Smt. G.L. Sridevi

O.S.No. 64 OF 2016

IN THE COURT OF JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM- II ADDITIONAL

DISTRICT JUDGE, AT HANUMAKONDA

Tuesday, this the 5th day of March, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. B.SRIDEVI,

JUDGE, FAMILY COURT-CUM-

II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

O.S.No. 64 OF 2016

Between

1. Lingam Kishan Reddy, S/o. Venkatram Reddy, Age: 60 years, Hindu, Occu: Pensioner, R/o Srinagar Colony, Hyderabad.

2. Lingam Prabhakar Reddy, S/o.L.Venkatram Reddy, Age: 56 years, Hindu, Occup: Govt. Teacher,R/o.Hanamkonda, Warangal District.

… Plaintiffs

AND

1. L.Jacob Reddy, S/o.Papi Reddy, Age: 64 years, Hindu, Occu: Rtd Employee, 2, L. Raghunandan, S/o.Jacob Reddy, Aged about 36 years, Hindu,

3. Lingam Suchith Kumar, S/o. Jacob Reddy, Aged about 38 years, Hindu,

4. Lingam Sumanth Kumar, S/o.Jacob Reddy. Aged about : 41 years, Hindu,

All are R/o.Flat No. 201, H.no.1-1-894/1, Siddarthanagar, Khazipet … Defendants

This suit is coming before me on 15.02.2024 for disposal in the presence of Sri J.Visveswarudu, Advocate for the plaintiffs, and Sri

K.Narsimha Rao, Advocate for the defendants and the matter having been heard and stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:- 2 O.S.No.64 of 2016

J U D G M E N T

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiffs praying the court to pass a decree declaring the plaintiffs as owners and possessors of the suit schedule property and to direct the defendants to vacate the same and deliver the vacant possession of the suit schedule property and also consequently to pass a decree declaring that the entries made in Form

No.1(B) the Records of Rights in respect of Sy.No.717 of Madikonda

Village to be null and void and also to pass a decree consequently declaring the proceedings of the Tahsildar Hanamkonda, in granting

Pattedar Pass Books and Title Deeds to the first defendant in respect of suit Survey Number to be null and void and set aside and also to pass a decree of consequential injunction restraining the defendants their men and servants claiming through them from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property.

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

(i). The father of plaintiffs by name late Lingam Venkatram

Reddy was the owner, pattedar and possessor of several agricultural dry and wet lands situated at Tekulagudem village, within Madikonda revenue, the land various survey numbers admeasuring about Ac.31-00 gts, including the land measuring Ac.5-13 gts. in Sy No.717 of Madikonda village. The said Late Venkatram Reddy inherited the said properties from his father late Lingam Chandra Reddy, who died when Venkatram Reddy 3 O.S.No.64 of 2016 was aged about four months child. Consequent on the death of Lingam

Chandra Reddy, Lingam Venkatram Reddy, being the only son inherited the properties of his father. The said Lingam Venkatram Reddy lived till 2007 and died on 7-3-2007, when he was aged about 75 years.

(ii). That the land in Sy No.717 of Madikonda village admeasuring Ac.5- 13 gts. is one of the property inherited by the late father of the plaintiffs

Lingam Venkatram Reddy, which is the subject matter of the present suit.

That the defendants are strangers to the family of the plaintiffs as well as the suit land also and they have no right over the suit land except a resemblance in the surname among the plaintiffs and defendants, there is no relationship between their families. The defendants are popularly known to be the 'Pedda Lingam' family people in the village and the plaintiffs are 'Chinna Lingam' family, for differentiation.

(iii). The father of plaintiffs by name late Venkatram Reddy is the pattedar and possessor of the suit land, which was inherited from him father and he was in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit land which was left for the purpose of grazing. During the recent past in 2013-14, the first defendant along with his men came to the suit property and started claim the suit land to be his patta land, as per the revenue records. When the plaintiffs questioned about the propriety in claiming the suit land, he asserted that the revenue records show him to be the pattedar and as such he is coming to the suit land, but did not 4 O.S.No.64 of 2016 show the source of his right, title of interest over the over the suit land.

The plaintiffs are residing far away from the suit land on their avocations.

Taking advantage of non-availability of the plaintiffs in the village, the defendants entered in the suit land and planted Eucalyptus trees' which are now of the age about one year. During the last month visit, the plaintiffs noticed mischievous acts of the defendants in occupying the suit land and started taking steps in verification of records and procuring the same.

(iv). The plaintiffs started taking steps for getting back their property, the defendants started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over their other land in Sy.No.716 and 640 of Madikonda

Revenue village for which the plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants vide O.S.No. 12/2015 on the file of the

Hon'ble Vacation Judge, Warangal and the same is pending consideration.

On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that the first defendant in collusion with the village revenue authorities got mutated his name in revenue records fraudulently and according to the information, their father Late L. Venkatram Reddy was the pattedar and possessor of the suit land since 1965-66 till 1994-95 and all of a sudden the name of the first defendant was entered in the records as pattedar and possessor of suit property during the year 1995-96. However the Form-B of the year 1995-96, through which the name of the first defendant entered in the revenue records, shows that the first defendant got the suit land 'under 5 O.S.No.64 of 2016 partition'. On verifying the same the plaintiffs were under utter astonishment and tried to further probed in to the records. But to their surprise, the authorities replied that the office file in respect of the suit land is not available. Even the first defendant, on demand also did not show any document evidencing his entitlement of the suit land, except revenue records would clarify. Under these circumstances the plaintiffs procured the information regarding the rights of the first defendant and obtained copies of the same on 28-4-2015. The plaintiffs came to know fraudulent, unauthorized entries in the revenue records behind their back, in active collusion of the (village) revenue authorities and the defendants only when the defendants for the first time came to the suit property and started cleaning the same during December/January, 2013- 14 and immediately plaintiffs are taking steps for redressal of their right over the suit land. That the entries in the revenue records, in the name of the first defendant in respect of the suit property are fraudulent besides being devoid of authority and hence are nonest in the eye of law and the plaintiffs noticed and across the same, immediately they filed present suit, with in the period of limitation.

3.The brief averments in the written statement filed by the defendant No.1 are as follows:-

(i).All the material allegations stated in the plaint which are not specifically admitted are denied by the defendant No.1 and that the plaint is bereft for its material particulars and location of schedule 6 O.S.No.64 of 2016 property in the absence of any authenticity prima-facie is vague, ambiguous and unspecific to warrant any specific reply. All the material allegations stated in the plaint are false frivolous, created misconceived and tainted with malafides The suit ought to have been returned in the scrutiny itself as the plaintiffs simultaneously pleaded recovery of possession and permanent injunction which shall not run concurrently and such reliefs prima-facie and mutually are destructive and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini, in as much the plaintiffs are strangers and not in possession over the suit schedule property at any point of time, never held any capacity and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any of the prayed relief's and the suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation

(ii). In fact plaintiffs never in possession over the suit schedule property within the defined boundaries and it is barred by law of limitation on account of non mentioning the date of ooster in seeking the relief of declaration and delivery of possession etc., as contemplated under law and thereby the plaint under reply lacks merits and only pleaded as a counter blast and off shoot to the suit filed by defendants 2 to 4 in O S. No 765/2015 on the file of Hon ble II. Additional Junior Civil

Judge at Warangal.

7 O.S.No.64 of 2016

(iii). The plaintiffs are not entitled to seek recovery of possession of the suit schedule property in view of non mention of date of dispossession by the plaintiffs and also the suit is not maintainable on account of non joinder of necessary parties and further the plaintiffs pleads inheritance, but failed to submit the family pedigree and also the lands apportioned towards their agnates were not whispered. In fact the pleadings of plaintiffs in the above suit are at variance, inconsistent to the pleadings in the earlier suit filed by them and therefore the version of plaintiffs does not inspire any confidence either to believe or to act upon in any way.

(iv). That the contention of the plaintiffs that their father Late Lingam

Venkatram Reddy was the owner, pattedar and possessor of several agricultural dry and wet lands situated at Tekulagudem Village, within

Madikonda Revenue Village in various survey numbers admeasuring about Ac.31-00 guntas including the land measuring Ac.5-13 guntas in

Sy. No.717 of Madikonda Village, said Venkatram Reddy inherited the said properties from his father Late Lingam Chandra Reddy, who died when the said Venkatram Reddy was about four months aged child, consequent on the death of Lingam Chandra Reddy. Lingam Venkatram Reddy being the only son inherited the properties of his father and he lived till 2007 and died on 7-03-2007 and that the land in Sy No.717 of Madikonda

Village admeasuring to an extent of Ac 5-13 guntas is one the property inherited by late father of plaintiffs viz Lingam Venkatram Reddy, which is 8 O.S.No.64 of 2016 the subject matter of the present suit and the same is suit schedule property and that these defendants are strangers to the family of the plaintiffs as well as the suit land also, except a resemblance in the surname among the plaintiffs and these defendants, there is no relationship in between their families as alleged is false, twisted and incorrect. The contention of the plaintiffs that these defendants are popularly known as 'Pedda Lingam family people and the plaintiffs are 'Chınna Lingam' family in the village as pleaded is true and correct

(v). The contention of the plaintiffs that their father is the pattedar and possessor of the suit land which was inherited from his father and is was in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the same, and that in the recent past in 2013-14 this defendant along with his men came to the suit property and started claim over it, asserting that the revenue records show him to be the pattedar as such this defendant coming to the suit land, but did not show the source of right, title or interest over the suit land and by taking advantage of non availability of plaintiffs in the village these defendants entered in to the suit land and planted 'Eucalyptus trees and that the plaintiffs noticed the mischievous act of these defendants started taking steps in verification of records and procuring the same as pleaded is palpably false and incorrect 9 O.S.No.64 of 2016

(vi).That the contention of the plaintiffs that on enquiry they came to know that this defendant in collusion with the village revenue authorities records fraudulently and that as per their procured information, their father Venkatram got his name mutated Reddy was the pattedar and possessor of the suit land since 1965-66 til 1994-95 and all of a sudden the name of this defendant was entered in the records as pattedar and possessor from 1995-98 onwards, and that even on demand this defendant did not show any document evidencing his entitlement of the suit land except revenue records. under those circumstances the plaintiffs procured the information regarding the rights of this defendant and obtained copies of the same on 28-04-2015 as alleged is false and incorrect. The further contention of the plaintiffs that they could know the fraudulent unauthorized entries in the revenue records behind their back, in active collusion of the revenue authorities, and for the first time these defendants came to the suit property and started cleaning the same during December/January 2013-14 and immediately the plaintiffs are taking steps for their redressal of their right over the suit land as alleged is also palpably false and incorrect. In fact the plaintiffs are guilty for suppression of material facts, record and also the plaintiffs with an afterthought to defraud chosen the lands of defendants and shown in the schedule leaving the way in which they got properties without any explanation.

10 O.S.No.64 of 2016

(vii). That defendant had inherited the land in all Ac. 5. 13 guntas in the schedule survey number with due process along with other lands and upon enquiry of succession the Revenue authorities after denova enquiry had issued pattedar pass book and ownership pass book vide Patta

No.107 to the extent of Ac.5. 13 guntas in Sy No.717 more than 25 years back and for that purpose the revenue record clinchingly proves the settled possession of this defendants over the suit land and for that purpose if the contention of the plaintiffs believed to be true without admission for the sake of appreciation why the Plaintiffs did not take steps when the suit land is held by this defendants and recorded his name for the past several decades before any forum and kept silent for decades together protest in any way and all of a sudden with varied stand and version having developed boundless greed to usurp the suit schedule property held by this defendant and his family members since recent past potential value of suit schedule property is developed by metes and bounds and as such the plaintiffs with reference to stray entries about decades back entertained deceitfully without any basis now started making false claim over the suit land by way of this suit, but admittedly neither the plaintiffs nor their family members never held the suit schedule property and it is always the property of these defendants family and this defendant crave leave of the court t to submit the family tree and its details at appropriate time to non suit the false claim of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It is also well settled law that 11 O.S.No.64 of 2016 conspicuous silence for decades together by true owners if believed their version waives of their right even otherwise for not taking steps within the statutory period. In fact this defendant in pursuance of his absolute ownership and possession over the suit land out of love and affection towards his 3 sons I.e defendants 2 to 4 in tum had executed 3 registered gift settlement deeds in their favour equally as Ac.1.31 guntas each out of total extent of Ac. 5. 13 guntas with due process and accordingly sons of this defendant are enjoying the said land as its absolute and legitimate owners and for that purpose defendants 2 to 4 were issued pattedar pass books and recorded their names in all the pahanies as per the registered gift deeds and as such only on merits I.A.No.1086/2015 in O.S.

No.765/2015 filed by the defendants 2 to 4 herein is allowed on merits and became final.

(viii). The alleged cause of action is imaginary and has no basis. The neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestor were not in possession of the suit schedule property as such plaintiffs approached the Hon'ble Court with unclean hands and thereby they are not entitled to seek any relief as prayed. That the documents filed by the plaintiffs are spurious subscriptions deceitfully brought into existence to defraud the legitimate right of this defendants by abusing the due process of law. The plaintiffs approached the Hon'ble Court by suppressing the material facts and created documents, balance of convenience tilts in favour of this defendant for dismissing the plaint.

12 O.S.No.64 of 2016

4.Defendants No.2 to 4 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement of Defendant No.1.

5.In order to establish the suit claim against the defendants, the plaintiff No.2 got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to

A20. On the other hand, the defendant No.1 examined as DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 to ExB49 on his behalf. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of the court that due to oversight, the exhibit numbers for some of the documents were given twice. As seen from record, during the course of evidence of PW1 on 27.10.2022 my Learned Predecessor in office got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 and thereafter on the subsequent date of cross examination of PW1, other documents were marked by Learned Advocate Commissioner dated 01.10.2023 as Ex.A12 to Ex.A20 but due to oversight the number was given again as Ex.A12, hence it is treated as Ex.A12/A. During the course of cross-examination of PW1 by Learned Advocate Commissioner exhibits on behalf of defendants were also marked through Learned Advocate

Commissioner as Exs.B1 to Ex.B27 but during the course of examination in chief of DW1, dated 05.06.2023, due to oversight my Learned

Predecessor in office, dated 05.06.2023 marked the documents and given exhibits numbers as Ex.B27 to Ex.B49 hence Ex.B27, dated 05.06.2023 is treated as Ex.B27/A. Hence, with the consent of both sides learned counsels the said documents were given exhibit numbers as 13 O.S.No.64 of 2016

Ex.A12 and Ex.A12A and Ex.B27 and Ex.B27A and both sides learned counsels reported no objection.

6.Heard both sides and perused the entire record.

7. The following issues were framed for consideration by my Learned

Predecessor in office dated 02.09.2021 for the purpose trial which are as follows:-

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit as alleged by the defendants?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that entries made in Form No.1 (B) the records of right in respect of suit Sy.No.717 of Madikonda Village to be null and void as prayed for?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaring that the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda in granting pattedar pass books and title deeds to the first defendant in respect of the suit schedule property to be null as prayed for?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

7. To what relief ?

8.Issue No.2 Whether the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the suit schedule property?.

(i) In view of comprehensiveness of the above issue, this issue is answered in the first instance and then the remaining issues are 14 O.S.No.64 of 2016 answered as per law. The plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking various reliefs such as declaration of title, delivery of possession and consequentially declaring the entries in revenue records in respect of suit survey number 717 of Madikonda village to be null and void and to set aside the same and for consequentially declaring that the proceedings of

Tahasildhar, Hanumakonda in granting pattedar passbook and title deeds to this first defendant in respect of suit schedule property to be null and void and to set aside the same and also for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. The suit schedule property herein is forming part of survey number 717 admeasuring to an extent of Ac. 5.13 guntas and situated in Madikonda Revenue village, Hanumakonda, Warangal District within the boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule property. For the sake of convenience the schedule property above mentioned is referred to as suit schedule property. Since the plaintiffs filed the present suit against the defendants hence the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove their title in order to establish the contentions of the plaintiffs for grant of reliefs prayed in the suit. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and that father of the plaintiffs by name Lingam Venkat Ram Reddy inherited the said property along with other properties from his father Lingam

Chandra Reddy and that after the death of father of plaintiffs who died on 15 O.S.No.64 of 2016 07.03.2007, the plaintiffs inherited said property and that the land in Sy

No.717 of Madikonda village admeasuring Ac.5-13 gts. is one of the property inherited by the late father of the plaintiffs Lingam Venkatram

Reddy, which is the subject matter of the present suit and that the defendants are strangers to the family of the plaintiffs as well as the suit land also and they have no right over the suit land except a resemblance in the surname among the plaintiffs and defendants, there is no relationship between their families. The defendants are popularly known to be the 'Pedda Lingam' family people in the village and the plaintiffs are 'Chinna Lingam' family, for differentiation. It is further contention of the plaintiffs that the father of plaintiffs by name late

Venkatram Reddy is the pattedar and possessor of the suit land, which was inherited from him father and he was in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the suit land which was left for the purpose of grazing.

During the recent past in 2013-14, the first defendant along with his men came to the suit property and started claim the suit land to be his patta land, as per the revenue records. When the plaintiffs questioned about the propriety in claiming the suit land, he asserted that the revenue records show him to be the pattedar and as such he is coming to the suit land, but did not show the source of his right, title of interest over the over the suit land. The plaintiffs are residing far away from the suit land on their avocations. Taking advantage of non-availability of the plaintiffs in the village, the defendants entered in the suit land and planted 16 O.S.No.64 of 2016

Eucalyptus trees' which are now of the age about one year. During the last month visit, the plaintiffs noticed mischievous acts of the defendants in occupying the suit land and started taking steps in verification of records and procuring the same. It is further contention of the plaintiffs that they are taking steps for getting back their property, the defendants started interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over their other land in Sy.No.716 and 640 of Madikonda

Revenue village for which the plaintiffs have filed suit for permanent injunction against the defendants vide O.S.No. 12/2015 on the file of the

Hon'ble Vacation Judge, Warangal and the same is pending consideration.

On enquiry, the plaintiffs came to know that the first defendant in collusion with the village revenue authorities got mutated his name in revenue records fraudulently and according to the information, their father Late L. Venkatram Reddy was the pattedar and possessor of the suit land since 1965-66 till 1994-95 and all of a sudden the name of the first defendant was entered in the records as pattedar and possessor of suit property during the year 1995-96. However the Form-B of the year 1995-96, through which the name of the first defendant entered in the revenue records, shows that the first defendant got the suit land 'under partition'. On verifying the same the plaintiffs were under utter astonishment and tried to further probed in to the records. But to their surprise, the authorities replied that the office file in respect of the suit land is not available. Even the first defendant, on demand also did not 17 O.S.No.64 of 2016 show any document evidencing his entitlement of the suit land, except revenue records would clarify. Under these circumstances the plaintiffs procured the information regarding the rights of the first defendant and obtained copies of the same on 28-4-2015. The plaintiffs came to know fraudulent, unauthorized entries in the revenue records behind their back, in active collusion of the (village) revenue authorities and the defendants only when the defendants for the first time came to the suit property and started cleaning the same during December/January, 2013- 14 and immediately plaintiffs are taking steps for redressal of their right over the suit land. That the entries in the revenue records, in the name of the first defendant in respect of the suit property are fraudulent besides being devoid of authority and hence are nonest in the eye of law.

9.On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendants that the material allegations stated in the plaint are false frivolous, created misconceived and tainted with malafides and that the suit ought to have been returned in the scrutiny itself as the plaintiffs simultaneously pleaded recovery of possession and permanent injunction which shall not run concurrently and such reliefs prima-facie and mutually are destructive and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. The suit is neither maintainable in law nor on facts and the same is liable to be dismissed in limini, in as much the plaintiffs are strangers and not in possession over the suit schedule property at any point of time, never 18 O.S.No.64 of 2016 held any capacity and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for any of the prayed relief's and the suit is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. It is further contended that in fact plaintiffs never in possession over the suit schedule property within the defined boundaries and it is barred by law of limitation on account of non mentioning the date of ooster in seeking the relief of declaration and delivery of possession etc., as contemplated under law and thereby the plaint under reply lacks merits and only pleaded as a counter blast and off shoot to the suit filed by defendants 2 to 4 in O S. No 765/2015 on the file of Hon ble II. Additional Junior Civil

Judge at Warangal. It is further contended that the plaintiffs are no

entitled to seek recovery of possession of the suit schedule property in view of non mention of date of dispossession by the plaintiffs and also the suit is not maintainable on account of non joinder of necessary parties and further the plaintiffs pleads inheritance, but failed to submit the family pedigree and also the lands apportioned towards their agnates were not whispered. In fact the pleadings of plaintiffs in the above suit are at variance, inconsistent to the pleadings in the earlier suit filed by them and therefore the version of plaintiffs does not inspire any confidence either to believe or to act upon in any way. It is further contended that that the contention of the plaintiffs that their father Late

Lingam Venkatram Reddy was the owner, pattedar and possessor of several agricultural dry and wet lands situated at Tekulagudem Village, within Madikonda Revenue Village in various survey numbers 19 O.S.No.64 of 2016 admeasuring about Ac.31-00 guntas including the land measuring Ac.5- 13 guntas in Sy. No.717 of Madikonda Village, said Venkatram Reddy inherited the said properties from his father Late Lingam Chandra Reddy, who died when the said Venkatram Reddy was about four months aged child, consequent on the death of Lingam Chandra Reddy. Lingam

Venkatram Reddy being the only son inherited the properties of his father and he lived till 2007 and died on 7-03-2007 and that the land in Sy

No.717 of Madikonda Village admeasuring to an extent of Ac 5-13 guntas is one the property inherited by late father of plaintiffs viz Lingam

Venkatram Reddy, which is the subject matter of the present suit and the same is suit schedule property and that these defendants are strangers to the family of the plaintiffs as well as the suit land also, except a resemblance in the surname among the plaintiffs and these defendants, there is no relationship in between their families as alleged is false, twisted and incorrect. The contention of the plaintiffs that these defendants are popularly known as 'Pedda Lingam family people and the plaintiffs are 'Chınna Lingam' family in the village as pleaded is true and correct. It is further contended that the contents of Para 3 (4 & 5) of the plaint under reply that the contention of the plaintiffs that their father is the pattedar and possessor of the suit land which was inherited from his father and is was in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the same, and that in the recent past in 2013-14 this defendant along with his men came to the suit property and started claim over it, asserting 20 O.S.No.64 of 2016 that the revenue records show him to be the pattedar as such this defendant coming to the suit land, but did not show the source of right, title or interest over the suit land and by taking advantage of non availability of plaintiffs in the village these defendants entered in to the suit land and planted 'Eucalyptus trees and that the plaintiffs noticed the mischievous act of these defendants started taking steps in verification of records and procuring the same as pleaded is palpably false and incorrect. It is further contended that the contents of Para 3 (6) of the plaint under reply that the contention of the plaintiffs that on enquiry they came to know that this defendant in collusion with the village revenue authorities records fraudulently and that as per their procured information, their father Venkatram got his name mutated Reddy was the pattedar and possessor of the suit land since 1965-66 til 1994-95 and all of a sudden the name of this defendant was entered in the records as pattedar and possessor from 1995-98 onwards, and that even on demand this defendant did not show any document evidencing his entitlement of the suit land except revenue records. under those circumstances the plaintiffs procured the information regarding the rights of this defendant and obtained copies of the same on 28-04-2015 as alleged is false and incorrect. The further contention of the plaintiffs that they could know the fraudulent unauthorized entries in the revenue records behind their back, in active collusion of the revenue authorities, and for the first time these defendants came to the suit property and 21 O.S.No.64 of 2016 started cleaning the same during December/January 2013-14 and immediately the plaintiffs are taking steps for their redressal of their right over the suit land as alleged is also palpably false and incorrect. In fact the plaintiffs are guilty for suppression of material facts, record and also the plaintiffs with an afterthought to defraud chosen the lands of defendants and shown in the schedule leaving the way in which they got properties without any explanation. It is further contended that the defendant had inherited the land in all Ac. 5. 13 guntas in the schedule survey number with due process along with other lands and upon enquiry of succession the Revenue authorities after denova enquiry had issued pattedar pass book and ownership pass book vide Patta No.107 to the extent of Ac.5. 13 guntas in Sy No.717 more than 25 years back and for that purpose the revenue record clinchingly proves the settled possession of this defendants over the suit land and for that purpose if the contention of the plaintiffs believed to be true without admission for the sake of appreciation why the Plaintiffs did not take steps when the suit land is held by this defendants and recorded his name for the past several decades before any forum and kept silent for decades together protest in any way and all of a sudden with varied stand and version having developed boundless greed to usurp the suit schedule property held by this defendant and his family members since recent past potential value of suit schedule property is developed by metes and bounds and as such the plaintiffs with reference to stray entries about 22 O.S.No.64 of 2016 decades back entertained deceitfully without any basis now started making false claim over the suit land by way of this suit, but admittedly neither the plaintiffs nor their family members never held the suit schedule property and it is always the property of these defendants family and this defendant crave leave of the court t to submit the family tree and its details at appropriate time to non suit the false claim of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. It is also well settled law that conspicuous silence for decades together by true owners if believed their version waives of their right even otherwise for not taking steps within the statutory period. In fact this defendant in pursuance of his absolute ownership and possession over the suit land out of love and affection towards his 3 sons I.e defendants 2 to 4 in tum had executed 3 registered gift settlement deeds in their favour equally as Ac.1.31 guntas each out of total extent of Ac. 5. 13 guntas with due process and accordingly sons of this defendant are enjoying the said land as its absolute and legitimate owners and for that purpose defendants 2 to 4 were issued pattedar pass books and recorded their names in all the pahanies as per the registered gift deeds and as such only on merits I.A.No.1086/2015 in O.S.

No.765/2015 filed by the defendants 2 to 4 herein is allowed on merits and became final. It is further contended that the alleged cause of action is imaginary and has no basis. The neither the plaintiffs nor their ancestor were not in possession of the suit schedule property as such plaintiffs approached the Hon'ble Court with unclean hands and thereby 23 O.S.No.64 of 2016 they are not entitled to seek any relief as prayed. That the documents filed by the plaintiffs are spurious subscriptions deceitfully brought into existence to defraud the legitimate right of this defendants by abusing the due process of law.

10. To support the case of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs got examined plaintiff No.2 as PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A20. PW1 is the plaintiff No.2 herein and he deposed in his chief examination the contents on par with the plaint. Now coming to the cross-examination of

PW1, he categorically stated that his father’s name is Venkat Ram Reddy and his grand father’s name is Chandra Reddy and that the name of father of defendant No.1 name is Papi Reddy and he also stated that he had no idea whether late Raghava Reddy is grand-father of defendant

No.1. PW1 further stated in his cross-examination that it is true that the family members of the defendants are popularly called and known as

Pedda Lingam family and their family is called as Chinna Lingam Family.

PW1 further admitted that they inherited certain properties from their ancestors and similarly the defendants inherited the properties from their ancestors at Madikonda village revenue and as well as at

Dharmasagar Village. PW1 further stated that the revenue records in respect of inherited properties have been recorded in their names and as well as in the name of defendants. Still further PW1 stated that their two brothers and two sisters and himself and PW1 had a tentative arrangement in respect of their inherited property by physical division 24 O.S.No.64 of 2016 and accordingly, the name of plaintiff No.1 is being recorded in the revenue records and they obtained separately the passbook under LRUP in the year 2018. But as seen from the entire record, the plaintiffs did not file any passbooks as stated in the cross-examination of PW1. Still further the plaintiffs states and contends that they partitioned their properties but as per the cross-examination of PW1, they have also got two sisters.

Moreover, as seen from the entire record, the said partition deed or the said passbooks were not filed by the plaintiffs in order to find out which properties were allotted to them in the alleged partition and which propertieswere actually inherited by them and whether the suit schedule property is one of the alleged inherited properties as alleged in the plaint or not.

11.Still further, PW1 in his evidence during cross-examination categorically admitted that it is true as per Ex.A9 the name of defendant

No.1 is recorded as pattedar and possessor of the suit land and thereafter it continued in the name of defendant No.1 initially and thereafter defendant No.2 to 4. Still further PW1 stated that it is true the land in survey No. 716, 715, 718, 719, 720 and 640 are contiguous adjoining land in survey number 717. It is one of the contentions of the defendants that suit schedule property was inherited by defendant No.1 and thereafter defendant No.1 executed gift deed in favour of defendant

No.2 to 4 and that the revenue records stands in the name of defendants herein. The statement of PW1 during the course of cross-examination 25 O.S.No.64 of 2016 with regard to Ex.A9, recording the names of defendants as pattedars and possessors of the suit land above mentioned statement goes against the case of the plaintiffs and it strengthens the contentions of the defendants. Still further PW1 in his cross-examination categorically stated that it is true prior to the suit, plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants and the defendants filed another suit against them for injunction but the injunction suit filed by the defendants was allowed and thus the plaintiffs injunction suit was dismissed by a common judgment and that the plaintiffs personally never got surveyed the land compromised in survey number 717 through the authorities. Still further

PW1 admitted that they have not filed any mutation proceedings or virasath effected in the name of their father in respect of suit land.

During the course of cross-examination of PW1, Ex.B1 which is the RDO proceedings was got marked and PW1 admitted the said proceedings but pleaded ignorance of the result of the proceedings.

12. Now coming to the documentary evidence relied on by the plaintiffs, Ex.A1 is the valuation certificate. However, merely by going through the valuation certificate the absolute ownership of the suit property cannot be made out. Ex.A2 is the memo issued by Tahasildhar,

Hanumakonda dated 28.04.2015. However on perusal of Ex.A2 memo, it is of no use to the case of the plaintiffs because mere giving statement in writing stating that the file is not available in the case is not sufficient to discharge the burden of the plaintiffs with regard to establishing alleged 26 O.S.No.64 of 2016 ownership of suit schedule property. Now coming to 1-B format pahani, the name of L.Jacob Reddy with regard to the suit schedule property and who is defendant No.1 herein is categorically mentioned as Jacob Reddy with regard to the suit schedule survey number and other survey numbers and the extent of land in respect of suit survey number 717 is mentioned as Ac.5-13 guntas. As seen from the pahani patrikas from

Ex.A4 to Ex.A20, it shows that Ex.A4 contains the name of L.Venkat Ram

Reddy and the same is the case with Ex.A5, Ex.A6, Ex.A7 and Ex.A8.

Whereas in Ex.A9 pahani copy, the name of L.Jacob Reddy i.e., defendant

No.1 herein is mentioned and his name is mentioned in respect of pattedaar and possessor column also. In Ex.A10, Ex.A11 and Ex.A12 also the name of defendant No.1 herein is mentioned. On perusal of Exs.A12A to Ex.A20, they show the name of pattedar as Lingam Venkat Ram Reddy but the possessor column in Ex.A19 and Ex.A20 is silent i.e., the name of possessor is not at all mentioned which throws h a cloud of suspicion over the acceptance of contentions of the plaintiffs with regard to the alleged continuous possession of Lingam Venkat Ram Reddy. Still further,

RDO proceedings under Ex.B1 which were got marked through PW1 in the course of cross-examination, it categorically shows that the RDO

before whom the appeal was filed by the plaintiff No.2 herein against all

the defendants herein and in the said proceedings RDO categorically observed at Page No.5 of the order which is as follows :- ”The subject land is the ancestral property of Sri Lingam Jacob Reddy, S/o Papi Reddy 27 O.S.No.64 of 2016 and after his sons became as pattedars and possessors at present Sri

Lingam Sumanth Kumar , Lingam Sunil Kumar and Lingam Raghunandan

Reddy are in the possession of the above said land property presently the land is kept fallow. The respondent filed suit against the appellant and his brother Kishan Reddy vide O.S.No.765 of 2015 and the appellant and his brother Kishan Reddy had filed a suit against the respond net

NO.1 herein and his wife vide O.S.No.457 of 2015 and the Hon’ble

Second Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal granted and made the interim injunction absolute filed by the respondents in I.A.No.1086/2015 in O.S.No.765/2015, wherein the said Hon’ble Court granted injunction restraining the appellant herein and his brother in respct of land in

Sy.No.717 i.e., to an extent of Ac.5-13 guntas, through the two brothers claimed Ac. 3.22 guntas in the said IA and similarly dismissed the injunction filed by the appellant. Basing on the above and further it is also observed that the name of the father of the appellant has recorded from the year 1954-55 to 1989-1990 in the pahanies as pattedar. After that the respondents are recorded as pattedars and occupants in respect of the above said lands upto 2016-17. It is clear that there is no locus standi of the appellant on the subject lands and barred by limitation, which is also confirmed by the adjancent ryths and the local enquiry of the Tahasildar,Kazipet. Hence, the appeal is disposed accordingly.”

13.Thus, as seen from Ex.B1, the revenue authorities i.e., RDO categorically stated that the plaintiff No.2 herein who is the appellant in 28 O.S.No.64 of 2016 the said appeal before RDO has is no locus standi to claim the said property and RDO in his proceedings categorically stated the table with regard to extent of land owned by the defendants and also the survey number in which the said land is situated.

14.DW1 who is the defendant No.1 was examined and on behalf of the defendants Ex.B1 to Ex.B49 were marked and out of these documents the some were marked during the course of cross-examination of PW1 by the learned counsel for the defendants and Ex.B27 to Ex.B49 were marked during the chief examination of DW1. DW1 in his chief examination deposed the contents on par with the written statement.

15. Now coming to the cross-examination of DW1, he categorically stated that the plaintiffs family is called as Chinna Lingam Family and his family is called as Pedda Lingam family and that Chandra Reddy is the father of late Venkat Ram Reddy. DW1 further deposed that his father and Venkat

Ram Reddy were close friends and they are neighbours and apart from the friendship there is no other relationship between his father and

Venkat Ram Reddy. DW1 further stated that he acquired the land in

Survey No. 717 as it is the ancestral property. DW1 further stated that his grand father name is Raghava Reddy and that Raghava Reddy and

Laxmi Narsaiah were brothers and that the above said brothers did not divide their properties during the life time and that the children of

Raghava Reddy and Laxminarsaiah not partitioned their land till the year 29 O.S.No.64 of 2016 1976. DW1 further stated that thereafter the lands were partitioned and that Laxmi Narsaiah had three sons and that Raghav Reddy had one son i.e., father of DW1. DW1 further stated that it is a oral division without any partition document and no memorandum of list of properties were reduced in writing and that in the year 1994 ROR came into existence and at that time the defendants got ROR done. DW.1 further stated that he filed the land revenue receipts. The land in Survey No. 717 is in their possession for more than 5 decades. DW1 categorically stated that the plaintiffs suppressed pattedar passbooks and rythu passbooks of land in Sy.No.717 and there is no record for payment of land revenue and that all the Pedda Lingam Family members together prepared records and filed before revenue authorities for entering their name in ROR and same were verified by revenue authorities and their name were recorded in ROR in land in Survey Number 717 and that the list of Pedda

Lingam Family members were prepared and filed before revenue authorities.

16. Now coming to the documents relied on by the defendants which are Ex.B1 which is the Order in RC.No. A/1016/2016, dated 1.9.2018 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Urban. Ex.B2 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1980-81, Ex.B3 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1981-82, Ex.B4 is the rtified

Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1982-83, Ex.B5 is the Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1983-84, Ex.B6 is the Certified Copy of 30 O.S.No.64 of 2016

Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1986-87, Ex.B7 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1987-88, Ex.B8 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1989-90, Ex.B9 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1990-91, Ex.B10 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1991-92, Ex.B11 is the MeeSeva Copy of

Dharani Pertains to Khata No. 172 of Lingam Venkatram Reddy, Ex.B12 is the Mee Seva copy of Encumberance Certificate from 1.1.1983 to 5.12.2022, Ex.B13 is the Mee Seva Copy of Dharani Pertains to Khata No.

181 of Lingam Venkatram Reddy, Ex.B14 is the Mee Seva Copy of

Dharani Pertains to Khata No. 176 of Lingam Venkatram Reddy, Ex.B15 is the Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1996-97, Ex.B16 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1997-98, Ex.B17 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1998-99, Ex.B18 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 2001-2002, Ex.B19 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 2003-2004, Ex.B20 is the

Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 2006-2007, Ex.B21 is the

Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2009-2010, Ex.B22 is the

Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2010-2011, Ex.B23 is the

Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011-2012, Ex.B24 is the

Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012-2013, Ex.B25 is the

Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013-2014, Ex.B26 is the

Mee Seva Copy of Dharani Pertains to Khata No. 709 of Lingam Vijaya,

Ex.B27:Pattedar Passbook, Ex.B27/A is the Certified Copy of Plaint in 31 O.S.No.64 of 2016

O.S.No. 765/2015, Ex.B28 is the Certified Copy of W.S. in O.S.No.

765/2015, Ex.B29 is the Certified Copy of order in I.A.No. 1086/2015 in

O.S.No. 765/2015. Ex.B30 is the Certified Copy of Decree in I.A.No.

1086/2015, Ex.B31 is the Certified Copy of Registered Gift deed vide

Doc.No. 4973/2005, dated 19.5.2005. Ex.B32 is the Certified Copy of

Registered Gift Deed vide Doc.No. 4972/2005, dated 19.5.2005, Ex.B33 is the Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2014-15, Ex.B34 is the Certified

Copy of Pahani for the year 2000-2001, Ex.B35 is the Certified Copy of

Pahani for the year 1995-1996, Ex.B36 is the Certified Copy of 1-B

Namoona (ROR), dt. 8.6.2015. Ex.B37 is the Certified Copy of 1-B

Namoona (ROR), dt. 26.6.2015. Ex.B38 is the Certified Copy of Sisthu

Receipt (Tax receipt), dt. 6.12.2001. Ex.B39 is the Certified Copy of Sisthu

Receipt (Tax receipt), dt. 30.1.1991 Ex.B40 is the Certified Copy of Plaint in O.S.NO. 457/2015, Ex.B41 is the Certified Copy of W.S.in O.S.NO.

457/2015 Ex.B42 is the Certified Copy of Adoption Memo in O.S.No.

457/2015, Ex.B43 is the Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed vide

Document No. 4974/2005, Ex.B44 is the Original Pattedar Passbook vide

Patta No. 107. Ex.B45 is the Original Pattedar Passbook vide Patta No.

1202. Ex.B46 is the Original Pattedar Passbook vide Patta No. 1200.

Ex.B47 is the Original Title deed vide Patta No. 1202. Ex.B48 is the

Original Pattedar Passbook vide Patta No. 1201. Ex.B49 is the Original

Title deed vide Patta No. 1200. As seen from Ex.B1, the RDO stated that the plaintiff No.2 herein has no locus standi to file appeal against the 32 O.S.No.64 of 2016 defendants herein before RDO. Now coming to Ex.B2 to Ex.B20 which were also marked during cross-examination of PW1 by the learned counsel for the defendants. Ex.B2 is the pahani wherein the name of

Lingam Raghava Reddy is mentioned as actual cultivator of the said land in survey number 717 to an extent of Ac. 5-13 guntas and the same the case with Ex.B3, Ex.B4, Ex.B5, Ex.B6, Ex.B7, Ex.B8, Ex.B9, Ex.B10.

Ex.B11 is the print out copy of Dharani portal however much reliance cannot be placed on this document since it is mere print out document and the same is case with Ex.B12 Ex.B13, Ex.B14 and Ex.B26. Now coming to Ex.B15 which is copy of pahani in which the name of defendant No.1 is mentioned as pattedar and the name of defendant

No.1 is also mentioned as possessor of the land in Survey No. 717 to an extent of Ac.5-13 guntas. In Ex.B16 the name of Jacob Reddy i.e, defendant No.1 is mentioned as pattedar and the same is the case with

Ex.B17 and Ex.B18. As seen from Ex.B19 the name of Jacob Reddy is mentioned as pattedar and the name of defendants No.2 to 4 were mentioned as possessors at column No. 13 in respect of suit schedule property and the same is the case with Ex.B20. Even in Ex.B21 the names of defendants herein is categorically depicted in respect of suit survey number and same is the case with Ex.B23, Ex.B24 and Ex.B25.

Ex.B26 is also supportive to the contentions of the defendants.

17.Now coming to the other documents which were got marked by the defendants which are Ex.B27 to Ex.B49, they are also supporting to 33 O.S.No.64 of 2016 the contentions of the defendants. As seen from the entire evidence placed on record since the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and other reliefs hence burden is cast on the plaintiffs to prove that they are entitled for the relief as prayed in the plaint. But as seen from the record, except pahanies, the plaintiffs did not got filed any cogent and reliable evidence so as to entitle them for the relief of declaration.

18. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs filed citations along with Memo by mentioning No.1 to 6 but they filed only the following citations.

(i).In the case between Kandukuri Anthya and others Appellants v.

Korakola Gattadu and another Respondent reported in AIR 1950

HYDERABAD 58 wherein it was held at Para No.4 as follows:

“There are several authorities of this Court both of the

Single and Division Bench that in suits for declaration of being entitled to patta of land any enquiry relating to the possession of the land, or impleading the person in possession is unnecessary. In 19 Deccan L.R 305, in 21 Deccan L.R 163, and in 35 Deccan L.R 538, three

Single Judges have held it to be so. A ruling of the

Division Bench reported in 34 Deccan L.R 566 is also to same effect. Therefore, any enquiry as to the possession of land in a suit of this nature is not relevant. In this particular suit, in view of the contents of the document relied upon by the appellant, determination of any question relating to possession of 34 O.S.No.64 of 2016 land is still more unnecessary. The document after reciting the previous conveyance says that in consideration of rupees fifty the executant was selling his patta right on the date mentioned in the document.

It does not purport to transfer possession of the land, for that, it says had been already done by the executant's ancestor. An issue as to possession was framed by the original Court but it was deleted. The two questions involved in the case are: Has its execution been proved and whether Section 54 of the

Hyderabad Transfer of Property Act applies to the transaction. The objection taken relates to the latter question and the necessity of a registered deed will only arise if the patta right is held to be intangible. The determination of the nature of the patta right is one of pure law, it goes to the very root of the case and I think it can be raised for the first time in the appeal

before us.

In the Full Bench case of the five Judges reported in 13

Deccan L.R 466, the patta right has been analysed and held to comprise four rights and one liability. The first is the reversionary right to the estate of the shikmidar on his dying without any heir, the second is of pre- emption, the third is to have the money payments by the shikmidar increased, and the fourth is to recover from the shikmidar the full amount of the revenue in case he pays less. All these rights relate to immovable property and arise because the pattadar is responsible to pay its revenue to the State. Every one of them is intangible, for they are incapable of delivery by possession from one person to another. On principle, 35 O.S.No.64 of 2016 therefore, it is correct to hold that patta right is intangible and its sale can be effected only by a registered deed under Section 54 of the Hyderabad

Transfer of Property Act. This is further supported by a ruling of this Court reported in 33 Deccan L.R 406, where it was held that there can be no transfer of patta right by oral agreement. If it cannot be transferred by oral agreement or by delivery of possession, then necessarily it must be by a registered deed. I, therefore, hold that inasmuch as there is no registered deed of sale, the document relied upon by the appellants does not effect transfer of the right to the appellants, they have acquired nothing by it and consequently their suit for the declaration must fail.

The appellants' suit was rightly dismissed and this appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs”.

(ii). In a case between Anantam Veeraju and others, Appellants V. Valluri

Venakayya and Venkamma (died) and another Respondents reported in

AIR 1960 ANDHRA PRADESH 222, wherein it was held at Para No.10 as follows:- “Another obstacle that is sought to be put by the appellants in the way of the plaintiffs is the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio defendant's. The point made by the appellants in this behalf is since the object of the widow was said to be to commit fraud on the creditors by resorting to benami (assuming that the transactions in question are of that character) and this was fulfilled in that the creditors were compelled to accept very low dividends as seen from Ex. B-26, B-26

(a) and B-26(b) and B-26(c), the plaintiffs could not 36 O.S.No.64 of 2016 seek the aid of the court in recovering properties that were saved to the estate as a result of the fraud.”

(iii). In a case between Sri Bhimeshwara Swami Varu Temple Appellant

V. Pedapudi Krishna Murthi and others Respondent reported in AIR 1973

SUPREME COURT 1299 wherein it was held at para No.8 as follows:- “No useful purpose will be served by discussing the oral evidence led by the parties. That evidence is of an uncertain character and is inadequate to displace the presumption arising out of of the several entries spread over a large number of years showing that

R.S.No.1057 belonged to the Archakas and was in their possession in their own right”.

(iv).In a case between State of AP V,. Prameela Modi Respondent reported in 2005 9 Supreme (AP) 413 2005(4) ALD 105, 2005 3 ALD 379 , wherein, it was held at Para No.76 as follows:- “We are aware of the distinction between the judicial review and the appeal. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot convert itself into a Court of appeal and indulge in re- appreciation or evaluation of the evidence. The finding of fact recorded by an inferior Tribunal can be interfered with by this Court and a Writ of Certiorari issued only if in recording such a finding, the tribunal has acted on evidence, which is illegally inadmissible, or has refused to admit admissible evidence, or if the finding is not supported by any evidence at all. In all such cases, such errors amount to an error of law”.

37 O.S.No.64 of 2016

(v).in a case between Mohd Ibrahim Appellant V. Secretary to the

Government of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi reported in 1995 9

Supreme (AP) 859 between , wherein it was held at Para No. 11 as follows:

“Discussing the question “Whether the suit is in time, it was observed in the judgment under appeal as follows: The plaint allegations do not reveal that the suit is based on previous possession and not on title on the allegation that the original plaintiff while in possession of the property has been dispossessed. So, Article 64 of the

Limitation Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) has no application. ‘On the other hand, the original plaintiff sought the relief of possession of the suit property based on title. Hence Article 65 of the Act applies and the starting point of limitation is when the possession of the defendants became adverse to that of the original plaintiff.”. With respect we are to observe the approach being not legally sound as the enquiry was not to be, when a suit is under Article 65 of the Limitation Act to infer that the starting point of limitation is when the possession of the defendant becomes adverse unless such a plea has been raised at all. On the contrary if a suit is brought on title, the suit has to be ipsofacto decreed for possession if the title is established and the question of limitation for the suit would arise only when a plea of adverse possession is set up and it is then for the defendant to establish that the plaintiff has not been in possession of the suit land within twelve years of the suit. The Judgment proceeds on the footing as if the respondents were possessing the land by way of adverse possession and went on to decide as to whether the 38 O.S.No.64 of 2016 possession was not adverse but was permissible at the instance of the appellants. Such question does not arise for consideration” vi. However, as seen from the record and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the above citations are not useful to the case of the plaintiffs.

19.During the course of arguments, the Learned counsel for the defendants relied on the following citations:

(i).In the case between P.Kishore Kumar V. Vittal and Patkar wherein reported in 2024 (1) ALD 106 SC wherein it was held at Para No. 22 as follows:- “No documents of title do not confer title. Mere mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. Mutation of revenue records would not therefore, divest the real title-owners of a land of their right, title and interest in land. Dispute with respect to determination of title. Plaintiff cannot succeed by merely pointing out lacunae in defendant title. Having instituted suit for declaration, burden of proof rested on shoulders of plaintiff to reasonably establish probability of better title”.

(ii).In the case between Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) through Legal Appellants v. Shivnath and others Respondents reported in (2019) 6 Supreme Court Cases 82 , wherein it was held as follows:- “Suit for declaration of title over immovable property. Burden of proof. Plaintiff required to discharge his burden independent of case of defendant. Passing of declaratory decree where plaintiff did not lead evidence to establish his title, reiterated, impermissible. Khata entries are not proof of title but for revenue purpose. Even if few sentences in written statement advantageous to plaintiff, such written statement required to be read totality. Necessity for plaintiff to 39 O.S.No.64 of 2016 adduce contra evidence where defendant led relevant evidence. Property Law. Ownership and title”.

(iii).In the case between Thota Venkat Reddy and others V. Polamoni Jangaiah Golla Jangaiah and others reported in 2020 (4) ALT 512 (DB) 15 wherein it was held at Para No.44,45,46 and 52 as follows:- “Suit for declaration of title. When a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is filed, a defendant can oppose the suit either on the basis of his title or on the basis of adverse possession. Adjudication by revenue officials. Any adjudication by Revenue Officials also cannot be relied upon, because they are not competent to decide title prima facie”. When a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is filed, a defendant can oppose the suit either on the basis of his title or on the basis of adverse possession. “When a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is filed, a defendant can oppose the suit either on the basis of his title or on the basis of adverse possession”. “In the instant case, the defence of 18th respondent is not based on adverse possession of himself or his predecessors but he is basing his title on Exs.P-5, P-6 and P-9 and other sale deeds”

6. In C.Natrajan V. Ashim Bal , the Supreme Court explained the change in law brought about by the Limitation Act , 1963 in the following terms: "16. The law of limitation relating to the suit for possession has undergone a drastic change. In terms of Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, it was obligatory on the part of the plaintiff to aver and plead that he not only has title over the property but also has been in possession of the same for a period of more than 12 years. However, if the plaintiff has filed the suit claiming title over the suit property in terms of Articles 64 and 65 Limitation Act 1963, burden would be on the defendant to prove that he has acquired title by adverse possession. “We are also of the opinion, any adjudication by Revenue Officials also cannot be relied upon by 18th respondent because they are not competent to decide title prima facie”.

40 O.S.No.64 of 2016 .

(iv) In the case between Kandula Gurvaiah V. Buddi Chandramouli reported in 2023 (6) ALD 765 (TS) between where in it was held at Para No.34 as follows:

“Suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. Bar of Limitation, no reference in pleading to date of dispossession and cause of action of filing suit. Revenue records under Ex.B4 to B7 showing that from 1991 onwards name of defendant No.2 has been reflecting as pattedar and possessor. Going by evidence of plaintiff, entries under Ex.B4 to B7 can be said to be correct entries. If 1991 is taken possession of defendant 1 become adverse to plaintiff’s possession. Hence, when suit is filed in 2004, it is hopelessly barred by limitation.

A reading of Section 3 of the Limitation Act would clearly indicate that it is the duty of the court to see whether the suit is within limitation even if there is no pleading from both parties . Therefore, this court has to see whether the present suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for recovery of possession is within time or not”.

(v).In the case between B.Ranga Swamy (died) per L.Rs and others v. Secretary Revenue Department, Hyderabad and other reported in 2021 (3) ALT 11 (TS) wherein it was held at para No.86,98 as follows:- “Declaration of Title cannot be decreed on the weakness of the defendants but the plaintiffs can succeed only on the strength of its own title and that could be done only by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus on it. it is crystal clear that the trial Court came to a wrong conclusion by relying only upon Ex. B1 and concluding that the plaintiffs admitted that there is piece of land between the Sy.No.129/73 and 129/56. If the Government really had any claim over the suit land, they ought to have immediately taken action by responding to the letters and taking a stand that the land belongs to the Government. The trial Court wrongly held that as there were disputes between the plaintiffs and 41 O.S.No.64 of 2016

Government from 1976 about the identity and possession. Plaintiffs have proved the ownership, title and identity of the suit schedule property, through oral and documentary evidence. In view of the abundant documentary evidence relied upon by the appellants/plaintiffs providing their title over the suit schedule land, the learned trial court without adverting to the same, has wrongly dealt with the issue of adverse possession, which is bad in law and is also against the weight of evidence on record. This court holds that the plaintiffs have proved their possession over the suit schedule property. Appellants have clearly established the ownership, title and possession of the plaintiff No.2 beyond all probabilities and the respondents/defendants having failed to establish their case as set up by them. Appeal allowed”.

(vi). In the case between Tech Mahinndra Limited V. Venture Global Engineering LIC, through its constituted Attorney, Pradeep Kumar and another reported in 2014(4) ALT 261 wherein it was held at Para 78 as follows:- “Plea of fraud. Particulars of events that constitute fraud must be stated in the pleadings themselves and proved.”

(vii). In the case between Rajpal Singh v. Saroj (deceased) through Lrs and another reported in 2022 3 SC 2707, wherein it was held at Para No.6A as follows:- “Submission that prayer in suit being also for recovery of possession, suit filed within period of twelve years, was within period of limitation, cannot be accepted. Relief for possession being consequential prayer and substantive prayer being cancellatino of sale deed dt. 19.04.1996, limitation period required to be considered with respect of said substantive relief claimed and not consequential relief. A composite suit when filed for cancellation of sale deed”.

(viii). In the case between Jagdish Prasad Patel (dead) through L.Rs and another. Appellants v. Shivanath and others reported in 2019 Supreme (SC) 424 2019 4 MLJ 739, 2019 6 SCC 82, 2019 4 Supreme 379 wherein it was held at Para No.24 as follows:- 42 O.S.No.64 of 2016 “Entries in revenue records consistently in favour of appellants could not be ignored on basis of entries in favour of respondent s only for two years. Moreso, when genuineness of these entries is doubtful. The entries which are consistently in favour of the appellants ought not to have been ignored in preference to the entries in favour of the respondents only for two years i.e. 1955- 56 and 1956-57. Moreover, in the light of the findings by the revenue authorities on several occasions, the said entries in the name of the respondents cannot be said to be genuine. The first Appellate Court and the High Court were not right in brushing aside Ex. P- 21 (Ex.D-20) patta granted in the name of the appellants and other crucial documents like report of the Revenue Inspector (Ex. P-3) which notes that patta illaqa is in the name of Gaya Din and the several entries in the revenue records are in the name of the appellants. In the absence of the contra evidence adduced by the respondents- plaintiffs, the trial court rightly held that the appellants have been in continuous possession of the suit properties and that the respondents have failed to prove their right over the suit properties prior to filing of the suit”.

However, in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the above citations are useful to the case of the defendants.

20. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the plaintiffs contended that there are weaknesses in the case of the defendants. However, as per law when the plaintiffs filed the present suit then it is burden cast on the plaintiffs to prove their case positively but in the case on hand, the plaintiffs failed to prove that they are entitled for the relief of declaration of title and other reliefs in their favour as prayed for. Since the documents on record are not sufficient to establish the case of the plaintiffs, therefore, the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the suit schedule property. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

43 O.S.No.64 of 2016

21.Issue No.1:- Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(i) Since, the plaintiffs are pleading the date of knowledge of the cause of action as March, 2015 and 28.04.2015 and also December or

January, 2013 or 2014 as per the plaint averments hence the suit is within the period of limitation. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

22. Issue No.3:- Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties in the suit as alleged by the defendants?

(i). In view of my discussion on issue No.1 and PW1 in his cross- examination categorically admitted that his sisters are also there and that he is having two sisters along with brothers. Therefore, when the plaintiffs are pleading the suit schedule property to be their alleged ancestral property then the presence of all their family members is required in this suit. Hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

23.Issue No.4 :- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration that entries made in Form No.1 (B) the Records of Rights in respect of suit Sy.No.717 of Madikonda Village to be null and void as prayed for?

(i)Since the plaintiffs failed to establish their title over the suit schedule property in view of oral evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence under Ex.A1 to Ex.A20 and also coupled with admissions of PW1 and as the defendants successfully rebutted the case of the plaintiffs, hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of 44 O.S.No.64 of 2016 declaring the entries made in Form 1-B of the Record of Rights in respect of the suit survey number 717 of Madikonda village to be null and void.

Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

24.Issue No.5:- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaring that the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Hanamkonda in granting pattedar pass books and title deeds to the first defendant in respect of the suit schedule property to be null as prayed for?

(i). Since, the plaintiffs failed to establish their title and ownership over the suit schedule property and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaring that the proceedings of Tahsildar, Hanumakonda in respect of grant of pattedar passbook and title deed to defendant No.1 in respect of the suit schedule property as null and void. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

25.Issue No.6:- Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for permanent injunction as prayed for ?

(i) . Since plaintiffs in their plaint as well as in the evidence of PW1 during examination in chief affidavit and cross-examination categorically admitted that the defendants are in possession of the suit schedule property hence the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed in the plaint, as the plaintiffs failed to establish their possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

45 O.S.No.64 of 2016

26. Issue No.7:- To what relief

(i)In view of my findings on issue No.1 to Issue No.6, the suit of the plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. Thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

27.In the result, the suit is dismissed without costs.

(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 5th day of March, 2024.

Sd/-

Judge, Family Court-cum

II-Addl. District Judge, Hanumakonda.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined

For Plaintiffs For Defendants

PW1L.Prabhakar ReddyDW1L.Jacob Reddy Exhibits marked For Plaintiffs Ex.A1Valuation Certificate issued by Joint Sub Registrar, Warangal dated 7.5.2015. Ex.A2Memo issued by Tahsildar, Hanamkonda dated 28.4.2015. Ex.A3Copy of 1-B Namuna Ex.A4Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1965 - 1966 Ex.A5Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1971 - 1972 Ex.A6Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1983 - 1984 Ex.A7Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1989 - 1990 Ex.A8Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1994 - 1995 Ex.A9Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1995 - 1996 Ex.A10Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1996 - 1997 46 O.S.No.64 of 2016

Ex.A11Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2000 - 2001 Ex.A12Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2001 – 2002 Ex.A12/ACertified Copy of Khasra Pahani Pathrika for the year 1954-55 Ex.A13Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1959-60 Ex.A14Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1962-63 Ex.A15Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1963-64 Ex.A16Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1964-65 Ex.A17Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1970-71 Ex.A18Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1971-72 Ex.A19Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1993-94 Ex.A20Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1994-95 For Defendants Ex.B1Order in Rc.No. A/1016/2016, dated 1.9.2018 issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal Urban. Ex.B2Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1980-81 Ex.B3Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1981-82 Ex.B4Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1982-83 Ex.B5Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1983-84 Ex.B6Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1986-87 Ex.B7Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1987-88 Ex.B8Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1989-90 Ex.B9Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1990-91 Ex.B10Certified Copy of Pahani Pahtrika for the year 1991-92 Ex.B11MeeSeva Copy of Dharani Pertains to Khata No. 172 of Lingam Venkatram Reddy Ex.B12Mee Seva copy of Encumberance Certificate from 1.1.1983 to 5.12.2022. Ex.B13Mee Seva Copy of Dharani Pertains to Khata No. 181 of Lingam Venkatram Reddy Ex.B14Mee Seva Copy of Dharani Pertains to Khata No. 176 of Lingam Venkatram Reddy Ex.B15Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1996-97. Ex.B16Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1997-98. Ex.B17Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 1998-99 47 O.S.No.64 of 2016

Ex.B18Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 2001-2002 Ex.B19Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 2003-2004 Ex.B20Certified Copy of Pahani Pathrika for the year 2006-2007 Ex.B21Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2009-2010 Ex.B22Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2010-2011 Ex.B23Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2011-2012 Ex.B24Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2012-2013 Ex.B25Certified Copy of Adangal Pahani for the year 2013-2014 Ex.B26Mee Seva Copy of Dharani Pertains to Khata No. 709 of Lingam Vijaya Ex.B27Pattedar Passbook Ex.B27/ACertified Copy of Plaint in O.S.No. 765/2015 Ex.B28Certified Copy of W.S. in O.S.No. 765/2015 Ex.B29Certified Copy of order in I.A.No. 1086/2015 in O.S.No. 765/2015. Ex.B30Certified Copy of Decree in I.A.No. 1086/2015 Ex.B31Certified Copy of Registered Gift deed vide Doc.No. 4973/2005,

dated 19.5.2005.

Ex.B32Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed vide Doc.No. 4972/2005,

dated 19.5.2005.

Ex.B33Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2014-15 Ex.B34Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 2000-2001 Ex.B35Certified Copy of Pahani for the year 1995-1996 Ex.B36Certified Copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR), dt. 8.6.2015. Ex.B37Certified Copy of 1-B Namoona (ROR), dt. 26.6.2015. Ex.B38Certified Copy of Sisthu Receipt (Tax receipt), dt. 6.12.2001. Ex.B39Certified Copy of Sisthu Receipt (Tax receipt), dt. 30.1.1991 Ex.B40Certified Copy of Plaint in O.S.NO. 457/2015 Ex.B41Certified Copy of W.S.in O.S.NO. 457/2015 Ex.B42Certified Copy of Adoption Memo in O.S.No. 457/2015 Ex.B43Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed vide Document No. 4974/2005. Ex.B44Original Pattedar Passbook vide Patta No. 107. Ex.B45Original Pattedar Passbook vide Patta No. 1202. Ex.B46Original Pattedar Passbook vide Patta No. 1200.

48 O.S.No.64 of 2016

Ex.B47Original Title deed vide Patta No. 1202. Ex.B48Original Pattedar Passbook vide Patta No. 1201. Ex.B49Original Title deed vide Patta No. 1200.

Sd/-

Judge, Family Court-cum

II-Addl. District Judge, Hanumakonda.

1 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

Monday, this the 27th day of October, 2025

PRESENT: Smt. G.L.SRIDEVI, II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 295 OF 2022

(PRC No.348/2019 on the file of V-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of

First Class, Warangal in Crime No. 130 of 2018 of Police Station,

Hasanparthy).

1.Name and description of the: The State of Telangana through complainantthe Inspector of Police, PS. Hasanparthy.

2.Name and description of the: Kamaparu Prashanth, S/o. Late accused :Laxminarayana, Age: 32 years, Caste: Bukka, Occu: Business, R/o.H.No.5-147/1, Hasanparthy Village.

3.Prosecution conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor.

4.Accused defended by: SriC.VidhyasagarReddy, Advocate.

5.Offences charged: Under Sections 449, 380, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code.

6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

7.Finding of the Court: Found guilty : IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty for

8.Sentence or Order the offences punishable under sections 449, 380, 302 and 201 of IPC and he is convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable u/Sec. 449 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and 2 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable u/Sec.380 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for LIFE for the offence punishable u/Sec.302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable u/Sec.201 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be set off U/Sec.428 of Cr.P.C. The MOs.1 to 10, MO.29 and MO.30 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The MO.11 to MO.28 shall be handed over to the concerned on proper petition as per law after expiry of appeal time. The accused is appraised of his right to appeal against this judgment and also the accused is appraised of his right to free legal aid.

This Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/complainant and of Sri C.Vidyasagar Reddy , Advocate for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, PS,

Hasanparthy Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No.130 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 380, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

3 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

2. The case of the prosecution is that LW1/Gaddam Punnam

Chander is the complainant and son of the deceased No.1

Gaddam Damoder and deceased No.2 Gaddam Padma. The accused also hails from the same village. The deceased No.1

Gaddam Damoder and deceased No.2 Gaddam Padma had one son and two daughters and their daughters marriages were solemnized and residing separately. LW-1 is residing at

Hyderabad. The deceased No.1 Gaddam Damoder and deceased

No.2 Gaddam Padma are residing at Karimnagar road at

Hasanparthy eking their livelihood by running Kirana and General stores. In this connection, the accused who studied up to intermediate, gave up further studies and used to stay at their home supporting his mother. The accused used to consume liquor and spending with ladies. The accused is well familiar with her parents i.e.,deceased No.1 Gaddam Damoder and deceased No.2

Gaddam Padma and he used to visit their house frequently. As the deceased No.1 Gaddam Damoder met with an accident, he can't even walk properly, whereas deceased No.2 Gaddam

Padma used to suffer with knee joint pains. On that the accused used to assist them every tiny works sitting near their Kirana shop.

4 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 ii)It is further alleged that as the financial status in the family of accused is poor, it became difficult to enjoy with ladies and consuming liquor. On that about week days back the accused decided to kill them and commit theft of cash and ornaments in their house. Accordingly about six days back, when the accused went to Warangal, purchased a knife "Natraj company" and kept in his pocket and roamed around their house for 2, 3 times. But due to unavailability and as he was not dare enough, he kept quite. About three days back, the accused noticed the deceased

No.2 Gaddam Padma is going to a function by keeping all her gold ornaments and decided to commit theft of said ornaments..

In this connection on 13.06.2018 night at about 19.30 hours the accused purchased 90 ML. liquor in wine shop, consumed the same and directly went to the house of deceased No.1 where the deceased No.1 Gaddam Damodhar slept on the bed, where deceased No.2 Gaddam Padma sat in the shop. Accordingly, the accused talked with deceased No.2 for long time and in the night at about 2200 hours, she told him to leave the shop as she is going to close the shop. On that the accused acted as if he is leaving the shop and managed to gain the entrance in to their house through another gate and hid himself beside a tree in the 5 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 darkness. Whereas, the deceased No.2 Gaddam Padma closed the shutters, locked the same and went towards from the back door, locked the gate from inside and while returning she attended her natural calls and noticed the accused, upon which when she tried to raise hues and cries, immediately, the accused closed her mouth, kept the knife on her throat threatening to kill her if she shout. On that she was scared and requested not to do anything and she will do what he says. Accordingly, the accused kept the knife on her throat, took her into bathroom, where he told her to remove the gold chain from her beck, but as she denied to give the chain, the accused beat her with cement brick on her face. While, she was scuffling with him, the accused cut her throat with said knife, due to which she struggled with her life for some time and died. After her death, the accused took the gold pusthela thadu from her neck and as the lights in the house were on and TV sound is coming, the accused picked up cement brick, went near deceased No.1 Gaddam Damodhar who slept on the bed and beat him on his face, due to which he received bleeding injury and fell unconscious on the bed.

iii)It is further alleged that the accused took the almirah key kept in the shelf, managed to open the almirah and took the gold 6 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 and silver ornaments and kept in a cover. At the same instance the accused searched for some more valuables in the almirah and counter, where he found some amount in the cash counter which he had taken. While, he was searching for some more valuables, he noticed deceased No.1 Gaddam Damodhar was moving upon which the accused went near him and cut his throat. The blood stains were fallen on the shirt of accused and in the night till around 1230 hours, he stayed in their house. As the accused found the cell phone of deceased No.1 Gaddam

Damodhar, he kept the same in the cover. In order to hide the evidence, the accused pelted the chilli powder in front of the house and near the dead body of deceased No.2 Gaddam Padma and created the same as if some unknown offenders has committed theft and thrown the sarees and some articles in the well. At the same instance the accused thrown away the cell phone and cement brick in the well of their house. Subsequently, he tried to come out of the house by opening the shutter lock and again locked the shutters. Later he went to his house, removed his blood stained shirt and went to bath. Later he gave the cover consisting of cash, ornaments, knife and cell phone to his friend

Rajitha and told her to hide the same. The accused thrown his 7 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 shirt along with shutter keys of D-1 in the well. Later as the murder of deceased No.1 Gaddam Damodhar and deceased No.2

Gaddam Padma was published in the village and while the villagers are talking about the murder, on listening the same, he was scared as he used to go the house of Damodhar frequently, he thought that he may be also suspected in said list and started absconding. Later, the accused came to know that the police also went to their house, due to which he was scared and thinking that the police may anyhow apprehend him and keeping the same in mind, he went near their villager LW-12/Deekonda

Bixapathi and explained incident to him and while he was explaining about the killing ofdeceased No.1 Gaddam Damoder and deceased No.2 Gaddam Padmaand committing theft of net cash and ornaments LW-13/Chennuri Kiran Kumar was also present.

iv).It is further alleged that on 19-06-2018 morning at about 0700 hours, LW-3/Gaddam Satyanarayana phoned to LW-1 and informed about the murder of deceased No.1 Gaddam Damodhar and deceased No.2 Gaddam Padma and on knowing the same immediately, he went to their house and found D-1 died on the bed who received bleeding injuries over his throat, cheek and 8 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 head and the house hold articles were scattered. Where LW-1 found his mother/D-2 died in the bath room with bleeding injuries over her throat and cheek. At the same instance the gold pusthela thadu is missing from the neck of D-2. In this way the accused killed the D-1 and D-2 and committed theft of cash, gold/silver ornaments and cell phone in the house of deceased.

v.On receipt of the complaint, LW25/P.Kishan, Inspector of

Police registered a case in Cr.No. 130 of 2018 for the offences

U/Secs. 449, 380, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and issued

FIR and took up further investigation. During the course of investigation LW25/P.Kishan, Inspector of Police examined and recorded the statement of LW1, visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of LW14-Gundameedi Srinivas and LW15-

Thalla Shaym and in their presence, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased No.1 and deceased No.2 by taking photographs of the deceased with the help of LW8-Kanukuntla

Satheesh and sent the dead body to KMC/FMD, Warangal to held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased No.1 and 2. During the inquest, he examined and recorded the statements of LW2 to

LW8 i.e., G.Udaya Sri, G.Satyanarayana, K.Latha, G.Barath

Kumar, G.Ravinder, D.Dayakar and K.Sathees and also secured 9 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 the presence of mediators LW17-G.Shiva Kumar and LW18-

A.Vidyasagar, inspected the crime scene and incorporated all physical features in the Crime Details Form and also photographed the scene with the help of LW8 and seized blood stained swab cotton from the deceased No.1 Gaddam

Damodhar , control swab, blood stained cotton swab, control swab, red chilli powder, blue colour designed bangle pieces, blood stained yellow and red colour mixed sari of deceased No.2 , blood stained white and light green colour towels, 9 blood stained blue and while colour towel, 2 pillow covers while and other mixed shaded colours, powder of cement brick. On 20.06.2018, LW12/Deekonda Bixapathi got surrendered the accused before LW.25/P.Kishan, Inspector of Police and the accused made his extra judicial confession in presence of

LW19/Avurupally Srikanth and LW20/Ch.Hariprasad. Later, the accused led the police to his house where police seized gold and silver ornaments, one small knife, one MI Cell phone, net cash under cover of panchanama in presence of mediators and effected his arrest and sent him to judicial custody and after completion of investigation, LW26/P.Thirumal filed charge sheet.

10 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

3.The learned V-Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Sections 449, 380, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and the case is registered as P.R.C. No.348 of 2019 and issued summons to accused.

4.On receipt of the summons, accused appeared before the learned Committal Magistrate, then the copies of all documents furnished to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later the learned

Magistrate has committed the above said P.R.C, to the Hon’ble

Principal Sessions Court, Warangal as the offence under Section

302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions .

5. Later, upon hearing the learned counsel for the accused, the VII Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal has framed the charges under Sections 449, 380, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code against the accused, the same was read over and explained to him in Telugu language, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.Initially, the Hon’ble District and Sessions Judge, Warangal registered the case as S.C.No.179/2019 and made over to VIII-

Addl. Sessions Judge, Warangal. In view of bifurcation of Judicial 11 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

Districts, the Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda received the file and renumbered as S.C.No.295/2022 and made over to II-Addl.

Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda to dispose of the case according

to law.

7.On receipt of the case record, this Court has issued summons to accused. On receipt of the summons, accused appeared before this Court by engaging the learned counsel.

8.In order to establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW16 and got marked Ex.P1 to P17 and MO.1 to MO.30. Since MO.27 number was twice marked to two material objects by my Learned Predecessor in Office, dt:

21.03.2022 and 23.03.2022, hence subsequently marked MO.27,

dt: 23.03.2022 is renumbered as MO.27/1.

9. After completion of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against him, for which he denied, but reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments of both sides. Perused the material on record.

12 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

11.Now the point for consideration is:

“Whether prosecution has established the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 449, 380, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubts?”

12.POINT:- Shortly stated the allegations levelled against the accused are that the accused is alleged to have committed house trespass by entering into the house in the possession of Gaddam

Padma and Gaddam Damodar, used as a human dwelling in order to commit the offence of robbery and murder and that he intentionally caused the deaths of deceased Gaddam Padma and

Gaddam Damodar by cutting their throat with knife. Further the accused is alleged to have committed theft of gold and silver ornaments in the house of Gaddam Padma used for human dwelling and that knowing or having reason to believe that the offence committed is murder of Gaddam Padma and Gaddam

Damodar tried to hide the evidence and sprinkled the chilli powder in front of the house and near the dead body of Padma and created the situation as if some unknown offender has committed theft and thrown the sarees and some articles in the well to screen the offender.

13 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

13.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined PW1 to PW17 and got marked Ex.P1 to

P17 and got marked MO.1 to MO.30. On the other hand, it is the defence of the accused which is of total denial. This Court has swifted the entire material on record in order to find out whether the accused is found guilty or not for the offences charged against the accused.

14.As seen from the evidence of PW1 who in his chief examination stated that the deceased Damodar and Padma are his parents who died about 11½ years ago. On 19.06.2018 he received phone call from LW3/G.Satyanarayana at around 7.00 a.m. and informed that his parents are lying dead in their house at Hasanparthy and his father was on the bed and his mother was lying in the bathroom. Immediately,he along with

LW2/G.Udaya Sri and her husband went to Hasanparthy and found that his father was lying dead on the bed with cut injury on neck and bleeding injuries on face and head and his mother was lying dead in the bathroom with cut injury across the neck and there were injury marks on her face. There was no pusthelathadu and other ornaments which were regularly worn by his mother. On seeing the same, he went to P.S Hasanparthy 14 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 and lodged report under Ex.P1 with the Cl of Police. In the cross- examination of PW1, he categorically stated that his sister and himself verified the missing articles before lodging the complaint and that his sister also came to Police station along with him.

PW1 denied the suggestions put-forth to him during the course of cross-examination and stood consistent with his evidence. As seen from the evidence of PW1 who is the son of the deceased

Damodhar and deceased Padma it categorically establishes about the lodging of complaint and lying of the dead bodies of his parents with injuries at their house.

15.PW2 in his evidence stated that on 19.06.2018,

PW15( i.e.,LW.4) informed him at about 6.30 am that Damodar and Padma did not wake up early as usual, then he called his brother Damodar but he did not answer. Immediately he went to his house and saw from the gap between the gates that chilli powder was lying between the house and gate. As the compound wall was high and as the gate was bolted from inside, he sent

PW.3 (i.e.,LW.5) from over the compound wall and after he opened the gate, they went inside and found that his brother was lying dead on a bench in his house. There was bleeding injury across his neck and there was head injury also and also 15 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 found his sister-in-law Padma lying dead in the bathroom. Then, he called PW.1 and informed him about the situation. As seen from the cross-examination of PW2, he categorically stated that the house of Damodhar is abutting to the main road leading to

Karimnagar and that there are residential houses even after the house of Damodar. As seen from the evidence of PW2, it categorically establishes that he saw circumstances of lying the chilly powder between the house and gate of the deceased and that it also establishes sending of PW3 (i.e.,LW5) over the compound wall and then opening the gates by him and then finding the dead bodies of the deceased.

16.PW3 in his evidence stated that on 19.06.2018 he went to the house of deceased as he was called by PW.2. when they pushed the gate, it did not open. PW.2 called on the phone of

Damodar but it was not answered. PW.2 helped him to climb over the compound wall and he opened the gate. There was chilli powder on the ground before the gate. On going inside the house they saw Damodar lying dead on the bed with injuries across his neck and Padma was lying dead in the bathroom. As seen from the cross-examination of PW3, he categorically deposed that he got down from the compound wall with the help of tree existing 16 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 inside the compound wall and that initially 10 persons were gathered at the scene house and later many people came. Thus, as seen from the evidence of PW3, it categorically establishes about the lying of dead bodies in the house of deceased persons and that the witness PW3 by climbing the compound wall he went inside the house i.e., scene of offence and found the dead bodies with injuries.

17.PW4 in his evidence deposed that he is running photo studio under the name and style of Sri Venkateshwara Digital photo studio at Hasanparthy. On 19.6.2018 Police Hasanparthy called him to P.S., and from there they took him to the scene of offence and on the directions of police he took photographs of the scene and later handed over the photos along with CD to police under Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3. As seen from the cross- examination of PW4, he denied the suggestions put forth to him during the course of cross-examination and categorically stated that it not true to suggest that he did not take photographs under Ex.P3. As seen from the entire evidence of PW4, it categorically shows about taking of photographs under Ex.P3 and

Ex.P4.

17 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

18.PW5 in his chief examination deposed that he is running

Bhadrakali Jewelers shop in Hasanparthy. About two years ago on the request of police, he weighed ornaments and gave bill noting down the weight of all the ornaments weighed under

Ex.P.3/3 photograph and the two receipts under Ex.P.4. As seen from the cross-examination of PW5, it categorically shows that he weighed the ornaments given to him by the constable from the box and he gave the bill noting down the weight of all the ornaments and issued receipt under Ex.P4.

19. PW6 deposed in her evidence that in the year 2018, in the early morning of 19th day the accused came to her house and gave a cover and told him that he would come again to take it.

She kept it securely and later police came and took that cover from her. Later she came to know that the accused murdered

Damodar and that the cover was containing gold and silver articles. As seen from the cross-examination of PW6, it categorically establishes that she knows the accused, he lived in front of her house in Hasanparthy. She also deposed that she knows the deceased Damodhar and Padma also. Pw6 categorically stated that she did not question the accused about the contents of cover as he told her that he would come soon to 18 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 take it. PW6 further stated that she did not observe what kind of cover it was. As seen from the entire evidence of PW6 it categorically shows that the accused came to the house of PW6 and gave a cover containing valuable items i.e., ornaments and told her that he would come again to take it. Hence, the allegations of the prosecution that the accused gave cover to

PW6 which contains ornaments and which ornaments weighed by

PW.5 stands proved.

20. PW7 stated in his evidence that on 20.06.2018, he slept after having lunch. At about 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. police came to his house and enquired him whether Rajitha was tenant in his house.

He showed the portion of Rajitha. While he was standing infront of his portion, police went to the portion of Rajitha and asked her about the cover and she brought the cover from her house and gave to police which contain gold ornaments in that cover.

Police put the contents of cover on a sheet and then he saw the contents of the cover. Police told him that they were seizing the cover with the contents and took his signature. As seen from the cross-examination of PW7, he categorically denied the suggestions put-forth to him and he denied that he was given a piece of paper for reading before entering into the court hall and 19 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 also denied the suggestions that he never seen the accused. As seen from the entire evidence of PW7 it categorically establishes that PW7 is the owner of the house of PW6/Rajitha who is the tenant in one of the portion of the house. PW7 evidence also establishes that the police came to the house of PW6/Rajitha and seized the cover containing gold ornaments and at that time when the police opened the cover PW7 was also present.

21. PW8 deposed in his evidence that on 20.06.2018 at about 11.00 a.m. the accused came to his house. He was talking with

C.Kiran Kumar i.e., LW13 and at that time, the accused came to him and told that he wanted to say something to him. When he asked him what was the matter, he confessed before him that on the previous night he murdered Gaddam Damodar and Padma in inebriated state and the accused told him that he went to the house of Gaddam Damodar in inebriated state on the night of 18.06.2018 at about 7.30 or 8.00 p.m., that he chit chatted with

Padma, that Damodar was on the bed and that when Padma asked him to leave as she wanted to close the shop at 10.00 or 10.30 p.m., he went towards the front side of the shop as if he was leaving but hid himself in the trees situated behind their house. The accused further told him that after locking the shop 20 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 shutter from outside, Padma entered into the house through the gate situated beside the shutter and bolted the gate from inside and then she came to the back side of her house and she was urinating, she saw him and questioned who it was. The accused then told him that he went behind Padma and closed her mouth and demanded her to give her pusthalathadu and that he was

Prashanth and when Padma tried to escape from him, Prashanth hit her on her face with a cement brick lying there. The accused further confessed that while Padma's face was bleeding, he cut her neck with a knife that was with him. As the Damodar was unable to get up from bed during that time as his leg was fractured. The accused further confessed that the lights were on in the house and T.V. was on and that the accused went inside the house and hit Damodar on his face with cement brick. The accused also told him that after hitting Damodar, he took Almirah keys from the table beside Damodar’s bed and opened the

Almirah and took ornaments, clothes, documents and the cash lying in the counter of the shop and that when he observed

Damodar moving in bed, he again went to Damodar and slit his throat with knife and took his cell phone and came out of the house and before leaving, he threw the clothes and documents in 21 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 the well situated beside the bathroom and took away the ornaments and cash with him. He further confessed that before leaving he threw chilli powder which he took from the shop, over the blood appearing in the bathroom, at the bed of Damodar, in the walk way and infront of the house. On the next morning when he heard about the murder, he went to the house of

Damodar and saw the scene and he returned home as he had some work. He came to know that police came with dog squad to the scene but he was not in the village at that time. On 20.06.2018 when accused confessed about the murder before him, he requested him to surrender him before the police as police were coming to his house. Then he informed the police on phone and took him to P.S. on the same day and informed the police about the confession made by the accused and handed over the accused to the police. As seen from the evidence of PW8 during the course of cross-examination, he categorically stated that the house of Damodar is 100 feet away from his house and that Ch.Kiran Kumar (i.e., LW13) was also in his house for the entire time the accused spent in his house. As seen from the entire evidence of PW8, it categorically shows that the accused after committing offence categorically confessed before PW8 and 22 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

Ch.Kiran Kumar (i.e., LW13) about the commission of offence and the manner in which the offence was committed.

22. PW9 deposed in his evidence that on 19.06.2018 he went to the house of Damodar and Padma in Hasanparthy on coming to know about the incident. While he was present there at about 11.30 am, the police conducted inquest panchanama on the body of both the deceased at about 12.00 noon in the presence of himself and T.Shyam and Sheelam Swaroopa (i.e., LW15 and

LW16 respectively). The body of Damodar was lying on a table cot (Balla) and there were bleeding injuries on his face and neck.

He was wearing a vest and lungi. The body of Padma was lying in the bathroom and there were bleeding injuries on her face and neck and her right hand. There were ear studs on her body. The blood stained clothes of Damodar were seized by police in their presence. The police have also seized a pillow cover and towel from the scene. The witness identified the white colour vest, blue and black multi colour lungi, pillow cover and towel as the same clothes seized in their presence under Mos. 1 to 4 . In the cross- examination PW9 categorically sated that he read the panchanama before signing. As seen from the evidence of PW9 the conducting of inquest panchanama is established and hence 23 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 in inquest panchanamas under Ex.P5 and Ex.P6 were got marked through him.

23. PW10 deposed in his evidence that in the month of May or

June, 2019, he went to the house of Gaddam Damodar on coming to know about the incident. The body of Damodar was lying on a bed and his wife's body was lying in bathroom. At about 12.30 pm, police came and requested him to stand as witnesses to panchanama. The police incorporated details of the scene in CDF in his presence and Shiva kumar (i.e., LW17) and obtained their signatures. The police seized towel, pillow covers, bed sheet, cement brick, brick powder and chilli powder from the scene under MOs 5 to 7 respectively. The police have also seized broken bangle pieces from the bathroom where the body of lady was lying. The witness further identified one yellow and red colour saree and stated that it was seized from near the bed of

D1 Damodar. The said saree is marked as MO.8. The two pillow covers are marked as MO.9. The white and green colour towel is marked as MO. 10. As seen from the cross-examination of PW10, it categorically establishes the conducting of scene of offence panchanama and drafting of rough sketch under Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and also seizing the MO.5 to MO.10. During the course of cross- 24 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 examination, PW10 categorically denied the suggestions put-forth to him.

24.PW11 deposed in her evidence that on 19.06.2018 at about 07:00 AM PW2 called him and informed that her mother was found with bleeding injuries in the bathroom of their house and his father was found on the bed with bleeding injuries on his head and other parts of the body. Immediately, he along with her husband and PW1 went to the village and found the dead body of his mother in bathroom with injuries on her head and neck and the dead body of her father with injuries on his head and face and they observed that the almiarah was opened and all the household articles and the articles in the kitchen were in pell-mell condition. They found the gold Mangalasutram in the neck of her mother and other gold and silver ornaments in the house were missing. The offenders have stolen gold, silver ornaments and cash from the house. Thereafter, his brother lodged complaint with the police. As seen from the cross-examination of PW11 who is none other than the daughter of the deceased persons, she categorically stated that she verified the articles in the house and that herself and her brother discussed with each other about missing articles and that thereafter her brother lodged the 25 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 complaint with the police and through her MO.11 to MO.27 are marked. As seen from the entire evidence of the PW11 missing valuable items from the house of deceased persons is established and she also identified those material objects shown to her to be missing articles from the house of her parents.

25.PW12 deposed in his evidence that on 20.06.2018 at about 12 noon on the instructions of the MRO, he along with Hari

Prasad (LW20) went to PS., Hasanparthy and at the request of the SHO, they enquired the accused who confessed to have committed the offence and in pursuance of his confession, he lead them to the house of his friend Rajini situated at Ramaram where police seized the gold ornaments, silver articles, cash, knife and a mobile phone and thereafter accused lead them to the agricultural well of one Kazipet Venkataiah situated on the way from Hasanparthy to Ramaram and there the police seized one T-Shirt and undergarment with blood stains kept in a cover.

After the confession and seizure panchanama were drafted, himself and Hari Prasad (LW20) signed on the same. The Police seized one mobile phone and a steel tiffin box from the possession of the accused at the police station under Ex.P9 relevant portion of the confession panchanama Dt: 20.06.2018 26 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 containing the discovery of fact and seizure of mobile phone. As seen from the evidence of PW12 who is none other than the VRO of Hasanparthy, he categorically stated about the conducting of confession and seizure panchanama and in the panchanama the accused confessed guilt in his presence and also about the seizure of material objects in his presence at the instance of accused. Hence, Ex.P9 which is relevant portion of confession panchanama marked through him and Ex.P10 and Ex.P11 are seizure panchanamas which were marked through PW12. MO.27 to MO.30 were also marked. PW11 also identified MO.11 to

MO.26 and stated that MO.11 to MO.26 shown to him are the gold ornaments and silver articles seized in his presence. PW12 further stated that MO.27 to MO.30 were seized in his presence.

In cross examination PW12 categorically stated that he had read the panchanama after the same was drafted and that the inspector of police scribed all the panchanamas. As seen from the evidence of PW12, it categorically establishes about the confession of guilt made by the accused and also the recovery of stolen articles at the instance of accused as contemplated U/Sec.

27 of Indian Evidence Act.

27 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

26. PW13 who is the doctor stated in his chief examination that on 19.06.2018 at about 1.50 p.m, he received requisition to conduct postmortem examination over the dead body of deceased G.Damodar and he found external and internal injuries over the death of deceased G.Damodar. He also conducted postmortem examination over the deadbody of deceased

G.Padma and found external and internal injuries. The all the injuries caused to deceased G.Damoder and G.Padma are ante mortem injuries in nature. PW13 further deposed that the cause of death of deceased No.1 and No.2 was due to head injury and accordingly he issued Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 postmortem examination report. As seen from the entire cross-examination of

PW13, he categorically denied the suggestions put-forth to him and stood consistent with the evidence stated in the chief examination and that through him Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 postmortem examination reports were marked and in the cross- examination, he categorically stated that all the above mentioned injuries together have got the death of Gaddam Damodar and also stated that the injuries mentioned in respect of postmortem examination of Gaddam Padma have got the death of G.Padma.

As seen from the evidence of PW13, it categorically shows that 28 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 the death of deceased persons caused due to the injuries inflicted on them and the injuries are mentioned in Ex.P12 and

Ex.P13 which are postmortem examination reports.

27. PW14 who is the ASI of Police, Fingerprint was examined and he deposed that on receiving a telephonic message from

Inspector of Police, PS, Hasanparthy on 19.06.2018 he along with concerned police visited the scene of offence, examined the scene of offence and developed all articles suspected to have been handled by the unknown culprits. During the course of examination and development, 4 chance prints were disclosed on

Almirah inner side marked as "A", 2) Steel bowl marked as "B" & "C" and Polythene Cover marked as "D", prints were got photographed at the scene of offer. On 21.06.2018 the Inspector of Police, Hasanparthy sent a steel box along with a letter C.No.

130/Crm-Ins-G-3/2018, Dt: 21.06.2018 for the development of chance prints, if any, on examination and development with powder one chance print disclosed on steel box and marked as "E" and the same has been compared with the fingerprints on fingerprint slip of Kamarapu Prashanth. Accordingly, he issued report Ex.P14 along fingerprint chart and points of identity. As seen from the cross-examination of PW14 through him Ex.P14 29 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

Finger print chart and points of identity was marked. As seen from the evidence of PW14, he categorically stated that he took the training for 14 months in collection of finger print collections and he also categorically stated that he had given the report stating that the finger print found on the steel box is that of accused is basing on the fingerprint slip sent by the police along with steel box. PW14 categorically denied the suggestions put- forth to him and stood consistent with his evidence stated in the chief examination. As seen from the evidence of PW14, it categorically establishes that the tiffin box which was recovered at the scene of offence contains the finger prints of the accused and this is leading evidence which connects the accused with the guilt of the accused in the present crime and also which goes to establish and connect the identity of the accused with the present offence.

28.PW15 deposed that the deceased Damodar and Padma died about 3 years ago. On the date of the death of the deceased at about 07:30 AM brother of Damodar came to her stall and asked her if Damodar and Padma were in their house or not and she informed him that she does not know about the same. After sometime he heard the cries of the residents of the locality and 30 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 went near the house of the deceased and came to know that the deceased Damodar and Padma were dead in their house. She did not go into the house of the deceased and she did not see their dead bodies. She turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

29. PW16, SHO, PS Parkal deposed that on 19.06.2018 at 11:30 AM he received Ex.P1 complaint from PW1 and basing on it, he registered a case in Cr.No. 130/2018 for the offences under

Sections 449, 302, 380 of IPC and issued the FIR under Ex.P16.

Thereafter, he recorded the statement of PW1 and gave information about the incident to the clues team and dog squad and later visited the scene of offence and the clues team collected the chance prints from the scene of offence, conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of two mediators and seized blood stained cotton swab, control soil, blood stained cotton swab near the dead body, control swab of item No.3, red chilli powder, blue color bangle pieces, blood stained yellow and red color saree, blood stained white and light green color towel, blood stained blue and white color towel, blood stained pillow covers white and other colors, powder of cement brick, cement brick. Later, he conducted inquest over the dead bodies of the 31 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 deceased and got the dead bodies photographed and later the dead bodies were shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal. He seized

MO.1 to MO.4 from the dead bodies of the deceased, recorded the statements of witnesses. On 20.06.2018 PW8 brought the accused to the police station and he recorded the statement of

PW8 to whom the accused made an extra judicial confession.

Later, on interrogation in the presence of two mediators, the accused voluntarily confessed to have committed the offence.

Thereafter, the accused lead them to the house of one Rajitha situated at Ramaram Village where he seized MO.11 to MO.30 in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, he informed the fingerprint expert to collect the fingerprint from the steel box.

Thereafter, the accused lead them to a well situated in the land of Kazipet Venkataiah at Hasanparthy Village and they seized one maroon color T-Shirt with blood stains, ash color lower with blood stains kept in a cover in the presence of the mediators.

Thereafter, they brought the accused to the police station, effected his arrest and produced him before the Court for judicial remand. Thereafter, he handed over the CD file to his successor.

As seen from the cross-examination of PW16, he categorically stated that they have sent the finger prints collected from the 32 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 accused to the finger print expert on 21.06.2018 along with steel box. As seen from the evidence of PW16, he categorically deposed about the registration of FIR under Ex.P16 and also about conducting of detailed investigation in this case.

30. PW17-Asst. Commissioner of Police, deposed in his evidence that on 12.09.2018 she received the CD file from PW16 and found the same to be on correct lines. PW16 collected the

Autopsy of the Deceased No.1 and 2 and the opinion of the

Fingerprint Expert and the RFSL report and he also gave a requisition to the Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal for recording the Section 164 CrPC statement of PW8 and LW13 and she collected the said statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, she filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 449, 380, 302 and 201 of IPC. As seen from the evidence of

PW17 through him Ex.P17 RFSL report was marked and he categorically denied the suggestions put-forth to him during the course of cross-examination and he deposed about investigation done by him in this case and also deposed about the filing of the charge sheet.

33 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

31. As seen from the entire oral evidence and exhibits and material objects got marked by the prosecution, they categorically establishes that the accused in inebriated state which is voluntarily consumption of alcohol went to the house of the deceased persons and committed theft of valuable property and in the course of the same he killed the deceased persons and the same is elicited from the evidence placed above by the prosecution. The accused did not adduce any rebuttal evidence.

32.Hence, as per section 449 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with anyone who illegally enters a property with the intent to commit a crime that carries a death penalty, such as murder, will be punished. The punishment for this offence is imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for up to ten years, and a fine. In the present case, the accused illegally entered the house of deceased with intent to commit offence and caused the death of the deceased persons.

33. As per section 380 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with theft committed in dwelling house, tent or vessel . It is a non-bailable, cognizable offence. Even in the present case the accused committed theft in the house of deceased.

34 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

34. As per Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with the punishment for murder, it states that anyone who commits murder can be punished with either death, imprisonment for life and fine. To be convicted under this section, it must be proven that the person committed murder, with the necessary intent or knowledge of the consequences. Even in the present case, the accused very well knew the consequences of his act and the injuries inflicted by the accused caused the death of the deceased.

35.As per Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which punishes anyone who, knowing a crime has been committed, causes the disappearance of evidence or gives false information to screen the offender from punishment. Even in the case on hand, the accused threw chilli powder at the scene and tried to screen the evidence and threw the incriminating objects in the well.

36.To support the case of the prosecution, the prosecution relied on the following case laws:-

i) . Balakram Etc. Vs. The state of U.P. 1974 AIR 2165, 1975

SCR (1) 753 wherein it was held that 35 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 “It cannot be overlooked that the statements of

Jhilmili, Ram Prakash and Aryendra were recorded under section 164, Criminal Procedure Code, in June 1971, soon after the incident. The Investigating Officer says that he got the statements recorded by way of precaution. That could be true and it would be wrong to find fault with the Investigating Officer merely because he got the statements of these witnesses recorded under section 164. Nor can the evidence of a witness be discarded for the mere reason that his statement was recorded under section 164. But the High Court overlooked that the evidence of witnesses whose statements are recorded under section 164 must be approached with caution. Such witnesses feel tied to their previous statements given on oath and have but a theoretical freedom to depart from the earlier version. A prosecution for perjury could be the price of that freedom. It is, of course, open to the Court to accept the evidence of a witness whose statement was recorded under section 164, but the salient rule of caution must always be borne in mind”.

ii). Bodh Raj & Bodha Vs. The state of Jammu and Kashmir wherein it was held that “Before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must be fully established. They are: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established, (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should excludee very possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so compete as not to 36 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused”.

iii). Madan Sopal Kakkad Vs.Noval Kukey and ANR 1992 SCR92) 1921, 1992 SCCC (3) 204.

“ Yet we after most carefully and closely scrutinizing the galaxy of the proven facts, have no hesitation in agreeing with the High Court that the extra-judicial confession made by the respondent which is not shown to have been obtained by coercion, promise of favour or false hope etc. is plenary in character and voluntary in its nature acknowledging his guilt- i.e. the gravely incriminating fact of the commission of rape on Tulna-in precise and explicit words. This confession has been made in presence of a body of person on two occasions inclusive of the family members of the respondent as well as PWs 5, 6, 9 and 10. PW 7 was present only on the first occasion along with other witnesses. As ruled by this Court in Piara Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 2274 [1978] 1 SCR 597 law does not require that the evidence of an extra- judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. However, coming to the facts of the case, the confession of the respondent is amply corroborated by the evidence of the victim (PW 13) whose testimony in turn is corroborated by PWs 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 and also by the medical evidence

There are a series of decisions to the effect that even in cases wherein there is lack of oral corroboration to that of a prosecutrix, a conviction can be safely recorded, provided the evidence of the victim does not suffer from any basic infirmity, and the 'probabilities factor' does not render it unworthy of credence, and that as a general rule, corroboration cannot be insisted upon, except from the medical evidence, where, having regard to the circumstances of the case, medical evidence can be expected to be forthcoming. Vide Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan, [1952] SCR 377; Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat, [1988] 2 SCC 217; Krishan Lal v. State of Haryana, [1980] 3 SCC 159.” 37 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 iv). Anter Singh Vs. The state of Rajasthan in Crl.Appeal No.

1105 of 1997 wherein it was held that “(1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the provision has nothing to do with question of relevancy. The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the fact discovered admissible. (2) The fact must have been discovered. (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of some information received from the accused and not by accused's own act. (4) The persons giving the information must be accused of any offence. (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer. (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information received from an accused in custody must be deposed to. (7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be proved. The rest is inadmissible. As observed in Palukuri Kotayya's case (supra) it can seldom happen that information leading to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the prosecution case. It is one link in the chain of proof and the other links must be forged in manner allowed by law. To similar effect was the view expressed in K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (1962 SC 1788) The several discrepancies and shortcomings in evidence as noticed supra considerably corrode credibility of the prosecution version. That being so, the inevitable conclusion is that the prosecution has not established the accusations against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt and consequently he is entitled to be acquitted. Since he is on bail, the bail bonds be discharged. The appeal is allowed”.

The above case laws filed by the prosecution are useful to the case of the prosecution.

38 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

37.In order to support the defence of the accused, the learned defence counsel relied on the following case laws:-

i). Jalli Radha Krishna Vs. State of A.P, 2018 1 ALT (Cri.) 129 wherein it was held at Para No. 76 and 77 as follows:- “Thus, the view expressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt and Veeran and others referred supra, are a little bit conflicting, but the Larger bench judgment reported in Gurdial Singh and others referred supra, is totally in consonance with the principle laid down in the decision Yomeshbhai Pranshankar Bhatt. However, the Larger bench judgment is binding on the Courts. In the facts of the present case, as discussed above, accused had no intention to kill till they had dinner in the house of accused, but suddenly the accused suspected Kalluri Muthaiah (deceased) about development of illicit contact with wife of accused/appellant, as Kalluri Muthaiah (deceased) repeatedly enquired about wife of accused. As such, the act of accused is not pre-meditated and the incident of beating ensued suddenly in grave provocation. Another aspect is, causing injury with butt of M.0.2. It is also another strong circumstance to believe that the accused had no intention to kill him. Therefore, we hold that the accused/appellant is guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of LP.C

In view of our foregoing discussion, the prosecution proved that the accused/appellant caused injuries on the vital parts of the body of Kalluri Muthaiah (deceased), which lead to his death, but not with an intention to kill him. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the Court below for the offence pumshable under Section 302 IPC is set aside, converting the conviction of the accused/appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-II IPC”.

ii). Ganpat Singh V. The state of Madhya Pradesh 2018 1 ALD (Cri) SC 35 between wherein it was held at Para No.9 as follows:

39 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 “Every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt. And all the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused.

There are no eye-witnesses to the crime. In a case which rests on circumstantial evidence, the law postulates a two-fold requirement. First, every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Second, all the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused. The principle has been consistently formulated thus”.

iii).Kanukuntal Mallikarjun V. State of Andhra Pradesh rep. By its Public Prosecutor High Court, Hyderabad 2018 1 ALD (Cri) 287 wherein it was held at para No. 18 as follows:

“When the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is found highly unreliable, the only other link that could connect the appellant with the killing of the deceased is the alleged recovery of M.0.3 axe. P.W.11. who is one of the mediators to Ex.P.17 confessional and seizure panchanama, has turned hostile. He has deposed that he has put his signatures on white papers and nothing was seized in his presence. He has denied the suggestion that on the confession of the appellant and at his instance the Police have seized the axe from the bushes. However, P.W.13, another mediator supported the case of the prosecution. At this juncture, the evidence of P.W.7, the doctor who conducted the autopsy assumes relevance. In his cross-examination he deposed that he cannot say exactly that the injuries are possible only with an axe and that he cannot say what kind of weapon was used. Thus, the Doctor was not sure whether the injuries would have been possible with M.0.3 axe. The serious lacuna in the prosecution case lies in the fact that M.0.3 weapon was not sent to forensic science laboratory for its opinion as to whether it contained human blood. M.0.3 weapon being an axe is a commonly available weapon seizure of an axe from a person does not establish nexus 40 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 between the offence and the person whose possession the weapon is seized, unless the prosecution establishes that it is with that weapon that the offence is committed. As noted above, the investigation agency has failed to obtain forensic report proving that the seized weapon was used in the commission of the offence. Therefore, the prosecution failed to establish even this link”.

iv).Raja Naykar V. State of Chhattisgarh 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 71 wherein it was held at Para No. 8 and 9 as follows:

It is a primary principle that accused 'must be' and not merely 'may be proved guilty before a court can convict accused Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is - Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

v).2019 0 AIR (SC) 546 Ashish Jain V. Makrand Singh and others wherein it was held in para No.23 to 27 as follows:

“Criminal trial – Recovery – Identification of items recovered from accused instantly without mixing the items. Held identification not done in accordance with due procedure Non-examination of two important witnesses to recoveries adversely affecting prosecution

1) Criminal trial - Weapons seized from accused not matching with description of injuries FSL. reports not conclusive Held, recovery of weapons or blood stained clothes not reliable. (Para 25, 26) (2) Identification of Prisoners Act. 1920-Section 4 and 5-Taking finger prints of accused Section 4 authorising police officer to take finger prints of accused Section 5 requiring order of a Magistrate for doing so Section 5 not mandatory but directory Absence of a magisterial arder does not make the act 41 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 illegal However, packaging and sealing of tumblers in question made in presence of relatives of the deceased only Possibility of tampering and postfacto addition of fingerprints cannot be ruled out High Court rightly disregarded this evidence.” vi). Hansraj V. State of M.P 2024 0 Supreme (SC) 356wherein it was held at Para No. 14, 15, 16 and 17 as follows:

“Prosecution miserably failed to prove factum of disclosure made by accused to Investigating Officer leading to recovery of silver articles allegedly looted by accused from complainant Prosecution did not lead any evidence to show that recovered articles were sealed at the time of recovery or that they were kept secure in Malkhana of Police Station till the same were subjected to identification before Executive

Magistrate. In addition thereto, Executive Magistrate

was not examined in evidence Complainant made a categorical admission in her cross examination that she could recognize silver articles in test identification proceedings upon being pointed out by police officials. Recovery of ornaments at instance of accused and identification thereof has no sanctity in eyes of law and cannot be relied upon No other evidence was led by prosecution to connect accused appellant with crime There is no tangible or reliable evidence available on record so as to affirm guilt of accused appellant as recorded by Trial Court and upheld by High Court impugned Judgments passed by Trial Court and High Court hereby quashed and set aside and appellant acquitted”.

vii).Dhan Raj @ Dhand between State of Haryana 2014 0

Supreme (SC) 417 wherein it was held at Para No. 12 as follows:

“Petty articles recovered from house of accused. Identification of wrist watch not reliable. Not corroborated by independent witness such recovery cannot be relied upon for conviction”.

42 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 viii). Tulesh Kumar Sahu V. Sate of Chattisgarh 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1358 wherein it was held at Para No. 33 as follows:

“1. The first thing to be established is that the theft and murder forms part of one transaction. The circumstances may indicate that the theft and murder must have been committed at the same time. But it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murderer ii. The nature of the stolen article, iii. The manner of its acquisition by the owner; iv. The nature of evidence about its identification; v. The manner in which it was dealt with by the accused; vi. The place and the circumstances of its recovery; vii. The length of the intervening period; viii. Ability or otherwise of the accused to explain its possession. The only material which may possibly be taken against the appellant is, thus extremely weak. There is no other material on record which could even remotely be taken against the appellant. On the strength of the law declared by this Court, the appellant is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt”.

ix).2022 0 Supreme (SC) 1360 between Tulesh Kumar Sahu V.

State of Chattisgarh wherein it as held at Para No.28 as follows “Be that as it may, in the absence of any direct or circumstantial evidence whatsoever, from the solitary circumstance of the unexplained recovery of the two articles from the houses of the two appellants the only inference that can be raised in view of illustration A. to S.114 of the Evidence Act is that they are either receivers of stolen property or were the persons who committed the theft, but it does not necessarily indicate that the theft and the murders took place at one and the same time”.

x).Tulesh Kumar Sahu V. State of Chattisgarh 2022 Live Law (SC) 228 wherein it was held as follows:

“The only evidence against an accused person is the recovery of stolen property and although the circumstances 43 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 may indicate that the theft and the murder must have been committed at the same time, it is not safe to draw the inference that the person in possession of the stolen property was the murdered. Suspicious cannot take the place of proof”.

xi). Mukkamala Chinna Venkata Reddy and othes V. State of

A.P rep. By Public Prosecutor 2018 3 ALT (Cri) 319 wherein it was held at Para No. 45 and 26 as follows:

“No evidence to corroborate the case of the prosecution that said MO.s were used in the commission of offence. Prosecution failed to prove the recovery of weapons from the accused. Accused acquitted. Appeal against the acquittal dismissed”.

xii).Shai Pashamiya V. The State of Andhra Pradesh 2019 1

ALD (Crl.) 665 wherein it was held at para No. 18 and 19 as follows “ Prosecution failed to conduct Test Identification of Property.

Absence of any person witnessing the appellant in the company of both the deceased, before the alleged murders, Prosecution failed to lead evidence, which would complete chain of circumstances Serious error in convicting the appellant based on suspicion rather than on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Accused entitled for acquittal. Appeal allowed” 44 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 xiii). Kalinga @ Kushal V. State of Karnataka by Police Inspector

Hubli 2024 CJ (SC) 25 wherein it was held at Para No.27 and 30 as follows:

“For proving a case on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it must be established that the chain of circumstances is complete. It must also be established that the chain of circumstances is consistent with the only conclusion of guilt. The margin of error in a case based on circumstantial evidence is minimal. For, the chain of circumstantial evidence is essentially meant to enable the court in drawing an inference. The task of fixing criminal liability upon a person on the strength of an inference must be approached with abundant caution. As discussed above, the circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution are inconsistent and the inconsistencies in the chain of circumstances have not been explained by the prosecution. The doubtful existence of the extra judicial confession, unnatural conduct of PW-1, recovery of dead body in the presence of an unreliable witness PW-2.

The evidence of prosecution at best, makes out a case for suspicion and not for conviction. Accordingly, the impugned order and judgment are set aside. We find no infirmity in the order of the Trial Court and the same stands restored. Consequently, the appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled upon him. The appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if lying in custody”.

xiv). Rajesh and another V. State of Madhya Pradesh Criminal

Appeal Nos. 793-794/2022 between wherein it was held at para

No. 38 as follows:

45 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 “However, the manner in which the police tailored their investigation, with complete indifference to the essential norms in proceeding against the accused and in gathering evidence; leaving important leads unchecked and glossing over other leads that did not suit the story that they had conceived; and, ultimately, in failing to present a cogent, conceivable and fool-proof chain of events pointing to the guilt of the appellants, with no possibility of any other hypothesis, leaves us with no option but to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The higher principle of 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and more so, in a case built on circumstantial evidence, would have to prevail and be given priority. It is high time, perhaps, that a consistent and dependable code of investigation is devised with a mandatory and detailed procedure for the police to implement and abide by during the course of their investigation so that the guilty do not walk free on technicalities”.

The above citations filed by the defence counsel are not applicable to the present case on hand. Since the facts in the present case are different from the facts in the above case laws.

38.Therefore, as seen from the evidence of PW1 to PW14 and

PW16 to PW17 coupled with Ex.P1 to Ex.P17 and MO.1 to MO.30, they clinchingly points out and connect the guilt of the accused person with the present offence. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is reliable, satisfactory and free from all traits. The evidence of prosecution witnesses clearly established that 46 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 accused having knowledge of the consequences caused the death of the deceased persons. Therefore, the charges against the accused are proved by prosecution.

39.Upon analysis of the ocular evidence and the entire evidence on record and the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubts and hence the accused is guilty of the offences alleged against him by the prosecution.

Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

40.In the result, the accused is found guilty for the offences under sections 449, 380, 302 and 201 of IPC and he is convicted u/Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C for the said offences. Accordingly informed to the accused.

(Partly Typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of October, 2025.)

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

41.Hearing of the the accused on the quantum of sentence.

Accused was questioned as to the quantum of sentence to be 47 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 imposed on him and he submitted that he did not do any offence and that his mother is dependent on him and that he is suffering with health problem.

42.The court while awarding sentence in any offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, should record reasons for not awarding death sentence and special reasons for imposing death sentence. Death sentence must be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances. At this stage, this Court feels it is relevant to refer the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Bachan

Singh V. State of Punjab (1982)3SCC24 in which Hon’ble five

judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed its earlier

ruling in Rajendra Prasad’s (AIR 1972 Supreme Court 916) case and held that the death penalty as an alterative punishment for murder, is not unreasonable and therefore is not in violation of

Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution. It also enunciated the principle of awarding the death penalty only in the “rarest of rare cases”. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that the present case on hand is not a rarest of the rare case and there are no extraordinary mitigating circumstances to impose death sentence. Hence, in the circumstances of this case, imposing life imprisonment for the offence U/Sec. 302 of IPC and 48 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 also imprisonment for other offences proved against the accused would meet the ends of justice.

43. IN THE RESULT, Accused is found guilty for the offences punishable under sections 449, 380, 302 and 201 of IPC and he is convicted under section 235(2) Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years for the offence punishable u/Sec. 449 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused is sentenced to undergo

Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for the offence punishable u/Sec.380 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.

The accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for

LIFE for the offence punishable u/Sec.302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) and in default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month. Further, the accused is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years for the offence punishable u/Sec.201 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- 49 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022 (Rupees Five Hundred only) and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one month.

All the sentences shall run concurrently. The remand period if any undergone by the accused shall be set off U/Sec.428 of

Cr.P.C. The MOs.1 to 10, MO.29 and MO.30 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. The MO.11 to MO.28 shall be handed over to the concerned on proper petition as per law after expiry of appeal time. The accused is appraised of his right to appeal against this judgment and also the accused is appraised of his right to free legal aid.

(Partly Typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 27th day of October, 2025.)

II-Addl. Sessions Judge,

Hanamkonda.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 G.Punnam Chander PW.2 G.Satyanarayana PW.3 G.Bharath Kumar PW.4 K.Satish Kumar PW. 5 S.Raviteja @ Raviraj PW.6 A.Rajitha PW.7 N.Sambaiah PW.8 D.Bixapathi PW.9 G.Srinivas PW.10 A.Vidyasagar PW.11 G.Udayasree 50 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

PW.12 A.Srikanth PW.13 Dr. Mohd Raza Malik Khan PW.14 A.Raj Kumar PW.15 K.Latha PW.16 P.Kishan PW.17 P.Tirumal

FOR DEFENCE

None

Documents Marked

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P.2 : 11 Digital Photographs Ex.P.3 : 3 Digital Photographs Ex.P.4 : Two receipts, dated 20.06.2018 Ex.P.5 : Inquest report of deceased No.1 Ex.P.6 : Inquest report of deceased No.2 Ex.P.7 : Crime Details Form Ex.P.8 : Rough Sketch Ex.P.9 : Relevant Portion of confession panchanama, dt: 20.06.2018 Ex.P.10: Seizure panchanama,dt: 20.06.2018 Ex.P.11: Seizure panchanama,dt: 20.06.2018 Ex.P.12: Postmortem Examination Report of deceased No.1 Ex.P.13: Postmortem Examination Report of deceased No.2 Ex.P.14 : Report along with fingerprint chart and points of identity Ex.P.15 : Relevant portion of Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW15 Ex.P.16 : First Information Report Ex.P.17 : FSL report dated 07.09.2018

FOR DEFENCE

None Material Objects marked.

MO.1 : White colour vest, MO.2 : Blue and black multi colour MO.3 : Lungi, pillow cover MO.4 : Towel MO.5 : Blue colour designed bangle pieces, MO.6 : Red chilli powder packet MO.7 : Powder of cement brick.

51 of 51 SC No.295 OF 2022

MO.8 : One yellow and red colour saree MO.9 : Two Pillow Covers MO.10 : White and Green colour Towel MO.11 : Black pearl chain. MO.12 : Gopithadu. MO.13 : Locket. MO.14 : Necklace with Ruby stone MO.15 : Gold chain. MO.16 : Rings, Vankees (3) MO.17 : 15 Gottala Chain/Locket. MO.18 : (5) in blue gundlu. (2) broken gundlu, (3) Nose pins and one broken hook. MO.19 : Tuft Flower. MO.20 : Silver Plate. MO.21 : Sandle Vessels (6 Nos). MO.22 : Kumkum barani. MO.23 : Small Vessels (2). MO.24: Pramidalu (2) Silver. MO.25 : Silver Teega. MO.26 : Bracelet. MO.27 : Silver Coins: Wipro (2), Nirma (2). MO.27/1 : Red Mi Mobile Phone. MO.28 : Cash of Rs.6,500/-, MO.29 : Steel tiffin box. MO.30 : Maroon Color T-Shirt and brown Color undergarment.

II Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

1 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

IN THE COURT OF II-ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

Friday, this the 7th day of June, 2024

PRESENT: SMT. B.SRIDEVI,

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumakonda.

SESSIONS CASE NO. 289 OF 2019

(PRC No.400/2019 on the file of II-Addl. Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Warangal in Crime No. 92 of 2019 of Police Station, Dharmasagar).

1.Name and description of the: The State of Telangana through complainantthe Inspector of Police, PS. Dhar- masagar.

2.Name and description of the: A-1)Smt.MiryalaSaramma, accused :W/o.Late Sambaiah, Age: 40 years,Caste:Waddera, Occ:Coolie.

A-2) Ethari Ramesh. S/o Late Pentaiah, Age: 30 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ:Coolie.

A-3) Ethari Raju, S/o. Late Pentaiah, Age: 31 years, Caste: Waddera, Occ:Coolie.

A-4) Nune Mahesh @ Mojesh, S/o. Yakalah, Age: 19 years, Caste: Budiga Jangala, Occ:Coolie.

All are R/o. Wadderagudem Village of Dharmasagar Village & Mandal.

3.Prosecution conducted by: Additional Public Prosecutor.

4.Accused defended by: Sri V.Keshava Rao, Advocate.

2 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

5.Offences charged: Under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

6.Plea of the accused: Pleaded not guilty.

7.Finding of the Court: Found not guilty

8.Sentence or Order: In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and they acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall remain in force for a period of (6) months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. Mos.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

This Sessions Case is coming before me for final hearing in the presence ofAdditional Public Prosecutorfor the State/complainant and of Sri V.Keshava Rao, Advocate for the Accused and after hearing the arguments of both sides and the matter having stood over for consideration, till this day, this Court delivered the following:

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

1.The State represented by the Inspector of Police, PS,

Dharmasagar Police Station filed charge sheet against the accused in Cr.No. 92 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.06.2019 at about 18.30 hours LW-1/Kotte Vijaya Bhasker went to his agricultural 3 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

fields in Sy.No. 97, situated at the outskirts of Dharmsagar Village for seeding paddy in his fields, he switched on motor for irrigating to fields to provide water and found bad smell from his farm well and on checking, he found Tarpalin Cover bundle was floating on the water. Then, he informed the same to LW.9 & LW10/Kotte

Charless & Kotte Yadagiri who inturn reported to ASI/Narasimha

Rao P.S.Dharmasagar. Subsequently he along with his staff with the help of LWs.2 and LW3/Chiluka Ravindar and Kotte

Prabhakar tried to retrieve said Tarpalin cover bundle from the well on 23.06.2019 at about 10.00 a.m., with the help of

LW-4/K.Surender and LW-5/Mamidi Bhagavan Reddy. They noticed that bundle was tied with J.A. wire & 10-Kgs. Stone. When the said bundle was opened, it was found that it contained a male dead body covered with red cloth. On suspicion over the death of male person, K.Vijay Bhasker(LW-1) lodged a complaint.

ii. Based on the complaint, LW-19/Md.Saleem, Sub-inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.92/2019 u/Secs. 302, 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and issued F.I.R. LW-20/Ch.Srinivas, SI of Police who took up investigation examined and recorded the statement of LW-1 and got photographed the death body of deceased and shifted the dead body to MGM Hospital,, Warangal.

4 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

Later, he visited the scene of offence and secured the presence of

LW's.14 & LW15/Challa Mahendar Reddy & Sanke Praveen Kumar and in their presence conducted scene of offence panchanama and held inquest over dead body of the deceased. The details of the dead body was published in newspapers for its identification.

Based on the said publication, brother of deceased by name

Miryala Sambaiah, identified it to be his brother.

LW-20/Ch.Srinivas, SI of Police, recorded the statements of

LW's.2 to 11/ Chiluka Ravindar, Kotte Prabhakar, Karengula

Surendar, Mamidi Bhagavan Reddy, Miryala Ravi, Gandikota

Kamalakar, Jannu Bixapathi, Kotte Charless, Kotte Yadagiri &

Errabelly Sharath and seized material sent for RPSL, Warangal. On 29.06.2019 LW-12/Boddu Ranadheer produced A-1 to A4 & CCL- 1 before LW-21/Smt.D.Srilaxmi Dharmasagar a Commission and secured presence of LW's.15 & 16/Sanke Praveen Kumar &

Kolipaka Ra/ Kumar and recorded the confession panchanama of accused and also recorded the statements of LW's.12 & 13/Boddu

Ranadheer & Boddu Bhaskar. The confession revealed that deceased was addicted to bad voices and used to do thefts, tortures his family mentally and physically and the deceased was an habitual offender and undergone imprisonment in theft cases.

5 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

The accused were vexed with their life and decided to end the life of deceased and as such all together caused death of deceased.

Then LW-21/Smt.D.Srilaxmi collected the postmortem examination report from LW-17/Dr.J.Surendar and FSL report from

LW-18/Y.Neeraja.Aftercompletionofinvestigation,

LW-22/Md.Shadulla Baba filed a charge sheet against A-1 to A-4 for the offence punishable U/Sec.302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC.

3.The learned II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,

Warangal had taken cognizance for the offences punishable under

Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused and a case is registered as P.R.C. No.400 of 2019 and issued summons to accused.

4.On receipt of the summons, accused A1 to A4 appeared

before the learned Committal Magistrate, then the copies of all

documents furnished to them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Later the learned Magistrate has committed the above said P.R.C, to the

Hon’ble Principal Sessions Court, Warangal as the offence under

Section 302 of IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions .

5.After receiving the case file, the Hon’ble Principal Sessions

Court, Warangal registered the case as Sessions Case No. 289 of 6 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

2019 and made over to this Court to dispose of the case according to law.

6.On receipt of the case record, this Court has issued summons to A1 to A4. On receipt of the summons, A1 to A4 appeared before this Court by engaging the counsel.

7.Later, upon hearing the learned counsel for the accused A1 to A4 and Public Prosecutor, this Court has framed the charges under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against the accused A1 to A4, the same was read over and explained to them in Telugu language, for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8.In order establish the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and got marked Ex.P1 to P18 and MO.1 to MO.4. PW1 is the defacto-complainant, PW2 and

PW3 are the circumstantial witnesses, PW4 is the brother of the deceased, PW5 is the circumstantial witness, PW6 is the photographer who photographed the dead body of the deceased,

PW7 is the witness in whose presence the accused made extra judicial confession, PW8 is the elder who conducted panchayath between the deceased and complainant, PW9 is the medical 7 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

officer who conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, PW10 is the investigating officer who issued FIR, PW11 is the 2nd investigating officer, PW12 is the 3rd investigating officer, PW13 is the panch witness for confession and recovery panchanama, PW14 is the panch witness for the inquest and crime details form and confession and recovery panchanama and

PW15 is the investigating Officer who filed charge sheet. The learned defence counsel got marked Ex.D1 through prosecution witness.

9. After completion of prosecution evidence, accused A1 to A4 were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by explaining the incriminating evidence appearing against them, for which they denied, but reported no defence evidence.

10.Heard the arguments of both sides.

11.Now the point for consideration is:

Whether prosecution has established the guilt of accused A1 to A4 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

8 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

12.POINT:- This is a case u/Sec. 302 and 201 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code. It is the allegation of the prosecution that the accused along with other accused attacked the deceased/Miryala

Sambaiah with knife, sword and axe etc., and caused stab injuries to the deceased and threw the deadbody of the deceased in the well of PW1. To the contrary it is the contention of the accused that they are falsely implicated in this case and they totally denied the allegations made by the prosecution.

13. In order to bring home the alleged guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW15 and got marked Ex.P1 to

Ex.P18 and MO.1 to MO.4. As seen from the record, my Learned

Predecessor in Office dated 20.07.2022 marked the material objects No.1 to 4 through PW12 during the course of his chief examination. But however, again my Learned Predecessor in Office

dated 17.11.2022 again marked MO.1 to MO.4 through PW13.

However, as per the law since already the material objects No.1 to 4 were marked through PW12 in the first instance hence the same is taken into consideration and as the double marking was only due to oversight by my Learned Predecessor in Office. On the other hand, the accused did not adduce any oral evidence in support of the defence but got marked Ex.D1.

9 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

14. As seen from the evidence of PW1 who in his chief examination stated that he is having an agricultural land admeasuring Ac.2.20 guntas in Sy.No. 97/B which was fitted with motor to irrigate the fields. On 22.06.2019 at about 3 PM when he was irrigating the fields, he found one black cover with bundle.

Then he called the villagers Yadagiri and Charli and shown the same to them. As per their advise he gave report to the police under Ex.P1. Whereas the learned counsel for the defence reported the cross-examination as nil. As seen from the evidence of PW1, he categorically stated that he found one black cover with bundle in his well and with much difficulty and by using the crane, the bundle was brought out from the well and he found one male dead body putrefied state and then he lodged the complaint.

Thus, as seen from the evidence of PW1 the finding of one dead body in the well in a black cover is established but the evidence of

PW1 is not connecting the identity of the accused with the alleged offence.

15.PW2 in his evidence stated that about 2 years back he went to the agricultural fields of PW1 and he came to know that some bundle was found inside the well. On the request of police he along with Prabhakar went inside the well and brought out the 10 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

bundle from the well and they found putrefied body and later it was taken to MGM Hospital, Warangal. However, as seen from the record, PW2 turned hostile and he did not support the case of the prosecution. Through PW2, Ex.P2 which is the Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement was got marked. However as seen from the record PW2 evidence is of no use to support the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused.

16.PW3 in his evidence stated that about 2 years back he went to the agricultural fields of PW1 and came to know that some bundle was found inside the well. On the request of police he along with PW2 went inside the well and brought out the bundle from the well and they found a putrefied body inside the bundle.

He does not see the dead body. However as seen from the evidence of PW3 even PW3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Through PW3 Ex.P3 was marked.

However, mere marking of Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of the witness is not sufficient to connect the alleged guilt with the accused since said Section 161 Cr.P.C statement does not bear any signature of the witness and they are said to be prepared by the investigating agency. Hence, much reliance cannot be placed on this Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement.

11 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

17.PW4 in his evidence deposed that the deceased was his brother. About 10 years back, the deceased shifted his residence to Dharmasagar Village. On 15.06.2019 deceased came to his house and informed that there was a quarrel took place between him and with his wife and brother-in-law and he intended to stay at Sriramulapalle Village by doing coolie work and as such, on his request, he gave an amount of Rs.200/- to bring his wife and daughter but he did not return. On 24-06-2019 he saw a photo of decomposed body in the newspaper and then, he went to

PS., Dharmasagar and police took him to MGM Hospital,

Warangal and he identified him as his brother through his toes.

He found stab injuries on his ribs, head and neck. Whereas in his cross-examination, he stated that the body was swollen condition at the time of postmortem. Through PW4 Ex.D1 was marked which is relevant portion of Sec. 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW4. Thus, as seen from Ex.D1, it shows that as per statement some unknown person killed his brother. Therefore, as seen from the entire evidence of PW4, he could not withstand with his evidence during cross-examination by Learned Counsel for the accused and hence could not pass the test of cross examination. Hence, PW4 evidence is not of much use to prosecution case.

12 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

18.PW5 in his chief examination deposed that in the year 2019, his brother’s son (PW1) Kotte Vijaya Bhaskar came and informed him that there was a trapaulin cover inside the well, when he started the motor of well, he found foul smell from it and informed the same to him and when they saw into the well, a bundle floating in the well. Immediately, himself, Yadagiri and

PW1 informed the police who came and tried to put out the bundle floating but they failed. on the third day of incident, the local MRO and Surpanch brought the crane and the bundle was taken out from the well and found a dead body in the bundle.

There were stab injuries found on the neck and stomach of the dead body. The dead body could not be identified as it was putrefied. However, cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused was reported nil since there is nothing elicited in the chief examination of the witness i.e., PW5 in order to connect the identity of the accused with the alleged offence. Thus, PW5 evidence is not useful to support the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused.

19.PW6 deposed in his evidence that on the request of the police he has taken the photographs of the male dead body at

MGM Mortuary, Warangal. Accordingly he took the photographs 13 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

of the dead body under Ex.P4. However as seen from the entire evidence of PW6, he merely deposed about taking photographs of the deceased and nothing was elicited in his evidence in order to connect the accused with the alleged offence.

20. PW7 stated in his evidence that he does not know the accused and also the deceased. He does not know anything about this case. However as seen from the evidence of PW7, he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and through him Ex.P5 which is relevant portion in Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement was marked. However, mere marking of the statement is not sufficient to prove the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused.

21. PW8 deposed in his evidence that he know the accused persons and the deceased. Accused No.1 is the wife of deceased.

He does not know the cause of death of deceased. He did not conduct any panchayath between A1 and the deceased. However as seen from the evidence of PW8, he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and through him Ex.P6 which is relevant portion in Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C statement was marked.

However, mere marking of the statement is not sufficient to prove the allegations made by the prosecution against the accused.

14 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

22.PW9 who is the doctor who issued postmortem examination report was examined and he stated in his chief examination that on 24-06-2019 at 2 p.m, he received requisition to conduct PME over the dead body of Miryala Sambaiah. On examination he found anti-mortem injuries under Ex.P7 PostMortem Report. . He preserved viscera to rule out intoxication and poison, sternum to detect diatoms. But on examination no poison, no ethyl alcohol diatoms were found and he opined that the cause of death is due to multiple stab injuries and their complications. However as seen from the entire evidence of PW9, he merely deposed about conducting of postmortem examination by him but there is nothing on record to connect the accused with the alleged offences.

23. PW10 who is the SI of Police was examined and he deposed that he received Ex.P.1 complaint from PW.1 and basing on it he issued FIR in Cr.No.92 of 2019 of PS Dharmasagar on 23.6.2019 at 1830 hours under Ex.P.8. He sent copies to the concerned courts and concerned authorities and thereafter he handed over the file to incharge CI Ch.Srinivas G, Inspector of Police,

PS.Elkarthurthy. However as seen from the entire evidence of

PW10, he is none other than the investigating officer in this case.

Therefore, his evidence becomes nothing but the evidence of 15 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon without there being any corroboration from independent witness evidence.

24. PW11 Inspector of police was examined and he deposed that on 23.06.2019, he took up investigation of this case, examined

PW1 and proceeded to the scene of offence and secured LW14/Ch

Mahender Reddy and LW15/S Praveen kumar. He got photographed the scene of offence through PW6, conducted CDF panchanama under Ex.P9. He shifted the dead body to the mortuary, MGM, Warangal and he has given press note for the same. On 24.06.2019, PW4 on seeing the press note came to

MGM and requested them to show the dead body. Accordingly they have shown the dead body and he identified the dead body as his own brother by seeing identification marks. Later he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased/ Miryala

Sambaiah in the presence of LW14/Ch Mahender Reddy and

LW15/S Praveen Kumar. Later he sent the dead body for PME, where PW9/Surender has preserved Sternum and Viscera and the sample water of the well for examination. However as seen from the entire evidence of PW11, he is none other than the investigating officer in this case. Therefore, his evidence also 16 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

becomes nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the same cannot be solely relied upon without there being any corroboration from independent witness evidence.

25. PW12 who is the investigating officer deposed that on 27.06.2019, he received CD file from PW11/Srinivasji and took up for further investigation, verified the investigation and found it was in proper lines. On the same day, he secured the presence of

Kotte Charles Kotte Yadagiri and E Sharath and recorded their statements. On 29.06.2019 at about 3.00 pm, PW7 produced accused A1 to A4 examined them as in Ex P11 (confession statement of A1 to A4 and on their confession, they further led them to the house of deceased and accused A1 produced one axe, 2 knives (big sized), 1 Rokali banda, (MO1 to MO4) and seized the same under the cover of same panchanama in the presence of above 2 mediators under Ex P12. On the same day he affected their arrest and produced them before Court for remand. Later he handed over CD file to LW22. However as seen from the entire evidence of PW12, she is none other than the investigating officer in this case. Therefore, PW12 evidence becomes nothing but the evidence of interested witness and the 17 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

same cannot be solely relied upon without there being any corroboration from independent witness evidence.

26. PW13 who is the VRA was examined and he deposed that on 23.06.2019 at about 04.00 or 05.00 PM on the request of police he along with another person went to well situated at Vemur road side where the police lifted a dead body packed in a gunny bag from well. The said body belongs to one Meriyala Sambaiah. On 29.06.2019, police called them to police station at about 03.00 or 04.00 PM where he found A1 to A4. On enquiry, A1 to A4 confessed that they have murdered the deceased and police conducted confession panchanama, he singed on it. However as seen from the evidence of PW13, he turned hostile hence PW13 evidence is not sufficient to connect the alleged guilt with the accused.

27.PW14 who is the VRO deposed on 23.06.2019 at about 05.00 p.m,, on the request of police he along with PW.13 went to well which belongs to PW.1 where the police lifted a dead body packed in a gunny bag from well. The said body belongs to one

Meriyala Sambaiah. On the same day police conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased conducted CDF and drafted rough sketch of the scene of offence under Ex.P15. On 18 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

24.06.2019, police called him and PW.13 to police station where he found A1 to A4. On enquiry, they confessed that they have murdered the deceased/Meriyala Sambaiah under confession panchanama, he signed on it. On 29.06.2019 police again called them to police station where he found A1 to A4 who lead them to the house of Saramma where she produced Mos.1 and 2.

However as seen from evidence of PW14, it categorically shows that the alleged confession by the accused was made in the custody of the police and the presence of police was also categorically stated. Therefore, the alleged confession-cum- recovery panchanama is hit by Section 26 and Section 27 of

Indian Evidence Act which states as follows:-

(i) Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act: No confession made by

any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it

be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be

proved as against such person.

(ii) Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act: It provides that when

any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of

information received from a person accused of any offence in the

custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether

19 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact

thereby discovered, may be proved

28.As per Section 26 of Indian Evidence Act, the confession made by the accused to the Police officer while the accused are in custody of police is not valid and as per Section 27 of Indian

Evidence Act the alleged recovery is not established to be in pursuance of alleged confession panchanama. The case on hand i.e., alleged confession panchanama-cum-recovery panchanama in the present case is barred by Sections 26 and 27 of Indian

Evidence Act. Moreover as seen from the evidence of PW13 and

PW14 investigating agency got examined them at the fag end of the trial when substantial witnesses have turned hostile.

Therefore, from the point of view of an ordinary prudent man, this gives rise to a suspicion against the investigating agency that

PW13 and PW14 are tutored witnesses. Hence, the evidence of

PW3 and PW4 is not helpful to the case of the prosecution.

29. PW15 who is the inspector of Police deposed that on 15.07.2019 he received CD file from PW.12 and verified the investigation done by her. During the course of investigation, he has collected postmortem examination report of deceased and forwarded viscera to FSL for Diatam Test. Accordingly, he 20 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

collected report from the FSL Authorities under Ex.P17and

Ex.P18. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet.

As seen from the entire evidence placed by the prosecution there is no cogent and reliable evidence in order to connect the alleged chain of circumstances so as to establish the alleged accusations made by the prosecution against the accused.

30.As seen from the entire evidence placed by the prosecution there is no cogent and reliable evidence in order to connect the alleged offences with the accused. The evidence on record is not sufficient to connect the accused with the allegations levelled by the prosecution against the accused. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts for the offences u/Secs. 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

31.In the result, the accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code and they acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 4 shall remain in force for a 21 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

period of (6) months as provided under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C.

Mos.1 to 4 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer Gr.1, after transcription, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 7th day of June, 2024.)

Sd/-

II-Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined.

FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 Kotte Vijay Bhaskar PW.2 Chiluka Ravinder PW.3 Kotte Prabhakar PW.4 Miryala Ravi PW. 5 K.Charles PW.6 J.Bixapathi PW.7 B.Randheer PW.8 B.Bhaskar PW.9 Dr. J.Surender PW.10 Md.Saleem PW.11 Ch. Srinivas PW.12 D.Srilaxmi PW.13 K.Raj Kumar PW.14 S.Praveen Kumar PW.15 Md.Shadulla Baba

FOR DEFENCE

None

Documents Marked

FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1: Complaint Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW2 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 Ex.P.4: Photographs 19 Ex.P.5 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW7 22 of 22 SC No.289 OF 2019/II Asst. Sessions Court, Hnk.

Ex.P.6 : Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW8 Ex.P.7 : Postmortem Examination Report Ex.P.8 : First Information Report Ex.P.9 : Crime Details Form Ex.P.10: Inquest of the deceased/Miryala Sambaiah Ex.P.11: Confession statement of Accused No.1 to 4 along with JCL Ex.P.12: Seizure panchanama Ex.P.13: Relevant portion of seizure panchanama Ex.P14 : Panchanama, dated 23.06.2019. Ex.P15 : Scene of offence panchanama Ex.P16 : Relevant portion in Panchanama Ex.P17 : FSL report dated 06.09.2018 Ex.P18: FSL Report dated 22.08.2019 (Note : Ex.P14, Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are double marked and they are equivalent to Ex.P10, Ex.P12 and Ex.P13 respectively).

FOR DEFENCE

Ex.D1 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C Statement of PW4.

Material Objects marked.

MO.1 : Axe

MO.2 : Pestle

MO.3 : knife (sword) MO.4 : Knife (Vetakodavali)

Sd/-

II Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanamkonda.

1 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

IN THE COURT OF THE CHAIRMAN, MOTOR VEHICLES ACCIDENT

CLAIMS TRIBUNAL-CUM-II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, HANU-

MAKONDA.

Friday, this the 16th day of February, 2024

PRESENT: Smt. B.Sridevi,

Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Hanumakonda.

M.V.O.P. No.864 OF 2022 (New)

V.O.P.N. M. 1196 OF 2016 (Old)

BETWEEN:

1. Masapuri Kumaraswamy, S/o Komuraiah, Age: 32 years, Occu: Nil.

2. Masapuri Nandini , D/o Kumaraswamy, Age: 11 years, Occu: Student.

3. Masapuri Bunni, S/o Kumaraswamy, Age: 9 years, Occu: Student, All are R/o Chityal Village and Mandal, Warangal District.

4. Cheekati Ilamma, W/o Late Banaiah, Age: 65 years, Occu: Nil, R/o Mallareddypally village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal Dis- trict.

...Petitioners

AND

1. Kumar B.Jadson, S/o Pochaiah, Age: 45 years, Occu: Driver of Crime Vehicle TSRTC bus No. AP-28-Z 3599, R/o. H.No.22-1-143/2, Nageerethpuram, Desaipet, Warangal.

2. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation,Rep. By its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

3. Madarapu Ramesh, S/o Ramaswamy, Age: Major, Occu: Rider of the Crime Vehicle Shine, M/c. No. TS-03-EL-3286, R/o Thirumalapura, Chityal Mandal, Bhupalapally Jayashankar District.

4. Jogu Sanjeevaiah, S/o Ramaiah, Age: Major, Occu: Owner of the Crime Vehicle Shine M/C. No. TS-03-EL-3286, R/o H.No.1-10, Padamati Street, Thirumalapur, Warangal.

5.The New India Assurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, Division Office at GMR and GS Complex, Kishanpur, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. (Impleaded as per the orders vide I.A.No. 120 of 2019, dated 15.12.2020).

...Respondents

This petition is coming on 11.12.2023 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Nagesh Advocate for the

Petitioners and Sri G.Mallikarjun, Advocate for

Respondent No.2 and Sri Ch.Lingamurhty, Advocate for

Respondent No.5 and right to file counter by the respondent No.1 is forfeited and Respondent No.3 and 4 remained exparte and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Tribunal delivered the following:-

: A W A R D:

1.This is the claim petition filed by petitioner under Sec.166(1)

(c) of M.V. Act 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Act 1989 against the respondents with a prayer to grant compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- together with costs and interest @ 24% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of compensation amount.

3 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

2. The brief averments in the petition are as follows:

(i) The petitioners herein pleaded that Petitioner No.1 is the husband, Petitioner No.2 is the daughter, Petitioner No.3 is the son and Petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased

Masapuri Laxmi who was an agriculturist and by doing so agricultural field works, she used to earn a sum of Rs.6,000/- per month and was contributing her earnings for the welfare of the petitioners.

ii. That on 16-11-2016, the deceased, her son Masapuri Banni along with her brother-in-Law Masapuri Ramesh went on his Motor

Cycle to Parkal to attend the marriage function at Parkal, after attending the marriage on the same day, they were returning to home on the said motor cycle driven by the brother-in-law of the deceased Masapuri Ramesh cautiously on the way to home, when they reached at Thirumalapur Village of Chityal Mandal, in the mean time at about 16.00 hours the rider of Shine motorcycle No.

TS-03-EL-3286 coming in the opposite direction in rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor cycle on which the deceased was travelling, as a result, the brother- in-law of the 4 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022 deceased Masapuri Ramesh her son Masapuri Bunni and the deceased fell down on the road while getting up by the deceased and at the same time the driver of RTC Bus No. AP-28-Z-3599 which is coming behind their motor cycle coming in speed, lost control over his speed and ran over the stomach of the deceased

Masapuri Laxmi and the intestines came out and she died on the spot, whereas Masapuri Bunni and Masapuri Ramesh sustained injuries and they were shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal for treatment. Whereas the deceased was shifted to Community

Health Center, Chityal where the Police Chityal conducted inquest on the deceased, later Civil Asst. Surgeon, C.H.C. Chityal conducted Post Mortem Examination and issued P.M.E. Report showing the cause of death of the deceased.

iiiOn the complaint, PS Chityal registered a case in Cr.No.

237/2016 on 17-11-2016 for the offences U/Secs. 337, 304 (А), г/w 34 IPC against the drivers of the accident vehicles who are responsible for the accident.

iv.Due to the sudden death of the deceased, the petitioners are put to mental agony and shock. They are the dependants on 5 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022 the deceased. Petitioner No.4 is the old aged mother of the deceased who is exclusively depending on the deceased. The

Petitioner No.2 is the daughter and petitioner No. 3 is the son of the deceased who are school going children lost the love and affection and their welfare in their day-to-day life. Petitioner No. 1 is the husband of the deceased lost his life partner. Due to the sudden death of the deceased the Petitioners became helpless.

Due the death of the deceased she lost expectancy of life, amenities of life and also suffered pain and agony.

v. The Petitioners are the Dependants/Legal Heirs/Representatives are entitled to claim compensation Rs.11,00,000/- on account of death of the deceased. The Respondent No.2 is the Managing

Director of T.S.R.T.C. and the Respondent No.1 is being driver of

RTC Bus No. AP-28-2-3599 the respondent No.3 drove the Shine

Motor Cycle No. TS-03-EL-3286, Respondent No.4 insured the aforesaid motor cycle with Respondent No.5 vide its Insurance

Policy No. 61090031150300012889 valid from 24-03-2016 to 23- 03-2017 (Impleaded as per the orders of the Hon'ble Court vide

I.A. No.120 of 2019 dated 15-12-2020 and the Policy is subsisting as on the date of accident. As such all the Respondents No. 1 to 5 6 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount claimed by the Petitioners.

3. Respondent No.2 filed a detailed counter by denying all the averments in the petition including age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased at the time of accident. It is denied that accident and death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of RTC Bus at the material time of accident. The accident was occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and there was no negligence on the part of the driver of bus. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. The respondent does not admit the claim petitioners are the legal heirs to claim compensation and there was no loss on account of death of the deceased. That the deceased was doing agriculture and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month are denied. The claim of the petitioners is unsustainable. There are no merits in the petition, hence, the petition against this respondent is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

7 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

4.The brief averments in the counter filed by Respondent No.5 are as follows:-

(i) Respondent No.5 filed a detailed counter by denying all the averments in the petition including age, income, avocation and health condition of the deceased at the time of accident and also denied the manner in which the accident described, the occurrence of the accident and alleged involvement of the deceased. The claim petitioners are not legal heirs of the deceased and are not dependent on the deceased at the time of alleged accident and there was no loss to the estate due to the death of the deceased.

(ii)The respondent no.5 contended that, the police concerned failed to comply the provisions of sec.158(6) of M.V.Act.

The driver or the insured failed to give information about the accident to the insurer, which is mandatory u/s 134 (c) of M V Act.

As such the respondent no.5’s company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

(iii) Respondent No.5 further contended that the claim is highly exaggerative, arbitrary and out of proportions and the 8 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022 petitioners are not entitled for any amount. The respondent company denied that the alleged vehicle caused the accident was insured at the time of the accident.

(iv) Respondent No.5 further contended that, the accident occurred due to the gross negligence on the part of both the vehicles drivers. The owner and insurance company of motorcycle in which the deceased was travelling are the necessary parties to the proceedings. The respondent company sought protection u/s 147, 149 and 170 of M V Act and Sec.64 (v) (B) of Insurance Act 1938. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition with exemplary cost.

5On perusal of record, the following issues were settled by my learned predecessor in Office dated 22.09.2021 for the purpose of trial:-

1.Whether the accident that occurred on 16.11.2016 at 16.00 hours at Thirumalapur village, Chityal Mandal, Warangal District, was caused by rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 and respondent no.3 on RTC bus bearing NO. AP 28 Z 3599 and Shine Motor Cycle bearing No. TS 03 EL 3286 respectively,causing death of Musapuri Laxmi?

2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensa- tion?. If so, from which of the respondents?

9 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

3.To what relief ?

6. During the trial, the claim petitioner no.1 examined himself as

PW-1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The petitioners also examined one Pulluri Sathish as PW.2. After the closure of the petitioner’s evidence, the respondent No.5’s company examined its Administrative Officer as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 and also examined conductor of the RTC Bus as RW2.

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

8. Issue No.1:- . This is the claim petition filed by the petitioners under Sec.166(1) (c) of M.V. Act 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules 1989 against the respondents 1 and 2, with a prayer to grant compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- together with costs and interest @ 24% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization of compensation amount.

9.In support of the contentions of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 got examined himself as PW1 and got marked 10 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. PW1 in his chief examination reiterated the contents on par with the petition. Now coming to the cross- examination, he categorically stated that he is doing labour work now and then as and when available. PW1 further stated that in the said accident, his cousin, his son were also sustained injuries but he did not claim before the court. PW1 in his cross- examination denied the suggestions posed by the learned counsel

for the respondent with regard to alleged earning capacity of his

wife as Rs.6,000/- per month. Further as seen from Ex.A1 to

Ex.A5. Ex.A1 is the Certified copy of FIR which shows that the wife of the petitioner No.1 and mother of petitioners No.2 and 3 and daughter of petitioner No.4 died in the road accident and as per Ex.A2 certified copy of inquest report categorically shows the name of the deceased as M.Laxmi and her aged is shown as 30 years and her occupation is shown as agriculture. As per Ex.A3 which is certified copy of Postmortem examination which shows that the death occurred in view of the injuries sustained in the accident. As per Ex.A4 which is the certified copy of MVI Report it shows that there was no mechanical defects in the break system of the crime vehicle i.e., TSRTC Bus. As seen from Ex.A5 which is certified copy of charge sheet which is filed against the 11 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022 respondent No.1 for driving the bus in rash and negligent manner and the case was booked against him and the charge sheet was filed. Further, in order to support the contentions of the petitioners, they also got examined PW2 who categorically stated that the accident occurred before him at a distance at about 100 meters and PW2 also stated that it is true at the time of accident three persons were travelling including minor boy. PW2 further stated that immediately after hitting the bike, the deceased fell down on the road and then RTC bus ran over the deceased. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that since the bike hit another bike and as the deceased fell down hence the respondents No.1 and 2 are not liable for compensation. Further, as seen from the evidence of

PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 and also the evidence of eye witness who was examined as PW2, it categorically shows that due to TSRTC bus ran over the deceased, she died on the spot which shows that the driver of RTC bus drove the bus in a very rash and negligent manner and failed to apply the breaks and as seen from the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector, there is no defect in the break system and the break system of the bus was intact.

Therefore, when the break system of the said bus is intact then it 12 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022 shows that the driver of (respondent No.1) was rash and negligent in driving the bus since he failed to maintain proper safe distance between the vehicle as required by law under Traffic Rules to be maintained by the driver of the vehicle Thus, in view of above, it establishes and goes to show that the RTC bus driver drove the bus in a very rash and negligent manner and failed to apply the breaks of said bus in time which resulted in the death of the deceased. Therefore, from the discussion above, it is established that there was rash and negligent driving on the part of

Respondent No.1 and hence as R1 is driver of R2, they are liable to pay the compensation for causing the death of the deceased in the accident which death was caused due to rash and negligent driving of TSRTC bus by Respondent No.1 which bus belonged to respondent No.2. Whereas the identity of Respondent No.3 and 4 is not established with the present crime since on perusal of record there is no documentary proof to that effect for said alleged bike involvement in the death of the deceased. Therefore, respondent No.3 and 4 are not liable for payment of compensation in this case. Therefore, as per Ex.B1, respondent

No.5 who is insurer of said bike belonging to respondent No.4 is also not liable under this petition to pay compensation. Hence, 13 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

Respondent No.1 and 2 only are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.5 representative was examined as RW1 and got marked Ex.B1 policy. Further, as I have already stated respondent No.5 is not liable under this petition for the reasons above mentioned.

10. RW2 who said to be the conductor in RTC was examined.

Further in chief examination, she stated totally different story than the facts on hand since she categorically stated that the

Shine motorcycle bearing TS03EL 3286 drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to her bus as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. Further as seen from the evidence of eye witness who was examined as PW2 and the documentary evidence Ex.A1 to Ex.A5, they categorically shows that RTC bus ran over the deceased and the deceased died on the spot.

Therefore, from the evidence of RW2, it is not trustworthy since she deposed total different and inconsistent story which is different from facts on record in order to favour respondent No.1 and respondent No.2. since she is the employee of respondent

No.2. Therefore, only respondent No.2 is liable to pay 14 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022 compensation but not respondent No.3 to 5. thus, this issue is answered accordingly.

11.Issue No.2:- In view of decision on issue No.1, the respondent

No.2 is liable to pay compensation. Whereas respondent No.3 to 5 are not liable to pay compensation.

12. As the petitioners did not adduce any evidence in order to prove earnings of the deceased and as per Ex.A2 and inquest report only agriculture is mentioned as the occupation of the deceased hence it is established that the deceased was agriculturalist. Hence, her notional income is taken as

Rs.6,000/- per month.

13. Therefore, the annual income of the deceased would be

Rs.6,000/- per month X 12 months = Rs.72,000/- (Rupees

Seventy Two Thousand only). As per the judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s Case (2017 (10) SCC 450)

the amount of future prospectus to be added for deciding compensation even though the deceased was having notional income. As per the said judgment 40% of the above said income is to be added to the sum towards future prospectus. Therefore, by 15 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022 adding 40 % to Rs.6,000/-, the income of the deceased is would be Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2400/- = Rs.8400/-. (Rupees Eight Thousand

Four Hundred only).

14.In view of the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla

Verma’s Case (2009 (6) SCC 121) as the deceased is married and aged about 30 years, hence, 1/4 of the income would be deducted towards personal and living expenses of the deceased i.e., Rs.8,400/- x 1/4 = Rs.2,100/- (Rs.8400/- minus Rs.2100/-) =

Rs.6300/- which is the monthly income of the deceased for deciding compensation.

15.The relevant multiplier for arriving compensation as per the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma’s case (2009 (6) SCC 121) would be ‘17’ as the deceased was aged 30 years as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. Therefore, compensation that can be payable to the petitioners towards loss of earnings and loss of dependency would be Rs.6300/- x 12 = Rs.75,600x 17 =

Rs.12,85,200/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Eighty Five Thousand Two

Hundred only).

16 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

16.Since the petitioner No.1 is the husband and as petitioners

No.2 and 3 are children and petitioner No.4 is the mother of the deceased, hence, they are entitled to filial consortium of

Rs.40,000/- each as per the judgment in Magma General

Insurance company V. Nanu Ramu (2018(18) SCC 130) and hence Rs.1,60,000/- (Rs.40,000/- X 4 = Rs.1,60,000). The petitioners are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and

Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. As per the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi’s case (2017 (10)

SCC 450) they are entitled to 20% enhancement since more than 6 years elapsed from the date of judgment.

1)Compensation under the head lossRs. 12,85,200/- of earnings and future dependany

2)Compensation under the loss ofRs.15,000/-+3,000/- = estate a Rs.18,000 (20%)

3)Compensation under funeral Rs.15,000/- + 3,000/- expenses=Rs.18,000/- (20%)

4)Compensation under the head of(Rs.1,60,000+32,000) filial consortium to petitioner No.1 to=Rs.1,92,000/- 3 @ Rs.40,000/- each (20%) 40,000 x 4

Total :Rs.15.13.200/- 17 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

In view of the settled preposition of law as the compensation to be awarded must be just and reasonable as per law more compensation is awarded than the awarded claimed in the petition. Therefore, the total compensation that can be payable to the petitioners would Rs.15,13,200/-(Rupees Fifteen

Thousand Thirteen Thousand Two Hundred only). The rest of the claim is disallowed. Since respondent No.1 is the driver of RTC Bus (respondent No.2) and as he (respondent No.1) driver, the RTC bus in rash and negligent manner and caused the death of deceased hence respondent No.2 liable to pay compensation. Whereas in view of reasons stated in issue No.2 hence respondent No.3 to 5 are not liable to pay compensation. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

17. Issue No.3: To what relief?

In view of the findings of this Tribunal on issues No.1 and 2, this petition has to be allowed in part granting compensation of

Rs.15,13,200/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Two

Hundred only) with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit. The

Respondent No.2 is to be directed tos deposit the said compensation amount within one month from today. The said 18 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022 amountd can be apportioned to petitioner No.1 @ Rs.3,13,200/- with proportionate costs and interest and that Rs.5,00,000/- each to the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 with proportionate costs and interest and that Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner No.4 with proportionate costs and interest. On deposit of said amount, the petitioners No.1 and 4 can be permitted to withdraw their share of compensation amount with proportionate costs and interest.

However, the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 who are minors are entitled to withdraw their respective share amount of compensation with proportionate costs and interest after taking steps under law.

The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). The claim agaisnt Resondent No. 3 to 5 is liable to be dismissed. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

18. In the result, this petition be and is hereby allowed in part against the respondent No.2 and the compensation of

Rs.15,13,200/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Thirteen Thousand Two

Hundred only) be and is hereby awarded with proportionate costs & interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit.

19 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

1. The Respondent No.2 be and hereby directed to deposit the said compensation amount with proportionate costs & interest as directed above within one month from today. The said amount be and is hereby apportioned to petitioner No.1 @ Rs.3,13,200/- with proportionate costs & interest and that Rs.5,00,000/- each to the petitioner Nos. 2 & 3 with proportionate costs and interest and that Rs.2,00,000/- to the petitioner No.4 with proportionate costs & interest.

2. On deposit of said amount the petitioners No.1 & 4 be and hereby permitted to withdraw their share of compensation amount with proportionate costs & interest. However, the petitioner Nos.2 & 3 who are minors be and are hereby entitled to withdraw their respective share amount of compensation with proportionate costs & interest after taking steps under law. 3. The claim against Respondent No.3 to 5 is dismissed.

3.The rest of the claims if any stands disallowed.

4.The petitioners are directed to pay Deficit court fee if any within 10-days of this order. Thereafter the office is directed to prepare the decree.

20 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

5. The Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand only).

(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer corrected and pronounced by me in open Court, on this the 16th day of February, 2024).

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-

II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Petitioner s : For Respondent s :

PW1: M.Kumaraswamy RW1: P.Rajender

PW2:Pulluri Sathish RW2: A.Swarna Latha

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER S :

For Petitioner s :-

Ex.A1: Certified copy of FIR along with complaint in Cr.No. 237/2016 of PS Chityal.

Ex.A2 : Certified copy of Inquest Report of deceased M.Laxmi.

Ex.A3: Certified copy of postmortem Examination Report of deceased M.Laxmi.

Ex.A4: Certified copy of M.V.I Report.

21 of 21 M.V.O.P.No.864 OF 2022

Ex.A5: Certified copy of Charge sheet.

For Respondent s :

Ex.B1: Certified copy of Policy schedule cum certificate of Insur- ance

Sd/-

CHAIRMAN, MACT-CUM-

II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

1 AS No. 06 OF 2019

IN THE COURT OF THE II-ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE:

HANUMAKONDA.

Friday, this the 9th day of February, 2024

Present: Smt. Sridevi,

II Addl.District Judge.

Hanumakonda.

A.S.No. 6 OF 2019

(Appeal filed under Section 96, Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C.)

Between:

1. The Kakatiya University, Warangal rep. by its Registrar, K.U, Warangal.

2. The University Engineer, Kakatiaya University, Warangal ….Appellants/Defendants

AND

1. V.Chokka Rao, S/o. Late Sri Ranga Rao, Aged: 54 Years, Occ: . Employee, R/o.Balasamudram, Hanamkonda, Warangal.

2. M.Venu Gopal Rao, S/o.Jagannadha Rao, Aged: 45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Hanamkonda.

3. P.Indira @ Kavitha, W/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged :28 Years, Occ: Household, R/o.Bheemaram Village of Hasanparthy Mandal.

4. K.Kistaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged: 31 Years, Occ: Teacher, R/o.Lashkar Singaram and Kodakandla, Revenue Mandal: Kodakandla, Dist: Warangal.

… Respondents/plaintiffs

APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.12.2017

PASSED IN O.S.NO. 480 OF 2001 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR

CIVIL JUDGE, WARANGAL

O.S.No. 480 OF 2001

Between:

2 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

1. V.Chokka Rao, S/o. Late Sri Ranga Rao, Aged: 54 Years, Occ: Govt. Employee, R/o.Balasamudram, Hanamkonda.

2. M.Venu Gopal Rao, S/o.Jagannadha Rao, Aged :45 Years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o.Hanamkonda.

3. P.Indira @ Kavitha, W/o. Venkat Reddy, Aged: 28 Years, Occ: Household, R/o.Bheemaram Village of Hasanparthy Mandal.

4. K.Kistaiah, S/o. Veeraiah, Aged: 31 Years, Occ: Teacher, R/o.Lashkar Singaram and Kodakandla, Revenue Mandal: Kodakandla, Dist: Warangal.

… Plaintiffs AND

1. The Kakatiya University, Warangal rep. by its Registrar, K.U, Warangal.

2. The University Engineer, Kakatiaya University, Warangal … Defendants

This Appeal is coming on before me on 02.01.2024 for final hearing in presence of Sri A.Jayashankar, Advocate for the Appellants/plaintiffs and in the presence of Sri P.Ramgopal Rao, Advocate for the Respondents/Defendants and upon perusing the material on record, and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following:- : J U D G M E N T :

1. This appeal suit is field by the appellants/defendants against the judgment and decree dated 04.12.2017 in O.S.No. 480 of 2001 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction seeking to restrain the defendants and anybody on their behalf from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit plots.

3 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit before the Trial Court i.e., the appellants as defendants and the respondents as plaintiffs.

Old Suit No. 480 OF 2001

3.The brief averments in the plaint are as under:

The plaintiffs are the absolute owners having possession and enjoyment of suit plots having purchased their respective plots under registered sale deeds in Sy.No.32 situated at Lashkar Singaram. Originally the land in Sy.No.32 was an agricultural land but it lost its agricultural utility after the establishment of the Kakatiya University (defendant university). As it has acquired the land as house site on and from 1980.

The suit plots are three in number and constitute a single compact block.

Plaintiff No.4 has constructed a small R.C.C. house in 1993 in his plot by obtaining permission of the Gram Panchayat, Palivelpula and eversince he has been dwelling therein. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the owners of land comprised in item No.1 of the plaint schedule and got 11 K.V. Electric line, passing through the middle of their plots, removed and diverted by spending huge amounts in the year, 1991 or 1992 with a view to commence the construction over the plots. This fact is in know of all the villagers including the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 has acquired an area of Ac.3-22 guntas in Sy.No.32 in or about the year 1967 from its pattadar namely Kaluri Mallaiah for the purpose of the University and took

4 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

the possession of the land in 1969, got dug a boundary trench around the acquired land in Sy.No.32 along with other lands acquired by it. The said trenches till exist separating the acquired land with the remaining land in

Sy.No.32 belonging to the plaintiffs and others. Defendant No.2, being the

University Engineer started to get digging foundation on or about the month of July with a view to enclose the whole land of the defendants whereupon the plaintiffs appraised defendant No.2 that land shown in the plaint schedule and the plan is the exclusive property of the plaintiff and that defendant No.2 cannot dig the foundation trenches in their land.

Thereupon defendant No.2 agreed to stop the work and wanted to get the land surveyed by Survey Department to ascertain whether the suit land forms part of the acquired land of defendant No.1 in Sy.No. 32. However, without getting the land surveyed the defendant No.2 resumed depicting the pits on 28.08.1997 encompassing him the entire suit plots. The plaintiff could stop the work with great difficulty but they apprehend that defendant No.2 is making preparations to go ahead with the work of raising of compound wall encircling the suit plots with the help of the police. The plaintiffs are claiming compensation for the illegal interference and criminal trespass by the defendants into the suit plots by digging foundation pits and trying to annex the suit plot with the University land.

As such, the plaintiffs are claiming Rs.5,000/- towards compensation from the defendants. Hence, the suit.

5 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

4. The defendants filed the written statement denying all the averments in the plaint which are all contra and contended as follows:

Plaintiffs are not the owners and possessors of the suit plots.

Defendant No.1 acquired Ac.4-22 guntas under the Land Acquisition Act out of total extent of Ac.9-20 guntas in Sy.No.32 in the year, 1973 and eversince it has been in possession and enjoyment thereof. The plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the lands acquired by the defendant

No.1 for the development of P.G. Centre and a trench was dug demarcating the area acquired way back in 1973 or so but the traces are not available now. The basement of the compound wall around Ac.4-22 guntas in

Sy.No.32 was raised in or about December, 1996 for raising the compound wall out of the land acquired in Sy No.38 and 385 was in progress in

September, 1997. Sy No.32 and 38 are abutting each other and Sy.No.385 is situated towards the Northern side of Sy.No.38. The plaintiffs are trying to encroach Sy.No.38 and 385. In fact, the construction in Sy. No.38 and 385 as well as 32 is already completed. When the plaints are claiming to be the owners and possessors of separate plots purchased under separate sale deeds, they have to value the relief separately. The suit is bad for mis- joinder of causes of action and the Court fee is insufficient. The identity of the suit land is in dispute. Making such averments, it is prayed to dismiss the suit with costs.

6 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

5.Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6. At the trial, PWs.1 to 4 are examined on the side of the plaintiffs and

Exs.A.1 to A.8 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, only DW.1 is examined and Ex.B.1 is marked.

7. On hearing the plaintiffs and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court Judge decreed the suit in part.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.480 of 2001 dated 05.12.2017, the appellants/defendants preferred the appeal on the following grounds:

1. The judgment and decree under appeal is bad in law and contrary to the pleadings of the defendants.

2. The Hon’ble Trial court did not pay attention towards the written statement filed by the defendants.

3. The Hon’ble Court failed to observe the defendants in their right perspective. The boundaries shown were self contradictory to the documents they filed was not observed.

4. The plaintiffs are four in number, individuals, not related one family or to an institution ог organization. The documents

7 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

filed by themselves also are the individual and independent with different dates. It is not observed by the trial court.

5. The Hon'ble trial court has failed in observing that the suit property is a compact block as said by the plaintiffs and it is contrary to the documents the plaintiffs filed.

6. The claim of the plaintiffs that there is an RCC building in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs failed to establish its construction value i.e., of the suit property including the RCC building. The claim of the plaintiffs in admissible since the suit is not properly valued.

7. The Hon'ble court failed to observe that the plaintiff No.1 and 2 removed the 11 KV Electric line with their own money, it was not supported by any documentary evidence. The Hon'ble trial court failed to observe such point.

8. The description of the suit plot is incorrect. The plan drawn by the plaintiffs is not a plan by any recognized authority. It is an imaginary plan. The plaintiffs repeatedly used the word "in or about" in para No.5 & 6 of the plaint. The plaintiffs who approached the court first should be assertive. The Hon'ble trial court failed to observe the said point.

9. The Hon'ble court failed to mention the report of the Advocate Commissioner and his services.

10. The husband of the 3rd plaintiff was examined as Pw-1. According to him the document are individual and the boundaries are different. The Hon'ble court did not pay any attention to said point.

11. No valuation certificate of the RCC building is shown. It is a crucial point not observed by the Hon'ble court.

8 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

12. The Pw-3 was not sure of total extent of Sy.No 32. He was not aware of the acquisition of the land in Sy No. 22 and he said he has not verified. The said point too was not observed by the Hon'ble court.

13. The Hon’ble court has failed in paying attention towards the court fee which is insufficient. The Hon’ble Court ought to have returned the plaint in the beginning itself.

9. In this appeal notice is issued to the respondents who appeared and contested the matter.

10. Heard and perused the material available on record.

11. This Court after scrutiny of pleadings, material on record and impugned order, framed the following points for consideration:- (1)Whether the plaintiffs proved that they are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of filing the suit?

(2)Whether the Trial Court rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs?

(3)Whether there are any sufficient grounds to interfere with the Judgment of the Trial Court?

(4)To what relief?

12. Point No.1 This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree

dated 05.12.2017 in O.S.No.480 Of 2001 on the file of learned Principal

9 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. The appellants herein are the defendants in

O.S.No.480 of 2001 and the said suit was decreed in favour of the

respondents herein who are the plaintiffs in said suit and the trial Court granted permanent injunction in favour of respondents herein/plaintiffs and against the appellants herein/defendants. Whereas the learned trial court rejected the relief of payment of compensation. Aggrieved by the grant of permanent injunction against the appellants herein, the appellants preferred the present appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties herein after are arrayed as arrayed in the suit before Trial Court.

13.It is the contention of the appellants/defendants that Plaintiffs are not the owners and possessors of the suit plots and that defendant No.1 acquired Ac.4-22 guntas under the Land Acquisition Act out of total extent of Ac.9-20 guntas in Sy.No.32 in the year, 1973 and eversince it has been in possession and enjoyment thereof. The appellants/defendants further contended that the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the lands acquired by the defendant No.1 for the development of P.G. Centre and a trench was dug demarcating the area acquired way back in 1973 or so but the traces are not available now. The basement of the compound wall around Ac.4-22 guntas in Sy.No.32 was raised in or about December, 1996 for raising the compound wall out of the land acquired in Sy No.38 and 385 and was in progress in September, 1997. Sy No.32 and 38 are abutting

10 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

each other and Sy.No.385 is situated towards the Northern side of

Sy.No.38. The plaintiffs are trying to encroach Sy.No.38 and 385.

14.On the other hand, it is the contention of the respondents/plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners and are in possession and enjoyment of suit plots having purchased their respective plots under registered sale deeds in Sy.No.32 situated at Lashkar Singaram. Originally the land in Sy.No.32 was an agricultural land but it lost its agricultural utility after the establishment of the Kakatiya University (defendant university). As it has acquired the land as house site on and from 1980.

The suit plots are three in number and constitute a single compact block.

Plaintiff No.4 has constructed a small R.C.C. house in 1993 in his plot by obtaining permission of the Gram Panchayat, Palivelpula and eversince he has been dwelling therein. Plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the owners of land comprised in item No.1 of the plaint schedule and got 11 K.V. Electric line, passing through the middle of their plots, removed and diverted by spending huge amounts in the year, 1991 or 1992 with a view to commence the construction over the plots. The defendant No.1 has acquired an area of Ac.3-22 guntas in Sy.No.32 in or about the year 1967 from its pattadar namely Kaluri Mallaiah for the purpose of the University and took the possession of the land in 1969, got dug a boundary trench around the acquired land in Sy.No.32 along with other lands acquired by it.

The said trenches still exist separating the acquired land with the

11 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

remaining land in Sy.No.32 belonging to the plaintiffs and others.

Defendant No.2, being the University Engineer started to get digging foundation on or about the month of July with a view to enclose the whole land of the defendants whereupon the plaintiffs appraised defendant No.2 that land shown in the plaint schedule and the plan is the exclusive property of the plaintiff and that defendant No.2 cannot dig the foundation trenches in their land. Thereupon defendant No.2 agreed to stop the work and wanted to get the land surveyed by Survey Department to ascertain whether the suit land forms part of the acquired land of defendant No.1 in

Sy.No. 32. However, without getting the land surveyed the defendant No.2 resumed the work and the plaintiff could stop the work with great difficulty but they apprehend that defendant No.2 is making preparations to go ahead with the work of raising of compound wall encircling the suit plots with the help of the police.

15.In order to substantiate the contentions of both parties the appellants got examined DW1 and got marked Ex.B1 before the trial court.

DW1 is none other than the Development Officer, Kakatiya University and he was examined and got marked Ex.B1 which is the award copy.

However as seen from the evidence of DW1, in Ex.B1 award copy survey

No. 32/2 admeasuring Ac.4.22 guntas is acquired. Whereas in Ex.B1 at

Page No.9 it is recited that survey No. 32 admeasuring Ac.9.20 guntas stands in the name K. Mallaiah and out of this an area of Ac.4-22 guntas is

12 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

under acquisition by PG Centre. The interesting fact that is to be noted from Ex.B1 award copy is that as per recitals in page No.1 of Ex.B1 it is categorically mentioned that the possession of the land is not taken over by P.G Centre and the compensation was awarded to Sri K.Mallaiah.

Therefore, as admitted by DW1 and on perusal of Ex.B1 it is found that the possession was not taken over by P.G. Centre. Whereas on the other hand, plaintiff got examined PW1 and PW2 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 which categorically shows that Ex.A1, Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 are the sale deeds and

Ex.A4 is the permission issued by Grampanchayath and Ex.A5 is the sanction plan. Whereas Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 are certified copies of pahanies and Ex.A8 is the certified copy of extract of sale deed. From Ex.A6 and

Ex.A7 pahanies, it categorically establishes the possession of the respondents herein/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit. It is the contention of the defendants that the respondents herein/plaintiffs are not entitled for permanent injunction and that the learned Trial court erroneously decreed the suit and granted permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents herein.

However, as seen from the record and as per law in a mere suit for permanent injunction, the prima facie possession as on the date of filing of the suit assumes importance and it needs to proved by the person alleging the possession and praying for permanent injunction and also the alleged interference by the defendants. As seen from the record, the respondents/herein plaintiffs have successfully established their prima

13 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

facie possession over the suit schedule property as per Ex.A6 and Ex.A7 pahanies and whereas the appellants herein/defendants categorically admitted by way of Ex.B1 document that as per Ex.B1 award the possession was not delivered to P.G centre. It is the allegations of the appellants herein that the suit land i.e., suit schedule land forms part of land acquisition for KUC P.G Centre. But as seen from Ex.B1 document it goes against the appellants herein/defendants because as per Ex.B1 the possession was not delivered to P.G Centre . Therefore, as the prima facie possession as on the date of filing of the suit is the main factor which is to be established by the plaintiffs/respondents and as seen from the record, when the respondents herein/plaintiffs have successfully established the prima facie possession over the suit schedule property as on the date of filing of the suit hence trial court rightly decreed the suit for permanent injunction and as seen from the record there is no evidence as to actual damage caused. Hence, the trial court rightly rejected the compensation as per law. However, in a suit for mere permanent injunction the alleged interference by the defendants/appellants needs to be established by the respondents herein/ plaintiffs and as seen from the rival contentions and from the claim made by the respondents there is a threat of dispossession by the appellants herein defendants. Therefore, the trial court rightly granted relief in O.S.No.480/2001. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

14 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

16. POINT No.2:- In view of my finding on point No.1, there is no error in passing decree and judgment in O.S.No.480/2001 by the trial court since the possession as on the date of filing of the suit is categorically established by the respondents herein/plaintiffs over the suit schedule property. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

17. POINT No.3:- since the trial court rightly decreed the suit of the respondents herein/plaintiffs hence there are no sufficient grounds to interfere with the judgment of trial court. Thus, this point is answered accordingly.

18. POINT No.4:- In view of my discussion on Points Nos.1 to 3, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.

19.In the result, this appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.480/2001, dated 05.12.2017 on the file of learned

Principal Senior Civil Judge, Warangal. In the circumstances of the case,

parties shall bear their own costs.

(Partly typed to my dictation and partly dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9th day of February, 2024).

Sd/-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.

15 A.S.No.06 OF 2019

:APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE:

WITNESSES EXAMINED

--NIL--

Sd/-

II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE,

HANUMAKONDA.