G Srinivas

Pg.No. 1 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021

IN THE COURT OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOTHAGUDEM

Monday, this the 22nd day of November, 2021

Present :- Sri G. SRINIVAS

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem, FAC-Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

O.S.No.483 of 2007

Between:- Sanaga Sri Laxmi, W/o Laxmaiah, Age:22 Years, Occ:Household, R/o.Nimmalagudem village, H/o.Sujathanagar, Gram Panchayath, Kothagudem mandal, Khammam District. .…Plaintiff AND 1.Venkatamma @ Vijaya Laxmi, W/o.Kalloji Ramaswamy, Age:37 Years, Occ:Household, R/o. C/o.Sikha Ramesh, Near P.A.C.S Office, Sujathanagar, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District.

2.Sikha Krishnaveni, W/o.Ramesh, Age:31 Years, Occ:Household, R/o.Near P.A.C.S Office, Sujathanagar, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam District.

3. The Director, Animal Husbandry Department, near Mahaveer Hospital, Shantinagar, Hyderabad.

4.The Joint Director, Animal Husbandry Department, Near Collector Office, Khammam.

5.The Assistant Director, Animal Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Chennuru village, Kalluru mandal, Khammam District.

6.The Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Veterinary Dispensary, Chennuru village, Kalluru Mandal, Khammam District.

7.Anthoti Ravi, S/o.Rambabu, R/o.Khammam.

8.Anthoti Varma, S/o.Rambabu, R/o.Khammam.

(Defendants 7 and 8 are added as per orders in I.A.No.827/2015

dt:2.01.2019 ….Defendants

This suit is coming up before me for final hearing on 01.10.2021, 04.10.2021, 20.10.2021, 27.10.2021 and 09.11.2021 in the presence of

Pg.No. 2 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021

Sri.G.Kanthaiah, Advocate for the Plaintiff and Sri.V.Venkateswara Rao, Advocate for Defendants No.1 and 2, and Sri.Y.Babu Rao, Assistant Government Pleader for Defendants No.3 to 6; Defendants No.7 and 8 remained ex-parte; upon perusing the material on record and after hearing the arguments of both sides, this Court delivered the following:-

JUDGMENT

1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff to declare that she is entitled to 1/2 share of Rs.4,30,000/- out of the suit schedule amounts payable on account of the death of late Amarlapudi Peda

Venkateswarlu and to restrain Defendants No.1 and 2 from receiving and Defendants No.3 to 6 from paying the death benefits/suit schedule amounts pertaining to Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu by way of consequential perpetual injunction and to award costs of the suit.

2.Subsequently, ½ share claimed is amended as 1/3rd share.

2(a).The brief averments of the plaint are that the Plaintiff is the third daughter of Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu, S/o Nagaiah @

Sundaraiah who died on 24.12.2003 at Vandanam Grama Panchayath of Chinthakani Mandal, while he was working as Junior Vaterinary officer at China Korukonda village of Kallur Mandal, Khammam District; that Defendant No.1 styles herself as second wife of Late Amarlapudi

Peda Venkateswarlu, Defendant No.2 is the daughter of Late

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu and Defendant Nos.3 to 6 are the employers, pay officers, immediate superiors and custodians of the terminal benefits of late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu; that late

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu married Tirupathamma and was

Pg.No. 3 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021 blessed with three female children; that the elder daughter Radha was born on 07.04.1972 and got married with Rambabu and died nearly 10 years ago leaving behind her two children; that the second daughter

Krishnaveni was born on 31.05.1979 and got married with Sikha

Ramesh who is the brother of Defendant No.1; that the third daughter is the Plaintiff born on 15.12.1982 and got married to Laxmaiah on 24.04.2000.

(b)That after the death of the mother of the Plaintiff,

Defendant No.1 developed illicit intimacy with the father of the

Plaintiff i.e,. Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu; that after coming into contact with Defendant No.1 and under her influence the father of the

Plaintiff started neglecting the Plaintiff; that he performed her marriage with an indigent person without gifting her property on par with Defendant No.2 and thus showing disparity between his two daughters; that during the life time of late Amarlapudi Peda

Venkateswarlu, Defendants No. 1 and 2 with the help of Sikha

Ramesh, the brother of Defendant No.1 and husband of Defendant

No.2 harassed the Plaintiff and treated her with cruelty and even tried to kill her; that under the influence of Defendant No.1, late Amarlapudi

Peda Venkateswarlu entered her name as his nominee in the place of

Tirupathamma who is the mother of the Plaintiff; that after getting the benefit of family planning increments, late Amarlapudi Peda

Venkateswarlu did not get the name of the Plaintiff entered as his third daughter into his service records; that on 24.12.2003 Amarlapudi

Pg.No. 4 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021

Peda Venkateswarlu died leaving behind the Plaintiff, Defendants No.7 and 8 and Defendant No.2 as his legal heirs; that the Plaintiff being daughter of late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu is entitled to equal share along with Defendant No.2 out of death benefits such as gratuity, provident fund etc arising out of the death of late Amarlapudi

Peda Venkateswarlu and also L.I.C, pension amount and alternate employment provided on compassionate grounds; that the Plaintiff is entitled to ½ share in the said amounts, but Defendant No.1 is taking advantage of the nomination, in collusion with Defendant No.2 is trying to withdraw the total amounts from the Defendants No.3 to 6, without providing lawful share to the Plaintiff; that on 04.07.2004 a panchayath was held before the elders for settlement between the

Plaintiff and Defendants No.1 and 2; that inspite of advise of the elders, Defendants No.1 and 2 did not agree to give the legitimate share of the Plaintiff; that Defendants No.1 and 2 applied for the death benefits and are making hurried attempts to withdraw them by depriving the Plaintiff; that as there is no hope for realisation of ½ share of the said amount, the Plaintiff filed the suit. Hence, the suit.

3.It is to be mentioned that subsequently Defendants No. 7 and 8 were added and the claim of ½ share is amended as 1/3 share.

4.Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. It is mentioned that it is false to allege that after the death of the mother of the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 developed illicit intimacy with her father and under her influence, the

Pg.No. 5 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021

Plaintiff is neglected. It is denied that the Plaintiff got married to an indigent person and no property was gifted to her. It is mentioned that the Defendant No.1 is legally wedded wife of late Amarlapudi Peda

Venkateswarlu and after the death of his first wife on 16.03.1993, after lapse of six months on 11.09.1993, the Defendant No.1 married to late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in Hindu community; that they lead marital life to the knowledge of one and all; that during the life time of late Amarlapudi

Peda Venkateswarlu, while he was in service, he duly submitted a notary affidavit to incorporate the name of Defendant No.1 in veterinary department; that on 21.12.1994 he also submitted nomination by mentioning the name of Defendant No.1 as nominee for G.P.F, Insurance, Gratuity etc and teriminal benefits; that on 01.02.1995 the said nomination was still in force; that the name of

Defendant No.1 was recorded as wife of late Amarlapudi Peda

Venkateswarlu in all the records; that the Defendant No.1 is no way concerned with one Kalloju Rama Swamy nor she is the wife of Kalloju

Rama Swamy and there is no such relationship between them; that the Plaintiff has intentionally not mentioned the surname of Defendant

No.1 i.e., “Amarlapudi” and kept silence in this regard; that after the death of husband of Defendant No.1, the revenue department also incorporated the name of Defendant No.1 as the legal heir of deceased late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu. It is denied that the

Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 are equally entitled for terminal benefits

Pg.No. 6 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021 of late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu; that Defendant No.2 is the only daughter of late late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu and her elder daughter by name Radha Rani is no more. As such, Defendants

No.1 and 2 are entitled to receive the death benefits of late

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu; that after the birth of Defendant

No.2, at the age of 13 years of Defendant No.2, the mother of

Defendant No.2 died; thereafter, the father of the Defendant No.2 married to the Defendant No.1; that those two persons are only legal heirs of deceased late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu and are entitled to receive entire death benefits of late Amarlapudi Peda

Venkateswarlu; that it is denied that a panchayath was held on 04.07.2004; that the Plaintiff is neither related as wife to him nor concerned with him; that the Plaintiff got created and concocted the alleged cause of action for the purpose of filing the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.That the Defendants No.3, 5 and 6 filed adoption memo adopting the written statement filed by the Defendant No.4. The

Defendant No.4 filed written statement mentioning that late

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu died on 24.02.2003 while he was working as Junior Veternary officer at Chinna Karukonda village, Kallur mandal and that the suit dispute is not concerned to them; that as per contents of the plaint, the Plaintiff admitted that her late father has got three daughters including herself and that the elder daughter by name Radha got married with one Rambabu who died leaving behind

Pg.No. 7 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021 her two children; that the Plaintiff along with Defendants No.1 and 2 and the children of late Radha are also entitled for a share from out of their father’s death benefits; that as per legal heir certificate issued by

Gram Panchayath Secretary, the Defendant No.1 is the wife and

Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 are the daughters of late employee; that the name of the late daughter or her children are not shown in the said certificate issued on 24.09.2004. It is to be mentioned that the following amounts are detailed hereunder towards retirement benefits payable to late employee

Gratuity:Rs.1,32,553/-

G.I.S:Rs.60,000/-

Family benefit fund :Rs.11,429/-

G.P.F:Rs.1,03,348/- (as per slip)

Pension:Rs.4,615/- per month w.e.f 25.12.2003

Salary:Rs.5,216/- (from 01.12.2003 to 24.12.2003)

Earned leave (balance for encashment as on 01.01.2003):Rs.32,167/- (leave spell are yet to be settled for final sanction of leave) 21 days leave on medical ground w.e.f 26.12.2006 to 26.04.2004.

114 days of leave w.e.f 21.08.2003 to 21.12.2003

That after receipt of application about the new spell leave encashment will be paid to the legal heirs; that some G.I.S entries are missing and after obtaining the correct information from the institutions, the same will be calculated and paid to the legal heirs; that none of the legal heirs of late employee have submitted any application for providing job on compassionate grounds; that the legal

Pg.No. 8 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021 heirs of late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu are to be decided by a competent Court to disburse the terminal benefits of the late officer as per Law. It is prayed to dismiss the suit.

6.Basing on the above pleadings and after hearing both sides, the following issues are settled for trial.

1.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

2.Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for?

3To what relief?

7.On behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 are examined, Exs.A1 to A7 are marked. The evidence of P.W.4 was eschewed. On behalf of the defendant No.1, D.Ws.1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B.1 to B.12 are exhibited.

Issue No.1

8.The plaintiff claims 1/3rd share from suit schedule A and B property. It is for the plaintiff to establish that she is entitled for 1/3rd share of the death benefits of Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu.

P.W.1 deposes that she is the 3rd daughter of Late Amarlapudi Peda

Venkateswarlu, S/o.Nagaiah @ Sundaraiah, who died on 24.12.2003 at

Vandanam Gram panchayath of Chinthakani Mandal. There is no dispute that the said Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu was working as

Junior Veternary office at China Korukondi village of Kalluru Mandal.

No any oral evidence is let in by the plaintiff/P.W.1 to show that she is the 3rd daughter of Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu. The plaintiff

Pg.No. 9 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021 mainly relies on Ex.A1-Notification dated 27.01.2004 issued by the

Village Secretary. In the cross examination of P.W.1, it is elicited that nowhere in the service records of Late Amarlapudi Peda

Venkateswarlu her name i.e., Shanaga SriLaxmi is recorded. It is also elicited in her cross examination that in the service register of

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu the names of his daughter i.e., Radha and defendant No.2 are recorded. As per cross examination of P.W.1

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu died in Vandanam of Chinthakani

Mandal and that there is no mention in regard to the name of Radha and also her children in Ex.A1-Notification. P.W.1 denied the suggestion that by misleading secretary, Grampanchayath,

Vandanam, she obtained Ex.A1. It is to be mentioned that Ex.A1 is only a notification calling objections as to declaration of the applicants as legal heirs. No legal heir certificate is filed into the court. Ex.A2 is the office copy of legal notice issued to officials of Veternary

Department mentioning that the plaintiff is daughter of Late

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu. However, it does not itself give any right to the plaintiff to be declared as the daughter of Late Amarlapudi

Peda Venkateswarlu. It is elicited in the cross examination of P.W.1 that in Ex.A7 the name of Vijayalaxmi is shown as wife of Amarlapudi

Peda Venkateswarlu. The name of the plaintiff is not reflected in the said document, which is issued according to the service register, as mentioned therein.

Pg.No. 10 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021

9.The plaintiff examined P.Ws.2 to 4 to show that defendant

No.1 is wife of one Kalloji Ramaswamy. The evidence of P.W.4 was eschewed as he did not choose to appear before this court. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 is that defendant No.1 by name

Venkatamma now being called as Vijayalaxmi was married to one

Kalloji Ramaswamy of Julurpad nearly 32 years back and about one or two years after the marriage she left the company of Kalloji

Ramaswamy and residing at her parental house at Sujathanagar. It is to be mentioned that nowhere in the pleadings that plaintiff makes a mention that defendant No.1 is the wife of Kalloji Ramaswamy. The pleadings is that defendant No.1 developed illicit intimacy with

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu. Furthermore, in the cross examination of P.W.1 it is elicited that Kalloji Ramaswamy is the villager of P.Ws.2 and 3. It is elicited from the cross examination of

P.W.2 that the name of wife of Kalloji Ramaswamy is Kumari. Though

P.W.2 volunteered that Kalloji Ramaswamy married her recently, it is elicited that Kalloji Ramaswamy has two sons through Kumari by name

Naresh and Dinesh and that Naresh is married and that he has two sons. It is also elicited that Naresh is aged about 35 years and Dinesh is aged about 25 years. The evidence of P.W.1 is also to the same effect. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff that Kalloji

Ramaswamy is the husband of defendant No.1 is not reliable.

Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be given much credence.

Pg.No. 11 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021

10.The evidence of D.W.1 is that she is the legally wedded wife of Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu and their marriage was performed on 11.09.1993 at Sujathanagar village as per Hindu rites and customs prevailing in their community. There is no dispute that

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu married Tirupathamma and she died on 16.03.1993. Exs.B2 to B5 are Election Identity cards. Ex.B6 is

Colour marriage photograph, Ex.B7 is colour Photographs, Ex.P8 is

Colour photographs and Ex.P.9 is compact disc. In the cross examination of D.W.1, it is elicited that in the year 2004 she applied for legal heir certificate from Vandanam Grampanchayath. Though it is suggested that she mentioned in application for legal heir certificate the plaintiff is one of the legal heir of Amarlapudi Venkateswarlu, but she denied the same. She deposes in the cross examination that she filed caveat petition on 29.06.2004 before Senior Civil Judge’s Court,

Kothagudem through Manubothula Satyanarayana, Advocate, but she denied that she mentioned therein that Amarlapudi Pedda

Venkateswarlu left the plaintiff and defendant No.2 as his legal heirs and successors to succeed his property. The said Caveat petition is not exhibited by the plaintiff. It is elicited in the cross examination of

D.W.1 that Exs.B6 to B8 are the photographs of more than 30 years old. Therefore, the said documents can be given much credence.

However, it is elicited in the cross examination of D.W.1 that during those days photographs were being developed from negatives and that she has not filed negatives of Exs.B6, B7, B8. Though it is elicited

Pg.No. 12 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021 that D.W.1 got prepared CD as negatives were damaged, Exs.B1, B6,

B7 and B8 are not emanated from the CD, but the Compact Disc is prepared from the said photographs. Therefore, the authenticity of those photographs is not acceptable. Further, D.W.1 deposes that she is not having bill in respect of preparation of C.D. It is elicited in the cross examination of D.W.1 that Ex.B2 is of the year 1995. She deposes that she has not got her name enrolled in voter list prior to

Ex.B2. She denied the suggestion that she has got her name enrolled as Kalloju Venkatamma, W/o.Ramaswamy, native of Julurpad in the voters list prior to Ex.B2, and as such she has not filed the Election

Identity card prior to Ex.B2 period. However, it is for the plaintiff to prove the said fact that prior to Ex.B2, the name existed was Kalloju

Venkatamma, W/o.Ramaswamy in Election Identity card.

11.D.W.2 deposes that she is the younger daughter of

Amarlapudi Pedda Venkateswarlu and the name of her mother is

Thirupathamma and elder sister by name Radha are the daughters of

Amarlapudi Pedda Venkateswarlu and that Thirupathamma died on 16.03.1993. She exhibits Ex.B10 death certificate of

A.Thirupathamma. She deposes that later her father married to another woman namely Vijayalaxmi who is R/o.Sujathanagar village on 11.9.1993 and that she is first defendant. D.W.2 denied the suggestion that she falsely deposed that her father married

Vijayalaxmi on 11.9.1993. Though it is elicited that the marriage certificate in regard to the said marriage of defendant No.1 with late

Pg.No. 13 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021

Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu is not filed in the court, the evidence of D.W.2 can be given much weight as she is none other than the daughter of Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu and nothing is elicited that there are no cordial terms between D.W.2 and the plaintiff.

12.D.W.3 deposes that she she is the elder sister of defendant

No.1 by name Vijayalaxmi and defendant No.2 is wife of her younger brother by name Ramesh. She deposes that prior to marriage of

Vijayalaxmi he married another lady who died due to ill-health. She also deposes that Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu died about 15 years back leaving behind the wife and two daughters who are only legal heirs. It is suggested to D.W.3 that defendant No.1 married

Pedda Venkateswarlu without obtaining divorce from Kalloji

Ramaswamy of Julurpadu. Witness adds that marriage was not performed with Ramaswamy. From this suggestion it is evident that defendant No.1 married Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu. If the said marriage was during the subsistence of marriage of defendant with Kalloji Ramaswamy, it is for the plaintiff to prove the said aspect.

Therefore, when it is evident that the name of defendant No.1 is recorded in the Service register of Late Amarlapudi Peda

Venkateswarlu, plaintiff failed to prove that defendant No.1 is wife of one Kalloji Ramaswamy, in the absence of any documentary evidence to show that the plaintiff is the daughter of Late Amarlapudi Peda

Pg.No. 14 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021

Venkateshwarlu, it is not proved that the plaintiff is the daughter of

Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateshwarlu.

13.In view of the above evidence of the witnesses, when the plaintiff seeks that she is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property, it is for her to prove her case. The plaintiff failed to prove that she is the daughter of Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu and that she is entitled for any share in the suit schedule property.

Therefore, Issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff.

Issue No.2

14.It is to be mentioned that in Issue No.1, it is held that the plaintiff failed to establish that she is the daughter of Late Amarlapudi

Peda Venkateswarlu and that she is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. As such, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief of injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from receiving and defendants 3 to 6 from paying the death benefits/suit schedule amounts pertaining to Late Amarlapudi Peda Venkateswarlu.

Accordingly the issue is answered.

Issue No.3.

15.In view of the findings on Issues 1 and 2, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

Result:

16.In the result, the suit is dismissed with costs.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by

me in the open Court on this the 22nd day of November, 2021.

FAC-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Pg.No. 15 of 15 O.S No.483/2007, Dt:22.11.2021

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Plaintiff:-For Defendants:

P.W.1:S.Srilaxmi D.W.1-A.Vijayalaxmi P.W.2:P.Jagannadham D.W.2-S.Krishnaveni P.W.3:V.Gopaiah D.W.3-T.Jayamma P.W.4:K.Radhamma

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Plaintiff:-

Ex.A1: Notification dated 27.01.2004 issued by Village Secretary Ex.A2: Office copy of Legal notice dated 23.07.2004 Ex.A3: Acknowledgment Card of D3 Ex.A4: Acknowledgment card of D4 Ex.A5: Returned un-served postal cover Ex.A6: Memo No.19134/BIII/B-16/2004 dated 04.08.2004 Ex.A7: Letter dated 31.08.2004.

For Defendants:-

Ex.B1: Election Identity card dated 15.12.1995 Ex.B2: Election Identity card dated 26.06.2003 Ex.B3: Election Identity card dated 03.12.2008 Ex.B4: Election Identity card dated 26.03.2003 Ex.B5: Colour marriage photograph Ex.B6: colour photographs Ex.B7: Colour photographs Ex.B8: Colour photographs Ex.B9: Compac Disc. (Exs.B2 to B8 are marked subject to Objection) Ex.B10:Death Certificate of A.Thirupathamma Ex.B11: Letter dated 05.02.2004 issued by Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry Ex.B12: Certificate dated 10.11.2004.

FAC-PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

1 C.C.383/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS : KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT.

Present: Sri G.Srinivas, B.Com.,LL.M., III-Addl.JFCM, Kothagudem.

Monday, this the 25th day of May, 2015.

C.C.No.383 of 2013 (Crime No.60/2013 of P.S.Paloncha Rural)

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Paloncha Rural. …. Prosecution

And

A.1.Bhukya Lalu, S/o.Bixam, Age.35 years, Caste.ST.Lambada, Occ.Chicken vendor and owner of tractor bearing No.AP20TV TR 1078/AP-36 TZ TR 6890, R/o.Jagannadhapuram. A.2.Banoth Rambabu, S/o.Bheemudu, Age.23 years, Caste.St.Lambada, Occ.Driver of Tractor bearing No.AP20TV TR 1078/AP36 TZ TR 6890, R/o.Rangapuram, N/o.Nagaram.

…. Accused This case is coming on 22.05.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned APP for prosecution and of Sri.T.Malleswarrao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration, this Court passed the following:

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

A.1 and A.2 are tried for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Paloncha Rural, filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 24.04.2013 at 5.30 a.m, when the police were proceeding towards Rangapuram, apprehended A.1 with tractor bearing

No.AP20TVTR1078, Trolley No.AP-36 TZ TR 6890, which was being loaded with sand in Kinnerasani River near Rangapuram; that A.1 left the tractor and fled away; that A.2 is the owner of the said tractor. The accused committed offences punishable under Sections 379, 447 r/w 34 IPC and

Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act. After securing presence of the accused, copies of documents were 2 C.C.383/2013 furnished to them. They were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, explaining the accusation. They denied the same. Heard. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act was framed, read over and explained to them. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.17.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel

for the accused.

7. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act, beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT:

8.P.W.1 is Village Revenue officer. P.W.2 is the then Revenue

Inspector. P.W.9 is the Police Constable. P.W.11 is the Head Constable and

P.W.12 is Sub-Inspector of Police and they are Investigating officers. The other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

9.The evidence of P.W.1 is that on 24.04.2013 they went to

Jagannadhapuram, near temple, caught hold one tractor which was having no registration number. He also deposes that he went along with two constables and that the tractor was having load of sand. He also deposes that he called

P.W.2-G.Ramu, who conducted panchanama.

10.The evidence of P.W.2 that on 24.04.2013 at 6.20 a.m, near

Peddamma temple, Jagannadhapuram, the driver of the tractor bearing

Engine No.AP20TR1078 and Truck No.AP36TZTR6890, in which sand was 3 C.C.383/2013 being transported illegally, escaped on seeing him, P.W.1 and two constables.

He also deposes that he seized the tractor in the presence of Jalagam

Narasimharao, Kondaboina Venkateswarlu and Dhatla Suman and conducted

Ex.P.2-panchanama.

11.The evidence of P.W.9 is that on 24.04.2013 himself, P.W.1 and another constable-Chinna and another went to Jagannadhapuram at about 6.30 a.m; that a tractor was coming from Kinnerasanivagu side and near

Peddamma temple, on seeing them, the tractor was stopped and the driver fled away. He also deposes that Revenue Inspector called three panchas and conducted panchanama. He also deposes that they came to know that the driver of the tractor is Rambabu and owner is Lalu.

12.The evidence of P.W.1 is that himself, two constables went to the place of offence and that after catching the tractor, he called P.W.2. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that the incident is at about 6.20 a.m. However, in the cross-examination of P.W.2 it is elicited that he scribed Ex.P.2-panchanama at about 6.20 a.m itself. It is to be mentioned that as per the evidence of

P.W.2 he conducted Ex.P.2-panchanama in the presence of J.Narasimharao

K.Venkateswarlu and D.Suman i.e., P.Ws.3 to 5. However, P.Ws.3 to 5 did not support the evidence of P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4 is that they do not know as to for what purpose their signatures were obtained. The evidence of P.W.5 that when he was coming to Paloncha, near cutting shop,

Sub-Inspector of Police obtained his signature stating that they caught a tractor. In the cross-examination by Lr.A.P.P, he admits that P.Ws.1 and 2 conducted Ex.P.2-panchanama and seized tractor. In the cross-examination by

Lr.Counsel for A.2, he again deposes that no panchanama was conducted in his presence and that at request he affixed his signature. Thus, the evidence of P.W.5 is not reliable. It is also to be mentioned that Ex.P.2-panchanama is stated to have been conducted at 6.20 a.m, but as per the cross-examination of P.W.2 in the evening at about 7.00 p.m, he handover Ex.P.2-panchanama.

4 C.C.383/2013

As per the evidence of P.W.11 on 24.04.2013 at 10.00 a.m, P.W.1 presented

Ex.P.1-report, along with Ex.P.2-panchanama and also handover sand loaded tractor. The evidence of P.W.2 in his cross-examination is that he handover the tractor at 7.00 p.m in the Police Station. Thus, there is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who are Revenue officials.

13.It is also to be mentioned that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is in regard to catching the tractor. Their evidence is silent in regard to the driver and owner of the tractor. As per the evidence of P.W.9, they came to know that the driver of the tractor is Rambabu and owner is Lalu. He is not an eye witness in regard to the driver of the tractor. It is not known as to from whom

P.W.9 came to know the names of the driver and owner of the tractor. P.Ws.6 and 10 are examined to prove preparation of Crime Details Form in their presence. But they did not support the case of the prosecution. The evidence of P.W.11 is that on 09.05.2013 at 2.30 p.m, he arrested A.1 and A.2 and in the presence of P.Ws.7 and 8 he conducted Ex.P.13-Confession-cum-seizure panchanama. However, P.Ws.7 and 8 who are examined as panch witnesses for Ex.P.13-confession-cum-seizure panchanama, did not support the evidence of P.W.11. It is to be mentioned that except deposing that he conducted

Ex.P.13-Confession-cum-seizure panchanama, P.W.11 did not depose anything in regard to confession of the accused. When the question was posed by this

Court as to what was seized under Ex.P.13, the witness deposed that it was both the accused. Thus, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is not established beyond doubt that the accused committed the offence with which they stood charged. Even if the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 9 that they caught the tractor with load of sand is accepted in toto the ingredients of

Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act are not attracted. It is held that the prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act.

5 C.C.383/2013

14. In the result, A.1 and A.2 are acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act. The interim custody of the tractor bearing

No.AP20TVTR1078 and Trailer bearing No.AP36TZTR6890 by orders in

Crl.M.P.No.2001/2013, dt.18.05.2013 with A.1 shall be absolute after appeal

period is over.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 25th day of May, 2015).

III-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 – V.Chinna Venkateswarlu--NIL-- P.W.2 – G.Ramu P.W.3 – K.Venkateswarlu P.W.4 – G.Suman P.W.5 – J.Narasimharao P.W.6 – M.Srirammurthy P.W.7 – J.Balakrishna P.W.8 – T.Ramu P.W.9 – M.Shankaraiah P.W.10 - Mani Nagaraju P.W.11 - G.Sadaiah P.w.12 – P.Mallaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 – Report Ex.P.2 – Panchanama Ex.P.3 – Photograph of the tractor Ex.P.4 – Signature of P.W.3 on Ex.P.2-Panchanama Ex.P.5 – Signature of P.W.4 on Ex.P.2-Panchanama Ex.P.6 – Signature of P.W.5 on Ex.P.2-Panchanama Ex.P.7 – Signature of P.W.6 on Crime Details Form Ex.P.8 – Crime Details Form Ex.P.9 – Signature of P.W.7 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P.10 – Signature of P.W.8 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P.11 – Signature of P.W.10 on Crime Details Form Ex.P.12 – First Information Report Ex.P.13 – Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P.14 – Panchanama Ex.P.15 – Receipt Ex.P.16 – Auction Proceedings Ex.P.17 – Treasury Challan

For Defence: - Nil -

III-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT.

Pg.No.1 Of 4 HMOP 72/2021, dt:22.11.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOTHAGUDEM

Monday, this the 22nd day of November, 2021

Present: Sri.G.Srinivas,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem

H.M.O.P.No.72 of 2021

Between: Mrs.Martha Lavanya, W/o.Martha Sathish, Age.33 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o.H.No.5-1-99, Coolie Line, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. .…Petitioner.

And

Mr.Martha Sathish, S/o.Bixapathi, Age.37 years, Occ.Employee in Vodafone/Agriculturist, R/o.H.No.1-62, vengapadu Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. ….Respondent.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.11.2021 in the presence of Smt K.Vani, Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the respondent remained ex-parte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court passed the following:

O R D E R

This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ia)(ib) of the Hindu

Marriage Act, 1955 with a prayer to grant decree of divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent that was performed on 29.05.2005, with costs.

2.The brief averments of the petition are that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and their marriage was performed on 29.05.2005 as per Hindu dharma sastras and usage following Kanya danam and saptapadi at coolie Lane, Kothagudem; that the marriage was consummated; that they were blessed with two children; that after giving birth to second male child, the respondent increased his bad habits and used to consume alcohol daily and when the petitioner requested to leave his habits, he used to manhandle the petitioner grievously and used to defame her by using filthy language not only before his parents and relatives but also before his friends and neighbours with loud voice. The

Pg.No.2 Of 4 HMOP 72/2021, dt:22.11.2021 respondent used to manhandle the petitioner not only with belt but also with sticks until she became unconscious, with a demand to bring additional dowry from her parents and as they have not paid the dowry properly at the time of marriage. The respondent used to abuse the character of the petitioner in filthy language and necked her into the room without providing any food. That on 01.06.2015 the respondent came to house in drunken stage, manhandled the petitioner and necked out the petitioner and her two children, to bring additional dowry from her parents. That the petitioner lodged complaint before SHO, Mahila Police Station, Warangal. The petitioner approached the caste elders and family members and placed the matter before them. The elders compromised the matter between them.

Again in the year 2016 the respondent came to house in drunken stage, manhandled the petitioner grievously and necked out the petitioner with two children. Hence, the petition.

3.Notice was served on the respondent. The Respondent was called absent and as there was no representation on his behalf, he was set ex-parte.

4.The Petitioner herself is examined as P.W.1 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A4.

5.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

6.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the petition can be allowed granting decree of divorce, as prayed for?

POINT :

7.The evidence of P.W.1 is that the she is the legally wedded wife of the respondent and they are Hindus and their marriage was performed according to Hindu dharma-sastras and usage following kanya-danam and saptapadi on 29.05.2005. Ex.A1 is photographs, Exs.A2 and A3 are birth

Pg.No.3 Of 4 HMOP 72/2021, dt:22.11.2021 certificates issued by Mee-seva. In view of the evidence of P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A3, the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act can be invoked.

8.The evidence of P.W.1 is that the respondent was in the habit of consuming alcohol and he used to beat her and that she requested to leave his habits, but the respondent used to manhandle her grievously and used to defame her by using filthy language. The further evidence of P.W.1 is that the respondent used to manhandle not only with belt but also with sticks until she became unconscious with a demand to bring additional dowry from her parents as they have not paid dowry properly at the time of the marriage. She also deposes that the respondent used to abuse her character with filthy language and necked her into room without providing meals and other essential requirements. The evidence of P.W.1 also shows that on 01.06.2015 the respondent came to house in drunken stage and manhandled her and necked out her from the house, along with her children, with a demand to bring additional dowry. She further deposes that she lodged complaint with Mahila Police Station, Warangal and thereafter the matter was compromised before the elders. She also deposes that thereafter also the respondent beat her and necked out from the house, along with her two children, with a demand to bring additional dowry. The evidence of P.W.1 shows that she presented report with III-Town Police

Station, Kothagudem and also filed Domestic Violence Complaint. It is also evident from the evidence of P.W.1 that the respondent filed O.P.No.66/2019 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal life against her and the same was dismissed for default for non appearance of the petitioner therein i.e., respondent herein and that he has not taken any steps for restoration of the same. In view of this evidence of P.W.1, it is to be held that the petitioner proved that the respondent subjected her to cruelty. For the reasons best known to the respondent, he did not choose to

Pg.No.4 Of 4 HMOP 72/2021, dt:22.11.2021 appear before this court and contest the petition. Therefore, an adverse inference can be drawn against him. In view of the evidence of P.W.1, the petition can be allowed, as prayed for.

9.In the result, the petition is allowed with costs granting decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent and dissolving their marriage that was performed on 29.05.2005.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the

open Court, on this the 22nd day of November, 2021.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner : Respondent

PW.1:M.Lavanya -ex-parte-

Exhibits marked

Petitioner : Ex.A.1: Photographs(2 Nos.) Ex.A.2: Birth certificate issued by Mee-seva Ex.A.3: Birth certificate issued by Mee-seva Ex.A4 : Aadhar card.

Respondent: -NIL-

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM.

Pg.No.5 Of 4 HMOP 72/2021, dt:22.11.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AT KOTHAGUDEM

Dated this the 22nd day of November, 2021.

Present: Sri.G.Srinivas,

Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Kothagudem,

H.M.O.P. 72 OF 2021

Presented on :01.03.2021 Filed on :09.03.2021 Between: Mrs.Martha Lavanya, W/o.Martha Sathish, Age.33 years, Occ.Housewife, R/o.H.No.5-1-99, Coolie Line, Kothagudem, Bhadradri Kothagudem District. .…Petitioner.

And

Mr.Martha Sathish, S/o.Bixapathi, Age.37 years, Occ.Employee in Vodafone/Agriculturist, R/o.H.No.1-62, vengapadu Village, Hasanparthy Mandal, Warangal District. ….Respondent. Claim for: This petition is filed under Section 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, with a prayer to grant decree of divorce in favour fo the petitioner and against the respondent by dissolving the marriage that took place on 24.02.1999, and to award costs.

Court fee: A fixed court fee of Rs.10/- is paid under Schedule II Article I (vii) of Andhra Pradesh Court Fee and Suit Valuation Act.

Cause of action: The cause of action arose on 29.05.2005 when the marriage was performed between the parties, and in the year 2016 when the Respondent necked out the Petitioner and when she lodged a complaint before police and cause of action arose at cooli line, Kothagudem when the marriage between Petitioner and Respondent was taken place and where the Petitoner is residing which is withing the territorial jurisdiction of this court and the case of action is continuing one.

D E C R E E

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 11.11.2021 in the presence of Smt K.Vani, Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the respondent remained ex-parte; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner, having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court doth order and decree:

1. That the petition be and hereby is allowed granting decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent that took place on 29.05.2005, with costs of the petition.

2. That the Respondent do pay a sum of Rs. to the petitioner towards costs of the petition.

Given under my hand and the seal of the Court, on this the 22nd day of November, 2021.

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

Pg.No.6 Of 4 HMOP 72/2021, dt:22.11.2021

PARTICULARS OF COSTS

Petitioner Respondent

1.Stamps on petition10-00

2.Stamps of power2-00

3.Stamps of process-Exparte

4.Stamps of petition---

5.Publication charges---

6.Stamps on documents---

7.Advocate fee

8.Misc. & type charges--- ---

TOTAL

ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE,

KOTHAGUDEM

Pg No:1 of 5S.C.No.426 of 2013; dt: 18.11.2021

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE AT

KOTHAGUDEM.

Dated this the 18th day of November, 2021.

Present: Sri G.Srinivas

Additional Assistant Sessions Judge,

Kothagudem.

SESSIONS CASE No. 426 OF 2013

=========================================================

1.Name of the Complainant:The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Manuguru

2.Name of the accused:Indapalli Ashok Kumar, S/o late Appa Rao, Age:35 years, occ:lawyer, R/o Pilot colony, Manugur.

3.Crime Number :136/2012

4.P.R.C.Number:7 of 2013

5.Name of the Officer who:Sri.J.Srinivasa Rao committed this case. Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Bhadrachalam, FAC-Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Manugur.

6.Section of law:Under Section 307 IPC.

7.Prosecution conducted by:Smt.P.V.D.Laxmi,

Additional Public Prosecutor.

8.Defence conducted by:Sri N.V.Rajesh, Advocate, Kothagudem.

9.Plea of the accused:Not guilty

10.Finding of the Court:Not guilty

11.Sentence or order :In the result, Accused is acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months.

This case is coming before me for final hearing on 16.11.2021 in the presence of Additional Public Prosecutor for the State; and of Sri.N.V.Rajesh, Learned counsel

for the Accused; upon perusing the material papers on record; upon hearing the

arguments and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

Accused is tried for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

Pg No:2 of 5S.C.No.426 of 2013; dt: 18.11.2021

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police of P.S Manuguru laid charge sheet alleging that on 18.07.2012 at 07.30 PM, the Defacto-complainant/L.W.1-Md.Kayyum presented a report alleging that he received information from one Bapanapalli Ramesh that at about 5.00 PM while L.W.6-Md.Aslam was playing cricket at MCOA club ground at Manugur, the Accused picked up quarrel with L.W.6-Md. Aslam and beat him with cricket bat on his head near his left eye due to which he went into unconscious state.

Basing on the report a case in Cr.No.136/2012 was registered and investigated into; that after completion of investigation charge sheet is filed alleging that on 18.07.2012 at 5.00 PM, at MCOA club, while L.W.6-Md.Aslam (injured) along with others playing cricket, the Accused picked up quarrel and beat him with bat on his head; that the

Accused committed offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

3.Learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manuguru took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC against Accused and the case was registered as Preliminary Registered Case No.7/2013. Learned Judicial Magistrate of

I Class, Bhadrachalam, committed the case to the Hon'ble Court of Sessions under

Section 209 Cr.P.C by the Orders, dated 25.09.2013 since the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the Hon’ble Court of Sessions

4. The Hon'ble Court of Sessions, Khammam took the case on file for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and made over it to the Principal Assistant

Sessions Court, Kothagudem for trial and disposal according to law. Subsequently,

the case was transferred to this Court in view of the proceedings of the Hon’ble

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Khammam.

5.Charge for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was framed, read over and explained to the accused. He denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. On behalf of the Prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 10 were examined and marked

Exs.P.1 to P.14 and M.O.1.

Pg No:3 of 5S.C.No.426 of 2013; dt: 18.11.2021

7. After closure of the evidence on behalf of the prosecution, the Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material appearing against the accused in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel

for the Accused.

9.The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution established its case against the Accused for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC, beyond reasonable doubt?

POINT:-

10.It is to be mentioned that P.W.7 is examined as injured witness. P.W.1 is examined as Defacto-complainant, P.Ws.2 to 6 are examined as eye witnesses.

However, P.Ws.2 to 6 depose that they do not know the case facts and they do not know nothing about the case. The evidence of P.W.1 is that P.W.4 informed him over the phone that Accused beat P.W.7 with cricket bat on his left eye at M.C.O.A club and that he presented Ex.P.1 report. However, P.W.4 did not support the evidence of P.W.1 in regard to his informing P.W.1 as to the incident. The evidence of P.W.4 is that he does not know the case facts. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 remained un- corroborated in regard to P.W.4 informing him as to the incident of Accused beating

P.W.7. Furthermore, P.W.1 is not a direct witness.

11.Coming to the evidence of P.W.7, his evidence is that on 18.07.2012, at about 4.45 PM while they were playing cricket match at M.C.O.A Club, Manuguru, himself, P.Ws.2 to 6 were in one team and the Accused, one Sidhardha and others were in another team; that the team of the Accused was about to defeat and he has to bowl in the next over. He further deposed that as they would be defeated in the match if he bowl, the Accused decided to kill him and therefore, the Accused hit him over left eyebrow with a bat. He also deposes that he fell down and went into coma and gained consciousness after 31 days of the incident. He deposes that M.O.1 is the bat with

Pg No:4 of 5S.C.No.426 of 2013; dt: 18.11.2021 which the Accused beat him. However, in the cross-examination of P.W.7, it is elicited that himself and the Accused did not play cricket together and he played cricket with team of his friends and that it is not correct that if he bowls, the team of the Accused would have been defeated. It is also elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.7 that while he was taking catch, he fell down and sustained injuries. His specific evidence is that on 27.12.2019, as per Section 161 Cr.P.C statement readover to him by police constable, he gave evidence at the instance of police. It is to be considered as to whether P.W.7 won over by the Accused subsequent to his chief-examination and deposes favouring the Accused in his cross-examination. It is to be mentioned that in the cross-examination of P.W.10, it is elicited that the distance between bating pitch and scene of offence is about 10 metres. P.W.1 stated that injured was beside runner.

Therefore, even if it is to be considered that the incident happened, it might be at the place of runner and not at a distance of 10 metres. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.7 in his chief-examination cannot be given much weight, moreso, in view of the hostile nature of the remaining witnesses who are none other than his friends. Therefore, it is held that prosecution failed to prove its case against the Accused. Accordingly, point is answered.

14.In the result, the Accused is acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled after a period of six months. M.O.1 is directed to be destroyed after appeal time is over.

Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-III, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18th day of November, 2021.

ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM.

-APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE-

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution:

P.W.1 : Md.Kayyum P.W.2 : G.Vasu

Pg No:5 of 5S.C.No.426 of 2013; dt: 18.11.2021

P.W.3 : Y.Suresh P.W.4 : B.Ramesh P.W.5 : B.Naresh P.W.6 : Sk.Yakub Pasha P.W.7 : Md.Aslam P.W.8 : B.Mahesh P.W.9 :T.Jagadish P.W.10 : B.Krupadanam

For Defence: -None-

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution:

Ex.P1 : Report of P.W.1. Ex.P2 : Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.2. Ex.P3 : Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.3. Ex.P4 : Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.4. Ex.P5 : Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.5. Ex.P6 : Relevant portion of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.6. Ex.P7 : Signature of P.W.8 on Crime Details Form Ex.P8 : Signature of P.W.8 on rough sketch Ex.P.9: Signature of P.W.9 on confession seizure panchanama dt:03.08.2012 Ex.P.10: Signature of P.W.9 on confession seizure panchanama dt:03.08.2012 Ex.P.11: First information report Ex.P.12: Crime Details form Ex.P.13: Relevant potion of confession and sezure panchanama Ex.P.14: Opinion certificate.

For Defence: – NIL --

MATERIAL OBJECTS

M.O.1:Cricket bat

ADDITIONAL ASSISTANT SESSIONS JUDGE

KOTHAGUDEM.

Readover and compared by:

1 C.C.386/2013

IN THE COURT OF THE III-ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS : KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT.

Present: Sri G.Srinivas, B.Com.,LL.M., III-Addl.JFCM, Kothagudem.

Monday, this the 25th day of May, 2015.

C.C.No.386 of 2013 (Crime No.10/2013 of P.S.Paloncha Rural)

Between:

The State through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Paloncha Rural. …. Prosecution

And

A.1.Bhukya Lalu, S/o.Bixam, Age.35 years, Occ.Chicken Shop at Peddamma Temple, R/o.Jagannadhapuram A.2.Banoth Rambabu, S/o.Bheemudu, Age.22 years, Caste.Lambada, Occ.Tractor driver, R/o.Nagaram colony of Paloncha mandal.

…. Accused This case is coming on 22.05.2015 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned APP for prosecution and of Sri.T.Malleswarrao, Advocate for the accused and having stood over for consideration, this Court passed the following:

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

A.1 and A.2 are tried for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

2.The Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Paloncha Rural, filed charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 19.01.2013 at 6.15 a.m, the defacto- complainant along with Staff of Paloncha Rural Police Station proceeded towards Jagannadhapuram, caught tractor bearing No.AP36TZ/TR/6890 and

Chassis No.0452-2012, which was being loaded sand in Kinnerasani sand reaches; that the accused fled away on seing the defacto-complainant. The accused committed offences punishable under Sections 379, 447 r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.

3. Cognizance was taken for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 447 IPC and Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act. After securing presence of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to them. They were examined under Section 239 Cr.P.C, explaining 2 C.C.386/2013 the accusation. They denied the same. Heard. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act was framed, read over and explained to them. They denied the same, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Ex.P.1 to P.13.

5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C explaining the incriminating material against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

6. Heard the arguments of the learned A.P.P. and the learned counsel

for the accused.

7. The point that arises for consideration is as to whether the prosecution could bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property

Act, beyond all reasonable doubt.

POINT:

8.The evidence of P.W.1 is that on 19.01.2013 at 6.15 a.m, near

Peddamma temple, Jagannadhapuram, herself, two Police constables caught tractor bearing No.AP366890 and truck No.0492 and that it was loaded with sand. She also deposes that A.2 was the driver of the said tractor. She also deposes that Tahasildhar sent Revenue Inspector, who came and conduced panchanama in the presence of Basha, Venkatesh and Raju.

9.The evidence of P.W.2 is that on 19.01.2013 at 6.15 a.m, himself and another constable-Sk.Ghani went to Jagannadhapuram along with P.W.1, a tractor which having no number was ready to start with load of sand; that they caught the said tractor. He also deposes that after arrival of Revenue

Inspector, Paloncha, panchanama was conducted.

10.It is the evidence of P.W.3 that on 19.01.2013 at 6.10 a.m, himself,

P.W.1 and two constables went to Jagannadhapuram village, a tractor bearing

No.AP36TZTR6390 was coming with load of sand and transporting sand 3 C.C.386/2013 illegally; that they caught it and that the driver fled away on seeing them. He deposes that he conducted Ex.P.2-panchanama. P.Ws.10 and 11 are the

Investigating officers. The other witnesses did not support the case of the prosecution.

11.The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is to be appreciated. There is inconsistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 in regard to apprehending A.1.

While it is the evidence of P.W.1 that she caught A.1, he disclosed his name as

Bhukya Rambabu and that she handedover him in the Police Station, the evidence of P.W.2 is that Bhukya Rambabu fled away on seeing them. The evidence of P.W.3 is also that the driver fled away. While it is the evidence of

P.Ws.1 and 2 that they went to the place of offence, it is the evidence of P.W.3 that he accompanied P.Ws.1 and 2. It is also to be mentioned that it is the evidence of P.W.1 in her chief-examination that she presented Ex.P.1-report, whereas in the cross-examination of P.W.2 it is elicited that he do not know as to where Ex.P.1-report was prepared. As per the evidence of P.W.2 in his cross-examination they reached Police Station at about 7.00 p.m. As per the evidence of P.W.10 at about 7.00 p.m Ex.P.1-report and Ex.P.2-panchanam were presented. As per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 they went to place of offence at about 6.15 a.m. Thus, there is delay in presenting the report with police. Though P.W.3 deposes to have conducted Ex.P.2-panchanama, P.Ws.4 to 6 who are examined as witnesses for Ex.P.2-panchanama, did not support the case of the prosecution. P.W.7, who is examined to prove preparation of

Crime Details Form in his presence, did not support the case of the prosecution. The prosecution relies on the evidence of P.W.10 that he recorded confession statements of A.1 and A.2 in the presence of P.Ws.8 and

9. P.Ws.8 and 9 did not support the case of the prosecution. Except deposing that P.W.10 recorded confession statements of the accused, nothing more is deposed to by P.W.10. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is not clear as to where they caught A.1 and handedover in the Police Station or whether A.1 fled away from the scene. If the accused fled away and escaped from the 4 C.C.386/2013 scene, it is not known as to how P.Ws.1 to 3 could know the driver is A.1 only.

In the circumstances, the accused can be given benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the point is answered.

12. In the result, A.1 and A.2 are acquitted under Section 248(1)

Cr.P.C for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act. The interim custody of the tractor bearing

No.AP20TVTR1078 and Trailer bearing No.AP36TZTR6890 by orders in

Crl.M.P.No.373/2013, dt.31.01.2013 with A.1 shall be absolute after appeal

period is over.

(Typed to my dictation, corrected and pronounced by me in the

Open Court on this the 25th day of May, 2015).

III-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

For Prosecution: For Defence:

P.W.1 – K.Sheshamma--NIL-- P.W.2 – G.Ravinder P.W.3 – G.Ramu P.W.4 – B.Basha P.W.5 – B.Venkatesh P.W.6 – B.Raju P.W.7 – K.Ramesh P.W.8 – T.Ramarao P.W.9 – G.Venkatesh P.W.10 – K.Kumaraswamy P.W.11 – P.Mallaiah

EXHIBITS MARKED

For Prosecution: Ex.P.1 – Report Ex.P.2 – Panchanama Ex.P.3 – Photograph of the tractor Ex.P.4 – Signature of P.W.4 on Ex.P.2-Panchanama Ex.P.5 – Signature of P.W.5 on Ex.P.2-Panchanama Ex.P.6 – Signature of P.W.6 on Ex.P.2-Panchanama Ex.P.7 – Signature of P.W.7 on Crime Details Form Ex.P.8 – Signature of P.W.8 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P.9 – Signature of P.W.9 on Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P.10 – First Information Report Ex.P.11 – Crime Details Form Ex.P.12 – Confession-cum-seizure panchanama Ex.P.13 – Panchanama

For Defence: - Nil -

III-ADDL.JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

KOTHAGUDEM, KHAMMAM DISTRICT.