Sri D. Rama Mohan Reddy

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MULUGU.

Present:- Sri. D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu

FAC: Addl. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mulugu.

Dated, this the 5th of August, 2024.

C.C. No.958 of 2022

Between:-

The State of Telangana, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Eturnagaram.

...Complainant.

And

A1: Porika Srinu, S/o. Bausing, Age: 30 years, Occu: Driver, R/o. Lambai Thanda, H/o. Ramnagar of Eturnagaram. A2: Boragani Renuka, W/o. Kishan Rao, Age: 32 years, Occu: Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 2-35, Ramannagudem village of Eturnagaram Mandal. Accused No.1 and 2.

This case coming before me on 05-08-2024 for fnal hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and Sri. P. Ravi Kumar, counsel for Accused No. 1 and 2 and the matter having been heard, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The SHO of P.S., Eturnagaram fled charge sheet in Cr. No.70 of 2022 of his station against accused No.1 and 2 for the ofences punishable U/Sec.304-A of

IPC., and Sec.196 of MV Act.

2. The case of the prosecution succinctly is that on 19-05-2022 at about 9:00 hours husband of PW-1 namely Gara Yohan was sleeping in the shadow of tractor, being tired and at that time harvester driver sounded horn and by listening the same accused No.1 started the tractor and drove the same recklessly over the waist of her husband, due to which husband of PW-1 received severe injuries and fell down. Noticing the same said Srinu and Domala Mahesh informed to PW-1 over phone and shifted the injured to Dr. Varaprasad hospital for treatment on motor cycle where the doctors treated and declared her husband as dead. On verifcation of the vehicle documents found that the insurance is not valid.

Basing on the report of PW1, LW.14/S.I of Police, Eturnagaram registered a case in Crime No.70 of 2022 for the ofences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC.

During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of PW-1 at PS.

Later he recorded the statements of PWs.2 to 5 and LW6/Narbhi Singh., and in the presence of Lws 8/Gara Ramesh and LW9/Thota Tirumala Rao held inquest over the dead body of the deceased, by duly obtaining photographs with the help of photographer/LW-7 and recorded his statement and that dead body was subjected to LW-12/Dr. P. Rahil, Civil Assistant Surgeon CHC at Eturnagaram, who conducted PME and issued report by opining that the cause of death is due to “Cardio Respiratory Arrest Following Internal Hemorrhage”. After completion of

PME, dead body was handed over to it’s relatives. He also visited the scene of ofence at outskirts of Koyaguda Yellapur H/o Ramnagar of Eturnagaram and conducted sceneof ofence panchanama in the presence of LW 10/Bolle Rajender and 11/Thirri Sathish,duly drawing the rough sketch of scene of ofence. On 31- 05-2022 accused No. 1 surrendered before LW.14/SI of PS, Eturnagaram and on 01-06-2022 accused No. 2 surrendered before LW-14/S.I of police and on interrogation they voluntarily confessed about commission of this ofences, as such, he issued notice U/Sec.41(A) of Cr.PC., to them by instructing to appear

before the court on receiving summons. On verifcation of documents by

LW-14/S.I of Police Eturnagaram of accused No.2, he found that insurance of the vehicle is not valid. LW-13/Srinivas Baragadi who inspected crime vehicle issued report by opining that “the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.” On completion of investigation LW.14/SI of Police

Eturnagaram laid charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the ofences punishable U/Secs.304-A of IPC., and Sec.196 of MV Act.

3.This Court took cognizance of the ofences punishable U/s.304-A of IPC, and Sec.196 of MV Act., against A1 and A2. On appearance of the accused No. 1 and 2 copies of documents in this case were furnished to them as contemplated

U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused No.1 and 2 were examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C explaining the substance of accusation leveled against them for the ofences punishable

U/s.304-A of IPC, and Sec.196 of MV Act., in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 5 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P6. PW.1 and PW.2 are wife and mother of the deceased respectively. PW3 shifted deceased to the hospital. PW4 and PW5 are the eye witnesses to the incident. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on report Dt. 20-05-2022.

Ex.P2 to P6 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs 2 to 5. On 02-08-2024 learned

APP. given up evidence of LW-6 to 14/ Narbhai Singh, B. Ravindranath, G. Ramesh,

T. Tirumal Rao, B. Rajender, T. Sathish, Dr. P. Rahil, B. Srinivas and D. Ramesh.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, as no incriminating material appeared against the accused No.1 and 2, in the prosecution witnesses, examination contemplated U/Sec.313 of Cr.PC. is dispensed with.

7.Heard Learned counsel for the parties. Perused record.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of Accused No.1 and 2 for the ofences punishable U/Secs.304-A of IPC, and Sec.196 of MV Act. beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.Point : In support of its case, as stated supra, prosecution got examined

Pws.1 to 5 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P6.

10.PW1 who is the wife of the deceased, deposed that on 19-05-2022 at about 05.00 PM, one person informed to her that her husband sustained severe injuries and that her husband was shifted to hospital, as such, she immediately rushed to hospital and found that her husband already died.

11.PW2 who is the mother of the deceased also deposed that, three years ago she came to know through some one that her son sustained severe injuries and that her son was shifted to hospital, as such, she immediately rushed to hospital and found that her son already died.

12. PW3 to 5 who are the eye witnesses to the incident failed to support the prosecution and deposed in one voice that they do not know anything about the case and never witnessed anything pertaining to this case.

Inspite of cross examination of PWs 1 to 5 by the learned APP. with the permission of the court, nothing material could be elicited as they stood frm and intact.

13.From the perusal of the above testimonies on behalf of prosecution, there is absolutely nothing on record disclosing the nexus of accused with his rash or negligent act, as PW.1 and 2 who are wife and mother of deceased, did not attribute anything against accused No.1. PWs.2 to 5 who are said to have witnessed the accident also took somersault from their earlier versions and destructed the prosecution case. There is no iota of evidence available on record for the prosecution to bring home guilt of accused No.1 and 2 for the ofences with which they are alleged and accordingly they are entitled for the acquittal.

Hence this point is answered in favour of accused No.1 and 2.

14.IN THE RESULT, Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty of the ofences punishable U/Secs.304(A) of IPC., and 196 of MV. Act., and accordingly they are acquitted of the said ofences U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accused

No.1 and 2 shall be in force for a period of six months from this day as provided U/ sec.437(A) CrP.C. As no case property was deposited no order need to be passed.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist corrected on the desktop and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 5th day of August, 2024).

Sd/-

FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mulugu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: - None - PW-1: G. Ganga Bhavani PW-2: G. Venkatamma PW-3: B. Kishan Rao PW-4: D. Mahesh PW-5: L. Shoban

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex. P1: signature of PW-1 on report, Dt. 20-05-2024. -Nil- Ex. P2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW1. Ex. P3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex. P4: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex. P5: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Ex. P6: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu.

//Attested Copy//

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mulugu.

N'N THE COURT OF THE JUDICIALFIRSTCLASS MAGISTRATE, MULUGU

Present: Sri D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu

Dated,thisthe 03™ of October,2024

CC.No.289 of 2023

Between:

TheStateofTelangana,through theSub-InspectorofPolice,P.S Venkatapur.

...Complainant.

And

MatlaKarunakarReddy,S/o.RahupathiReddy, age:23yrs,Occ:Private employee, R/o. Velthurlapallyvillage of Venkatapur mandal.

...Accused

This case coming before me on 03-10-2024 for final hearingin the presenceof learnedA.P.P., for the State and of Sri.R.Bixapathycounselfor accused,upon hearingthe argumentsof both sides, this courtdelivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.TheSub-Inspectorof Police, P.S. Venkatapur,filed chargesheet in

Cr.No.22/2023ofhisstationagainst theAccusedfortheoffences punishableU/s.498-A,290, 324 of IPC, Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act.

2.The factualmatrix of the prosecutioncaseis that, marriageof PW1, was performedwith accused about06 monthsbackprior to lodging of

report at Regonda function hall grandly and at the time of marriage, her

_ Parentsagreedto give 20 gts., andpresented% tula gold. After the “marriage,sheandher husbandleadmaritallife amicably for one week,

thereafter‘accused started

harassing her mentally and physically on the

-'_ groundthat116 dowry was given to him at the time of marriage except 20 RL Ie) 5.ryBy TinBL C1 2

grs., land, as such, on the advise of paternal grand mother of accusai

namelyBharathamma,PW1 and accusedwent to Hyderabad and residedin a rentedroom as accusedwas an employee of Flipkart. After one week

PWI1, cameto herparentshouseon the occasion of Dussherafestivaland after the festival whenshe returnedto Hyderabad, accusedabusedand beat her on the groundthat she did not bring additional dowry and asked herto go to herparentshouseby dropping heratrailwaystation

Secunderabad,as such,PW1 returned to her parentshousewiththe help of her cousin LW5/N.Vinay. Subsequently on one day accusedwent to the parentshouseof PW1, abusedher by picking up quarreland wentaway, whichconstrainedPW2, to convenea panchayat

beforevillageelderswho

foundfault withaccusedandadvisedfatherof PW1 to send heronly on changeof attitudeof accused,hencePW1, isstayingalongwithher parents.Later accused,called relatives of PW1 and her family members

and

madefalse propaganda,as such,when she and PW2, wentto the house of

LW10/M.VasudevaReddy anddiscussing the issue,accusedwent there andbeatPW1, witha stick andcausedinjuries.Meanwhile whenPW2,

intervened, accused beat him with sticks and caused injuries. On noticing

the samewhenLW7 and LW9/K.ChalamandG.Prabhakar intervenedto rescuePW1andPW2, accusedalsobeatthem withstickandcaused ihjliries,due to whichPW1 sustained injuryon herleft handand other| 25/7——

/ pats’while\PW3, LW7 and LW9/K.Chalam and G.Prabhakar sustained

LSELj% 8X, injuri,On 02-03-2023 in the afternoonat about 02:30 pm., when 4/ nd 2: were not in the house, accusedwent to the parents houseof ovSd bis EY " PVN,abusedLW3/N.Ramaandbeatherwithhands,assuch,LW3

escaped and took shelter in the house of neighbours.

Basingonthereportof PW1,LW14/A.S.Iof Police,Venkatapur.

registeredacaseinCr.No.22/2023fortheoffenceundersections

U/s.498-A,324,290ofIPC, Sec.3& 4 D.P.Act.Duringthecourseof investigation,he recordedthe statementof PW1 andsubjectedher toArea

Hospital Mulugu for medical examinationand he also visited the scene of offenceat Keshavapurvillage of Venkatapurmandal,in the presenceof

LWs.11and12/V.DevenderandMd.Raja.SubsequentlyLW15/S.Iof

Police took up furtherinvestigationdone by LW14/S.1.ofPolice foundit on proper lines.

On 05-03-2023Accused,on being served with Sec.41-A Cr.pc. notice andoninterrogationbyLWI15/S.1.of PoliceVenkatkapur,voluntarily confessed to have committedthis offence, as such, accusedwas instructed to appearbeforethe court.On completionof investigationLW15/SIof

Police, Venktapurlaid charge-sheetagainstthe accused for the offences punishableU/s.498-A,324, 290 of IPC, Sec.3 & 4 D.P.Act.

3:This courttook cognizanceof the offences U/s.498-A324, 504 of

IPC, Sec.3& 4 D.P.Act.against Accused.On appearanceof accusedcopies of documentsas contemplated undersection 207 of the Code of Criminal ’ Procedure, were furnished to accused.

of {5Accusedyas examinedU/Sec.239Cr.P.C. Charges framedfor the 3offencespllshabie U/s.498-A,324,504ofIPC, Sec.3 & 4 D.PAct.are

Fostre

readover andexplainedto him,for whichhe pleadednot guiltyxd

claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establishits case,prosecutiongot examinedPW1 and PW2 and got exhibitedExs.P1toP3, PW1 is the complainant and victim.PW.2 is fatherof the PW1. Ex.P1 is the reportlodged by PW1. Exs.P2 and P3 are sec.161Cr.PCstatementsof PWs.1and2. On 30-09-2024 LearnedAPP.

givenupevidenceofLWs.3to15/N.Rama, G.BabuRao,N.Vinay,

M.Prakash,K.Chalam,R.Surender, G.Prabhakar,M.VasudevaReddy,

V.Devender,Md.Rajak,Dr. Nasir JaniShaik,T.Krishnaiah, Sk. Tajuddin.

6.Afterclosureoftheprosecution evidence,asnoincriminating

material appeared against the accused in the prosecution

witnesses,as

such, examinationcontemplated, U/Sec.313of Cr.PC is dispensedwith.

7.Heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

8.Now, the point thatarisesfor determination is:

Whether the prosecutionbrought home the guilt of Accused for the offencespunishableU/s.498-A,324, 504IPC, Secs.3& 4 D.P.Act. beyond all reasonabledoubt?

9Point: In supportof its case, asstatedsupra,prosecution got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3.

10.PWI1 whois thecomplainant andvictimherselfdeposed thatshe

lodged report against accused, due to petty disputes at the instance of her ]

LONE /" “parentsand’RYshe do not know contents of said report. Hoh A 3 Wo who 1s fatherof PW1 also deposed thathe do not know anythigy 5

MN Inspiteof crossexaminationof PWs.1 and 2 by the Lrd. APP. with the permissionof this court nothingmaterialcould be elicited as PWs.1 and 2 stood firm and intact.

12.Fromtheperusalof theaboveprosecutiontestimonies,thereis

absolutely nothing on record to disclose the nexus of accused with the

presentallegedoffences,as PW.1 herselftooksomersaultfromherearlier versionand destructedthe prosecutioncaseandthatPW2 beingfatherof

PW1 also failed to supportthe prosecutioncase in toto. Thereis no iota of evidenceavailableon recordfor the prosecutionto bringhome guilt of accusedfor the offences with which he is chargedand accordinglyhe is entitledfor theacquittal.Hencethispointis answeredagainstthe prosecution.

13.IN THERESULT,accusedisfoundnotguiltyoftheoffences punishablee U/s.498-A,324,504ofIPC,Sec.3& 4D.P.Act. and| accordinglyhe is acquittedof the said offencesU/Sec.248(1)of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of accusedshall be in force for a period of six monthsfrom this day as provided U/sec.437(A)of Cr.pc. As no case property was deposited-

no order need to be passed.

(Typed to my dictationby PA, correctedon the desktopand pronounced by me in the opencourt,todaythisthe 03™ day of October,2024).

Frudd, Jeol

JudicialMagistrate of First Class,

Mulugu.

|

6

|

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

”~

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

FOR DEFENCE:

PW.1: N.Ramya - None - PW.2: N.Bixapathi

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: reportlodged by PW1 - Nil - Ex.P2: Sec. 161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Sec. 161 Cr.PC statement of PW2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

BILAL ol

JudicialMagistrate of First Class,

Mulugu.

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE, MULUGU.

Present:- Sri. D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu

FAC: ADDL. Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mulugu.

Dated, this the 8th of July, 2024.

C.C. No. 411 of 2024

Between:-

The State of Telangana, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Pasra.

...Complainant.

And

Chelam Yarraiah, S/o. Pullaiah, Age: 43 years, Occu: Auto Driver, R/o. Kotashala, H/o. Lingala village of S.S. Tadvai Mandal, Mulugu District.

This case coming before me on 08-07-2024 for fnal hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sri. R. Raj kumar, Asst. Legal Aid Defence Counsel, for Accused and the matter having been heard, and this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The SHO of P.S., Pasra fled charge sheet in Cr. No. 28 of 2024 of his station against accused for the ofences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC, Sec.196 of MV

Act.

2. The case of the prosecution succinctly is that on 18-03-2024 father of PW-1 went to water plant in their village and after collecting the water in the can proceeded to their home on his bicycle, meantime accused being driver of auto rickshaw bearing No. AP-16-TG-0062 drove the auto rickshaw without insurance in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his father/deceased from behind, as a result of which deceased fell down on the road and sustained bleeding injuries.

Immediately he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal and admitted for treatment, while undergoing treatment on 18-03-2024 at about 21: 45 hours father of PW-1 succumbed to injuries.

Basing on the report of PW1, LW.15/HC-416 of Police, Pasra registered a case in Crime No.28 of 2024 for the ofences punishable U/Sec.304-A of IPC, and

Sec.196 of MV Act. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of PW-1 at PS. Later he recorded the statements of PWs2 to 4 and Lws 2, 4 and 5/

G. Kethamma, K. Sammakka, K. Saramma, and secured presence of Lw 9/P.

Lingaiah and 10/J. Yellaiah and in their presence held inquest over the dead body of the deceased duly obtaining photographs with the help of photographer/LW-8 and body was subjected to LW-13/Dr. Rajamalik Khan, professor FMD/KMC

Warangal for PME, who conducted PME and issued report by opining that the cause of death is due to “Head injury”. He recorded statement of the LW-8/J.

Bixapathy. After completion of PME, dead body was handed over to it’s relatives.

He also visited the scene of ofence at Moddulagudem village and conducted sceneof ofence panchanama in the presence of LW 11/M. Komuraiah and 12/T.

Raviduly drawing the rough sketch of scene of ofence. LW-16/S.I of police took up further investigation, verifed investigation done by LW-15 found it on proper lines. On 20-03-2024 accused surrendered before LW.16/SI of PS, Pasra and on interrogation voluntarily confessed about commission of this ofence as such he was issued notice U/Sec.41(A) of Cr.PC., with instructions to appear before the court on receiving summons. On verifcation of documents by LW-16/S.I of Police

Pasra of accused, he found that insurance of the vehicle was expired.LW-14/MD.

Siraj Ur Rahaman who inspected crime vehicle issued report by opining that “the accident occurred was not due to any mechanical defects of the vehicle.” On completion of investigation LW.16/SI of Police laid charge sheet against accused for the ofences punishable U/Secs.304-A of IPC, and Sec.196 of MV Act.

3.This Court took cognizance of the ofences punishable U/s.304-A of IPC, and

Sec.196 of MV Act., against the accused. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents in this case were furnished to him as contemplated U/s.207 of Cr.P.C.

4.Accused is examined U/sec.251 Cr.P.C explaining the substance of accusation leveled against him for the ofences punishable U/s.304-A of IPC, and

Sec.196 of MV Act., in telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 4 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P4. PW.1 and PW.2 are son and daughter in law of the deceased respectively. PW3 and PW4 are the eye witness to the incident. Ex.P1 is the signature of PW1 on report Dt. 19-03-2024. Ex.P2 to P4 are Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements of PWs 2 to 4. On 05-07-2024 learned APP. given up evidence of LW- 2/G. Kethamma, LW-4/K. Sammakka, LW-5/K. Saramma and LW- 8 to 16/J.

Bixapathy, P. Lingaiah, J. Yellaiah, M. Komuraiah, T. Ravi, Dr. Rajamalik, MD. Siraj Ur

Rahaman, D. Narsasimha Rao and A. Kamalakar.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, as no incriminating material appeared against the accused, in the prosecution witnesses, examination contemplated U/Sec.313 of Cr.PC. is dispensed with.

7.Heard Learned counsel for the parties. Perused record.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of Accused for the ofences punishable U/Secs.304-A of IPC, and Sec.196 of MV Act. beyond all reasonable doubt?”

9.Point : In support of its case, as stated supra, prosecution got examined

Pws.1 to 4 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P4.

10.PW1 who is the son of the deceased, deposed that on 18-03-2024 he received telephonic information through his wife that his father met with an accident and while his wife and other relatives were shifting his father to MGM.

hospital, Warangal on way his father succumbed to injuries.

11.PW2 who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased also deposed that, on 18- 03-2024 her father in law collected water from her house and was returning to his house and later she came to know that he met with an accident and that immediately she rushed to scene of ofence and by the time she reached scene, some passersby called ambulance and while she along with other relatives were shifting to hospital on the way, her father in law succumbed to injuries.

12. PW3 and PW4 who are the eye witness to the incident failed to support the prosecution and deposed that they do not know anything about the case and never witnessed anything pertaining to this case.

Inspite of cross examination of PWs 2 to 4 by the learned APP. with the permission of the court, nothing material could be elicited as they stood frm and intact.

13.From the perusal of the above testimonies on behalf of prosecution, there is absolutely nothing on record disclosing the nexus of accused with his rash or negligent act, as PW.1 and 2 who are son and daughter in law of deceased, did not attribute anything against accused. PWs.3 and 4 who are said to have witnessed the accident also took somersault from their earlier versions and destructed the prosecution case. There is no iota of evidence available on record for the prosecution to bring home guilt of accused for the ofences with which he is alleged and accordingly he is entitled for the acquittal. Hence this point is answered in favour of accused.

14.IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty of the ofences punishable

U/Secs.304(A) of IPC and Sec.196 of MV. Act., and accordingly he is acquitted of the said ofences U/Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C. As no case property was deposited no order need to be passed.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist corrected on the desktop and pronounced by me in open Court on this, the 8th day of July, 2024).

Sd/-

FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mulugu.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence: - None - PW-1: G. Kumaraswamy @ Kumar PW-2: G. Nagamani PW-3: Y. Venkanna PW-4: M. Vajramma

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

Ex. P1: is signature on report, Dt. 19-03-2024.-Nil- Ex. P2: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2. Ex. P3: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3. Ex. P4: Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL -

Sd/-

FAC: Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE, MULUG

Present: Sri D. Rama Mohan Reddy, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mulug.

Dated, this the 1st day of October, 2024.

O.S. No.43 of 2024

Between: 1.Munnangi Ramya, W/o. Late Munnangi Yakub Reddy, age: 33 yrs, Occ: Agriculture labour. 2.Munnangi Deeksha Madhuri, D/o. Late Munnangi Yakub Reddy, age: 12 yrs, Occ:Student. 3.Munnangi Nainisha Reddy, D/o. Late Munnangi Yakub Reddy, age: 10 yrs, Occ: Student. All are R/o. Potlapur village, Mulugu Mandal and District.

(The plaintiff No.2 and 3 are being minors rep., by their natural mother and guardian i.e., plaintiff No.1)

... Plaintiffs No.1 to 3

AND

1.The State of Telangana through District Collector, Mulugu. 2.To whom so ever it may concerned.

... Defendants No. 1 and 2

This case coming before me on 30-09-2024 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Y.Narsi Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiffs and of AGP. for defendant No.1; no objections received for defendant No.2 and matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following :: J U D G M E N T ::

1.Plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration, declaring them as class I legal heirs and successors of deceased Munnangi Yakub Reddy, for the purpose of death benefits and for costs.

2.In a nutshell the case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiff No.1 is the wife, plaintiff No.2 and 3 are the children of Late Munnangi Yakub Reddy, who worked as daily wages agriculture labour and died on 21-02-2024 due to ill 2 health, at MGM Hospital, Warangal leaving the plaintiffs as legal heirs.

Subsequent to the death of Yakub Reddy, plaintiffs applied for sanction of death benefits on compassionate grounds before defendant No.1, but he denied the status of plaintiffs and directed the plaintiffs to produce legal heir certificate, which constrained them to approach Tahsildar-cum-Joint

Sub-registrar Mulugu, to issue family member certificate and also legal heir certificate of the deceased Munnangi Yakub Reddy. On enquiry Tahsildar issued family member certificate of late Munnangi Yakub Reddy, only and that he is not competent to issue legal heir certificate in view of judgement of Hon’ble High court at judicature at Hyderabad and can obtain the same from competent court of law. Hence the suit.

3.Per contra, defendant No.1 filed written statement by denying the plaint averments and further submitted that plaintiffs be put to strict proof of the same. Thasildar, Mulugu on enquiry found that plaintiffs No.1 to 3 are family members of deceased Munnangi Yakub Reddy who died on 21- 02-2024 and issued family member/dependent certificate.

No objections were received from anybody subsequent to the issuance of paper publication, for defendant No.2.

4.Basing on the rival contentions the following issues were framed for trial :

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of deceased Munnangi Yakub Reddy ?

2) If so, to what relief ?

3

5. During the course of trial plaintiffs got examined plaintiff No.1 as

PW1 and got exhibited Exs.A1 to A3. On the other hand on behalf of defendants, none were examined and no documents were marked.

6. Heard both the counsel, who reiterated their cases. Perused the record.

7. Issue No.1: Plaintiffs in support of their case examined plaintiff No.1 as PW1 and filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination by reiterating their case and relied upon Exs.A1 to A3. Ex.A1 is the digitalized copy of death certificate of Munnangi Yakub Reddy dated:23-03-2024, issued by Mee-

Seva, which discloses that Munnangi Yakub Reddy died on 21-2-2024.

Ex.A2 is the digitalized copy of family member certificate of Munnangi

Yakub Reddy, dt: 18-07-2024, issued by Tahsildar, Mulugu, which discloses that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are daughters and that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of

Munnangi Yakub Reddy. It further discloses that Munnangi Yakub Reddy, being a daily wages agriculture labour died due to ill health. Ex.A3 are three original Aadhar cards of plaintiffs, which discloses that plaintiffs No.2 and 3 are the daughters of the deceased.

Though PW1 was cross examined by Lrd. AGP., nothing material could be elicited in order impeach the chief examination. Further PW1 denied that, they are not the only legal heirs of deceased and that there other legal heirs. The testimony of PW1 remained uncontroverted.

8.Since oral testimony of PW1 remained uncontroverted and as Ex.A1 discloses the death of husband of plaintiff No.1 and also that as per Ex.A2 4 and Ex.A3, plaintiffs are the only family members of deceased Munnangi

Yakub Reddy. No objections were received from any body in the matter, after issuance of publication for defendant No.2. Defendant No.1 is not seriously disputing the legal character of plaintiffs. Since plaintiffs are seeking to be declared as legal heirs in order to receive the death benefits of

Munnangi Yakub Reddy, hence, this court feels it just and proper to grant declaration in favour of plaintiffs as sought for. Accordingly, plaintiffs are entitled to be declared as legal heirs of deceased Munnangi Yakub Reddy and this issue is answered, accordingly in favour of plaintiffs.

9.In the result, the suit is decreed declaring plaintiffs as the legal heirs of deceased Munnangi Yakub Reddy S/o.Munnangi Nagabhushana Reddy, only for the purpose of receiving death benefits. No costs.

(Typed to my dictation by P.A, corrected on the desktop and pronounced by me in the Open Court, this the 1 st day of October, 2024 ).

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiffs: For Defendants:

PW1: Munnangi Ramya - Nil-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiffs:

Ex.A1 :digitalized copy of death certificate of Munnangi Yakub Reddy, dt: 23-03-2024, issued by Mee-Seva. Ex.A2: Family member certificate issued by Tahsildar, Mulugu dt.18-07- 2024.

5

Ex:A3: three original Aadhar Cards of Plaintiffs.

For Defendants : Nil

Sd/-

Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mulugu.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDL. FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE MULUGU

Present:- Sri. D. Rama Mohan Reddy,

Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mulugu

Dated, this the 16th day of October, 2024.

C.C. No.609 of 2024

Between:-

The State of Telangana, through the Sub-Inspector of Police, PS Mulugu.

...Complainant.

And

Koyyada Vinod, S/o. Rajaiah, age:27 yrs, Occ: GP Worker, R/o. Mulugu.

...Accused

This case coming before me on 16-10-2024 for final hearing in the presence of learned A.P.P., for the State and of Sri.R. Raj Kumar Asst. Legal Aid Defence counsel, for Accused and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this court delivered the following :

J U D G M E N T

1.The SHO. of P.S., Tadvai filed charge sheet in Cr.No.163 of 2024 of his station against accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A. Sec.4

DP.Act

2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case is that, love marriage of

PW1, with accused was solemnized in the year 2021 and are blessed with one daughter. After the marriage, accused lead marital life with PW1 amicably for a period of 6 months, thereafter, accused habituated to alcohol, every day used to come to the house consuming alcohol and 2 harass her mentally and physically suspecting her and also demanding to bring additional dowry from her parents. In this regard panchayats were held for several times in the presence of elders/LWs.4 and 5/P.Shamal Naik and K. Sammaiah, but there is no change in the attitude of accused. On 17-05-2023 afternoon at about 14:30 hours, accused came to the house by consuming alcohol and abused her parents and when she questioned accused as to why he was abusing her parents, accused beat PW1 and her daughter with hands.

Basing on the report lodged of PW1, LW8/SI of Police Mulugu, registered a case in Cr.No.163 of 2024 for the offences punishable U/s.498 (A) and Sec.4 DP.Act. and investigated into. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of available witnesses and collected marriage photo from the PW1, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of mediators

LWs.6 and 7/Mirja Hymad Baigh and Bugga Chiranjevi.

On 18-05-2024 Accused, on being served with Sec.41-A Cr.pc. notice appeared before LW8/S.I.of Police on 19-05-2024 and during the interrogation, he voluntarily confessed about the commission of this offence. On completion of investigation LW8/SI of Police, Mulugu, laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offences punishable U/s.498-A of

IPC, Sec.4 of D.P.Act.

3

3. This court took cognizance of the offences.498 (A) of IPC and Sec.4 of

D.P.Act. against Accused. On appearance of accused copies of documents as contemplated under section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, were furnished to accused.

4.Accused was examined U/Sec.239 Cr.P.C. Charges framed for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A of IPC. and Sec.4 of DP. Act. are read over and explained to him, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.In order to establish its case, prosecution got examined PW1 and PW2 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3, PW1 is the complainant and victim. PW.2 is mother of the PW1. Ex.P1 is the report lodged by PW1. Ex.P2 and P3 are sec.161 Cr.PC statements of PWs.1 and 2. On 04-10-2024 Learned APP.

given up evidence of LWs.3 to 8/G.Jeevaratnam, P.Sharma, K.Sammaiah,

Mirja Hymad Baigh, B.Chiranjeevi and A.Venkateswar.

6.After closure of the prosecution evidence, as no incriminating material appeared against the accused in the prosecution witnesses, as such, examination contemplated, U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C is dispensed with.

7.Heard Learned counsel for the parties and perused record.

8.Now, the point that arises for determination is:

Whether the prosecution brought home the guilt of Accused for the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A and Sec.4 of DP. Act. beyond all reasonable doubt?

4 9Point : In support of its case, as stated supra, prosecution got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.P1 to P3.

10.PW1 who is the complainant and victim herself deposed that she lodged report against accused, due to petty disputes between her and accused and that village elders, obtained her signatures on some blank papers.

10.PW2 who is mother of PW1 deposed that she do not know anything about this case.

Inspite of cross examination of PWs. 1 and 2 by the Lrd. APP. with the permission of this court nothing material could be elicited as PWs.1 and 2 stood firm and intact.

11. From the perusal of the above prosecution testimonies, there is absolutely nothing on record to disclose the nexus of accused with the present alleged offences, as PW.1 herself took somersault from her earlier version and destructed the prosecution case and that PW2 being mother of

PW1 also failed to support the prosecution case in toto. There is no iota of evidence available on record for the prosecution to bring home the guilt of accused for the offences with which he is charged and accordingly he is entitled for the acquittal. Hence this point is answered against the prosecution.

5

12.IN THE RESULT, accused is found not guilty of the offences punishable U/Secs.498-A, Sec.4 DP.Act. and accordingly he is acquitted of the said offences U/Sec.248(1) of Cr.P.C. As no case property was deposited no order need to be passed.

(Typed to my dictation by PA, corrected on the desktop and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 16 th day of October, 2024).

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mulugu.

:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE: PW.1: K.Ramya - None - PW.2: G.Esahwaramma

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1: report lodged by PW1 - Nil - Ex.P2: Sec.161 Cr.PC statement of PW1 Ex.P3: Sec.161 Cr.PC statement of PW2

.MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-

Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mulugu.