Sri. D. Ravindra Sharma

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF CASES

UNDER PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT

AT JANGAON

PRESENT: Sri D. Ravindra Sharma Prl. District and Sessions Judge FAC Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, JANGAON.

Monday, the 10 th day of March, 2025

SC(POCSO) NO.27 OF 2023

1Name of the Complainant:The State through Sub Inspector of Police, Raghunathpally.

2Name of the Accused:Dagala @ Gajjela Buchaiah @ Bikshapathi, S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 60 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occupation: Coolie, R/o. Mandela Gudem village. 3Crime Number:69 of 2023. 4Offence Under Section:Section 376 r/w 511, 506 of Indian Penal Code,Section 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. 5Plea of the Accused:Pleaded not guilty.

6Finding:Found Guilty U/S. 354 of Indian Penal Code and Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSOAct. 7Sentence of Order:IN THE RESULT, THE ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTYfor the offence punishable U/S. 354 of Indian Penal Code and Section 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012. Accordingly, the Accused is convicted under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C.

i) The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for period of three (3) months for the offence punishable U/Sec. 354 of IPC; ii) The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only)

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 2 in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for period of three (3) months for the offence punishable U/Sec. 12 of POCSO Act; The Total Fine amount to be paid by the accused is of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). The sentences imposed shall run concurrently with the other sentences imposed hereunder. The remand period undergone by the accused shall be set off, as provided U/S. 428 Cr.P.C. The marked or unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after completion of the appeal time. 8Prosecution conducted by:Special Public Prosecutor 9Defence conducted by:Sri Manchala Ravinder LADS for the accused

This case is coming before me for disposal in the presence of Sri K. Harichandra

Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri Manchala Ravinder, LADS

for the accused, and having stood over the for consideration till this day, this Court

delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

1.In this case, the accused/ Dagala@Gajjela Buchaiah@Bikshapathi is alleged to have attempted to rape the minor victim girl by calling her into his house, closed the door, disrobed the minor victim and forcibly laid her on bed and tried to commit rape the minor victim girl and also threatened her not to reveal the same to anyone. Thereby, the accused is liable to be punished for the offences Sec. 376 r/w 511, 506 of Indian Penal Code, Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012.

2. The brief facts of the case are that, the accused is the neighbour of the minor victim girl, who is aged 10 years. On 22.03.2023 at 01:00 P.M., the accused called the minor victim girl into his house, when the minor victim girl came, accused closed the door, bolted the latch and closed her mouth and laid her on a cot and

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 3 attempted to commit rape on the minor victim girl by disrobing her. In the meantime, the Grandmother of the victim girl called her. On that, the accused got wore underwear to the victim girl and threatened her not to reveal to anyone and sent the victim girl through another door. The victim girl got scared and revealed the incident to her mother and grandmother and in turn they revealed to their family members. On knowing this, immediately the accused locked his house and ran away. Due to family prestige, they did not reveal to anyone, as such, there was delay in lodging complaint. LW1 lodged a report with Police and requested to take necessary action.

3.Basing on the said report, the SI. of Police, Raghunathpally/ LW12/

N. Veerendar, registered the case in Cr.No.69/2023 for offences Punishable

U/Sec. 376 r/w 511 of Indian Penal Code, Section 7 and 8 of POCSO Act, issued FIR and investigated into the matter. He examined and recorded the statement of

LWs.1 to 3 in detail. Later, he addressed the letter to the Inspector of Police,

Bharosa center, to examine the victim girl and record the statement of victim girl

U/Sec. 161 CrPC and sent her to Bharosa center, Hanamakonda, under the escort of

WPC. Accordingly, on 07.04.2023 at 10:30 AM, LW5/S.I. of Police, recorded the statement of the victim girl under video coverage. Later, the investigation officer visited scene of offence i.e., the house of accused, drafted the crime details form in the presence of mediators LWs.9 and 10. He collected the Aadhar card and study and date of Birth certificate of victim which shows the date of birth of the victim as 18.03.2013. He examined LW8/ head Mistress of MPP Mandelagudem. Further, he submitted requisition before AJFCM, Jangaon, to record Sec. 164 CrPC of the minor victim girl. Accordingly, LW11/ Magistrate examined the minor victim girl.

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 4

After completion of investigation, PW13 filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 506 of Indian Penal Code, Sec. 7 r/w 8 of

POCSO Act, 2012.

4.The case was taken on file for the offences punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 506 of Indian Penal Code, Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act, 2012 against the accused in

SC(POCSO) No.27/2023 by this Court. On appearance of the accused, he was served with the case copies as contemplated under section 207 of Cr.P.C.

5.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges for the offence punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 506 of Indian Penal Code, Sec. 7 r/w 8 of

POCSO Act, 2012 were framed against accused, read over and explained to him in his vernacular language. The accused denied all the charges, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8 and got marked

Exs.P1 to P7, Ex.D1. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses. The accused was examined U/Sec. 313 CrPC by explaining the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses for which he denied the same. He did not produce any witness on his behalf but got marked Ex.D1 through PW4.

7. Heard both sides. Perused the material placed on record against the accused.

8.The learned Spl. Public Prosecutor had argued that the accused has tried to commit rape on the minor victim girl. The accused and the victim girl are neighbours and the victim girl knows him. The accused called the victim into his house on 22.03.2023 at 01:00 noon, it happened to be Ugadi day, after the victim

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 5 girl came into house, he bolted the door and disrobed the victim and thrown her on a cot. In the meantime, her Grandmother called her. On hearing the same, accused put back the clothes to the victim and sent her out through another door. The act of the accused amounts to offence punishable U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 506 of IPC and

Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act and the accused may be given stringent punishment.

9.The learned defence counsel argues that the accused is an old man and he did not commit any offence. This is the false case foisted against him due to old disputes. Therefore, he may be acquitted.

10. POINT FOR DETERMINATION:

" Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the

offence U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 506 of Indian Penal Code, Sec.7 r/w 8

of POCSO Act, 2012 beyond all reasonable doubt ?"

POINT

11.The burden of proof is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges framed against him. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and marked Ex.P1 to P7, Ex.D1.

The ingredients of the offence U/Sec. 376 r/w 511, 506 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 7 r/w 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 are:

Ingredients of 376 of IPC: Punishment for sexual assault – 1 (a) whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2) commits sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.

Ingredients of 511 of IPC: Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 6

Ingredients of 506 of IPC: Punishment for criminal intimidation. —Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.

Ingredients of Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act: SEXUAL ASSAULT

AND PUNISHMENT THEREFOR

7. Sexual assault.— Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.

8. Punishment for sexual assault.—Whoever, commits sexual assault, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

12.As per record, the case of the prosecution is that, on 22.03.2023 at 01:00 PM, after completing her tuition, the minor victim girl/ PW3 came to the house and playing in the front yard of her house. Taking this as advantage, the accused called the victim girl into his house. When the victim girl came into his house, he closed the doors by bolting the latch, closed her mouth, removed her underwear, got laid her on cot and tried to commit rape on her. In the meantime, her grandmother/

PW2 called the victim girl, on hearing the same, the accused due to fear sent the minor victim girl through other door. The minor victim girl got scared and revealed the incident to her family members. The evidence of PW1, who is the mother of victim girl is that, due to fear of the future of the victim girl, delay was caused in lodging the compliant/ Ex.P1 with the police. PW2, who is the grandmother of the victim girl, also deposed on the same lines as deposed by PW1.

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 7

13.The evidence of P.W.3, victim girl, is that while she was in her 6th class in

Kasthuriba School, Jangaon, on the day of Ugadi festival, she was playing under a tree at her house. The accused/Buchaiah, who is their neighbour, called her into his house and closed the doors. When she tried to shout, the accused closed her mouth, forcibly took off her underwear and laid her on bed. On hearing the voice of her grandmother calling her, the accused put her underwear and sent her through another door. She revealed the incident to her grandmother/ PW2 and her mother/

PW1. Her Sec. 161 CrPC statement was recorded under videograph by the Police and her Sec. 164 Cr. P. C. statement was recorded by Magistrate as under Ex.P2.

14.The neighbour of PW1 as PW4 deposed similar to that of the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2.

15.The panch for CDF as PW6 deposed that on 07.04.2023, police called him and

LW9/ P. Narsingham to the house of the accused, noted crime details and obtained their signatures/ Ex.P5.

16.The Head Mistress of MPP, Mandelagudem as PW5 deposed that on the requisition filed by Sub-Inspector of police, Raghunathpally, she has issued Ex.P3/

Study, conduct and date of birth certificate of victim by mentioning her date of birth as 18.03.2013 and Ex.P4/admission register containing the particulars of the admission and date of birth particulars of the victim girl. As per the above documents and evidence of PW5, the victim was aged about 10 years 4 days as on the date of offence of this case.

17.The investigation officers, as PWs.7 and 8, have deposed the particulars of the investigation done by them in chronological order. PW7 registered case and issued Ex.P6/ FIR, conducted scene of offence panchanama, drafted Ex.P7/ CDF,

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 8 recorded the statements of PWs.1 to 3 and got recorded statement of PW3 by

WPC/ LW5/ T. Sravani. He collected Aadhar card of the victim girl and as per

Aadhar card, the age of the victim girl is 10 years 4 days and also obtained Exs.P3 and P4 study and conduct certificate, with date of birth of the victim and admission register from PW5/ Head Mistress. He got recorded the statement of victim U/Sec.

164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate as under Ex.P2. Then on his transfer, further investigation was taken up by PW8, who apprehended the accused on 25.07.2023, recorded the confession of accused, effected his arrest, produced the accused

before the Court and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

18.The victim is a 10 years old girl as on the date of the offence and her date of birth is 18.03.2013. The victim and the accused are neighbours and the victim calls the accused as thatha i.e., Grandfather. By taking it as advantage, the accused called the victim, who was playing before his house, into his house at 01:00 noon on 22.03.2023 and disrobed her by removing her clothes and underwear. When PW2/

Grandmother called the victim, the accused due to fear has put back the clothes to the victim and sent her out through other door of his house. These facts are spoken by the mother of the victim/ PW1 and the grandmother of the victim/ PW2.

19.The victim is a child, the Court has taken all the precautions to examine the child by putting several preliminary questions and having satisfied with the capacity of the victim to give evidence, has recorded the evidence. As per the evidence of victim, the accused has disrobed her by calling her into his house on 22.03.2023.

Nothing could be elicited by the defence counsel in the cross examination of

PWs.1 to 3. The defence did not dispute that the accused is neighbor of the victim/

PW3.

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 9

20.The evidence of PWs.1 to 3 is corroborated with the evidence of neighbour/

PW4, the Headmistress/ PW5 by marking Ex.P3/study, conduct and date of birth certificate of victim girl and Ex.P4/admission register copy has proved the date of birth of the victim girl as 18.03.2013. The age of the victim is 10 years as on the date of the offence. The investigation is done by PWs.7 and 8 by conducting panchanama of the scene before PW6 under Ex.P5 is also corroborating the case of the prosecution. The defence counsel could not elicit anything from the cross- examination of these witnesses. As per the evidence of PW1, they did not lodge complaint immediately after the offence because they discussed about their family image in the society and future of the victim. Therefore, the delay in lodging complaint is explained.

21.The accused did not led any evidence on his behalf to rebutt the evidence of the prosecution and to prove his innocence as per Section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act.

As per the Section 29 and 30 of POCSO Act, 2012, there is reverse burden on the accused to prove his innocence. The objective behind the legislation is to ensure that the actual offenders are behind the bars. One approach that has been inoculated in the POCSO Act is to reduce the burden on the prosecution to prove certain things by introducing presumptions.

Section 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act lay down the provision with respect to the burden of proof. According to Section 29, the person, who is prosecuted for the commission of the child sexual abuse offences, is presumed to have committed or abetted or attempted to commit such offence.

In Imran Shamim Khan v. State of Maharashtra (2019), a child told her grandmother that she was sexually abused and her medical examination confirmed

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 10 this. However, her mother told her to ignore it. The statements of the child victim and her grandmother were recorded before the Magistrate. The Bombay High

Court made an important observation in this case by stating that, “even if a minor in a sexual assault case turns hostile under the POCSO Act, the onus is on the accused to establish the innocence. It is easy to say that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused. But in a case like this, the judicial approach has to see justice is imparted to the victim too”.

Further Section 30 provides the opportunity to the accused to prove his/ her innocence thereby making the presumption under Section 29 rebuttable.

In the case of S. Suresh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2017), the accused was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and he had not rebutted the presumption of

Section 29. Therefore, the Court observed that the rebuttable presumption also proves the guilt of the accused.

In a recent Judgment of the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Suwalal vs

State of Rajasthan, S.B. Crl. appeal No.272/1991, dated 13.05.2024, it is held that, “the act of removing a girl's inner wear and undressing oneself with nothing more will not attract the offence of attempt to commit rape U/Sec. 376 r/w 511 of IPC but, it will attract the offence of assault to outrage modesty of a woman punishable U/Sec. 354 IPC”.

22.The evidence on record in view of the above decisions proves that the accused has disrobed the victim and also taken out the underwear of the minor victim girl on 22.03.2023 and got laid her on the cot by throwing her when she refused to lay on the cot. He also put back the underwear and the clothes to the victim when the PW2 called the victim. These acts does not amount to the offence

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 11

Sec. 376 r/w 511 of IPC, Sec. 7 r/w 8 of POCSO Act. In view of the above decision in

Suwalal vs State of Rajasthan, the acts of accused as proved above will amount to an offence punishable U/Sec. 354 of IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act. Thus, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused for the offence Sec. 354 of IPC and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act beyond all reasonable doubt. The point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution.

23. IN THE RESULT, THE ACCUSED IS FOUND GUILTY for the offence punishable U/Sec. 354 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.

Accordingly, the Accused is convicted U/Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The marked or unmarked case property, if any, shall be destroyed after completion of the appeal time is over.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 10th day of March, 2025)

Sd/-XXXX

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Jangaon.

QUANTUM OF SENTENCE

The accused is heard with regard to the sentence to be imposed and his statement is recorded on a separate sheet. The accused submitted that he is aged above 70 years. He is living alone though, he has 3 children. His wife died long back, hence, sought for mercy and imposing less sentence and fine.

In consideration of the nature of the offence committed by the accused and his submission for the sentence, his age and the facts and circumstances certainly the accused is entitled for mercy of Court.Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the accused deserves for lenient view. Hence by taking lenient view the following sentences are awarded.

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 12

i) The accused is sentenced to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC; ii) The accused is sentenced to undergoRigorous Imprisonment for a period of SIX MONTHS and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in default to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for period of three (3) months for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act; The Total fine amount to be paid by the accused is of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only).

It is needless to say that the accused is entitled for the statutory benefit provided U/Sec. 428 Cr.P.C and the remand period already undergone by him from 25.07.2023 to 13.12.2023 i.e., 142 days shall be set off from the punishment awarded herein. In view of the sentence to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment imposed for offence punishable U/Sec. 354 of Indian Penal Code and Sec. 11 r/w 12 of POCSO Act, 2012 shall run concurrently with the other sentences imposed hereunder.

The accused is also informed his right to prefer an appeal against the

Judgment before the Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana. He is also informed his right to claim free legal-aid in the event of the accused does not possess necessary financial means to engage an advocate to prefer an appeal.

A free copy of the Judgment is supplied to the accused.

Out of the fine amount realized, a sum of Rs.8000/- (Rupees Eight thousand only) is ordered to be paid as compensation U/S.357(1)(a) Cr.P.C. to the victim girl(PW3) for the expenses incurred by her in the prosecution U/S.357(1)(a) Cr.P.C.

payable after expiry of appeal time.

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 13

Further, as per NALSA’s Compensation Scheme for Women victims/ survivors of sexual assault/ other crimes-2018 and under Rule-7 thereof, and Rule-7(1) and 7(2) of POCSO Rules, a victim is entitled for compensation permitting the immediate relief and compensation. The case on hand is a fit case to grant compensation to the victim. Accordingly, this Court recommends a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only)payable to the victim (PW3) as per the amended scheme under Section 357A (2) of Cr.P.C. and the same shall be paid to the victim (PW3).

The District Legal Services Authority, Jangaon is requested to take necessary steps to release the compensation to the victim (PW3) as per the procedure prescribed in this regard.

A copy of this Judgment shall be forwarded to the Secretary, District Legal

Services Authority, Jangaon to execute the compensation payable to the minor victim.

Sd/-XXXX

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution : For Defence : PW1: Mother of victim girl -None- PW2: Grandmother of victim girl PW3: AAA/Victim girl PW4: D. Siddamma PW5: Thirunahari Padmaja PW6: Gade Siddinki Suresh PW7: N. Veerendar PW8: Ch. Raghupathi

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

SC(POCSO)No. 27 of 2023Page 14

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Prosecution: For Defence : Ex.P1 ComplaintEx.D1Relevant portion of 164 Cr.P.C. statement of PW4 Ex.P2 164 CrPC statement of victim girl Ex.P3 Study, conduct and date of birth certificate of victim Ex.P4 Copy of admission register Ex.P5 Signature of PW6 on CDF Ex.P6 FIR Ex.P7 Crime Details Form

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-NIL-

Sd/-XXXX

Spl. Sessions Judge for trial of cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Jangaon

Spl. Sessions Judge, JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT JANGAON

Present:- Sri D. Ravindra Sharma Prl. District Judge Jangaon

Thursday, this the 10 th day of April, 2025

APPEAL SUIT No. 153 of 2019

and

APPEAL SUIT No. 154 of 2019

APPEAL SUIT No. 153 of 2019

Between:

1)Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao (DIED per legal representatives)

2)Singeetham Radhamma, W/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 70 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o. Narayanpur village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District.

3)Singeetham Manohar Rao, S/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 38 years, Occupation: Private Teacher, R/o. 9-1-266/1, Bharath Nagar colony, Kareemnagar Town and District.

4)Singeetham Mohan Rao, S/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 35 years, Occupation: Private Employee, R/o. Vijaya Apartment New Year Colony, Gajwell village and Mandal, Siddipet District.

5)P. Manjula, W/o. Srinivas Rao, Age: 40 years, Occupation: Household, R/o. Turkapally village and Mandal, Yadagri Bhongir District.

...Appellants/ Plaintiffs

AND

Keshaboina Naresh Kumar, S/o. Rama Rao, Age: 37 years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Revenue Mandal, Warangal presently R/o. H.No.2-4-32, Kumargutta, near Thadbanda Hanuman Temple, Secunderabad.

..Respondent/ Defendant

On appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dt.17.04.2019 in O.S.No.169 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Between:

1)Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao (DIED per legal representatives)

2)Singeetham Radhamma

3)Singeetham Manohar Rao

4)Singeetham Mohan Rao

5)P. Manjula (amended as per order in I.A.No.163/2017, dt:25.04.2017)

... Plaintiffs

AND

Keshaboina Naresh Kumar

... Defendant

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 2

APPEAL SUIT No. 154 of 2019

Between:

1)Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao (DIED per legal representatives)

2)Singeetham Radhamma, W/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 70 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o. Narayanpur village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District.

3)Singeetham Manohar Rao, S/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 38 years, Occupation: Private Teacher, R/o. 9-1-266/1, Bharath Nagar colony, Kareemnagar Town and District.

4)Singeetham Mohan Rao, S/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 35 years, Occupation: Private Employee, R/o. Vijaya Apartment New Year Colony, Gajwell village and Mandal, Siddipet District.

5)P. Manjula, W/o. Srinivas Rao, Age: 40 years, Occupation: Household, R/o. Turkapally village and Mandal, Yadagri Bhongir District.

...Appellants/ Defendants

AND

Keshaboina Naresh Kumar, S/o. Rama Rao, Age: 37 years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Revenue Mandal, Warangal presently R/o. H.No.2-4-32, Kumargutta, near Thadbanda Hanuman Temple, Secunderabad.

..Respondent/ Plaintiff

On appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dt.17.04.2019 in O.S.No.168 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Between:

Keshaboina Naresh Kumar

... Plaintiff

AND

1)Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao (DIED per legal representatives)

2)Singeetham Radhamma

3)Singeetham Manohar Rao

4)Singeetham Mohan Rao

5)P. Manjula (amended as per order in I.A.No.79/2017, dt:17.04.2017)

...Defendants

These appeals are coming before me for final disposal on this day in the presence of Sri Jupally Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Appellants and of

Sri M. Jan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 3

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

1.Both the appeals arise out of the common Judgment dated 17.04.2019 in two suits, namely O.S.No.168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009 passed by the Senior

Civil Judge, Jangaon.

2.The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.169 of 2009 preferred A.S.No.153 of 2009, and the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.168 of 2009 preferred A.S.No.154 of 2009 seeking to set-aside the common Judgment and Decree, dated 17.04.2019 in O.S.No.169 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. They filed the suits in O.S.No.168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, associates, workmen, family members and assignees, etc., from entering into or interfering or otherwise causing any disturbance in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land and for costs.

3.The parties to these appeal suits are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in O.S.No.169 of 2009.

A.S.No.153 of 2019 (O.S.No.169 of 2009)

4.The plaintiff, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, contends that he is the absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of the agricultural land Ac.9-00gts in Sy.No.223/A2 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Revenue Mandal (which is hereinafter termed as the “Suit Schedule Property”) having purchased the same from one

Kankara Ilaiah through Doc.No.2459/ 1978, dt: 04.07.1978. That, his name was

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 4

mutated in revenue records after due enquiry, then pattadar passbook and title deed book were issued on his name. That, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. The defendant, who is having his land towards southern side of the suit schedule property has casted his greedy eye over the suit land, has demanded the plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property for which the plaintiff refused. On 28.08.2006, the defendant and his henchmen tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. However, plaintiff resisted them with the help of adjacent land owners. The plaintiff apprehends danger to his possession in the hands of defendants. Therefore, he filed this suit for injunction.

5.The defendant, K. Naresh Kumar, filed written statement by denying all the plaint allegations and sought for the dismissal of the suit. He submitted that he is the absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of land Ac.3-00gts in Sy.No.223/A/1 and Ac.1-00gts in Sy.No.226/D/1/4 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal,

Jangaon, having purchased through registered sale deed No.185/1995, dated 04.03.1995, from one Mekala Kistaiah, who in turn purchased the said property from his vendors Kankara Ilaiah and Masapeta Narayana Reddy through registered sale deed No.376/1992 dated 21.05.1992. The defendant got his name mutated in the revenue records and after due enquiry, Revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed on his name. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. He further submitted that in the year 1995, he constructed

Rice mill in the name of M/s. Shiva Durga Rice Mill, Narayanapur village. He constructed water tank for storing water, threshing floor & also a out-house in the

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 5

said purchased land. He also got dug bore well and fixed with an electric submersible motor in the said land. That, he raised Gauva and Mango gardens in a portion of the land. He got erected stone pillars and fenced it around the said purchased land. He annexed a map to the written statement in support of his contention. That, the plaintiff suppressed the real facts and approached the Court with unclean hands, hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any discretionary relief.

Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

A.S.No.154 of 2019 (O.S.No.168 of 2009)

6.The plaintiff, K. Naresh Kumar, contends that, he is the absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of the agricultural land Ac.3-00gts and Ac.1-00gts in

Sy.Nos.223/A/1 and 226/D/1/4 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Revenue

Mandal (which is hereinafter termed as the “Suit Schedule Property”) having purchased the same for a valuable sale consideration through registered sale deed

No.185/1995, dt:04.03.1995 from one Mekala Kistaiah, who in turn purchased the said property from his vendors, Kankara Ilaiah and Masapeta Narayana Reddy vide sale deed No.376/1992 dated 21.05.1992. The plaintiff got his name mutated in revenue records, after due enquiry, pattadar passbook and title deed book were issued on his name. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. The defendant, who is having his land towards

Northern side of the suit schedule property has casted his greedy eye over the suit land, has tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. On 23.08.2006, the defendant made futile attempt to occupy the suit schedule property, however, the plaintiff resisted the attempt with the help of saner

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 6

elements of local area. The plaintiff apprehends danger to his possession in the hands of the defendant. Therefore, filed this suit for perpetual injunction.

7.The defendant, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, filed written statement by denying all the plaint allegations and sought for the dismissal of the suit. He submitted that he is the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the land

Ac.9-00gts in Sy.No.223/A2 of Narayanapuram village, which he purchased from

Kankara Ilaiah through registered sale deed No.2459/1978, dt: 04.07.1978.

Thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue records and after due enquiry, revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed on his name. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Being the

Government Servant the defendant stayed away from his native place all these years. The plaintiff by taking undue advantage of the absence of the defendant in the above said land, and since the land owned by the plaintiff is not sufficient for the construction of big rice mill, the plaintiff requested the defendant to sell away some part of his land, but the defendant refused the proposal of the plaintiff.

He contended that the plaintiff developed grudge against the defendant and on 28.08.2006, tried to encroach some part of the land of the defendant by dispossessing the defendant, as such, the defendant filed O.S.No.208/2006 seeking perpetual injunction and also filed I.A.No.470/2006 for temporary injunction. That, the suit land is not one compact block and the boundaries shown by the plaintiff are false and incorrect. That, the plaintiff suppressed the facts and approached the

Court with unclean hands and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 7

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

1)Whether the plaintiff has been in legal possession over the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit ?

2)Whether the defendant is justified interfering with the suit schedule property ?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction over the suit schedule property as prayed for ?

4)To what relief?

9.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A19. In support to his claim, he also got examined Indla Iylaiah as PW2, Ponneboina Das as PW3 and Singeetham Bhaskar Rao as PW4. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant himself got examined as DW1 and got marked

Ex.B1 to Ex.B36. To support his claim, he examined Masapet Janardhan Reddy as

DW2. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1 and got marked Ex.C1 to

Ex.C9.

10.Basing on the available oral and documentary evidence, the learned Senior

Civil Judge, Jangaon has decreed both the suits without costs.

11.Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, dated 17.04.2019 in O.S.No168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon the appellants preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

(1)That the common Judgment and decree passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon are against the provisions of law,

principle of natural justice and facts of the case. Hence the said decree and Judgment are liable to be set aside.

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 8

(2)The trial Court without considering the oral and documentary evidence, Ex.A1 to A19 even the balance of convenience is not in favour of appellants has decreed the suit erroneously basing upon the assumptions and presumptions and against the evidence on record. (3)The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the pleadings and the claim of the appellants and the Trial Court without taking into the consideration of the material papers, has erroneously decreed the suit. (4)The Trial Court failed to observe that the advocate commissioner failed to identify the suit schedule properties separately which are different in survey numbers and its extents. That the trial Court wrongly concluded that the plaintiff in OS No.169/2009 have no claim against the plaintiff in OS No.168/2009, when there are separate schedule as per the pleadings separate identification and location. The same is not considered. (5)The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence led by the appellants in right perspective angle and failed to consider the real dispute between the respondent and appellants with regard to the land in question under whom it is in possession at the time of filing of the suit and had mechanically passed the common Judgment and decree. (6)That the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of the appellants which is disproving the claim of the defendant and proving the contention of the appellants. The trial Court has erroneously passed judgment mechanically without any basis and which is against the evidence on record. The common Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be set- aside.

12. Now the points that arose for consideration are:

(i)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction ?

(ii)Whether the impugned common Judgment and decree, dated: 17.04.2019 in O.S.No.169 of 2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Jangaon suffers from any infirmity either on facts or on law ?

(iii) Whether the common Judgment and decree in O.S.No.169 of 2009 dt.17.04.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon is liable to be set aside ?

Point Nos.1 to 3:

13.These two suits, O.S.No.168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009 were tried and decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. The plaintiff in O.S.No.168 of

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 9

2009 (old OS No.208/2006) and the defendant in O.S.No.169 of 2009 is Keshaboina

Naresh Kumar. The defendant in O.S.No.168 of 2009 (old OS No.208/2006) and the plaintiff in O.S.No.169 of 2009 is Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao. While pendency of these suits, Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

14.Both the suits were clubbed together and tried by adducing evidence in

O.S.169 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to

as they were referred in O.S.No.169 of 2009.

O.S.No.169 of 2009:

15.As per record, the plaintiff, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.9-00gts of land in Sy.No.223/A2 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District, which is herein after referred as suit schedule property. He purchased the said property through registered sale deed

No.2459/1978 dated 04.07.1978 from one Kankar Ilaiah. Since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He got mutated his name in the revenue records, and the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook, title deed on his name. The plaintiff developed the suit schedule property and converted into wet land by spending huge amount. The defendant having his land on the Southern side of the suit schedule property has casted greedy eye over the schedule property and with a malafide intention, on 28.08.2006, the defendant along with his henchmen tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. However, plaintiff resisted the same with the help of adjacent land

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 10

owners. The plaintiff apprehends danger to his possession in the hands of the defendant. Hence, this suit.

16.The case of the defendant is that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of land Ac.3-00gts in Sy.No.223/A/1 and Ac.1-00gts in Sy.No.226/D/1/4 of

Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District. That, he purchased the said property through registered sale deed No.185/1995 dated 04-03-1995 from Mekala Kistaiah. Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed on his name. He got mutated his name in the revenue records. That, in the year 1995, the defendant constructed rice mill by name M/s. Shiva Durga Rice Mill,

Narayanapoor village and prepared threshing floor for the same. The defendant dug bore-well, fixed electric sub-mersible motor, constructed water tank for storing water and also constructed out-house in the said land, and the same is evident from the map annexed to the written statement. The defendant also raised guava plants, mango garden, erected stone pillars and fenced it around the said purchased land. That, the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands.

There is no cause of action and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, hence, prayed to dismiss the suit against him with exemplary costs.

17.The plaintiff, S. Narsinga Rao, was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 were marked. I. Iylaiah was examined as PW2, P. Das was examined as PW3 and

S. Bhaskar Rao was examined as PW4. On behalf of the defendant, K. Naresh Kumar

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 11

was examined as DW1 and Ex.B2 to Ex.B36 were marked. In the cross-examination of PW1, Ex.B1 was confronted and marked.

18.As per memo filed by the defendant, K. Naresh Kumar, who is the plaintiff in

O.S.No.168 of 2009 informing that, PW1- S. Narsinga Rao, in his cross-examination,

admitted that he has no claim over the land in Sy.No.226/D1 and also admitted that in the year 1995 itself K. Naresh Kumar constructed rice mill and other structures and he was in possession. K. Naresh Kumar as DW1 also admitted in his cross- examination that there is no dispute with regard to the Sy.No.226/D1 to the extent of Ac.1-00gts i.e., suit schedule item No.2 of O.S.No.168 of 2009. Therefore, he abandoned the claim. The suit claim to an extent of Ac.1-00gts in Sy.No.226/D1, item No.2 was not pressed and dismissed.

19.S. Manohar Rao, who is the son of S. Narsimha Rao, has filed I.A.No.148/2009 under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of CPC, seeking permission to withdraw the suit for an extent of Ac.3-01gts in Sy.No.223/A/2 out of Ac.9-00gts.

20.The plaintiff in O.S.No.169 of 2009, namely S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, died and his legal representatives are claiming Ac.9-00gts of land out of Sy.No.223/A2 of

Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District, having purchased the same through Ex.A2/ registered sale deed No.2459/1978 dated 04-07-1978 from one Kankara Ilaiah, whereas, the plaintiff in O.S.No.168 of 2009, namely

K. Naresh Kumar, claims Ac.3-00gts of land out of Sy.No.223/A/1 and Ac.1-00gts of land in Sy.No.226/D/1/4 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 12

District, having purchased the same through Ex.B2/ registered sale deed

No.185/1995 dated 04.03.1995 and in that land he constructed Rice mill by name

M/s. Shiva Durga Rice Mill, Narayanpur village.

21.As per evidence, admittedly, both plaintiffs in the suits are adjacent land owners and they have admitted the possession of other party as neighbour. Both the parties are tracing their title to Kankara Ilaiah, who was the original owner of

Ac.15-00gts of land in Sy.No.223. The plaintiff also admits that, the defendant,

K. Naresh Kumar having land on Southern side and constructed rice mill, out-house, dug bore-well , planted trees and fenced the land with barbed wire. Therefore, the possession of K. Naresh Kumar as plaintiff, in O.S.No.168 of 2009 is admitted by the plaintiff, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao and others in O.S.No.169 of 2009. The remaining land of Ac.5-39gts in Sy.No.223/A1 is in possession of plaintiff.

22.As per Ex.B3/ registered sale deed No.376/1992,dated 21.05.1992, Kankara

Ilaiah and Masapeta Narayana Reddy executed sale deed in favour of Mekala

Kistaiah, who in turn executed Ex.B2/ registered sale deed No.185/1995 dated 04.03.1995 in favour of the defendant, K. Naresh Kumar. Therefore, Ex.B3 and

Ex.A2 were executed by Kankara Ilaiah. Ex.B3 is executed in favour of the vendor of the defendant and Ex.A2 is executed in favour of the plaintiff. Both the parties have filed documents to prove that their names were entered into revenue records and they are in possession, more over their possession was admitted by the other party.

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 13

23.The original plaintiff, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, admitted the ownership and possession of defendant, K. Naresh Kumar. Though, the legal representatives of plaintiff who are the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 have denied and their contention cannot be considered in view of the admissions made by the original plaintiff that the defendant is in possession of Ac.3-01gts and they are in possession of Ac.5- 39gts in Sy.No.223/A1. Therefore, it is proved by the evidence that, the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.169 of 2009 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.5-39gts of land

in Sy.No.223/A2, whereas, the plaintiff in O.S.No.168/2009 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.3-00gts of land in Sy.No.223/A1, and they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective property as on the date of the suit with boundaries. As it can be seen, there is no boundary dispute pleaded by both the parties in their respective suits and they have not contended that the other party is trying to dispossess another party. Therefore, the trial Court having observed the same, has decreed both the suits.

24.The trial Court has rightly came to a conclusion basing upon the evidence and by giving sound reasons. There is no infirmity or irregularity committed by the trial Court. Even otherwise, if injunction is granted to both the parties of both the suits will not be prejudiced, as per their admissions and vide order in I.A.No.148/ 2019 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.168/2009 filed a memo by abandoning the suit claim for Ac.1-00gts of land in item No.2 in Sy.No.226/D1 as not pressed and in view of memo S.R.No.743/2019 in I.A.No.148/2019 partly allowing the plaintiff,

S. Narsinga Rao to withdraw the suit for Ac.3-01gts of land which belongs to the defendant K. Naresh Kumar. Therefore, the suit schedule property in O.S.No.168

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 14

of 2009 is only Ac.3-01gts in Sy.No.223/A/1 and in O.S.No.169of 2009 is only

Ac.5-39gts in Sy.No.223/A/2. The suits were decreed as per their admissions.

None of the parties is aggrieved by the decrees of the trial Court. There is no cause of action for both the appeals. Therefore, the point Nos.1 to 3 are answered by holding that trial Court has rightly come to just and proper conclusion in decreeing both the suits in favour of both the plaintiffs and there is no cause of action for these appeals. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed with costs.

25. In the result, both the appeals i.e., A.S.No.153/2019 and A.S.No.154/2019 are dismissed with costs by confirming the common Judgment and Decree, dated 17-04-2019 in O.S.No.168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009, passed by the Senior

Civil Judge, Jangaon.

(Typed to my dictation , corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of April, 2025)

Sd/-XXXX

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

--None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

-Nil -

Sd/-XXXX

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JANGAON

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 1

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE AT JANGAON

Present:- Sri D. Ravindra Sharma Prl. District Judge Jangaon

Thursday, this the 10 th day of April, 2025

APPEAL SUIT No. 153 of 2019

and

APPEAL SUIT No. 154 of 2019

APPEAL SUIT No. 153 of 2019

Between:

1)Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao (DIED per legal representatives)

2)Singeetham Radhamma, W/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 70 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o. Narayanpur village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District.

3)Singeetham Manohar Rao, S/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 38 years, Occupation: Private Teacher, R/o. 9-1-266/1, Bharath Nagar colony, Kareemnagar Town and District.

4)Singeetham Mohan Rao, S/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 35 years, Occupation: Private Employee, R/o. Vijaya Apartment New Year Colony, Gajwell village and Mandal, Siddipet District.

5)P. Manjula, W/o. Srinivas Rao, Age: 40 years, Occupation: Household, R/o. Turkapally village and Mandal, Yadagri Bhongir District.

...Appellants/ Plaintiffs

AND

Keshaboina Naresh Kumar, S/o. Rama Rao, Age: 37 years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Revenue Mandal, Warangal presently R/o. H.No.2-4-32, Kumargutta, near Thadbanda Hanuman Temple, Secunderabad.

..Respondent/ Defendant

On appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dt.17.04.2019 in O.S.No.169 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Between:

1)Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao (DIED per legal representatives)

2)Singeetham Radhamma

3)Singeetham Manohar Rao

4)Singeetham Mohan Rao

5)P. Manjula (amended as per order in I.A.No.163/2017, dt:25.04.2017)

... Plaintiffs

AND

Keshaboina Naresh Kumar

... Defendant

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 2

APPEAL SUIT No. 154 of 2019

Between:

1)Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao (DIED per legal representatives)

2)Singeetham Radhamma, W/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 70 years, Occupation: Housewife, R/o. Narayanpur village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District.

3)Singeetham Manohar Rao, S/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 38 years, Occupation: Private Teacher, R/o. 9-1-266/1, Bharath Nagar colony, Kareemnagar Town and District.

4)Singeetham Mohan Rao, S/o. Late Narsimha Rao, Age: 35 years, Occupation: Private Employee, R/o. Vijaya Apartment New Year Colony, Gajwell village and Mandal, Siddipet District.

5)P. Manjula, W/o. Srinivas Rao, Age: 40 years, Occupation: Household, R/o. Turkapally village and Mandal, Yadagri Bhongir District.

...Appellants/ Defendants

AND

Keshaboina Naresh Kumar, S/o. Rama Rao, Age: 37 years, Occupation: Business, R/o. Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Revenue Mandal, Warangal presently R/o. H.No.2-4-32, Kumargutta, near Thadbanda Hanuman Temple, Secunderabad.

..Respondent/ Plaintiff

On appeal against the Judgment and Decree, dt.17.04.2019 in O.S.No.168 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. Between:

Keshaboina Naresh Kumar

... Plaintiff

AND

1)Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao (DIED per legal representatives)

2)Singeetham Radhamma

3)Singeetham Manohar Rao

4)Singeetham Mohan Rao

5)P. Manjula (amended as per order in I.A.No.79/2017, dt:17.04.2017)

...Defendants

These appeals are coming before me for final disposal on this day in the presence of Sri Jupally Satyanarayana, Advocate for the Appellants and of

Sri M. Jan Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent; and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 3

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

1.Both the appeals arise out of the common Judgment dated 17.04.2019 in two suits, namely O.S.No.168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009 passed by the Senior

Civil Judge, Jangaon.

2.The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.169 of 2009 preferred A.S.No.153 of 2009, and the unsuccessful defendants in O.S.No.168 of 2009 preferred A.S.No.154 of 2009 seeking to set-aside the common Judgment and Decree, dated 17.04.2019 in O.S.No.169 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. They filed the suits in O.S.No.168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, servants, associates, workmen, family members and assignees, etc., from entering into or interfering or otherwise causing any disturbance in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule land and for costs.

3.The parties to these appeal suits are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in O.S.No.169 of 2009.

A.S.No.153 of 2019 (O.S.No.169 of 2009)

4.The plaintiff, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, contends that he is the absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of the agricultural land Ac.9-00gts in Sy.No.223/A2 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Revenue Mandal (which is hereinafter termed as the “Suit Schedule Property”) having purchased the same from one

Kankara Ilaiah through Doc.No.2459/ 1978, dt: 04.07.1978. That, his name was

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 4

mutated in revenue records after due enquiry, then pattadar passbook and title deed book were issued on his name. That, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. The defendant, who is having his land towards southern side of the suit schedule property has casted his greedy eye over the suit land, has demanded the plaintiff to sell the suit schedule property for which the plaintiff refused. On 28.08.2006, the defendant and his henchmen tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. However, plaintiff resisted them with the help of adjacent land owners. The plaintiff apprehends danger to his possession in the hands of defendants. Therefore, he filed this suit for injunction.

5.The defendant, K. Naresh Kumar, filed written statement by denying all the plaint allegations and sought for the dismissal of the suit. He submitted that he is the absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of land Ac.3-00gts in Sy.No.223/A/1 and Ac.1-00gts in Sy.No.226/D/1/4 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal,

Jangaon, having purchased through registered sale deed No.185/1995, dated 04.03.1995, from one Mekala Kistaiah, who in turn purchased the said property from his vendors Kankara Ilaiah and Masapeta Narayana Reddy through registered sale deed No.376/1992 dated 21.05.1992. The defendant got his name mutated in the revenue records and after due enquiry, Revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed on his name. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. He further submitted that in the year 1995, he constructed

Rice mill in the name of M/s. Shiva Durga Rice Mill, Narayanapur village. He constructed water tank for storing water, threshing floor & also a out-house in the

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 5

said purchased land. He also got dug bore well and fixed with an electric submersible motor in the said land. That, he raised Gauva and Mango gardens in a portion of the land. He got erected stone pillars and fenced it around the said purchased land. He annexed a map to the written statement in support of his contention. That, the plaintiff suppressed the real facts and approached the Court with unclean hands, hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any discretionary relief.

Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

A.S.No.154 of 2019 (O.S.No.168 of 2009)

6.The plaintiff, K. Naresh Kumar, contends that, he is the absolute owner, possessor and pattadar of the agricultural land Ac.3-00gts and Ac.1-00gts in

Sy.Nos.223/A/1 and 226/D/1/4 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Revenue

Mandal (which is hereinafter termed as the “Suit Schedule Property”) having purchased the same for a valuable sale consideration through registered sale deed

No.185/1995, dt:04.03.1995 from one Mekala Kistaiah, who in turn purchased the said property from his vendors, Kankara Ilaiah and Masapeta Narayana Reddy vide sale deed No.376/1992 dated 21.05.1992. The plaintiff got his name mutated in revenue records, after due enquiry, pattadar passbook and title deed book were issued on his name. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same without any interruption. The defendant, who is having his land towards

Northern side of the suit schedule property has casted his greedy eye over the suit land, has tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. On 23.08.2006, the defendant made futile attempt to occupy the suit schedule property, however, the plaintiff resisted the attempt with the help of saner

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 6

elements of local area. The plaintiff apprehends danger to his possession in the hands of the defendant. Therefore, filed this suit for perpetual injunction.

7.The defendant, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, filed written statement by denying all the plaint allegations and sought for the dismissal of the suit. He submitted that he is the absolute owner, pattadar and possessor of the land

Ac.9-00gts in Sy.No.223/A2 of Narayanapuram village, which he purchased from

Kankara Ilaiah through registered sale deed No.2459/1978, dt: 04.07.1978.

Thereafter, his name was mutated in the revenue records and after due enquiry, revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed on his name. Since then, he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Being the

Government Servant the defendant stayed away from his native place all these years. The plaintiff by taking undue advantage of the absence of the defendant in the above said land, and since the land owned by the plaintiff is not sufficient for the construction of big rice mill, the plaintiff requested the defendant to sell away some part of his land, but the defendant refused the proposal of the plaintiff.

He contended that the plaintiff developed grudge against the defendant and on 28.08.2006, tried to encroach some part of the land of the defendant by dispossessing the defendant, as such, the defendant filed O.S.No.208/2006 seeking perpetual injunction and also filed I.A.No.470/2006 for temporary injunction. That, the suit land is not one compact block and the boundaries shown by the plaintiff are false and incorrect. That, the plaintiff suppressed the facts and approached the

Court with unclean hands and the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 7

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues :

1)Whether the plaintiff has been in legal possession over the suit schedule property by the date of filing of the suit ?

2)Whether the defendant is justified interfering with the suit schedule property ?

3)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction over the suit schedule property as prayed for ?

4)To what relief?

9.During the course of trial, the plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A19. In support to his claim, he also got examined Indla Iylaiah as PW2, Ponneboina Das as PW3 and Singeetham Bhaskar Rao as PW4. On behalf of the defendants, the defendant himself got examined as DW1 and got marked

Ex.B1 to Ex.B36. To support his claim, he examined Masapet Janardhan Reddy as

DW2. The Advocate Commissioner was examined as CW1 and got marked Ex.C1 to

Ex.C9.

10.Basing on the available oral and documentary evidence, the learned Senior

Civil Judge, Jangaon has decreed both the suits without costs.

11.Aggrieved by the said Judgment and decree, dated 17.04.2019 in O.S.No168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon the appellants preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:

(1)That the common Judgment and decree passed by the learned

Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon are against the provisions of law,

principle of natural justice and facts of the case. Hence the said decree and Judgment are liable to be set aside.

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 8

(2)The trial Court without considering the oral and documentary evidence, Ex.A1 to A19 even the balance of convenience is not in favour of appellants has decreed the suit erroneously basing upon the assumptions and presumptions and against the evidence on record. (3)The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the pleadings and the claim of the appellants and the Trial Court without taking into the consideration of the material papers, has erroneously decreed the suit. (4)The Trial Court failed to observe that the advocate commissioner failed to identify the suit schedule properties separately which are different in survey numbers and its extents. That the trial Court wrongly concluded that the plaintiff in OS No.169/2009 have no claim against the plaintiff in OS No.168/2009, when there are separate schedule as per the pleadings separate identification and location. The same is not considered. (5)The Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence led by the appellants in right perspective angle and failed to consider the real dispute between the respondent and appellants with regard to the land in question under whom it is in possession at the time of filing of the suit and had mechanically passed the common Judgment and decree. (6)That the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence of the appellants which is disproving the claim of the defendant and proving the contention of the appellants. The trial Court has erroneously passed judgment mechanically without any basis and which is against the evidence on record. The common Judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be set- aside.

12. Now the points that arose for consideration are:

(i)Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for perpetual injunction ?

(ii)Whether the impugned common Judgment and decree, dated: 17.04.2019 in O.S.No.169 of 2009, passed by the learned Senior Civil

Judge, Jangaon suffers from any infirmity either on facts or on law ?

(iii) Whether the common Judgment and decree in O.S.No.169 of 2009 dt.17.04.2019 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon is liable to be set aside ?

Point Nos.1 to 3:

13.These two suits, O.S.No.168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009 were tried and decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Jangaon. The plaintiff in O.S.No.168 of

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 9

2009 (old OS No.208/2006) and the defendant in O.S.No.169 of 2009 is Keshaboina

Naresh Kumar. The defendant in O.S.No.168 of 2009 (old OS No.208/2006) and the plaintiff in O.S.No.169 of 2009 is Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao. While pendency of these suits, Singeetham Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao died and his legal representatives were brought on record.

14.Both the suits were clubbed together and tried by adducing evidence in

O.S.169 of 2009. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to

as they were referred in O.S.No.169 of 2009.

O.S.No.169 of 2009:

15.As per record, the plaintiff, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, is the absolute owner and possessor of Ac.9-00gts of land in Sy.No.223/A2 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District, which is herein after referred as suit schedule property. He purchased the said property through registered sale deed

No.2459/1978 dated 04.07.1978 from one Kankar Ilaiah. Since then he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. He got mutated his name in the revenue records, and the revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook, title deed on his name. The plaintiff developed the suit schedule property and converted into wet land by spending huge amount. The defendant having his land on the Southern side of the suit schedule property has casted greedy eye over the schedule property and with a malafide intention, on 28.08.2006, the defendant along with his henchmen tried to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit schedule property. However, plaintiff resisted the same with the help of adjacent land

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 10

owners. The plaintiff apprehends danger to his possession in the hands of the defendant. Hence, this suit.

16.The case of the defendant is that, he is the absolute owner and possessor of land Ac.3-00gts in Sy.No.223/A/1 and Ac.1-00gts in Sy.No.226/D/1/4 of

Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District. That, he purchased the said property through registered sale deed No.185/1995 dated 04-03-1995 from Mekala Kistaiah. Since then, he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The revenue authorities issued pattadar passbook and title deed on his name. He got mutated his name in the revenue records. That, in the year 1995, the defendant constructed rice mill by name M/s. Shiva Durga Rice Mill,

Narayanapoor village and prepared threshing floor for the same. The defendant dug bore-well, fixed electric sub-mersible motor, constructed water tank for storing water and also constructed out-house in the said land, and the same is evident from the map annexed to the written statement. The defendant also raised guava plants, mango garden, erected stone pillars and fenced it around the said purchased land. That, the plaintiff approached the Court with unclean hands.

There is no cause of action and the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit, hence, prayed to dismiss the suit against him with exemplary costs.

17.The plaintiff, S. Narsinga Rao, was examined as PW1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 were marked. I. Iylaiah was examined as PW2, P. Das was examined as PW3 and

S. Bhaskar Rao was examined as PW4. On behalf of the defendant, K. Naresh Kumar

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 11

was examined as DW1 and Ex.B2 to Ex.B36 were marked. In the cross-examination of PW1, Ex.B1 was confronted and marked.

18.As per memo filed by the defendant, K. Naresh Kumar, who is the plaintiff in

O.S.No.168 of 2009 informing that, PW1- S. Narsinga Rao, in his cross-examination,

admitted that he has no claim over the land in Sy.No.226/D1 and also admitted that in the year 1995 itself K. Naresh Kumar constructed rice mill and other structures and he was in possession. K. Naresh Kumar as DW1 also admitted in his cross- examination that there is no dispute with regard to the Sy.No.226/D1 to the extent of Ac.1-00gts i.e., suit schedule item No.2 of O.S.No.168 of 2009. Therefore, he abandoned the claim. The suit claim to an extent of Ac.1-00gts in Sy.No.226/D1, item No.2 was not pressed and dismissed.

19.S. Manohar Rao, who is the son of S. Narsimha Rao, has filed I.A.No.148/2009 under Order XXIII Rule 1(3)(b) of CPC, seeking permission to withdraw the suit for an extent of Ac.3-01gts in Sy.No.223/A/2 out of Ac.9-00gts.

20.The plaintiff in O.S.No.169 of 2009, namely S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, died and his legal representatives are claiming Ac.9-00gts of land out of Sy.No.223/A2 of

Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon District, having purchased the same through Ex.A2/ registered sale deed No.2459/1978 dated 04-07-1978 from one Kankara Ilaiah, whereas, the plaintiff in O.S.No.168 of 2009, namely

K. Naresh Kumar, claims Ac.3-00gts of land out of Sy.No.223/A/1 and Ac.1-00gts of land in Sy.No.226/D/1/4 of Narayanapuram village, Bachannapet Mandal, Jangaon

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 12

District, having purchased the same through Ex.B2/ registered sale deed

No.185/1995 dated 04.03.1995 and in that land he constructed Rice mill by name

M/s. Shiva Durga Rice Mill, Narayanpur village.

21.As per evidence, admittedly, both plaintiffs in the suits are adjacent land owners and they have admitted the possession of other party as neighbour. Both the parties are tracing their title to Kankara Ilaiah, who was the original owner of

Ac.15-00gts of land in Sy.No.223. The plaintiff also admits that, the defendant,

K. Naresh Kumar having land on Southern side and constructed rice mill, out-house, dug bore-well , planted trees and fenced the land with barbed wire. Therefore, the possession of K. Naresh Kumar as plaintiff, in O.S.No.168 of 2009 is admitted by the plaintiff, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao and others in O.S.No.169 of 2009. The remaining land of Ac.5-39gts in Sy.No.223/A1 is in possession of plaintiff.

22.As per Ex.B3/ registered sale deed No.376/1992,dated 21.05.1992, Kankara

Ilaiah and Masapeta Narayana Reddy executed sale deed in favour of Mekala

Kistaiah, who in turn executed Ex.B2/ registered sale deed No.185/1995 dated 04.03.1995 in favour of the defendant, K. Naresh Kumar. Therefore, Ex.B3 and

Ex.A2 were executed by Kankara Ilaiah. Ex.B3 is executed in favour of the vendor of the defendant and Ex.A2 is executed in favour of the plaintiff. Both the parties have filed documents to prove that their names were entered into revenue records and they are in possession, more over their possession was admitted by the other party.

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 13

23.The original plaintiff, S. Narsimha @ Narsinga Rao, admitted the ownership and possession of defendant, K. Naresh Kumar. Though, the legal representatives of plaintiff who are the plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 have denied and their contention cannot be considered in view of the admissions made by the original plaintiff that the defendant is in possession of Ac.3-01gts and they are in possession of Ac.5- 39gts in Sy.No.223/A1. Therefore, it is proved by the evidence that, the plaintiffs in

O.S.No.169 of 2009 are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.5-39gts of land

in Sy.No.223/A2, whereas, the plaintiff in O.S.No.168/2009 is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of Ac.3-00gts of land in Sy.No.223/A1, and they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective property as on the date of the suit with boundaries. As it can be seen, there is no boundary dispute pleaded by both the parties in their respective suits and they have not contended that the other party is trying to dispossess another party. Therefore, the trial Court having observed the same, has decreed both the suits.

24.The trial Court has rightly came to a conclusion basing upon the evidence and by giving sound reasons. There is no infirmity or irregularity committed by the trial Court. Even otherwise, if injunction is granted to both the parties of both the suits will not be prejudiced, as per their admissions and vide order in I.A.No.148/ 2019 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.168/2009 filed a memo by abandoning the suit claim for Ac.1-00gts of land in item No.2 in Sy.No.226/D1 as not pressed and in view of memo S.R.No.743/2019 in I.A.No.148/2019 partly allowing the plaintiff,

S. Narsinga Rao to withdraw the suit for Ac.3-01gts of land which belongs to the defendant K. Naresh Kumar. Therefore, the suit schedule property in O.S.No.168

PDJ,JGN

AS 153 of 2019 and AS 154 of 2019 Page: 14

of 2009 is only Ac.3-01gts in Sy.No.223/A/1 and in O.S.No.169of 2009 is only

Ac.5-39gts in Sy.No.223/A/2. The suits were decreed as per their admissions.

None of the parties is aggrieved by the decrees of the trial Court. There is no cause of action for both the appeals. Therefore, the point Nos.1 to 3 are answered by holding that trial Court has rightly come to just and proper conclusion in decreeing both the suits in favour of both the plaintiffs and there is no cause of action for these appeals. Therefore, both the appeals are dismissed with costs.

25. In the result, both the appeals i.e., A.S.No.153/2019 and A.S.No.154/2019 are dismissed with costs by confirming the common Judgment and Decree, dated 17-04-2019 in O.S.No.168 of 2009 and O.S.No.169 of 2009, passed by the Senior

Civil Judge, Jangaon.

(Typed to my dictation , corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of April, 2025)

Sd/-XXXX

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

--None –

EXHIBITS MARKED

-Nil -

Sd/-XXXX

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE

JANGAON

PDJ,JGN

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES AT JANGAON.

Present:- Sri D. Ravindra Sharma, Prl. Sessions Judge, Jangaon. FAC: Spl Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Jangaon

Wednesday, the 16th day of April, 2025

SC .POCSO. No. 01 of 2023

In

Crime. No. 203 of 2022, PS Palakurthy

Name of the Complainant:The State of Telangana through Assistant Commissioner of police, Wardhannapet. Name of the Accused:A1. Banoth Narasimha, S/o Bansi, 25 years, Lambada, Student R/o Devunigutta thanda of Devuruppula Mandal, Jangaon district.

A2. Banoth Bansi, S/o Harya, 50 years, Lambada, Agriculture, R/o Devunigutta thanda of Devuruppula mandal, Jangaon district. Offence under section:Section 376(2)(n), 109, 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused. Plea of the accused:Not guilty Finding:Not guilty Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2. Accordingly the accused are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked case property i.e., BAJAJ Pulsar bike grey colour bearing No. TS 27 F 2996 was given as interim custody to the registered owner vide Crl. M.P. No. 36/2023 on 21-03-2023 and the same shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked case property i.e., One plus company smart phone and one samsung company keypad phone which are in safe custody of police shall be returned to its original owners after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment. Name of the counsel for prosecution:Sri K. Harischandra Prasad, Special Public

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 2 Prosecutor. Name of the counsel for defence:Sri K. Srinivas Reddy Advocate.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Haris Chandra Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for accused and on hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Wardhannapet has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 109, 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: 2.1. A-1 is maternal uncle in relation to the victim. There is good acquaintance between victim’s family and A-1’s family. In the year 2021, while victim was pursuing 10th class at ST Hostel, Narmetta, victim came to her house to pick a saree to participate in Teachers’ day programme. On 04-09-2021, A1 took the victim girl to drop her at her school. On the way to hostel, at about 1-00 pm, A-1 stopped his motorcycle near bushes, threatened the victim and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse and promised her that he will marry her. On the occasion of Dassera festival, A1 and A2(father of A1) requested the family members of victim girl to send the victim to their house, as she gives company to A-1’s sister. They accepted and sent the victim to A-1’s house. In the absence of housemates, A-1 participated in sexual intercourse with victim about 5 to 6 times and the same was noticed by A-2, and he encouraged A1. Parents of victim girl accepted to perform marriage of victim girl with A-1, but after performing marriage of their elder daughter. Due to lack of money to perform marriage of the victim and their elder daughter, they decided to sell their 2 acres of land.

2.2.A-2 brought one party who intend to purchase the said land, before the father of victim girl and fixed rate at Rs.18,00,000/- and gave Rs.6,00,000/- to the parents of victim and kept remaining amount of Rs.12,00,000/- with him. A1 purchased one pulsar motorcycle by spending Rs.1,70,000/- from that money. Due to differences between victim’s family and A-1, A1 & A2 did not attend the marriage of elder sister of victim girl. Later A1 and A2 started avoiding marriage and started picking quarrels with the family members of victim girl stating that they performed marriage of elder sister of victim. The parents of victim girl thought that marriage of victim girl to

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 3 perform after her studies and placed the matter before elders. But A1 and A2 stated that they neither decided to get marry with victim nor give back the money. Hence, the complaint.

2.3Basing on the report, LW12 / Sub-Inspector of police, Palakurthy registered a case in Crime. No. 203/2022 of P.S. Palakurthy and investigated into the matter and issued FIR. After completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 109, 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused.

3.The Principal District Judge, FAC: Spl. Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and protection of children against sexual offences (POCSO) Act cases, Jangaon took cognizance of the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 109, 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2 were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW’s 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses, since the victim and her parents turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not support the case. As there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused, the examination of the accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

6.Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 4

8. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has examined the victim girl as PW1. As per her evidence there were disputes between their family and family of the accused, in that regard she gave complaint to police. She does not know the contents of complaint. Ex.P1 is her signature on complaint, dt: 01-10-2022. She further deposed that accused did not commit any offence against her. The Parents of the victim girl are examined as Pws.2 and 3 they too deposed that there were disputes between their family and family of the accused in that regard PW1 lodged a report and the accused did not commit any offence on the victim girl. P.Ws.4 and 5 deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Thus PWs1 to 5 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution in any manner and they all were declared as hostile. From their cross-examination the prosecution could not elicit anything to prove the guilt of the accused. Since nothing could be elicited in the evidence of PW’s. 1 to 5, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses. Thus there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence to prove the guilt of the accused. In view of the above discussed reasons, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2 and thereby the accused 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly against prosecution.

9.In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2. Accordingly the accused are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked case property i.e., BAJAJ Pulsar bike grey colour bearing No. TS 27 F 2996 was given as interim custody to the registered owner vide Crl. M.P. No. 36/2023 on 21-03-2023 and the same shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked case property i.e., One plus company smart phone and one samsung company keypad phone which are in safe custody of police shall be returned to its original owners after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment.

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 5 (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 16 th day of April, 2025) Sd/xxx

FAC SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASE

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW1XXXX/the victim girl. - None - PW2XXXX/the mother of victim girl. PW3XXXX/ the father victim girl. PW4G. Chandra Bhanu PW5Guguloth Narsimha

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on complaint, Dt. 01-10-2022-Nil- Ex.P2 Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.P3Sec.164CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.P4Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW2. Ex.P5Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW3. Ex.P6Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW4. Ex.P7Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL - Sd/xxx

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES

JANGAON

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 1

IN THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT FOR EXPEDITIOUS TRIAL

AND DISPOSAL OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST SEXUAL

OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT CASES AT JANGAON.

Present:- Sri D. Ravindra Sharma, Prl. Sessions Judge, Jangaon. FAC: Spl Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases, Jangaon

Wednesday, the 16th day of April, 2025

SC .POCSO. No. 01 of 2023

In

Crime. No. 203 of 2022, PS Palakurthy

Name of the Complainant:The State of Telangana through Assistant Commissioner of police, Wardhannapet. Name of the Accused:A1. Banoth Narasimha, S/o Bansi, 25 years, Lambada, Student R/o Devunigutta thanda of Devuruppula Mandal, Jangaon district.

A2. Banoth Bansi, S/o Harya, 50 years, Lambada, Agriculture, R/o Devunigutta thanda of Devuruppula mandal, Jangaon district. Offence under section:Section 376(2)(n), 109, 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused. Plea of the accused:Not guilty Finding:Not guilty Sentence or Order:In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2. Accordingly the accused are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked case property i.e., BAJAJ Pulsar bike grey colour bearing No. TS 27 F 2996 was given as interim custody to the registered owner vide Crl. M.P. No. 36/2023 on 21-03-2023 and the same shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked case property i.e., One plus company smart phone and one samsung company keypad phone which are in safe custody of police shall be returned to its original owners after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment. Name of the counsel for prosecution:Sri K. Harischandra Prasad, Special Public

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 2 Prosecutor. Name of the counsel for defence:Sri K. Srinivas Reddy Advocate.

This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri K. Haris Chandra Prasad, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and of Sri K. Srinivas Reddy, learned counsel for accused and on hearing both sides, having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following:

J U D G M E N T

1.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Wardhannapet has filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 109, 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that: 2.1. A-1 is maternal uncle in relation to the victim. There is good acquaintance between victim’s family and A-1’s family. In the year 2021, while victim was pursuing 10th class at ST Hostel, Narmetta, victim came to her house to pick a saree to participate in Teachers’ day programme. On 04-09-2021, A1 took the victim girl to drop her at her school. On the way to hostel, at about 1-00 pm, A-1 stopped his motorcycle near bushes, threatened the victim and forcibly participated in sexual intercourse and promised her that he will marry her. On the occasion of Dassera festival, A1 and A2(father of A1) requested the family members of victim girl to send the victim to their house, as she gives company to A-1’s sister. They accepted and sent the victim to A-1’s house. In the absence of housemates, A-1 participated in sexual intercourse with victim about 5 to 6 times and the same was noticed by A-2, and he encouraged A1. Parents of victim girl accepted to perform marriage of victim girl with A-1, but after performing marriage of their elder daughter. Due to lack of money to perform marriage of the victim and their elder daughter, they decided to sell their 2 acres of land.

2.2.A-2 brought one party who intend to purchase the said land, before the father of victim girl and fixed rate at Rs.18,00,000/- and gave Rs.6,00,000/- to the parents of victim and kept remaining amount of Rs.12,00,000/- with him. A1 purchased one pulsar motorcycle by spending Rs.1,70,000/- from that money. Due to differences between victim’s family and A-1, A1 & A2 did not attend the marriage of elder sister of victim girl. Later A1 and A2 started avoiding marriage and started picking quarrels with the family members of victim girl stating that they performed marriage of elder sister of victim. The parents of victim girl thought that marriage of victim girl to

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 3 perform after her studies and placed the matter before elders. But A1 and A2 stated that they neither decided to get marry with victim nor give back the money. Hence, the complaint.

2.3Basing on the report, LW12 / Sub-Inspector of police, Palakurthy registered a case in Crime. No. 203/2022 of P.S. Palakurthy and investigated into the matter and issued FIR. After completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 109, 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against accused.

3.The Principal District Judge, FAC: Spl. Judge for expeditious trial and disposal of rape and protection of children against sexual offences (POCSO) Act cases, Jangaon took cognizance of the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 109, 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused. On appearance of accused, copies of documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C.

4.After hearing both sides and on perusal of the record, charges for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2 were framed, read over and explained to them in vernacular language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW’s 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses, since the victim and her parents turned hostile to the case of prosecution and did not support the case. As there is no incriminating evidence found against the accused, the examination of the accused U/S 313 Cr.P.C was dispensed with.

6.Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. Now the point that arises for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2 beyond all reasonable doubt?”

POINT:

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 4

8. The prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused has examined the victim girl as PW1. As per her evidence there were disputes between their family and family of the accused, in that regard she gave complaint to police. She does not know the contents of complaint. Ex.P1 is her signature on complaint, dt: 01-10-2022. She further deposed that accused did not commit any offence against her. The Parents of the victim girl are examined as Pws.2 and 3 they too deposed that there were disputes between their family and family of the accused in that regard PW1 lodged a report and the accused did not commit any offence on the victim girl. P.Ws.4 and 5 deposed that they do not know anything about the facts of the case. Thus PWs1 to 5 turned hostile and they did not support the case of prosecution in any manner and they all were declared as hostile. From their cross-examination the prosecution could not elicit anything to prove the guilt of the accused. Since nothing could be elicited in the evidence of PW’s. 1 to 5, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up examining the remaining witnesses. Thus there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the accused with the alleged offence to prove the guilt of the accused. In view of the above discussed reasons, this court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2 and thereby the accused 1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. The point is answered accordingly against prosecution.

9.In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against A1 and Section 376 r/w 109 , 420, 403, 406, 506 r/w 34 of IPC and Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 against A2. Accordingly the accused are acquitted under Section 232 Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked case property i.e., BAJAJ Pulsar bike grey colour bearing No. TS 27 F 2996 was given as interim custody to the registered owner vide Crl. M.P. No. 36/2023 on 21-03-2023 and the same shall be made absolute after expiry of appeal time.

The unmarked case property i.e., One plus company smart phone and one samsung company keypad phone which are in safe custody of police shall be returned to its original owners after expiry of appeal time under proper acknowledgment.

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn

SC. POCSO. No. 01 of 2023 5 (Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in open court this the 16 th day of April, 2025) Sd/xxx

FAC SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASE

JANGAON.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution For Defence PW1XXXX/the victim girl. - None - PW2XXXX/the mother of victim girl. PW3XXXX/ the father victim girl. PW4G. Chandra Bhanu PW5Guguloth Narsimha

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1Signature of PW1 on complaint, Dt. 01-10-2022-Nil- Ex.P2 Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.P3Sec.164CrPC statement of PW1. Ex.P4Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW2. Ex.P5Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW3. Ex.P6Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW4. Ex.P7Sec.161 CrPC statement of PW5.

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

- NIL - Sd/xxx

SPL. JUDGE FOR POCSO ACT CASES

JANGAON

16.04.2025 Spl. Judge, Jn