Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy

Prl Junior Civil Judge

Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex · Rangareddy · Telangana

Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy, Prl Junior Civil Judge, is posted at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana, India. 710 court orders on record since 2017. 5 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles CC, STC, OS cases.

710

Total Orders

Judgments

Orders/Month

Posting

Featured Judgments

CC/661/2015 Acquitted

PS Kothur vs Narra Mahendar

20 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM - JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT SHADNAGAR

Monday the 20th day of August, 2018

PRESENT: SMT.G.SUNITHA RAVINDRA REDDY,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SHADNAGAR.

C.C.No.661 of 2015

Between:-

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur

...Complainant

And

Narra Mahendar S/o Keshavulu, Age.41 years, Caste: Yadava,. Occ: Driver of Tipper TS 12 UA 0258 R/o Dilveruguda Kollapadkal village of Maheshwaram Mandal.

…Accused. * * *

This case is coming on 17-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri.

V.Sanjeeva Goud and Sri.N.Naveen Kumar, Sri.M.Sridhar and Sri.T.Raja

Gopal, learned counsel for accused and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief facts of which are narrated hereunder:

On 18-05-2015 at 3.00 p.m., the complainant Mudavath Raju (Lw.1) lodged a written report stating that on 17-05-2015 at about 5.00 p.m., while he along with his wife Smt.M.Sona and their son Master M.Jagan age.3 years proceeded to KOthur from their thanda in his motorcycle bearing

No.AP09BD9703 on the way after crossing Ragya Thanda one driver of

Tipper bearing No.TS UA0258 has drove his tipper in rash and negligent 2 manner and dashed to his motorcycle while taking reverse as a result his son master M.Jagan fell on the tipper back side and received bleeding injuries on stomach and legs immediately shifted Nelefore hospital,

Hyderabad while undergoing treatment his son Master M.Jagar died on the same day about 7.30 p.m., Finally he requested to take legal action against

Tipper driver.

3.On receipt of complaint, Lw.10 G.Sathya Reddy, Head Constable registered a case in Cr.No.142/2015 under Section 304-A of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he visited Osmania

General Hospital, Hyderabad casued wnquiry and collected death summary of deceased and examined and recorded the statements of Lws.1 to 3 in detail and held inquest the deadbody of deceased Master M.Jagan in the presence of mediators Lws.6 and 7 and subject the deadbody for PME to

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Later he visited the scene of offence situated at after crossing of Ragya thanda and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of same mediators. Subsequently Lw.11 took up the investigation and verified the investigation done by Lw.10 and it is correct and proper line. On 22-05-2015 Lw.5 along with accused came to police station and Lw.5 produced the accused before Lw.11. on through interrogation the accused confessed his guilty of offence the accused arrested and released on bail after completion of legal formalities. Hence the charge.

4.The case was taken on file under U/s.304-A of IPC. Hence, the charge against the accused.

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

6.Accused was examined under Sec. 251 of Cr.P.C. with the allegations leveled against him, charges U/s.304-A of IPC. Hence, the charge has been framed, read over and explained to him in Telugu. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, the accused denied the evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

10.The point that arises for determination is:- “Whether the Accused committed an offence punishable U/s.304-A of IPC?” “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?”

11.Points: 1 and 2:-

Points 1 and 2 are interrelated and thus discussed together. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that on 17-05-2015 at about 5.00 p.m., while the complainant along with his wife Smt.M.Sona and their son Master

M.Jagan age.3 years proceeded to KOthur from their thanda in his motorcycle bearing No.AP09BD9703 on the way after crossing Ragya

Thanda one driver of Tipper bearing No.TS UA0258 has drove his tipper in rash and negligent manner and dashed to his motorcycle while taking reverse as a result his son master M.Jagan fell on the tipper back side and received bleeding injuries on stomach and legs immediately shifted Nelefore hospital, Hyderabad while undergoing treatment his son Master M.Jagar died 4 on the same day about 7.30 p.m., and thus accused has committed an offence Punishable U/s.304-A of IPC.

12.In this case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 7. The evidence of Pw.1 who is complainant and father of the deceased stated in his evidence that on 17-05-2015 at about 5.00 pm he along with his wife and son were going from their village to JP Dargah on a motorcycle on the way they were crossing Rakya Thanda one Tipper bearing no.TS12 UA0258 which was going in front of their vehicle suddenly stopped the vehicle and the driver was taking reverse due to which that tipper hit their motorcycle and their son fell under the back tires of the tipper and received injuries on his stomach and were shifted to Nelofer Hospital, Hyderabad where he died. The accident occurred due to negligent driving of tipper driver the accused as the driver took the reverse in a negligent manner without observing them also over heard his horn. He gave Ex.P1 report in Police station. Immediately after the accident the driver of Tipper ran away. He cannot identify if he see him today. During course of his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that the accused is responsible for causing the accident in order to help him intentionally not identifying him.

Pw.2 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama stated in his chief examination that on 19-05-2015 police called him to Osmania General

Hosptital, Hyderabad and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead of

Jangan and obtained his signatures. Ex.P2 is inquest panchanama.

Thereafter Police also took him to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchama and drawn rough sketch and obtained his signatures on

Ex.P3 crime details form.

Pw.3 is the owner of the crime vehicle did not support the case of prosecution and he turned hostile by the learned APP.

Pw.4 is the mother of the deceased and eyewitness stated in her chief examination that about 3 years back on one day in the evening hours he along with her husband and son Jagan were going to Kothur from their village on a motorcycle and on the way after passing Rakiya Thanda one

Tipper was going infront of them and the driver of the tipper stopped his vehicle took reverse without observing them dashed to their motorcycle.

Due to which her son fell down and the tipper went over the stomach of her son and he was shifted to Nilofer Hospital, Hyderabad where he died. She have seen the driver of the Tipper as such she can identify him. The accused standing in the court was the driver of the said tipper. The accident occurred due the negligence of driving of the accused.

Pw.5 is the sister of Lw.1 stated in her evidence that the deceased is her son-in-law. About 3 years back on one day in the evening hours Pw.1, her brother and their son Jagan were going to Kothur from thier village on a motorcycle and on the way after passing Rakiya Thanda one Tipper was going infront of them and the driver of the tipper stopped his vehicle took reverse without observing them dashed to their motorcycle. Due to which their son fell down and the tipper went over the stomach of their son and he was shifted to Nilofer Hospital, Hyderabad where he died. she had seen the accident as she was at a distance from the accident spot. She have seen the driver of the Tipper as such she can identify him. The accused standing in the court was the driver of the said tipper. The accident occurred due the negligence of driving of the accused. During course of her cross examination she stated that she cannot say the date of the accident. As she heard the sound of the accident she rushed to the spot.

Pw.6 is the circumstantial witness stated in her evidence that on 17- 05-2015 at 5.00 p.m., Pws.1, 4 along with their son were going on a motorcycle from their village to Kothur and when they crossed Rakiya thanda one Tipper dashed to their motorcycle by taking reverse, as a result the son Pws.1 and 4 fell on the road and the tires of the tipper went over his stomach and was shifted to Nilofer hospital, where he died.

Pw.7 is the first investigating officer stated in his evidence that Lw.10 who received the complaint from Pw.1 had done the entire investigation and issued Ex.P5 First Information Report. Subsequently he took up the further investigation from him and found to be on proper lines. on 22-05-2015 Lw.5 produced you accused and on interrogation you accused confessed your guilt of the offence, affected the arrest and released on bail on completion of all legal formalities and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

When no evidence is forthcoming from the case of prosecution due to paucity of evidence, no credence can be placed to Exs.P1 to P7 documents.

Pw.1 who is father of deceased had not supported the case of prosecution and he was turned hostile by the learned APP. The cardinal principle of criminal Jurisprudence is that, if the prosecution failed to prove their case 7 beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled- for the benefit. So it appears that there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused and he is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, these points are answered against the prosecution.

14.In the light of the above discussion, there is no force in the case of the prosecution. Thus the points 1 and 2 are held against the case of the prosecution.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC, thereby he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly in system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August, 2018.

Prl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw.1 M.Raju - NIL - Pw.2 Srinivas Pw.3 V.Shekar Pw.4 Soni Pw.5 Sharada Pw.6 Sujatha Pw.7 A.Surya Naik, C.I of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 Report - NIL - Ex.P2 Inquest panchanama Ex.P3 Crime Details form Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3 Ex.P5 First Information Report Ex.P6 Post Mortem Examination Report 8

Ex.P7 Motor Vehicle Inspector report.

Prl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

CC/321/2015 Acquitted

PS Kothur vs Manga Sharath Chandra

17 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM - JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT SHADNAGAR

Friday the 17th day of August, 2018

PRESENT: SMT.G.SUNITHA RAVINDRA REDDY,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SHADNAGAR.

C.C.No.321 of 2015

Between:-

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Nandigam (Kothur)

...Complainant

And

Manga Sharath Chandra S/o Bikshapathi, Age.27 years, Caste:Mudiraj, Occ:driver of Car bearing NO.TS08EC1188, R/o H.No.2-8-52, Bharathnagar colony, Uppal, Hyderabad.

…Accused. * * *

This case is coming on 16-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri.

M.Sreedhar and Sri.T.Rajgopal, learned counsel for accused and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief facts of which are narrated hereunder:

On 05-11-2014 at 11.00 a.m., the complainant Smt.Reshma (Lw.1) lodged a written report stating that at about 4 years back her marriage was performed with Shaik Mahabub Pasha and they having two children. Her husband and their relative Mohd Ghouse went to Bandakunta thanda for purchase of goats and sheep leathers on Bajaj motorcycle bearing

No.AP22D-7814 after purchase of leather they proceed to KOthur on above motorcycle at about 10.20 hours and on the way crossing to NH44 road near 2

Bandakunta thanda, meanwhile a car bearing No.TS08EC-1188 came from

Jadcherla side and proceed towards Hyderabad side and its driver drove his car in rash and negligent manner which high speed and gave dashed to above Bajaj motorcycle No.AP22D7814, resulting which the rider of motorcycle her husband Shaik Mahabub Pasha and pillion rider

Mohd.Ghouse fell down on the road and received severe bleeding injuries to her husband and died on the spot, the deadbody kept in mature room in community health centre, Shadnagar. Finally she requested to take legal action against Car driver.

3.As per the contents of the above petition, Lw.17 A.Surya Naik, S.I of

Police has registered a case in Cr.No.306/2014 under Sections 304-A, 337 of

IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation he examined and recorded the statement of Lw.1, further visited community health centre, Shadnagar, there examined and recorded the statements of

Lws.2 to 4 and deceased no.2(who is injured) and held inquest over the deadbody of deceased No.1 Shaik Mahabub Pasha for Post Mortem

Examination. Later he visited the scene of offence situated at NH 44 road near Bandakunta thanda in the limits of Nandigama village and drafted scene of crime observation report in crime details form in the presence of same mediators Lws.9 and 10. On 10-11-2014 received medical intimation from Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad that the injured Mohd.Ghose was died on 09-11-2014 at 5.30 p.m., in the said hospital while undergoing treatment. On 11-11-2014 the Lw.8 K.Narsimha Reddy, owner of the crime vehicle produced the accused and the accused confessed his guilty of offence and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet. Hence the charge.

4.The case was taken on file under U/s.304-A of IPC. Hence, the charge against the accused.

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

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 13 and got marked Exs.P1 to P18 documents.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, the accused denied the evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

11.Points: 1 and 2:-

Points 1 and 2 are interrelated and thus discussed together. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that the complainant husband and their relative Mohd Ghouse went to Bandakunta thanda for purchase of goats and sheep leathers on Bajaj motorcycle bearing No.AP22D-7814 after purchase of leather they proceed to KOthur on above motorcycle at about 10.20 hours and on the way crossing to NH44 road near Bandakunta thanda, meanwhile 4 a car bearing No.TS08EC-1188 came from Jadcherla side and proceed towards Hyderabad side and its driver drove his car in rash and negligent manner which high speed and gave dashed to above Bajaj motorcycle

No.AP22D7814, resulting which the rider of motorcycle her husband Shaik

Mahabub Pasha and pillion rider MOhd.Ghouse fell down on the road and received severe bleeding injuries to her husband and died on the spot. On 10-11-2014 the injured Mohd.Ghose was died on 09-11-2014 at 5.30 p.m., in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad while undergoing treatment and thus accused has committed an offence Punishable U/s.304-A of IPC.

12.In this case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 13. The evidence of Pws.1 to 8 and 11 who are the relatives of deceased nos.1 and 2, owner of the crime vehicle respectively not stated anything against the accused and not supported the case of prosecution and they had turned hostile by the learned APP.

Pws.9 and 10 are the panch witnesses for inquest panchanama of deceased no.2 deposed that on 10-11-2014 at 9.00 a.m., police called them to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and conducted inquest over the deadbody of deceased Mohd.Ghouse in their presence and obtained their signatures on Ex.P10 inquest panchanama of D2.

Pw.12 is the investigating officer stated in his evidence that he conducted inquest panchanama over the deadbody of deceased in the presence of Pws.9 and 10 and obtained their signatures on Ex.P10 inquest panchanama of D2.

Pw.13 is the first investigating officer stated in his evidence that on 05-11-2014 he received complaint from Pw.1 basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.306/2014 under Sections 304-A, 337 of IPC. He conducted inquest over the deadbody of deceased No.1 Shaik Mahabub Pasha in the presence of Lws.9 and 10 and obtained their signatures on Ex.P14 inquest 5 panchanama of deceased No.1 and subjected the deadbody to Post Mortem

Examination. He visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama in the presence of Lws.9 and 10 and drawn scene of crime observation report in crime details form and obtained their signatures on it. On 11-11-2014

Pw.11 owner of crime vehicle produced the accused with concern documents and on interrogation the accused confessed his guilt of the offence and produced the copy of driving license and connected document of crime vehicle and affected the arrest of accused and on completion of formalities released on bail and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

When no evidence is forthcoming from the case of prosecution due to paucity of evidence, no credence can be placed to Exs.P1 to P18 documents.

Pws.1 to 8 and 11 who are the main material witnesses had not supported the case of prosecution and they were turned hostile by the learned APP.

There is no eyewitness to the incident as the accused is responsible for the death of the deceased 1 and 2. The cardinal principle of criminal

Jurisprudence is that, if the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled- for the benefit. So it appears that there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused and he is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, these points are answered against the prosecution.

14.In the light of the above discussion, there is no force in the case of the prosecution. Thus the points 1 and 2 are held against the case of the prosecution.

15.In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC, thereby he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly in system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August, 2018.

Prl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw.1 Reshma - NIL - Pw.2 Ramajabee Pw.3 Mohd.Sahed Ali Pw.4 Mohd.Basith Pw.5 Mohd.Jahangir Pw.6 Gousiya Begum Pw.7 Sahera Begum Pw.8 Abdul Malik Pw.9 Mohd.Khaleel Pw.10 Shoukhath Pw.11 K.Narsimha Reddy Pw.12 P.Bhaskar Reddy, A.S.I of Police Pw.13 A.Surya Naik, C.I of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1 - NIL - Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.3 Ex.P4 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4 Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5 7

Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6 Ex.P7 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.7 Ex.P8 Signature of Pw.8 on Crime details form Ex.P9 Signature of Pw.8 on inquest panchanama of D1 Ex.P10 Signature of Pw.9 on inquest panchanama of D2 Ex.P11 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.11 Ex.P12 Report Ex.P13 First Information Report Ex.P14 Inquest panchanama of D1 Ex.P15 Crime Details form Ex.P16 Post Mortem Examination Report of D1 Ex.P17 Post Mortem Examination Report of D2 Ex.P18 Motor Vehicle Inspector report.

Prl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

CC/322/2015 Acquitted

PS Kothur vs Yellaram Babiah

17 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM - JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT SHADNAGAR

Friday the 17th day of August, 2018

PRESENT: SMT.G.SUNITHA RAVINDRA REDDY,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SHADNAGAR.

C.C.No.322 of 2015

Between:-

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur

...Complainant

And

Yellaram Babaiah S/o Lingam, Age.30 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Manager Maharaja Swimming Pool, J.P Darga R/o Inmulnarva village. …Accused. * * *

This case is coming on 17-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of

Sri.C.Mahendar Reddy, learned counsel for accused and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief facts of which are narrated hereunder:

On 30-11-2014 at 1.00 p.m., the complainant Syed Moinuddin (Lw.1) lodged a written report stating that on 28-11-2014 his grandson Inamul

Hassan S/o Mohammed Shareef Age.17 years and along with friends went to

J.P Dargah, Inmulanarva village, there went into Maharaja Swimming Pool by pay the entry fee Rs.120/- for perform of swimming at about 3.00 p.m.,

During the swimming his grandson Inamul Hassan drive into swimming water in the swimming pool and neglected fill of water level due to during dive Inamul Hassan hit to ground in the swimming and sustained internal injuries a to head and neck, immediately his friends brought to Hyderabad 2 and informed him and get treatment various hospitals later admitted in

Adithya Hospital, Abids, Hyderabad. The incident occurred on the negligence of swimming pool management. He along with his family members preset with his grand son at Hospitals, today came to and lodged a report.

Therefore, he requested to take legal action against the Maharaja Swimming pool management.

3.As per the contents of the above petition Lw.12 A.Surya Nayak, S.I of

Police has registered a case in Cr.No.335/2014 under section 304-A of IPC and took up the investigation. During course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of Lw.1 at police station and proceeded to community health centre, Aditya Hospital Boggula Kunataq, Hyderabad examined and recorded the statement of injured who was injured in details.

Later Lw.11 T.Bhaskar Reddy, Head Constable visited the scene of offence situated at J.P Dargah, and drafted scene of crime observation report in crime dertails form in the presence of mediators Lws.5 and 6 by depicting all surroundings it’s. On 21-12-2014 a death intimation receivied from Owaisi

Hospital, Hyderabad through telephone that the injured was died on 21-12- 2014 at 9.05 a.m., while undergoing treatment at the hospital. On receipt of the death intimation he altered the section of law 304-A from 337 of IPC and rushed to the Owisi hospital, Hyderabad there he conducted inquest over the deadbody of deceased Inamul Hassan in the presence of mediators

Lws.8 and 9 and subjected the deadbody to Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad. On 30-12-2014 the accused was arrested and released on bail and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4.The case was taken on file under U/s.304-A of IPC. Hence, the charge against the accused.

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

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 documents.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, the accused denied the evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

11.Points: 1 and 2:-

Points 1 and 2 are interrelated and thus discussed together. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that on 28-11-2014 his grand son Inamul

Hassan S/o Mohammed Shareef Age.17 years and along with friends went to

J.P Dargah, Inmulanarva village, there went into Maharaja Swimming Pool by pay the entry fee Rs.120/- for perform of swimming at about 3.00 p.m.,

During the swimming his grand son Inamul Hassan drive into swimming 4 water in the swimming pool and neglected fill of water level due to during dive Inamul Hassan hit to ground in the swimming and sustained internal injuries a to head and neck, immediately his friends brought to Hyderabad and informed him and get treatment various hospitals later admitted in

Adithya Hospital, Abids, Hyderabad and on 21-12-2014 at 9.05 a.m., while undergoing treatment the injured was died in the hospital and thus accused has committed an offence Punishable U/s.304-A of IPC.

12.In this case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9. The evidence of Pw.1 in his chief examination that his grandson went to a swimming pool near JP

Dargah in order to do swimming at about 3.00p.m., and subsequently he came to know that he sustained some neck injury while he was trying to swim. He does not know how he sustained said injury and they never suspected the management of swimming pool of negligence. In the evening hours his grandson was shifted to Adithya hospital, Hyderabad he came to know about the incident he shifted his grandson to Owaisi hospital,

Champapet after one month of the incident his grandson died. He does not know anything further in this case. He never lodged any complaint against the management of swimming pool. Ex.P1 is his signature on report.

Pw.2 is the mother of deceased, Pws.3 and 4 panch witnesses for crime details form and Pws.6 and7 are the eyewitnesses not state anything about the incident and not stated about the accused and they had turned hostile by the learned APP.

Pw.8 is the panch witness for inquest panchanama stated in his chief examination that on 21-12-2014 police called him to Owaisi Hospital,

Hyderabad and conducted inquest panchanama over the deadbody of 5

Inamul Hasan in his presence and obtained his signatures on Ex.P8 inquest panchanama.

Pw.9 is the investigating officer, he stated in his chief examination that on 30-11-2014 he received complaint from Pw.1 basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.335/2014 under Section 337 of IPC. He visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama in the presence of Pws.3 and 4 and obtained their signatures on it. On 21-12-2014 Lw.11 received death intimation from Owaisi Hospital that the injured died while undergoing treatment in the hospital and he altered the section of law from 337 to 304-

A of IPC. He conducted inquest over the deadbody of deceased No.1 Shaik

Mahabub Pasha in the presence of Lws.8 and 9 and subjected the body to

Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for PME and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

14.In the light of the above discussion, there is no force in the case of the prosecution. Thus the points 1 and 2 are held against the case of the prosecution.

15.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC, thereby he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly in system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August, 2018.

Prl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw.1 Syed Moinuddin - NIL - Pw.2 Salma Pw.3 Yadaiah Pw.4 Ravi Pw.5 Ahmad Hussain Pw.6 Noomanuir Riyaz Siddiqi Pw.7 Riyaz Siddiqi Pw.8 Jahangeer Pw.9 A.Surya Naik, C.I of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 Signature of Pw.1 on report - NIL - Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.1 Ex.P3 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2

Ex.P4 Signature of Pw.4 on crime details form Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.5 Ex.P6 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.6 7

Ex.P7 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.7 Ex.P8 Inquest panchanama Ex.P9 Report Ex.P10 First Information Report Ex.P11 Crime Details form Ex.P12 Section Alteration Memo Ex.P13 Post Mortem Examination Report

Prl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

CC/228/2015 Acquitted

PS KOTHUR vs Laxman GatereddiHal

17 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE -CUM - JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS:: AT SHADNAGAR

Friday the 17th day of August, 2018

PRESENT: SMT.G.SUNITHA RAVINDRA REDDY,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SHADNAGAR.

C.C.No.228 of 2015

Between:-

State represented by Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur

...Complainant

And

Laxman Gatereddihal S/o Hemaraddi, Age.41 years, Caste:Reddy, Occ: Driver of VRL Private bus bearing No.KA25D-1128 R/o Hosur village, Vadavi Post Shirahatti Tq. Gadag District of Karnataka State. …Accused. * * *

This case is coming on 16-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of

Sri.V.Raghavendra Chary, and Sri Vasava Reddy, learned counsel for accused and upon perusal of the material on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Kothur filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.

2. The brief facts of which are narrated hereunder:

On 13-01-2015 at 8.00 a.m., the complainant Beerla Lavanya (Lw.1) came to police station and lodged a report in which she stated on 13-01- 2015 at evening hours her husband Beerla Nagesh went to KOthur on his personal work in motorcycle bearing No.AP22N3577 after completion of work at 7.30 p.m., he proceeded to Rangapur village on NH 44 road near

Vinayaka Steel company crossing the NH 44 road, meantime a Private bus bearing NO.KA25D-1128 came from Hyderabad side and proceeded to

Kurnool and its driver drove his bus in rash and negligence manner with 2 high speed and gave dashed to motorcycle, resulting which her husband (rider of motorcycle) fell down and received several bleeding injuries and died on the spot. Finally she requested to take legal action against bus driver.

3.As per the contents of the above petition Lw.11 A.Surya Nayak, S.I of

Police has registered a case in Cr.No.17/2015 under section 304-A of IPC and took up the investigation. During course of investigation he examined and recorded the statements of Lw.1 at police station and further visited community health centre, Shadnagar there examined and recorded the statement of Lws.2 to 5 and held inquest over the deadbody of deceased

Beerla Nagesh in the presence of mediators Lws.7 and 8 and subject the de4adbody for Post Mortem Examination. Late her visited the scene of offence situated at NH44 road Vinayaka Steel company x road in the limnits of Kothur village and drafted scene of crime observation report in crime details form in the presence of same mediators. On 13-01-2015 the Lw.6 supervisor VRL travels produced the accused and connected documents of crime vehicle before Lw.11. On through interrogation the accused confessed his guilty of offence and produced the copy of driving license. Then he eaffected the arrest of accused by issued arrest memo against the accused person and owner of car and obtained proper acknowledgement and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

4.The case was taken on file under U/s.304-A of IPC. Hence, the charge against the accused.

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

7.During the course of trial, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 documents.

8.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, the accused denied the evidence.

9.Heard both sides.

11.Points: 1 and 2:-

Points 1 and 2 are interrelated and thus discussed together. The case of the prosecution in nut shell is that on 13-01-2015 at evening hours the deceased Beerla Nagesh went to KOthur on his personal work in motorcycle bearing No.AP22N3577 after completion of work at 7.30 p.m., he proceeded to Rangapur village on NH 44 road near Vinayaka Steel company crossing the NH 44 road, meantime a Private bus bearing NO.KA25D-1128 came from

Hyderabad side and proceeded to Kurnool and its driver drove his bus in rash and negligence manner with high speed and gave dashed to motorcycle, resulting which the deceased fell down and received several 4 bleeding injuries and died on the spot and thus accused has committed an offence Punishable U/s.304-A of IPC.

12.In this case, prosecution examined Pws.1 to 9. The evidence of Pws.1 4 and 8 in their chief examination that about 3 years back on one day the deceased came to Kothur on his motorcycle to attend some work and at about 5.30 pm he completed his work and he was proceeding to their village and when he reached near Vinayaka Steel Company one Volvo Bus came from Hyderabad side at a high speed and dashed to the motorcycle of deceased due to which he sustained bleeding injuries and died on the spot.

Pw.1 gave Ex.P1 report.

Pws.5 and 7 are the panch witnesses for scene of offence and inquest panchanama of deceased stated in their evidence that in the year 2015 on one day police called them to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in their presence and obtained their signatures on Ex.P3 crime details form. Thereafter police also called them to Government hospital, Shadnagar and conducted inquest panchanama over the dead body of Nagesh in their presence and obtained their signatures on Ex.P4 is inquest panchanama.

Pw.6 is the supervisor of VRL travels not stated anyting against the accused and he turned hostile by the learned APP.

Pw.9 is the investigating officer stated in his evident that on 14-01- 2015 he received Ex.P1 report from Pw.1, basing on it he registered a case in Cr.No.17/15 under Section 304-A of IPC. Later he held inquest over the deadbody of deceased Nagesh in the presence of Pws.5 and 7 and obtained their signatures on Ex.P4 inquest panchanama. He visited the scene of offence and conducted panchanama in the presence of same mediators and obtained their signatures on Ex.P3 crime details form. On 20-01-2015 Lw.6 5 produced accused and accused confessed guilt of the offence and produced the copy of driving license and connected documents of crime vehicle and after completion of investigation filed charge sheet.

13.Apparently and evidently, though the case of the prosecution at the stage of complaint that accused committed an offence punishable U/s.304-A of IPC. As evident from oral testimony of Pw.1 to 9, nothing could be elicited to support the prosecution case. They neither gave descriptive particulars of the accused nor could they identify the accused in crime. When no evidence is forthcoming from the case of prosecution due to paucity of evidence, no credence can be placed to Exs.P1 to P8 documents. Pws.1 to 4 and 8 who are the main material witnesses had not supported the case of prosecution and they were not identify the accused and not stated anything against the accused. The cardinal principle of criminal Jurisprudence is that, if the prosecution failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled- for the benefit. So it appears that there is no incriminating material appearing against the accused and he is entitled for benefit of doubt. Accordingly, these points are answered against the prosecution.

14.In the light of the above discussion, there is no force in the case of the prosecution. Thus the points 1 and 2 are held against the case of the prosecution.

15. In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence under section 304-A of IPC, thereby he is acquitted under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C.

Accused is set at liberty and his bail bonds stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly in system, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 17th day of August, 2018.

Prl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Pw.1 B.Lavanya - NIL - Pw.2 B.Krishnaiah Pw.3 B.Padmamma Pw.4 Srisailam Pw.5 J.Baswaiah Pw.6 Shetty Pw.7 T.Ravi Kumar Pw.8 Chandraiah Pw.9 A.Surya Naik, C.I of Police

EXHIBITS MARKED

FOR PROSECUTION: FOR DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 report - NIL - Ex.P2 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.4 Ex.P3 Crime Details form Ex.P4 Inquest panchanama Ex.P5 161 Cr.P.C statement of Pw.2 Ex.P6 First Information Report Ex.P7 Post Mortem Examination Report Ex.P8 Motor Vehicle Inspector report

Prl., Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Shadnagar.

CC/424/2015 Acquitted

PS Kothur vs Sinasi Shivakumar

20 Aug 2018

IN THE COURT OF THE Prl. JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF

FIRST CLASS :: AT SHADNAGAR

Monday, the 20 th day of August 2018

PRESENT: SMT.G.SUNITHA RAVINDRA REDDY,

PRL.JUNIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-

JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS,

SHADNAGAR.

C.C No.424 of 2015

Between:

The State of Telangana, represented through Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S Kothur.

… Complainant

And

1. Sinasi Shivakumar S/o Anjaiah, Age.21 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Coolie, R/o Railway station road, Kothur village and Mandal.

2. Gampala Shekar S/o Late Balaiah, Age.20 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Coolie, R/o Kothur village and Mandal native of Ulpara village of Vangoor Mandal.

... Accused

* * *

This case is coming on 17-08-2018 for final hearing before me in the presence of the learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State and of Sri.D.Narsimulu, Sri.K.Srinivas Goud and Sri.T.Sreenivasulu, Advocates for accused and upon perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered following:

J U D G M E N T

The Sub Inspector of Police, Kothur, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of which are narrated hereunder:

On 10-11-2014 at 12.00 hours the complainant Pramodkumar singh (Lw.1) lodged a report in which he stated that at about 30 years back he came to KOthur from Bihar and put a Panshop at Kothur and sale the computers and Mobiles. On 09-11-2014 night hours an un-known offenders broken the roof top iron sheets of his shop and entered into the shop and 2 committed theft of (37) cell phones and one computer set, approximately theft items value of Rs.45,000/-. Finally he requested for taking necessary action.

2. On receipt of the above complaint, the Lw.8 A.Surya Naik S.I of Police has registered a case in Cr.No.310/2014 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and took up the investigation. During the course of the further investigation he examined and recorded the statement of Lw.1 and visited the scene of offence which is situated at Sri Hanuman Mobiles shop main road, Kothur village and drafted the scene of crime observation report in crime details form in the presence of Lws.4 and 5. On 11-11-2014 he arrested the accused 1 and 2 and recovered stolen property (37) cell phones and one computer set under cover of confession cum recovery panchanama in the presence of mediators Lws.6 and 7 and sent them for judicial custody. Hence this charge sheet.

3.This case was taken on file under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC against

Accused 1 and 2.

4. After appearance of the accused in court, they were furnished with copies of documents as required U/s. 207 Cr.P.C.

5. The accused were examined U/s. 239 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied the offence. Charges under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC have been framed against Accused read over and explained to him in Telugu and when questioned, accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined Pws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7 documents and M.Os.1 and 2 also marked and closed the evidence.

7.After the closure of prosecution evidence, the accused were examined

U/s.313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, the accused denied the evidence.

8.Heard both sides.

9.The point that arises for determination is:-

(i) “Whether the Accused have committed an offence punishable under Sections 457 and 380 IPC?”

(ii) “Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt?”

10. Points 1 and 2:- Points 1 and 2 are interrelated and thus discussed together. It is the case of prosecution in nut shell that on 09-11-2014 night hours an un-known offenders broken the roof top iron sheets of his shop of complainant and entered into the shop and committed theft of (37) cell phones and one computer set, approximately theft items value of

Rs.45,000/- and thus the accused committed the offence under sections 457 and 380 of IPC.

In this case Pw.1 who is complainant stated in his evidence on 09-11- 2014 after closing his mobile shop on the same day night some unknown offenders committed theft of 37 cell phones and one computer set from his shop by breaking the roof top iron sheets and enter into his shop. On the next day morning when he opened the shop he noticed about the theft of cell phones and computer set total worth of the said items is approximately

Rs.60,000/-. Immediately he went to police station and lodged Ex.P1 report.

He had taken interim custody of the cell phones and computer set marked as

Mos.1 and 2.

Pw.2 is the circumstantial witness stated in his evidence that in the year 2014 that on one day some unknown offenders committed theft from the shop of Pw.1 mobile shop by breaking the roof top iron sheets and enter into his shop. On the next day morning when he opened the shop they 4 noticed about the theft of cell phones 37 and computer set. Immediately

Pw.1 went to police station and lodged report.

Pws.3 and 4 are the panch witnesses for confession cum recovery panchanama and Pw.5 panch witness for scene of offence not supported the case of prosecution and turned hostile by the learned APP.

Pw.6 is the panch witness for scene of offence deposed that on 10-11- 2014 the police called him to scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama and drawn rough sketch in his presence and obtained his signature on Ex.P5 crime details form.

Pw.7 is the investigating officer stated in his evidence that on 10-11- 2014 he received Ex.P1 report from Pw.1, basing on it he registered a case in

Cr.No.310/2014 under sections 457 and 380 of IPC and issued Ex.P6 First

Information report. He proceeded to the scene of offence and conducted scene of offence panchanama in the presence of Pws.5 and 6 and drawn scene of crime observation report in crime details form and obtained their signatures on crime details form. On 11-11-2014 he arrested A1 and A2 and recovered the stolen property under cover of confession cum recovery panchanama in the presence of Pws.3 and 4. Ex.P7 is the confession cum recovery panchanama and sent the accused to judicial custody and thereafter filed charge sheet.

A careful perusal of entire evidence has to be examined in the light of settled legal propositions. The prosecution case reveals that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of Pws.1, 2 and

Pw.8 with regard to committing of theft of (37) cell phones and one computer set of Pw.1 and also recovery of property from the accused. Even the panch witnesses for confession cum seizure panchanama did not support the case of prosecution and did not state about seized property and there is no identity of accused. Due to paucity of evidence, Exs.P1 to P7 documents may 5 not through much light in respect of their allegations leveled against the accused. The cardinal principle of criminal Jurisprudence is that, if the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused are entitled for benefit of doubt. The accused cannot be convicted under the ground that the accused may have committed the crime. So unless the contrary is proved, the accused are presumed to be innocent. Hence benefit of doubt is given to the accused. Thus the points 1 and 2 are answered against the case of the prosecution.

12.In the result, the accused 1 and 2 are found not guilty for the charges under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC and they are acquitted u/s 248(1), Cr.P.C.

Accused are set at liberty and their bail bonds stands cancelled after expiry of appeal time. The M.Os.1 and 2 already returned to Pw.1 be retained by him.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer directly in system corrected and pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 20th day of August 2018.

Judl. Magistrate of Ist Class, Shadnagar.

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR

PROSECUTION DEFENCE

Pw.1 Promod Kumar Singh None Pw.2 Srinivas Pw.3 D.Bheemaiah Pw.4 Shivachary Pw.5 T.Srinivas Reddy Pw.6 Praveen Pw.7 A.Surya Naik, C.I of Police

DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR

PROSECUTION:DEFENCE:

Ex.P1 Report -Nil- 6

Ex.P2 Signature of Pw.3 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P3 Signature of Pw.4 on confession cum seizure panchanama Ex.P4 Signature of Pw.5 on Crime Details From Ex.P5 Crime Details From Ex.P6 First Information Report Ex.P7 Confession cum seizure panchanama

MATERIAL OBJECTS: M.O.1 37 Cell Phones M.O.2 One Computer set

Prl.Junior Civil Judge-cum- Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Shadnagar.

Order Record 688 total

Case No.	Parties	Date	Type	Outcome
CC/424/2015	PS Kothur vs Sinasi Shivakumar	20 Aug 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/661/2015	PS Kothur vs Narra Mahendar	20 Aug 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/228/2015	PS KOTHUR vs Laxman GatereddiHal	17 Aug 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/321/2015	PS Kothur vs Manga Sharath Chandra	17 Aug 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/322/2015	PS Kothur vs Yellaram Babiah	17 Aug 2018	Judgment	Acquitted
CC/432/2015	PS KOTHUR vs Manchala Venkataiah	17 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/641/2015	PS Kothur vs KSubash	17 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
OS/83/2018	IIapuram Srinivas Reddy vs Gopu Sathaiah	14 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/5/2016	Pasham Yadagiri vs Bachali Balaiah	13 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/12/2016	Baindla Bhagyamma vs Gouri Ramaswamy	13 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
OS/118/2010	Venkatesh vs Satyamma	08 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
OS/78/2018	Md. Jani Miya Alis Abdul Saheb vs The Tahsildar Kothur	07 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
OS/111/2016	C.Santhosha vs Mailaram Ramulu	07 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
OS/81/2012	Smt Vollu Yadamma vs M Ashok Kumar	03 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/830/2015	PS.KONDURG vs Medipally Adivaiah	03 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
OS/26/2018	Ganji Venkatamma vs The Tahsildhar Keshampet Village of mandal	02 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/97/2017	Kothur P.S. Darga Kishor vs Shaik Afroj	02 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/169/2017	KondurgP.S. Tuppugudam Maipal Reddy vs Thuppugudam Madava Reddy	02 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/213/2017	sri potlla damodar reddy ps kondurg vs Vspadamoru ramaswamy	02 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/684/2015	PS. Kondurg vs Mutpur Gopal	02 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/101/2015	PS Kothur vs Mora Shanker Reddy	01 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
CC/629/2015	PS. Kondurg vs Rahul Choubey	01 Aug 2018	Judgment	—
STC/240/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs M. Rajashekar Reddy	01 Aug 2018	order	—
OS/49/2018	Nadikuda Anjaneyulu vs Pathlavath Raju	31 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
OS/50/2018	Nadikuda Anjaneyulu vs Jatavath Ravi	31 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
OS/90/2007	Mangali Krishna vs Chand Sab	31 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
OS/91/2007	Yelgoni Nageshwar vs Chand Sab	31 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/100195/2016	kothur P.S. Gullani IIaiah vs Pathlavath Vijay	31 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
STC/235/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs K. Srikantha chary	31 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/236/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs B. Shiva Kumar	31 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/237/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Vadee Narsimulu	31 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/238/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Nihararaji Behra	31 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/239/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Madhusudhan Reddy	31 Jul 2018	order	—
OS/14/2018	Talasani Yadi Reddy vs Pattila Padma	30 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/571/2015	PS. Kondurg vs Baddula Narsimhulu	30 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/708/2015	PS. Kondurg vs Panchi vijay Raju	30 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
STC/232/2018	The SHOTraiff PS Shadnagar vs G. Saiprakash	30 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/233/2018	The SHO PS KONDURG vs Epatoor Yadaiaha	30 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/234/2018	The Sho Traiff Shadnagar vs Kumari Balaraju	30 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/227/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Kistmat Alli	28 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/228/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Ramakrishna	28 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/229/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Chakali Srinivaslu	28 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/230/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Tayyab MD	28 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/231/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs P. Tulcha	28 Jul 2018	order	—
OS/19/2018	Vadthyavath Neelya vs Amar Singh Thilavath	27 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/443/2015	PS. Kondurg vs Doma Narsimhulu	27 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/444/2015	PS Kothur vs Thummalapally Sudardshan Reddy	27 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/566/2015	PS. Kondurg vs Girigante Shanker	27 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
STC/222/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Nadigamma Jagaiaha	27 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/223/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs V. Shashidhar Nayak	27 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/224/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs M. Santhosh	27 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/225/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Chenna reddy	27 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/226/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Shiva Kuamar	27 Jul 2018	order	—
CC/806/2015	PS. Kondurg vs Alampally Krishna Reddy	26 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
STC/218/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs K. Rajendhar	26 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/219/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Viswanth Ratnama	26 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/220/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Rama Krishana	26 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/100221/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, Kondurg P.S. vs Vanama Prasad	26 Jul 2018	order	—
CC/839/2015	PS KOTHUR vs Govind Shekar	25 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
PRC/100003/2018	Maddela Vitalaiah PS Kothur vs Tadakala Narasimha	25 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/217/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Raju Nanjaipooram	25 Jul 2018	order	—
OS/71/2017	Chakali Ravinder vs Shaikeel Ahemed	24 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
STC/215/2018	The Sho PS Kondurg vs Parigi Shiva	24 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/216/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Bojigari Yadaiah	24 Jul 2018	order	—
OS/35/2018	Pathlavath Chandhi vs The Tahsildar	23 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
CC/238/2017	saleti sujatha vs Vsdheema krishana	23 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
STC/210/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs Maru Ray	23 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/211/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs V. Yadaiah	23 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/212/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs B. Prasad Mistra	23 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/213/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs M. Rajender	23 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/214/2018	The Sho Traiff PS Shadnagar vs J. Naresh	23 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/204/2018	The SHO Traiffic PS Shadnagar vs B. Nareesh	21 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/205/2018	The SHO Traiffic PS Shadnagar vs N. Vinay Kumar	21 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/206/2018	The SHO Traiffic PS Shadnagar vs MD. Shakil	21 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/207/2018	The SHO Traiffic PS Shadnagar vs Dhaema	21 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/208/2018	The SHO Traiffic PS Shadnagar vs Karneti Laxmaiah	21 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/209/2018	The SHO Traiffic PS Shadnagar vs Avusali Anjanelulu	21 Jul 2018	order	—
OS/41/2018	Gadigela Balraj vs Kotha Yadaiah	20 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
STC/203/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Jilled-chowdarigudam vs MD.Aslam Pasha	20 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/201/2018	The SHO PS Chawdarigudem vs Edigi Pandu	19 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/202/2018	The SHO Traffic PS Shdnagar vs Penta Reddy Dhanaraji Reddy	19 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/200/2018	The SHO PS Chawdarigudem vs Chintha Kindhi Srinivas	18 Jul 2018	order	—
OS/56/2013	Ms. Radico Khaithan Ltd vs Yenugu Janardhan Reddy	17 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
STC/198/2018	The SHO PS Kondurg vs A. Krishnaiah	17 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/199/2018	Inspector of Police, Shadnagar Traffic vs Gannaoju Rajalingam	17 Jul 2018	order	—
CC/100240/2016	Kondurg P.S. M.Venkateshwarlu vs Naramoni Ramulu	16 Jul 2018	Judgment	—
STC/141/2018	P.S.Nandigama vs Takib Alam	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/142/2018	P.S.Nandigama vs A.Anjaneyulu goud	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/143/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Nandigama, Cyberabad. vs B.Sanjeeva	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/144/2018	Su-Inspector of Police Nandigama P.S. vs Mangali Krishnaiah	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/145/2018	Sub-Inpsector of Police, P.S. Nandigama, Cyberabad vs Telugu Balakrishna	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/146/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Nandigama Cyberabad vs Kavali Venkatesh	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/147/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S. Nandigama Cyberabad vs Neerati Naresh	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/148/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Nandigama, Cyberbad. vs K.Yadaiah	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/149/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police,Nandigama PS. Cyberbad vs Ummetala Yadaiah	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/150/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Nandigama,Cyberbad vs Mohammed Harshad	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/151/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Nandigama,Cyberbad vs Kummari Srinivas	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/152/2018	Sub-Inspector of Police, P.S.Nandigama,Cyberbad vs Raju Kumar	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/153/2018	The SHO PS Kothur vs M. Dewaraj	14 Jul 2018	order	—
STC/154/2018	The SHO PS Kothur vs Vasla Sudharshan Chary	14 Jul 2018	order	—

Showing 100 of 688 orders — Log in to browse all pages.

Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)

Aug 2018		23
Jul 2018		147
Jun 2018		59
May 2018		59
Apr 2018		62
Mar 2018		35
Feb 2018		47
Jan 2018		13
Dec 2017		35
Nov 2017		20
Oct 2017		23
Sep 2017		46

Frequently Asked Questions

How many cases has Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy handled?

Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy has handled 710 court orders since 2017 at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 46 orders per month.

What types of cases does Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy hear?

Based on available records, Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy primarily handles Criminal matters (Criminal Cases, Summary Trial Cases) and Civil matters (Original Suits, Execution Petitions) at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex.

Where is Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy currently posted?

Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy is posted as Prl Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex, Rangareddy, Telangana.

Are judgments by Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy available online?

Yes. 5 judgments by Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.

How fast does Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy dispose cases?

Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy disposes approximately 46 cases per month, based on 710 orders handled over their tenure at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex.

Since when is Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy serving?

Smt.G.Sunitha Ravindra Reddy has been serving at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex since 2017.

Case Types

CC 41%

STC 36%

OS 21%

PRC 2%

ELECOP 0%

EP 0%

OP 0%

Posting History

May 2017 — Aug 2018

Prl Junior Civil Judge · 710 orders

Outcomes on Record

Acquitted 5

Other Judges at this Court

Ms. S.swathi Reddy

Fast Track Special Judge for trial and disposal of...

2 orders

Mr. Kotha Ravi

Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistra...

113 orders

Ms. M.Sahithi

I Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-I Additional J...

1 orders

K.Dasharatha Ramaiah

Senior Civil Judge-cum-IX Additional Chief Judicia...

0 orders

← View all judges at Shadnagar, ADJ Court Complex