D. Ravinder Sharma

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : D. RAVINDRA SHARMA, I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated, this the 25th day of April, 2018

SESSIONS CASE NO. 511/2015

(PRC NO. 10/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE II METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT L.B.NAGAR)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through SHO complainant P.S. L.B.Nagar 2Name and description of the : 1.Kumari Katkuri Shalini,D/o Ganesh accused Goud, aged 31 years, Occ: Pvt Employee, Occ:Business, r/o H. No. 3-6-266, Venture I, Pragathinagar colony, Old SBH Colony, L B Nagar

2. Ponnala Ravi Kanth Reddy @ Ravi, S/o Aagi Reddy, age 33 years, Occ: Business, R/o H. No. 2-17, Sneha Colony, Keesara, RR Dist 3Offence with which charged: U/sec. 306 IPC 4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6Sentence or order:In the result, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 are found not guilty of the offence u/sec. 306 IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec. 235 (i) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

7Prosecution conducted by :Smt.G.Kasturi Bai, APP 8Accused defended by:M/s E.Srinivas Reddy

This case is coming up before me for final hearing for disposal in the presence of

Smt. G. Kasturi Bai, Additional Public Prosecutor and of E.Srinivas Reddy, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. In this case the accused Nos. 1 & 2 are alleged to have abated the deceased Chevvu Shyam Kumar to commit suicide by harassing him prior to 23.09.2013. Therefore, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 are liable to be punished u/sec. 306 IPC.

2. The allegations against accused No. 1 & 2 are that :

On 23.09.2013 at 01.30 P.M., the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of

Chevvu Shyam Kumar at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The said Chevvu

Shyam Kumar stated that he is plying auto for Gouthami Model School children. Since

January 2013, the accused No.1 is also travelling in his auto. That he advanced hand loans of Rs.5,000/-, Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1 lakh to accused No.1. When he asked the accused No.1 to repay the said hand loan, she threatened him that she will lodge police complaint for harassing her and also demanded Rs. 1 lakh from the deceased. That ten days prior, the accused No.2 demanded money from the deceased by threatening him that he will inform the matter to the family members of the deceased Shyam Kumar.

Immediately, the deceased went to the house of accused No.1, poured petrol and set himself ablaze. Some of the neighbours shifted him to Omini Hospital and from there to

Osmania General Hospital in 108 ambulance for treatment and he requested to take necessary action against the accused Nos.1 & 2. Basing on the said complaint, the investigating officer registered a case in Cr. No. 1153/2013 u/sec. 309 IPC. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in the presence of panch witnesses. On receipt of information about the death of Shyam Kumar on 24.09.2013 at 08.05 P.M., he altered the section of law from 309 to 306 IPC. That he conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased and subjected the same for autopsy. Dr. K. Lakshman (LW13) conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and opined the cause of death is due to burns. Later the dead body was handed over to the relatives. The dying declaration of the deceased Shyam Kumar was recorded by the then XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The accused No.1 & 2 were arrested and produced before the Court. On completion of investigation charge sheet was filed.

3. After taking cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 306 IPC against the accused Nos. 1 & 2 by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at L.B.Nagar, vide PRC No.10/2015, and after compliance of Sec. 228 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C. No. 511/2015 and made over to this Court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

4. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor, and the accused, charge under Section 306 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused Nos. 1 & 2 in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued, witnesses Pws 1 to 7 were examined and Exs P1 to P11 were marked as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

6. Accused Nos. 1 & 2 were examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

7. Heard arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration is, whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos. 1 & 2 for the offence u/sec. 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs 1 to 7. PW1 –

Ch.Veeramma is the mother of deceased and PW 4 –C. Latha is the wife of the deceased, they are the circumstantial witnesses. Pw 2 – M.P.Vijay Satish Reddy and PW 3- Kalyan

Kumar Reddy Keshav Reddy are the eye witness to the incident. PW5 – K. Bheemappa is the panch witness for scene of offence panchanama. PW6 – Sri Y. Veeraju is the learned

XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Shyam Kumar. Pw 7 – M. Mallikarjun is the then Sub Inspector of Police,

L.B.Nagar who investigated this case.

9. Point: The mother of the deceased namely Ch. Veeramma as PW1 deposed that accused No.1 is a teacher of Goutham Model School and accused No.2 is her associate. The deceased Shyam Kumar was an auto driver attached to Goutham Model

School. That during his life time the deceased Shyam Kumar lent Rs. 3 lakhs to accused

No.1 on different dates, but the accused No.1 did not return the said amount and in turn tortured him for further amounts and threatened to intimate the same to his family members by visiting his house. Due to the torture meted out in the hands of the accused

No.1, the deceased Shyam Kumar committed suicide by pouring kerosene and by setting himself ablaze on 23.09.2013 and he succumbed to death while undergoing treatment at

Osmania General Hospital.

10. The eye witnesses to this case are examined as PWs 2 & 3. They deposed that on 23.09.2013 at about 10.00 A.M., one person burnt himself in the ground near to their house. That they do not know why that person set himself ablaze and who is responsible for the same.

11. The wife of the deceased Ch. Latha as PW4 deposed that her husband used to run auto for transporting the children to Gowtham Model School, Dilsukhnagar. Prior to one week of death of her husband, she found him to be with some tension. On enquiry he replied that the said tension was due to the school matters. As usual on 23.09.2013 at about 07.00 A.M., the deceased went to school duty along with his auto. At about 10.30

A.M., her uncle Jangaiah come to her and informed that her husband was hospitalized due to sickness. Therefore she first went to Omni Hospital and from there to Osmania General

Hospital where her husband was shifted and found her husband with burns. She further deposed that she was informed by the relatives and friends of her husband that accused

No.1, who is having illicit relationship with her husband Shyam Kumar, she demanded money from her husband. That her husband has already lent Rs.3 lakhs to accused

No.1. Due to the harassment of accused No.1, the deceased committed suicide by setting himself ablaze in front of the house of the accused No.1 on 23.09.2013. That the accused

No.1 is responsible for the suicidal death of her husband.

12. The panch witness for scene of offence panchanama K.Bheemappa as PW5 deposed that when he went to police station in connection with some case, the police obtained his signatures on scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch. He does not know the contents of the panchanama.

13. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded by Sri Y.Veeraju PW6) the then XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. He recorded the dying declaration of deceased Shyam Kumar on 23.09.2013 at Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad. He deposed that on 23.09.2013 at about 3.45 P.M. recorded the declaration of injured person (deceased), who stated about several aspects with regard to his acquaintance with accused No.1 and finally stated that he committed suicide due to the harassment meted out from accused No.1. That he obtained right toe impression of the injured person on the statement and obtained certificate of Duty Doctor about the mental condition of the declarant/Shyam Kumar. That he read over and explained the contents of the statement to the injured person, who affirmed the same to be true and correct. The dying declaration of deceased Shyam Kumar was marked as Ex P5.

14. The Investigation Officer M. Mallikarjun, the then SI of Police, PS L.B.Nagar as

PW7 deposed that he recorded the statement of deceased Shyam Kumar as under Ex P6 on 23.09.2013 at 2.30 P.M., in Burns Ward, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Basing on the said statement LW15 SI of Polcie registered Cr. No. 1153/2013 u/sec. 309 IPC and issued Ex P7 FIR and the investigation was entrusted to PW7. During the course of investigation PW7 recorded the statements of witnesses, visited the scene of offence. On 23.09.2013 at 04.00 P.M., he conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch under Ex P8 in the presence of PW5 and LW9 – Krishna Reddy. That he got recorded the Dying Declaration of deceased through the learned Addl. Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, Nampally, Hyderabad PW6 on 23.09.2013. That he received death intimation

of deceased on 25.09.2013 at 10.00 A.M., from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad.

He went to hospital, conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of LW11- Kaleswar and LW12- Laxman as under Ex P9. That LW13 Dr. Laxman conducted PME over the dead body of deceased as under Ex P10. Later he filed section alteration memo dt 20.12.2013 Ex P11. That he apprehended the accused No.2 on 23.12.2013 at 12.30 noon at Uppal Cross Road and accused No.1 at 08.00 A.M. on 24.12.2013 at SBH Colony, L.B.Nagar. That after effecting the arrest of accused Nos. 1 & 2 he produced them before the Court. That after completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

15. The learned Addl.PP contended that when the evidence of PWs 1, 4 and that PW6 the learned XIV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased and the IO PW7 are considered together with the dying declaration Ex P5 proves the alleged offence committed by the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. The accused are liable for punishment for the offence Sec. 306 IPC.

16. The learned defence counsel contends that the accused are falsely implicated in this case. The evidence will not attract the charged offence u/sec. 306 IPC. There is no direct evidence produced by the prosecution to prove the accused have ever abated the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution did not produce the call data of the accused persons though it is alleged that they have made telephone calls and sent messages by demanding money. The prosecution also did not place any document to show that the deceased had lent any money to the accused No. 1. The prosecution failed to produce any evidence to prove the charges. The allegation in the dying declaration of deceased are not supported by any of the witnesses. The contents of dying declaration also does not constitute the alleged offence of Sec. 306 IPC. For these reasons he prayed for acquittal of the accused Nos. 1 & 2.

17. The allegation against the accused Nos. 1 & 2 is that the accused No. 1 who is a teacher of Goutham Model School, Dilsukhnagar has obtained amounts as loan amounting to Rs. 3 lakhs from the deceased who was an auto driver in that school. The accused

No.1 further demanded for payment of Rs. 1 lakh more otherwise she will inform to his family. The accused No.1 has taken help of accused No. 2 in demanding the money from the deceased. The accused No. 2 alleged to have sent SMS to the cell phone of deceased and the accused No.1 went to the house of deceased and demanded money.

The deceased who was unable to bear all this torture had committed suicide before the house of accused No.1 at L.B.Nagar by pouring petrol/kerosene on himself 23.09.2013 and died due to burns while undergoing treatment at Osmania General Hospital.

18. On perusal of evidence on record PW1 the mother of the deceased PW4 the wife of the deceased are not the eye witnesses to the borrowing of amounts by the accused

No. 1 and the alleged harassment made by the accused No.1 to bring more money by the deceased. The other circumstantial witnesses PWs 2, 3 did not support the case of prosecution by stating that they do not know the reason for committing suicide by the deceased. Therefore the allegations shall be proved by the prosecution basing upon the evidence of PWs 1, 4, 6 & 7.

19. The charge against the accused Nos. 1 & 2 is under Section 306 I.P.C., which deals with abatement of suicide, reads as follows:-

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. What is abetment is defined under Section 107 I.P.C.

which reads as follows:-

Abetment of a thing:-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-

First:- Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly:- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly:- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation-1:- A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

20.The Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to give under what circumstances the conduct of the accused would attract Section 306 I.P.C. in the decision of STATE OF

PUNJAB Vs. IQBAL SINGH which is as follows:- “Then we have a situation where the husband or his relative by his willful conduct creates a situation which he knows, will drive the woman to commit suicide and she actually does so, the case would squarely fall within the ambit of Section 306 I.P.C. In such a case, the conduct of the person tantamount to inciting or provoking or virtually pushing the woman into a desperate situation of no return which would compel her to put an end to her miseries by committing suicide”.

21. The relevant portion of the dying declaration recorded by PW6 in verbatim is extracted as follows:

22. The defence counsel contends that even if the entire contents of dying declaration and evidence are considered it will not constitute the offence of Sec. 306 IPC. He relied upon the citations of the Hon'ble High Court in Vunyala Gopal v. Lolakpuri Mahender and others reported in 2017 (1) ALT (Crl.) 170 (A.P). Wherein it is held that in the absence of instigation and intentional aid to the deceased to commit suicide, the accused cannot be convicted of the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. If the deceased committed suicide unable to bear harassment, and same to be proved by the evidence.

23. The learned counsel for the accused also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh between Bura Manohar v/s State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2002 LawSuit(AP) 1262, wherein it was held that the acts of causing humiliation may be the offence, but if there is no material on record to show that there was 'abatement' as defined in Section 107 IPC for the deceased committing suicide, a charge under Section 306 IPC cannot be framed against the accused. In a judgment of Hon'ble

High Court of Andhra Pradesh between T.Brahmanandam v/s State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2005 LawSuit (AP) 1096 referred citation of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Netai

Dutta v. State of West Bengal, 2005 AIR SCW 1326 = 2005 AILD 203 (SC), the Hon’ble

Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the suicide note to implicate the persons mentioned in the suicide note as accused, wherein it held that in absence of any willful act or incidence or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased in committing the act of suicide and in the absence of any contents in the suicide note to make out offence against the accused which ultimately instigated or resulted in the committal of suicide by the accused.

24. In view of the above citations of the Hon'ble Courts and in consideration of the evidence on record, the prosecution has not placed the call data of the accused persons and even of the deceased stated that the accused No.2 had sent SMS to the deceased by demanding Rs. 1 lakh on the day of committing suicide. The accused No. 1 who was alleged to have frequently demanding money through phone, but surprisingly her cell phone call data was not produced to prove the nexus between the accused No. 1 and the deceased. The witnesses PWs 1 & 4 the mother and wife of the deceased are admittedly not the eye witnesses when the accused demanded the amount, tortured and harassed the deceased. Even if the entire dying declaration Ex P5 is considered in view of the above citations of the Hon'ble Courts the mere apprehension of the deceased will not constitute the alleged charge of Sec. 306 IPC. All these facts and circumstances would clearly gives doubt in believing the version of prosecution. Thus, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 are entitled for benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove the offence charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused persons are thereby entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused Nos. 1 & 2 and against the prosecution.

25. In the result, the accused Nos. 1 & 2 are found not guilty of the offence u/sec. 306

IPC and accordingly they are acquitted u/sec. 235 (i) Cr.P.C. the bail bonds of the accused and their sureties shall stand cancelled after appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 25th day of April, 2018.)

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: 1PW1:Ch.VeerammaNil 2PW2:M.P.Vijay Satish Reddy 3PW3:Kalyan Kumar Reddy Keshav Reddy 4PW4:C. Latha 5PW5:K. Bheemappa 6PW6:Sri Y. Veeraju 7PW7:M. Mallikarjun

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: 1Ex P1:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW2 2Ex P2:161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW3Nil 3Ex P3:Signature of Pw5 on scene of offence panchanama 4Ex P4:Requisition 5Ex P5:Dying declaration 6Ex P6:161 Cr.P.C. statement of deceased 7Ex P7:First Information Report 8Ex P8:Scene of offence panchanama and rough sketch 9Ex P9:Inquest report 10Ex P10:Postmortem examination report 11Ex P11:Section alteration memo

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 1

IN THE COURT OF III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC)

AT L.B.NAGAR, R.R.DISTRICT

PRESENT:- D. Ravindra Sharma, III Addl.Senior Civil Judge (FTC).

Dated on this the 25th day of October, 2016

O.S.No.190 of 2007

Between:

M/s. BINTEX CORPORATIONS, 11-5-19/2, Bhavaninagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad 500 018, represented by its Proprietrix Smt. Madhu Biyani W/o. Suresh Biyani

...Plaintiff.

AND

The Managing Director M/s.FILTRON ENGINEERS LTD Filtron House, 6, Sitabag Colony, Sinhagad Road, Pune 411 030.

..Defendant.

This suit is coming up for hearing before me in the presence of Sri. Shaik Zakeer Hussian, Counsel for the Plaintiffs and Sri. Venkat Rao, Counsel for Defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed for recovery of Rs.3,31,773 /- with interest and costs.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are that:

The plaintiff company M/s.BINTEX CORPORATION, Hyderabad, is engaged in business of manufacturing Polyester Non Woven Filter Bags etc. The Defendant Company is incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The representative of the defendant made deliberations with the plaintiff company and furnished various quotations for their requirement of three items with code numbers viz.20910101, 20910102 and 20910103 with Job No.2091 vide quotation, dated 23-01-2006. Having accepted the quotation the defendant issued purchase order

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 2

No.PPD/2091/43, dated: 27-01-2006 for a total Ex-Works value of

Rs.2,60,984/- with the terms enumerated therein that Central Sales Tax @ 4% against Form-C, Packing and Forwarding, Frieght charges etc., shall be extra, indicating the delivery requirement by 04-03-2006 and the terms of payment as 50% against delivery and the balance 50% payable in 30 days. Ultimately, the entire ordered quantity was manufactured. The plaintiff vide delivery Challan No.H-515, dated: 04- 03-2006, have booked the consignment to Defendant for door delivery vide consignment Note No.3883, dated 04-03-2006 of ATS Road carriers.

The total fixed freight charges was Rs.10,305/- out of which the plaintiff had paid an advance of Rs.5,000/- and the balance freight charge of

Rs.5,305/- to be paid by the defendant. The Defendant had received the consignment and as the same is in defendant's custody and enjoyment, it signifies the defendants acceptance to their entire satisfaction.

Thereupon, the plaintiff herein had accordingly raised invoice No.654,

dated: 04-03-2006 for a total sum of Rs.2,76,423/-, the due date of

payment being 04-03-2006 and upon the expiry of due date, when the payment was demanded by plaintiff, the Defendant had been dilly dallying to expedite the same. That the Plaintiff's firm is an organization of a Lady entrepreneur. For executing the Defendant's bulk value order she had invariably invested huge amount by mobilization from her and from private borrowings etc. besides spending considerable amount of time, labour force and energy. It may not be out of place to mention that the commercial nature of transaction is binding on the Defendant to

honour it. The delay in expediting the payment from the due date, i.e.,

04-03-2006 has literally crippled the Plaintiff's industry substantially, driven her to huge financial losses leave alone the enjoyment of meager profit due to passage of time. The inordinate delay may literally force the plaintiff to close down her industry, ruining her prestige and tarnishing goodwill established by her in the industry and resulting in

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 3

putting her in the delicate situation of being under the clutches of pressure from private financiers. That despite Plaintiff's vivid, oral appraisal of the above piquant situation to defendant over phone periodically and demanding defendant to clear the payment, they are deliberately not caring to expedite the same with an illegal motto to deceive the Plaintiff and deprive her legitimate payment. Thus, it is clear that the action of defendant in receiving the goods supplied and not making payment by due date or subsequent dates of demand to plaintiff, tantamounts to illegal and unlawful acts. The defendant is liable for criminal and civil actions including suit under Sale of Goods

Act, appropriate action for recovery under Companies Act. Thus, the plaintiff has a right to claim not the amount of Rs.2,76,423/- covered by the invoice, but also interest at commercial rate from 04-04-2006 till the date of actual realization, besides for compensation for the loss of goodwill, mental agony and such other hardship suffered by her.

Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice, dated: 19-12-2006 to the defendant demanding to repay the amount of Rs.2,76,423/- covered by the invoice together with the applicable interest but the defendant to the said notice caused a blunt reply, dated: 27-12-2006 under the style “interim notice reply”. Therefore, the plaintiff had no other go except to file this suit.

3.The Defendant filed written statement in which they denied the plaint allegations about their company's liable to pay the suit claimed amount. The defendant admitted that the representative of the plaintiff company has furnished the quotation to the defendant company for supply of goods. He also admitted that the defendant company had issued purchase order No.PPD/2091/43, dated: 27-01-2006. They submit that they did not receive the material as per purchase order as such the payment of amount does not arise. They informed to the plaintiff

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 4

company on phone about the defective material supplied by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff did not react for the complaint made by the defendant company and in rectifying the mistake in supplying defective goods. Thereby, the defendant is not under obligation to make the payment for the defective goods supplied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff without waiting and without giving opportunity to the defendant to give a detailed reply by the defendant to the legal notice, dated: 19-12-2006 has filed this case in hasty manner. There is no cause of action for filing the suit and the suit is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.

The defendant further submits that the material as per order of the defendant with specifications was not supplied. The plaintiff has not supplied sample piece for checkup the quality and specifications before supply. Therefore, the defendant had no opportunity to check the quality, specifications of the material to be supplied before the supply of the same.

The conditions as contained in the purchase order are (1) one year

Guarantee from the date of Commissioning of above items, if any defect found in the same should be attended/replaced by plaintiff free of cost at their site. (2) Test Certificate should be provided by plaintiff along the above materials. (3) 1 No. sample piece of snap band type to be sent to our works immediately to check the fitting of the same with our tube plates were not complied. The place of delivery of the goods was at the place of defendant company. The defendant submits that the goods supplied by the plaintiff are not as per the specifications ordered by them and they are defective. Therefore, the defendant company informed the same to the plaintiff company. Though the defendant received letters, dated: 06-04-2006, 20-04-2006 for payment, the defendant informed that the material has been rejected by the inspection authority and has shown the inspection report to the

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 5

representative of the plaintiff and discussed over the telephone. The defendant company have issued a letter bearing No.FEL/BC/2091, dated:

20-04-2006 and 04-12-2006 and informed about the defects and bad quality of material supplied by the plaintiff.

The defendant further submit that 200 Nos. (4 gunny bags) of Non

Woven Filter Bag were sent to the Plaintiff vide Challan No.149, dated 23-09-2006 for repairs to the Plaintiff. That even when the Plaintiff company supplied the material after making rectification, it was observed that there were wrinkles/folding to the bags and as such even after rectification the Defendant company could not use the material.

That the Plaintiff agreed to take back the material if it is of no use to the

Defendant Company. Finally, the defendant has no option but to return the material to the Plaintiff through Pacific Road Carriers vide

Consignment Note No.36112, dated: 23-12-2006. That the said fact of returning the material was brought to the notice of the Plaintiff. That the

Plaintiff inspite of returning of the material has not collected the material from the transporter's go-down. The Defendant on account of aforesaid fact once again vide letter, dated: 28-12-2006 informed the plaintiff that the material rejected is still lying in one of the go-down of the

Transporter at Hyderabad and if the material is not collected from the go-down the hiring charges, local delivery charges and damage to the material will be on the Plaintiff's account.

That the plaintiff has made unilateral breach of contract by not supplying the material as per the purchase order, therefore, the plaintiff is not having any obligation to make the payment. There is no cause of action for this suit. This court has no jurisdiction to try/entertain and decide the suit as the defendant company is located in Pune and the order was made and the material was supplied at Pune. For these reasons the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 6

4.Basing upon the pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial:

i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?

ii) To what relief?

Heard both sides.

5.Issue No.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount as prayed for?

The plaintiff company to prove its contention had examined the G.P.A. of the Company namely Suresh Kumar Biyani, who is the husband of

Madhu Biyani was examined as PW-1. He reiterated the plaint averments and through him Exs.A1 to A21 are marked. Defendant on the other hand has examined Venkatagiri as DW-1 and marked Exs.B1 to

B10.

The plaintiff company contends that they have supplied the goods to the defendant company as per the purchase order No.PPD/2091/43,

dated: 27-01-2006 for a total works value of Rs.2,60,984/- with terms

and conditions mentioned therein, with Freight Charges of Rs.10,305/- out of which plaintiff paid advance of Rs.5,000/- and balance of

Rs.5,305/- shall be paid by the defendant. Though the defendant received the material did not make any payment inspite of repeated demands and even after issuing legal notice, dated: 19-12-2006.

The defendant company contends that the plaintiff company without furnishing a sample for testing and analyzing the quality had supplied the material, which was found to be defective and substandard, therefore, it cannot be used. The same was communicated and the material was returned to the plaintiff company. When, the material

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 7

supplied is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the purchase order and the material returned was not resupplied by rectifying the mistake by the plaintiff company, the question of payment for the defective goods does not arise. The inspection report Ex.B2 was admitted by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company did not give any reason for their entitlement inspite of specific plea of the defendant company for return of the material in their written statement. The plaintiff in their evidence of PW-1 also did not whisper about the defects in the material and return of the same by the defendant company. The plaintiff company did not plead and prove that they have attended the defects of the material supplied by them. Since, the defendant returned the material to the plaintiff company and plaintiff company failed to replace the same, the defendant company is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff company.

Basing upon the record the admitted facts are that the plaintiff company has supplied three items with code numbers viz.20910101, 20910102 and 20910103 for Job No.2091 vide quotation, dated 23-01- 2006, having accepted the quotation the defendant company issued purchase order No.PPD/2091/43, dated: 27-01-2006 for a total Ex-Works value of Rs.2,60,984-00. The defendant company admitted that they did not make any payment for the goods supplied.

The plaintiff company, which is represented by its proprietress

Smt. Madhu Biyani was not examined as witness. The G.P.A. of the

Company namely Suresh Kumar Biyani, who is the husband of Madhu

Biyani was examined as PW-1. The said Suresh Kumar Biyani is authorized under Ex.A21 G.P.A. There is no dispute that the material was supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant company under Ex.A2

Purchase Order, the goods were supplied by the plaintiff company to the defendant company on 27-01-2006 for an amount of Rs.2,60,984/- 50%

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 8

of the amount of the bill to be paid on the delivery and remaining 50% has to be paid within 30 days. The receipt of the goods is acknowledged and admitted by the defendant company under Exs.A3 to A5. The plaintiff company demanded money as under Ex.A8 Reminder, dated:

03-07-2006. As per Ex.A10 Purchase Order, dated: 13-09-2006 and

Ex.A13 Purchase Order, dated: 22-09-2006 the defendant company placed order of Filter Bag, Stainless Steel Cage, which shows that the material was to the satisfaction of the defendant company. The defendant company had relied upon Ex.B2 Inspection Report, dated: 06- 03-2006, which was prepared unilaterally in the absence of representative of the plaintiff company. The defendant company had returned the material as under Ex.B3, dated: 22-12-2006 and Ex.B9

Consignment Note No.36112, dated: 23-12-2006 of Pacific Road Carriers,

Hyderabad, but the same is not acknowledged by the plaintiff company.

DW-1 in his cross examination stated that, they have not verified sample piece before placing purchase order. After placing the Order the material was manufactured, he admitted that no amount was paid by his company. That they have not filed any proof or acknowledgement about receipt of Ex.B4 letter sent to the plaintiff company by the defendant company. That they have not filed any proof to show that the defendant company informed through phone about rejection of material to the plaintiff company as mentioned in Exs.B6 and B7. That there is no endorsement on Ex.B5 about receiving of rejected material so also on

Ex.B3. He further expressed his ignorance whether the rejected material was received by the plaintiff or not. He admitted that there is no signature of the plaintiff company on Ex.B2, the Inspection Report and the plaintiff company was not present at the time of inspection report was prepared. The defendant company did not produce any document or witness to prove that the material received by them was returned to the plaintiff company and the plaintiff company received the same.

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 9

The defendant did not explain as to why they placed order without testing the sample, though there is condition to test the sample material prior to placing the order. Though as per terms and conditions there is a one year guarantee as admitted by PW-1 in his cross for the defective products supplied by them, but the defendant company failed to prove that the material was successfully returned to the defendant company and the defendant company failed to replace or repair the same. The defendant company thus failed to prove its contention that they returned the material to the plaintiff company. The defendant company admittedly did not make any payment to the plaintiff company. The subject matter of the suit is material. The plaintiff company as per the order of defendant company has manufactured the material in Hyderabad and they were supplied from Hyderabad. Thus part of cause of action for the suit taken place in Moosapet, R.R. District.

Therefore this court is having jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The facts and circumstances and evidence as discussed above, proves that the plaintiff company has supplied the material to the defendant company and the defendant company is liable to pay Rs.2,76,423/-. The issue

No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit claim amount.

6.Issue No.2: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs for Rs.3,31,773/- with interest @ 6% p.a. on Rs.2,76,423/- from the date of suit till the date of realization.

(Typed to my dictation by Typist, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 25 th day of October, 2016)

III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC),

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:For Defendant:

P.W.1:Suresh Kumar Biyani DW-1: Venkatagiri

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:

Ex.A1: Original Letter, dated: 23-01-2006 from the plaintiff to

Defendant.

Ex.A2: Purchase Order, dated: 27-01-2006 of the defendant.

Ex.A3: Invoice No.654, dated: 04-03-2006 of Plaintiff for Rs.2,76,423/-.

Ex.A4: Delivery Challan, dated: 04-03-2006 of the Plaintiff.

Ex.A5: Consignment Note No.3883, dated: 04-05-2006 of ATS Road

Carriers.

Ex.A6: Reminder, dated: 04-05-2006 from plaintiff to defendant.

Ex.A7: Receipt from Courier (Professional Couriers).

Ex.A8: Reminder, dated: 03-07-2006 from plaintiff to defendant.

Ex.A9: Reminder, dated: 24-08-2006 from plaintiff to defendant.

Ex.A10: Purchase Order No.PPD-2093/031, dated: 13-09-2006.

Ex.A11: Letter, dated: 15-09-2006 from plaintiff to defendant.

Ex.A12: Letter, dated: 18-09-2006 from plaintiff to defendant

Ex.A13. Purchase Order No.PPD-2093/032, dated: 22-09-2006.

Ex.A14: Letter, dated: 21-11-2006 from plaintiff to defendant.

Ex.A15: Registered Post Acknowledgment Receipts.

Ex.A16: Office Copy of Legal Notice, dated: 19-12-2006.

Ex.A17: Postal Receipts.

Ex.A18: Postal Acknowledgment, dated: 23-12-2006.

Ex.A19: Registered Notice Returned Undelivered.

Ex.A20: Interim Notice Reply, dated: 27-12-2006.

Ex.A21: G.P.A. executed by the plaintiff.

For Defendant:

Ex.B1: Quotation in Fax Message on Letter Pad, dated: 27-10-2006 sent by Plaintiff company to the defendant.

Ex.B2: Carbon Paper of Inspection Report, dated: 06-03-2006.

Ex.B3: Delivery Challan, dated: 22-12-2006.

Ex.B4: Letter bearing No.FEL/BC/2091, dated: 20-04-2006 sent by defendant to the plaintiff.

Ex.B5: Delivery Challan No.149, dated: 23-09-2006 of Filtron i.e., the

O.S.190 of 2007 Page No. 11

defendant for rejection of the material.

Ex.B6: Letter bearing No.FEL/AA/VG, dated: 04-12-2006 sent by Filtron i.e., the defendant to the plaintiff.

Ex.B7: Letter bearing No.FEL/BC/2091, dated: 21-12-2006 sent to plaintiff by defendant.

Ex.B8: Letter bearing No.FEL/BC/2091, dated: 28-12-2006 sent to plaintiff by defendant.

Ex.B9: Consignment Note No.36112, dated: 23-12-2006 of Pacific Road

Carriers, Hyderabad.

Ex.B10: True copy of Board Resolution of Board of Directors of Filtron

Engineers Ltd., Pune, dated: 22-10-2011 at registered office of the Company.

III ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (FTC),

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, AT L.B.NAGAR

Present : D. Ravindra Sharma, I Addl. Senior Civil Judge Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar

DATED, THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018

O.S. NO. 1147 OF 2010

Between : Smt. Radha Mani, W/o K. Balan Nair, aged about 42 years, Occ: Household, r/o 8-13-67/11, Shashtripuram Colony,

Rajendranagar Mandal, R.R.District..Plaintiff

And

Syed Jahangir, S/o Late Srisyed Khaseem, aged about 46 yrs, Occ: govt. Service, C.I.of Police, Asifnagar P.S., Hyd., r/o H. No. 19-3-549/26/1, Alinagar, Police Quarters, Aliabad, Shamsheergunuj,

Hyderabad .. Defendant

This suit is coming up for final hearing before me on in the presence of M/s G.Chandra Sekhar Goud, Counsel for the Plaintiff and of M/s Syed Zakir Hussain, Counsel for defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till date, this Court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.This suit is filed to declared the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to direct the defendant to handover Plot No.

190 admeasuring 200 Sq. Yds., in Sy. No. 9, situated at Mailardevpally village, Rajendranagar Mandal and Municipality, R.R.District, hereinafter termed as suit schedule property to the plaintiff and for costs of the suit.

2

2.The plaint averments in brief are that :

The plaintiff is the owner and possessor of Plot Nos,. 187 & 180, admeasuring 400 sq. yds., in Sy. No. 9, situated at Mailardevpally village,

Rajendranagar Mandal and Municipality, having purchased the same from from M. Jayanth Reddy, through registered sale deed No. 8720/1990 dt 13.07.1990. Since the date of purchase she was in possession and enjoyment of the said plots. The plaintiff sold the plot No. 187 admeasuring 200 sq. yds., to T.G.Shivaraman. In the month of February 2010 she found a sign board displaying the name of the defendant as owner of plot

No. 187 and suit schedule property. On enquiring with the defendant, he shown her the Agreement of Sale alleged to have executed by one

Shankaramma threatened to kill the plaintiff and her family members if they claims the suit schedule property. When the plaintiff visited the suit schedule property in the third week of May 2010, she found that the defendant raised compound wall over the suit schedule property.

Immediately she lodged a complaint dt 18.06.2010 against the defendant with police Shivarampally and the same was registered as Cr. No.

46/2010. That the defendant is trying to alienate the suit schedule property.

Therefore having no other go the plaintiff filed this suit.

3.The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint by submitting that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property and plot No. 187 admeasuring 200 sq. yds., through registered sale deed No. 8720/1990 dt 13.07.1990 and sold plot No. 187 to one 3

T.G.Shivaraman. The defendant denied that the plaintiff met him in the month of February 2010 with her registered sale deed and he threatened the plaintiff. The defendant denied that in the third week of May 2010, the plaintiff found that the defendant has constructed compound wall over the suit schedule property and again the defendant threatened the plaintiff.

That the police Shivrampally filed their final report in Cr. No. 46/2010 stating that the matter is civil in nature and closed the same.

4.The defendant submits that he is the owner and possessors of plot

No. 187 and suit schedule property having purchased the same through unregistered notarised Agreement of Sale dt 27.01.1989 from Smt.

Shankaramma, W/o Late M.B.K.Reddy and since then he is possession of the said plots and perfected his title by way of adverse possession. That the vendor of the plaintiff has no legal right, title claim or interest over the suit schedule property to execute registered sale deed. When the defendant with an intention to construct a house over the suit schedule property digging pits, the plaintiff obstructed the same on 04.10.2005 and started interfering with his possession. Therefore the defendant approached police Rajendranagar, who refused to take complaint, therefore the defendant filed O.S. No. 2834/2005 on the file of Prl. Junior

Civil Judge, R.R.District and later the said suit was dismissed for default

and restoration petition is pending consideration. That the defendant has constructed a room and compound wall, obtained electricity connection and leased out the same. That the plaintiff did not approach the Court with 4 clean hands and filed the suit with a malafide intention to grab the suit schedule property and prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

5.Basing on the pleading of both parties, the following issues are framed for trial:-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the schedule property?

(iii) To what relief ?

6.To prove the case of plaintiff, the husband and GPA holder of plaintiff examined as PW1 and also examined one P. Chandrasekhar as

PW2 and got marked Exs A1 to A7. To prove his contentions the defendant examined himself as DW1 besides examining one Md. Kaleem

Khan as DW2 and got marked Exs B1 to B7.

7.Ex A1 is the True copy of sale deed No. 8720/1990 dt 13.07.1990.

Ex A2 is the Notice dt 21.06.2010 of PS Shivrampally. Ex A3 is the

Encumbrance certificate dt 26.06.2010. Ex A4 is market value certificate dt 24.06.2010. Ex A5 is General Power of Attorney dt 10.02.2016. Ex A6 is

CC of pahani for the year 1989-90; 1990-91 and 1991-92 and Ex A7 is

Encumbrance certificate dt 16.10.2017. Ex B1 is the Agreement of sale with sketch plan dt 27.01.1989. Ex B2 to B5 are the electricity charges 5 payment receipts dt 24.12.2005; 23.07.2007; 12.06.2010 and 27.07.2010.

Ex B6 is the Rental agreement dt 13.07.2010 and Ex B7 is the CC of

Judgement dt 10.12.2004 in OS No. 184/2011 on the file of Prl. Senior

Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

8.Issue No. 1 :Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration to declare the plaintiff as absolute owner and possessor of the suit schedule property?

The plaintiff who claims to be the owner of the suit schedule property and seeking the relief of declaration of title to the suit schedule property is having burden to prove her ownership over the suit schedule land. The plaintiff to prove the same has examined her husband K. Balan Nair as

PW1. He deposed about the purchase of suit schedule property by the plaintiff under Ex A1 registered sale deed No. 8720/1990 dt 13.07.1990 from her vendor Sri M. Jayanth Reddy, S/o M. Agi Reddy. She filed the encumbrance certificate for the period 01.01.1983 to 18.06.1996 reflecting the sale of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under Ex A1.

The plaintiff also pleaded that she sold plot No. 187, admeasuring 200 Sq.

yds., to one T.G.Shivaraman. The same is reflected in Ex A3 encumbrance certificate. The plaintiff also filed Ex A6 CC of pahanis for the years 1989-90; 1990-91 and 1991-92, in which the name of the vendor of plaintiff M. Jayanth Reddy is also shown in respect of lands in Sy. No. 9.

6

9.The defendant through his pleadings and evidence is claiming the ownership to the suit schedule property by contending that he purchased 400 sq. yds., of land including the suit schedule property of 200 sq. yds., through unregistered Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dt 27.01.1989 from M. Shankanramma, W/o Late MBK Reddy and got it validated by paying deficit stamp duty to the District Registrar, Ranga

Reddy District in File No. 3246/Court/2014 dt 28.07.2018. That the defendant is in possession of 400 Sq. yds., from the date of his purchase under Ex B1 dt 27.01.1989. That when he tried to construct structures and digging pits the plaintiff tried to came into the possession on 04.10.2005 and obstructed him by claiming the ownership. The defendant shown the documents of his purchase inspite of it, the plaintiff tried to encroach therefore he filed O.S.No. 2834/2005 on the file of the Prl. Junior Civil

Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the said suit was dismissed for default,

against which he filed a restoration petition with condonation of delay and it is pending. That he had constructed two rooms, compound wall and obtained electricity and let out to a scrap vendor. That he also filed OS 184/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District for declaration of his title and to declare the registered sale deed of the plaintiff herein bearing document No. 8720/1990 dt 13.07.1990 and null and void. The said suit was decreed on 10.11.2014. The plaintiff is in never in possession of the property and the defendant is in possession of the property by constructing structures and he has perfected the title by way of adverse possession, therefore this suit is liable to be dismissed.

7

The defendant filed Ex B2 to B5 receipts for electricity charges, Ex B6 rental agreement and Ex B7 CC of Judgment in OS No. 184/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

10.The defendant is claiming the possession of the land by way of agreement holder under Ex B1 Agreement of Sale cum General Power of

Attorney and also by way of adverse possession of the same. The defendant cannot be allowed to take the plea of adverse possession as he came into possession of the property under Ex B1 Agreement of Sale which is a legal entry into the land. Whereas to claim adverse possession of the property the possession should be adverse to the interest of the real owner and to his notice. The defendant also filed the Judgment in OS No.

184/2011 declaring his ownership and declaring the Ex A1 as null void.

The defendant who is a party to this suit which was filed on 08.07.2010 and summons were served on him and he filed written statement on 29.10.2010 which clearly shows that he suppressed the filing of this suit and filed OS No. 184/2011 subsequently. It also shows that the defendant had approached the Court in OS No. 184/2011 despite knowing that for the same relief and for the same property this suit is pending. Therefore the defendant had obtained exparte decree Ex B7 in OS No. 184/2011 behind the back of the plaintiff herein while pendency of this suit, therefore the said exparte decree is not binding on the plaintiff herein.

8

11.The defendant is an agreement holder of the land purchased under

Ex B1. The said agreement of sale is compulsorily registrable document as per Sec. 39 of the Registration Act and though the defendant had paid the stamp duty and penalty to the Registrar will not cure the defect and the same cannot be admitted in evidence. The counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad between Golla Dharmanna v. Sakari Poshetty and others reported in 2013 (6) ALT 205. Wherein the Hon’ble High Court while dealing with the similar document which are compulsorily registrable pleased to hold that the documents which are compulsorily registrable under Sec. 17 (i) (b) of the Registration Act are subject to Sec. 49 of

Registration act which gives the effect of non registration of documents required to be registered and they are in-admissible in evidence even if the requisite stamp duty and penalty are paid in accordance with the Stamp

Act. The Hon’ble High Court in another case between Vyasashramam

Amanduru Village versus Chndru Booshana Kumari reported in 2017 (2)

ICC 48 (Hyd.) wherein it was held that a document, which is not sufficiently stamped and which is not duly registered, cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose. Therefore though the Ex B1 is marked in this case even by paying stamp duty and penalty it gives no right to the defendant as it cannot be relied in view of the above decisions of the Hon’ble High Court.

12.The defendant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of

Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad between K.Venkatasubba 9

Reddi vs. Bairagi Ramaiah (died) and his L.Rs. reported in 1999 (3) ALT

210. Wherein it was held that the plaintiff must establish his own case without depending upon the weaknesses of the defendants and his title.

13.The plaintiff through her evidence as discussed above has proved her title having purchased the suit schedule property from her vendor M.

Jayanth Reddy under original of Ex A1 dt 13.07.1990. The defendant though purchased the suit schedule property under Ex B1, in the above circumstances and in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court the said Agreement of Sale cum General Power of Attorney dt 27.01.1989 is an in-admissible document and it will not be any title to the defendant. The defendant though obtained an exparte decree under Ex B7 dt 10.12.2014 in OS No.184/2011 which is obtained during pendency of the suit will not confer any right and title to the defendant for the suit schedule property.

The plea of the defendant for adverse possession also cannot be considered in view of his claiming title to the property as agreement holder.

The defendant is not having any right in the property. The plaintiff who proved her title over the suit schedule property is having title and right to protect the same from the defendant. The defendant who is illegally in possession of the suit schedule property which was noticed by the plaintiff in February 2010 when she visited casually, therefore the illegal possession of the defendant cannot be continued against the plaintiff who is true owner. The defendant who is a trespasser is liable to be evicted from the suit schedule property. Therefore the Issue No. 1 is decided in 10 favour of the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff is declared as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.

14.Issue No.2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property?

In view of the Issue No.1 decided in favour of the plaintiff by holding that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant is held to be the encroacher in the suit schedule property without having any right over the suit schedule property. Therefore the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit schedule property. Therefore the Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the suit schedule property.

15.Issue No. 3: To what relief?

In the result, the suit is decreed with costs by declaring the plaintiff as the owner of the suit schedule property and the defendant is directed to deliver vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property within two months.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 9th day of April, 2018)

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District 11

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF FOR DEFENDANT

1.PW1 – K.Balan Nair1. DW1-Syed Jahangir 2.PW2 – P.Chandrasekhar 2.DW2- Mohd.Kaleem Khan

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF

1Ex A1True copy of sale deed No. 8720/1990 dt 13.07.1990 2Ex A2Notice dt 21.06.2010 of PS Shivrampally 3Ex A3Encumbrance certificate dt 26.06.2010 4Ex A4market value certificate dt 24.06.2010 5Ex A5General Power of Attorney dt 10.02.2016 6Ex A6CC of pahani for the year 1989-90; 1990-91 and 1991-92 7Ex A7Encumbrance certificate dt 16.10.2017

FOR DEFENDANT

1Ex B1Agreement of sale with sketch plan dt 27.01.1989 2Ex B2Electricity charges payment receipt dt 24.12.2005 3Ex B3Electricity charges payment receipt dt 23.07.2007 4Ex B4Electricity charges payment receipt dt 12.06.2010 5Ex B5Electricity charges payment receipt dt 27.07.2010 6Ex B6Rental agreement dt 13.07.2010 7Ex B7CC of Judgment in OS No. 184/2011 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District

I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : D. RAVINDRA SHARMA, I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

Dated, this the 24th day of April, 2018

SESSIONS CASE NO. 593/2015

(PRC NO. 07/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE XIX METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT RAJENDRANAGAR)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through SHO complainant P.S. Chandanagar 2Name and description of the : Gudla Anji, S/o Pochappa, age : 25 accused yrs, Occ; Labour, r/o Weaker Section Colony, Gopanpally, Serilingampally 3Offence with which charged: U/sec. 366-A IPC 4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6Sentence or order:In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence section 366-A IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235 (i) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and his sureties stand discharged after appeal time 7Prosecution conducted by :Smt. Kasturi Bai, APP 8Accused defended by:M/s B.Satyanarayana, Advocates

This case is coming up before me for final hearing for disposal in the presence of

Smt. Kasturi Bai, Additional Public Prosecutor and of M/s B.Satyanarayana, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. In this case the accused is alleged to have kidnapped a minor girl at Weaker

Section Colony, Gopanpally, Srilingampally on 20.02.2015 from the custody of her parents.

Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished for the offence punishable u/sec. 366-A

IPC.

2. The allegations against accused in brief are that :

On 23.02.2015 the complainant PW1 who is the father of the victim lodged a complaint with police Chandanagar by submitting that his daughter xxx aged about 16 years who is a maid servant left the house at 09.00 A.M., on 20.02.2015 to attend her work at Aparna

Sarovar apartments and did not return and her cell phone was switched off. Therefore he requested to take necessary action. Basing upon the said complaint, a case was registered in Cr. No. 60/2015 under head Woman Missing, and entrusted the investigation to PW6. The investigation officer PW6 recorded statements of witnesses, who doubted the accused for missing of the victim girl. On 25.02.2015 the accused was apprehended at

Secunderabad railway station along with the victim girl by LW9- SI of Police. Statement of victim girl was recorded in police station, basing on which the Section of law was altered to

Sec. 366-A IPC. In the interrogation the accused confessed to have committed the offence. The investigating officer effected arrest of accused and produced him before the

Court. The statement of victim girl was recorded by LW8- the learned IX Metropolitan

Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally. In the investigation it is revealed that the accused

has kidnapped the victim from the custody of her parents, with his inducive words in the name of love, thereby the accused is liable to be punished for the offence u/sec. 366A IPC.

3. After taking cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 366-A IPC, against accused by the learned XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally, vide PRC No. 07/2015, and after compliance of Sec. 228 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C. No. 593/2015 and made over to this Court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

4. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor, and the accused, charge under

Section 366-A IPC was framed, read over and explained to accused in vernacular language, for which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued, witnesses PWs 1 to 6 were examined and Exs P1 to P6 were marked as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

6. Accused is examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating circumstances in the evidence appearing against him. Accused denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

Heard arguments of both sides.

7. Now the point for determination is,

Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence u/sec. 366-A

IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?

8. The prosecution has examined PW1-A.Samuel father of victim girl and PW2-

S.Suseela grandmother of the victim girl Pw3. PW4 – M.Sriramulu and PW5 – B. Muttu are the panch witnesses. Pw6 – Mohd.Jafar Ali is the investigating officer.

9. The father of the victim girl PW1 – A.Samuel and the grandmother of the victim girl

PW2 – S.Suseela deposed that as usual on 20.02. 2015, the victim girl went to her work place Aparna Sarovar Apartment. As she did not return to house by 01.00 P.M., they enquired with the house owner in whose house she is working as maid servant. The house owner informed them that victim girl did not attend to the work on that day. On enquiry they came to know that the accused was also away from the house. Therefore

PW1 lodged Ex P1 complaint with police Chandanagar on 23.02.2015. That three days after lodging complaint, victim was found with the accused at the police station.

10. The victim girl as PW3 deposed that she studied up to 7th class and aged about 15 years as on the date of offence. That she used to work as a servant maid in Aparna

Sarovar Apartments. That she traveled in the auto of accused for two to three times to attend her work. Accused used to torture her in the name of love and forced her to love him otherwise he would kill her and her parents. On one day, the accused called her on phone and directed her to come to Nallagandla on 24.02.2014 and threatened her if she fails to come. Therefore she went to Nallagandla, from there the accused taken her to

Vijayawada and they stayed there for two days and the accused destroyed her SIM card.

From Vijayawada they went to Nalgonda District and she made a phone call to her parents from a STD booth. That the accused brought her to Secunderabad railway station where her parents and police were present. Later her statement was recorded by a Magistrate at

Miyapur Courts. The panch witnesses for the confession of accused PW4- M.Sriramulu and PW5 – B.Muttu deposed that about two years back on one day, police Chandanagar called them to police station and obtained signatures on some papers, they do not know the contents of the papers. They further deposed that nothing was seized in their presence.

11. The investigation officer of this case, Mohd. Jafar Ali, the then ASI of Police, PS

Chandanagar as PW6 deposed that on 23.02.2015 at 09.30 A.M., the Inspector of Police received Ex P1 complaint from PW1. He registered a case in Cr. No. 60/2015, issued Ex

P4 FIR. The investigation was entrusted to him. In the investigation he recorded the statements of witnesses and conducted the scene of offence panchanama. On receipt of information about tracing out the accused and victim girl at Secunderabad railway station, they were brought to police station. He recorded the statement of PW3 victim girl and confessional statement of accused in the presence of PWs 4 & 5 and seized a cell phone from the accused. Then he effected the arrest of accused and produced him before the

Court. Thereafter the statement of PW3 victim girl u/sec. 164 Cr.P.C., was recorded by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Miyapur as under Ex P6. Basing upon which he got altered the section of law of the case from Girl missing to 366-A IPC. On completion of investigation LW11- SI of Police filed charge sheet.

12. The allegation against the accused is that on 20.02.2015 at 09.00 A.M., he had abducted the minor victim girl xxx from the lawful custody of her parents. The accused alleged to have taken the victim girl to Vijayawada and Nalgonda and kept her with an intention to marry her forcibly. Thus the accused committed an offence punishable u/sec.

366-A IPC.

13. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of accused has examined the complainant and father of the victim girl as PW1. He deposed that on 20.02.2015 at 09.00

A.M., the victim girl went to her work place and did not return to house at 01.00 P.M., therefore he caused enquiry with the flat owner in which the victim was working. He came to know that she did not attend the work on that day. Then he searched for her and came to know that the accused was also away from the house. He waited for two to three days and lodged complaint with police Chandanagar, which was prepared by police. After three days the victim was traced out along with accused. The maternal grandmother of victim girl namely S.Susheela as PW2 also deposed that they came to know the victim was not found and she did not go to her work place. On due search they came to know that the accused was also not found in the house. That the victim and accused were traced three days after the incident.

14. The victim girl as PW3 states that she used to work in Apartna Sarovar apartments as servant maid between 7-00 A.M. and 10-00 A.M. She traveled in the auto of accused for two or three times. During which the accused used torture her and also by making calls to love him, for which she refused. The accused telephoned to her and asked to come to

Nallagandla on 24.02.2014 and threatened her to kill her parents if she did not come.

Therefore she went along with the accused to Vijayawada from there Nalgonda. That she made call from a STD booth and the accused taken her to Railway station

Secunderbad where the police and her parents came and taken her. This witness was then cross-examined on further date, she completely resiled from her earlier statement by deposing that she does not know the accused at all and he did not take her anywhere.

She also deposed that the accused did not commit any offence against her. She further states that the earlier evidence given by her was at the instructions of police. She also denied that she is giving false evidence having compromised the matter out of the Court.

15. The panch witnesses for confession PWs 4 & 5 did not support the case and they were declared hostile. The evidence of PW6 investigation officer is with regard to the investigation.

16. The charge against the accused is for the offence u/sec. 366-A IPC. As per Sec.

366-A of IPC, Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, force or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

17. It is borne out from the record that the age of the victim is mentioned in complaint

as 18 years. The same was supported by the IO PW6 in his cross - examination who

admitted that the age of the victim is mentioned as 18 years in the complaint. The prosecution did not file the age certificate of the victim. The age determination test was also not conducted for the victim to determine her age. The father of victim PW1 states that the victim was aged 15 years whereas PW2 states that the victim was 16 years as on the date of alleged offence. Contrary to that the complainant himself mentioned the age of victim as 18 years in the complaint. The prosecution has also not taken any steps by producing any document to prove the victim was minor as on the date of offence.

18. In the evidence the victim girl had not supported the case of prosecution in the cross-examination. The complainant PW1 and the grandmother of victim PW3 are not the eye witnesses to the alleged offence. The panch witnesses PWs 4 & 5 in whose presence the accused was alleged to have made confession leading to recovery of cell phone also did not support the case. The IO PW6 also admitted he did not collect the call data of the cell phone of the accused to connect the accused with the alleged offence. The IO also did not collect the date of birth certificate of the victim to prove that she was minor below the age of 18 years as on the date of offence. Surprisingly the victim in her 164 Cr.P.C., statement before the Magistrate stated that she was abducted by one Vignesh. All these facts and circumstances would clearly gives doubt in believing the version of prosecution.

Thus, the accused is entitled for benefit of doubt. The prosecution failed to prove the offence charged against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the accused is thereby entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

19. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence section 366-A IPC, and accordingly he is acquitted under section 235 (i) Cr.P.C.The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and his sureties stand discharged after appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court, on this the 24th day of April, 2017.)

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESESS EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE: 1Pw1:A.SamuelNil 2Pw2:S.Suseela 3Pw3:A.Anitha 4Pw4:M.Sriramulu 5Pw5:B.Muttu 6Pw6:Mohd. Jafar Ali

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE:

1Ex P1:Complaint 2Ex P2:Signature of PW4 on confessional Nil panchanama 3Ex P3:Signature of PW5 on confessional panchanama 4Ex P4:FIR 5Ex P5Section alteration memo 6Ex P6:Statement of victim u/sec. 164 Cr.P.C.

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

1

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL. ASST. SESSIONS JUDGE,

RANGA REDDY DISTRICT

PRESENT : D. RAVINDRA SHARMA I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge , Ranga Reddy District

Dated, this the 4th day of April, 2018

SESSIONS CASE NO. 322/2016

(PRC NO. 51/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IX METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE,

CYBERABAD, AT KUKATPALLY)

1.Name and description of the :The State of Telangana through SHO complainant P.S. Miyapur 2Name and description of the : Patnam Sujatha, W/o P.Sailu, age: 40 accused yrs, Occp: Labour, r/o House 1-59/1/22/37, New Colony, Miyapur, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District 3Offence with which charged: U/sec. 306 IPC 4Plea of the accused:Not guilty 5Finding of the Judge:Not guilty 6Sentence or order:In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC, and accordingly she is acquitted under section 235 (i) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and his sureties stand discharged. MO1 shall be destroyed after appeal time. 7Prosecution conducted by :Smt. G.Kasturi Bai, APP 8Accused defended by:M/s CH.Ganesh, Advocates

This case is coming up before me for final hearing for disposal in the presence of Smt. G.Kasturi Bai, Additional Public Prosecutor and of M/s CH.Ganesh, Counsel for accused and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1. In this case the accused is alleged to have abetted the deceased Srinivas to commit suicide by harassing him, hence the said Srinivas committed suicide on 18.10.2015 by hanging himself to a ceiling fan with a chunni in his house.

Therefore, the accused is liable to be punished for the offence Sec. 306 IPC.

2. The allegations against accused in brief are that :

2

On 19.10.2015 at 04.00 P.M., the complainant lodged a report with police

Miyapur stating that on 18.10.2015 at about 02.00 P.M., she along with her children went to Church for offering prayers and returned by 05.30 P.M., and found her husband Srinivas committed suicide by hanging himself to a ceiling fan with a chunni. She further submitted that the accused used to quarrel with her husband with regard to property disputes and therefore her husband committed suicide and she requested to take necessary action. Basing on the same, LW13-

Inspector of Police registered a care in Cr. No. 689/2015 and entrusted the investigation to PW9- SI of Police. During the course of investigation PW9 examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted the scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pws 5 & 7 panchas and seized a chunny used by the deceased for committing suicide. He went to Gandhi Hospital and conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased in the presence of Pws 5 & 7 panchas. The Doctor PW8 conducted autopsy over the dead body and opined the cause of death as 'Asphyxia due to hanging'. That he arrested the accused on 18.12.2015 at 11.30 A.M., and produced her before the Court and on completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

3. After taking cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 306

IPC, against the accused by the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad, at Kukatpally, vide PRC No. 51/2015, and after compliance of sec. 228 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, numbered as S.C. No.

322/2016 and made over to this Court as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

4. After hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor, and the accused, charge under Sections 306 IPC was framed, read over and explained to accused in vernacular language, for which, she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

5. Then, the schedule for commencement of trial has been issued, witnesses PWs 1 to 9 were examined and Exs P1 to P13 were marked as indicated in the appendix of evidence.

6.Accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against her in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. She denied the same and reported no defence evidence. Hence, the defence evidence is closed.

7.Heard arguments of both sides.

8. Now the point for consideration arises is whether the prosecution proved the guilt of accused u/sec. 306 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

9.Point : The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused is the sister in law of deceased Srinivas and she used quarrel with him with regard to property. While so on 18.10.2015 at about 2.00 P.M., when the complainant

PW1 along with her daughters went to Church for offering prayers and returned at about 05.30 P.M., and her husband did not opened the door, she got opened the door with the help of neighbours and found her husband committed suicide by hanging himself to a ceiling fan with a chunny.

10.The complainant PW1 deposed that with regard to a house dispute the accused used to quarrel with the deceased Srinivas and hence he vexed with his life and committed suicide. PW1 – P.Swaroopa & PW2 – P.Preethika, wife and daughter of deceased Srinivas deposed that there were some disputes between their family and family of accused with regard to properties. That about one and half years back on 18.10.2015 Sunday, accused abused the deceased Srinivas in filthy language. That when PWs 1 & 2 went to Church 4 and returned by 05.30 P.M., they found the door of their house was locked from inside. Therefore with the help of PW3 – B.Raju and PW4 – Narsimhulu they broke open the door and found Srinivas committed suicide by hanging himself to a ceiling fan with a chunny. Therefore they intimated the same to police and lodged Ex P1 complaint dt 19.10.2015. That deceased committed suicide as the accused harassed and abused him in filthy language. PW3 –

B.Raju and PW4 – U.Narsimhulu deposed that on 18.10.2015 at about 05.30

P.M., they went to the house of deceased as they came to know about the incident and found that the door of the house was closed from inside. They broke opened the door and found the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself to a ceiling fan with a chunny. PW3 deposed that he does not know the reason for committing suicide by the deceased. PW4 deposed that the deceased committed suicide due to the issue of partition and harassment of accused with her abusive words. PW5- B. Srihari, panch witness to the scene of offence and inquest deposed that no panchanama or inquest panchanama was conducted by the police in his presence and about one year back the police obtained his signatures on some blank papers. PW6- K. Krishna deposed that the deceased Srinivas and Sailu husband of the accused used to quarrel everyday. That the deceased committed suicide by hanging himself and he does not know the reason for his suicidal death. PW7- K. Srinivas deposed that on 19.10.2015 at 06.30 P.M., himself and PW5 – B. Srihari went to the scene of offence at the request of police, where the police conducted scene of offence panchanama and drafted rough sketch under Ex P7 and obtained their signatures and seized MO1 chunni from the scene of offence.

He further deposed that on the same at 08.00 A.M., police conducted inquest under Ex P8 over the dead body of the deceased at Gandhi Hospital and obtained their signatures on it. Dr. S. Mohan Singh PW8 the then Asst.

Professor, Gandhi Medical College deposed that on 19.10.2015 on requisition from police Miyapur he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Srinivas on 5 19.10.2015 between 11.00 A.M and 12.30 Noon at Gandhi Medical College.

That he observed antimorterm ligature mark measuring 29 x 1.5 cm present on the front side of the neck above thyroid cartilage with a gap of 12 cm at the back of the neck and the injuries were noted in column No. 9 of the report.

That the cause of death to the best of his knowledge and belief is due to hanging and the approximate time of death could be between 12 to 24 hours prior to his examination and he issued Ex P9 PME report.

11.The investigation officer PW9 – N. Ramu, the then SI of Police, Miyapur

PS deposed that on 19.10.2015 at LW13 CI of Police received ExP1 complaint from PW1, registered Cr. No. 689/2015, issued Ex P10 FIR and entrusted the investigation to PW9. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of PW5 and LW7 Ex P7 along with rough sketch and seized MO1 chunny from the scene of offence. That he got conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of deceased under Ex P8. The

Doctor PW8 conducted autopsy over the dead body of Srinivas and gave Ex

P9 PME report. That he apprehended the accused on 18.12.2015, effected her arrest and produced her before the Court. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

12.The allegation against the accused is that the accused who is the sister-in-law of the deceased Srinivas used to pickup quarrels on petty issues and harass him. On 18-10-2015 at 2-00 pm when the wife and daughter of the deceased were away from the house to a church, the deceased-Srinivas committed suicide by hanging himself with a chunny to a fan in his house. The deceased was vexed with his life due to the attitude of the accused. Therefore the accused is responsible for the death of deceased as she is an abattor to 6 commit suicide by the deceased, therefore the accused is punishable u/sec.

306 IPC.

13.The prosecution to prove the guilt of accused has examined the wife of the deceased P. Swaroopa as PW1 and his daughter-P. Preethika as PW2.

They both are the only witnesses supported the case of prosecution. They stated that there were disputes between the family of accused and their family in regard to properties. The accused abused the deceased in filthy language in the morning. Thereafter the Pws 1 and 2 went to Church and returned at 5- 30 pm by that time the deceased committed suicide. Thus they were not present at the time of committing suicide by deceased. They did not state any specific overt acts of the accused so as to constitute abatement of the deceased to commit suicide. The independent witnesses PW3 and PW6 stated that they do not know the reason for committing of suicide by the deceased. The other witness PW4 stated that he came to know that the deceased committed suicide due to the issue of partition and harassment of the accused with her abusive words. Therefore, he is not a direct witness to say about the reason for committing suicide by the deceased. The scene of offence and inquest panch witness PW5 did not support the case. The panch witness for scene of offence Pw7 who supported the conducting of scene of offence panchanama on 19-10-2015 and also inquest panchanama at Gandhi

Hospital had supported the conducting of panchanamas. His evidence would prove that the deceased committed suicide and his death. The evidence of

Pw8 the doctor would prove that the deceased died due to committing suicide about 12-00 to 24-00 hours prior to the date of examination i.e., 19-10-2015.

14.The prosecution did not produce any direct evidence to prove the abatement by the accused on the deceased to commit suicide by the deceased. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 who did not state any specific 7 incident in which the accused abused the deceased driving him to commit suicide. The independent witnesses Pw3, 4 and 6 did not state anything to prove that the accused was responsible for the committing of suicide by the deceased. The only evidence of IO-PW9 who stated about the facts of the investigation without any corroboration from the independent witnesses and without there being any direct evidence, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused. The point is answered against the prosecution by holding that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence the accused is entitled for acquittal.

15.In the result, accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 306 IPC, and accordingly she is acquitted under section 235 (i) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled and his sureties stand discharged. MO1 shall be destroyed after appeal time.

(Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 4th day of April, 2018).

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE:

1Pw1:P.Swaroopa 2Pw2:P.Preethika Nil 3Pw3:B.Raju 4Pw4:U.Narsimhulu 5Pw5:B.Srihari 6Pw6:K.Krishna 7Pw7:K.Srinivas 8Pw8:Dr.S.Mohan Singh 9Pw9:N.Ramu 8

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION : FOR DEFENCE:

1Ex P1:Complaint 2Ex P2:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3 3Ex P3:Signature of PW5 on scene of offence panchanama 4Ex P4:Signature of PW5 on rough sketch 5Ex P5:Signature of PW5 on inquest panchanama 6Ex P6:161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW6 Nil 7Ex P7:Scene of offence panchanama 8Ex P8:Inquest panchanama 9Ex P9:Postmortem report 10Ex P10:FIR

Material objects marked:

1. Orange colour chunni

I Addl. Asst. Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District.