Smt. D. Upanishadwani

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

Mancherial, SCJ Court Complex · Mancherial · Telangana

Smt. D. Upanishadwani, Prl. Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Mancherial, SCJ Court Complex, Mancherial, Telangana, India. 2,175 court orders on record since 2021. 20 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles STC, CC, EP cases.

2,175

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Postings

Featured Judgments

OS/348/2021

Mukkera Shankaramma vs The Singareni Collories

08 Apr 2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 1 of 22

IN THE COURT OF PRL. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT MANCHERIAL

PRESENT: Smt. D. Upanishadwani I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

Tuesday, this the 08th day of April, 2025

OS.No. 348 of 2021

Between:-

1. Mukkera Shakaramma, W/o. Chandraiah, Aged: 66 years, Occ: House hold, R/o. H.No. 28-5-19/1, Kunta Ramula Basthi, Mancherial, Dist. Mancherial.

2. Komalla Rajeshwari, W/o. Kondaiah, D/o. Chandraiah, Aged:30 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o. H.No. 28-5-115, Gangaram Nagar, Bellamaplli, Mancherial District.

3. Mukkera Praveen, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged:28 years, Occ: Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 28-5-19/1, Kunta Ramula Basthi, Mancherial, Dist. Mancherial. ….Plaintiffs //AND//

1.The Singareni Collories Company Ltd., rep by General Manager, Mandamarri Area.

2.The Deputy General Manager (PER), SCCo. Ltd. Mandamarri Area.

3. The Regional Commissioner, Coal Mines Provident Fund, Godavarikhani, District. Peddapalli.

4.Mukkera Rajesh, S/o. Chandraiah, Age.41 years, Occ. Private Employee, R/o. H.No. 13-592, Shanthi Nagar, B-Zone, Ramakrishnapur, Mandamarri, Dist. Mancherial.

5.To whom so it may concerned. …Defendants 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 2 of 22

This suit came before me on 25.02.2025 for final hearing in the presence of Sri.Merugu. Srinivas, Advocate for the plaintiff and Sri. A.Shyam Kishore, Advocate for Defendant No.1 & 2, Sri. Allem Srinivas, Advocate for D4 and D3 is set exparte and having heard and stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1. This suit is filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of the status as the Class I legal heirs of deceased Mukkera Chandraiah who worked as Linemen at Somagudem-I Incline, Mandamarri Division, Singareni

Collieries Company Ltd., with EC No. 2212881 and that the plaintiffs are entitled to claim the terminal benefits of deceased Mukkera

Chandraiah payable by defendants No.1 to 3 and for mandatory injunction directing the defendant No.1 to 3 to pay the terminal benefits of Rs.3,31,509/- to the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 equally.

2. Plaint averments in brief:- It is submitted that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of deceased person, namely Mukkera Chandraiah. The plaintiff NO.2 and 3 are daughter and son of said Chandriah. The defendant no.4 is the first wife son of Chandraiah. The said Mukkera

Chandraiah worked as Linemen at Somagudem- I Incline,

Mandamarri Division, Singareni Collieries Company Limited with EC

No. 2212881 who died on 28.12.1998 leaving the plaintiffs and defendant NO.4 as class–I Legal heirs. The mother of said 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 3 of 22

Chandraiah also died long back. The family members certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Bellampally. The said deceased Chandraiah got married to one Rajyalaxmi who is the mother of defendant

No.4/Rajesh. After the death of said Rajyalaxmi, the said Chandraiah performed second marriage with plaintiff No.1 and they blessed with plaintiff No.1 and they blessed with plaintiff NO.2 and 3. The said

Chandraiah during his lifetime lived with one Mukkera Amrutha who also died in the year 2013 and she is having one daughter namely

Vijayalaxmi who is also died in the year 2003. Hence, plaintiff NO.1 to 3 and defendant NO.4 are only class-I heirs of the said Chandraiah left behind as on today. After the death of the said Chandraiah, the plaintiff NO.1 to 3 have approached the defendant No.1 and 2 authorities for settlement and payment of terminal benefits of deceased Chandraiah. Since then the said authorities not settled the matter and also not issued any terminal benefits to the plaintiffs. As last in the month of October, 2020 they placed an application before the defendant No.1 and 2 to provide dependent job to plaintiff no.3 on compassionate grounds and to settle the terminal benefits of deceased Chandraiah. But surprisingly the defendant No.1 and 2 started that in the year 2000 the defendant NO.4 filed a petition for succession before Honourable District Judge, Adilabad vide OP.NO.

08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 4 of 22

760/2000 by suppressing all the facts and misrepresented that he is the only class-I heir of said deceased Chandraiah. After trial the said petition was dismissed for the reason of “Non-Joinder” of necessary parties in the said petition as such the defendant No.4 not co- operating with the plaintiffs for getting terminal benefits of said

Chandraiah as such said Rajesh is made as defendant NO.4. The plaintiffs also came to know that the filing of above said OP that in the month of October, 2020. The Plaintiff approached defendant No.1 and 2 for issuance of legal heir certificate but unfortunately they stated that the family members details of the said deceased

Chandraiah not known to them and they require declaration decree with their shares from the competent court of law. As a matter of fact, the details of the plaintiffs are mentioned in the family history in the Hospital Attendance Book issued to the deceased Chandraiah. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit for declaration of status of the plaintiffs as the class – I heirs of the deceased Chandraiah and for claiming of terminal benefits and that for mandatory injunction to direct the Defendant NO.1 to 3 to pay an amount of Rs.3,31,509/- equally to the plaintiffs and Defendant NO.4 with accrued interest from the date of death of said Chandraiah. As a matter of fact the defendant NO.3 not issued any current amount of 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 5 of 22

terminal benefits lying with them but the details of terminal benefits which was issued in the year 2000 by defendant No.1 is shown as under:

1.Gratuity = Rs. 65,000/-

2.CMPF as on 3/98= Rs.1,66,009/-

3.GIS= Rs. 37,000/-

4.FBI= Rs. 10,000/-

5.FBI Premium Acc. = Rs. 50,000/- -----------------------------------------------------

TOTAL= Rs. 3,31,509/- -----------------------------------------------------

If in case amount particulars submitted by defendant NO.1 to 3, the plaintiffs are ready to pay necessary court fee pertaining to said amount and also direct them to produce current amount details. The plaintiffs belong the Class I heirs along with defendant No.4 are entitled to receive the said amounts from the defendant No.1 to 3 authorities equally. Hence they are entitled for declaration and consequential mandatory injunction directing the Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 pay the said amount to the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 equally.

As such, the plaintiffs are constrained to file this suit.

08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 6 of 22

3. Having received the summons, the Defendant No.1, 2 and 4 filed written statement admitting the plaint averments specifically contended and rest are false and deemed to be denied. The defendant No.3 is received the summons but he failed to appear

before the Hon’ble Court. Hence D3 is set exparte on 22.02.2022.

Further D1 and D2 contends that all the averments and allegations of the plaint are not known to this Defendant no.1 & 2 company. Hence, denied. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. Mukkera

Chandraiah, Employee Code No. 2212881 was appointed in the service of this Defendant No.1 and 2 company on 30.08.1975 and died on 28.12.1998 as per the death certificate dated: 22.02.1999 issued by the commissioner Bellampally Municipality. As such, his name was removed from the rolls of this defendant No. 1 and 2 company every employee has to declare his family members at the time of his appointment. As such, the deceased employee while in service had declared the following persons as his family members.

Sl.No.Name of the Person Relationship

1.MallaiahFather

2.LaxmiMother

3.Raja LakshmiWife

4.RajeshSon

5.ShailajaDaughter 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 7 of 22

As per the rules of this defendant No.1 and 2 company the employee has to nominate any of the family members as his nominee to receive the terminal benefits in case of his sudden death. IT is a legal obligation to settle and pay the terminal benefits payable to the retired/ deceased employee on his termination to him else to the nominee of the deceased employee, if nominee is also not available or died the terminal heirs of deceased employee with their respective shares by the competent court of law. In the instant case the deceased employee during his life time had executed nominations in favour of his wife Smt. Mukkera Rajya Laxmi, and she was predeceased the inform was not known to this Defendant No.1 & 2 company. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. The deceased employee during his life time had never inform that the first wife was expired and never brought the matter of marriage with plaintiff herein and the plaintiff herein is not know to this defendant

No.1 & 2 company and also not known Smt.Mukkera Amrutha alleged wife and daughter Vijayalaxmi of the deceased employee. Further, it is to submit that the deceased had never submitted any representation on this defendant No.1 and 2 company seeking permission for executing the revised nominations in favour of the plaintiff and to cancel the nominations already executed in favour of 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 8 of 22

Smt.Mukkera Rajya Laxmi. Hence, as per rules of this defendant No.1 and 2 company the nominations executed by the deceased in favour of Smt. Mukkera Rajya Laxmi are in force and when the nominee is also predeceased it is a legal obligation to settle and pay the terminal benefits payable to the deceased employee. If nominee is also not available or died the terminal benefits shall be paid to the correct persons who have been declared as legal heirs of deceased employee with their respective shares by the competent court of law. The amounts are approximately payable towards terminal benefits in respect of the deceased employee.

Sl.NoDescription of the benefitsAmount in Rs.

01CMPF1,66,009/- 02Gratuity65,000/- 03Group Insurance Scheme37,000/- 04FBIS10,000/- 05JPAIS50,000/- 06FBIS(ACCUMULATIONS)3500/-

TOTAL 3,31,509/-

Defendant No.1 and 2 company can only process the terminal benefit claim which are submitted by the employee or his nominee to the concerned authorities. The Coal Mines Provident Fund will be paid by the Regional Commissioner, CMPF, Godavarikhani, the claim of

Gratuity will be settled by the employee Gratuity Trust, Kothagudem 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 9 of 22

in consultation with LIC of India, Hyderabad on Group Insurance

Scheme will be settled by the LIC of India, Hyderabad. The said authorities will act in accordance with their rules and regulation for settling the claims. But, this defendant No.1 & 2 company can not do anything in this regard except forward the claims.

4.Further defendant No.4 admitted the claim of plaintiff’s and contends that plaintiff’s being Class-I legal heir and he is also entitlted to receive the said amount from defendants company and they all are entitled for declaration and consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendant’s company to pay said amount to plaintiff’s and to him equally.

NOTE: at para 3 i.e., notice to defendants served mention that defendant

No.3 was set exparte on 22.02.2022 as per docket and also mention the details of I.A 947/2023 for impleading proposed defendant no.5 and 6 who claimed to be the brothers of Mukkera Amrutha and the same was dismissed on 10.12.2024.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues are settled for trial.

1. Whether the the plaintiffs are entitled for

declaration of their status that the plaintiff No.1 is the

wife, Plaintiff No.2 is the daughter and plaintiff No.3 is

son of deceased Mukkera Chandraiah who worked as

Linemen at Somagudem – 1 Incine, Mandamarri

division, with EC.No.2212881 under the defendant No.1

to 3 company as prayed for?

08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 10 of 22

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the

death benefits of death benefits of deceased Mukkera

Chandraiah for Rs.3,31,509/- with accrued interest from

the defendants No.1 to 3 company?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to receive the

suit amount from defendants No.1 to 3 company along

with defendant No.4 equally?

4 . If so, as to what relief?

6. During the course of plaintiffs’ evidence, the plaintiff herself examined as Pw1 and Exs.A1 to A12 documents are marked. Ex.A1 is the Family Members certificate issued by Tahsildar Mancherial,

Ex.A2 is the Hospital Attendance Book, Ex.A3 is Death Certificate of deceased Chandraiah, Ex.A4 is the Death certificate of deceased Mukkera

Rajyalaxmi, Ex.A5 is Death certificate of deceased Mukkera Amrutha, Ex.A6 is Death Certificate of deceased Mukkera Vijyalaxmi, Ex.A7 is Certified copy of order vide OP. No. 760/2000 on the file of Hon’ble District

Judge, Adilabad, Ex.A8 is the Ex.A8: Original certificate of SSC of

Plaintiff NO.3, Ex.A9 is Original certificate of SSC of plaintiff No.2, Ex.A10 is Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2, Ex.A11 is Original Aadhar Card of

Plaintiff No. 1, Ex.A12 is Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.3 and got examined Pw2 & PW2 are in her favour. Further defence evidence was filed. Defendant No.1 is examined as DW1 and Ex.B1 to B6 are marked. Ex.B1 is Self Attested copy of FBIS/JPAIS nomination (Subject to 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 11 of 22

Objection), Ex.B2 is Self Attested copy of CMPF nomination in

Form”A”(Subject to Objection), Ex.B3 is Self Attested copy of Gratuity nominations in Form “F”(Subject to Objection), Ex.B4 is Self Attested copy of Coal Mines Family Pension, 1971 (Subject to objection), Ex.B5 is Self

Attested copy of name removal letter (Subject to objection), Ex.B6 is Self

Attested copy of service book (Subject to objection). Further defendant

No.4 is examined as DW2.

7. Heard and perused the record.

Issue No.1:- 7.1 Plaintiff husband/deceased Mukkera Chandraiah worked as Linemen at

Somagudem-I Incline, Mandamarri Division. SCCL with employee code- 22122881 and he died on 28-12-1998 by declaring plaintiff’s and defendant no.4 as class- I heirs and mother of Chandraiah also died. Further contends she is second wife to deceased Chandraiah and plaintiff No. 2 and 3 are her children and first wife is Rajyalaxmi and she died on 09.04.1996 and her son is defendant No.4. Further contends that during life time of deceased

Chandraiah he lived with one Mukkera Amrutha and out of said relationship they were blessed one daughter Vijaylaxmi and Mukkera Amrutha died in the year 2013 and Vijaylaxmi died in the year 2003.

08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 12 of 22

7.2 Further after her husband death plain tiff’s approached defendant No.1 and 2 authorities for settlement and payment of terminal benefits of Rs.

3,31,509/- of her deceased Chandraiah and also made application in the month of October, 2020 for dependant job of plaintiff No.3, but they informed that in the year 2000 defendant No.4 filed a petition for succession

before Hon’ble District Judge, Adilabad vide OP. No. 760/2000 and same was

dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties as he suppressed the facts and misrepresented that he is only class- I legal heir of deceased Chandraiah.

7.3 Further contends that plaintiff’s approached defendant NO.1 and 2 for issuance of legal heir certificate but they stated that the family members details of deceased Chandraiah are not known to them and get declaration decree from competent court of law. Further contends that the details of plaintiff’s are mentioned in the family history in hospital attendance book issued to the deceased Chandraiah.

7.4It is admitted by the defendants No.1and 2 company that one

Mukkera Chandraiah, EC No. 2212881 appointed in defendant no.1 and 2 company on 30-08-1975 and died on 28-12-1998 as per death certificate dt.22-02-1999 issued by the commissioner, Bellampalli and his name was removed in company with effect from 29-12-1998. As per the rules of the defendants company, every employee has to declare his family members 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 13 of 22

at the time of his appointment. Accordingly, the ex-employee, while in service, had declared the following persons as his family members.

Sl.No.Name of the Person Relationship

1.MallaiahFather

2.LaxmiMother

3.Raja LakshmiWife

4.RajeshSon

5.ShailajaDaughter 7.5The deceased employee, while in service, had executed nomination in favour of his wife Smt. Mukkera Rajya laxmi and she was predeceased, the company is nor aware.

7.6 Further contends that the deceased Chandraiah never informed about first wife and she was expired and never brought the matter that the marriage with plaintiff No.1 herein as such the company is not known about the plaintiff No.1 and also not aware of Mukkera. Amrutha alleged wife and their daughter Vijayalaxmi. Further contends that deceased never sought permission for executing the revised nominations in favor of plaintiff as the nominations were executed in favor of Smt. Mukkera Rajyalaxmi and even if the nominations are not executed the benefits will be settled in favour of legal heirs on submission of succession certificate and the death benefits of the deceased employee will be payable.

Sl.NoDescription of the benefitsAmount in Rs. 01CMPF1,66,009/- 02Gratuity65,000/- 03Group Insurance Scheme37,000/- 04FBIS10,000/- 05JPAIS50,000/- 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 14 of 22

06FBIS(ACCUMULATIONS)3500/- TOTAL 3,31,509/- 7.7 Further contends that the terminal benefits can only be processed by defendant company but, the coal mines provident fund will be payable by

Regional commissioner, CMPF, Godavarikhani and will be settled by the employee gratuity trust, kothagudem in consultation with LIC of India ,

Hyderabad and Group insurance scheme will be settled by the LIC of India,

Hyderabad. In support of their contention filed documents i.e.,Self Attested copy of FBIS/JPAIS nomination, Self Attested copy of CMPF nomination in

Form”A”, Self Attested copy of Gratuity nominations in Form “F”, Self

Attested copy of Coal Mines Family Pension, 1971, Self Attested copy of name removal letter, Self Attested copy of service book.

7.8 Further defendant No.4 admitted the claim of plaintiff’s and contends that plaintiff’s being Class-I legal heir and he is also entitlted to receive the said amount from defendants company and they all are entitled for declaration and consequential mandatory injunction directing the defendant’s company to pay said amount to plaintiff’s and to him equally.

8. POINT NO. 1 8.1Plaintiff No.1/PW1 filed her affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief.

The contents of her chief examination are nothing but reiteration of the 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 15 of 22

plaint averments. Through her, Exs.A1 to A12 documents are marked. The chief examination of PW-1 goes to show that she is wife , plaintiffs No.2 is daughter and Plaintiff No.3 is son of deceased Mukkera Chandraiah who worked in the defendants No.1 to 3 company and died on 28-12-1998 and got marked Ex.A1/Family Members certificate issued by Tahsildar

Mancherial.

8.2 Through the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and 2 cross- examined PW-1, it is elicited that she did not file any certificate to show she married to deceased Chandraiah and as per record the successor names were mentioned Mallaiah/father, Laxmi/mother, Rajyalaxmi/Wife,

Rajesh/son and Shailaja/ daughter of deceased. Further elicited that as per company records Rajyalaxmi is the wife of deceased and she died 40 years back and deceased not informed about the death of Rajyalaxmi. The suggestions that she did not approach the company officials for receiving benefits of the deceased and she is not the wife of deceased and filed false suit for claiming benefits were denied. Cross of defendant No.4 recorded nill.

9. Pw2/Komalla Rajeshwari/daughter of deceased Chandraiah and Pw1 filed her affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief. The contents of her chief examination are nothing but reiteration of the plaint averments.

9.1 Through the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and 2 cross- examined PW-2, it is elicited that she filed a document stating that they are successor’s of the deceased Chandraiah and filed the present suit for 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 16 of 22

benefits of her father and her father worked at Somagudem-I and he died 23 years back and as per record the successor names were mentioned

Mallaiah/father, Laxmi/mother, Rajyalaxmi/Wife , Rajesh/son and Shailaja/ daughter of deceased. Further elicited that as per company records

Rajyalaxmi is the wife of deceased and she died 40 years back and deceased not informed about the death of Rajyalaxmi. The suggestions that she did not approach the company officials for receiving benefits of the deceased and she is not the daughter of deceased and filed false suit for claiming benefits were denied. Cross of defendant No.4 recorded nill.

10 Pw3/ Mukkera Praveen /son of deceased Chandraiah and Pw1 filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief. The contents of his chief examination are nothing but reiteration of the plaint averments.

10.1 Through the learned counsel for the defendant No.1 and 2 cross- examined PW-2, it is elicited that he did not filed Aadhar card to show that

Chandraiah is his father and filed the present suit for benefits of her father and her father worked at Somagudem-I and he died 23 years back and as per record the successor names were mentioned Mallaiah/father,

Laxmi/mother, Rajyalaxmi/Wife, Rajesh/son and Shailaja/ daughter of deceased. Further elicited that as per company records Rajyalaxmi is the wife of deceased and she died 40 years back and deceased not informed about the death of Rajyalaxmi. The suggestions that she did not approach the company officials for receiving benefits of the deceased and she is not 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 17 of 22

the son of deceased and filed false suit for claiming benefits were denied.

Cross of defendant No.4 recorded nill.

11. Dw1/ M.Karthik filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief.

The contents of his chief examination are nothing but reiteration of their written statement and got marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B6. Ex.B1 is Self Attested copy of FBIS/JPAIS nomination (Subject to Objection), Ex.B2 is Self

Attested copy of CMPF nomination in Form”A”(Subject to Objection), Ex.B3 is Self Attested copy of Gratuity nominations in Form “F”(Subject to

Objection), Ex.B4 is Self Attested copy of Coal Mines Family Pension, 1971 (Subject to objection), Ex.B5 is Self Attested copy of name removal letter (Subject to objection), Ex.B6 is Self Attested copy of service book (Subject to objection).

11.1 Through the learned counsel for the plaintiff cross-examined DW1, it is elicited that he is working as Sr. Personnel officer in SCCL since 3 years and he do not know the company details and statistics what happen prior to his joining. Further second marriage of the employee wife can be considered as nominee after complying the rules and regulations of company , after the death of the employee. Further he know the about

OP.No.760/2000 filed by D4 before Hon’ble Prl.District and Session Judge,

Adilabad but no idea whether the company filed counter and Ex.A2 is issued by the company and the names of plaintiff's and D4 were present in 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 18 of 22

Ex.A2 and the company will orally direct the deceased employee regarding the requisite documents for claiming the benefits as nominee and company directed the plaintiff to get a decree from court to consider her as nominee of the deceased employee and do not know Shailaja died one year back and do not know plaintiff no.1 married to deceased and Plaintiff No.2 and 3 are their children. The suggestions that deceased Chandraiah has made application for entering the name of plaintiff no. 1 as nominee and plaintiff no.1 has approached several times for up-gradation of records of the deceased employee as claiming her as nominee to issue death benefits and as per legal terminal benefits plaintiff No.1 to 3 and Defendant no.4 are the legal heirs of deceased employee were denied. Cross examination by D4 is recorded as nill.

12. Dw2/Mukkera Rajesh who is first wife son of the deceased Chandraiah and filed his affidavit in lieu of his examination-in-chief. The contents of his chief examination are nothing but reiteration of his written statement.

12.1 Through the learned counsel for the D1 and D2 cross-examined by , it is elicited that he filed the present suit for terminal benefits of his deceased father Chandraiah and he died on 28-12-1998 and he is first wife son of the deceased and as per record Shailaja is shown as daughter of the deceased but, died long back and he did not applied for companssionate appointment of his father in SCCL as his deceased father is also having illegal relationship with Mukkera Amrutha and also third wife by name 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 19 of 22

Mukkera Shankaramma who is Pw1 in this suit. Further elicited that he filed OP.No. 760/2000 before Hon’ble Prl. District and Session Judge,

Adilabad as same is dismissed on the ground that he is not entitled to declare as a son of deceased employee. The suggestion that he is not son of the deceased Chandraiah as such he is not entitled for the benefits of deceased Chandraiah were denied.

13.Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to

A12, Ex.A3/Hospital attendance record which shows the names of plaintiff

No 1 to 3 including the names of deceased wife/shankaramma, father/Mallaiah, Laxmi/mother, Rajesh/son, Rajeshwari/daughter and

Praveen kumar/son and the family attendance book/Hospital attendance record by welfare officer, Somagudem on 19-11-1997 and names are as on 1997, supporting there claim and defendant No.4 has not challenged the plaintiff's claim and has instead joined the suit, indicating consensus on legal heirship. Further the marriage of plaintiff no.1 was performed after the death of his first wife/Mukkera Rajyalaxmi, the marriage of Plaintiff No.1 is legally valid under section 5 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955. Further the death of defendant no.4’s sister there is no dispute that she is deceased, but the court has not been provided with her death certificate to determine whether she had legal heirs.

14. Further the plaintiff No.1 (widow), plaintiff no.2 (daughter), plaintiff no.3 (son) and defendant no.4 (son of first wife) fall under class I heirs of the deceased. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. 1956, they are 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 20 of 22

entitled to an equal share in the deceased’s estate and benefits and in view of the reasons stated supra, it can be said that the plaintiff has proved his case that the plaintiff No.1 is the wife, Plaintiffs No.2 is daughter Plaintiff

No.3 is son and Defendant No.4 is first wife of deceased/Mukkera

Chandraiah who worked in the defendants No.1 to 3 company as Linemen at Somagudem I Incline, Mandamarri Division, SCCL with EC No. 2212881 who died on 28-12-1998 while in service. Accordingly the issue No.1 is answered.

15. POINT NO.2 and 3

As the plaintiff's and defendant no.4 has been declared as legal heirs, the entitlement to death benefits arises unless there is a statutory nomination or lawful claimant. No such nomination or rival claim is brought on record. It is well- settled that nomination does not override succession as held in

Sarbati Devi Vs, Usha Devi AIR 1984 SC 346 . The employer has admitted that benefits are pending and has not raised any legal bar to the plaintiff's claim. Therefore , the plaintiff’s and defendant No.4 are entitled to receive the death benefits/service benefits of the deceased/Mukkera Chankdraiah from the defendant company , subject to completion of formalities. This issue is answered in the affirmative.

16. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed by declaring the plaintiff No.1, 2, and 3 and defendant No.4 are declared class-I legal heirs of the deceased.

Further Defendant No 1 to 3 are directed to disburse all the terminal 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 21 of 22

benefits of the deceased/Mukkera Chandraiah equally among Plaintiff No.1 to3 and defendant No.4.

Further the defendant No.1 and 2 raised a question of non filing of death certificate of his deceased sister of defendant No.4 as, his deceased father mentioned his deceased sister name/Shailaja in family details and burden to prove her death lies upon defendant No.4 and even plaintiff’s also pleaded the same. Hence , Plaintiff No.1 to 3 and defendant No.4 are directed to produce the death certificate or alternative documentary proof within 30 days to defendant company and defendant company shall reserve her share until proper verification. The remaining legal heirs shall receive their respective shares as per law and if the parties later produces conclusive proof of the death of Shailaja who is first wife daughter of deceased Chandraiah . Her share shall be distributed accordingly. If no such proof is ever submitted, the parties may seek appropriate legal remedies to determine her legal status. No order as to costs.

Typed to my dictation to Typist , corrected and pronounced by me in open court, on this the 07 th day of April , 2025.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

PW1/Mukkera Shanakramma

PW2/Komalla Rajeshwari 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 22 of 22

PW3/Mukkera Praveen

FOR DEFENDANT:-

DW1/M.Karthik

DW2/Mukkera Rajesh

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFF:-

Ex.A1: Family Members certificate issued by Tahsildar Mancherial

Ex.A2: Hospital Attendance Book

Ex.A3: Death Certificate of deceased Chandraiah

Ex.A4: Death certificate of deceased Mukkera Rajyalaxmi

Ex.A5: Death certificate of deceased Mukkera Amrutha

Ex.A6: Death Certificate of deceased Mukkera Vijyalaxmi

Ex.A7: Certified copy of order vide OP. No. 460/2000 on the file of

Hon’ble District Judge, Adilabad.

Ex.A8: Original certificate of SSC of Plaintiff NO.3

Ex.A9: Original certificate of SSC of plaintiff No.2

Ex.A10: Original Aadhar Card of plaintiff No.2

Ex.A11: Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No. 1

Ex.A12: Original Aadhar Card of Plaintiff No.3.

DEFENDANT:-

Ex.B1: Self Attested copy of FBIS/JPAIS nomination (Subject to Objection)

Ex.B2: Self Attested copy of CMPF nomination in Form”A”(Subject to Objection)

Ex.B3: Self Attested copy of Gratuity nominations in Form “F”(Subject to Objection)

Ex.B4: Self Attested copy of Coal Mines Family Pension, 1971 (Subject to objection) 08.04.2025

OS No. 348 of 2021 Page 23 of 22

Ex.B5: Self Attested copy of name removal letter (Subject to objection)

Ex.B6: Self Attested copy of service book (Subject to objection)

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge, FAC: Prl. Junior Civil Judge, Mancherial 08.04.2025

CC/10/2018 Acquitted

State of TG through Police Station Srirampur vs Avidapu Santhosh

15 Apr 2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACT – CUM - III ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, MANCHERIAL

Present: Smt. D. Upanishadwani I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Excise) Mancherial

TUESDAY THIS THE 15th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

C. C No. 10 OF 2018 (Old CC. No. 383 / 2017)

BETWEEN:

The State of Telangana through the Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Srirampur (Cr.No. 130 of 2017). … Complainant // AND //

Avidapu Santhosh Kumar S/o. Mallaiah Age:33 Years, Caste:Padmashali, Occ: Driver of RTC. Bus bearing No. TS01UA4050, R/o:Bheemaram Village. …Accused

This case is coming on 07.03.2025 before me for final hearing in the presence of Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Sri S. Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for Accused and upon hearing both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, the Court delivered the following:-

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, Police Station Srirampur filed charge sheet against the

Accused in Cr.No. 130 of 2017 for the offence punishable under section 304-A of IPC.

2. THE CASE OF THE PROSECUTION IS AS FOLLOWS:-

On 06.11.2017 at 1800 hours LW1/Complainant/Pothanaveni Sathish went to PS,

Srirampur and lodged a report stating that, on 04.11.2017 his elder mother/Pothanaveni

Mallamma has came to her daughter/Udutha Laxmi/Lw-3’s house at Chennur in view of 150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 2 of 14

Karthika Pournami, later today on 06.11.17 she was boared in a RTC Bus at Chennur to go to her house when reached at Srirampur bus stand at about 1130 hours, then she get down from bus and crossed the road to get bus to go to Godavarikhani mean time the RTC Bus’s driver suddenly drove his bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed to her and run over on her as result she received severe bleeding injuries, immediately the complainant came there on enquiry he knows that driver of RTC Bus name as Avudapu Santhosh Kumar and bus bearing

No.TS01UA 4050, then the complainant shifted her to Govt Hospital Mancherial for treatment thereafter while shifting to Karimnagar for better treatment she was died on the way near Peddapalli at about 0230 PM. Therefore the complainant requested to take necessary action.

2.1On receipt of the report Lw13/K. Ravi Prasad the then Sub Inspector of Police PS

Srirampur has registered a case in Cr.No.130/2017 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and took up the investigation.

2.2During the course of investigation, Lw13 examined and recorded the statement of

LW1. LW-13 could not cunducted inquest over dead body of deceased due to late night hours.

2.3On next day on 07.11.2017 LW-13 visited mortuary room at Govt.Area Hospital,

Mancherial, caused enquiry examined the kith and kin of the deceased and eye witnesses/independent witnesses Lw2/Pothanaveni Srinivas, Lw3/Udutha Laxmi and

Lw4/Singanaveni Rajeshwari and recorded their statements U/sec.161(3) CrPC detail in Part-

II of Case Diary, secured the presence of mediators Lw9/Ada Kamala and Lw10/Pullagorla

Ramesh observed the dead body of deceased minutely took photographs corpse of deceased with help of LW5/Gare Murali and also recorded his statement in part-II of CD U/s.151(3)

CrPC. Held the inquest over the corpse of deceased in the presence of above said mediators and subjected the body to Govt Area Hospital, Mancherial for PME to know the actual cause of death of the deceased under the escort of PC 67 of PS Srirampur LW-11/D. Kalavathi the

Duty Medical officer, Govt. Area Hospital Mancherial conducted the autopsy over the corpse of deceased.

150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 3 of 14

2.4Later LW-13 along with LWs-9 & 10 visited the Scene of Offence situated at

Srirampur Bus stand, observed the Scene of Offence minutely, drafted rough sketch of the scene and entered my observation in Crime details Form in the presence of said mediators,

The LW-13 examined the LW6/Kothapalli Mallaiah and Lw7/Potta Pushpalatha and recorded their detailed statement in Part-II of CDs u/s 161(3) CrPC and also collected Statistical and

Ticket Accountal Record(STAR) of Crime Vehicle bearing No TS01UA 4050 from the LW-7 who is conductor. Further LW-13 served a notice U/Sec. 41-A Cr.P.C on the accused asking him to appear before me and give his clarification within three days, to proceed further investigation of this case.

2.5According to notice u/sec 41 "A" CrPC, On 09.11.2017 the accused Avidapu Santhosh

Kumar voluntarily came to PS and surrendered before LW-13 and admitted his guilt to have been commission of this offence. LW-13 affected his arrest by issuing arrest memo against him at hours and informed the grounds of arrest to his kin and kith under proper acknowledgement u/sec 50, 50 (A) CrPC. Later, LW-13 asked him to produce sufficient sureties to release him on bail. Upon which the accused produced sufficient sureties along with documents. LW-13 verified the surety documents and found to be correct as such released the accused person on bail on same day as the case is attracting punishment below seven years, after obtaining the under taking letter from him. Later the LW-13 examined the

LW8/Muthyala Rajitha who owner of crime vehicle Private RTC Bus bearing No. TS01UA 4050 and recorded her statement in Part-II of CD U/S 161(3) CrPC.

2.6The LW11/Dr. Kalavathi Medical Officer who conducted the autopsy over the dead body of deceased and issued P.M.E report opined that cause of death of deceased is “due to poly trauma (Multiple Injuries)” 2.7The LW.12 the motor vehicle inspector, inspected the crime vehicle i.e. Private RTC

Bus bearing No.TS01UA 4050 and has opined that the accident occurred was “pot due to any mechanical defect of the crime vehicle bearing No.TS01UA 4050” and issued accident report.

150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 4 of 14

3. This case is taken on file by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Mancherial and taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 304-A of IPC against accused 304-A IPC. Thereafter, issued summons to Accused.

4.At this stage, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

Adilabad, this case has been transferred from I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Mancherial, to this court, vide Proc.Dis.No.5234/2017/Admn, dated 27.07.2017 and re- numbered as CC No.10 of 2018.

5.On appearance of the accused, copies of case documents was furnished to him as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.

6. Accused was examined under section 251 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under

Section 304-A of IPC the substance of allegations leveled against him, was read over and explained to him in vernacular language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, prosecution got examined PW1 to PW12 and marked exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 on its behalf i.e., Ex.P1 is report, Ex.P2 is 161 statement of

Lw7/Pw5, Ex.P3 is inquest panchanama, Ex.P4 is CDF Panchanama, Ex.P5 is PME Report,

Ex P6 is 161 statement of Lw8/Pw9, Ex.P7 is MVI report, Ex.P8 is FIR and Ex.P9 is

Statistical and ticket accountal record of crime vehicle.

8.After closure of prosecution side evidence, accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing in the testimonies of prosecution witness, for which he denied the incriminating material made against him and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9.Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record.

150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 5 of 14

10.POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

1) Whether the prosecution proved that the death of deceased person/Pothanaveni Mallamma is caused in a road accident beyond all reasonable doubt ?

2) Whether the prosecution establish the identification of the accused person beyond all reasonable doubt ?

3) Whether the prosecution proved that the accused drove the crime vehicles in a rash or negligent manner and caused death of deceased person/Pothanaveni Mallamma?

4) To what relief ?

11.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/Pothanaveni Sathish who is resident of Indaram Village , that his elder mother Pothanaveni Mallamma on 04-11-2017 went to her daughter house Udutha Laxmi to Chennur in view of Karthika Pournami and on 06-11-2017 she boarded bus in Chennur to come back to her house to Battupalli village of

Manthani Mandal , Peddapally District and got at Srirampur bus stand at 1130 hrs with intent to get bus to go to Godavarikhani , mean time one RTC Bus driver suddenly drove his bus in rash and negligent manner and dashed to her and run over as such she received severe bleeding injuries and on information he went to bus stand and on enquiry he came to know the name of the driver as Avudapu Santosh Kumar and driver to Bus B.No. TS01UA 4050 and shifted the injured to Govt. Hospital , Mancherial for treatment and while shifting her to

Karimnagar Hospital for better treatment she succumbed with injuries on the way near to

Peddapally at 0230 pm. Hence, lodged report.

12 .To prove the case of prosecution , prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw12 and got marked

ExP1 to ExP9.

13. Pw1/Pothanaveni Srinivas who is son of deceased retreated the contents of report and further deposed that while crossing the road one RTC Bus suddenly drove in rash and negligent manner and dashed his mother and identified driver/accused in open court.

150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 6 of 14

In his cross examination it is elicted that Srirampur bus stand is in round ground shape and approximately there were 100 passengers and at the time of accident his mother is aged about 70 years. Further the scene of offence is busy locality and there is one entrance and exit separately with U turn . Further the bus was in speed and the alleged accident took place in summer season. The suggestions that because of round shape of bus stand the bus driver was riding bus in a slow speed and due to his mother old age she is unable to walk properly and his mother fell down and became unconsciousness and his mother need company to go here and there were denied. Further bus while taking U turn and in busy locality will be slow and her mother herself fell unconsciousness and she never sustained any injury due to getting down the bus and driver is no way concerned with the said accident and only to claim compensation filed the present case were denied.

14.Pw2/Udutha Laxmi she is daughter of deceased and deposed the contents of report and further deposed that after 4 days of Diwali the deceased came to her house.

In her cross examination it is elicted that she is resident of Katherasala and Srirampur bus stop there is U turn and bus usually be slow and there will be crowd near bus stand and many bus stops are there and at the time of accident her mother was 70 years age and she can walk herself. The suggestions that her mother is deaf lady and while taking turn she herself fell down on road and only to get compensation filed a false case against the accused and he is no way concerned with this accident were denied.

15.Pw3/Singanaveni Rajeshwari who is another daughter of deceased deposed the contents of report.

In her cross examination it is elicted Srirampur bus stand buses will enter into bus stand by taking U turn and come out and there will be around 500 people and also shops and along with her mother one other passengers got down the bus. The suggestion that her mother due to old age was unable to see and hear properly and she needs help and only to claim compensation filed false report and she is deposing false and no vehicle dashed to her mother and accused is no way concerned with this accident were denied.

150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 7 of 14

16.Pw4/Pothanaveni Sathish who is complainant deposed on the same lines of report and further deposed that he was present in Srirampur bus stand on the day of accident and Pw10 witnessed the accident and got marked ExP1/Report.

In his cross examination it is elicted that on the day of accident deceased alone was traveling and she was 70 years old and to enter srirampur bus stand the bus has to take U turn and 100 people were present in bus stand and to go to godavarikhani one must cross the road at srirampur bus stand . Further while taking turn buses will be in slow. The suggestion that to go to godavarikhani no need to cross bus stand and bus was not moving in high speed and deceased herself fell down on the road due to fainting and accused is no way concerned with this accident and he came to know the name of accused from police and only to claim compensation deposing false were denied.

17.Pw5/Potta Pushpalatha who is Bus conductor deposed that on 06-11-2017 in morning hours at 6 am she and accused started bus from Mancherial , Bus B.No. TS 01 UA 4050 and while returning from chennur to mancherial at Srirampur bus stand one lady got down at bus stop and came under their bus accidentally and her leg came under the tyre and at that time the driver/accused of bus was slow. But the prosecution declared her hostile and got marked

ExP2/Sec 161 Crpc statement.

18.Pw6/Ada Kamala who is punch for scene of offence deposed that on the instruction of

Thasildar he went to Govt. Hospital , Mancherial on 07-11-2017 at 7.30 am, at that she was working as VRO at Teegalapahad, there police srirampur conducted inquest over deceased dead body who is lady and he noticed injuries on her legs and hands and inquest panchanama was conducted from 7.30 am to 9.00 am and from there she went to scene of offence i.e.,

Srirampur Bus stand at 10.00 am and police conducted panchanam, she and Lw10 signed on both panchanama and got marked ExP3/inquest panchanama and ExP4/CDF Panchanama.

In her cross examination it is elicted that she received phone call from Tahsildar and gave oral instruction to attend panchanamas and she did not file attendance proof of said date 150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 8 of 14

and police took 6 signatures at Hospital and at scene of offence but she do not the know clearly the contents of ExP3 and ExP4 but it was prepared in her presence. The suggestions that she do not know the contents of ExP3 and ExP4 and to help police deposing false and he signed on white papers were denied.

19.Pw7/Gare Murali who is photographer deposed that on 07-11-2017 police srirampur called him to Government Hospital , mancherial to take photographs of one female dead body and he took 8 photographs and handed over to police.

20.Pw8/Dr. Kalavathi who isDoctor deposed that on 07-11-2017 at 1230 AM she received requisition from SI of police Srirampur to conduct autopsy over deceased dead body by name Pothanaveni Mallamma and she commenced autopsy at 01.00 PM and found the following injuries 1) Contusion 6 x 2 cms on the right side of the chest caused by the blunt object which was antemortem. 2) Laceration 10 x 2 cms on left eye caused by sharp object was antemortem in nature. 3) Laceration 4 x 1 cms on the left hand caused by sharp object which was antemortem in nature. 4) Multiple ribs fracture noted on left side of the chest walls. 5) Left femur fracture noted. 6) Pelvic fracture noted. 7) Right leg both bones fractures. 8) Crush injury of right foot, as per her opinion the cause of death is due to poly

Trauma ( Multiple injuries) and issued ExP5/PME report.

In her cross examination, it is elicted that she received requisition from PC 67 of

Srirampur and she maintain PME register in hospital and she conducted PME for 2 hours.

21.Pw9/Muthyala Rajitha who is owner of crime vehicle deposed that she is owner of crime vehicle B.No. TS 01 UA 4050 and hired the same to Mancherial depot and the driver of her vehicle is Avidapau Santosh Kumar. Further deposed that 4 years back accused inform to her husband through phone that one old woman came under said bus and her husband informed the same to her but he cannot identify the accused/driver of her bus as she never saw him. The prosecution declared her hostile and got marked ExP6/161 Cr.PC Statement of her.

150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 9 of 14

22.Pw10/Kothapelli Mallaiah who is eye witness deposed that 6 years ago he returned from Chennur by bus and got down at Srirampur bud stand meanwhile the deceased also got down at Srirampur bus stand in another bus with intent to board another bus to go to

Godavarikhani. When he and deceased were going infront of bus all of sudden a bus got hit to the deceased and bus tyre went on her left leg and on seeing the same he went to her and bus driver fled away from there. Further deposed that the deceased was shifted to hospital and she succumbed with injuries and identified the bus driver and stated that he is responsible for such accident and also identified the deceased when the deceased photographs were confronted.

In his cross examination it is elicted that he was sitting in bus stand and public were there and Srirampur bus stand have pits. The suggestions that bus never hit to deceased and as the deceased was 80 years old at the time accident and could not walk properly and due to summer she got sun stroke and herself got fainted were denied and he never witnessed the accident and accused is not the driver to crime vehicle and at the instance of police identified the accused as he never saw him were denied.

23.Pw11/K. Srinivas who is MVI deposed that on 07-11-2017 he received requisition from SI of police Srirampur to inspect the crime vehicle B.No. TV 01 UA 4050 accordingly he inspected the crime vehicle on 25-11-2017 in police station , Srirampur and found no visible damages and he conducted road test and found the breaks are efficient and no mechanical defects in the vehicle and opined that there is no mechanical defects in crime vehicle and issued ExP7/MVI report.

In his cross examination it is elicted that it took 1/2 hour to conduct road test. The suggestion that there is no sufficient area in police station to conduct road test and without inspecting the crime vehicle issued ExP7 were denied.

24.Pw12/K. Ravi Prasad who is IO deposed that on 06-11-2017 at 1800 hrs he received report/ExP1 from pW4 and basing on that he issued ExP8/FIR and recorded the statements of

Pw4 and it was late night could not conduct inquest over deceased dead body. On next day went to mortuary of Govt. Area Hospital, Mancherial and examined Pw1 to Pw3 and secured 150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 10 of 14

punch witnesses i.e., Pw6 and Lw10 conducted inquest panchanama in there presence and got photographed the deceased dead body through Pw7. Further deposed that later he visited the scene of offence/Srirampur bus stand along with Pw6 and Lw10 and concerned scene of offence panchanama and also examined Pw5 and Pw10 and collected statistical and ticket accountal record of crime vehicle from Pw5 and on 07-11-2017 issued Sec 41 A crpc notice to accused and on interrogation accused admitted his guilt and he effected his arrest and released on bail and also examined and recorded the statement of Pw9 and after collecting PME and

MVI report filed charge sheet.

In his cross examination it is elicted that he did not made GD entry and do not know whether the bus will enter from masid side at Srirampur bus stand. The suggestions that as accident took place in bus stand question of rash and negligent driving does not arise and all the prosecution witnesses are relatives of deceased were denied . Further due to summer deceased herself fell down and received injuries and accused is no way concerned with this accident and he did table investigation and only to help decease family for getting compensation filed false charge sheet basing on false report were denied. Further ExP9 is created for the purpose of this case is denied.

25. Thus, the evidence of Pw1 to Pw11 coupled with Pw12 clearly shows that deceased died in road accident. Hence, the prosecution proved the death of deceased due to accident beyond reasonable doubt.

Point. No. 2 and 3

26. To establish the same , the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of Pw10 ,

Pw5 and Pw4 and basing on ExP9 , as per their testimony of Pw10 who is crucial witnesses on 06-11-2017 he returned from chennur and got down bus at Srirampur bus stand and one old lady also got down bus at Srirampur bus stand from another bus with intent to board another bus to go to Godavarikhani. When he and deceased were going infront of bus all of sudden a bus got hit to the deceased and bus tyre went on her left leg and on seeing the same he went to her and bus driver fled away from there. Later the deceased was shifted to hospital and she succumbed with injuries, in corroboration Pw5 deposed that on 06-11-2017 in 150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 11 of 14

morning hours at 6 am she and accused started bus from Mancherial , Bus B.No. TS01UA 4050 and while returning from chennur to mancherial at Srirampur bus stand one lady got down at bus stop and came under their bus accidentally and her leg came under the tyre and in ExP9/ statistical and ticket accountal record at the bottom of said document it is mentioned by her as ‘ at 6.30 , 2 nd shift the bus Number TS01UA 4050 was moved from chennur

and came to Srirampur bus stand and after getting down the passengers bus moved

some distance and driver applied breaks and bus was halted and driver went away from there and she got down from bus and observed one old lady was under the bus fell down beside the bus and she is giving information to RTC authorities and same is addressed to

D/M’ . Further Pw4 who is defacto complainant got information about the accident from

Pw10. Further the injuries are corroborated with the PME report.

27.From the above facts and circumstances the prosecution relied on the testimony of

Pw5 , the conductor , who stated that the accused was driving the bus/crime vehicle and had applied brake before leaving and her statement is corroborated by documentary records and her report to the depot manager . The defence failed to disprove these assertions. Further negligence in driving must be determined by the standards of a prudent diver. In the present case, the accused applied brake at a busy bus stand without ensuring that pedestrians had cleared the way. The victim being an elderly ‘woman , was more vulnerable to such a sudden movement of the bus. The accused is failure to exercise caution amounts to criminal negligence. Moreover , the conduct of the accused in leaving the scene without verifying the incident shows a lack of due care and responsibility, further strengthening the prosecution’s case.

28.Basing on the evidence and circumstances , this court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved that the accused drove the crime vehicle in negligent manner and caused grievous injuries to the victim and as a result he succumbed with injuries and proved the guilt of accused person beyond reasonable doubt and further the principle of ‘ Res Gestae ‘ sec 6 of

Indian evidence a Act, 1872 Pw10 who is eye witnesses made statement about the accident and there testimonies carries weight as a part of the transaction and Hon’ble Supreme Court as held in ‘ Rammi V. State of M.P (1999) 8 SCC 649’ held that if eyewitness is trustworthy and their testimony is consistent with other evidence , minor contradictions do not weaken 150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 12 of 14

their credibility. Further the presumption of ‘Negligence (Res Ipsa Loquitur – The Thing speaks for itself’ if accident occurs under circumstances where it would not have happened without negligence , a presumption arises that the accused was negligent and the accused must rebut the presumption by showing that the accident occurred due to factors beyond his control but as per Pw9 there is no mechanical defects in the crime vehicleand a presumption under section 114 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 the court may presume facts that naturally follow from human conduct and circumstances. Hence , the prosecution proved that the accused was driving the crime vehicle in a negligent manner at scene of offence.

POINT No. 4:

29.In the result, accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304-A of

IPC and convicted for the same U/Sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Mancherial.

30.The Accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence for which he stated that he is having aged mother, children are studying and having family responsibilities.

Further stated that he is the sole bread winner for the entire family and prayed the Court to take a lenient view. Having heard the learned counsel for the Accused and learned A.P.P.

Having regard to the nature of the offence proved against the Accused and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is not inclined to invoke provisions of probation of offenders Act in favour of the Accused. However, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to take some lenient view while awarding punishment.

31.IN THE RESULT:- Accused is found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A of IPC and convicted for the same U/Sec. 255(2) Cr.P.C. Accused is sentenced to undergo 150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 13 of 14

rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and half year and liable to pay fine amount of

Rs.8,000/- for the offence punishable U/Sec. 304-A of IPC. Out of the fine amount Rs.7,000/- is to be paid to son of deceased /LW2/Pothanaveni Srinivas towards compensation as per

Section 357(3) CrPC and Rs.1,000/- is to be defrayed to state. In default of payment of fine amount, the Accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 (FIFTEEN) days.

After expiry of appeal period, bail bonds of accused is canceled. There is no case property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer after correction and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15 th day of April, 2025.

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Mancherial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

PW-1: Pothanaveni Srinivas -None- PW-2: Udutha Laxmi PW-3: Singanaveni Rajeshwari PW-4: P. Sathish PW-5: P. Pushpalatha PW-6: A. Kamala PW-7: G. Murali PW-8: Dr. S. Kalavathi PW-9:Muthyala Rajitha PW-10:Kothapelli Mallaiah PW-11:K. Srinivas PW-12:K. Ravi Prasad

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1 Report

Ex.P2 161 statement of Lw7/Pw5 150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 14 of 14

Ex.P3 Inquest panchanama

Ex.P4 CDF Panchanama

Ex.P5 PME Report

Ex P6 161 statement of Lw8/Pw9

Ex.P7 MVI report

Ex.P8 FIR

Ex.P9 Statistical and ticket accountal record of crime vehicle.

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : DEFENCE: -Nil-

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

sd/-

I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Mancherial.

// TRUE COPY //

I ADDL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

MANCHERIAL

FAC: SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL

150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 15 of 14

IN THE COURT OF SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACT-CUM-III ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, MANCHERIAL

CC No. 147 of 2017

1Calendar Case No.:147 of 2017 2Name of the P.S.:Mandamarri 3Section of Law:U/Sec 304-A of IPC and Section 196 of MV Act against A1 and U/Sec 196 of MV Act against A2 4Crime No.:52 of 2016 5Name and description of A1. Bonthala Murali, S/o:Venkateshwarlu, Age: 22 accusedyears, Occ: Student, R/o: H.No.47-15 Deepak Nagar, Mandamarri.

A2. Siddam Rajaiah, S/o: Chinnalachulu, Age: 47 years, Occ: SCCL Employee, R/o: Q.No.218 1st Zone, Mandamarri. (Abated on 06.04.2018) 6Date of offence:01.04.2016 7Date of complaint:02.04.2016 8Date of Apprehension:08.04.2016 9Released on bail:Station Bail 10Commencement of trial:21.02.2019 150.04.2025

CC No.10 of 2018 Page No. 16 of 14

11Close of Trial:10.11.2023 12Date of Judgment:11.12.2023 13Reasons for delay:- 14Sentence of order:IN THE RESULT:-Accused No.1 is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 196 of MV Act. Accordingly, the Accused No.1 is acquitted under Section 255 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offence. The bail bonds of Accused no.1 shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no case property.

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class(Excise) Mancherial 150.04.2025

CC/442/2017 Acquitted

State of TG through Police Station Srirampur vs Chityala Mahendar

10 Apr 2025

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.1 of 12

IN THE COURT OF SPL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRIAL

OF CASES UNDER PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACT – CUM - III ADDITIONAL

JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE'S COURT, MANCHERIAL

Present: Smt. D. Upanishadwani I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Excise) Mancherial

THURSDAY. THIS THE 10th DAY OF APRIL, 2025

CALENDAR CASE No. 442 OF 2017 (Old CC No. 185 / 2017)

Between:

The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS CCC Naspur . . .Complainant //And//

A1. Chityala Mahender S/o. Sailu, Age: 36 years, Caste: Padmashali, Occ: Manager in pharma company, R/o Himmathnagar, Srirampur

A2. Chityala Ellaiah, S/o. Rajaiah, Age: 45 years, Caste:Madiga, Occ:Hauler operator at RK-5 mine SCCL employee r/o H.No.11-37, Himmathnagar, Srirampur.

A3. Chityala Pramod, S/o. Ellaiah, Age: 27 years, Caste: Madiga, Occ: Student, R/o H.No.11-37, Himmathnagar Srirampur N/o H.No.3-88 Bhojannapet (v) of Peddapalli (m) & (Dist).

A4. Chityala Vasantha W/o. Ellaiah, Age: 40 years, Caste: Madiga Occ: Housewife, R/o H.No.11-37, Himmathnagar Srirampur.

... Accused Persons

This case is coming before me on 07.03.2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri B. Jagan, Counsel for the A1 to A4, upon hearing them and on perusing the record available, having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.2 of 12

J U D G M E N T

1.The Police Srirampur filed charge sheet in Cr.No. 30 of 2017 for the offence punishable Under Section 448, 294 (b) r/w 34 of IPC against accused no.1 to 4.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

On 13.03.2017 at 2045 hours, the LW1/complainant/Kowtla Rajababu went to

Police Station, Srirampur and lodged a report alleging that, he parked his car every day in front of his own house bearing no.11-38 which is empty since he bought, but the accused/ A1/Chityala Mahender, A2/Chityala Erllaiah, A3/Chityala Pramod were illigally trespassed into his house, when he questioned them to leave they are abused in most filthy language by delivering like MADIGONI UCHA THAGUTUNNARU

MADIGONI MODDAKU PUTTINDU and also Ellaiah’s wife Vasantha also abused in filthy language by delivering words like Shala lanjakodukulu and he requested to take necessary action.

Basing on the report given by the complainant, Lw10/K.Ravi Prasad, Sub

Inspector of Police Srirampur registered a case in Crime No.30 of 2017 for the offences punishable U/sec. 448, 294 (b) r/w 34 of IPC , issued FIR to all concerned officials and took up the investigation into this case.

During the course of investigation, LW-10 examined the LWs-1 and recorded his detailed statements in part-Il case dairy u/sec 161 (3) Cr.P.C.On14.03.2017

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.3 of 12

Lw-10 rushed the spot which is situated in front of complainant house at

Himmathnagar Srirampur in a distance of 2 KM from PS towards North-East.

Examined the eyewitnesses to the incident i.e., Lws2 to 6 by namely Kowtla Kamala,

Kowtla Satyanarayana, Chennuri Srinivas, Medi Narayana and Jumidi Narsaiah and recorded their detailes statements in part-II case diary also visited water tank area and examined the LW-7/Ramtenki Kumara Swamy and recorded his detailed statement in part-II case diary U/sec.161(3) Cr.PC. Secured the panch witness i.e., Lws 8/Jakke

Mogili & Lw-9/Javvaji Mallesh and conducted the panchanama of scene offence and drew rough sketch of scene of offence noted in Crime details form.

Further on 16.06.2017, Lw10 served the notice u/sec 4-A to A-1 to A-4 with instructions to appear before Lw10. According to notice u/sec 41 "A" CrPC, on 22.06.2017 the accused persons A-1 to A-4 voluntarily came to PS and surrendered

before LW-10 and admitted their guilt to have been commission of this offence. As

such, LW-10 affected their arrest by 'issuing arrest memos against them and informed the grounds of arrest to their kin and kith under proper acknowledgement u/sec 50, 50 (A) CrPC. Later, the accused persons produced sufficient sureties along with documents. LW-10 verified the surety documents and found to be correct as such released the accused persons on bail on same day as the case is attracting punishment below seven years, after obtaining the under taking letter from them.

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.4 of 12

3.This case is taken on file by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Mancherial and taken cognizance for the offence U/sec.448, 294 (b) r/e 34 of IPC against A1 to A4. Thereafter issued summons to accused no.1 to 4.

4.At this stage, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

Adilabad, this case has been transferred from I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mancherial, to this court, vide Proc.Dis.No.5234/2017/Admn, dated 27.07.2017 and re-numbered as CC No.442 of 2017.

5. After serving of Summons to accused no.1 to 4, they have appeared before the court. On appearance of the accused no.1 to 4 before the court, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec 207 CrPC and they were examined U/Sec 251 CrPC for the offence U/Sec 448, 294-b r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A4 charges have been framed against them for the above said offences and were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. During trial the prosecution has got examined Pw1 to Pw5 and got marked Ex P1 to Ex P6 i.e., Ex P1 is report, Ex P2 is confirmation certificate issued by

Grampanchayat, dated:23.032017 of H.No.11-38, Himmathnagar, Srirampur, Ex P3 is sada bayanama dated 28.11..2016 executed between me and Kumaraswamy (vendor),

Ex P4 is sada bayanama dated:08.03.2016 executed between my vendor and chityala

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.5 of 12

Mahender/A1, Ex P5 is scene of offence panchanama including rough sketch, Ex.P6 is FIR, Ex D1 is Copy of FIR, Ex.D2 is electricity bill along with original receipt.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1 to 4 are examined U/Sec 313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material appearing against the accused no.1 to 4 in the testimony of prosecution witness, for which they denied the same, reported being false and further reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.The learned APP argued that Pw3, Pw5 and Pw8 deposed on same line as of ExP1.

9.Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused persons beyond reasonable boubt?

2) To what relief ?

10.The case of the prosecution is that on 13-03-2017 the defacto complainant parked his vehicle in front his own house bearing number 11-38 , but the accused persons trespassed in to his house , when he questioned the act of accused persons they all abused him in most filthy language saying that ‘ MADIGONI UCHHA THAGUTHUNNARU MADIGONI

MODDAKU PUTTINDU’ and Ellaiah’s wife also abused in filthy language saying ‘

SHALA LANJAKODUKULU’ . Hence lodged report

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.6 of 12

11.To prove the case of prosecution , prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw5 and got marked

ExP1 to ExP6.

12.Pw1/Koutala Rambabu deposed that in the year 2017 he purchased a house B.No. 11- 38 from Kumaraswamy/Lw7 in Sririampur and used to park his car in fornt of his house and in his absence accused persons trespassed in ti his house and occupied and they used to drink alcohol in the said house. Further deposed that one day he went to out station and on return he found accused persons in his house in drunken condition and he told to leave the place on that accused persons necked out him from his house and abused in filthy language by saying ‘

MADIGONI UCHHA THAGUTHUNNARU MADIGONI MODDAKU PUTTINDU’ and further deposed that since the date of purchase of house A1, A2 and A4 used to abuse him daily in filthy language. Hence lodged ExP1/report and got marked ExP2 to ExP4 and identified A1 to A3.

In his cross examination it is elicted that he scribed ExP1 and he previously worked as ward member from 2015 to 2017 and he contested independently but joined in TRS party after winning ward member. Further Pw3 signed in ExP3 and name of the scriber of ExP3 is not mentioned. Further prior to this case accused filed SC/ST case against him and same is marked as ExD1 at 1930 hrs but the case was ended in acquittal in the year 2019 , further he reported the case first and accused sister filed the atrocity case later but police registered case against him. He admitted that he didnot stated about atrocity case in report nor in his statement. Further electricity bill dt 06-04-2018 was confronted to him he admitted that it stands in the name of Chityla Mahender and same is marked as ExD2. Further he admitted that he did not handed over the electricity bill to police and he has acquaintance with Pw3

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.7 of 12

since 2015 and he stayed in H.no 11-41 at Sririampur prior to March 2017 and accused persons used to stay opposite his house at house number 11-38 and he filed the present case with intent to vacate the accused persons from their house and handed over the same to house to him. Further admitted that ExP2 date is mentioned as 23-03-2017 and ExP1 was on 13-03- 2017 at 8.45 pm and ExP2 is issued by Gram Panchayath after ExP1. Further the house in question will not get registered as the said house belongs to Singareni lands . The suggestions that in collusion he and Pw3 created ExP4 and as he is politician and in collusion with Pw3 by managing the Gram Panchayath officers got ExP2 in his name and the house No 11-38 does not belongs to him as such question of trespass does not arise.

13.Pw2/Chennuri Srinivas deposed that on 12-03-2017 at 3 pm he was going to his house from Mancherial and noticed that Pw1 was standing in front of his house 11-38 at

Himmathnagar and on seeing him he enquired with him on that he informed A1 to A3 were taking alcohol in his house and when he obstructed them they bet him and in his presence he went to them and questioned them on that A1 to A3 bet him with hands in his presence and also stated that they belongs to Madiga community and they will not vacate the house and also abused him in filthy language and even A4 threatened Pw1 by stating that Pw1 belongs to

Madiga community and they belongs to Padmasali communtiy and whatever he want to do he can do. Further deposed that the galata is with regard to house in question which was purchased by Pw1 from A1 and incident also witnessed by one Narayana and his statement was recorded by police and also identified A1 to A4.

In cross examination it is elicted that he was ward member for 16th ward at Subhash nagar, and at the time of incident he was member in TRS party and Pw1 was ward members

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.8 of 12

of same party and he has acquaintance with Pw1 as both of them of same party. Further his statement was recorded by police on 14-03- 2017 at his house and on confrontation of electricity bill dt 07-03-2017 for house number 11-38 he admitted that it stands in the name of

A1 and A1 and his sister/vennala filed atrocity case vide Cr. No 29/2017 against Pw1 and Pw1 house is adjacent to the house of A1. He admitted that he did not stated to police that 12-03- 2017 at 3 pm he was going to his house from Mancherial and noticed that Pw1 was standing in front of his house 11-38 at Himmathnagar and on seeing him he enquired with him on that he informed A1 to A3 were taking alcohol in his house and when he obstructed them they bet him and in his presence he went to them and questioned them on that A1 to A3 bet him with hands in his presence and he stated that he informed to police but not mentioned in his Sec 161 crpc statement. The suggestions that as he and Pw1 are ward members to help him deposing false and no incident occurred nor he witnessed any thing nor accused persons beat

PW1 and police never examined him were denied. Further the atrocity case was compromised by accused persons which was pending before Hon’ble Spl. Court , Adilabad is denied.

14.Pw3/ Ramtenki Kumaraswamy deposed that in the month of Mat 2016 he gave amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- to A1 on his request and on he requested A1 to return the same as his sister marriage was fixed , on that he executed ExP4/ bond Dt 08-03-2016 transferring the house B. No. 11-38 , Himmathnagar in his favour and he sold the same to Pw1 for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- through ExP3. Further deposed that in the month of March 2017 one day A1 , A3 and their friends trespassed in to the house of Pw1 and consuming alcohol , on that he

Pw1 called him and infomed, immediately he went to the house of Pw1 and questioned them on that A1 and A3 replied that they filed case against Pw1 and informed him and Pw1 to go to police station for settlement and his statement was recorded by police.

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.9 of 12

In his cross examination it is elicted that at the time of incident Pw1 is ward member and sister of A1 filed atrocity case against Pw1 and he along with PW1 and others went to police station for compromise. Further the land which he acquired under ExP4 belongs to

Singareni company and after execution of ExP4 he paid house tax but he did not filed the same and also not transferred in his name on gram panchayath and in ExP4 his signature is not there and on confrontation of ExD2 he admitted that it stands in the name of A1. He admitted that he did not stated to police that in the month of March 2017 one day A1 , A3 and their friends trespassed in to the house of Pw1 and consuming alcohol , on that he Pw1 called him and informed, immediately he went to the house of Pw1 and questioned them on that A1 and A3 replied that they filed case against Pw1 and informed him and Pw1 to go to police station for settlement. The suggestion that A1 is not having any debt towards him nor he executed any bond to clear debt and only to counter blast the atrocity case filed this case and help Pw1 he is deposing false and the alleged house belongs to A1 as such question of trespass does not arise were denied.

15.Pw4/Jakke Mogili punch for scene of offence deposed that in the year 2017 one day he was proceeding to his house through mutton shop at Himmathnagar and he noticed police were present at the house of Pw1 there the police drawn the boundaries and Lw9 was also present and police obtained their signatures and got marked ExP5/Scene of offence panchanama including rough sketch.

In his cross examination it is elicted that he don ot know the contents of ExP5 and his he admitted that he is not resident of scene of offence and at the instance of police he signed on ExP5.

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.10 of 12

16.Pw5/ K.Ravi Prasad IO deposed that on 13-03-2017 at 2045 hrs he revived ExP1 from

Pw1 and he registered ExP6/FIR and recorded the statement of Pw1 and later visited scene of offence on 14-03-2017 and recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses and conducted

ExP5 in presence of Pw4 and Lw9 . Further on 16-06-2017 he served Sec 41- A crpc notice to

A1 and A4 and on 22-06-2017 they all surrender before him and admitted there guilt and he effected there arrest and released them on bail. After completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

In his cross examination it is elicted that he filed copy of Aadhar card of A1 and the house number is mentioned as 11-38 , Himmathnagar , Srirampur and prior to this case A1 and his sister filed atrocity case against Pw1vide Cr.No 29/2017 and he did not collected any document to show that alleged house stands in whose name and he has mentioned the house of Pw1 adjacent to the house of 11-38 in rough sketch. The suggestion that as Pw1 is ward member of TRS party at the time of alleged incident due to pressure he filed false case against

A1 to A4 and they are no way concerned with this incident and he did false investigation and never visited the scene of offence and accused persons never abused Pw1 and alleged house belong to A1 as such trespass does not arise were denied.

17.To substantiate the case of prosecution , prosecution mainly relied upon the testimonies of Pw1 to Pw3 coupled with Pw5 , as per them on 13-03-2017 he parked his vehicle in front his own house bearing number 11-38 , but the accused persons trespassed in to his house , when he questioned the act of accused persons they all abused him in most filthy language saying that ‘ MADIGONI UCHHA THAGUTHUNNARU MADIGONI

MODDAKU PUTTINDU’ and Ellaiah’s wife also abused in filthy language saying ‘

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.11 of 12

SHALA LANJAKODUKULU’ and on seeing the same Pw2 who was proceedings towards that area enquired with Pw1 and he informed the same to him and in his presence again Pw2 went to them and questioned their acts but they all bet and abused Pw1. Further to prove the ownership of Pw1 , Pw3 deposed that A1 was due to repay Rs.1,20,000 and on his request for repayment he executed a bond transferring the house B.No.11-38, Himmathnagar, Srirampur under ExP4 and in turn he transferred ExP3 in favour of Pw1 under ExP3 for sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- and under ExP2/confirmation letter issued by Gram panchayath dt 23-03-2017 mentioning all the transactions related to house in question and at last para it is mentioned the house got transferred in the name of Pw1 in gram panchayath record.

18.From the above facts and circumstances , from the testimony of Pw2 who is eyewitness testified to observing Pw1 outside his house, who reported that the accused persons had trespassed , consumed alcohol inside and assaulted him upon confrontation and

Pw3 evidence is corroborated the evidence of Pw1 possession of the property and the documentary evidence i.e., confirmation letter/ExP2 indicate the transfer of house to Pw1 and

ExP3 and ExP4 Sada Bayanamas documents the property's transfer history, culminating Pw1 ownership. But, defense’s presentation of ExD2 for the year 2018 in the name of A1 was recognized as the occupant or user of the property during that period. To prove Sec 448 IPC as on date of incident whether Pw1 is in possession , from Sada bayanams for the year 2016 and 2017 , despite being unregistered , along with the confirmation letter from the Gram panchayath , indicate the transfer of property to Pw1 . However , their unregistered status affects their admissibility as conclusive proof of ownership , further the electricity bill for the year 2018 in the name of A1 suggests that he was in possession or control of the property in

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.12 of 12

the year 2018 . While not definite proof of ownership , it serve as evidence of possession during that time and Pw2 testimony indicates that Pw1 confronted the accused persons about their presence in the house, leading to an altercation. This suggests that Pw1 asserted possession , while the accused action indicate a claim or exercise of control over the property.

Given the conflicting evidence and the unregistered nature of the sale agreements , the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons committed house trespass under section 448 IPC. But, the alleged verbal abuse occurred within the Pw1 residence and to attract Sec 294 b ipc , the obscene act must occur in or near a public place.

However, judicial interpretations have expanded this scope. The Hon’ble Kerala High court observed that area where obscenities can cause annoyance to those vicinity , even if not strictly public spaces, may fall under the purview of Section 294(b) IPC and Pw2 an eyewitness , was present during the alleged verbal abuse , indicating potential annoyance to a third party. Hence prosecution has successfully established the accused persons guilt of

Section 294 (b) IPC.

19.IN THE RESULT, Accused no.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 448 of IPC against the Accused no.1 to 4. Accordingly, the

Accused no.1 to 4 are acquitted under Sec.255(1) of Cr.P.C for the above said offence.

However, the Accused no.1 to 4 are found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec.

294(b) r/w 34 of IPC and they are convicted for the same under Sec.255(2) Cr.P.C and

A1 to A4 are liable to pay a fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand Only) each. Total fine amount of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand Only). In default of payment of fine amount the Accused No.1 to 4 shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.13 of 12

a period of FIFTEEN DAYS. After expiry of appeal period, bail bonds of accused no.1 to 4 are canceled. There is no case property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer, after correction and pronounced by me in the open court on this 10 th day of April, 2025.

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl. Judl. Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Mancherial.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

Pw-1:Kowtla Rajababu/Complainant- None - Pw-2:Chennuri Srinivas/Eye witness Pw-3: Ramtenki Kumaraswamy/Sold the house B.No.11-38 to Complainant Pw-4: Jakke Mogili/Panch witness to CDF Pw-5:Ravi Prasad/Investigation officer

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION:

Ex.P-1: Report of PW1 Ex.P-2: Confirmation certificate issued by Grampanchayat, dated:23.032017 of H.No.11-38, Himmathnagar, Srirampur of PW1 Ex.P-3:Sada bayanama dated 28.11..2016 executed between me and Kumaraswamy (vendor) of Pw1 Ex.P-4:Sada bayanama dated:08.03.2016 executed between my vendor and chityala Mahender/A1of PW1 Ex.P-5: Scene of offence panchanama including rough sketch of Pw4 Ex.P-6: FIR of Pw5 Ex D1: Copy of FIR of PW1 Ex.D2: Electricity bill along with original receipt of PW1

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.14 of 12

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : DEFENCE - None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC:Spl.Judicial Magistrate of First Class( Excise) Mancherial

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.15 of 12

//True Copy//

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Mancherial

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.16 of 12

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT MANCHERIAL

CC No.86 of 2015

1Calendar Case No.:86 of 2015 2Name of the P.S.:Mandamarri 3Section of Law:498-A of IPC against A1 to A7, Section 323, 294(b), 448, 342, 506 r/w 34 of IPC against A1 to A3.

4Crime No.:217 of 2014

CC.No.442 of 2017Page No.17 of 12

5Name and description of A1. Chityala Ashok S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 34 years, Occ: Auto accusedDriver, A2. Chityala Naresh S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 28 years, Occ: Student, A3. Chityala Mahesh S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Student, A4. Chityala Hareesh S/o. Mallaiah, Age: 19 years, Occ: Student, A5. Chityala Mallaiah S/o. Late Bhumaiah, Age: 55 years, Occ:Singareni Employee (RK-8), A6. Chityala Laxmi W/o. Mallaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Housewife, A7.Chityala Sumalatha,W/oAshok,Age: 25 years,Occ: Housewife, All R/o. Gandhinagar, CCC Naspur.

6Date of offence:Prior to 03.12.2014 7Date of complaint:03.12.2014 8Date of Apprehension:30.12.2014 9Released on bail:Station Bail 10Commencement of trial:28.11.2022 11Close of Trial:14.07.2023 12Date of Judgment:07.08.2023 13Reasons for delay:- 14Sentence of order:IN THE RESULT:- Accused no.1 to 7 are found not guilty for the offence punishable underSection 498-A of IPC and further the Accused No.1 to 3 are found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b), 448, 342, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Accordingly, the accused no.1 to 7 are acquitted under Section 248 (1) of Cr.P.C. for the above said offences. The bail bonds of accused no.1 to 7 shall be in force for a period of six months from today as contemplated under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. There is no case property

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Mancherial.

CC/445/2017 Acquitted

State of TG through Police Station Mandamarri vs Dasari Venkatehswarlu

08 Apr 2025

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.1 of 14

IN THE COURT OF SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS FOR TRAIL

OF CASES UNDER PROHIBITION & EXCISE ACT-CUM-III ADDL.JCJ COURT, AT

MANCHERIAL

Present: Smt. D.Upanishadwani I Addl. Junior Civil Judge - Cum- I Addl. Judl. Magistrate of I Class, Mancherial FAC. Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Mancherial

Tuesday, this the 08th day of April, 2025

CC No 445 of 2017

(Old C.C.No.155 of 2015)

Between:

The State of Telangana through Sub Inspector of Police, PS Mandamarri . . .Complainant //And//

A1. Dasari Venkateshwarlu, S/o Narayana, Age:45 yrs, Occ: Electrician, Sccl Area work shop Srirampur, R/o 3rd Zone Mandamarri.

A4. Sandanala Jayasri. W/o: Sambaiah, Age;45 years, Occ:House wife, R/o Q.No.A15,KK-5 Bungalows area, Mandamarri.

A5. Sandanala Sambaiah. S/o:Narayana, Age;47 years, Occ:SOM, KK5, R/o Q.No.A15,KK-5 Bungalows area, Mandamarri.. . . . Accused Persons

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 07.03.2025 in the presence of Learned APP for the State and Sri. P. Chiranjeeva Chary, Learned counsel for accused persons having been heard and stood over for consideration till today, this Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Police Mandamarri filed charge sheet against A1, A4 and A5 in Cr.No.153 of 2009 for the offence punishable U/Sec.498(A) and Sec. 4 of D.P. Act.

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.2 of 14

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:-

On 22.07.2009 at 1800 hours, the complainant/Dasari Padmalatha went to P.S along with her father and lodged a written complaint in Telugu stating that, her marriage was performed with Dasari Venkateshwarlu during marriage her parents gave rupees one lakh cash, 10 tulas gold, one scooter and other domestic articles as dowry. After marriage they stayed at Bellampalli for one year, (18) years at

Kothagudem and from one year residing at Mandamarri. They live happily for one after marriage, then onwards her husband started harassing her to bring additional dowry Rs.5,00,000/-, expecting change, she tolerated the harassment of her husband/A1, mother-in-law/A3 Bhagyalaxmi, father-in-law/A2 Narayana, sister-in- law/A4 Jayasri and she blessed with male child in the year 1990 and female child in the year 1995. But there is no change in the attitude of her husband and in-laws, apart from this A.Sambaiah/A5 husband of her sister-in-law also abused and beat her, when she asked as to why he is maintain her husband in his house. In this regard a panchayat was convened, in which her husband admitted his guilt and promised to look her after well in future and took her with him. But he continued the harassment as such

Lw1/Complainant lodged report and requested to take necessary action against her husband and in-laws.

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.3 of 14

Basing on the report given by the complainant, Lw9/B. Ravi, Sub Inspector of

Police Mandamarri registered a case in Crime No.153 of 2009 for the offences punishable U/Sec.498(A), Sec. 4 of D.P. Act and took up investigation.

During the course of investigation Lw-9 examined and recorded the statements of Lw1 and Lw2/Kasturi Ramanaiah in part-II case diary U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. Later,

Lw9 visited the scene of offence which is situated at 3rd Zone, Mandamarri, caused enquiry in the locality examined the witnesses Lw-3/Dasari Santhosh Pavan and Lw- 4/Indla Shyamala and also examined Lw5/Puli Laxmamma and recorded their statements in part-II case diary U/sec.161 Cr.P.C. On 28.07.2009 at 1030 hours Lw- 9 arrested the A1 and produced in the court. On 05.08.2009 Lw9 examined

Lw6/Vemula Laxman, Lw-7/Oruganti Raja Shekar and Lw-8/Sundilla Rajaiah recorded their statements in part-II case diary U/sec.161 Cr.P.C.

Subsequently Lw-10/P. Kumara Swamy S.I of police, Mandamarri took up the investigation. On 15.04.2010 at 1030 hours A2 and A3 came to P.S Mandamarri and surrendered themselves before Lw10. On interrogation they voluntarily confessed to have committed this offence along with A1. Lw10 effected their arrest and produced

before the Hon’ble Court.

3.This case is taken on file by the I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of I Class,

Mancherial and taken cognizance for the offence U/Sec. 498-A of IPC and Sec.4 of DP

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.4 of 14

Act , against A1 to A3. Accused no.4 and 5 were added to this case vide order in

Crl.MP.No.309/2017, dt:07.09.2017. The case against A2 is Abated on 15.03.2018 and

the case against A3 is spilt up vide C.C.No.79 of 2017 on 04.08.2017.

4.After serving of Summons to accused no.1 to 5, copies of the documents were furnished to them as contemplated U/Sec 207 CrPC and they were examined U/Sec 239 CrPC for the offence U/Sec 498(A) of IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act against accused no.1 to 5 charges have been framed against them for the above said offences and were read over and explained to them in Telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.At this stage, as per the orders of the Hon'ble Prl. District and Sessions Judge,

Adilabad, this case has been transferred from I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First

Class, Mancherial, to this court, vide Proc.Dis.No.5234/2017/Admn, dated 27.07.2017 and re-numbered as CC No.445 of 2017.

6. During trial the prosecution has got examined Pw1 to Pw6 and got marked Ex P1 to Ex P5 i.e., Ex P1 is report, Ex P2 is 161 statement of Lw6/Pw3, Ex P3 is 161 statement of Lw8/Pw4, Ex P4 is 161 statement of Lw4/Pw5, Ex P5 is FIR.

7.After closure of prosecution evidence, accused no.1, 4 and 5 are examined

U/Sec 313 CrPC by explaining the incriminating material appearing against the

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.5 of 14

accused no1, 4 and 5 in the testimony of prosecution witness for which they denied the same, reported being false and further reported no evidence on their behalf.

8.Heard the arguments and perused the material on record.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

i) Whether the prosecution has proved the guilty of accused persons beyond reasonable boubt?

ii) To what relief ?

9.The case of the prosecution is that defacto complainant married to A1 and at the time of marriage her parents gave Rs. 1 lakh cash , 10 tulas gold , one scooter and house hold articles and for 1 year at bellampalli, for 18 years at Kothegudem and 1 tear at Mandamarri they lead a happy martial life as A1 was working in SCCL .

Further contends that after one year of her marriage A1 , A4 and A5 and her inlaws A2 and A3 who are no more started harrasing her in demand of additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs. Meanwhile she blessed with male child/Lw3 in the year 1990 and female child in the year 1995 but A1 not changed his attitude and all the accused persons also abused and beat her and a panchayath took place and A1 admitted his guilt and promised to look her well but harrased her continously. Hence lodged report.

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.6 of 14

10.To prove the case of the prosecution , prosecution examined Pw1 to Pw6 and got marked ExP1 to ExP5. Cognizance against A4 and A5 was taken by this court on 07.09.2017 basing on protest petition filed by Pw1 as they were deleted in charge sheet by Pw6. During trial proceedings A2 and A3 died as such the against them was abated.

11.Pw1/Dasari Padmalatha deposed in the same lines of report and further deposed that A1 used to live in the house of A4 and A5 at mandamarri and one day when she went to theit house to question of not coming to her house A5 bet her.

In her cross examination it is elicted that he scribed ExP1 and A1 is son of her parental aunt and no documentary evidence to show the details of dowry and at the time of marriage A1 was working as electrician in SCCL. Further she and her children filed partition suit vide OS.No.10 of 2010 and same was dismissed on contest but appeal is pending and she also filed DVC.No.32 of 2010 in Sultanabad court later withdrawn . The suggestions that at the time of marriage A1 was working as private electrician and as A1 was working in Kothgudem he never stayed in Mandamarri and as A1 is his relative without taking dowry married her were denied. Further from 2208 to 2009 A1 never stayed in the house of A4 and A5 never bet her and they both never demanded additional dowry or ill treated her and as there was no evidence against A4 and A5 police deleted their names in charge sheet were denied. Further prior to marriage with A1 he was in love with one Dasari Rajesham and within after two months a panchayath held as she was not interested to lead martial life with A1 and

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.7 of 14

interested to continue her relation with Rajesham is denied. Further even at kothagudem she developed extra martial life with one Anand , general mazdoor of exploration department and in the absence of A1 he used to visit her house and A1 raised objection and admonished her several times and due to which she attacked A1 with knife/ Kathipeeta and caused injury to his left little finger and A1 came to

Jagityala and panchayath was held and for one week she and anand absconded from kothagudem and A1 lodged missing report and her father also examined in siad missing report were denied . Further during pendency of OP.No 47/2005 she and A1 were living separately is denied.

12.Pw2/D. Santhosh Pavan Kumar son of Pw1 and A1 deposed on the same lines of Pw1 and further deposed that at 8 years age when staying at Bapu camp ,

Kothgudem A1 suspected the character of Pw1 and used to bet Pw1 and also demanded additional dowry and when he entered in to 10 th class A1 used to stay with

A4 and A5 at Rudrampur , Kothagudem. Further deposed that in the year 2005 A1 filed judicial separation at Jagityal and later compromised and Pw1 and A1 stayed together happily at 3rd zone, mandamarri for one year but A1 started harrashing Pw1 by suspecting her character on the instigation of A4 and A5 and on 22-07-2009 when he ,

Pw1 went to the hopuse of A4 and A5 situated at SCCL bunglow, mandamarri asked them why they are not sending A1 to their house on that A5 bet Pw1 as such lodged report.

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.8 of 14

In his cross examination it is elicted that he along with pw1 went to police station in the year 2009 and he cannot say the house number and owner name where they stayed in mandamarri and since 2005 till date of evidence Pw1 and A1 never stayed together except for one month in the year 2008. All the suggestions were denied .

13.Pw3 to Pw5 who are neighbour of Pw1 and panchayath elders not supported the prosecution.

14.Pw6/P. Kumara Swamy Investigatiing officer deposed that basing on ExP1

Lw9/B. Ravi registered Exp5/FIR and recorded the statement of Pw1 and Pw2. Later he visited scene of offence i.e 3rd zone , Mandamarri and made enquiry and recorded the statements of Pw2, Pw3 and Lw5/Puli Laxmamma . Further deposed that on 28- 07-2009 at 1030 hrs he arrested A1 and produced before court for judicial remand and he also recorded the statements of Pw4 , Pw5 and Lw7/Oruganti Raja Shekar. Further he received CD file from Lw9 for further investigation and verified the entire file and on 15-04-2010 at 1030 hrs A2 and A3 surrender before him and on interrogation they admitted their guilt and produced before court for judicial remand and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet deleting A4 and A5 as no prima facie evidence is proved.

In his cross examination it is elicted that Pw1 and A1 marriage was held in the year 1989 and ExP1 was lodged in the year 2009 and she didnot stated before Lw9 the

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.9 of 14

mode of harassment and specific abusing words used by A1 to A3 and also the date of demand of additional dowry by A1. Further he do not know whether Pw1 after compromise in O.P. NO. 47/2005 stayed with A1 and he did not examined any witness at kothagudem . The suggestions that false charge sheet was filed against A1 to A3 basing on false investigation and he did not visited H.No. 71-16 , 3rd zone, Mandamarri and Pw1 with her children never stayed at said house along with A1 and no offence took place at mandamarri were denied and further accused persons never demanded

additional dowry of Rs.5 lakhs is denied.

15.To substantiate the case of the prosecution . Prosecution mainly relied on the testimonies of Pw1 and Pw2 who is wife and son of A1 and as per there testimonies

A1 to A5 harassed Pw1 for want od additional dowry of Rs. 5 lakhs and used to abuse and bet her and panchayath was held and A1 admitted his guilt but continued harassment. But Pw4 and Pw5 not supported Pw1. Even the allegations made by Pw1 are general and not specific about grave injury or conduct likely to drive Pw1 to suicide or cause serious harm and no incident described meets the threshold of willful conduct of such a nature. Further prosecution failed to establish that there was a specific unlawful demand for dowry and vague or routine martial disputes without concrete evidence of corecive harassment for dowry do not attract Section 498 -A IPC.

Further no medical evidence is produced to show physical cruelty and no independent witnesses, documents or surrounding circumstances were presented to corroborate the

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.10 of 14

alleged cruelty or harassment. Further except Pw1 and Pw2 are interested witnesses, no independent , neutral or corroborative evidence to support their testimony.

From the above facts and circumstances, while matrimonial discord is not

uncommon , every such dispute cannot be stretched to attract Section 498- A IPC .

Unless the cruelty as defined is clearly established. In the present case the

prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of cruelty or dowry demand beyond reasonable doubt.

16. IN THE RESULT, A1, A4 and A5 found not gulty for the offence

U/sec.498-A IPC, and Sec.4 of DP Act. Accordingly A1, A4 and A5 are Acquitted

U/sec.248(1) of Cr.PC for above saif offence. The bail bonds of accused persons if any, shall stand cancelled after expiry of appeal period of envisaged U/sec.437-A of Cr.PC.

There is no case property.

Typed to my dictation by Stenographer after correction and pronounced by me in the open court on this 8 th day of April, 2025.

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Mancherial

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION: DEFENCE:

Pw-1:Dasari Padmalatha/Complainant - None - Pw-2:D. Santhosh Pavan Kumar/Son of PW-1 Pw-3: V, Laxman/ Panchayath elder

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.11 of 14

Pw-4: S. Rajaiah/Panchayath elder Pw-5:E. Shyamala/neighbour of Pw1 Pw-6:P. Kumara Swamy/Investigation officer and filed charge sheet

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : PROSECUTION:

Ex P1 report

Ex P2 161 statement of Lw6/Pw3

Ex P3 161 statement of Lw8/Pw4

Ex P4 161 statement of Lw4/Pw5

Ex P5 FIR

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR : DEFENCE - None -

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED

-Nil-

I Addl.Judl. Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl.Judl.Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Mancherial

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.12 of 14

//True Copy//

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Mancherial

IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS AT MANCHERIAL

CC No.87 of 2017

1Calendar Case No.:87 of 2017 2Name of the P.S.:Mandamarri

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.13 of 14

3Section of Law:498-A, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3 and 4 of DP Act against accused no.1 and 2 4Crime No.:34 of 2017 5Name and description of A1. Korandla Shankar @ Shankar Reddy, S/o Venkataiah accused@ Venkat Reddy, Age:29 yrs, Occ: Pvt. Electrician, R/o H.No.16-2-273, Palton Malakpet, Hyderabad, N/o. Sarvaram village, Mutharam Mdl of Peddapalli District.

A2. Korandla Mallamma, W/o Venkataiah @ Venkat Reddy, Age: 55 yrs, Occ: Housewife, R/o Sarvaram village, Mutharam Mdl of Peddapalli District.

6Date of offence:11.02.2017 7Date of complaint:21.02.2017 8Date of Apprehension:06.03.2017 9Released on bail:Station Bail on 06.03.2017 10Commencement of trial:16.04.2019 11Close of Trial:18.03.2021 12Date of Judgment:24.07.2023 13Reasons for delay:- 14Sentence of order:IN THE RESULT:- Accused no.1 is found guilty for the offence punishable UnderSection 498-A, 506 of IPC and he is convicted U/Section 248(2) of Cr.P.C. Accused no.2 is not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec 498-A, 506 of IPC and she is acquitted U/Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused no.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence punishable U/Sec 3 and 4 of DP Act and they are acquitted U/Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Further the Accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT for ONE YEAR and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, the Accused no.1 shall undergo a SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT for FIFTEEN DAYS for the offence punishable under section 498-A of IPC and accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT for SIX MONTHS and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, the Accused no.1 shall undergo a SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT for FIFTEEN DAYS for

CC.No.445 of 2017Page No.14 of 14

the offence punishable under section 506 of IPC. Both sentences shall run concurrently. There is no order for set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.PC. There is no case property.

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Mancherial.

CC/100/2023 Acquitted

Prohibition and Excise inspector mancherial vs Maloth Kumar

21 Apr 2025

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 1

IN THE COURT OF THE SPL. JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS

(EXCISE) MANCHERIAL.

Present : Smt. D. Upanishadwani I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judl.Magistrate of First Class Mancherial

FAC:Spl.Judicial Magistrate of I Class For Trial of Cases Under Prohibition & Excise Act-Cum-III Addl.Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mancherial.

Monday, this 21st day of April, 2025.

CC.No.100 of 2023

Between:- State Through the Station House Officer Proh. & Excise Station, Mancherial.

...Complainant

//AND//

A1.Maloth Kumar, S/o.Shivaram, Age:25 years, Caste:Lambada (ST), Occ:Auto driver, R/o.Sravanpalli (V), Mandamarri (M).

A2.Uppalanchi Veerapratap, S/o:Ramaiah. Age:52 years, Caste:Vyshya, Occ:Business, R/o Mancherial (M).

A3.Manda Ramesh, S/o:Lachaiah, Age:27 years, Caste:Mudiraj, Occ:Worker, R/o LIC Colony (V), Mancherial (m). ….Accused persons

This case is coming on 16.04.2025 in the presence of learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for prosecution and of Sri P. Lalitha Prasad/, Counsel for the accused, upon hearing them and on perusing the record available, having stood over for consideration, this court delivered the following :-

J U D G M E N T

1.The Station House Officer, Prohibition and Excise Station, Mancherial has laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under

Section 34(e)r/w13(1)(f) of A.P Excise Act, 1968 in C.O.R.No.149/2018 of

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 2

Prohibition and Excise Station,Mancherial.

2. The case of Prosecution in brief are that, on 06-09-2018 at about 05:30

PM the Excise raid party lead by Prohibition & Excise Sub Inspector, Station

Mancherial along with staff, on a reliable information regarding transporting of Jaggery and Alum proceeded with LWI./Appani Laxman, LW2 Rasamalla

Raju, and conducted route watch. During the route watch the staff checking the suspected vehicles. By seeing the excise party one person stopped his Bajaj Auto no.AP01 TB0066 at some distance in suspicious circumstance. The raid party moved towards to the vehicle, then that persons were run away by leaving his Auto. That person were arrested with his Auto. The excise party found (18) Box of (20) kgs capacity contains of (324) Kgs Jaggery and (01) Bags of (20) kgs capacity contains of (20) Kgs

Alum. Opened the cover and noticed as Jaggery and Alum by virtue of its smell. On enquiry they came to know the details of person as Maloth

Kumar/Accused. After that they enquiry to the accused person where was it purchased, he show that kirana shop name Santhosh kirana shop at that time one person doing business his name A3/Manda Ramesh. A3 told our owner encourage to sell jaggery and Alum his name Uppalanchi Veerapratap.

Since Transportation of Jaggery and Alum is an offence as per the excise rules, LW-3/A. Vasantha Rao drawn one sample Jaggery and alum of 200 gms as per procedure and seized the remaining Jaggery and Alum and Bajaj

Auto undercover of a panchanama in the presence of LW1/Appani Laxman and LW2/Rasamalla Raju.

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 3

2.1Basing on panchanama, Lw3 registered a case vide CO.R. No.

149/2018 Dated: 06-09-2018. U-Sec. 34(e) r/w 13(1)(f) of A.P. Excise Act 1968 and took up investigation.

2.2.During the course on interrogation, accused was voluntarily admitted guilty of his offence and remanded to judicial custody. The samples of

Jaggery and Alum were sent to Govt. Chemical Examiner, Proh. & Excise,

Nizamabad for chemical analysis. In turn the analysis report has been received vide C.E. Report No.595/2018-01, Dated: 06-10-2018.

2.3The remaining property Jaggery and Alum was produced before the

Dy.Commissioner of Proh. & Excise, Adilabad for confiscation. As per the confiscation orders vide Proc.Cr.No. 160/2018/P&Ex/B2, Dated: 08-01- 2019 the seized quantity of Jaggery and Alum was destroyed. After completion of entire investigation Lw3/A. Vasantha Rao the then P&EX inspector of Police Mancherial laid the charge sheet.

3.This case is taken on file on 11.08.2023 by this court for the offence punishable U/sec.34(e) r/w 13(1)(f) of A.P Excise Act against the A1 to A3 and issued summons. On appearance of the A1 to A3, the copies of case documents furnished to her in compliance of Sec.207 of Cr.PC.

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 4

4. The accused was examined U/sec.239 Cr.PC charges for the offence punishable U/sec.34(e) r/w 13(1)(f) of A.P Excise Act, are framed, read over and explained to them in telugu, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence summons were to the witnesses.

5.During trial, in order to prove the guilt of the A1 to A3, the prosecution examined Pw-1 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P5 and MO-1, MO-

2. Due to non production of witnesses i.e., Lws 1 and 2, despite of several adjournments their evidence is closed on 15.03.2024, as per docket order,

6. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, the A1 to A3 were examined U/sec.313 Cr.PC they denied the incriminating material appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and reported no defence evidence on their behalf. Hence defence evidence closed and posted the matter for arguments.

7. Heard the arguments on both sides.

8. The point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the

accused.no.1 to 3 for the charges levelled against them under Section 34(e) r/w 13(1)(f) of A.P Excise Act, beyond all reasonable doubt?

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 5

POINT No.1:

9.It is to be noted in the beginning itself that even though 3 witnesses were listed on behalf of the prosecution, only one witness was examined , the remaining witnesses i.e., Lw-1 and Lw-2 namely Appani Laxman, Ramasamma Raju were not produced by the prosecution, hence, their evidence was closed. PW-1 who is investigation officer deposed that, on 06.09.2018 at 5.30 P.M on reliable information about transporting of jaggery and alum, he along with staff by securing the presence of LW-1 and LW-2 namely A.Laxman and R. Raju conducted routine watch by checking suspected vehicle and one person stopped his Bajaj Auto bearing No.AP 01 TB 0066 at some distance and fled away by leaving his auto and he along with his staff chased said person and arrested seized auto and on such he found 18 box of 20 kg capacity contains of 324 kgs jaggery and one bag of 20 kg capacity contains of 20 kg Alum.

Further deposed that on enquiry he revealed his name as Maloth Kumar and further confessed that he purchased the seized jaggery and alum from

Santhosh Kirana shop which run by Manda Ramesh and on the instruction of A3 he is transporting jaggery and Alum. On said confession of A1 he conducted scene of offence panchanama and seized the jagri and Alum and drawn one sample of jagri and alum 200 grams in the presence of panchas undercover of Lw1 and Lw2. Then he brought the seized property to the pohn. & Excise Station, Mancherial. Further deposed that basing on the panchanama he registered a case in Ex.P1/COR.No.149/2018,

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 6

Dt:06.09.2018, for the offence punishable under section 34(e) r/w 13(1)(f) of

A.P Excise Act 1968 against the A1 to A3 persons and took up the investigation and he remanded A1 to judicial custody and thereafter he forwarded the seized samples to Chemical Examiner, RPEL Nizamabad for

Analysis and report vide C.E.595/2018-01, dt:06.10.2018.

Further Pw-1 deposed that the remaining seized property of jagri and Alum was produced before the Dy.Commissioner of Proh.& Excise,

Adilabad for confiscation. As per the confiscation orders vide

Proc.Cr.No.116/2018/P*Ex/B2, Dt:08.01.2019, and same was destroyed and proceedings of destroyed panchanama is submitted before Hon’ble

Court and the seized Auto was produced before the Dy.Commissioner of

Proh.& Excise, Adilabad for confiscation on 08.01.2019 and proceedings enclosed herewith.

Further Pw-1 deposed that The telangana State Regional Prohibition and Excise laborary Nizamabad. Analyzed the sample and issued report vide

C.E.No.595/2018-01 and opined that the sample at Serial No.5453 contains that reduced sugar as shown in the column. It is jaggery which can be used as raw material in the manufacturing of illicit distilles liquor, Serial No.5454 is potassium, Aluminum Sulphate. It is commercially known as Alum Ex.P1 is COR report, Ex.P2 is Confession cum seizure panchanama, Ex.P3 is confiscation of seized property proceeding issued by Dy. Commissioner P & E

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 7

Adilabad on 08.01.2019, Ex.P4 is confiscation of seized vehicle proceeding issued by Dy.Commissioner P & E Adilabad on 20.07.2019. Ex.P5 is

Analysis report MO1 is seized sample Jaggery 200 grams, MO2 is Seized sample of Alum 200 grams.vide CP.No.38/2021. After completion of the inverstigation he filed charge sheet.

In his cross examination it is elicted that he along with his staff namely Rajendra Prasad, Sri Lath, Venkatesh and Mahesh along with driver Laxman went to raid and he did not examined any of his staff who accompanied with him in raid and at 5.00 Pm they proceeded to raid place from Mancherial P & E. and he got information about the transportation seized property at 4.30 P.M. Further in Ex. P1 it is mentioned that he got information at 5.30 P.M and also he did not mentioned raid place in Ex.P1, Ex.P2 nor in charge-sheet and Ex.P2 is scribed by him. Further the seized property is very much available in

Kirana shop, General store and even in supermarkets and the seized property is not banned by government. Further in charge sheet he mentioned that he secured LW1 and LW2 and took them along with him for raid and in Ex.P2 and in charge-sheet he mention that he got information about the transportation seized property at 5.30 P.M.

The suggestions that he secured LW1/Appani Laxman and

LW2/Rasamalla Raju prior to raid and went to scene of offence and

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 8

only for statistical purpose he foisted this false case against accused persons and he never visited the scene of offence nor conducted any raid and the accused persons are no way concerned with this case and contraband and at the instance of his higher officials he is deposing false were denied.

From the above facts and circumstance , only Pw1 was examined by prosecution and no other independent witness , including the panch witnessed, was examined . The prosecution submitted the seizure panchanama and chemical analysis report as documentary evidence as to convict the accused persons. Whereas the panchanama which is claimed to have been prepared in the presence of panchas , was not corroborated bt the examination of any such witness. No independent witness was examined to prove the seizure , which casts doubt on the authencity of the recovery and non examination of panch witnesses weakens the prosecution case, especially when the panchanama is a crucial document relating to the alleged recovery. Although the testimony of a police or excise officer cannot be discarded merely for being an official , corroboration is necessary when the case hinges solely on official witnesses.

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 9

10 .Having considered the evidence on record and in view of the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not at all sufficient to prove the allegations made against the A1 to A3 for the charges of offence punishable U/Sec.34(e) r/w 13(1)(f) of A.P Excise Act , 1968 and accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the A1 to A3

POINT No.2:

11. IN THE RESULT, A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the offence

U/sec.34(e) r/w 13(1)(f) of A.P Excise Act. Accordingly, the A1 to A3 are acquitted U/sec.255(1) of Cr.PC for above said offence. The bail bond of the A1 to A3. If any. Shall stand cancelled after expiry appeal period as envisaged U/sec.437-A of Cr.PC. The case property vide CP

No.38/2021 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer and after correction pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 21 st day of April, 2025.

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistate of First Class, Mancherial. FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Mancherial

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 10

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION

Conducted Panchanama, Seized the PW-1A. Vasantha RaoProperty, issued COR & I.O & Filed the Charge Sheet.

FOR DEFENCE – NIL

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION

Ex.P1COR report

Ex.P2Confession cum seizure panchanama Confiscation of seized property proceeding issued by Ex.P3 Dy.Commissioner P & E Adilabad on 08.01.2019, Confiscation of seized vehicle proceeding issued by Dy. Ex.P4 Commissioner P & E Adilabad on 20.07.2019. Ex.P5Analysis report Seized sample Jaggery 200 grams, MO-1

MO2 is Seized sample of Alum 200 grams. MO-2

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED – NIL -

Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class(Excise), Mancherial FAC: I Addl. Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistate of First Class, Mancherial.

CC No. 100 of 2023 Dated:21.04.2025 Page. No. 11

//True Copy//

I Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class (Excise), Mancherial //True Copy//

II Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Mancherial FAC: Spl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class(excise), Mancherial

Order Record 2,140 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
EP/457/2022	M/s Kapil Chits, Pvt, Ltd Mancherial vs Challam Sudhakar	23 Apr 2025	other	—
EP/323/2024	Chunchu Bapu vs Gumasa Kantha Rao	22 Apr 2025	other	—
OS/29/2022	Routhu Mogili vs Karne Srinivas	22 Apr 2025	Order	—
OS/308/2024	Kola Srinivas vs Siddam Mallesh	22 Apr 2025	judgment	—
CC/100/2023	Prohibition and Excise inspector mancherial vs Maloth Kumar	21 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
EP/96/2021	M/S Kapil Chits vs Veeramalla Giridhar Rao	15 Apr 2025	other	—
EP/447/2022	Chopadadi Chandraiah vs Karkuri Laxman Varma @ Laxmaiah	15 Apr 2025	other	—
OS/218/2020	Enagandula Raju vs Avidapu Induru	15 Apr 2025	other	—
STC.NI/66/2023	Ramagiri Bharathi vs Pakalapati Ratnamanikyam	15 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/10/2018	State of TG through Police Station Srirampur vs Avidapu Santhosh	15 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
DVC/1/2022	Gopathi Krishnaveni and 2 others vs Gopathi venkatesh and 2 others	11 Apr 2025	Other	Dismissed Disposal Date: 11-04-2025 Spl
CC/442/2017	State of TG through Police Station Srirampur vs Chityala Mahendar	10 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
EP/45/2020	M/s.Margadarshi Chit fund Pvt.Ltd. vs Bhaskara Srinivas @ Vasu	08 Apr 2025	other	—
OS/213/2020	Thumma Komuraiah vs Vemula Laxman	08 Apr 2025	judgment	—
OS/348/2021	Mukkera Shankaramma vs The Singareni Collories	08 Apr 2025	judgment	—
DVC/21/2023	Bonda Vanaja vs Bhukya Suresh	08 Apr 2025	Order	—
CC/445/2017	State of TG through Police Station Mandamarri vs Dasari Venkatehswarlu	08 Apr 2025	Judgement	Acquitted
EP/126/2020	M/s. Kapil Chits (Kakatiya) Pvt.Ltd. vs Thallapalli Srinivas and 3 others	26 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/11/2024	Jerripothula Saritha vs Jerripathula Narsimhachary	26 Mar 2025	judgment	—
CC/1050/2023	State of Telangana Ramarkishnapur vs Bukya Suresh	24 Mar 2025	Order	—
OS/162/2022	Chinthala Rajitha vs Dharavath Thirupathi	13 Mar 2025	judgment	—
OS/323/2024	Vasanthula Guruvaiah vs Brahmoju Sada Chary	13 Mar 2025	judgment	—
MC/4/2023	Illuturi Setharavamma vs Illuturi Karthik	13 Mar 2025	Other	—
OS/24/2020	Andugula Sathaiah vs Kukka Srinivas	11 Mar 2025	judgment	—
OS/192/2020	Union Bank of India vs Durga Bhavani Physiotherapy	11 Mar 2025	other	—
CC/63/2018	SI of Police Srirampur vs Aleti Prashanth	10 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
CC/121/2017	State of TG through Police Station Mandamarri vs Shere Sudhakar	10 Mar 2025	Judgement	—
OS/49/2025	Smt Samreen vs Mohammad Yuunus	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/39/2025	State of Telangana PS Ramakrishnapur vs Ganeshna kasi	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/632/2023	State of Telangana rkp vs Shanigarapu Madhukar	08 Mar 2025	Order	—
CC/28/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO Excise Bellampally vs Nadipelli Shoba	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
CC/29/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO Excise Bellampally vs Kolipaka Gattamma	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
CC/30/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO Excise Bellampally vs Dugata Aravind	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
CC/31/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO Excise Bellampally vs Routhu Mogili	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
CC/76/2023	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Janagama Venkatesh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
CC/152/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA Through SHO PS Srirampur vs Azmeera Akshay Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
CC/156/2024	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Muppidi Thirupathi	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/76/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Kondilla praveen Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/77/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Goreti Sathish Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/78/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Komatipalli Vamshi	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/79/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Lingampelli Ravi Teja	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/80/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Nainala Sai	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/81/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Ch. Rajaram	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/82/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Paithari Anil Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/83/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs G. Santhosh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/84/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Oraganti Venkatesh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/85/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Shaik Kaleel	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/86/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Mylagani Swamy	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/87/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Udayamarri Nagaraju	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/88/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Kamara Suresh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/89/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Pingili Ashok	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/90/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Madrake Madunaiah	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/91/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs G. Santhosh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/92/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Jalampelly Srikanth	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/93/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Chetkuri Raju	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/94/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Rajkumar Aggu	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/95/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Gaddam Raju	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/96/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Konkata Ravender	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/97/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Geesa Sudhakar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/98/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Janjari Ramaswamy	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/99/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Sriraknth Battari	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/100/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS SRIRAMPUR vs Rapala Ramesh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/101/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Chiliveru Sai Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/102/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Lingampelli RaviTeja	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/103/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Thallapalli Rajesh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/104/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Pata Dhanush	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/105/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Goreti Sathish Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/106/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Komatipalli Vamshi	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/107/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Nainala Sai	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/108/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs G. Yellesh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/109/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Udayamarri Nagaraju	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/110/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Mylagani Swamy	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/111/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Deldas Aravind Prasad	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/112/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs G. Santhosh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/113/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Gangula Chiranjeevi	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/114/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Thungapindi Sadik	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/115/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Vynala Sai	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/116/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Gangula Chiranjeevi	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/117/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Beldar Aravind Prasad	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/118/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Thallapalli Rajesh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/119/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Ch Raja Ram	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/120/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Mandrake Madunaiah	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/121/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Chetkuri Raju	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/122/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Ram Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/123/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs MD Imran	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/124/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Namala Sanjay	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/125/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Chatlapalli Pavan	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/126/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Koyyada Ramakrishna	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/127/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Kadasi Prasad	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/128/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Bashika Ashok	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/129/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Gajula Santhosh	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/130/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Asampalli Ashanth	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/131/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Dandi Ravi	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/132/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Janardhan Thundla	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/133/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Pendyala Sravan Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/134/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Gadla Sai varun - Sai Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/135/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Gudla Sai Kumar	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/136/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Pata Dhanush	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/137/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Gaddala Prakash	08 Mar 2025	Other	—
STC/138/2025	STATE OF TELANGANA SHO PS Srirampur vs Gadha Anil	08 Mar 2025	Other	—

Showing 100 of 2,140 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Apr 2025		20
Mar 2025		299
Feb 2025		40
Jan 2025		129
Dec 2024		389
Nov 2024		49
Oct 2024		9
Sep 2024		165
Mar 2024		290
Feb 2024		78
Jan 2024		7
Dec 2023		447

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt. D. Upanishadwani handled?

Smt. D. Upanishadwani has handled 2175 court orders since 2021 at Mancherial, SCJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 53 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt. D. Upanishadwani hear?

Based on available records, Smt. D. Upanishadwani primarily handles Criminal matters (Summary Trial Cases, Criminal Cases) and Civil matters (Execution Petitions, Original Suits) at Mancherial, SCJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt. D. Upanishadwani currently posted?

Smt. D. Upanishadwani is posted as Prl. Junior Civil Judge at Mancherial, SCJ Court Complex, Mancherial, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt. D. Upanishadwani available online?

Yes. 20 judgments by Smt. D. Upanishadwani are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt. D. Upanishadwani dispose cases?

Smt. D. Upanishadwani disposes approximately 53 cases per month, based on 2175 orders handled over their tenure at Mancherial, SCJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt. D. Upanishadwani serving?

Smt. D. Upanishadwani has been serving at Mancherial, SCJ Court Complex since 2021.

Case Types

STC 77%

CC 17%

EP 3%

OS 3%

DVC 0%

MC 0%

PRC 0%

Posting History

Oct 2024 — Apr 2025

Prl. Junior Civil Judge · 497 orders
Aug 2024 — Apr 2025

Spl. JFCM · 603 orders
May 2023 — Mar 2024

Spl. JFCM · 1,029 orders
Apr 2022 — Apr 2025

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge
Nov 2021 — Nov 2021

I Addl. Junior Civil Judge · 46 orders

Outcomes on Record

Transferred Disposal Date: 30-11-2021 I Addl 5

Acquitted 4

Settled Before Lok Adalat Disposal Date: 15-03-2024 Spl 2

Dismissed Disposal Date: 11-04-2025 Spl 1

Other Judges at this Court

Smt. G.Kavitha

Prl. Junior Civil Judge

884 orders

Ms K. Nirosha

II Addl. Junior Civil Judge

0 orders

Smt. Angadi Nirmala

Prl. Senior Civil Judge-cum-Asst.Sessions Judge

211 orders

Sri. D.Rama Mohan Reddy

Addl Senior Civil Judge-cum-AsstSessions Judge

304 orders

← View all judges at Mancherial, SCJ Court Complex