G Neelima

1 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak

COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING THE

CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-cum-

I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK.

PRESENT: SMT. G. NEELIMA,

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,

MEDAK. FAC – Spl. Sessions Judge for fast tracking the cases relating to atrocities against women-cum-I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak.

Date: Monday, 03 rd day of November, 2025

SC.No. 121 of 2023

Crime No. & Police Station.Crime No.24 of 2023 of P.S. Regode. Description of AccusedA-1 Mohammad Ahmed@ Areef S/o Khaja Miya, Aged 31 years, Muslim Religion, Occ. DCM Driver, R/o Basaweshwara Street, Zaheerabad Town & Mandal. Sangareddy District

A-2 Mohammad Anwar S/o Sayed Riyaz, Aged 25 years. Muslim Religion, Occ. Bike Mechanic. R/o Momin Mohalla, Zaheerabad Town & Mandal, Sangareddy District.

A-3 Mirza Khasif Beg S/o Feroz Beg, Aged 22 years, Muslim Religion, Occ. Labor, R/o Wathanbagh, Zaheerabad Town & Mandal, Sangareddy District.

A-4 Mohammad Saif Khan S/o Saber Khan, Aged 20 years, Muslim Religion, Occ. Student, R/o Ramnagar, Zaheerabad Town & Mandal, Sangareddy District.

A-5 Md. Sufan S/o Mahboob, Aged 22 years, Muslim Religion, Occ. Labor, R/o Drivers colony, Zaheerabad Town & Mandal, Sangareddy District.

A-6 Md Burhan Ahmed S/o Javeed, Aged 21 years, Muslim Religion, Occ. Labor, R/o Driver Colony, Zaheerabad Town & Mandal, Sangareddy District.

2 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak

A-7 Md Manjur S/o Ismail, Aged 22 years, Muslim Religion, Occ. Private Job, R/o Medpalle village, Jharasangam Mandal, Sangareddy District.

A-8 Mohammad Sameer S/o Shoukath Ali, Aged 19 years, Muslim Religion, Occ: Bike Mechanic, R/o Fareednagar Colony, Zaheerabad Town & Mandal. Sangareddy District.

A-9 Mohammad Arshad @ Chota Arshad S/o Moizoddin, Aged 19 years, Muslim Religion, Occ:Helper at Mungi Company, R/o Drivers colony. Zaheerabad Town & Mandal. Sangareddy District.

A-10 Mohammad Masthan Ali S/o Jahangir, Aged 23 years, Muslim Religion, Occ. Private Job, R/o Plot. 356, P & T Colony, Medipally Medchal District.

A-11 Md Arshad @ Bada Arshad S/o Ayazuddin, Aged 26 years, Muslim Religion, Occ. Labor at Mungi Company, R/o Momin Mohalla, Zaheerabad Town & Mandal. Sangareddy District. Charge/sUnder Sections 395, 307, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty

Finding of the Court and sentence. In the result, the accused No.1 to 11 are NOT FOUND GUILTY for the offences Under Sections 395, 307, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of of IPC and accordingly, accused No.1 to 11 are ACQUITTED under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. for the said offences.

Prosecution conducted bySri. T. Venkatesh, I/c Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Accused defended bySri. G. Jeevan Rao, Advocate for the accused No.4 to 11. Sri. Md. Akbar Ali, Advocate for the accused No.1 to 3.

3 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak

Date of Offence20.03.2023 Date of FIR20.03.2023 Date of charge-sheet30.04.2023 Date of framing charge(s)01.09.2025 Date of commencement of evidence15.10.2025 Date on which Judgment is reserved29.10.2025 Date of Judgment03.11.2025 Date of sentencing Order, if any--

ACCUSED DETAILS:

Rank Name of the Date Date of Offences charged Whether SentencPeriod of of the Accusedof Release withAcquitted e Detention AccusArreston BailU/Secor imposedundergone edConvictedduring Trial for purpose of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. A-1 Mohammad 22.03.09.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– Ahmed @ 20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C. Areef

A-2 Mohammad 22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– Anwar20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C.

A-3 Mirza 22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– Khasif 20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C. Khan

A-4 Mohammad 22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– Saif Khan 20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C.

A-5 Md Sufan 22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– 20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C.

A-6 Md Burhan22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– 20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C.

A-7 Md Manjur22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– 20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C.

4 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak

A-8 Mohammad 22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– Sameer20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C.

A-9 Mohammad 22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– Arshad @ 20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C. Chota Arshad A-10 Mohammad 22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– Masthan Ali20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C.

A-11 Md Arshad 22.03.10.05.U/Secs. 395, 307, Acquitted --– @ Bada 20232023120(B), 201 r/w 34 U/s 235(1) of IPCCr.P.C. Arshad

This case is coming up for final hearing in the presence of Sri T. Venkatesh,

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Sri. MD. Akbar Ali, Learned

Counsel for the Accused No.1 to 3 and Sri. G. Jeevan Rao, Learned counsel for the accused No.4 to 11 and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a case filed under sections 395, 307, 120-B, 201 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against accused.

2.Brief facts of the prosecution case is that first accused due to insufficient money planned to rob the collected money to over come financial problem met accused No.2 and said about his plan and third accused procured supporting men to execute their plan. On 20.03.2023 4th accused to 11th accused reached the DCM van with bikes and sprayed

Chilli powder and pulled cash bag and beat with sticks and ransacked two mobile phones and DCM keys and escaped from the scene. Meantime 4th 5 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak accused stabbed LW.5 on his left hand and thrown mobile phones and

DCM keys in Rainpally Dam. Basing on the report given to police a case in

Crime No.24 of 2023 under sections 395, 307, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code and investigated into. After completion of investigation and receiving all relevant documents LW.13/Circle Inspector of Police, Alladurg

Circle filed charge-sheet against the accused No.1 to 11 for the offences punishable under sections 395, 307, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code.

3.This case was taken on file under sections 395, 307, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused No.1 to 11 by the learned

Principal Junior Civil judge, Medak and after compliance of requirements

under section 207 Criminal Procedure Code by order dated 21.06.2023 vide PRC No.48 of 2023 committed the case to the court of Principal

District and Sessions Court, Medak under section 209 Cr.P.C., the same was taken on file as SC.No.121 of 2023 and made over to this court for disposal according to law.

4.Accused No.1 to 11 made their appearance on hearing the learned counsel and learned Addl.Public Prosecutor charges were framed under sections 395, 307, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and the same 6 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak were read over and explained to the accused in telugu for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5.During the course of trial prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Ex.P1 to P10 on its behalf. LW.1 to LW.13 were given up learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Accused No.1 to 11 were cross-examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. They denied incriminating evidence and reported no defence witnesses.

6.Heard Arguments.

7.Now, the point that arise for determination is: Whether prosecution could prove its case and established the guilt of the accused No.1 to 11 for the offences under sections 395, 307, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code beyond all reasonable doubt?

8.POINT:- PW.1 deposed that he was an ITC distributor and he was having DCM vehicle bearing No.5765 and they are using DCM vehicle for supply of their products. On 20.03.2023 DCM vehicle bearing No.5765 started from their company for supply of stock in Alladurg and Vatpally. At about 05:30 PM he received phone call from his clerk and he was informed that DCM van was stopped by people and Rs.6,00,000/- was taken away by them. Then he gave report to police. Ex.P1 is the report.

7 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak

9.PW.2 B. Srikanth deposed that PW.1 is his employer. About three days back they went to Zaheerabad and supplied products and collected amounts. While they were returning to Zaheerabad DCM van reached

Tathipally Chowrastha at 06:00 PM six persons came on bikes and stopped van and sprinkled chilli powder in their eyes and snatched away cash bag. He cannot identify those persons.

10.PW.3 Mohd. Salman deposed that about three years back they went from Zaheerabad to Shankarampet to unload the stock. He slept in the back side of the van. He does not know what happened and who came to stop vehicle.

11.PW.4 Syed Mujeeb deposed that about two years back while they were coming from Shankarampet he slept in the back side of vehicle he does not know what had happened.

12.PW.5/Ch. Sudhakar deposed that on 20.03.2023 while they were returning to Zaheerabad and reached Thatipally Chowrastha six persons came on two bikes and stopped the van. They opened the door and sprinkled chilli powder and six persons left the scene of offence with cash bag. PW.1 came to the spot and shifted him to hospital. He cannot identify the person who robbed him.

8 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak

13.PW.6/A.Vijender deposed that about three years back police came to Panchayath office and obtained signatures on some papers. He does not know the contents of those papers.

14.PW.7/D. Fayaz deposed that about three years back while he was at

Thatipally police came and obtained his signature.

15.PW.8/K. Ramesh deposed that about two and half years back panchanama was conducted in the police station and he cannot identify the accused and he cannot say how much amount was recovered by police.

He was not shown any knife by the police. He cannot identify the accused.

16.PW.9/D.Someshwaram deposed that they went to police station when police called them as robbery took place and police recovered cash.

They were not shown bikes and DCM van. He cannot identify accused person.

17.None of the eye-witness identified the accused. Cash which was recovered from the prosecution of accused was not placed before the court. PW.1 is the defacto-complainant who set the criminal law into motion himself did not support the case of prosecution. Perhaps it may be the reason for which learned Additional Public Prosecutor declared all the eye-witnesses including defacto-complainant as hostile and cross- 9 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak examined by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor. Inspite of cross- examination no useful information could be brought out in favour of the case of prosecution. Literally no incriminating evidence is appearing on record and identity of the accused is not established. Prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused No.1 to 11. Accordingly I answer this point.

18.In the result, accused No.1 to 11 are not found guilty for the offences under Sections 395, 307, 120(B), 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal

Code, accordingly accused No.1 to 11 are acquitted under Section 235(1)

Cr.P.C.

The bail bonds of the accused No.1 to 11 shall be cancelled after appeal time is over.

Un-marked case property deposited vide CPR No.444/15/2023, i.e.

Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) cash, Hero Glamour bike bearing No. AP 28 AN 9107, Realme NARZO mobile phone, Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) cash, Rs.70,000/- (Rupees Seventy thousand only) cash, Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) cash,

Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) cash, Hero Glamour bike bearing No. TS 15 EX 9262, Hero Glamour bike bearing No. TS 15 EX 9262, Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) cash, Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) cash, Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand 10 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak only) cash, one TVS Apache bike bearing No. TS 15 ET 8423, Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) cash, one FZ bike bearing chassis

No.ME1RG661AL0066680 and Rs.60,000/- (Rupees Sixty thousand only) cash which were returned to its owners for interim custody shall hold good, and which were not returned shall be returned to its rightful owners on proper identification and acknowledgement.

Un-marked case property i.e. two Sarugu sticks, one red colour empty Shalimar Roller Floor Mill bag, one red and blue colour knife shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Steno-Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 03 rd day of November, 2025.

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

FAC - I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak.

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses

A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence (Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) PW.1Nama Ravi KiranComplainant and Owner of the DCM PW.2Begari SrikanthVictim and Eye Witness PW.3Md. SalmanVictim and Eye witness PW.4Sayed MujeebVictim and Eye Witness PW.5Chakali SudhakarInjured and Eye witness 11 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak

PW.6Avuti Vijender Panch for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama PW.7D Fayaz @ GudduPanch for scene of offence cum seizure panchanama PW.8Keluth Ramesh,Panch for confession cum seizure panchanama Panchayath of accused persons Secretary. PW.9Devasoth Soneshwar, Panch for confession cum seizure panchanama Panchayath of Accused persons Secretary.

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-

C. Court witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS A. Prosecution:

Sl.N Exhibit Number Description o 1Exhibit P1/PW1Signature of PW.1 on report 2Exhibit P2/PW2161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.2 3Exhibit P3/PW3161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.3 4Exhibit P4/PW4161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.4 5Exhibit P5/PW6Signature of PW.6 on Scene of offence panchanama 6Exhibit P6/PW6Signature of PW.6 on rough sketch 12 of 12 FAIR SC.No. 121 of 2023 I ADJ Court, Medak 7Exhibit P7/PW7Signature of PW.7 on Scene of offence panchanama 8Exhibit P8/PW7Signature of PW.7 on Seizure panchanama 9Exhibit P9/PW8Signature of PW.9 on Confession cum seizure panchanama

B. Defence:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

C. Court Exhibits:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

D. Material Objects:

Sl.No. Material Object Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

FAC - I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Medak.

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. G. NEELIMA,

VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet

FAC VIII Addl.District Judge, Medak.

Friday, the 1 st day of April, 2022.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 9 OF 2017

Between:

Chintala Ramulu S/o Papaiah, Aged 40 years, Occu: Nil, R/o H.No.P-50-2, Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District. …Appellant/Petitioner

A N D

1.Keshannagari Laxmaiah S/o Balaram, Aged 58 yrs., Occu: Business,

2.Kompally Pandu S/o Not known, Aged 37 yrs., Occu: Attender,

3. Mangali Satyanarayana S/o Narsimulu, Aged 48 yrs., Occu: Agril.,

Respondents No.1 to 3 are R/o Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

4.Molla Babu S/o Hajeeth, Aged 50 yrs., Occu: LIC Agent, R/o Pedda Gottimukula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

5.Pulimamidi Deva Goud S/o Anja Goud, Aged 36 yrs., Occu: Business, R/o Sangareddy road, Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

6.Eeral Venkatesh S/o Kotaiah, Aged 50 yrs., Occu: Agril. & Business, R/o Chaitanyapuri colony, Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

7.Kondapuram Battaiah S/o Narsaiah, Aged 42 yrs., Occu: Agril., R/o Kannaram Village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District.

8.Manne Ramakrishna S/o Gopal, Aged 32 yrs., Occu: Agril., R/o Salabathpur Village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District.

9.Donthi Ravi Kumar S/o Pocha Goud, Aged 40 yrs., Occu:Ward Member, R/o Vigneshwara colony, Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

...Respondents/Respondents

2 of 8 AS 9 of 2017 VIII ADJ Medak

Aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 06-10-2015 passed by the

Senior Civil Judge, Medak in

I.P. NO. 04 of 2013

Between:-

Chintala Ramulu S/o Papaiah, age: 40 years, Occ: Nil, R/o H.No.P-50-2, Narsapur Vuillage & Mandal, Medak District. …Petitioner

A N D

1.Keshannagari Laxmaiah S/o Balaram, Aged 58 yrs., Occu: Business,

2.Kompally Pandu S/o Not known, Aged 37 yrs., Occu: Attender,

3. Mangali Satyanarayana S/o Narsimulu, Aged 48 yrs., Occu: Agril.,

Respondents No.1 to 3 are R/o Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

4.Molla Babu S/o Hajeeth, Aged 50 yrs., Occu: LIC Agent, R/o Pedda Gottimukula Village, Shivampet Mandal, Medak District.

5.Pulimamidi Deva Goud S/o Anja Goud, Aged 36 yrs., Occu: Business, R/o Sangareddy road, Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

6.Eeral Venkatesh S/o Kotaiah, Aged 50 yrs., Occu: Agril. & Business, R/o Chaitanyapuri colony, Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

7.Kondapuram Battaiah S/o Narsaiah, Aged 42 yrs., Occu: Agril., R/o Kannaram Village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District.

8.Manne Ramakrishna S/o Gopal, Aged 32 yrs., Occu: Agril., R/o Salabathpur Village, Kowdipally Mandal, Medak District.

9.Donthi Ravi Kumar S/o Pocha Goud, Aged 40 yrs., Occu:Ward Member, R/o Vigneshwara colony, Narsapur Village & Mandal, Medak District.

...Respondents

3 of 8 AS 9 of 2017 VIII ADJ Medak

This Appeal Suit having come before me for final hearing Sri S. Chandra Reddy, Advocate for appellant and of Sri K.A. Srinivas, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4, The Respondents No.5 to 9 remained exparte, upon perusal of material papers available on record, upon hearing both sides and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is an appeal preferred by the Appellant against the Decree and Order dated 06-10-2015 in I.P. No.04 of 2013 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Medak, which dismissed the petition.

2.I.P. No. 04 of 2013 was filed by petitioner against the respondents seeking the relief to adjudicate the petitioner as insolvent, to discharge the petitioner from debts.

The said Insolvency petition of the petitioner was dismissed.

3.1The main grounds urged in the appeal are as follows:

The lower Court failed to look into crucial points and decided the petition without appreciating the case of petitioner. The lower Court failed to see Ex.R1 standing in the name of wife of petitioner and Ex.R2 property standing in the name of son of petitioner, and wife and son of petitioner are living separately and his in-laws purchased the land in the name of his wife and son.

3.2The lower Court also failed to see that Ex.R3 property was sold to third parties under Ex.R4 and Ex.R5 and that said sale consideration was utilised to repay the loans to third parties. Hence there is no land in the name of petitioner but lower Court erroneously came to conclusion that petitioner is having land.

3.3The lower Court unnecessarily shifted the burden on the petitioner instead of respondents. No suits were filed by the respondents as he became insolvent.

3.4The lower Court failed to see the real evidence adduced by the appellant herein and erroneously came to a conclusion that no single document is filed by him.

4 of 8 AS 9 of 2017 VIII ADJ Medak

Accordingly the appeal is to be allowed.

4.The brief averments set-out in the petition are as follows:-

Petitioner was the motor mechanic and he used to purchase and sale assembled motors to farmers and other customers and developed his popularity in surrounding villages of Narsapur Mandal of Medak District and by seeing his popularity the C.R.I.

Pumps and Motors, Hyderabad has offered him to take dealership of C.R.I. Pumps and

Motors and carried on his business under the name and style as Sri Hanuman

Engineering shop at Narsapur and to improve his business he had borrowed the loan amounts from the respondents on huge interest shown in petition ‘A’ schedule and he engaged assistant workers and labours and paid them sufficient salaries and wages and supplied bore-well motors, spare parts and winding material to the farmers and customers on credit basis, but due to drought conditions the farmers did not pay the amount and he has to receive the amounts from the persons shown in petition ‘B’ schedule and he had already closed his business about six months back and by taking advantage of the same the customers/debtors are not paying the amounts due to him and he sustained heavy loss due to competition in the market and could not receive the amounts from his debtors and he paid huge interest to the respondents than the loan obtained from them. The petitioner further contends that all the respondents along with unsocial elements came to his house and made galata and threatened him with dire consequences and abused him and his family members in filthy language and they are trying to harm his family members and he is not in a position to pay the debts and he is not having any source of income or any immovable properties except the property shown in ‘C’ schedule and he has no other alternative except to approach the Court.

Hence, the petition.

5.The brief averments set-out in the Counter filed by the Respondents No.1 to 4.

The respondents denied the petition averments in the petition and contended that the respondents No.6 to 9 are the relatives and close friends of the petitioner and 5 of 8 AS 9 of 2017 VIII ADJ Medak shown them only to strengthen his petition and that the petitioner filed this petition only to avoid the amount due to them and he had purchased the properties in the name of his wife on 02-4-2008 bearing document No.1909/2008 and also purchased the property in the name of his son on 14-3-2012 and also in the name of his wife and later he filed the present petition and the petitioner is having properties in his name and he suppressed the real facts and he sold away his property on 02-2-2013 an extent of

Ac.0-15 gts., bearing document No. 644/2013 and also sold the property under document No.645/2013 to one Hellenki Naveen Reddy and Jeevan Reddy and he is also having other property an extent of Ac.0-05 gts., situated at Darmasagar village,

Kowdipally Mandal and he purchased the same from one Thodupunuri Srinivas Reddy and others and the petitioner and his family members are having sufficient properties to clear up all their debts and only to avoid the same he filed the present petition and the cause of action is false and they believed the petitioner out of their close acquaintance with him and they expected the petitioner will pay the loan amounts but he cheated them and filed the present petition by suppressing the real facts and therefore they prayed to dismiss the petition.

6.Based on the above pleadings the following points were framed for enquiry:

1)Whether the petitioner committed the acts of insolvency towards the respondents?

2)Whether the petitioner is entitled to be adjudged as insolvent?

7.Before the Court below, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Respondents No.3 and 4 got themselves examined as RW1 and RW2.

8.After considering above evidence the lower Court dismissed the suit without costs. This judgment is assailed.

9.I refer to parties as arrayed I the petition for the sake of convenience.

6 of 8 AS 9 of 2017 VIII ADJ Medak

10.Now, the points for consideration are;

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for declaration as insolvent?

2) Whether the impugned Order dated 06-10-2015 in I.P.No. 4 of 2013 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak is sustainable on facts and at law or much interference?

3) To what relief?

11.POINT No.(1):

It is the contention of the petitioner that he took dealership of CRI Pumps and

Motors and carried on business under the name and style as Sri Hanuman Engineering shop at Narsapur and in order to improve his business he had borrowed the loan amounts from the respondent on huge interest and engaged workers and labours and paid sufficient salary and wages to them and supplied borewell motors, spare parts and winding material to the farmers and customers on credit basis, but due to drought condition the farmers failed to pay back the amounts and he had closed his business due to loss and heavy competition in the market and his debtors did not pay his debts, but he paid huge interest to his creditors. His creditors are demanding amounts and also threatening him with dire consequences and also abusing him and his family members in filthy language and he had no source of income or immovable properties, except the properties shown in ‘C’ schedule. So he need to be declared as insolvent.

12.Respondents No.1 to 4 opposed the petition by alleging that petitioner filed the petition only to defraud the respondents and he had purchased properties in the name of his wife on 2 -4-2008 and also in the name of his son on 14-3-2012 and he sold away his properties on 02-02-2013 under document No. 644/2013 and 645/2013 to one

Hellenki Naveen Reddy and Jeevan Reddy and he also had another property of 0-05 guntas situated at Dharmasagar village, Kowdipally Mandal and that he had suifficient properties to pay his debts but only to avoid those payments petitioner came up with this petition.

7 of 8 AS 9 of 2017 VIII ADJ Medak

13.No documentary evidence is adduced by the petitioner. Basing on the oral testimony of PW1 and PW2 petitioner needs to be adjudged as insolvent. PW1 and

PW2 categorically stated that PW1 is not in a position to clear the debts of creditors shown in ‘A’ schedule and total amount of debts came to Rs.18,85,000/-. Respondents received originals of Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 sale deeds. Under Ex.R1 sale deed wife of petitioner purchased property and under Ex.R2 son of the petitioner purchased property. Petitioner simply alleged that his in-laws purchased those properties in the name of his wife and son, but he could not establish such fact through cogent evidence.

He did not even prove that his in-laws had financial capacity to purchase those properties and they were alive as on 02-4-2008 and 14-3-2012. Ex.R3 copies of sale deeds makes it clear that petitioner had purchased property on 13-5-2011 and sold the same on 02-3-2013 to Hellanki Jeevan Reddy under Ex.R4 and to Hellanki Naveen

Reddy on 02-02-2013 under Ex.R5.

14.Ex.R6 1B (ROR) clearly show that petitioner is having lands in Sy.No.103/A/3 and in Sy.No.103/A/2 situated in Salabathpur Village of Kowdipally Mandal of Medak

District. Ac.0-37 gts of land is Sy.No.110/AA2 in Salabathpur village of Kowdipally

Mandal, Medak District was shown to be the land of petitioner under Ex.R7. Ex.R8 proves that Ac.1-05 gts., of land in Sy.No.167/AA1 of Dharmasagar village is standing in the name of petitioner. Properties under Ex.R6 to Ex.R8 are standing in the name of petitioner as on 18-11-2013 and insolvency petition in I.P. No.4 of 2013 was filed on 03-9-2013. Therefore, petitioner could not establish his inability to pay his debts shown in ‘A’ schedule and pending debts he purchased properties and sold properties and also performed marriage of his daughter. Petitioner being pattadar of lands Ex.R6 to Ex.R8 cannot seek adjudication as insolvent. Accordingly I answer this point.

15.POINT No.(2):

After thorough scrutiny of the Judgment of Court below it has clearly discussed the evidence adduced on record and held that petitioner failed to prove his case for adjudicating him as insolvent. I therefore, see the petitioner is not entitled for 8 of 8 AS 9 of 2017 VIII ADJ Medak adjudication as insolvent. Accordingly, I answer this point.

16.POINT No.(3):

In the result, appeal is dismissed without costs, confirming the Decree and

Order of the Lower Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 1 st day of April, 2022.

VI Addl. District Judge,

Siddipet. FAC VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak.

Additional evidence

-Nil-

VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet. FAC VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak.

IN THE COURT OF THE VI ADDL.DISTRICT JUDGE AT SIDDIPET

PRESENT: SMT. G. NEELIMA,

VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet. FAC: VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak.

Saturday, the 30 th day of April, 2022

G & W O.P. NO. 31 OF 2015

Between:-

Paidi Anjaneyulu S/o Narayana, Aged: 57 years, Occ: Business, R/o H.No.9-73/1, Bhagath Singh Road, Jogipet Town, Andole Mandal Medak District. …Petitioner AND

1. Kovuri Kavitha W/o Kovuri Krishna, Aged about 27 yrs., Occupation Household, R/o H.No.17-1-391/1/7/271, Saraswathi nagar, Old Malakpet, Saidabad Mandal, Hyderabad.

2. Rathakanti Ravender S/o Venkaiah, Aged about 50 yrs., Occupation Agriculture, R/o Thornalu village, Manoor Mandal, Medak District.

...Respondents

This petition having come before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri P.J. Vittal Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioner, and of Sri S. Narayan Reddy, Advocate

for Respondents, upon perusing the material papers available on record and upon

hearing the arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court made the following: -

:: O R D E R ::

1.This petition is filed under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, seeking custody of minor child namely Rishik.

2.Brief averments of the petition are as follows:-

The Respondent No.1 was the wife of late Srikanth, son of petitioner, Respondent

No.2 is the father of Respondent No.1, Srikanth son of the petitioner married Respondent

No.1 on 8-11-2009 as per the customs prevailing in their community. Out of the wedlock a son Rishik was born on 25-1-2011. After the birth of the minor child his father Srikanth died on 31-01-2012. After the death of the husband of Respondent No.1 she stayed in the in-laws house for some time and from there after Respondent No.1 started staying with

Respondent No.2 along with the son Rishik at Thornala Village of Manoor Mandal, 2 of 6 GW OP 31 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak

Medak District.

It is further contended in the petition that while leaving the in-laws house along with Rishik Respondent No.1 was asked to leave the minor child Rishik with petitioner.

Respondent No.1 refused to leave him with petitioner on the ground that he is too young and the custody of her is important. Later joined Respondent No.2 married Kovuri

Krishna on 15th February, 2014 at Beeramguda. Thereafter she is residing with her husband by leaving the minor son Rishik with her father Respondent No.2.

It is further contended that Thornalu village, Manoor Mandal, Medak District is a remote village where there are no provisions for good eductaion. Respondent No.2 admitted Rishik in Government school Thornalu, Petitioner is resding at Jogipet where there are good educational institutions. Petitioner is financially sound and he is in better position to prove better education to Rishik. If the minor is allowed to stay at Thornalu village his entire academic life will be spoiled and the same cannot be compensated in any means. Petitioner and his wife were very affectionate towards their son Srikanth and the same time they are having lot of affection towards grandson Rishik. Therefore, the petitioner prays to pass decree for delivery of possession of Rishik S/o late Srikanth, Aged 4 years 3 months presently residing with Respondent No.2 at Thornal Village, Manoor

Mandal, Medak District to him.

3.The Respondents filed counter admitting that the respondent No.1 was the wife of late Srikanth son of petitioner, and also admitted that Respondent No.2 is the father of

Respondent No.1. It is false to state that the petitioner asked the Respondent No.1 to leave her son Rishik with him and that the Respondent No.1 was refused stating that the Rishik was too young and the child custody with her is very important. In fact the petitioner and his family members never asked the Respondent No.1 to leave her son with the petitioner and on the other hand the petitioner and his family members forced the Respondent No.1 to go along with her child to Thornal village.

It is further submitted that after the Respondent No.1 and her child joined in the house of Respondent No.2 the petitioner and on his behalf no one visited the house of

Respondent No.2 to know the welfare of Respondent No.1 and her son. The petitioner till this day did not provid any requirements of the child Rishik till this day. The petitioner or his family members did not turn up to take back the Respondent No.1 to his house. After waiting for sufficient time when none came to take back the Respondent No.1, she married to K. Krishna on 15-02-2014 and living with him. The infant child Rishik is 3 of 6 GW OP 31 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak living in the company of the Respondent No.2 and he is maintaining the child.

It is further submitted that the Respondent No.2 is providing good education to

Rishik in Vivekananda English Medium School at Narayankhed since 2014. The total expenditure for Rishik is providing by the Respondent No.2 and now and then the

Respondent No.1 calling Rishik to her during school holidays time. The respondents denied that the petitioner and his wife are having affection towards Rishik. The child is most affectionate to the Respondent No.2 and his wife than the petitioner. The present petition is not maintainable under law or facts and prayed to dismiss the petition of the petitioner.

4.Petitioner examined himself as PW1 and one mediator as PW2 and got marked

Ex.A1 to A4 on his behalf.

The first-Respondent was examined as RW1 and no document are marked on behalf of the Respondents.

5. Heard the petitioner counsel, none argued for respondents.

6.Now the point that arise for consideration is -

Whether custody of child can be given to the petitioner?

Point:

7.These proceedings are initiated by petitioner who is the paternal grand father of minor child namely Rishik.

Admitted facts in this case are that marriage between son of petitioner and first-

Respondent was held on 08-11-2009 and the minor child was born on 31-01-2012 and that first-Respondent contacted second marriage and living with her second husband at

Beeramguda, Hyderabad and that minor child is living with second-Respondent and and that first-Respondent married to one K. Krishna on 15-02-2014, concededly first-

Respondent had exclusive custody of Rishik through second Respondent till the petitioner initiated the present proceedings under Setion 25 of Guardian and Wards Act, 1890.

8.This move was apparently triggered by first-Respondent's marriage on 15-02-2014.

In the petition the grand father of minor child alleged that while first-Respondent leaving his house refused to leave the minor child with him on the ground that he is too young and her custody is important then. Minor child was residing in Thornala village with his 4 of 6 GW OP 31 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak maternal grand father i.e. second respondent. Where there were no provisions for good education and that minor was joined in Government school Thornala. As the petitioner is residing in Jogipet where there are good schools and as the petitioner is having sound financial state he can look after the minor child better than that of second respondent.

Petitioner was of the opinion that first-Respondent remarriage was likely to affect the physical and emotional health of the child.

9.First-Respondent contested the proceedings she is working as Accountant in Kapil

Chit Fund company, Hyderabad, where she continues to be employed. RW-1 denied the allegations about her inability to take care of her minor son Rishik and stated that her conduct as a mother was beyond reproach and that minor child was more attached to second respondent and his wife than the petitioner. She also stated that petitioner and his wife harassed their elder daughter-in-law and facing criminal case in Court of Law and that if any relief as sought for by the petitioner would be granted its impact would not in the larger benefit and welfare of master Rishik.

10.From the judicial precedents for determining the welfare of the minor child, it need to be addressed the following guiding ingredients which are in brief enumerated herein below:

i) Where the child will be more happy.

ii) Who is in a better position to look after the physical and mental development of the minor.

iii) Who can give more comfort.

iv) In whose care the welfare of the minor is more secure.

v) Who has the capacity to provide for a better education and round the clock look after the child.

vi Who would be available by the side of the child when in need.

vii) Who would look after the emotional aspect social setup, good education, career building and nurturing of the child as a good human being.

viii) Where the child will have good atmosphere, healthy and overall development.

ix) Where he will develop as a proper human being having programine attitude and not having constricted thoughts and outlook towards life.

5 of 6 GW OP 31 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak

10.PW1 stated in his evidence that RW1 refused to leave the minor child with him while she was leaving his house. Admittedly PW1 did not take any steps to secure the presence of minor child till the remarriage of RW1. Though petitioner exained PW2 his evidence cannot be accepted why because no where in his petition as well as in evidence affidavit petitioner stated that he went to the house of RW1 along with PW2 to get back the child. Petitioner did not deposit any amount for better future of minor child so far. Ex.

A4 deposit receipt is only for Rs.3,000/- with which needs of minor child cannot be met.

petitioner did not rebut the allegations of criminal charges facing by him and his wife. So the same can be accepted as true. Remarrying again is no anathema as long as welfare and interest of Rishik are subserved by her with the parent who has the custody of the minor child.

11.From the evidence of PW1 and PW2 nothing at all has come on record that either second respondent is not treating the minor child properly or he is ill-treating him or not taking care of him or not devoting time to him or not accepted him as his grand son or is not looking after his welfare. the natural corollary is that second respondent must be taking care of the minor child properly and without any kind of complaint. Thus by marrying again it cannot be said that RW1 is incapable of taking care of the minor child dueto which the custody could be shifted.

12.RW1 is financially sound by working as Accountant in Chit Fund company.

Moreover compensation was also received by her in accident claim. Petitioner intentionally suppressed about the amounts lying in the name of minor. This court ordered for productiom of child to know his feelings but child was not produced by respondents. As per the oral evidence of RW1 Master Rishik was healthy mentally and was excellent in academics. It was accordingly concluded that disturbing the custody of the child at this stage could do more harm than good and it would not be helpful for his overall development and growth. However, it would be reasonably justified that child should have same meetings with his paternal grand father.

13.For the above said reasons this Court inclined to reject the claim of petitioner.

14.In the result, petition is dismissed without costs. However this Court proceeded to grant visitation rights to petitioner by directing that petitioner should have access to the child atleast once in a week preferably on Sunday between 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. and that 6 of 6 GW OP 31 of 2015 VIII ADJ, Medak petitioner should also be allowed to meet the child in one of the major festivals in a year as per the convenience of the parties.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (Grade-I), corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 30 th day of April, 2022.

VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet. FAC: VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

witnesses examined for

PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS:

PW1: Paidi AnjaneyuluRW-1 Kovury Kavitha PW2: K.R. Mallaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED FOR

PETITIONER: RESPONDENTS: -Nil--

Ex.P1Copy of Aadhar Card of P.Rishik Ex.P2Copy of Aadhar details of Kovuri Krishna Ex.P3Copy of Identify card of P. Kavitha Ex.P4Deposit receipt of S.B.I. Jogipet branch

VI Additional District Judge, Siddipet. FAC: VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak

IN THE COURT OF VIII ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE AT MEDAK

PRESENT: SMT. G. NEELIMA,

VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet

FAC VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak.

Date: 25 th day of April, 2022.

APPEAL SUIT NO. 12 OF 2019

Between:

1. Thalari Pardhu Kumar S/o Thalari Raju, Aged 22 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee, R/o Kodakanchi Village, presently R/o H.No.C2-159/P, PA Nagar, HMT Colony, Maktha Mahboobpet, Miyapur, Rangareddy District.

2. Thalari Saibaba S/o Thalari Raju, Aged 20 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee, R/o Kodakanchi Village, presently R/o H.No.C2-159/P, PA Nagar, HMT Colony, Maktha Mahboobpet, Miyapur, Rangareddy District. …Appellants/Plaintiffs

A N D

Thalari Raju @ B. Raju S/o late Shiva Narayana, Aged 50 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee & Agril., R/o Kodakanchi Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Respondent/Defendant

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree, dated 08-02-2019 passed by the

Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur in

O.S. NO. 31 of 2018

Between:-

1. Thalari Pardhu Kumar S/o Thalari Raju, Aged 22 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee, R/o Kodakanchi Village, presently R/o H.No.C2-159/P, PA Nagar, HMT Colony, Maktha Mahboobpet, Miyapur, Rangareddy District.

2. Thalari Saibaba S/o Thalari Raju, Aged 20 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee, R/o Kodakanchi Village, presently R/o H.No.C2-159/P, PA Nagar, HMT Colony, Maktha Mahboobpet, Miyapur, Rangareddy District. …Plaintiffs

A N D

Thalari Raju @ B. Raju S/o late Shiva Narayana, Aged 50 years, Occu: Pvt. Employee & Agril., R/o Kodakanchi Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District.

...Defendant

2 of 6 AS 12 of 2019 VIII ADJ Medak

This Appeal Suit having come before me for final hearing Sri V. Prabhu, Advocate for appellants and the Defendant remained exparte, upon perusal of material papers available on record, upon hearing and having stood over for consideration till this date, this Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is an appeal preferred by the Appellant against the Decree and Judgment,

dated 08-02-2019 in O.S.No.31 of 2018 passed by the Court of learned Junior Civil

Judge, Narsapur, which dismissed the suit.

2.O.S.No. 31 of 2018 was filed by Plaintiffs against the Defendant seeking for partition and separate possession against defendant. The said suit was dismissed.

3.1The main grounds urged in the appeal are as follows:

The Court below has erroneously come to conclusion and decided the suit against the appellants in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.178, admeasuring

Ac.0.20 guntas situated at Kodakanchi Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District.

The learned Junior Civil Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the documents and evidence.

3.2It is submitted that the appellants No.1 and 2 and the Respondent constitutes undivided Hindu Joint family. The appellants are the children of Respondent.

Originally one late Shiva Narayana was common ancestor to the appellants and respondent, who died long back leaving behind three sons and one daughter viz. Talari

Raju, Talari Venkatesh, Talai Bhasker and Thulasi. It is further submitted that the said

Shiva Narayana died long back, during the life time of Shiva Narayana all his children partitioned the properties. The land to an extent of Ac.0-20 gts., in Sy.No.178 situated at Kodakanchi village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy District fallen towards the share of respondent. The suit schedule property is the coparcenary and joint family ancestral property of the appellants and respondent. The suit property is not the self acquired property of the respondent and the same is succeeded by the respondent from his ancestor. Even though the appellants are residing separately the appellants and respondent are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As the appellants are residing separately with the respondent, the respondent making hectic efforts to alienate the suit schedule property without any legal and family necessities.

The appellants recently came to know about the said fact that the respondent is making 3 of 6 AS 12 of 2019 VIII ADJ Medak efforts to alienate the suit property in favour of third parties. The appellants orally demanded the respondent to effect partition of the suit property into three equal shares and to allot 1/3rd share each to the appellants, but the respondent refused for partition.

3.3It is further averred in the appeal that during the course of trial the appellants got examined PW1 and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A11, but the court below failed to look into the said documents. Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 clearly show that the suit property stands in the name of Shiva Narayana who is common ancestor to the appellants and respondent, but the said fact not considered by the court below. The appellants are not entitled for partition is not ground to dismiss the suit of the appellants. The respondent in the suit remained exparte and did not contest the suit in order to give the legitimate share to the appellants. The suit property is not the self acquired property of the respondent, but the same was succeeded by the respondent.

3.4It is further submitted that Hon’ble Madras High Court in a Civil Appeal AS

No.874 of 2008 in a case between M. Krishnamoorthy, Appellant Vs. K. Pondeepankar and others, Respondents held that grandson is entitled for the share in the grandfather’s property. The court below not considered the said fact and dismissed the suit without considering the documents filed by the appellants. Hence, the Appeal.

4.The brief averments as set-out in the plaint by the plaintiffs are as follows:

The case of the plaintiff is that originally one late Shiva Narayana was the common ancestor to the plaintiffs and defendant, who died long back leaving behind three sons and one daughter namely; Talari Raju, Talari Venkatesh, Talari Bhasker and

Thulasi. It is further submitted that the said Shiva Narayana died long back, during the life time of Shiva Narayana all his children partitioned the properties. The land to an extent of Ac.0-20 gts., in Sy.No.178 situated at Kodakanchi village, Jinnaram Mandal,

Sangareddy District fallen towards the share of defendant. The suit schedule property is the coparcenary and joint family ancestral property of the plaintiffs and defendant.

The suit property is not the self acquired property of the defendant and the same is succeeded by the defendant from his ancestor. Even though the plaintiffs are residing separately the plaintiffs and defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. As the plaintiffs are residing separately with the defendant, the defendant making hectic efforts to alienate the suit schedule property without any legal and family necessities. The plaintiffs recently came to know about the said fact that the 4 of 6 AS 12 of 2019 VIII ADJ Medak defendant is making efforts to alienate the suit property in favour of third parties. The plaintiffs demanded the defendant to affect partition of the suit property into three equal shares and to allot 1/3rd share each to the plaintiffs, but the defendant refused for partition. Hence the suit for partition.

5.The defendant remained exparte.

6.Basing on the above pleadings the following point was determined.

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession against the defendant as prayed for?

7.Before the Court below, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and marked Ex.A1 to

Ex.A11 on his behalf.

8.After considering above evidence the trial Court dismissed the suit without costs. This judgment is assailed.

9.I refer to the parties as arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.

10.Now, the points for consideration are;

1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession against defendant?

2) Whether the impugned Judgment dated 8th February, 2019 in O.S. No.31 of 2018 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur is sustainable on facts and at law or suffered from any infirmity, irregularity or illegality and called for any interference of this Court?

3) To what relief?

11.POINT No.(1):

The case of the plaintiff is that originally one late Shiva Narayana was the common ancestor to the plaintiffs and defendant who died long back leaving behind three sons and one daughter and during the life time of Shiva Narayana all his children partitioned the properties and land to an extent of Ac.0-20 gts., in Sy.No.178 situated at

Kadakanchi Village, Jinnaram Mandal, Sangareddy district.

5 of 6 AS 12 of 2019 VIII ADJ Medak

12.It is further contended that suit schedule property is coparcenary and joint family property of them and defendant. The suit property is not the self acquired property of defendant and the same is succeeded by the defendant from his ancestor and that due to their profession they are residing separately with the defendant and that even though they are residing separately they and defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that defendant is making hectic efforts to alienate suit schedule property without any legal and family necessities. Hence they filed suit for partition.

13.The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs by holding that plaintiffs cannot be claimed as coparceners to the suit schedule property.

Aggrieved by the judgment present appeal is filed. There is no disputes about relation among the parties. It is pertinent to discuss law of inheritance as the suit is for partition of ancestral property of Shiva Narayana.

Whenever someone inherits a property from any of his parental ancestors up to three generations above him, his legal heirs of up to three generations below him would get equal right as coparceners in that property.

Simply stated for a property to remain ancestral no division should take place up to the four generations An ancestral property that has been divided through a partition deed or family arrangement chosen to be an ancestral property as soon as the arrangement comes into effect. In other words when a division or a partition taken place in a joint Hindu family the property becomes self acquired in the hands of the family member who has received it.

Passing its Judgment in the Uttam versus Saubhag Singh & others case the

Hon’ble Apex Court held that a joint-family property chosen to be a joint-family

property in the hands of the various persons who have succeeded to it under Section-8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as they hold the property as tenants in common and not as joint tenants.

After scanning the Judgment of Court above it has clearly discussed the law of inheritance and held that plaintiffs are not entitled to seek partition. Accordingly

I answer this point.

6 of 6 AS 12 of 2019 VIII ADJ Medak

14.POINT No.(2):

For the above said discussion there is no need to interfere with the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, dated 8th February, 2019 in O.S.No. 31 of 2018.

Accordingly, I answer this point.

15.POINT No.(3):

In the result, appeal is dismissed without costs, confirming the Decree and

Judgment of the Lower Court.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 25 th day of April, 2022.

VI Addl. District Judge,

Siddipet. FAC VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak.

Additional evidence

-Nil-

VI Addl. District Judge, Siddipet. FAC VIII Addl. District Judge, Medak.

1 o f 8 Fair POCSO SC.No.33 of 2023

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL JUDGE FOR FAST TRACK COURT FOR

EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF CASES OF RAPE AND PROTECTION OF

CHILD FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES (POCSO) ACT AT MEDAK

PRESENT: Smt. G. Neelima,

Prl. District & Sessions Judge, Medak.

FAC- Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for

Expeditious Trial And Disposal of Rape and POCSO Act Cases At Medak.

MONDAY, 03 rd DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

POCSO SC . No. 33 of 2023

Crime No. & Police Station.Crime No.93 of 2023 of P.S. Toopran.

Description of AccusedA-1 Yerrolla Srikanth @ Babu S/o Late Swamy, Aged about 24 years, SC-Madiga Caste, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o H.No.4-88/1, Yavapur Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District.

A-2 Yerrolla Nagarani W/o Late Swamy, Aged about 44 years, SC-Madiga Caste, Occ: Coolie, R/o H.No.4-88/1, Yavapur Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District.

A-3 Yerrolla @ Erra Narsimulu S/o Narsimulu, Aged about 47 years, SC-Madiga Caste, Occ: Coolie, R/o H.No.4-88/1, Yavapur Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District.

A-4 Yerrolla @ Erra Navya W/o Narsimulu, Aged about 24 years, SC-Madiga Caste, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.4-88, Yavapur Village, Toopran Mandal, Medak District. Charge/sUnder Sections 354(D), 504 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012.

Plea of the accusedPleaded not guilty 2 o f 8 Fair POCSO SC.No.33 of 2023

Finding of the Court and sentence. In the result, the accused No.1 is NOT FOUND GUILTY for the offence Under Sections 354(D), 504 r/w 34 of IPC and Sec.12 of The POCSO Act, 2012 and Accused No.2 to 4 are NOT FOUND GUILTY for the offences U/sec.504 r/w 34 of IPC and accordingly, they are ACQUITTED under Section 232 Cr.P.C. for the said offences. Prosecution conducted bySri M. Balaiah, Special Public Prosecutor. Accused defended bySmt. Razeem Unnisa Begum, Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the accused.

Date of Offence22.03.2023 Date of FIR08.04.2023 Date of charge-sheet05.06.2023 Date of framing charge(s)30.06.2025 Date of commencement of evidence10.09.2025 Date on which Judgment is reserved13.10.2025 Date of Judgment03.11.2025 Date of sentencing Order, if any--

ACCUSED DETAILS:

Rank Name of the Date of Date of Offences charged Whether Sentence Period of of the AccusedArrestRelease withAcquitted imposedDetention Accuson BailU/Secor undergone edConvictedduring Trial for purpose of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C. A-1 Yerrolla 41-(A) --U/Secs.354(D), 504 Acquitted --– Srikanth @ Cr.P.C., r/w 34 IPC and U/s 232 Sec.12 of The Cr.P.C. Babunotice POCSO Act, 2012. A-2 Yerrolla 41-(A) --U/Secs. 504 r/w 34 Acquitted --– NagaraniCr.P.C., IPC U/s 232 noticeCr.P.C.

A-3 Yerrolla @ 41-(A) --U/Secs. 504 r/w 34 Acquitted --– Erra Cr.P.C., IPC U/s 232 noticeCr.P.C. Narsimulu 3 o f 8 Fair POCSO SC.No.33 of 2023

A-4 Yerrolla @ 41-(A) --U/Secs. 504 r/w 34 Acquitted --– Erra NavyaCr.P.C., IPC U/s 232 noticeCr.P.C.

This case is coming up for final hearing in the presence of Sri. M. Balaiah, Special Public Prosecutor for the State and that of Smt. Razeem Unnisa Begumm, Chief Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the Accused No.1 to 4, and upon perusing the material on record and upon hearing the arguments, the Court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a case filed under Sections 354(D), 504 r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual

Offences Act, 2012 against the accused No.1 and Section 504 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code against Accused No.2 to 4.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that on 22.03.2023 at Yavapur bus stand first accused intended to outrage the modesty of victim minor girl ‘X’ (name not to be revealed) and first accused dragged school bag abused victim girl in filthy language and misbehaved with her by holding hand by keeping previous enemities in mind. Basing on the report given to police a case in crime No.93 of 2023 was registered under sections 354(D), 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and investigated into. After completion of investigation and receiving all relevant documents LW.11/ Sub-Divisional

Police Officer, Toopran Sub-Division filed charge-sheet for the offences 4 o f 8 Fair POCSO SC.No.33 of 2023 punishable under sections 354(D), 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and

Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused No.1 and Section 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.2 to 4.

3.This case was taken on file under sections 354(D), 504 r/w 34 of

Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused No.1 and Section 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.2 to 4 by I Additional District and Sessions Judge Court, Medak.

4.Later this case was transferred to this court as per docket order

dated 02.12.2024.

5.On appearance of accused No.2 to 4 copies of documents are furnished to the accused No.2 to 4 as required under section 207 Cr.P.C.

6.After hearing Learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused No.1 to 4 under section 226 Cr.P.C. Upon considering the material on record under section 228 Cr.P.C., charges were framed under sections 354(D), 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the 5 o f 8 Fair POCSO SC.No.33 of 2023 accused No.1 and Section 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against

Accused No.2 to 4 and the same were read over and explained to the accused No.2 to 4 in telugu for which they pleaded not guilt and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.3 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 on its behalf. LW4 to LW11 were given up by

Special Public Prosecutor. After closure of prosecution evidence, since there is no incriminating evidence examination under section 313 Cr.P.C., is dispensed with.

8.Heard arguments.

9.Now, the point that arise for determination is:

Whether the prosecution could prove its case and established the guilt of accused for the offences under sections 354(D), 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the accused No.1 and Section 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code against Accused No.2 to 4 beyond all reasonable doubt?

POINT:

10.PW.1 is the Father of victim girl. He deposed that about two years back disputes cropped up between him and accused No.1 to 4 regarding the land. Out of grudge he lodged report against accused No.1 to 4. Ex.P1 is his signature on report.

6 o f 8 Fair POCSO SC.No.33 of 2023

11.PW.2 is the Mother of victim girl. She deposed that about two years back disputes cropped up between them and accused regarding land.

Then PW.1 lodged report.

12.PW.3 is the victim girl. She deposed that about two years back disputes cropped up between her family and accused regarding land. No offence was committed against her by the accused.

13.PW.1 is the defacto-complainant who set the criminal law into motion himself stating that due to land disputes report was given against accused

No.1 to 4. Even PW.3 victim girl stated that no offence was committed against her by the accused no.1 to 4. PW.1 to PW.3 did not whisper anything about the offences said to have committed by the accused No.1 to 4. Literally no incriminating evidence is appearing against the accused on record. Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused.

Accordingly I answer this point.

14.In the result, the accused No.1 is not found guilty for the offences under Sections 354(D), 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Accused

No.2 to 4 are not found guilty for the offences under sections 504 r/w 34 of 7 o f 8 Fair POCSO SC.No.33 of 2023

Indian Penal Code and accordingly they are ACQUITTED under Section 232 Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled after the appeal time is over.

Un-marked property if any, shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer Grade-III, Corrected and Pronounced by me in the Open Court on this the 03 rd day of November, 2025.

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal Rape & POCSO Act cases, Medak.

List of Prosecution/Defence/Court Witnesses A. Prosecution:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) PW.1XXXDe facto-complainant/father of victim girl PW.2XXXMother of victim girl PW.3‘X’Victim girl

B. Defence Witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no- 8 o f 8 Fair POCSO SC.No.33 of 2023

C. Court witnesses, if any:

RANK NAME Nature of evidence

(Eye witness, Police witness, Expert witness, medical witness, panch witness, other witness) - no -- no --no-

LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS:

A. Prosecution:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description 1Exhibit P1/PW1Signature of PW.1 on report 2Exhibit P2/PW1161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW.1 3Exhibit P3/PW2161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2 4Exhibit P4/PW3161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3

B. Defence:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

C. Court Exhibits:

Sl.No. Exhibit Number Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

D. Material Objects:

Sl.No. Material Object Description - nil -- nil -- nil -

PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, MEDAK

FAC - Spl. Judge, Fast Track Special Court for expeditious trial and disposal Rape & POCSO Act cases, Medak.