 due to which her hand was fractured.

(iv) During the cross examination dated 3.11.2016, it is admitted by RW1 during his cross examination that in the year 2014, the Aggrieved person had approached the police,

Kukatpally, police called him and there was counseling in the police station. He denied the suggestion put to him that in the police station he undertook not to harass the aggrieved person and said that the said mediation was only for settlement. He further admitted that during their stay together at Kukatpally, 100 police came to them, but said that police came for enquiry with the neighbours and left.

Again during the cross examination on 17.11.2016, the learned counsel for the aggrieved person suggested to RW1 that during the course of their stay together at Kukatpally, himself and his mother harassed her and then she called 100 . 16 police, for which he denied the same and added that on that day she came to their house along with her brother and attacked on him and then his neighbours called 100 police.

(v)It is her case that in the police station in the presence of the elders, and SI of police a Memorandum of

Understanding was executed and both the parties signed agreeing to settle the matter in one month and thereafter a

Mutual Divorce petition was filed by them. In the counter, it is stated by respondent No.1 that they both filed mutual divorce case on condition of payment of Rs.10 lakhs which was duly paid by him, but on the date of divorce the complainant had reversed back on her promise to give divorce and demanded another Rs.10 lakhs and while he refused the same she got the divorce petition dismissed. The order of the Hon'ble

Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy district under Ex.P5

clearly shows that respondent herein who is petitioner No.1 represented that by undue force he was made to sign on the mutual divorce petition and the aggrieved person who is petitioner No.2 also said that she is withdrawing her consent for mutual divorce. During the cross examination dt.17.11.2016, he admitted that his father drawn two demand drafts for nine lakhs and eight lakhs and handed over the same to him to give those demand drafts too the aggrieved person towards the balance amounts agreed to be payable by him, but he returned the same to his father and said that as the aggrieved person and her family members came to him along with unsocial elements and beat him and that is why he returned the said demand drafts to his father.

17

He denied the suggestion that no one forced him to sign on the mutual divorce petition and that only to evade payment of balance amount of Rs.17 lakhs he is deposing false that he was forced to sign on the petition. The same was the understanding between the parties only and that the same cannot said to be relied on in deciding the point whether the aggrieved person was subjected domestic violence by the respondents or not. But the same strengthens the case of the Aggrieved person that only because of the behaviour of the respondent only, their relation was strained and when she placed the matter before the police, the police summoned him and subsequently they both came to an understanding.

(vi)In her complaint, she stated that during her stay at in- laws house, respondent No.1 daily used to come to home in late hours in a drunken state and beat her for no reason. But during her cross examination she admitted that respondent

No.1 is not in the habit of consuming liquor or alcohol.

(vii)During the course of argument, the learned counsel for the aggrieved person has submitted that after dismissal of the divorce petition, respondent No.1 requested her to join promising that he shall not harass her, then she returned the above amount to him, but he did not change his attitude. It is also the evidence of the aggrieved person that again respondent No.1 started harassing her physically and then she had approached the Police, the police apprehended all the respondents and then the respondents agreed to settle the . 18 matter within one month, but respondent No.1 with an intention to spoil her life had not cooperated with her. When she was staying with her parents, respondent No.1 again asked her to come back and promised that he shall take care of her, believing his words she joined him, but one day while she was sleeping respondent no.1 pulled her out from the be, pinned down her and attempted to kill her and being afraid of this she returned to her parental home.

(viii) It is the simple case of respondent No.1 that she had psychiatric disorder, having psychiatric problems used to sit idle in the house without doing any household works, he had taken her to different doctors like Dr.Gowri Devi and

Dr.Chandra Shekar of Aasha Hospital for treatment and she left the matrimonial home taking gold items worth Rs.10 lakhs, Sarees and other household articles without informing to respondent No.1. The aggrieved person has admitted that once she was taken to Dr.Gowri Devi, Psychiatrist on 18.8.2009, but added that she consulted the said Doctor soon after the marriage due to inconvenience feelings of first night.

Suggestions were put to her that from 18.8.2009 till 16.9.2011 she was on medication and to overcome her weakness in the matrimonial life she filed this case with false allegations, for which she denied the same.

(ix)Except filing Ex.R1 prescription, no other medical evidence either oral or documentary is placed before the

Court by the respondent in support of his case. Hence, this case of respondent No.1 is not believable as no other oral or 19 documentary evidence is placed before the Court. It is also the case of the aggrieved personthat respondent No.1 used to insist her to go to her parents house and stay there with them, used to sent her from out of the matrimonial home and again ask her to come back undertaking that he shall not harass her.

(x)The fact remains that the aggrieved person is not staying with respondent No.1 and respondent No.1 did not take any steps to get back her. The cause shown by the respondent for their separate living is not believable. Hence, it can safely be said that only because of the behavior of the respondent, their relationships are strained. It is not the case of respondent No1 that the aggrieved person is doing job and earning anything to maintain herself. It is also not his case that she is having any other source of income for her maintenance. He is not paying any amount to her. It is, thus, clear that the aggrieved person was subjected to 'economic abuse', which tantamounts to “domestic violence” within meaning of Section 3 of the Act.

The over all facts and circumstances, establishes that the aggrieved person was subjected to mental abuse and economical abuse. Since the parties are staying separately and there are no incidents of harassments subsequent to their separate living, this court is of the view that there is need to grant protections orders. This point is answered accordingly.

. 20

10.Point No.3: In point No.2, it is held that the aggrieved person is not earning anything for her maintenance and the respondent is not paying any amount. Hence, it can be said that she is entitled to claim maintenance from respondent

No.1. Being husband it is his bounden duty to provide maintenance to her. According to the aggrieved person, he is working in a private organization and drawing a salary of

Rs.50,000/- per month and getting rents of Rs.50,000/- p.m.

and also doing finance business. The learned counsel for the aggrieved person submitted that though in his cross examination at the first instance denied about the properties, during his later course of cross examination, respondent No.1 admitted the properties owned by him. Respondent No.1 though stated that he mortgaged the properties for the loan to meet the medical expenses of his mother and other purposes, no such proof is filed before the Court.

(ii)He admitted that in the cause title, his occupation was shown as business and also admitted that at the time of marriage he was doing business. But now respondent No.1 is saying that he is not doing any job or business and not earning anything. According to the aggrieved person she is staying in a rented premises and paying rent at Rs.5,000/- and claimed Rs.30,000/- towards maintenance. However considering his earlier work, properties, the status of respondent No.1 and the requirement of the aggrieved person, this Court is of the view that granting of Rs.10,000/- p.m towards maintenance would meet the ends of justice.

21

11.Point No.4:- In the application, it is stated by the

Aggrieved person that at the time of marriage, on the demand of the respondents, her parents presented Rs.20 lakhs and 20 tula of gold ornaments. But during the course of cross examination she admitted that in her two reports before the Police, she mentioned the dowry as Rs.10 lakhs, thirty tulas of gold. Respondent No.1 in his counter, and evidence denied the giving of dowry. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the aggrieved person submitted that respondent No.1 at the time of filing Mutual divorce petition has agreed to pay Rs.27 lakhs towards the dowry of Rs.20 lakhs and the worth of the gold. But except her self-serving statement, there is no other independent evidence to show that such amount and gold were given to respondent No.1 as dowry. No sthridhana list that was prepared prior to or at the time or after the marriage is filed in support of her case.

Thus, no relief can be granted in this regard. Therefore, this point is answered accordingly against the Aggrieved person.

12.Point No.5:- The Aggrieved person is claiming compensation/damages of Rs.15 lakhs from respondent No.1.

But, this claim of the aggrieved person, in the opinion of this

Court, is very excessive and exorbitant. However, since it is held in point No.2, that she was subjected to domestic violence by respondent No.1, some amount has to be awarded to her towards compensation/damages according to the status of respondent No.1. The payments if any paid to . 22 the Aggrieved person is no way related to the present case to decide this point.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the earning capacity and the status of respondent No.1, this

Court feels it just and proper to direct respondent No.1 to pay

Rs.10,00,000/- to the aggrieved person towards the compensation/damages for the mental torture and emotional distress suffered by her on account of domestic violence caused by respondent No.1. This point is answered accordingly.

13.Point No.7:- In the result,this petition is allowed in part:

(a)directing respondent No.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the aggrieved person towards maintenance from the date of this order. He shall pay the maintenance of this month i.e.

from the date of the order and till the end of month, on or before 10.5.2017 and continue to pay the future maintenance regularly on or

before 10th of every succeeding month;

(b)directingrespondentNo.1topay

Rs.10,00,000/- to the aggrieved person towards compensation/damages within two months from the date of this order; and

(c)directing respondent No.1 to pay Rs.5,000/- to

Aggrieved person towards the costs of this petition.

This petition insofar as the other reliefs is concerned and entirely against respondents No.2 and 3 is dismissed.

23

The office is directed to supply copy of the order to the Aggrieved Person and respondents free of cost and send a copy to the Project Officer, D.W. & C.D.A., Ranga

Reddy District.

Dictated to Steno, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 29th day of

April, 2017

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PETITIONER:

PW1 Smt. V. Sujatha Petitioner

FOR RESPONDENT:

-NIL-

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PETITOINER:

Ex.P1 Application U/Sec.12 of the Act Ex.P2 Wedding Photograph along with corresponding CD Ex.P3 Electricity bill of rented premises in Tapovan colony, Dilsukhnagar. Ex.P4 Domestic incident report along with its enclosures Ex.P5 Certified copy of the order in OP No.751/2013 filed by mutual consent Ex.P6 Death certificate of her father. Ex.P7 Resume of the respondent Ex.P8 Mutual consent petition.

FOR RESPONDENT:

Ex.R1 Prescription of Image Hospital dt. 18-8-2009 Ex.R2 Copy of Report filed before the Medipally police station

dt. 21-10-2015

Ex.R3 Copy of report filed before the Women P.S. Saroornagar.

J.M.F.C., SPL. MOBILE COURT

:CUM: XI M.M. CYBERABAD.

Page 1 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

IN THE COURT OF THE PRL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

R.R. DISTRICT AT :: IBRAHIMPATAN.

Present: Smt. D. Indira, Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam.

Friday, the 28 thday of April, 2023.

Original Suit No. 40 of 2022

(Old O.S. No. 1813 of 2010)

Between:

1) Mangali @ Nachuri Jangaiah (died per L.Rs.)

2) N. Lavanya W/o. late Jangaiah, aged 36 years, Occ: Household.

3) N. Sravan Kumar S/o. late Jangaiah, aged 25 years, Occ: Student.

4) Ch. Sowjanya W/o. Pandu, aged 23, Occ: Household, R/o. Tippaiguda village, Manchal Mandal, R.R.District.

5) N. Deepika D/o. late Jangaiah, aged 21 years, Occ: Student.

6) N. Sumanjali D/o. late Jangaiah, aged 19 years, Occ: Student.

Plaintiffs No.2 to 6 are R/o. Dandumailaram village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

(Plaintiffs No.2 to 6 are added as per orders passed in I.A.No.436/2017)

... Plaintiffs

AND

1. K. Sugunamma W/o. late Mallesha, aged 48 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Devalamma Nagaram village, Chowtuppal Mandal, Nalgonda District.

2. D. Sulochana W/o. Sathyanarayana, aged 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Prathap Singaram village, Ghatkesar Mandal, R.R.District.

3. Mangali @ Nachuri Janakiram S/o. late Guttaiah, aged 38 years.

4. Mangli @Nachuri Sathaiah S/o. late Gopaiah, aged about 70 years,

5. P. Narayana S/o. late Mangaiah, aged 50 years.

6. P. Purushotham S/o. late Mangaiah, aged about 45 years.

The defendants No.3 to 6 all are Agriculturists, R/o. Nerrapally village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

7. M/s. Super Good Estates Ltd., Rep., by its Managing Director, H.No.17-85/C/106/586, IInd Floor, Annapurna Complex, Dilsukhnagar, Main Road, Hvderabad. ….Defendants ****

Page 2 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

This suit is coming before me for final hearing on 27.03.2023 in the presence of M/s. D. Ravinder Reddy, Counsel for the Plaintiff and Sri A.H.

Chakravarthy, Counsel for defendant No. 7 and Defendants 1 to 6

remained exaprte, and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

Suit is filed for partition and separate possession of the land bearing Ghut Sy. No. 94 admeasuring Ac. 6-19 gts., or its Sub Sy. No.

94/A admeasuring Ac. 3-09 gts., and Sub Sy. No. 94/AA admeasuring

Ac. 3-10 gts., situated at Nerrapally Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal,

Ranga Reddy District, which is within in the boundaries as mentioned in the schedule of property, which will herein after will be referred to as suit schedule property by dividing the same into eight equal shares and to allot separate possession of one such share to the plaintiff and 1/8th share to the defendants 1 to 3 and 4/8th share to defendant No. 4 and ii) for costs of the suit.

2. The gist of the plaint is as follows:

i)Plaintiff is the real brother of defendants 1 to 3 and they are the children of late Mangali @ Nachuri Guttaiah S/o late Gopaiah.

Defendant No.4 is the father-in-law of defendants No.5 & 6 herein.

Plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 constitute undivided joint Hindu family and they are joint owners and sharers of the suit schedule property. Originally grand father of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 and father of defendant No.4 namely Mangali @ Nachuri Gopaiah has acquired the suit land from his ancestors. The said Mangali @ Nachuri

Gopaiah died 20 years back, leaving behind his four sons namely M.

Guttaiah (The father of plaintiff & defendants No.1 to 3 herein),

N.Sathaiah (defendants No.4 herein), M.Ramulu & M.Narsimha as his legal heirs. Out of the said four sons of M.Gopaiah, the two younger sons namely M. Ramulu & M.Narsimha died issue less long back, as such, the remaining two elder sons of said M.Gopaiah namely

Page 3 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

M.Guttaiah & M.Sathaiah have succeeded the suit land held by

M.Gopaiah and since then, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit land on approximate basis without partition. In suit schedule property, M.Guttaiah got half share and M.Sathaiah got half share. The said M.Guttaiah also died about 13 years back, leaving behind plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 herein, as his legal heirs, who succeed the ½ share held by said M.Guttaiah in the suit land.

ii)The father of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 namely

M.Guttaiah, during his lifetime was the vathandar of his occupation of cast i.e., barber of Dandumailaram village. As such, the said

M.Guttaiah along with his children i.e. plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 herein was residing at Dandumailaram village. After his death his sons i.e., the plaintiff and Defendant No.3 herein continue the said vathan of Dandumailaram village. As such, the plaintiff & defendant

No.3 were also resided at Dandumailaram village for some period. As such, defendant No.4 has been cultivating the suit lands on his behalf and on behalf of father of plaintiff and plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 herein along with his son-in-laws i.e., defendants No.5 & 6 herein.

That in order to file the present suit, the plaintiff has applied for C.C.

of pahanies and came to know that the names of defendants No.5 & 6 have entered in the pahanies illegally, though they have no concerned whatsoever either with the ownership or with the possession in respect of the suit land.

iii)Suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 and they got equal shares in it and that to avoid future complications and to enjoy the suit land separately, plaintiff demanded defendants No.1 to 4 for partition of the suit schedule property, defendants No.1 to 3 at first instance even though agreed for the same, postponed the same on one or other pretext.

Page 4 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

Thus, plaintiff seeing their attitude, finally demanded the defendants

No.1 to 4 on 05-09-2010 for partition of the suit schedule property and allot one such share to the plaintiff, but defendant No.4 did not respond properly for the same and recently, plaintiff came to know that, taking advantage of nominal entries in the pahanies of the suit land is outstanding in the name of defendants No.5 & 6, defendants 5 & 6 in collusion with their father-in-law i.e. defendant No 4, are trying to alienate the suit land to defendant No.7 or to the third parties with a view to deprive the legitimate right of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. Thus, plaintiff having no other option, approached this court by way of filing the present suit for partition and separate possession.

3.Defendant No.7 filed written statement denying the entire plaint averments contended as follows:

i)One Purushotham and Narayana Sons of Late Mangaiah who are defendants 5 & 6 herein have obtained Occupancy Rights

Certificate in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.94 to an extent of Ac.3- 09 gts, and land bearing Sy.No.94 to an extent of Ac.3-10 gts., respectively along with other lands situated at Narrepally village,

Ibrahimpatan Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, vide File No.L/3625/1989

dated 23-12-1989 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Hyderabad-East Division. The granting of O.R.C., in favour of the defendants 5 & 6 are aware by the plaintiff as well as other defendants. Moreover, the said certificate was not challenged by the plaintiff as such the same became final. Defendants 5 & 6 individually got mutated their names in the Revenue records and pattedar pass books and title deeds were also issued in their favour by subdividing the land for the purpose of PHODI. Defendant No.6 along with his major son sold away the land bearing Sy.No.94/A admeasuring Ac.3-09

Page 5 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

gts., in favour of U.Shyam Prasad S/o.U.Subba Rao, through registered sale deed bearing document No.7043/ 2006 dated 19-4-2006 for valid sale consideration and also delivered the possession of the said land.

The purchaser U.Shyam Prasad S/o.Subba Rao approached the

Revenue Authorities and thereby got mutated his name in the revenue

Records vide proceedings No.B/131/2007 issued by Mandal Revenue

Officer, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District and pattedar pass books, title deeds were also issued in his favour. Subsequently the said

U.Shyam Prasad sold away the land bearing Sy.No.94/A admeasuring

Ac.03-09 gts., in favour of defendant herein through registered sale deed bearing document No.4418/2010 dated 31-7-2010 and also delivered the possession of the said land to defendant and defendant from the date of its purchase is in peaceful possession and likewise the defendant No.5 herein who became the owner of the land bearing

Sy.No.94/AA to an extent of Ac.03-10 gts., by virtue of O.R.C. issued in his favour, sold away the land to an extent of Ac.3-00 gts., out of Ac.03- 10 gts., in favour of one K.Yella Reddy S/o.K.Krishna Reddy through registered sale deed bearing document No.3355 of 2004 dated 20-05- 2004 and the remaining land of Ac.0-10 gts., was sold to one Ananth

Reddy through registered sale deed in the year 2004. Subsequently, the said K.Yella Reddy S/o.K.Krishna Reddy sold an extent of Ac.2-30 gts., out of Ac.3-00 to one Kamal Narayan Rathi S/o. Badrinarayan

Rathi and others through registered sale deed way back in the year 2005 vide Registered Sale deed bearing Doct. No.3357/2005 and remaining extent of Ac.0-10 to B.Malla Reddy S/o.Janga Reddy and the said Janga Reddy sold the same in favour of different persons.

ii)Ananth Reddy who purchased Ac.0-10 gts.. of land from defendant No.5 sold away the same in favour of Kamal Narayan Rathi and others through registered sale deed bearing document

Page 6 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

No.3337/2005 dated 18-7-2005. After purchase of the above mentioned lands, Kamal Narayan Rathi and others obtained mutation proceedings in their favour in respect of the suit lands along with other lands from Mandal Revenue Officer, Ibrahimpatan Mandal and they executed an agreement of sale-cum-G.P.A. in favour of C.Venkata

Rajam Raju and others by virtue of a document No.6857/2006 dated 12-5-2006. They in turn sold away the same in favour of S.Punneswar

Rao, T.Suresh Babu and others and thereafter this defendant purchased the same, therefore, this defendant herein is bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property. This defendant is the real estate business man deals with purchase of agricultural land and converting the same into residential plots by obtaining necessary permissions and thereby selling the same to the prospective purchasers. Therefore, this defendant is the owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same from its original pattedars and possessors after verifying all the documents and necessary revenue records, but the plaintiff in collusion with other defendants to deprive his legitimate right got filed this suit and prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Basing on the rival pleadings, the following issues are framed for trial:

1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for 1/8th share in the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for preliminary decree for partition of the suit schedule property as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

The following additional issue is framed on 03.03.2023:

Whether defendant No. 7 is bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property?

5.Heard both the counsel.

Page 7 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

6.To substantiate their case, plaintiff No. 1 himself examined as

PW1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A12. Plaintiff No. 2 is examined as

PW2 and also examined three independent witnesses as PWs3 to 5 respectively. Exs.A1 to 8 are the certified copies of pahanies for the year 1972-73, 1999-80, 1985-86, 1989-90, 1990-91, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, Ex.A9 is the Encumbrance Certificate, Ex.A10 is the Market

Value Certificate, Ex.A11 is the Inam Appeal No. F1/5205/2012 and

Ex.A12 is the Notice of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in

Case No. F1/5205/2012, dated 09-04-2013.

On behalf of defendant No.7, its managing director examined as

DW1 and got marked Exs. B1 to B9. Exs.B1 to B4 and B6 to B9 are the

Certified copies of Sale deeds bearing document No. 7043 of 2006,

dated 19-05-2006, 4418 of 2010, dated 31-07-2010, 3355 of 2004,

dated 20-05-2004, 3357 of 2005, dated 20-07-2005, 10306 of 2006,

dated 10-08-2006, 10308 of 2006, dated 10-08-2006, 10307 of 2006,

dated 10-08-2006 and 3337 of 2005, dated 18-07-2005 and Ex.B5 is

the Certified copy of Agreement of Sale Cum General Power of

Attorney bearing document No. 6857 of 2006, dated 12-05-2006.

7.ISSUE Nos. 1 & 2:

Plaintiff is the younger brother of defendant No.1 and 2 and they are the children of late Gattaiah. Defendant No.4 is the Younger brother of father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 & 2, defendant

No.5 & 6 are the son-in-laws of defendant No.4. The evidence of PW1 is that originally grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendants No.1, 2 & 3 and father of defendant No.4 namely, Mangali @ Nachuri Gopaiah had acquired the suit lands from his ancestors and the said Mangali @

Nachuri Gopaiah died about 20 years back, leaving behind his four sons, namely Gattaiah/father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3,

N.Sattaiah/defendant No.4, M.Ramulu & M.Narsimha as his legal

Page 8 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

heirs, that out of the said four sons of M.Gopaiah, two younger sons namely M.Ramulu & M.Narsimha died issueless long back and thus remaining two elder sons of said M.Gopaiah namely M.Gattaiah &

M.Sattaiah have succeeded the suit land held by M.Gopaiah and since then the said M.Gattaiah & M.Sattaiah have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land on approximate basis without having regular partition of the same with metes and bounds and that

M.Gattaiah has got half share and M.Sattaiah has got half share and after the death of M.Gattaiah, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3 herein as his legal heirs succeeded half share held by their father

M.Gattaiah in the suit lands.

8.In support of his case, plaintiffs have filed Ex.A1/certified copy of pahani for the year 1972-73, which shows that the name of Gopaiah along with one another person Buggaih was shown as Inamdar in respect of the land in suit Sy. No. 94. The certified copy of pahanies for the years 1979-80, 1985-86, 1989-90 shows that the names of father of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 3 namely Gattaiah, Sattaiah/defendant

No.4, Ramulu & Narsimha were shown as pattadars in respect of the land in Suit survey number and the names of defendant No.5 & 6 were shown as possessors of the land in suit survey number. The certified copy of pahanies for the years 1990-91, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 under Ex.A5 to A8 shows that the names of defendants 5 and 6 were shown as pattadars in respect of the suit schedule property.

9.It is the further evidence of PW1 that as himself and defendant

No.1 to 3 were resided at Dandumailaram Village for some period.

Defendant No. 1 has been cultivating suit lands on his behalf and on behalf of their father and defendant No.1 to 3 along with his son-in- laws/defendant No.5 & 6 herein, that in order to file the present suit he has applied for certified copies of pahanies and came to know that

Page 9 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

the names of defendant Nos.5 & 6 have been entered into the pahanies illegally, though they have no concern whatsoever either with the ownership or with the possession in respect of suit lands. On the other hand, the case of defendant No.7 through the evidence of

DW1 is that defendant Nos.5 and 6 have obtained occupancy rights certificate in respect of the land in Sy.No.94 to an extent of Ac.3-09 gts., and land bearing Sy.No.94 to an extent of Ac.3-10 gts., respectively along with other lands situated at Narapally Village,

Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District vide file

No.L/3625/1989 dated 23-12-1989 issued by the revenue divisional officer, Hyderabad East division and the said fact was known to the plaintiff as well as the other defendants and this certificate was not challenged by the plaintiff and as such, it became final.

10.Plaintiff examined PW2 who is none other than the wife of the plaintiff. She deposed that her husband/PW1 during his cross examination stated that Yadamma and Padmamma are the younger sisters of her husband’s father and further stated that Yadamma and

Padmamma are not the parties to the suit and in this regard her evidence is that Padmamma died issueless, Yadamma died leaving behind defendant No.5 & 6 as her legal heirs and as such, the legal heirs of Yadamma are already on record and Padmamma died issueless and on this ground the plaintiff could not made the said Yadamma and

Padmamma as parties to the suit. As could be seen from the evidence of PW2, it is clear that plaintiff examined PW2 to say that the reasons for not adding his father’s sisters and brothers as parties to the suit.

Though it is the evidence of PW2 that the younger sisters of father of

PW1 Yadamma and Padmamma, Padmamma died issueless and the legal heirs of Yadamma are on record as defendant No.5 & 6, but the relief prayed is to decree the suit by allotting 1/8th share to the

Page 10 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 and half share to the defendant No.4 and there is no prayer to allot shares to defendant No.5 & 6 as the legal heirs of his paternal aunt Yadamma. During the cross examination of PW2, she said that she do not know the husband of

Yadamma but she did not explain whether he is alive or not.

11.PW3 did not turnup to face the cross examination and as such his evidence is eschewed from consideration. PW4 reported as died.

After the evidence of PW2 plaintiff further examined PW5 who deposed that the suit schedule properties are inam lands and were acquired by the grandfather of plaintiff No.1 herein namely Mangali @ Nachuri Gopaiah who died leaving behind four sons namley

Gattaiah, Sattaiah/defendant No.4, Ramulu & M.Narsimha and two daughters namely Yadamma and Padmamma and out of two sons of

Mangali @ Nachuri Gopaiah, Ramulu and Narsimha died issueless and

Padmamma also died issueless, Yadamma died leaving behind defendant No.5 & 6 and the father of plaintiff No.1 Gattaiah also died leaving behind plaintiff No.1 & defendant No.1 to 3 as his legal heirs and after the death of said Mangali @ Nachuri Gopaiah his two sons

Gattaiah and Sattaiah have only succeeded the suit schedule lands and defendant No.5 & 6 are having no concern either with the ownership or possession of the same. Since, the plaintiff has failed to prove that they acquired the suit schedule property through their ancestors and they are in joint possession of the suit schedule property, evidence of

PW5 is no way helpful to the case of the plaintiff, though he was not subjected to cross examination by the defendants.

12.It is the evidence of DW1 that defendant No.5 & 6 individually got mutated their names in the revenue records and pattadar passbooks and title deeds also issued in their favour by sub dividing the land for the purpose of poddi. Plaintiff is not denying the issuance

Page 11 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

of ORC in favour of defendant No.5 & 6 and during the course of cross examination of DW1 it was suggested to him that taking advantage of their names, defendant No.5 & 6 got ORC illegally in order to deprive the right of the plaintiffs in the suit lands. In this regard plaintiff has filed Ex.A11/certified copy of appeal filed under Section 24 of A.P .

(Telangana Area) Inam Abolition Act, 1955 challenging the ORC granted in the names of defendant No.5 & 6 and the defendant No.7 herein is shown as respondent No.3. As per the cross examination of

DW1 the said appeal is still pending. As could be seen from Ex.A11 and as per the written statement of defendant No.7, ORC was granted in the name of defendant No.5 & 6 on 23-12-1989 and the appeal was preferred in the year 2012. It is the evidence of DW1 that plaintiff has not challenged the ORC granted in favour of defendant No.5 & 6 and the same has became final and defendant No.5 & 6 individually got mutated their names in the revenue records. The certified copies of the pahanies filed by the plaintiffs under Ex.A5 to A8 also shows the name of defendant No.5 & 6 as pattadars in respect of the suit schedule property, subsequent to the date of issuance of the ORC in their favour. In the course of cross examination, DW1 said that their ancestor Gopaiah acquired the suit lands as inam land, ORC was given in the name of grand father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 to 3 and father of defendant No.4 namely Gopaiah in respect of the land in suit survey number, the documents filed by the defendants under

Ex.B1 to B9 shows the transactions made by defendant No.5 & 6 in respect of suit schedule property.

13.The learned counsel for the plaintiff cross examined DW1 putting questions about the relationship of the parties and the parties to the suit and formal suggestions. DW1 denied the suggestion that since the defendant 5 & 6 being the son-in-laws of defendant No.4 and

Page 12 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

Gattaiah were cultivating the suit schedule property on behalf of

Gattaiah/father of plaintiff No.1 & Sattaiah/defendant No.4, since the suit land is situated at Narapally Village and taking advantage of their names in the revenue records as possessors in respect of suit schedule property they got ORC illegally in their names. DW1 denied all the suggestions that defendant No. 5 and 6 without any concern with the suit schedule property have executed Ex.B1/sale deed in favour of one

Shyam Prasad in respect of part of suit schedule property (i.e) Ac.3-09 gts., and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs and also denied the suggestion that Ex.B3/Sale deed was executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of one K.Yella Reddy is not binding on the plaintiff and denied the suggestion that the the document executed by defendant No. 5 in favour of one Anatha Reddy in the year 2004 in respect of Ac.0-10 gts., as deposed by him is not binding on the plaintiff. DW1 further denied the suggestion that all the subsequent documents are Ex.B4 to

B9 were created and the same are not binding on the plaintiff.

14.Plaintiff has filed Ex.A9 encumbrance certificate to show that there were no transactions in respect of the suit schedule property from the year 2010 but plaintiff has not explained how this document is helpful to the case. Except, Ex.A1/certified copy of pahani for the year 1972-73, no document is filed by the plaintiff to show that his father Gattaiah was issued ORC in respect of the suit schedule property. Further the documents filed by plaintiff under Ex.A6 to A10 and issuance of ORC in favour of defendant No.5 & 6 establishes that

ORC was granted in the name of defendant No.5 & 6 in respect of the suit schedule property. The documents filed by the defendants under

Ex.B5 to B9 further establishes that the defendant No.5 & 6 made transactions in respect of the suit schedule property and defendant

No.7 has purchased the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has filed

Page 13 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

this suit for partition of the suit schedule property among himself and defendants No.1 to 3 on one side and defendant No.4 on other side claiming that the same are the properties succeeded by them through their grandfather late Gopaiah. The plaintiff has failed to prove that they succeeded the suit schedule property from their ancestor Gopaiah and plaintiff has further failed to prove that they succeeded the suit schedule land from their ancestor and failed to prove the joint possession of himself, defendant No.1 to 3 & defendant No.4.

Therefore, he is not entitled to claim share in the suit schedule property claiming joint possession of the property said to have succeeded through their ancestor Gopaiah, therefore the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of partition of the suit schedule property and accordingly these two issues are answered against the plaintiffs.

15.Additional Issue:

The evidence of DW1 is that defendant No.7 has purchased the suit schedule property under Ex.B1 & B2 from Shyam Prasad who purchased the same from defendant No.5 & 6 under Ex.B1. In view of the findings in issue No.1 & 2, plaintiff has failed to prove that the suit schedule property is their ancestral property and he is in joint possession of the suit schedule property along with defendant No.1 to

4. The documents filed by the defendants under Ex.B1 & B2 proves that defendant No.7 has purchased the suit schedule property from

Shyam Prasad who purchased the same from defendant No.5 & 6 who were issued ORC certificates in respect of the suit schedule property, therefore this issue is answered in favour of defendant No.7 that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property

16.Issue No.3:

In view of the findings in issue No.1 & 2, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Page 14 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

17.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Typed to my dictation by the stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 thday of April, 2023.

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATAN, R.R. DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PLAINTIFFDEFENDANT

PW-1 – Mangali @ Nachuri JangaiahDW1- T. Nageswar Rao

PW-2 – Mangali @ Nachuri Lavanya

PW-3 – B. Yadhi Reddy

PW-4 – B. Narayana

PW-5 – B. Gopal Reddy

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1 is the certified copy of pahani for the year 1972-73

Ex.A2 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 1999-80

Ex.A3 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 1985-86

Ex.A4 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 1989-90

Ex.A5 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 1990-91

Ex.A6 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 2006-07

Ex.A7 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 2007-08

Ex.A8 is the Certified copy of pahani for the year 2008-09

Ex.A9 is the Encumbrance Certificate

Ex.A10 is the Market Value Certificate

Ex.A11 is the Inam Appeal No. F1/5205/2012

Ex.A12 is the Notice of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District in Case

No. F1/5205/2012, dated 09-04-2013

DEFENDANTS

Ex.B1 is the Certified copy of Sale deed bearing document No. 7043 of 2006, dated 19-05-2006

Ex.B2 is the Certified copy of Sale deed bearing document No. 4418 of 2010, dated 31-07-2010

Ex.B3 is the Certified copy of Sale deed bearing document No. 3355 of 2004, dated 20-05-2004

Page 15 of 15OS No. 40/2022

PSCJ, IBP.

Ex.B4 is the Certified copy of Sale deed bearing document No. 3357 of 2005, dated 20-07-2005

Ex.B5 is the Certified copy of Agreement of Sale Cum General Power of

Attorney bearing document No. 6857 of 2006, dated 12-05-2006

Ex.B6is the Certified copy of Sale deed bearing document No. 10306 of 2006, dated 10-08-2006

Ex.B7is the Certified copy of Sale deed bearing document No. 10308 of 2006, dated 10-08-2006

Ex.B8is the Certified copy of Sale deed bearing document No. 10307 of 2006, dated 10-08-2006

Ex.B9 is the Certified copy of Sale deed bearing document No. 3337 of 2005, dated 18-07-2005

PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATAN, R.R. DISTRICT.

Page 1 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, R.R. DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. D. Indira, Assistant Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, R.R. District.

Wednesday, the 04 thday of May, 2022.

SESSIONS CASE No. 370 of 2021

(Preliminarily Registered Case No. 16 of 2018 was committed by the

XXV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Ibrahimpatnam in Crime No. 146 of 2014 of PS Ibrahimpatnam for the offence punishable under section 395 of IPC).

Name of the accused :A2 Pala Shiva @ Rajesh @ Srinu @ Shiva Kumar @ Shiva Shankar S/o. Late Venkata Swamy, aged 49 years, Occ: Mason, Caste: Peddinti Golla, R/o. Kalluru Village, Garladinne Mandal, Ananthapur District, N/o. Vadlamudi Village, Chebrole Mandal, Guntur District.

: Sri. P. Naresh, Prosecution conducted by Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by : Sri. V. Venu Gopal Reddy, Legal-aid Counsel.

Plea of the accused : Pleaded not guilty. Finding of the court In the result, accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offence under section 395 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The property vide CPR Nol.133/2015 which was already given to PW-1 towards interim custody is ordered to be retained, after expiry of appeal time.

The jail authorities are directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case(s).

Sentence or order : ---

This case came before me on 21.04.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P. Naresh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. V. Venu Gopal Reddy, legal-aid Counsel for

Page 2 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

accused, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

This case arise out of the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police,

Ibrahimpatnam Police Station in Crime No.146 of 2014 for the offence under section 395 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the is that on 13.04.2014 at 09:00 hours PW-9 received a report from the defacto complaint/PW-1, wherein it is stated that on 04.03.2014 during night at about 00:00 hours he along with his family members slept in their house i.e. Plot

No.25 situated at Sapthagiri Colony, Bongloor Village, at that time, they heard a big sound in front of main door, they frightened and then, six unknown offenders gained entry into their house with sticks, knives and threatened him and his family members and have ransacked the almirah, robbed two gold rings, one pair of gold ear tops weighing about one tula and threatened them with dire consequences to kill them if they disclose the same to anyone and they went away. PW-1 further stated that he did not lodge report on the day itself and on the advise of Dy. Sarpanch of their village by name Kunta

Yadagiri Reddy (PW-3), he lodged preferred to lodge complaint on 13.04.2014 and the worth of property robbed was Rs.30,000/-.

As per the contents of the above complaint, PW-9 registered a case in

Crime No.146 of 2014 under section 395 of IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, PW-9 examined PWs 1 to 3 and recorded their statements, then PW-9 visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of PWs 4 and 5, conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch.

Subsequently, PW-8 apprehended six accused persons including accused

No.2 herein in Crime No. 143 of 2014 under Section 395, 400, 212, 75 of IPC and section 25 (1) (A) & 27 © Indian Arms Act of PS Hayathnagar and recorded their confession separately in the presence of PW-6 and LW-7/Kalavala Venakta Reddy, wherein all the six accused including accused No.2 herein confessed to have committed

Page 3 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

property offences at various places in the area of Hyderabad, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh.

In pursuance of their confession, PW-6 recovered the robbed property pertains to the said Crime No. 143 of 2014 at the instance of accused and also seized one Revolver and

Indigo Car bearing No.AP-02AK-0163 from A1, one knife each from accused No.2 and

A3. Based on the confession of accused, he along with above said panch witnesses/PW- 6 and LW-7/Kalavala Venakta Reddy and all the six accused persons, proceeded to the residence of accused No.7 at Ananthapur, where PW-6 apprehended accused No.7, recorded her confession and in pursuance of her confession, PW-6 proceeded to

Muthoot Finance, Ananthapur, where he caused enquiries and there he seized the stolen property pertaining to 14- cases and also seized one pair of gold ear ring, one small gold ring pertaining to the present case, from the said Finance company in the presence of the above said mediators under cover of panchanama, at the instance of accused duly recording the statement of PW-7. Then brought all the seven accused to Hayathnagar

Police Station, effected their arrest and produced before the court seeking their judicial custody. Then, PW-6 informed about the same to PW-9 and handed over the robbed property pertaining to the present case.

Based on the confession panchanama of accused No.1 to 7 received by

PW-9 from PW-6 and after receipt of all concerned documents, PW-9 filed requisition

before the court for PT Warrant against accused No.1 to 7 and accordingly PT warrants

were issued against accused No.1 to 7 and got regularized their arrest in the presence case also. On completion of investigation, PW-9 filed charge sheet against accused No.1 to 7 stating that a separate charge sheet will be filed against the absconding accused/A8 Srinu in the event of his arrest at later stage.

After that the main case was split up against accused No.2 (accused herein).

3. The learned XXV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Ibrahimpatnam took the congnizance of the offence under section 395 of IPC against accused No.2 herein and after following the Committal procedure, committed the case

Page 4 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

to the Court of Sessions, R.R. District along with case records. The Court of Sessions,

R.R. District taken the cognizance for the said offence and made over the case to this this court of Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Ibrahimpatnam vide SC No. 370 of 2021. As per proceedings of the Hon’ble Prl. District & Sessions Judge, R.R. District vide

Dis.No.1875/2022, dated 06.04.2022 the case was transferred to Senior Civil Judge,

Ibrahimpatnam.

4. Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material record, accused

No.2 was examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C. and charge is framed for the offence under section 395 of IPC against him, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language and he pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 9,

Ex.P1 to Ex.P15 and MOs 1 and 2 are marked.

6. After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused No.2 was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material against him in his vernacular language and he denied the same.

7. Heard the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned legal aid counsel for the accused.

8. Point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence under section 395 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

9. Point: The defacto complaint is examined as PW-1. PW-2 is his wife. PW-3 is cited as circumstantial witness. PWs 4 and 5 are the the mediators to the scene of offence panchanama. PW-6 is one of the mediators to the confession all the accused including accused No.2 who is facing trial. PW-7 is the branch manager of Muthoot

Finance Corporation, Ramnagar, Ananthapur Town, in which the stolen property was said to have pledged by the accused. PW-8 is the Police officer, who apprehended the accused and recovered the stolen property basing on the confession of accused No.2 and

Page 5 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

other accused. PW-9 is the Investigation Officer, who registered the case, recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted panchanama at the scene of offence and filed Charge

Sheet. The evidence of all these witnesses is very much on record in the shape of depositions, the same is not reiterating in this judgment to avoid repetition and the same will be appreciated at the relevant points.

10. The evidence of PW-1 is that about eight years back on one night hours while himself and his family members were sleeping in their house in Plot No.25 in the midnight they heard the noise of breaking of door, that they were afraid that they are the thieves, that by breaking the main doors four offenders entered into their house, threatened them with fear of death and broke open the almarah and searched the house.

It is his further evidence that the offenders have stolen two pairs of gold ear tops and two gold finger rings, that all of the offenders covered their faces with kerchiefs and were holding sticks and knives in their hands and that while leaving the house they threatened not to report the same to the Police. According to PW-1, four offenders entered into the house and some other offenders were out side of the house.

11. PW-2 also deposed on the same lines of the evidence of PW-1. Both these witnesses deposed that they cannot identify the offenders as they covered their faces with kerchiefs. The certified copy of report lodged by PW-1 is marked as Ex.P1 as the original report was filed in main case i.e. SC No.786 of 2015. In Ex.P1 also PW-1 did not mention that he can identify the offenders. According to PWs 1 and 2 their property i.e. two pairs of gold ear tops and two gold rings were recovered by Police and that they took the same from the Court towards interim custody. But both these witnesses deposed that now the property is not available.

12. The evidence of PW-9 is that after receipt of Ex.P1 from PW-1 he registered this case and visited the scene of offence panchanama i.e. residence of PW-1 at

Bongloor Village and then he recorded the panchanama at the scene of offence in the presence of PWs 4 and 5 and also drawn rough sketch of the scene which is marked as

Ex.P4 through PW-5. PW-9 recorded this panchanama as a procedural aspect and no

Page 6 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

material objects that were used in commission of offence at the scene of offence were recovered. One of the mediator PW-4 did not support the panchanama proceedings.

His evidence is that while he was passing through the lane of the house of PW-1 Police stopped him and asked him to sign on some papers stating that it is a panchanama, but he do not know the contents of panchanama. Even in the course of cross-examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor after declaring him as hostile nothing favour could be elicited from the evidence of PW-4. In this regard, the evidence of PW-5 is that on 13.04.2014 there was theft in a house at Sapatagiri Colony of Bongulur village and at about 9.30 a.m. while he was passing in front of the said house, Police were there and they recorded the panchanama in his presence and in the presence of PW-4. His further evidence is that Police also drawn a rough sketch noting down the physical features of the said house and stated the boundaries of the scene of offence.

13. The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is that four offenders entered into their house, threatened them with fear of death and stolen two pairs of ear rings and two gold rings and some other offenders were there out of the house. There is no reason to discard the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and it is their evidence that Police recovered their property.

14. The prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of PW-8, who is the then Inspector of Police, Hayathnagar Police Station. His evidence is that during the course of investigation in crime No.143 of 2014 on the file of Hayathnagar Police Station, on 13.04.2014 at 17:00 hours, while he was conducting vehicle checking at Kothaguda X

Roads, he found six persons in a Indigo Car bearing No.AP-02AK-0163 moving suspiciously, that they stopped them for checking and that all the said persons were found in confession mood and then he secured the presence of PW-6 and LW- 7/L.Venkat Reddy. It is his further evidence that on their enquiry the said persons including accused No.2 in this case confessed to have committed the property offences at various places in the area of Hyderabad, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and he recorded

Page 7 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

the confession of said six accused persons including accused No.2 herein separately and seized one Revolver and Indigo Car bearing No.AP-02AK-0163 from A1, one knife from accused No.2 herein, one knife from A3. According to PW-8, accused No.2 herein and other accused i.e. A1, A3 to A6 confessed the involvement of accused No.7 and he along with said mediators and these six accused persons proceeded to the residence of accused

No.7 at Ananthapur and there he apprehended accused No.7, recorded her confession and in pursuance of the said confession he has proceeded towards Muthoot Finance,

Ananthapur. According to him he has seized the stolen property pertaining to 14 cases including one pair gold ear rings and small gold ear ring pertaining to this case from the said shop in the presence of the above said two mediators under cover of panchanama, relevant portions of which are marked as Ex.P12 and Ex.P13. It is his evidence that he brought all the accused including accused No.2 herein to Hayathnagar Police Station, he affected their arrest in their crime No.143 of 2014 and produced before the concerned

Court and intimated the same to SHO, Ibrahimpatnam and also handed over the property pertaining to this case to the SHO, Ibrahimpatnam under acknowledgment.

15. In this regard, the evidence of PW-6 is that he has seen accused No.2 herein at the time of apprehension by the Hayathnagar Police, that in February-2014,

PW-8 called himself and LW-7/K. Venkat Reddy to come to Kothagudem cross road, there accused No.2 herein and other accused were in the custody of Police, on their enquiry all the accused confessed to have committed the property offences in different places at Gudiwada, Guntur, Vishakhapatnam, Vijayawada, Gatkeshwar, Kadada and some other places and stolen gold ornaments and the Inspector of Police recorded the panchanama in their presence. According to him, one TATA Sumo vehicle and Scooty were there and the accused confessed that while they were coming in TATA Sumo vehicle, Police apprehended them. It is his further evidence that all the accused confessed that the stolen ornaments were given to the wife of accused No.2 and she pledged the gold ornaments in Muthoot Finance, Anantapur and after recording the confession statements of accused No.1 to 7 along with PW-8 both of them went to Muthoot

Page 8 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

Finance, Ananthapur and brought some gold chains, ear tops, cell phones about 30 and the CI of Police recorded the said panchanama in their presence.

16. According to PW-6 many other stolen properties were recovered in

Muthoot Finance, Ananthapur and that he can identify the seized ornaments. The stolen property pertaining to this case is one pair of ear tops and two finger rings. As seen from the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the property was returned to them, but they could not produce the same stating the same is not available with them.

17. According to PW-8 he recorded the confession of accused No.2 herein separately and seized one knife from accused No.2. The same was not produced in this case. As could be seen from the confession of accused No.2 herein, he along with other accused committed the offence and all the stolen property was given to accused No.7, who pledged the same in Muthoot Finance, Ananthapur, and all the accused shared the loan amount. According to the evidence of PW-8 he along with accused No.2 herein and other accused proceeded to Muthoot Finance, Ananthapur and there he seized the stolen property including the stolen property in this case.

18. The defence of accused through evidence of PW-6 and PW-8 is one of the total denial. It is for the prosecution to prove that the property which was lost by PW-1 was seized from the possession of accused or at the instance of accused. It is clear from the evidence of PW-8 that no stolen property was seized from the possession of accused

No.2 or at his instance as deposed by him in his cross-examination. The evidence of

PW-6 is that the CI of Police/PW-8 took them to Muthoot Finance, Ananthapur and brought some gold chains, ear tops, cell phones about 30. But, he did not describe the stolen ornaments said to have recovered by PW-8 from Muthoot Finance, Ananthapur.

Coming to his cross-examination, he deposed that he cannot say which ornaments were seized from or at the instance of which accused person. The prosecution has failed to get identity the property in this case, by filing the same through the evidence of PW-1.

There is also no identification of accused by PWs 1 and 2.

19. The evidence of PW-9 is only that he received the confession statements

Page 9 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

of all the accused including accused No.2 herein and stolen property from PW-8. To connect the offence with accused No.2 herein the case of the prosecution is that accused

No.2 herein along with other accused committed the offence and that the stolen property was recovered in Muthoot Finance, Ananthapur. The confession of accused

No.2 herein is a mere confession pertaining to this case. The evidence of PW-8 is that accused No.2 herein and other accused No.1, 3 to 6 have given the stolen property to accused No.7, who pledged the same in Muthoot Finance, Ananthapur. In this regard, the evidence of PW-7 is that in the year 2013 their customer Geetha pledged gold ornaments i.e. chains, ear studs, bracelets, chain with lockets and obtained loan with their branch and three months thereafter Cyberbad Crime branch Police came to their shop, caused enquiries and recovered the gold ornaments pledged by Geetha stating that the same are the stolen articles and they handed over the gold ornaments to the Police. But, in his cross-examination he deposed that he has not seen any accused person with name

Shiva and no accused person was brought to their shop. The said evidence of PW-7 is not corroborating the evidence of PW-8 that the stolen property was seized at the instance of accused No.7. The evidence of PW-6 is that he did not enquire the accused personally and that he cannot say which ornaments are seized from which accused person. In these facts and circumstances of the case, it can be safely said that the prosecution has failed to prove the seizure of the stolen articles from the possession or at the instance of accused No.2 herein, to connect the offence with accused No.2 . There is no chain of link with the accused No.2 herein to prove that the stolen property was seized from the possession or at the instance of accused No.2 herein. There is no evidence that accused No.2 herein is one of the offenders who committed the offence in the house of PW-1. As such it can be safely said that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.2 is the offender who along with other accused committed decoity in the house of PW-1 and thereby failed to prove the guilt of accused No.2 for the offence under section 395 of IPC.

20. In the result, accused No.2 is found not guilty of the offence under section

Page 10 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

395 of IPC and accordingly he is acquitted for the said offence under section 235 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The property vide CPR Nol.133/2015 which was already given to PW-1 towards interim custody is ordered to be retained, after expiry of appeal time.

The jail authorities are directed to release the accused forthwith if he is not required in any other case(s).

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this

the day of 04 thof May, 2022.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, R.R. DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

PW-1 : Venkata Satya Sai

PW-2 : S. Radha Madhavi

PW-3 : A. Yadagiri Reddy

PW-4 : N. Prakash

PW-5 : T. Mahender

PW-6 : B. Achuth

PW-7 : A. Ram Mohan

PW-8 : P. Venakteshwarlu

PW-9 : Md. Ghouse

DEFENCE:- - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1 : Certified Copy of Complaint of PW-1, (Original complaint in SC 786/2015).

Ex.P2 & P3 : Signatures of PW-4 on Ex.P4.

Ex.P4 : Certified copy of scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch,

dated 13.04.2014.

Page 11 of 11 SC No. 370 of 2021

ASJ, IBP.

Ex.P5 to P11 : Certified copies of confession panchanama of A1 to A7.

Ex.P12 & 13 : Relevant portions in confession of accused/ accused No.2 Pala Shiva @ Rajesh @ Srinu.

Ex.P14 : Confession-cum-seizure panchanama of A7.

Ex.P15 : Certified copy of First Information Report,

dated 13.04.2014.

DEFENCE:- - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

-Nil-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, R.R. DISTRICT.

Page 1 of 9 SC No. 439 of 2011

ASJ, IBP.

IN THE COURT OF THE ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, R.R. DISTRICT.

Present: Smt. D. Indira, Assistant Sessions Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, R.R. District.

Thursday, the 19 thday of May, 2022.

SESSIONS CASE No. 439 of 2011

(Preliminarily Registered Case No. 05 of 2010 was committed by the learned

XXV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam in Crime No. 222 of 2009 of PS Ibrahimpatnam for the offence punishable under section 306 of IPC).

Name of the accused:A1 Uduthala Jalandhar S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 40 years,

A2 Nittu Veeraiah s/o. Sathaiah, aged 42 years,

A3 Chethalla Jangaiah S/o. Sailu, aged 32 years,

A4 Gudala Peddulu S/o. Jangaiah, aged 55 years, (died) (Case is abated on 15.03.2021)

A5 Devarakonda Laxmaiah S/o. Chandraiah, aged 45 years,

A6 Jangili Buggaiah S/o. Balaiah, aged 56 years,

A7 Uduthala Darshan S/o. Laxmaiah, aged 40 years,

A8 Uduthala Lachal S/o. Anjaiah aged 33 years,

A9 Uduthala Narasimha S/o. Rama Swamy, aged 55 years,

A10 Jangili Narasimha S/o. Gopal, aged 36 years,

Page 2 of 9 SC No. 439 of 2011

ASJ, IBP.

All are Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Kappapahad Village, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R. District.

A11 Raavi Srinivas Rao S/op. Venakataramaiah, aged 41 years, Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-8-310, Maheswar Colony, Chirag Ali Lane, Hyderabad.

(The case against A11 herein has been quashed by Hon’ble High Court of A.P. as per the Order in Crl. Petitition No.12855/2010, dated 01.02.2011)

Prosecution conducted by:Sri. P. Naresh, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Defence conducted by:Sri. K. Arun Kumar Advocate for accused.

Plea of the accused:Pleaded not guilty.

Finding of the court:In the result, accused No.1 to, 3 and 5 to 10 are found not guilty of the offence under section 306 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under section 235 (1) of

Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled subject to Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

The vehicle under Item No.1 of CPR No. 269 of 2009 which was given towards interim custody to its owner, is ordered to be retained, after expiry of appeal time. MO-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Sentence or order:---

This case came before me on 19.05.2022 for final hearing in the presence of Sri. P. Naresh, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri. K. Arun Kumar, Advocate for accused, upon hearing the arguments of both sides and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

Page 3 of 9 SC No. 439 of 2011

ASJ, IBP.

This case arise out of the charge sheet filed by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Ibrahimpatnam Police Station in Crime No.222 of 2009 for the offence under section 306 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, is that on 19.09.2009 at 19:50 hours PW-11 received a report from the defacto complaint/PW-1, wherein it is reported as follows:

PW-1 was having some ancestral lands in Sy.No.203 and 227 of

Kappapahad Village, that his grandfather was having two acres of land, that his elder grandfather was having 16 acres of land and they are cultivating the same. Their villagers are decided to lay down the road from the village to go to agricultural fields through the land of his elder grandfather’s grandson by name Budida Malla Reddy S/o. Anantha

Reddy, but he did not accept the same. Upon which the villagers Uduthala Jalander S/o.

Laxmaiah and Nittu Veeraiah S/o. Sathaiah accused No.1 and 2 herein are insisting him physically and mentally how he will not allow to lay the road. On 19.09.2009 at about 2:00 p.m. accused No.1 and 2 quarrelled with Budida Malla Reddy saying that they definitely will lay the road. On that Budida Malla Reddy stated that if they succeeded in laying the road, he will commit suicide. The unscrupulous accused Uduthala Jalander offerred to purchase poison to Budida Malla Reddy and also abated to committ suicide.

Some of the villagers have also co-operated with Uduthala Jalander. Due to immolation made by the above accused said Budida Malla Reddy committed suicide by unknown poison.

Basing on the contents of the complaint, PW-11 registered a case in crime

No.222 of 2009 for the offences under section 306 of IPC and took up the investigation.

During the course of investigation, PW-11 examined and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant/PW-1 and other witnesses PWs 2 and 3 and then visited the scene of offence, secured the presence of two mediators PWs 4 and 9, observed the scene of

Page 4 of 9 SC No. 439 of 2011

ASJ, IBP.

offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and and also drawn rough sketch of the scene of offence and seized one Super killer-10 250ml empty tin and one TATA

Hitachi vehicle bearing No.EXLC Serial No.20017411 from the scene of offence under cover of panchanama before the mediators. Then, PW-11 conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of the deceased Budida Malla Reddy in the presence of PWs 5 and 6 and subjected to autopsy and after completion of PME the dead body was handed over to the blood relatives for funeral. LW-10/Dr. Krishna Murthy, who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased Budida Malla Reddy, has opined that the cause of death was “Organo phosphate and insecticide poisoning”.

While the investigation is in progress, on 09.10.2009 at 11:00 hours PW-10 arrested accused No.1 to 10. PW-10 recorded the confession of accused No.1 in the presence of PWs 7 and 8, wherein the accused No.1 has confessed that he along with other accused have abated the deceased to commit suicide. On completion of the same, produced the accused No.1 to 10 before the Court for judicial custody. Subsequently, accused No.11 was surrendered before PW-10 as per the directions of the Hon’ble Court vide Crl.Mp. No.8411 of 2009, dated 21.10.2009 and accordingly he was released on bail obtaining sufficient sureties. On completion of investigation, PW-10 filed the Charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 11 for the offence under section 306 of IPC.

3. The learned XXV Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Ibrahimpatnam took the cognizance of the offence under section 306 of IPC against the accused No.1 to A11 and after following the committal procedure, committed the case to the Court of Sessions,

Ranga Reddy District along with case records. The Court of Sessions, Ranga Reddy

District taken the cognizance for the said offence and made over the case to VIII Addl.

Assistant Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District vide SC No.439 of 2011 for disposal according to law.

Subsequently, the case against A11 herein has been quashed by Hon’ble

High Court of A.P. as per the Order in Crl. Petitition No.12855/2010, dated 01.02.2011.

Page 5 of 9 SC No. 439 of 2011

ASJ, IBP.

4. Case against A11 is abated on 15.03.2021. Upon hearing both sides and on perusing the material record, accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 10 were examined under section 228 of Cr.P.C. and charge was framed for the offence under section 306 of IPC against them, read over and explained to them in vernacular language and they pleaded not guilty of the said charge and claimed to be tried. Thereafter, as per the orders of the Hon’ble

Principal District and Sessions Court, Ranga Reddy District vide Dis.No.9809/2016

dated 28.12.2016 the case was transferred to this Court on the point of jurisdiction.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 11 and the evidence of other witness/List of witnesses No.10 is given up by the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor. Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 are marked on behalf of prosecution. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW-1 on Ex.P13. Ex.P2 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1. Ex.P3 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2. Ex.P4 is the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3. Ex.P5 is the signature of PW-4 on Ex.P15. Ex.P6 is the signature of PW-5 on Ex.P16. Ex.P7 is the signature of PW-6 on Ex.P16. Ex.P8i s the signature of PW-7 on Confession panchanama. Ex.P9 is the signature of PW-8 on Confession panchanama. Ex.P10 is the signature of PW-9 on Ex.P15. Ex.P11 is the P.M.E. Report. Ex.P12 is the F.S.L. Report, 30.10.2009. Ex.P13 is the Report of PW-1 dated 19.09.2009. Ex.P14 is the First

Information Report, dated 19.09.2009. Ex.P15 is the Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch, dated 20.09.2009 and Ex.P16 is the Inquest panchanama, dated 20.09.2009.

6. Heard arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and the learned

Counsel for the accused.

7. Point for consideration is whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 10 for the offence under section 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt or not?

Point: 8. This case was registered on the report of the cousin brother of the

Page 6 of 9 SC No. 439 of 2011

ASJ, IBP.

deceased Budida Malla Reddy and he is examined as PW-1. PWs 2 and 3 are the wife and brother of the deceased respectively. PWs 4 and 9 are the mediators to the scene of offence panchanama along with the rough sketch. PWs 5 and 6 are the mediators to the inquest panchanama. PWs 7 and 8 are the mediators to the confession of accused. PWs 10 and 11 are the investigation officers.

9. The brief facts of the prosecution is that accused No.1 to 10 in collusion with accused No.11 forced the deceased to allow to lay down the road through his lands and when the deceased objected the same, accused No.1 to 10 harassed the deceased physically and mentally to agree with them and when accused No.11 started laying down the road through the lands of deceased he objected the same, but the accused did not hear him and having no other way he committed suicide by consuming the poison.

Though serious allegations are levelled against the accused based on which this case was registered, Pw-1 deposed that he do not know the reason for consuming poison by the deceased and that he never lodged any complaint in the matter of death of deceased

Budida Malla Reddy. He only identified his signature on the report and stated that when he went to the Police Station after the death of Budida Malla Reddy, Police asked him to sign on some written paper, but he do not know what was written in the said paper and that he did not state anything before the Police against the accused.

10. The wife of deceased/PW-2 and brother of deceased/ PW-3 though deposed that the deceased Budida Malla Reddy died about 12 years back by consuming poison, deposed that the same was due to ill-health and that no one was lodged in the matter of the death of the deceased Budida Malla Reddy. Both these witnesses deposed that they did not state anything before the Police against the accused. Even in the course of examination by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor after declaring them as hostile nothing favour could be elicited in the evidence of PWs 1 to 3.

11. The evidence of investigation officer/PW-11 is that on the next day of registering the case, he visited the scene of offence i.e, Sy. No.203 of Kappada Village,

Page 7 of 9 SC No. 439 of 2011

ASJ, IBP.

there he secured two mediators PWs 4 and 9 and recorded the panchanama and also drawn rough sketch of the scene and seized one empty poison bottle of Super Killer-10 of 250ml/MO-1 and one TATA Hitachi Earth Mover bearing serial No.20017411 under cover of panchanama, which is marked as Ex.P15. But the mediators who are examined as PWs 4 and 9 did not support the said panchanama proceedings conducted by PW-11 and seizure of MO-1. However, it is a fact that the deceased Budida Malla Reddy died consuming poison as deposed by PWs 1 to 3. In this regard, the evidence of PW-11 is that he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased Budida Malla Reddy in the presence of PWs 5 and 6 and subjected the dead body of the deceased to hospital authorities to conduct Postmortem examination and later he collected the PME report and FSL report which are marked Ex.P11 and Ex.12, according to which the cause of death was “Organo phosphate and insecticide poisoning” as found in the body. The mediators to the inquest panchanama who are examined as PWs 5 and 6 did not support the inquest panchanama and they only identified their signatures on inquest panchanama which are marked as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and deposed that when they went to Government

Hospital Ibrahimpatnam to see the dead body of deceased, Police asked them to sign on some paper stating that it is a panchanama and their signatures are required on it, but they do not know the contents of the said paper. Though these witnesses did not support the inquest proceedings, there is evidence from PWs 1 to 3 that the deceased died by consuming poison.

12. The evidence of PW-10 is that on on 09.10.2009 at 11.00 a.m., he apprehended accused No.1 to 10, on interrogation all these accused confessed to have committed the offence and he recorded the said confession of accused No.1 to 10 in the presence of PWs 7 and 8. This confession is a mere confession and it is hit by section 25 of Indian Evidence Act.

13. In view of hostile testimony of PW-1, the report/Ex.P13 marked through

PW-11 is not said to be proved. On careful scrutiny of the oral and documentary

Page 8 of 9 SC No. 439 of 2011

ASJ, IBP.

evidence, in view of the hostile testimony of the material witnesses PWs 1 to 3, it can safely be said that there is no evidence against the accused attracting the offence under section 306 of IPC and the prosecution has filed to establish the guilt of the accused for the offence with which they are charged with and therefore, the accused are entitled for the acquittal.

14. In the result, accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 10 are found not guilty of the offence under section 306 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted for the said offence under section 235 (1) of Cr.P.C. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused stands cancelled subject to Section 437A of Cr.P.C.

The vehicle under Item No.1 of CPR No. 269 of 2009 which was given towards interim custody to its owner, is ordered to be retained, after expiry of appeal time. MO-1 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court

on this the day of 19 th of May, 2022.

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, R.R. DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

PW-1 : D. Raji Reddy

PW-2 : D. Amaramma D. Bhopal Reddy PW-3 : K. Yadagiri PW-4 :

PW-5 : N. Balraju

PW-6 : U. Narsimha

PW-7 : G. Ramulu

PW-8 : M. Yadagiri Reddy

PW-9 : Udatala Sathish Kumar

Page 9 of 9 SC No. 439 of 2011

ASJ, IBP.

K. Kanakaiah PW-10 : N. Vishwanath PW-11 :

DEFENCE:- - Nil -

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

Ex.P1 : Signature of PW-1 on Ex.P13. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-1. Ex.P2 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-2. Ex.P3 : 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-3. Ex.P4 : Signature of PW-4 on Ex.P15. Ex.P5 : Signature of PW-5 on Ex.P16. Ex.P6 : Signature of PW-6 on Ex.P16. Ex.P7 : Signature of PW-7 on Confession panchanama. Ex.P8 : Signature of PW-8 on Confession panchanama. Ex.P9 :

Ex.P10 : Signature of PW-9 on Ex.P15. P.M.E. Report. Ex.P11 : F.S.L. Report, 30.10.2009. Ex.P12 : Report of PW-1 dated 19.09.2009. Ex.P13 :

Ex.P14 : First Information Report, dated 19.09.2009.

Ex.P15 : Scene of offence panchanama along with rough sketch, dated 20.09.2009.

Ex.P16 : Inquest panchanama, dated 20.09.2009.

DEFENCE:- - Nil -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:-

MO-1 : Empty Poison bottle of Super Killer – 10 of 250 ml.

DEFENCE:- -Nil-

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

IBRAHIMPATNAM, R.R. DISTRICT.

C.C.1022 of 2015 1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SPL MOBILE COURT: CUM: XI METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD: L.B.NAGAR.

PRESENT: Smt. D.Indira XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at L.B. Nagar.

Dated: On this the 29 th day of April, 2017

C.C.No. 1022 of 2015

Between:

The State of A.P., through The Sub-Inspector of Police, Saroornagar Police Station …PROSECUTION

AND

A1-Sale Balamani @ Medipally Balamani W/o.Late Muthyalu, age 50 years,

A2- Matta Devamma, W/o. Babaiah, Aged: 60 years,

A3- Matta Aruna Jyothi, W/o. NarsinghRao, Aged: 27 years

A4- Matta Narsingh Rao, S/o. Babaiah, Aged: 35 years All are R/o.H.No.7-202, Huda Colony, Lenin Nagar, Meerpet Village, Saroornagar.

A5- Kalumulolu Balakrishna, S/o Kishan, aged: 20 years, R/o. H.No.17-1-380/67, D.S. Nagar, Santhosh Nagar, Hyderabad.…ACCUSED

This Calender Case coming before me on 07-12-2016 for final hearing in the presence of Asst. Public Prosecutor for prosecution and Sri P. Ravinder Counsel

for Accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day,this

court made the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The accused stand charged for the offences under Sections 448, 323 and 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2.The brief facts of the case of the complainant are as follows: On 19-8- 2015 at 21.30 hours when the complainant Lw1/Sale Laxmi along with her husband

Jangaiah, Mother-in-law Eshwaramma and co-sister Sharada were present in their house, at that time her younger mother-in-law Sale Balamani was staying presently at Lenin Nagar. In the mean time Devamma, Arunjyothi, Narsingh Rao, Balakrishna were criminally trespassed into their house and picked up altercation with them and abused in filthy language and also beat them with hands, due to which they received injuries. On that the complainant requested to take necessary action.

C.C. 1022 of 2015 2

Basing on the above complaint, Lw.9 Sri S. Lingaiah, Inspector of police, registered a case in Cr. No.591/2015 U/s. 448, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code. During the course of investigation, Lw.10 Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, SI of police, examined and recorded the statements of the complainant and other witnesses and proceeded with further investigation. While the investigation was in progress on 10-9-2015 A1 to A5 were surrendered before Lw.10, on interrogation they admitted their guilt of offence as such Lw10 affected their arrest. On completion of investigation he filed charge sheet for the offences u/s. 448, 323, 504 r/w 34 IPC against A1 to A5.

03.This court had taken cognizance for the offences punishable U/s. 448, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against A1 to A5 and registered the case as

CC No. 1022 of 2015. On the appearance of accused persons, they were furnished

with copies of the documents as required u/s. 207 of Cr. P.C. and were examined u/s. 239 of Cr. P.C. Charge for the offence u/s. 448, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code was framed against accused, read over and explained to them, in

Telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

04.During the course of trial the prosecution examined PW1 to PW8 and

Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 are marked. Material objects MO1 to MO3 are marked.

05.A1 to A5 were examined U/s.313 of Cr.P.C for the incriminating evidence appearing against them, they denied the same and did not choose to examine any defence witnesses on their behalf.

06. Heard the learned APPO and the counsel for accused.

07. Now the point for consideration is whether the prosecution has proved the case against the accused for the offence U/s. 448, 323, 504 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?

POINT:

08.This is a case of trespass, simple hurt and insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Admitted facts are that A1 is the co-sister of PW2. A2 is the sister of the husband of PW2 and A1. Pws 3 and 5 are the sons of PW2. The complainant/PW1 is the wife of PW2 and PW4 is the wife of PW5. It is also an admitted fact that PW5 was given in adoption to A1 and that the husband of A1 was

C.C. 1022 of 2015 3 died prior to the report in this case. The witnesses admitted that the husband of A1 during his lifetime worked in GHMC and after his death, PW5 was trying to get the job of his father late Muthyalu.

09.The evidence of the complainant/PW1 is that on 19.8.2015 at around 9.30 p.m while herself and Pws 2 to 5 were at their residence, the accused along with some students criminally trespassed into the house and beat all of them with their hands and in the said altercation she received scratch injury on her neck.

According to her, they brought A1 to their house from the house of the other accused, the accused altercated with them and beat all of them saying as to why they brought A1 to their house.

10.The evidence of PW2 is that while herself and other witnesses were sitting at their house, she was sitting in the veranda, then A4 pushed her, dragged her due to which she fell on the ground and later A4 entered into the house and beat PWs1, 3 and 4. She further deposed that the accused and their men again beat herself, PW3 Jangaiah and PW4Sharada with stones, due to which they received injuries. According to her, A1 was in their house on the day of the alleged incident.

11.The evidence of PW3 is that all the accused with their men came to their house, dragged all of them and beat them with their hands, due to which she received injury on her right shoulder and left temporal region. According to him, earlier A1 Balamani stayed with them, A4 took her along with him for Dawath and were not sending her to their house. The evidence of PW3 shows that A1 Balamani was not in their house on the date of the alleged incident.

12.The evidence of PW4 is that 19.8.2015 around 9.30 p.m all the accused came to their house and beat all of them with their hands, she was pregnant and that she received injuries on her right shoulder and on her abdomen. According to her evidence, prior to the alleged incident PW5 brought A1 to their house.

13.The evidence of PW5 is that on 19.8.2015 around 9.30 p.m all the accused along with some college students came to their house and beat Pws 1 to 4, immediately PW4 informed the same to him and within five minutes he returned to the house and then all the accused beat him.

C.C. 1022 of 2015 4

14.The defence of the accused through the cross examination of the witnesses is that there is dispute with regard to the pension amount and the property of the husband of A1 Balamani, to which the witnesses admitted the same.

A suggestion was put to PW1 that A1 on her own left the house of the witnesses and was staying with her sister-in-law and when A1 insisted PW5 to vacate the house, a false case was got registered against the accused, for which PW1 denied the same. PW2 also denied the suggestion that they necked A1 from out of their house, that is why she has been staying with her another sister-in-law/A2. But according to the evidence of all the witnesses, A1 was in their house as on the alleged date of incident. The evidence of these witnesses appears that presently A1 has been staying in the house of A2.

15.As seen from the cross examination of the witnesses, it is clear that a case has been registered against the witnesses on the report of A1. It is also appearing that at the time of alleged incident, A1 was staying with the witnesses. It is also not the case of the witnesses that A1 was not interested to stay with them and called the other accused to attack on them. A1 is a female aged above 50 years. Except PW2 the other witnesses are below thirty years and the evidence of the witnesses that A1 though staying with them beat them causing injuries, is not believable. The evidence of Pws.1 to 4 is not establishing the motive of the accused in commission of the offence.

16.The complainant as PW1 clearly deposed that in the altercation, she received scratch injuries on her neck. She did not state specifically who caused the said injuries. PW2 said that all dragged her and the accused and their men again beat herself, Jangaiah and Sharada with stones, due to which they received injuries.

But none of the other witnesses deposed that the accused beat them with stones.

17.The alleged incident had taken place on 19.8.2015 around 9.30 p.m.

the date of medical examination of the witnesses is after 2.00 p.m on the next day.

PW1 in her evidence deposed that she received only one scratch injury on her neck and as per Ex.P4 three injuries are mentioned. According to PW2, she was pushed while she was sitting in the veranda and was dragged and she did not state the injuries received by her. According to PW3, he received injury to right shoulder and

C.C. 1022 of 2015 5 left temporal region whereas Ex.P7 shows the injuries as 1. scratch mark right palm, abrasion left thumb dorsal aspect and contusion left pre aural area, which are not tallying with each other. According to PW4, she received injury to her right shoulder and abdomen. According to her, she was pregnant . Ex.P6, only one injury is received by I.e. scratch mark on right forearm middle 1/3 ventral aspect. . She did not state anything who caused hurt to her and the act of the accused in causing injury to her. The Doctor who treated these witnesses/PW7 deposed that he examined them and issued medical certificates Exs.P4 to P7 noting the injuries found on them. Some injuries were not stated by the witnesses and some of the injuries as stated by the witnesses were not tallying with the injuries mentioned in the medical certificates.

18.The alleged incident had place on 19.8.2015 around 9.30 p.m. and according to the witnesses, they approached the police on the same night. But as seen from the report, it was registered on 20.8.2015 at 19.45 hours. None of the witnesses said that they have been referred to the Doctor for medical examination.

The Investigation Officer/PW8 also did not state anything as to when he referred the witnesses to the hospital. He recorded the scene of offence panchanama proceedings as a procedural aspect and nothing was recovered at the scene of offence. It is also not the case of the witnesses that the accused beat them with any material object. However, one of the panch witness who is examined as PW6 also did not support the case of the prosecution. Hence, the same is no way helpful to the case of the prosecution.

19.In view of the above discussion, the evidence of prosecution witneses, it is appearing that there was an altercation in between the witnesses and the accused. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the evidence of prosecution witnesses is not sufficient with which act of accused, they received injuries as stated by them and it is not safe to rely on conviction against the accused and therefore the benefit of doubt can be extended to the accused.

C.C. 1022 of 2015 6

In the result, the accused nos 1 to 5 are found not guilty for the offence u/sec 448, 323, 504 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly they are acquitted U/sec 248 of Cr.P.C.

for the said offence. The bonds and bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall stand cancel.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th April, 2017.

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

XI MM (Special Mobile Court) R.R.District

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

PW1:Smt. Sale Laxmi Complainant PW2:Smt. Sale Eshwaramma Eye Witness PW3:Sri Sale JangaiahEye Witness PW4:Sri Sale SharadaEye Witness PW5:Sri Sale HarikrishnaCir. witness PW6:Sri Maddela Muralimohan Panch for scene PW7: Sri. Dr. P. SomuluTreated Lws.1 to 4 PW8: Sri. C. Srinivas ReddyI.O FOR DEFENCE: -NIL -

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1Report

Ex.P2 & 3 Signature of Pw6 on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch Ex.P3Certified copy of agreement of sale cum GPA doc. No.2943/2007 Ex.P4Medico legal certificate of Pw1 Ex.P5Medico legal certificate of Pw2 Ex.P6Medico legal certificate of Pw4 Ex.P7Medico legal certificate of Pw3 Ex.P8FIR Ex.P9Scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch FOR DEFENCE: -NIL-

MATERIAL OBJECTS: -NIL-

JUDL.FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE,

XI MM (Special Mobile Court) R.R.District