Smt E. Bharathi

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.1 of 16

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :AT: MANTHANI

PRESENT:­ SMT.BHARATHI ERRA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Thursday, on this the 28th day of March, 2024

SESSIONS CASE NO. 119 of 2023

(On committal made by the Learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani vide PRC No.10/2023)

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Manthani Police station (Cr.No.100/2023).

Name of the Accused :Gundla Sadaiah, S/o. Seethaiah, age: 38 years, R/o. Battupalli village of Manthani Mandal, Peddapalli District.

Charge: U/Sec.448, 307 of IPC

Plea of the Accused:Not guilty.

Finding of the Court:Accused found guilty. : Sentence or Order Accused is found guilty for the offense punishable under Section 448, 307 IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled. Accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of THREE YEARS for the offence punishable U/Sec.307 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees two thousand only). In default payment of fine, he

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.2 of 16 shall suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO months. Further, the accused shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­ (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable u/Sec.448 IPC. In default payment of fine, he shall suffer simple Imprisonment for a period of TWO months. The remand period from 07.08.2023 to 28.03.2024 shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The accused is informed about the right to prefer an appeal against this judgment and the availability of free legal aid. A copy of the judgment is supplied to the accused on free of cost against the receipt. No property is deposited before this court. Hence, there is no order as to the disposal of the case property.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri Akula Ramulu, Additional Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri B.Anjaneyulu, Legal Aid Counsel.

This case is coming before me on March 26, 2024, for a final hearing in the presence of Sri Akula Ramulu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant, and Sri B.Anjaneyulu, Legal Aid counsel for the accused. Upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The accused has been prosecuted by the state, represented by the

Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Manthani, for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 307 of the IPC in Cr.No. 100/2023.

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.3 of 16

2.The brief facts of the prosecution’s case are as follows:­

The PW­1/defacto complainant, Dupam Swapna, is a resident of

Bhattupalli village; PW6/Dupam Srinivas is her husband; and

PW2/Dupam Prashanth is the brother of the PW6, and they are running a petty kirana shop and belt shop in their house. Prior to this incident, the accused, who is their villager, visited their shop many times and asked for the liquor on a credit basis. They provided liquor to the accused two or three times on a credit basis, but the accused did not pay the due amounts. Whenever they asked for the due amounts, the accused used to abuse them and threaten them. On the night of May 10, 2023, at about 23:00 hours, the accused knocked on the doors, insisting on opening them and providing liquor on a credit basis, but they did not open them, due to which the accused kicked the doors with his hands and retreated from their house, threatening to see their end by the next morning. On May 11, 2023, at about 10:00 hours, PW6 was setting the articles in the shop. At the same time, the accused entered the shop by carrying an axe from the rear door with the intention to kill PW6, and attacked him with an axe.

When PW6 raised his hands in order to prevent the assault on him, he sustained severe bleeding injuries to his right hand, right eye, and nose.

Immediately, PW1 and 2 shifted PW6 to the Government Hospital,

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.4 of 16 Manthani,and he was shifted to Karimnagar Hospital for better treatment.

Subsequently, PW1 lodged a complaint before the police.

3.Based on the complaint, Pw­11/Sub­Inspector of Police registered the case in Cr. No. 100/2023 under Section 448 and 307 of the IPC and issued an FIR. Subsequently, he examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and rushed to the scene of the offence situated at Battupalli village. There, he examined Pw­2 to Pw­5 and Lw­4/Sarojana and Lw­6/Madhunakka and recorded their statements and he conducted scene observation panchanama and prepared CDF in the presence of Pw­7 and Lw­12 (Gaddi

Kumar). Later, Pw­11 examined and recorded the statement of Pw­6 and he collected a medical certificate of Pw­6 from Pw­10. On May 11, 2023, at 13.00 hrs, Lw­14/G. Sathish, Circle Inspector of Police, apprehended the accused, and during interrogation, the accused confessed that he committed this offence and also the offence in Cr.No.99/2023, U/Sec. 302 of the IPC, and Lw­14/G. Sathish seized one axe and a blood stain cloth from the accused under confession and seizure panchanama.

Subsequently, on the PT (Prisoner in Transit) warrant, Pw­11 produced the accused for judicial remand and after completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 448 and 307 IPC.

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.5 of 16

4. The case was taken into cognizance for the offence punishable under

Sections 448 and 307 of the IPC on the file of the learned Principal Judicial

Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, as PRC.No.10/2023. On the

appearance of the accused, copies of case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and complying with the provisions of Section 209 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Hon’ble

Principal Sessions Court, Peddapalli, where it was registered as SC No.

119/2023 and made over to this Court for disposal according to law.

5.After hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the charges under Section 448, 307 of the

IPC were framed, read over, and explained to the accused in vernacular language. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

6. Thereafter, the schedule was fixed as required under Section 230 of the Cr.P.C.

7. During the course of the trial, prosection has examined PWs. 1 to 11and markedExs.P1 to P6 documents.

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.6 of 16

8. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

9. Heardboth sides.

10.Now the points for determination are:

1. Whether the prosecution has proved that the accused

trespassed into the house of the injured (PW6) by carrying an axe and

attacked him with an intention to kill him?

2. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the

accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 307 of the

IPC beyond all reasonable doubts?

Points No. 1 and 2:

11. According to the evidence of the prosecution, PW1/Dupam Srinivas is the de facto complainant. PW2/Dupam Prashanth is the younger brother injured. PW3, PW4, and PW5 (Kolakani Saritha, Kolakani Sammaiah, and

Shanaveni Sanil respectively) are the eyewitnesses to the incident.

PW6/Dupam Srinivas is injured. PW.7/Kolakani Ramesh is the panch witness for CDF. PW8/Manthani Sandeep and PW9/Dasari Rajashekar are the panch witnesses for confession and seizure in Cr.No.99 of 2023.

PW10/Dr.Thirupathi Jakkani is a medical officer. PW11/A. Venkateshwar

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.7 of 16 is Sub Inspector of Police, and the Investigating Officer who filed the chargesheet.

12.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, inter alia, submitted that the accused was addicted to alcohol, and he attacked his daughter with an axe when she refused to give an amount for the purchase of alcohol, due to which his daughter died. By carrying the same axe, the accused trespassed into the shop of PW6 and attacked him with an intention to kill him, as

PW6 refused to give alcohol on a credit basis. Further, the prosecution witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, and as such, the accused is liable for punishment.

13.On the other hand, the learned counsel (legal aid counsel) submitted that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the accused, and due to previous disputes, PW1 and PW6 falsely implicated the accused in this case. As such, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

14. This Court considered the rival submissions of both learned counsel and perused the material brought on record.

15.Theevidence of PW1, PW2, and PW6 discloses that they are running a kirana shop at their house, and previously, the accused used to purchase

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.8 of 16 articles from their shop on a credit basis. On May 11, 2023, at about 10 a.m., the accused again came to their shop and asked the PW6 to give some articles on a credit basis. When he refused, the accused attacked him with an axe, due to which he sustained injuries to his eye, forehead, nose, and right hand. The evidence of PW3 to PW5 shows that on hearing the noise from the house of PW1, they rushed to the house of PW1, and they witnessed that the accused attacked PW6 by holding an axe, due to which

PW6 sustained bleeding injuries on his eyes, nose, forehead, and right hand.

16.The evidence of PW7 discloses that police conducted CDF in his presence, and his agricultural land is situated at a distance of one kilometer from the scene of the offense. From the oral evidence of PW7 and the recitals of Ex.P2, the prosecution has established that the scene of the offence is situated at the house and shop of PW6.

17.As per the evidence of PW8 and PW9, the accused confessed to having committed this offence. The recitals of Ex.P3 reveal that the confession was recorded at the police station and nothing was seized at the instance of the accused. Hence, the alleged confession of the accused is not admissible in

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.9 of 16 evidence as per Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, the recitals of Ex.P3 are not taken into consideration.

18.The evidence of Pw­11 reveals that he issued a FIR/Ex.P­5 and conducted investigation, and subsequently LW­14/G.Sathish seized MO­1 in Cr.No.99/2023 under Section 302 of the IPC from the accused, and

Pw11 produced the accused for judicial remand on a PT (Prisoner in

Transit) warrant. The seizure panchanama/Ex.P­6 reveals that MO­1 was seized at the instance of the accused; as such, as per Section 27 of the

Indian Evidence Act, the confession statement of the accused is reliable to the extent of disclosure of the crime weapon/MO­1. From the evidence of

Pw­8 and 9, the seizure of MO­1 is not disclosed. However, the injured/PW6 identified the MO­1, and Pw­1 to 5 also reiterated that the accused attacked the Pw­6 with an axe; hence, from the evidence of Pw­1 to Pw­6, the prosecution established that the accused attacked the Pw­6 with an axe; as such, non­mentioning about the seizure of a crime weapon by PW8 and 9 is not fatal to the prosecution's case.

19.PW10 testified that PW6 sustained a fracture of the right temporo­ zygomatic and nasal bones. During the cross­examination, nothing was elicited to discredit the evidence of PW10. The medical evidence supported

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.10 of 16 the version of the injured. Hence, from the evidence of PW10 and the recitals of the Ex.P4, the prosecution proved that PW6 sustained fractured injuries to his face.

20.The learned defence counsel (legal aid counsel) interalia submitted that “there is a delay of six and half hours in filing a complaint, and the delay was not explained by the PW1, and there is no motive for the accused to commit this offence.”.

21.On perusal of the record, Ex.P1 and Ex.P5 reveal that the incident occurred at 10 a.m. on May 11, 2023, and the complaint was lodged at 4.30 p.m. During the cross­examination of Pw­11, he admitted that there was a delay of six and a half hours in filing the complaint. Therefore, admittedly, there is a delay of six and a half hours. However, in Ex.P1, PW1 mentioned that the injured was shifted to the Government Hospital,

Manthani, and from there he was taken to Surabhi Hospital, Karimnagar, for better treatment. As a result, the delay occurred. Hence, the PW1 has properly explained the delay of six and a half hours in lodging complaint.

As per the evidence of Pw­1, PW2 and PW6, on May 10, 2023, at about 11 p.m., the accused came to their house and knocked on the doors, but they did not open them. As a result, the accused threatened them with dire

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.11 of 16 consequences and left their house. On the next morning, the accused again entered their shop and demanded to supply alcohol on a credit basis, but

Pw­6 refused to do so. The evidence of Pw­1, 2, and 6 shows that the accused threatened them to kill them as they did not open their shop during night hours and refused to supply alcohol on a credit basis. Hence, the prosecution has explained the motive. Therefore, there is no strength in the arguments of learned defence counsel.

22. The offence under section 448 IPC: The evidence of PW1 to PW6 reveals that PW6, who is injured, and accused were present at the place of offence, at the time of the incident. Hence, the presence of the injured and accused at the place of offence is established. Further, PW1 and PW2 were present in the house, which is adjacent to the shop, and PW3 is working in the Anganwadi school, which is situated in front of the shop of the injured.

Therefore, PW1 to PW3 are natural witnesses. PW4 and PW5 were crossing the house of PW1 to go to their field. Hence, the presence of Pw4 and 5 is probable near the scene of the offence.

23. During the cross­examination of PW1 to PW6, nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence; their oral testimony is consistent, and no material contradictions were found. Hence, their evidence is trustworthy. Therefore,

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.12 of 16 this Court opines that from the evidence of PW1 to PW6, the prosecution has established that the accused trespassed into the shop of PW6 and attacked him with an axe and caused fractured injuries on his face. Hence, the prosecution has established the ingredients for the offence under

Section 448 IPC.

24. The offence under section 307 IPC:

In the Judgment of Lachman Singh vs State Of Haryana (,AIR 2006

SUPREME COURT 2763), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as follows:­ “It is sufficient to justify a conviction under Section 307 if there is present an intent coupled with some overact in execution thereof. It is not essential that bodily injury capable of causing death should have been inflicted. "

As per the ratio laid down in the above judgement, to establish the offence under Section 307 IPC, the prosecution has to establish the act of the accused and also his intention to kill injured.

25. In the case in hand,Ex.P1 and the evidence of Pw­1 to 6 disclose that the accused carried an axe and attacked PW6 with an intention to kill

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.13 of 16 him, which shows that the accused trespassed into the house of PW1 with pre­planned actions; as such, he carried the dangerous weapon, i.e., the axe. Further, as per the medical evidence, the injured person sustained fractured injuries on his face, and as per the injured and eyewitnesses evidence, the accused attacked the injured on his head. Therefore, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is established that the accused attacked PW6 on his head, which is a vital part, and the victim sustained fractured injuries to his two facial bones. Hence, from the weapon used by the accused in commission of the offence and the nature of the injury, it is presumed that the accused attacked PW6 with an intention to kill him.

Therefore, from the evidence of Pw1 to Pw­11 and from the recitals of

Ex.P­1 to P­6, the prosecution has established the act of the accused and his intention to kill the injured. 

26.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the view that by adducing oral and documentary evidence on record, the prosecution has proved that the accused attempted to murder Pw­6 with an axe. Hence, the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 307 of the IPC.

Accordingly, points No. 1 and 2 are answered in favor of the prosecution and against the accused.

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.14 of 16

27. In the result, the accused is found guilty ofthe offence punishable under Sections 448 and 307 of the IPC. Accordingly, he is convicted under

Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be cancelled. The remand period already undergone by the accused shall be set off under section 428 CrPC. No property is deposited before this court.

Hence, there is no order as to the disposal of the case property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 28 th day of March, 2024.

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MANTHANI

28. Hearing on quantum of sentence:

The accused is questioned with regard to the quantum of sentence; he stated that he is the sole breadwinner of his family and he has to take care of his son and requested a lenient view. The accused was also involved in Cr.No.99/2023 under Section 302 of the IPC, which is a grave offence; hence, this court is not inclined to apply the Probation of Offenders Act or the provision under Section 360 of the CrPC.

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.15 of 16

29. Taking into consideration the gravity of the offence and the facts of the case, the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/­ (Rupees two thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of the fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Further, the accused is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/­ (Rupees one thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 448 IPC. In default of payment of the fine amount, the accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. Both of the above­mentioned sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period already undergone by the accused from 07.08.2023 to 28.03.2024 shall be set off under section 428 CrPC. The accused is informed about the right to prefer an appeal against this judgment and the availability of free legal aid. A copy of the judgement is supplied to the accused free of cost against the receipt.

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MANTHANI

S.C.No.119 of 2023 Page No.16 of 16

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: 

PW.1/Dupam Swapna/defacto complainant, PW.2/Dupam Prashanth/eye witness. PW.3/Kolakani Saritha/eye witness. PW.4/Kolakani Sammaiah/eye witness. PW.5/Shanaveni Sanil/eye witness. PW.6/Dupam Srinivas/injured. PW.7/Kolakani Ramesh/panch witness for CDF. PW.8/Manthani Sandeep/panch witness for confession and seizure. PW.9/Dasari Rajashekar/ panch witness for confession and seizure. PW.10/Dr.Thirupathi Jakkani/Medical Officer. PW.11/A.Venkateshwar/Investigation Officer .

FOR DEFENCE: NIL

::EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Complaint by PW1. Ex.P2Crime detail form. Ex.P3:Relevant portion of Attested copy of confession panchanama, dated:11.05.2023. Ex.P4:Medical legal certificate of PW6. Ex.P5:First Information Report. Ex.P6:Relevant portion of seizure panchanama (Attested copy).

FOR DEFENCE: ­ ­ NONE­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: MO1:one Axe along with handle

Sd/­ 

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MANTHANI.

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.1 of 15

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :AT: MANTHANI.

PRESENT:­ SMT. E. BHARATHI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 12th DAY OF APRIL, 2024

 APPEAL SUIT NO.7 of 2018

Between:­

Gudi Kondal Reddy, S/o. Chokka Reddy, Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mutharam village and mandal, Peddapalli District.

…Appellant/Defendant AND 1Peyyala Kumar, S/o. Lasmaiah 2Anumula @ Vanam Lasmaiah, S/o. Seetharamudu (died) per LRs 3Kukkala Rambabu, S/o. Rajaiah 4Boini Rajaiah, S/o. Rajanarsu

All are R/o. Mutharam (M) village and Mandal, Peddapalli District.

…Respondents/Plaintiffs

Memorandum of Appeal filed under Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated.16.02.2018 passed in O.S. No. 78 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior

Civil Judge at Manthani.

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.2 of 15

Between:­ 1Peyyala Kumar, S/o. Lasmaiah 2Anumula @ Vanam Lasmaiah, S/o. Seetharamudu (died per LRs) 3Kukkala Rambabu, S/o. Rajaiah, 4Boini Rajaiah, S/o. Rajanarsu

All are R/o. Mutharam (M) village and Mandal, Peddapalli District.

…Plaintiffs

AND

Gudi Kondal Reddy, S/o. Chokka Reddy, Age: 49 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mutharam village and mandal, Peddapalli District.

… Defendant

This appeal is coming before me for a final hearing in the presence of Sri K.V.L.N. Hari Babu, Advocate for the Appellant/Defendant, and Sri A.Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the Respondents/Plaintiffs No.1 and 4, and Respondent/Plaintiff No.3, who remained exparte, and the case against Respondent/Plaintiff No.2 is abated and upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard both sides, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 16.02.2018 passed in O.S.No.78 of 2008 on the file of the learned

Principal Junior Civil Judge at Manthani.

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.3 of 15

2.The Respondents/Plaintiffs filed the suit for perpetual injunction against the defendant, and the averments made in the plaint in brief are as follows:­

The plaintiffs are the owners and possessors of Sy.No.450/1 measuring Ac.5­00 gts, Ac: 2­00 gts, Ac: 2­00 gts, and Ac: 1­00 gts, respectively, and the total extent is Ac: 10­00 gts, situated at

Mutharam (M) village, Shivar, and Mandal (hereinafter referred to as suit schedule property). The plaintiff No. 1 purchased to an extent of Ac. 2.00 gt each from one Peyyala Rajaiah and from

Maddavena Madhunaiah and to an extent of Ac.1.00 gts from

Boina Rajaiah in the year 1994 through a simple sale deed and got them validated in ROR proceedings, the said land was mutated in his name and he obtained pattedar passbooks and title deeds and a decree for declaration of title in OS.No.61/1992 was granted in their favour. The plaintiffs have been enjoying the suit land as its owners and possessors by cultivating the suit land for the past 14 years by raising different crops on the suit land.

The defendant, who is totally alien to the suit land and who has no right or any sort of interest or claim over the suit land, has been constantly interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit land. Hence, the suit.

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.4 of 15

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement by denying the averments in the plaint and submitted that the appellant/defendant is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.451/1 to an extent of Ac: 3­39 gts, and the same was purchased from its pattedar N.Venkata Rao and others in the year 1993 through a simple sale deed, and the revenue officials validated the same under ROR procedure vide file No.B/461/2008 and issued ROR pass books and title deeds in his favour. During the course of suit proceedings, the plaintiff No.1 filed an appeal

before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, to cancel the

ROR pass books issued in the name of the appellant/defendant.

The Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani, ordered a detailed inquiry conducted by the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer to dismiss the appeal of plaintiffs by confirming the title and possession of the defendant in suit schedule property and he prayed to dismiss the suit.

4. On the strength of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is in actual lawful possession suit schedule property ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief of the perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.5 of 15

3. To what relief ?

5.During the trial, Plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 were examined as PW­1 to PW3 and marked Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­8 documents. On behalf of the defendant, DW­1 to DW­3 were examined and exhibited as Ex B­1 to B­39 documents.

6.On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the trial court decreed the suit with costs.

7.Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment, the defendant preferred the present appeal. The grounds of appeal, in brief, are as follows:

1. The judgment passed by the trial court is incorrect, contrary to the facts, opposed to evidence and pleadings on record, and liable to be set aside. The trial court totally erred in appreciating the evidence, came to the wrong conclusion, and passed the impugned judgment and decree under appeal, which is liable to be set aside.

2.The trial court failed to consider the documentary evidence and appreciate the documents, i.e., Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­8 and

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.6 of 15

Ex.B­1 to Ex. B­39, with careful observation, ignored the admitted facts, and passed the wrong judgment.

3.The trial court totally failed to consider, the legal notices and reply notices, and appreciate the material placed

before the court. Even though the defendant established his

possession, the trial court decreed the suit.

4.As per Order VII Rule 3 of C.P.C., the plaintiffs have to prove their title as well as possession over the suit property. In the present case, the plaintiffs did not file any documents, i.e., sale deeds, 13 (b) and 13 (c), or mutation proceedings, to show how they acquired the suit land. 

5.The finding of the trial court in passing the judgment is perverse, erroneous, against the law and facts on record, hence unsustainable, and liable to be set aside. Hence, the defendant prayed to allow the appeal.

8.The Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 filed counter by reiterating the averments of the plaint, and they submitted that, as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, the plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 are pattedars of suit land, and under Ex.A4, they obtained a declaratory decree against the vendors of defendant. Further,

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.7 of 15 in Ex.B4 to B6, Ex.B28, Ex.B31 to Ex.B34, and Ex.B39, the plaintiffs and defendant were shown as pattedars and possessors, and in Ex.A1 to A8, Ex.B4, Ex.B33, Ex.B34, and

Ex.B38, plaintiffs are shown as pattedars and possessors.

During the cross­examination of DW1, he admitted that he filed a suit vide O.S.No.97 of 2008 with respect to suit property measuring Ac.3­39 gts against the plaintiffs before this Court, but he did not disclose the result of said suit. According to the own admission of DW­1, he purchased the suit land in 1993 through a simple sale deed, and the same was regularized in 2008. During the cross­examination of DW­2 and 3, they admitted that since 1993 to 2008, the defendant was not in possession of the suit land. From the evidence of DW­1 to

DW­3, it is discloses that, the defendant purchased the suit land to an extent of Ac. 3–39 gts in the year 1993, yet he was not in possession of the suit land as per his own witnesses until 2008. Hence, at the time of filing the suit by the plaintiffs against the defendant, the defendant was not in possession of suit land as on the date of filing the suit and the possession of the defendant is only a paper possession and not a physical possession. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayed to dismiss the appeal.

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.8 of 15

9.Noadditionaldocuments were marked on behalf of both sides.Both the learned counsel addressed oral arguments; the learned counsel for the appellant also filed written arguments.

The parties are referred to as "arrayed" in the original suit

before the trial court.

10. Considering the contentions of both parties, the following points are framed for determination:

1.Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of the entire suit schedule property ?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of the perpetual injunction as prayed for ?

3.Whether the defendant is in possession of the part of the suit land ?

4.Whether the Judgment and decree of the trial court are liable to be set aside as prayed for ?

5.To what relief ?

11. Points No. 1 to 5:

This court has gone through the judgment of the trial court.

Perused the record. The plea of the plaintiffs is that they are the owners and possessors of suit­scheduled property, and they

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.9 of 15 obtained a declaratory decree against their vendors in OS No. 61 of 1992 and subsequently they obtained passbooks and title deeds.

12.To prove the case of the plaintiffs, Pw­1 to 3 were examined and got marked Ex.A­1 to Ex.A­8 documents. Pw­1 to 3 filed their chief examination affidavit by reiterating the averments of the plaint.

13. Ex.A1 to A3 show that the pattedar passbook was issued to

Vanam Lasmaiah, Kukkala Rajaiah, and Peyyala Kumar in respect of Sy.No.450/1, Ac.2­00 guntas, Ac.2­00 guntas, and

Ac.5­00 guntas, respectively. Ex.A4 discloses that Peyyala

Rajaiah, and three others filed a suit for declaration of title in respect of Sy.No.450/1 to an extent of Ac.10­00 guntas against

Nagineni Madhav Rao and five others, and the same is decreed in

OS.No.61/1992 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court at

Manthani, dated July 15, 1992. Under Ex.A5, a letter was addressed to Tahsildar, Mutharam, with a direction to implement the decree in O.S. No. 61/1992. Ex.A6 discloses that the names of Nagineni Madahav Rao, Kukkala Rajaiah, Vanam Lasmaiah, and Pingili Malla Reddy were recorded as pattedars in respect of

Sy.No.450/1 to an extent of Ac.16–08 guntas. Ex.A7 discloses

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.10 of 15 that the names of Nagineni Madahav Rao, Kukkala Rajaiah,

Baswaiah, and Peyala Kumar were recorded as pattedars in respect of Sy.No.450/1 to an extent of Ac.16–08 guntas. Ex. A8 was issued by Village Revenue Officer, and it is not attested by

Tahasildar; hence, it is not taken into consideration.

14.To prove the case of the defendant,he himself was examined as DW­1 and got exhibited Ex.B­1 to Ex.B­39 on his behalf.

Other two witnesses were examined as DW­2 and DW­3. The chief evidence of Dw­1 is the replica of the written statement of the defendant and DW­2 and DW­3 supported the case of the defendant in their chief examination affidavit.

15. Ex.B­1 shows that the defendant was the pattedar of

Sy.No.450/1/D to an extent of Ac.3­39 guntas, and as per

Ex.B­2, he was in possession of the same. Under Ex.B­3, the

Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani dismissed the appeal filed by plaintiff No. 1 herein and others against the defendant. Ex.B­4 and Ex.B­6 reflect that defendant, plaintiff No.1, father of plaintiff

No.2, father of plaintiff No.3, and plaintiff No.4 were in possession of Sy.No.450/1 to an extent of Ac.3­39 guntas, Ac.5­00 guntas,

Ac.2­00 guntas, Ac.2­00 guntas, and Ac.1­00 guntas, respectively.

As per Ex.B­5, the defendant, Plaintiff No.1, Vanam Laxmaiah,

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.11 of 15 and others were in possession of the suit survey number. Under

Ex.B­7, notice was issued by Tahsildar. Ex.B­37 shows that the

Mandal Revenue Inspector was issued a certificate stating that the defendant was in possession of Sy.No.450/1 to an extent of Ac.

3­39 guntas. Ex.B­38 shows that the Tahsildar, Mutharam

Manthani, issued a report to the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Manthani stating that the defendant was in possession of

Sy.No.450/1 to an extent of Ac.3­39 guntas, and plaintiff No.1, father of plaintiff No.2, father of plaintiff No.3, and plaintiff No.4 were in possession of Sy.No.450/1 to an extent of Ac.5­00 guntas,

Ac.2­00 guntas, Ac.2­00 guntas, and Ac.1­00 guntas, respectively.

Ex.B­39 shows that defendant, plaintiff No. 1, father of plaintiff

No. 2, father of plaintiff No. 3, and plaintiff No. 4, were in possession of Sy.No.450/1 to an extent of Ac.3­39 guntas,

Ac.5­00 guntas, Ac.2­00 guntas, Ac.2­00 guntas, and Ac.1­00 guntas, respectively.

16.During the cross­examination of PW1, he stated that he did not mention the boundaries of the lands of individual plaintiffs separately in the plaint. PW2 and PW3 admitted that the defendant may have purchased the land from the same vendor of

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.12 of 15 the plaintiffs. However, during the cross examination of Pw­1 to 3, nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence.

17.The main case of the defendant is that he purchased the land to an extent of Ac. 3–39 guntas in suit survey number from its pattedars, namely N. Venkatrao and others, with specific boundaries, and subsequently, his name was mutated in revenue records.

18.In cross­examination, DW1 stated that in 1993 he purchased suit land from one Nagineni Madhav Rao and others through a simple sale deed, and in 2008 it was regularized. As per Ex.A4, plaintiff No. 4 and others obtained a declaration of title decree against said Nagineni Madhav Rao and others, and the defendant has failed to show that his vendor preferred any appeal against the judgment in OS.No.61/1992. Hence, the defendant failed to disprove the title of the plaintiffs.

19.The defendant contended that since the date of purchase, he has been in possession of the said land, and when the plaintiffs tried to interfere with the possession of the defendant, he filed a suit in OS No. 97/2008, in which CMA No. 6/09 on the file of this

Court is pending.

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.13 of 15

20.During the cross­examination of DW1, he stated that he does not know the result of the suit in OS No. 97/2008. Further copy of said judgment in OS No. 97/2008 was not brought on record. Hence, the defendant failed to prove that the suit in OS

No. 97/2008 was decreed in his favour.

21.As per the case of the defendant, the Mandal Revenue

Officer issued a report in proceeding No.B/414/09. However, the proceeding No.B/414/ 09/Ex.B­38 also shows the possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, the defendant failed to disprove the possession of the plaintiffs over suit schedule property.

22.During the cross­examination of DW2 and DW3, they admitted that since 1993 to 2008, the defendant has not been in possession of the suit­schedule property, and the suit­schedule property consists of one kunta shikham towards the south side.

Therefore, from the evidence of DW2 and DW3, the defendant failed to establish that since 1993 he was in possession of the Ac.

3–39 guntas land in suit survey number.

23.The learned defendant’s counsel contended that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A4 and the plaint boundaries are different. However, on perusal of Ex.A4 and the suit schedule, it is

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.14 of 15 clear that both boundaries are tallied. Therefore, there is no merit in the arguments of the learned defendant’s counsel.

24.Hence, in view of the above discussion, this Court opines that the plaintiff’s established their long­standing possession over the suit schedule property with metes and bounds. As such, the plaintiffs are entitled to a perpetual injunction over the suit schedule property. The trial court elaborately discussed all the evidence on record. Therefore, there is no necessity to interfere with the judgment of the trial court. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, points Nos. 1 to 5are answered against the appellant/defendant and in favour ofthe respondents/ plaintiffs. 

25. IN THE RESULT, this appeal is dismissed, confirming the

Judgment and decree of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Manthani in O.S.No.78 of 2008, Dt: 16.02.2018.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of April, 2024.

 Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

 ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

A.S.No.7 of 2018

Page No.15 of 15

Appendix of Evidence

For Appellant For Respondents 

­­­ NIL­­­ ­­­ NIL­­­

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

 ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.1 of 13

 IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :AT: MANTHANI.

 PRESENT:­ SMT. E. BHARATHI,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

O.S.NO. 02 OF 2017

Between:

Vemula Rajam, S/o. Buchaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ladnapur of Mutharam (M) Mandal. …Plaintiff // AND //

1. Vemula Chandu, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 50 years, Occ: Agriculture. (Died) Represented by his Lrs Defendants No.3 to 5.

2.Vemula Ravi, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Manthani. 

3. Vemula Bhoodamma, W/o. Late.Chandu, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household.

4.Vemula Anjali, D/o. Chandu, Age: 27 years, Occ: Household.

5.Vemula Renuka, D/o. Late. Chandu, Age: 23 years, Occ: Household. All are R/o. Pochammawada area of Manthani village and mandal. 

...Defendants No.1 to 3.

This suit is coming before me for a final hearing on April 12, 2024, in the presence of Sri A. Ramesh Babu, Advocate for the plaintiff, and Sri M. Sayender Reddy, Advocate for Defendants No.1 to 5, and upon perusing the material papers

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.2 of 13 on record, having been heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

2.The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:­

Vemula Rajalingu, S/o. Rajam purchased land in

Sy.No.127/A, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4­25 guntas, situated at Vilochavaram of Manthani mandal from one Konda

Pochi and land in Sy.No.78/B, admeasuring to an extent of Ac.3­ 24 guntas situated at Angloor shivar of Manthani mandal from

Venkata Muthyam Rao (herein after referred to as suit schedule properties). The said Rajalingu died issue less, and he has two brothers by name Vemula Rayamallu. Vemula Kondaiah, but the land in Sy.No.127/A admeasuring to an extent of Ac.4­25 guntas was transferred in the name of Vemula Rajam @ Rajaiah, S/o.

Rayamallu, who is own brother of the father of the plaintiff. After the death of Vemula Rajam, S/o. Rayamallu (who died issue less), the defendants illegally occupied the land. The land in

Sy.No.78/B to an extent of Ac.3­24 guntas was also transferred without any basis in the name of Vemula Ramaiah, S/o. Kondiah.

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.3 of 13

As per the pedigree, Vemula Rajam, s/o. Buchaiah and Vemula

Chandraiah, S/o.Kondaiah, Vemula Ravi, (Defendants) are the class­II legal heirs of late Vemula Rajam and also Vemula

Rajalingu. The plaintiff and the father of Defendants ie., Vemula

Ramaiah are co­parceners and they are entitled to half share each in the suit schedule properties. As Vemula Ramaiah died, the

Defendants being his two sons are entitled to half share together.

The plaintiff is entitled to Ac.2­12 ½ guntas with separate possession i.e., his half share in Sy.No.127/A and Ac.1­32 gts., in

Sy.No.78/B, similarly, the Defendant No.1 is entitled to Ac.1­06 ¼ gts., in Sy.No.127/A and Ac.0­36 gts., in Sy.No.78/B, and defendant No.2 Ac.1­06 ¼ gts., in Sy.No.127/A and Ac.0­36 gts., in Sy.No.78/B. The properties were under the joint ownership and possession of forefathers of plaintiff and defendants.The plaintiff was unware of the fact that first the lands were changed to the name of grand father of Defendants Kondaiah and the from to their father Ramaiah. As such the plaintiff did not agitate the matter for partition with Defendants father as he was regularly receiving his share in the crop from the suit properties from the

Defendants and from their father too. In the year, 2008, when the

Defendants deny crop share in the suit properties, the plaintiff's father filed appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani for

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.4 of 13 cancellation of records and for mutation of land to their names to the extent of his share in the suit properties. The Revenue

Divisional Officer vide Orders, Dt.17.08.2013 vide appeal

No.A/745/2008 allowed the appeal of the plaintiff's father and cancelled the passbooks of the father of the Defendants and directed the Mandal Revenue Officer, Manthani, and accordingly, the Mandal Revenue Officer vide file No.B/3215/2013, Dt.

04/8/2015 mutated the half share of suit land in the revenue records and issued passbook to the plaintiff, as the father of plaintiff died during the course of time. The Joint Collector,

Karimnagar allowed revision petition vide RP.No.D1/4283/2013, and directed both parties to approach the civil court for determination of their rights. The Joint Collector did not cancel the passbook of the plaintiff nor passed any observation against his possession in the suit land to the extent of half share. The plaintiff and Defendants have been in physical possession of their respective shares on the basis of family oral settlement from the years 2008 but not with metes and bounds. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, defendant No.2 filed written statement by denying the averments of the plaint and the same was adopted by defendant No.3 to 5 and submitted that, originally Vemula

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.5 of 13

Rajalingu, S/o. Rajam was the original pattedar of the suit schedule properties. The said Vemula Rajalingu is the brother of defendant No.2’s grandfather by name Vemula Kondaiah. The wife of Vemula Rajalingu is predeceased to him and he is issueless, as such, the father of the defendant No.2 by name

Vemula Ramaiah looked after his welfare in his old age and cultivated the lands owned by Vemula Rajalingu. During his lifetime, Vemula Rajalingu has gifted the suit schedule properties to Vemula Ramaiah. The revenue authorities had also issued old pattadar passbook in favour of the Vemula Ramaiah. Except the father of defendant No.2 nobody was in possession and cultivated the suit schedule properties after Vemula Rajalingu. The panchanama conducted by the Mandal Revenue Inspector,

Manthani on the instruction of Tahasildar, Manthani reveals the facts in favour of defendants. Subsequently, the pattedar passbook and title deed has been issued in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of Vemula Ramaiah by the revenue authorities and his name was entered in revenue records as pattedar and possessor. After the death of their father, the suit schedule land has been mutated in the name of defendant No.2 and defendant No.1 equally. Since the death of Vemula Ramaiah the defendant No.1 and 2 are enjoying the suit schedule

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.6 of 13 properties. Neither the plaintiff nor his father had been in possession of the suit schedule properties at any point of time and they are no way concerned with the suit schedule properties. The

ROR appeal No.745/2008, was allowed and aggrieved by the said order, the the defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 have filed revision petition vide R.P.No.D1/4283/2013 before the Joint

Collector, Karimnagar and the same was allowed, and directed the parties to approach Civil Court. Subsequently, the plaintiff has filed the present suit with all false and untenable allegations by concocting false story stating that the suit schedule properties were already partitioned, but not with metes and bounds. The suit is not maintainable and the plaintiff is not entitled for partition. Hence, they prayed to dismiss the suit.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial:­

1) Whether Vemula Rayamallu is the brother of Vemula Rajalingu ?

2)Whether the Suit Schedule Property was under the joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants up to the year 2008 ?

3)Whether the plaintiff is in possession of ½ share of suit schedule properties from the last (8) years ?

4)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to share in the suit schedule properties as prayed for ?

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.7 of 13

5)To what relief ?

5.In support of the contention of the plaintiff, he himself was examined as PW­1 and got marked Ex.A­1 to A­12 documents and other witnesses were examined as Pw­2 and Pw­3. On the other hand, defendant No.2 was examined as Dw­1 and got marked

Ex.B­1 to B­6 documents and another witness was examined as

Dw­2.

6.Heard both sides.

Issue Nos.1 to 5:

7.The learned counsel for the plaintiff filed written arguments and he inter­alia submitted that, the suit schedule properties belong to Late Vemula Rajalingu, S/o. Rajam, who died without heirs and he had two brothers namely Rayamallu and Kondaiah, as such, the plaintiff along with the defendants are Class­II legal heirs to inherit the properties of said late Vemula Rajalingu.

8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant also filed written arguments and he inter­alia submitted that, defendants are the only Class­II legal heirs of original pattedar, as such, defendants inherited the suit schedule properties and plaintiff is no way related to the suit schedule properties. 

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.8 of 13

9.This Court considered the rival submissions of both learned counsel and perused the record. 

10.To prove the case of the plaintiff, he himself examined as

Pw1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A12 documents. The chief evidence affidavit of PW1 is a reiteration of the plaint's averments. The then Village Revenue Officer, Manthani (Retired) was examined as

Pw­2. Another witness was examined as Pw­3.

11.As per Ex.A­1 and A­2, pattedar passbooks were issued to the plaintiff in respect of Sy.No.78 AA to an extent of 1­32 guntas and Sy.No.127/A to an extent of Ac.2­12 ½ guntas. Ex.A­3 shows that, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Manthani has cancelled the mutation orders in favour of the Vemula Rajam and Vemula

Ramaiah and later in the name of the defendants i.e., Vemula

Chandu and Vemula Ravi. As per Ex.A­4, Tahasildar issued orders vide proceedings No.B/3215/2013, Dt.04.08.2015 in favour of the plaintiff and Ex.A­5 reveals that, plaintiff and

Vemula Ramaiah are pattedars and possessors of Sy.No.78 AA.

Ex.A­7 to A­9 and A­12 disclose that, Vemula Rajam (plaintiff) was pattedar of Sy.No.78 AA to an extent of 1­32 guntas. Ex.A­6,

A­10 and A­11 show that, Vemula Rajam (plaintiff) was pattedar of Sy.No.127/A to an extent of Ac.2­1253 guntas.

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.9 of 13

12.To prove the case of the defendants, defendant No.2 himself was examined as Dw­1, and Ex.B­1 to B­6 documents were marked. Another witness, Narsaiah,was examined as Dw.2. The chief evidence affidavits of DW1 and DW2 are reiterations of the written statement averments.

13.Ex.B­1 to 4 reveal that, pattedar passbooks were issued in favour of Chandraiah and Ravi in respect of suit survey number.

Ex.B­5 shows that, Vemula Rajalingu is the owner of the survey

Numbers 24/78 to an extent of Ac.3­23 guntas and 23/81 to an extent of Ac.4­24 guntas. Ex.B­6 discloses that, Chandraiah and

Ravi were in possession of suit schedule properties. 

14.As per record, there is no dispute with regard to the ownership of Vemula Rajalingu, S/o. Rajam in respect of suit schedule properties and his death without issueless. The main dispute is the relationship between plaintiff and original owner.

As per the plaintiff, the original pattedar has two brothers i.e., father of the plaintiff and Kondaiah. But, as per the defendants, said Rajalingu had only one brother namely Kondaiah and the defendants are the legal heirs of late Kondaiah.

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.10 of 13 15.During the cross examination of Pw­1 to 3, nothing was elicited to discredit their evidence and Dw­1 denied the relationship of plaintiff with late Rajalingu. Admittedly, the defendants have not filed any documentary evidence to show that, the said Rajalingu had only one brother i.e., Kondaiah. On the other hand, the plaintiff has produced Ex.A­4 and A­5 which disclose the pedigree of late Rajalingu and as per said pedigree, it is evident that, the plaintiff’s father namely Buchaiah is the brother of late Rajalingu and Kondaiah is also brother of Late

Rajalingu, who died issueless. As such, both the heirs of

Buchaiah and Kondaiah are the Class­II legal heirs of late

Rajalingu. The evidence of Pw­2 reveals that, he was the then

Village Revenue Officer, Manthani and on the instructions of

Tahasildar, he enquired in the village and Revenue Inspector filed a report before Tahasildar and no positive evidence was brought on record by the defendants to disprove the version of Pw­2. The defendants have not brought any documentary evidence to show that, Ex.A­4, A­5 and pedigree mentioned in said documents were challenged. Therefore, the preponderance of possibilities are in the favour of the plaintiff, as such, this Court opines that, the plaintiff established that, he is the Class­II legal heir of late

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.11 of 13

Vemula Rajalingu, as such, he is entitled for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties as prayed for. 

16.In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that, by adducing oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiff hasestablished his claim.Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

Accordingly, issue Nos. 1 to 5 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.

17. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs, granting a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession in favour of the plaintiff and by allotting ½ share each to the plaintiff, and defendants No.1 to 5 in respect of Suit Schedule properties. 

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 12 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.12 of 13

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF: FOR THE DEFENDANTS:

PW­1 : Vemula Rajam. DW­1 : Vemula Ravi.

PW­2 : Pendli Raji Reddy. DW­2 : Ili Narsaiah.

PW­3 : Jitti Rajababu.

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

Ex.A­1Pattedar passbook of plaintiff, patta No.781.

Ex.A­2Pattedar passbook of plaintiff, patta No.280.

Ex.A­3ROR Order of RDO, Manthani in file No.A/745/2018.

Ex.A­4Proceedings of Tahasildar, Manthani in file No.B/3215/2013.

Ex.A­5 Mee­seva pahani, phasli year, 1426 of Sy.No.78/AA, Dt.06.02.2017.

Ex.A­6 Mee­seva pahani, phasli year, 1426 of Sy.No.127/A, Dt.06.02.2017.

Ex.A­7 1­B Namoona (ROR) of Sy.No.78/AA, Dt.06.02.2017.

Ex.A­8 1­B Namoona (ROR) of Sy.No.127/A, Dt.06.02.2017.

Ex.A­9 Mee­seva pahani, phasli year, 1426 of Sy.No.78/AA, Dt.27.06.2017.

Ex.A­10 Mee­seva pahani, phasli year, 1426 of Sy.No.127/A, Dt.27.06.2017.

Ex.A­111­B Namoona (ROR) of Sy.No.78/AA, Dt.27.06.2017.

Ex.A­121­B Namoona (ROR) of Sy.No.127/A, Dt.27.06.2017.

O.S.No.02 of 2017

Page No.13 of 13

FOR THE DEFENDANTS :

Ex.B­1: Pattedar passbook of Defendant No.1 of Vilochavaram village. 

Ex.B­2:Pattedar passbook of Defendant No.1 of Anguluru village. 

Ex.B­3:Pattedar passbook of Defendant No.2 of Vilochavaram village. 

Ex.B­4:Pattedar passbook of Defendant No.2 of Anguluru village. 

Ex.B­5:Original 38­E Certificate. 

Ex.B­6:CC of Pahani for the year, 2015­16. (2)

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.1 of 12

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE :AT: MANTHANI.

PRESENT:­ SMT. BHARATHI ERRA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

 MANTHANI.

FRIDAY, ON THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024

O.S. NO. 25 OF 2018

Between:

Kovvuri Suresh, S/o. Ramaiah, Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Ratnapur village of Ramagiri Mandal, Peddapalli District. 

...Plaintiff. 

Bandra Shankaraiah, S/o. Lachaiah, Age: 40 years, Occ: Agriculture and Driver, R/o. Ratnapoor village of Ramagiri mandal, Peddapalli District. 

 ...Defendant. 

This suit is coming before me for a final hearing on March 28, 2024, in the presence of Sri K. Raghotham Reddy, Advocate for the Plaintiff, and Sri K. Sadan Kumar, Advocate for the Defendant, and the matter having been stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivered the following:­

J U D G M E N T

This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant under

Section 26 r/w Order VII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure for the recovery of the amount of Rs.7,29,310/­ (Rupees Seven lakhs, twenty­nine thousand, three hundred and ten only).

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.2 of 12

2.The brief averments of plaint are as follows:

The defendant is the co­brother of the plaintiff, who hails from the same village. Out of acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff for a hand loan of an amount of Rs.

4,33,000/­ (Rupees Four Lakhs, Thirty Three Thousand only) on

September 3, 2015, for his family and business purposes, and executed three promissory notes for Rs.1,50,000/­ (Rupees One

Lakh, Fifty Thousand only), Rs.1,50,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh,

Fifty Thousand only), and Rs.1,33,000/­ (Rupees One Lakh,

Thirty Three Thousand only), and the defendant also agreed to pay interest at 2% per month on the borrowed amount. The plaintiff requested repayment of the borrowed amount, but the defendant refused the same on one or the other pretext. Finally, on August 24, 2018, the plaintiff and some elders approached the defendant for repayment of the above­mentioned amounts, but his efforts were in vain. Hence, the suit.

3.On the other hand, the defendant filed his written statement by admitting the relation with the plaintiff and denied the other averments of the plaint and submitted that, on

December 4, 2016, the plaintiff, Kovvuri Suresh, borrowed an

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.3 of 12 amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four Lakhs only) and executed a promissory note on the same day. In the month of May 2018, the borrowed amount was settled between them. After payment of the said amount, the defendant asked the plaintiff about the original promissory note, but the plaintiff did not return the promissory note, as the promissory note was misplaced in his house documents. Despite the payment of the said amount, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendant on August 30, 2018.

In this regard, the defendant approached the panchayath elders, but the plaintiff never showed interest in attending before the elders. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit. 

4.Based on the above pleadings, one of my learned predecessors settled the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the plaintiff executed the promissory note, dated.01.12.2016 for Rs.4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four Lakhs only) in favour of defendant, filed alongwith the written statement, as prayed for ?

2. Whether the plaintiff and defendant settled the respective debts between them, as pleaded in the written statement, by the defendant ?

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.4 of 12

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim as prayed for ?

4. To what relief ?

5.To substantiate the claim of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as Pw­1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, and another two witnesses were examined as Pw­2 and Pw­3. On the other hand, the defendant himself was examined as DW.1, and during the cross examination of Pw­1, Ex.B­1 was marked.

6.Heard and perused the record.

ISSUES NOs.1 to 4:

7.In support of the case of the plaintiff, Pw­1 was examined, and he filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief. The contents of the affidavits are reiterations of plaint averments. To prove the case of the plaintiff, Pw1 exhibited

Ex.A­1 to A­5 documents. The evidence of Pw1 discloses that defendant borrowed an amount of Rs.4,33,000/­ (Rupees Four

Lakhs, Thirty Three Thousand only) from plaintiff and executed three promissory notes under Ex.A­1 to A­3 in favour of the plaintiff,promising to repay the same with interest at the rate of

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.5 of 12 2 % per month, and despite several requests, defendant failed to repay the said amount.Pw2, who is a witness, and PW3, who is a scribe to Ex.A­1 to A­3, supported the evidence of Pw­1. 

8.Ex.A1 to 3 are the original promissory notes, dated

September 3, 2015, which show that the defendant executed three promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff for total amount ofRs.4,33,000/­ (Rupees Four lakhs, thirty­three thousand only).

9.Based on the evidence of PW.1 to 3 and the recitals of Ex.A1 to 3, the plaintiff established that Ex.A1 to 3 were executed by the defendant, who obtained a hand loan from the plaintiff and executed three promissory notes, and subsequently failed to repay the amount under the promissory notes despite the plaintiff's demand.

10. As per record, the suit is filed based on the negotiable instruments, i.e., the promissory notes; hence, the plaintiff has to prove his case to draw the statutory presumption in his favor.

With regard to the statutory presumptions under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, this Court relied upon the following judgments :

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.6 of 12 [I]Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company vs.

Amin Chand Payrelal on 18­02­1999, [ii]Ramatulasamma vs. K.Gowaraiah, 1984, 2 An WR 333:

(1983) 2 Andh LT 114 (NRC).

11.In Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Company vs.

Amin Chand Payrelal on 18­02­1999, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court held as follows:­ "It would thus be clear that when the suit is based on promissory note, and promissory note is proved to have been executed, Section 118 (a) raises the presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the promissory note was made for consideration.” 

As per the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, once the execution of the promissory note is proved, the presumption under Section 118 (a) of the Negotiable Instruments

Act is drawn in favor of the plaintiff.

12.In thecase in hand, during the cross­examination of Pw­1 to 3, except for the minor discrepancies, nothing was elicited to

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.7 of 12 prove that the signatures on Ex.A­1 to 3 do not belong to the defendant. In his written statement and chief examination of

Dw­1, the defendant has not denied the execution of promissory notes or his signatures on them. Hence, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant has executed Ex.A­1 to A­3 in his favour.

Hence, as per the ratio laid down in Bharat Barrel and Drum

Manufacturing Company Judgment (cited supra), in the case in hand, from the evidence of Pw.1 to 3 and from the contents of

Ex.A1 to A3, the plaintiff proved that the defendant executed the promissory notes, and the consideration was passed under Ex.A1 to 3. Therefore, the legal presumption can be drawn under

Section 118 of the Negotiable Instrument Act in favour of the plaintiff that the promissory notes under Ex.A1 to A­3 were executed by the defendant for consideration. Hence, the initial burden was discharged by the plaintiff. Therefore, the three promissory notes under Ex. A1 to A3 are true, valid, and binding on the defendant.

13.In Ramatulasamma vs. K.Gowaraiah, 1984, 2 An WR 333: (1983) 2 Andh LT 114 (NRC), the Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.8 of 12

High Court held as follows:­ “Burden of proof of failure of consideration shall be on the maker of the promissory note.”

As per the above judgment, the burden is on the maker of the promissory note to prove that no consideration was passed.

Therefore, the burden lies on the defendant to prove that PW.1 had no capacity to lend money and that ExA1 to A3 were executed without any valid consideration.

14.To rebut the presumption and disprove the case of the plaintiff, the defendant himself was examined as Dw1 and filed his evidence affidavit in lieu of the examination in chief, and the contents of the affidavit are reiterations of written statement averments. In support of the evidence of Dw­1, Ex.B­1 document was marked during the cross­examination of PW1.

15.Ex.B­1 discloses that the plaintiff executed a promissory note on December 4, 2016 for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four Lakhs only) in favour of the defendant. The evidence of Dw­1 shows that the defendant received some suit amount from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff also borrowed

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.9 of 12

Rs.4,00,000/­ (Rupees Four Lakhs only) from him on December 4, 2016, and on the same day, the plaintiff executed the promissory note in his favour. Further, in May 2018, they calculated their borrowed and received amount and settled the amount, and on that day, the defendant asked the plaintiff about the original promissory notes, but the plaintiff mentioned that the said documents were misplaced in his house.

16.However, during the cross­examination of Pw­1 to 3, no suggestion was given to them to prove that, the defendant asked the plaintiff to return the promissory note and plaintiff did not return them by saying that, they were misplaced in his house.

Except for his evidence, the defendant has not examined any other witness to prove his version. Hence, the defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff did not return Ex.A­1 to A­3 despite the settlement amount. As such, the defendant has failed to rebut the presumption available in favour of the plaintiff. 

17.The learned counsel for the defendant further contended that the plaintiff borrowed money from the defendant and executed a promissory note under Ex.B­1. To get benefit under

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.10 of 12

Ex.B­1, the defendant has to prove the execution of it independently. The plaintiff denied executing it and his signature and thumb impression on Ex.B­1. During the cross­examination of Pw1, nothing was elicited to prove the execution of Ex.B­1 by the plaintiff. In addition, the defendant has not taken steps to get a handwriting expert opinion concerning the proof of the plaintiff's alleged signature and thumb impression on Ex.B1.

Further, the defendant has also not chosen to examine any of the witnesses to the Ex.B­1. Hence, the defendant has failed to discharge the initial burden to draw a presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, the defendant had failed to prove that Ex.B­1 is true, valid, and binding on the plaintiff.

18.In view of the above­mentioned discussion, this Court is of the view that by adducing oral and documentary evidence, the plaintiff has established his claim. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount as prayed for. Accordingly, issues Nos. 1 to 4 are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.11 of 12

19. IN THE RESULT, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a sum of Rs.7,29,310/­ (Rupees Seven Lakhs, Twenty Nine Thousand, Three Hundred and Ten only) with future interest at the rate 12 % per annum on the principal sum of Rs.4,33,000/­ (Rupees Four Lakhs, Thirty

Three Thousand only) from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and future interest at the rate 6 percent per annum on the principal amount from the date of decree till the date of realization.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of April, 2023.

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

 MANTHANI.

O.S.No. 25 of 2018

Page No.12 of 12

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PLAINTIFFS: FOR DEFENDANT:

PW.1: Kovvuri Suresh. DW.1: Bandra Shankaraiah.

PW.2: Mudusu Chandraiah.

PW.3: Mudusu Ramesh. 

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PLAINTIFFS:

Ex.A1 : Original Promissory note, dt.03.09.2015.

Ex.A2 : Original Promissory note, dt.03.09.2015.

Ex.A3 : Original Promissory note, dt.03.09.2015.

Ex.A4 : Office copy of legal notice, dt.30.08.2018.

Ex.A5 : Original postal receipt, dt.30.08.2018.

FOR DEFENDANT :

Ex.B1 : Original Promissory note, dt.04.12.2016.

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

S.C.No.180 of 2021 Page No.1 of 8

IN THE COURT OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ASSISTANT

SESSIONS JUDGE :AT: MANTHANI

PRESENT:­ SMT.BHARATHI ERRA,

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE,

MANTHANI.

Tuesday, on this the 25th day of April, 2023

SESSIONS CASE NO. 180 OF 2021

(On committal made by the Learned Principal Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Manthani vide PRC No.3/2021)

Name of the Complainant:The State represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, Manthani P.S. (Cr.No.292/2020)

Name of the Accused :Koutam Raju, S/o. Prabhakar, age: 30 years, R/o. Vilochavaram village, Manthani Mandal. 

Charge:U/Secs. 294(b), 323, 506 and 306 of IPC.

Plea of the Accused:“ Not Guilty “

Finding of the Court:“ Not Guilty“

Sentence or Order :IN THE RESULT, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 506 and 306 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months from the date of Judgment. No property is deposited. Hence, there is no order as to the case property.

Prosecution conducted by:Sri Akula Ramulu, Additional Public Prosecutor

Accused defended bySri Dasari Upender, Advocate. 

S.C.No.180 of 2021 Page No.2 of 8 This case is coming before me on April 25, 2024, for a final hearing in the presence of Sri Akula Ramulu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/Complainant, and Sri Dasari Upender, Advocate for the accused. Upon perusing the material papers on record, having heard and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

:: J U D G M E N T ::

1.The accused has been prosecuted by the state, represented by the

Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station Manthani, for the offence under

Sections 294(b), 323, 506 and 306 of the IPC in Cr. No. 292/2020.

2.The brief story of the prosecution is as follows:

On 14.11.2020 at about 1600 hours, PW1/defacto­complainant came to the police station and lodged a telugu written complaint stating that on 09.11.2020 at about 1900 hours, when the PW1's father present nearby

Bhoolaxmi Gadde at Vilochavaram village, accused/Koutam Raju kicked his father with his legs, fisted with blows, abused in most filthy language and threatened to kill his father by keeping the previous grudges in the mind. On the same day, PW1's father consumed pesticide poision.

Thereafter, his father was shifted to the government hospital, Karimnagar for treatment. Hence, PW1 lodged report before the police.

3.On receipt of the complaint,on 14.11.2020 at 16.00 hrs, LW15/John

Reddy received complaint from PW1 and registered the case in

Cr.No.292/2020 under Section 294(b), 323 and 506 of IPC and issued FIR.

Subsequently, LW15 examined and recorded the statement of PW1 and

S.C.No.180 of 2021 Page No.3 of 8 PW2 and rushed to scene of offence situated at Vilochavaram village near

Bhoolaxmi Gadde and conducted scene observation panchanama and prepared CDF in the presence of LW12/K.Srinivas and LW13/S.Thirupathi.

Subsequently, LW15 received information that on 14.11.2020 during 18.49 hours, the deceased, Koravena Balaiah died while under going treatment in the government hospital, Karimnagar and based on information, LW15 added the section of law under section 306 of IPC and went to the government hospital and held inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of LW10/Ambati Sai Kiran and LW11/Meesala Shekar and took the photographs with the help of LW7/Gaddam Shekar and sent the requisition for PME examination. LW15/G.John Reddy examined and recorded the statements of LW3/Koravena Laxmi, LW4/Akula Mounika,

LW5/Koravena Padma and PW3 to PW5. Subsequently, on 17.11.2020 at about 10.00 hours, LW15/G.John Reddy apprehended the accused and produced him for judicial remand. Later, he collected PME report from

LW14/Dr.S.Ravinder and forwarded viscera sample of the deceased for FSL report to RFSL Karimnagar. Later, PW6/B.Omkar Yadav took up the investigation from LW15/G.John Reddy and re­examined PW1 to PW5 and

LW3 to LW5 and collected RFSL report and final opinion. After completion of investigation, PW6 filed charge sheet against the accused under sections 294(b), 323, 506, 306 of IPC.

S.C.No.180 of 2021 Page No.4 of 8

4. The case was taken cognizance for the offence punishable under

Sections 294(b), 323, 506 and 306 of IPCagainst the accused on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani, as PRC.No.3/2021.

On the appearance of the accused, copies of the case documents were furnished to him as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., and complying with the provisions of Section 209 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the

Hon’ble Principal Sessions Court, Karimnagar, where it was registered as

SC No. 180/2021 and made over to this Court for disposal according to

law.

5. After hearing the learned additional public prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused, the charges under sections 294(b), 323, 506 and 306 of IPC were framed, read over, and explained to the accused in vernacular language. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be being tried.

6. Thereafter, the schedule was fixed as required under Section 230 of

Cr.P.C.

7.During the course of trial, prosecution has examined PWs.1 to PW6 and Exs.P1 to P14 documents were marked.

9. After the closing of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the incriminating evidence appearing against him, was readover and complained to him. He denied the same

S.C.No.180 of 2021 Page No.5 of 8 and reported no defence evidence on his behalf.

10. Heard both sides.

11. Now the points for consideration are:

Whether the prosecution has been proved the guilt of accused for the offence punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 506 and 306 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts or not? 

Point No.1:­

12.Coming to the evidence of prosecution,PW.1/Koravena

Vishnuvardhan is the defacto complainant, PW.2/Akula Shanker is the circumstantial witness, PW.3/Nerendla Mallaiah, PW.4/Konda Balaiah @

Ravinder andPW.5/Minumula Sammaiah are the eyewitnesses,

PW.6/B.Omkar Yadavis the Investigation Officer.

13. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the material brought on record.

14.PW.1, who is the de facto complainant, stated that on 09.11.2020, due to ill­health, his father consumed pesticide poision, then admitted in government hospital, Karimnagar and on 14.11.2020 while undergoing treatment his father died. PW1 only admitted his signature (Ex. P.1) on the complaint. He denied his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P.2).

The evidence of PWs­2 to 5, discloses that they did not witness the incident and they also denied their statements under 161 CrPC/Exs.P­3 to 6

S.C.No.180 of 2021 Page No.6 of 8 respectively.

15. The evidence of PW6 shows that, on 14.11.2020 at 16.00 hrs,

LW15/John Reddy received complaint/Ex.P7 from PW1 and registered the case in Cr.No.292/2020 under Section 294(b), 323 and 506 of IPC and issued FIR/Ex.P8 and conducted scene observation panchanama and prepared CDF/Ex.P9 and LW15/G.John Reddy received information that on 14.11.2020 during 18.49 hours, the deceased died while under going treatment in the government hospital, Karimnagar and based on information, LW15 added the section of law under section 306 of IPC and went to the government hospital and held inquest/ExP.10 over the dead body of the deceased took the photographs/Ex.P11 and sent the requisition for PME examination report/Ex.P12. Later, PW6 took up the investigation from LW15 and re­examined PW1 to PW5 and LW3 to LW5 and collected

RFSL report/Ex.P14 and final opinion/Ex.P13. After completion of investigation, PW6 filed charge sheet against the accused under sections 294(b), 323, 506, 306 of IPC.

16. However, PW.1 denied the contents of his own complaint. Hence,

PW.1 has failed to prove the contents of the complaint, and from the evidence of PW.1 to 5, nothing was available to show that the accused committed this offence. Hence, the sole evidence of the Investigating

Officer/PW6 is not the basis for the conviction.

S.C.No.180 of 2021 Page No.7 of 8

17. Therefore, in view of the non­supporting evidence of the de facto complainant and eyewitnesses, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 506 and 306 of IPC.

Accordingly, the pointisanswered in favour of the accused and against the prosecution.

18. In the result, Accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under sections 294(b), 323, 506 and 306 of IPC. Accordingly, he is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be in force for six months from the date of Judgment. No property is deposited. Hence, there is no order as to the case property.

Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25 th day of April, 2024.

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MANTHANI

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION:

PW.1/Koravena Vishnuvardhan/defacto complainant,

PW.2/Akula Shanker/circumstantial witness

PW.3/Nerendla Mallaiah/eye witness

PW.4/Konda Balaiah @ Ravinder/eyewitness.

PW.5/Minumula Sammaiah/eyewitness,

S.C.No.180 of 2021 Page No.8 of 8 PW.6/B.Omkar Yadav/Investigation Officer.

FOR DEFENCE:

­ NONE ­

::EXHIBITS MARKED::

FOR PROSECUTION:

Ex.P1:Signature of PW1 on the complaint.

Ex.P2:Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement.

Ex.P3:Sec.161 Cr.P.C., Statement. Ex.P4:Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P5 :Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.4 Ex.P6 :Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P7:the complaint. Ex.P8:the FIR Ex.P9:the CDF Ex.P10 :the Inquest Ex.P11 :the photographs (Nos.9) of the deceased along with CD. Ex.P12 :the PME report Ex.P13 :the final opinion

Ex.P14 :the RFSL report.

FOR DEFENCE:

­NONE­

MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED: ­­Nil­­

Sd/­

SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE­CUM­ 

ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

MANTHANI