Smt.G.Vijaya Lakshmi

1

APKD020040132019

IN THE COURT OF THE III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION) :: KADAPA.

Present : Smt. G. Vijaya Lakshmi, III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kadapa.

Monday, this the 23rdday of March, 2026

Original Suit No.1192 of 2019

Between : Sulam Chinna Polanna @ Chinna Polaiah, S/o. Late Polaiah,

Hindu, aged 49 years, Agriculturist, residing at D.No.4/95,

Seethourpalli Village, Pydikalva Post, Vallur Mandal, Kadapa

District.

...Plaintiff.

Vs.

Velupula Bhavani, W/o. Velpula Chinna Reddiah, Hindu, aged about 27 years, Housewife, residing at D.No.4/45, Seethourpalli

Village, Pydikalva Post, Vallur Mandal, Kadapa District.

… Defendant.

This suit is coming on 17.03.2026 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri D. Lakshmi Narayana, Advocate for the plaintiff and of Sri.V.Rama Mohan, Advocate for the defendant and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court made the following :

2

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

01.This suit has instituted by the Plaintiff against the defendant to declare the right and title of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and consequently directing the defendant, her men, successors, agents and other persons claiming through them from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property by means of permanent injunction, also to cancel the Registered Gift

Deed 22.11.2019 (Doc.No.4114/2019) executed in favour of the defendant by her husband Velpula Chinna Reddaiah as sham null and void and for costs of the suit.

02. Case of the Plaintiff’s :-

The Plaintiff submits that, he is the absolute lawful owner of the suit schedule property and originally, the total extent of Sy. No.336 situated in

Pydikalva village fields is Ac.10-65 cents and out of the said total extent,

Ac.7.67 cents was originally belonged to one Sulam Golla Papigadu @

Papanna which is evidenced by concerned R.S.R. & R.H.R. Thereafter, his death, the said property was devolved upon his son, Sulam Polaiah who is father of the plaintiff. While the said Sulam Polaiah was alive, he has got mortgaged an extent of Ac. 5-00 cents of property only and obtained a crop loan from Valur PACS on 16.03.1988 which evidences his possession, enjoyment and ownership. Thereafter his death, the said

3

entire property of Ac.7-67 cents was devolved upon the plaintiff. However, the above referred mortgage was got released by the plaintiff on 04.07.2016 by way of registered release deed. Thus, the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the said entire property of Ac.7-67 cents and a certificate to that effect issued by the Village Revenue Officer dated 20.06.2017, Copy of 1-B extract and Adangal/Pahani dated 16.6.2017 issued by Tahsildar. Vallur through Mee Seva. Later the plaintiff has got availed loan from Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank, Pedda Cheppali against his above referred property in the year 2003 itself and in the year 2016, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has waived off the agricultural loans and as a part of it, the Government has issued a Certificate dated 08.06.2016 in favour of the plaintiff. Meanwhile one Potu Balalah has got filed a suit in O.S.No. 340/2017 on the file Hon’ble III Addl. Junior Civil

Judge Court Kadapa against the plaintiff and one Chavali Uttaiah claiming

an extent of Ac.3-00 in Sy.No.336 and the said Uttaiah was a formal party.

The said suit ended in compromise before Hon'ble Lok Adalat and the plaintiff has given away an extent of Ac.1-30 cents to the said Potu

Balaiah. So, after deducting the said property of Ac.1-30 cents from the property of Ac.7-67 cents, an extent of Ac 6-37 cents is remained under the ownership, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff.

While so, on 11.7.2018 the plaintiff has sold away an extent of

4

Ac.1-00 cents to one Sadda Eswara Reddy under a Registered Sale

Deed vide Doc. No. 1879/2018 Later, on 18.7.2018 the plaintiff has sold away another extent of Ac.2-00 cents to one Velpula Nagaraju under a

Registered Sale Deed vide Doc. No. 1955/2018.Thus, after the said two sales of Ac.3-00, an extent of Ac.3-37 cents was remained under the ownership, possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. This property of

Ac.3-37 cents in Sy.No.336 is the suit property and the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and evidencing the said fact, Certified

Copies of 1-B extract dated 20.02.2019 and 26.07.2019 were issued by the Tahsildar, Vallur Mandal through Mee Seva in favour of the plaintiff for the suit property of Ac.3-37 cents.

While so, the defendant and her husband have started to canvass that an extent of Ac.2-24 cents in the suit property of the plaintiff belongs to them. When it is questioned by the plaintiff, they did not show any documents. However, the plaintiff has secured the information and obtained Certified Copy of a Registered Gift Deed dated 22.11.2019 (Doc.No.4114/2019) under which the husband of the defendant has gifted away the said extent of Ac.2-24 cents in Sy. No. 336 in her favour by showing wrong boundaries. The above referred Potu Balaiah who run the previous litigation with the plaintiff is behind back of the said registered gift deed and admittedly he is one of the attesters in the said Gift Deed.

5

The defendant has no right or title to the said property and in fact he has no property at all in Sy. No. 336 and the said registered gift deed is a fraudulent document. The donor, i.e., husband of the plaintiff himself has no right or title to the alleged gifted property and consequently the donee will not derive any right or title to such non-est property. By virtue of the said fraudulent document, the defendant with the support of her husband and his henchmen is trying to illegally occupy the suit property high- handedly and also trying to create third party interest over the alleged gifted property. Hence the suit for declaration of right and title of the plaintiff over the suit property and consequential permanent injunction and also for cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 22.11.2019 as it is sham, null and void. Hence the plaintiff obliged to file the present suit.

3. Case of the Defendant :

The defendant filed her written statement by denying some of the allegations made by the plaintiff. She further submitted that above said

Sulam Golla Papigadu alias Papanna is having two sons 1) Sulam Pedda

Polanna 2) Sulam Chinna Polanna alias Polaiah i.e., plaintiff here in. The said Sulam Pedda Polanna has got Ac.2.50 cents and Sulam chinna polanna has got Ac 2.50 cents. But the plaintiff played a fraud upon his elder brother, and grabbed his brother's share also i.e., Ac 2.50 cents and the same was pledged in Valluru PACS. The plaintiff by playing fraud

6

upon his co-sharers and obtained adangals for the total extent of Ac 7.67 cents in his name and on that one Potu Balaiah has also filed a suit against the plaintiff which was settled before DLSA. Infact the plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any point of time and the plaintiff played a fraud with revenue officials and obtained 1-B and Adangal in his name, though he is not in actual possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The plaintiff has got an Ac. 3.98 cents towards his share, out of which the plaintiff sold away an extent of Ac. 1.00 to one Sadda Eshwar Reddy on 11/7/2018 by virtue of register sale deed and Ac 2.00 was sold to one Velpula Nagaraju by virtue of register sale deed dated 18/7/2018 and Ac. 1.30 cents was given to Potu Balaiah towards his share. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac 0.70 cents only out of Ac. 5.00. The total extent of suit schedule property is Ac. 10.65 cents out of which 1) Sulam Chinna

Polanna has got Ac 3.98 cents 2) Pullarevu Ganganıma has got Ac 2.54 cents 3) Pullalarevu Obanna had got Ac 1.90 cents 4) Velpula Chinna

Reddaiah i.e., husband to this defendant has got Ac 2.50 cents. Infact the defendant and her husband are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the Tahsildar of Vallur Mandal has also issued

Pattadar passbook in favor of husband of this defendant. This defendant's husband is in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 2.50 cents which is part

7

and parcel of plaint schedule property since several decades through inheritance for more than 4 decades and hence the defendant's husband is in possession and enjoyment of the above said Ac. 2.50 cents for the past 16 years. Subsequently, the defendant’s husband has executed a gift deed in favor of defendant on 22.11.2019 by virtue of registered gift deed with specific boundaries. Further the defendant submits that, she accepted the gift given by her husband by virtue of registered Gift deed

dated: 22.11.2019, ever since then the defendant is in possession and

enjoyment of the property covered under gift deed dated 22.11.2019 and the defendant's donar has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 2.50 cents for more than 40 years. On that, the gift deed is not nominal and sham document as alleged by the plaintiff. Moreover the plaintiff has sold out what extent he got through inheritance I.e., Ac 3.98 cents was sold by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for the plaintiff approached this honorable court with unclean hands by suppressing all the facts. Hence the defendant prays the court to dismiss the suit with costs.

04.Basing on the rival contentions of both parties the following issues were settled for trial :-

(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for Declaration of Right and Title as lawful owner of plaint schedule property as prayed for ?

8

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for cancellation of Registered Gift Deed, dt. 22.11.2019 vide Doc.No. 4114/2019 as null and void?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the consequential relief of permanent injunction by restraining the defendant and her men and agents, associates from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the plaint schedule property as prayed?

(iv) To what relief?

05. During the course of trial, the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are examined as P.W.1 and PW.2, and Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 are marked through the plaintiff. On the other hand, the defendant failed to cross examine the witnesses and she did not adduced any evidence on her behalf except filing her written statement, after granting of sufficient time by this

honorable court. Hence the defendant’s side evidence is closed.

06.Heard. Perused the record.

ISSUE No.1 to 4 :-

07.In order to prove the case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself examined as P.W.1 & PW.2 and reiterated the plaint averments in their chief affidavit, the averments of the chief affidavits of PW.1 & PW.2 are nothing but replica of the plaint averments. Hence, the same are not reiterated to avoid repetition. To substantiate the case of the plaintiff, he filed documentary evidence viz.,Ex.A.1 is the Duly Attested Copy of

R.S.R of Pydikalva Village including the Sy.No.336 issued by the Public

Information Officer/Dy.Tahsildar, Vallur Mandal, dt.09.12.2019. Ex.A.2 is

9

the Endorsement, dt.09.12.2019 issued by the Public Information

Officer/Dy.Tahsildar, Vallur Mandal Under R.T.I. Act furnishing Copy of

R.S.R. Ex.A.3 is the Certified Copy of R.H.R including Sy.No.336 and showing the name of the Golla Papigadu (Paternal Grandfather of the

Plaintiff). Ex.A.4 is the Genealogy Certificate issued by Village Revenue

Officer, Pydikalva, Vallur Mandal. Ex.A.5 is the Registered Mortgage

Release Deed, dt.04.07.2016 executed by C.E.O., of Vallur PACS in favour of the plaintiff. Ex.A.6 is the Possession Certificate, dt.20.06.2017 issued by Village Revenue Officer, Pydikalva, Vallur Mandal in favour of the plaintiff (for Ac.7.67 cents). Ex.A.7 is the 1-B extract, dt.16.06.2017 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for

Ac.7.67 cents). Ex.A.8 is the Adangal/Pahani, dt.16.06.2017 issued by

Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.7.67 cents). Ex.A.9 is the Certificate of Waiver of Loan, dt.08.06.2016 issued by in favour of the plaintiff in respect of his loan of Andhra Pragathi

Grameen Bank issued by the Government of A.P. Ex.A.10 is the 1-B extract, dt.10.07.2017 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.7.67 cents). Ex.A.11 is the Adangal/Pahani, dt.10.07.2017 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through

Mee-Seva (for Ac.7.67 cents). Ex.A.12 is the Copy of Certified Copy of

Award Lok Adalath, dt.22.04.2018. Ex.A.13 is the Certified Copy of

10

Registered Sale Deed, dt.11.07.2018 executed by the plaintiff in favour of

Satta Eswar Reddy. Ex.A.14 is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale

Deed, dt.18.07.2018 executed by the plaintiff in favour of Velpula

Nagaraju. Ex.A.15 is the 1-B extract, dt.20.02.2019 issued by Tahsildar,

Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.3.37 cents).

Ex.A.16 is the 1-B extract, dt.26.07.2019 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.3.37 cents). Ex.A.17 is the Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed, dt.22.11.2019 executed in faour of the defendant by her husband, Velpula Chinna Reddaiah (for

Ac.2.24 cents). Ex.A.18 is the Encumbrance Certificate, dt.09.12.2019 for the period from 01.01.1956 to 31.12.1984 issued by S.R.O.,

Kamalapuram. Ex.A.19 is the Encumbrance Certificate, dt.12.12.2019 for the period from 01.01.1985 to 08.12.2019 issued by S.R.O.,

Kamalapuram.

During his cross examination, PW.1 admitted that, they are 02 sons to his father and he is the younger son and the said fact was not mentioned either in his plaint or in his chief examination affidavit. He admitted hat, he is aged about 53 Years and his brother is aged about 73 years and his father was passed away at about 40 years back. He denied the suggestion that, after demise of his father, his brother used to look after the entire property by doing cultivation in an extent of Ac.10.65

11

cents. He admitted that, he do not remember whether he have filed the family member certificate to show that, he is the legal representative of his father to succeed his estate after his demise. He admitted that, he do not filed any document to show that, the total extent of plaint schedule property is Ac.10.65 cents which is self acquired property of his father.

PW.1 adds that, he came to know in the year, 2019 that, the defendant’s husband got mutated all the revenue records in his name in respect of property in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents including the plaint schedule property. He admitted that, he do not know whether the defendant’s husband has obtained a Loan from the Bank in respect of property in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.336.

He denied the suggestion that, his father is having right and title over the property in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents only but not the entire suit schedule property. He denied the suggestion that, his brother has sold away the property in an extent of Ac.2.54 cents to one P. Gangamma and an extent of Ac.1.90 cents to P. Obanna and an extent of Ac.2.54 cents

Velpula Chinna Reddaiah and he acquired the remaining property in an extent of Ac.3.98 cents, out of the total extent of the property of Ac.10.65 cents. He denied the suggestion that, the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule property are not true and correct and that the plaint schedule property was acquired by the defendants husband and he is in

12

possession and enjoyment of said property for the last 40 years as rightful owner. He denied the suggestion that, the then Tahsildar also issued a

Pattadar passbook in favour of defendant to a land in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents. He denied the suggestion that, the property in an extent of Ac.5.00 cents only devolved upon himself and his brother in a partition among their family members out of total extent of Ac.10.65 cents of his father property. He denied the suggestion that, out of Ac.5.00 cents of lands, he have sold away the property in an extent of Ac.1.00 cents to one S. Eswar

Reddy on dt.11.07.2018 and a property in an extent of Ac.2.00 cnets to V.

Nagaraju on dt.18.07.2018 and a property in an extent of Ac.1.30 cents to one P. Balaiah, and that, at present,he is in possession and enjoyment of property in an extent of Ac.0.70 cents only. He denied the suggestion that, the plaint schedule property has been gifted by the Velpula Chinna Reddy to the defendant under a Gift Deed in the year, 2009. He denied the suggestion that, as per Ex.A.3, the name of ancestor of defendant’s husband by name Velpula Pullaiah is mentioned, to show that, the defendants’ ancestors have the property in an extent of Ac.2.50 cents in

Sy.No.336. He denied the suggestion that, the property in an extent of

Ac.2.50 cents in Sy.No.336 which is in the name of defendant’s husband as it was mutated in his name in the year, 2009 in all revenue records, and that, he did not added the defendant’s husband as a necessary party

13

to the suit. He denied the suggestion that, the plaint schedule property is the ancestral property of defendant’s husband and that, he is not in possession and enjoyment of the said property at any point of time and that, he is not entitled for the relief of declaration of plaint schedule property and that, he is entitled the right and title over the property in an extent of Ac.0.70 cents only. He denied the suggestion that, as he have not filed any documentary proof to show that, plaint schedule property is the self acquired property of ancestors of his father and that, he have no right to seek declaration over the plaint schedule property as prayed for and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

In order to support the contentions of the plaintiff one P.

Ramaiah is examined as PW.2 and filed his chief examination

affidavit and he corroborated with the evidence of the plaintiff in all aspects. PW.2 in his cross examination admitted that, the distance between his village and the village of plaintiff is about 10 Kilometers and that he do not have any agricultural lands in the plaintiff’s village and he used to attend some agricultural works at his village and since 20 years, he used to visit the plaint schedule property village. He admitted that to his knowledge the plaintiff is having a land in an extent of Ac.7.00 cents and he do not know whether the defendant is also having a land in an extent of Ac.2.23 cents at plaint schedule village. Presently, the plaintiff is

14

having possession and enjoyment of land in an extent of Ac.3.40 cents only at plaint schedule village and he do not know whether the defendants husband is having possession and enjoyment of the property in an extent of Ac.2.23 cents by mutating his name in all the revenue records. He stated that he do not know the total extent of plaint schedule property in which the plaintiff is claiming relief against the defendant.

He denied the suggestion that, he never used to visit the village in which the plaint schedule property is situated and in order to help the plaintiff, he is deposing false evidence and that, he is not having any land at Paidikalva Village, in his possession and enjoyment and that, the present suit is not maintainable against the defendant.

08.On the other hand, the defendant did not lead any evidence in support of her case. By filing written statement, the contention of the defendant is that, above said Sulam Golla Papigadu alias Papanna is having two sons 1) Sulam Pedda Polanna 2) Sulam Chinna Polanna alias

Polaiah i.e., plaintiff here in and the said Sulam Pedda Polanna has got

Ac.2.50 cents and Sulam chinna polanna has got Ac 2.50 cents. But the plaintiff played a fraud upon his elder brother, and grabbed his brother's share also i.e., Ac 2.50 cents and the same was pledged in Valluru PACS.

The plaintiff by playing fraud upon his co-sharers and obtained adangals for the total extent of Ac 7.67 cents in his name and on that one Potu

15

Balaiah has also filed a suit against the plaintiff which was settled before

DLSA. Infact the plaintiff is never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property at any point of time and the plaintiff played a fraud with revenue officials and obtained 1-B and Adangal in his name, though he is not in actual possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The plaintiff has got an Ac. 3.98 cents towards his share, out of which the plaintiff sold away an extent of Ac. 1.00 to one Sadda Eshwar

Reddy on 11/7/2018 by virtue of register sale deed and Ac 2.00 was sold to one Velpula Nagaraju by virtue of register sale deed dated 18/7/2018 and Ac. 1.30 cents was given to Potu Balaiah towards his share. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of Ac 0.70 cents only out of Ac.

5.00. The total extent of suit schedule property is Ac. 10.65 cents out of which 1) Sulam Chinna Polanna has got Ac 3.98 cents 2) Pullarevu

Ganganıma has got Ac 2.54 cents 3) Pullalarevu Obanna had got Ac 1.90 cents 4) Velpula Chinna Reddaiah i.e., husband to this defendant has got

Ac 2.50 cents. Infact the defendant and her husband are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and the Tahsildar of Vallur

Mandal has also issued Pattadar passbook in favor of husband of this defendant. This defendant's husband is in possession and enjoyment of

Ac. 2.50 cents which is part and parcel of plaint schedule property since several decades through inheritance for more than 4 decades and hence

16

the defendant's husband is in possession and enjoyment of the above said Ac. 2.50 cents for the past 16 years. Subsequently, the defendant’s husband has executed a gift deed in favor of defendant on 22.11.2019 by virtue of registered gift deed with specific boundaries. Further the defendant submits that, she accepted the gift given by her husband by virtue of registered Gift deed dated: 22.11.2019, ever since then the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property covered under gift deed dated 22.11.2019 and the defendant's donar has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac. 2.50 cents for more than 40 years. On that, the gift deed is not nominal and sham document as alleged by the plaintiff. Moreover the plaintiff has sold out what extent he got through inheritance I.e., Ac 3.98 cents was sold by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.

DISCUSSION, DECISION & REASONS THEREON :

09.The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking declaration of title, cancellation of the registered gift deed dated 22.11.2019 and consequential permanent injunction. At the outset, to prove his case, the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish his lawful title and possession over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff claims title through his grandfather Sulam Golla Papigadu and father Sulam Polaiah. The documentary evidence filed by the plaintiff, particularly, the Ex.A1 & Ex.A3

17

(RSR & RHR extracts), the Ex.A4 (Genealogy certificate), the Ex.A5 (Mortgage release deed), the Ex.A6 to Ex.A11 (Revenue records – 1B &

Adangal) and Ex.A15 & Ex.A16 (Subsequent revenue records) were clearly establish that the property in Sy.No.336 to an extent of Ac.7.67 cents originally belongs to the plaintiff’s family and subsequently devolved upon the plaintiff. Further, the Lok Adalat award (Ex.A12) and sale deeds (Ex.A13 & Ex.A14) shows that the plaintiff has dealt with the property as absolute owner, thereby strengthening his claim of title. Thus, the plaintiff has successfully proved that after alienation's, he remained in possession of Ac.3.37 cents, which constitutes the plaint schedule property. Per contra, the defendant contended that, the property was partitioned between family members and her husband has Ac.2.50 cents and she derived the title under Gift Deed dated 22.11.2019. However, crucially the defendant did not adduce any evidence on her behalf and no documents were filed to prove title, possession, or partition. It is a settled principle that pleadings without proof have no evidentiary value.

10. Further more, the defendant relies on the registered Gift Deed executed by her husband. However, the donor (defendant’s husband) failed to prove his title and no documentary evidence is produced to show his ownership and a person cannot convey better title than he possesses.

Thus, the alleged Gift Deed is void ab initio, as it relates to property over

18

which the donor has no established right. The revenue records (Ex.A15 &

Ex.A16) and oral evidence of PW1 & PW2 indicates that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property and the defendant, having failed to produce any evidence, cannot rebut this. Threfefore, this court finds that, the plaintiff is entitled to declaration, cancellation of gift deed, and permanent injunction. Accordingly, Issues 1 to 4 are answered.

11. In the result, the suit is decreed with costs and the plaintiff is hereby declared as the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property to an extent of Ac.3.37 cents in Sy.No.336 of Pydikalva Village. The

Registered Gift Deed dated 22.11.2019 (Doc.No.4114/2019) executed by Velpula Chinna Reddaiah in favour of the defendant is hereby declared as null, void and not binding on the plaintiff. The defendant, her men, agents, servants or anybody claiming through her are hereby permanently restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property by the plaintiff.

(Typed corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 23 rd day of March, 2026).

Sd/- G. Vijaya Lakshmi

III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION),KADAPA.

19

Appendix of Evidence No. of witnesses examined for

Plaintiff :- Defendant :-

P.W.1 : S. Chinna Polanna @ Chinna Poliaiah NIL

P.W.2: P. Ramaiah

No. of Exhibits Marked for

Plaintiff :-

Ex.A.1 is the Duly Attested Copy of R.S.R of Pydikalva Village including the Sy.No.336 issued by the Public Information Officer/Dy.Tahsildar, Vallur

Mandal, dt.09.12.2019.

Ex.A.2 is the Endorsement, dt.09.12.2019 issued by the Public

Information Officer/Dy.Tahsildar, Vallur Mandal Under R.T.I. Act furnishing

Copy of R.S.R

Ex.A.3 is the Certified Copy of R.H.R including Sy.No.336 and showing the name of the Golla Papigadu (Paternal Grandfather of the Plaintiff).

Ex.A.4 is the Genealogy Certificate issued by Village Revenue Officer,

Pydikalva, Vallur Mandal.

Ex.A.5 is the Registered Mortgage Release Deed, dt.04.07.2016 executed by C.E.O., of Vallur PACS in favour of the plaintiff.

Ex.A.6 is the Possession Certificate, dt.20.06.2017 issued by Village

20

Revenue Officer, Pydikalva, Vallur Mandal in favour of the plaintiff (for

Ac.7.67 cents).

Ex.A.7 is the 1-B extract, dt.16.06.2017 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.7.67 cents).

Ex.A.8 is the Adangal/Pahani, dt.16.06.2017 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.7.67 cents).

Ex.A.9 is the Certificate of Waiver of Loan, dt.08.06.2016 issued by in favour of the plaintiff in respect of his loan of Andhra Pragathi Grameen

Bank issued by the Government of A.P.

Ex.A.10 is the 1-B extract, dt.10.07.2017 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.7.67 cents).

Ex.A.11 is the Adangal/Pahani, dt.10.07.2017 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.7.67 cents).

Ex.A.12 is the Copy of Certified Copy of Award Lok Adalath, dt.22.04.2018.

Ex.A.13 is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed, dt.11.07.2018 executed by the plaintiff in favour of Satta Eswar Reddy.

Ex.A.14 is the Certified Copy of Registered Sale Deed, dt.18.07.2018 executed by the plaintiff in favour of Velpula Nagaraju.

Ex.A.15 is the 1-B extract, dt.20.02.2019 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.3.37 cents).

21

Ex.A.16 is the 1-B extract, dt.26.07.2019 issued by Tahsildar, Vallur in favour of the plaintiff through Mee-Seva (for Ac.3.37 cents).

Ex.A.17 is the Certified Copy of Registered Gift Deed, dt.22.11.2019 executed in faour of the defendant by her husband, Velpula Chinna

Reddaiah (for Ac.2.24 cents).

Ex.A.18 is the Encumbrance Certificate, dt.09.12.2019 for the period from 01.01.1956 to 31.12.1984 issued by S.R.O., Kamalapuram.

Ex.A.19 is the Encumbrance Certificate, dt.12.12.2019 for the period from 01.01.1985 to 08.12.2019 issued by S.R.O., Kamalapuram.

Defendants : NIL.

Sd/- G. Vijaya Lakshmi

III ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE

(JUNIOR DIVISION),KADAPA.

IN THE COURT OF I ADDITIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE OF I CLASS, KADAPA.

Present: Smt M.Reshma,

I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Thursday, this the 2nd day of April, 2026.

Calendar Case No.898 of 2019 Between:

Konda Eswar Reddy, S/o Ramalakshmi Reddy, 38 years, D.No.5/508, Ravindra Nagar, Kadapa City.

...Complainant

And

B.Haseena Banu, 50 years, W/o B.Veeeraiah, D.No.10/180, R.V.Nagar, Kadapa City. Now R/a D.No.58/384-23 SBI Colony, Mariyapuram, Kadapa.

…Accused

This case came up before me on 1.4.2026 for final hearing in the presence of the Sri A.Subramanyam, learned counsel for the complainant and

Sri P.Jayaramireddy, learned counsel for the accused and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-

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

1.This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 138 r/w 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, (hereinafter referred to as NI Act for the sake of brevity).

The gist of the complaint in brief is as follows:-

2.On 15.5.2014, the accused approached the complainant and borrowed an amount of Rs.65,000/- and Rs.60,000/- to meet her necessities, agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. In token thereof, the accused executed two promissory notes in favour of the complainant. On 17.03.2017, the accused had made a part payment of Rs.3,000/- in respect of two promissory notes and acknowledged the same on the back of two promissory notes dated 15.05.2014.

In spite of repeated demands, the accused did not repay the amount. On 01.08.2018, the accused issued two cheques bearing Nos.000101 and 000103 drawn on the Karur Vysya Bank, Kadapa, towards part discharge of the debt obtained via two promissory notes dt.15.05.2014, and the complainant presented the said cheques in his account through State Bank of India, Kadapa branch on the same day, but the said cheques were dishonoured with an endorsement “Funds Insufficient” vide two cheque return memos dt.02.08.2018. On 13.08.2018, the complainant got issued a legal notice to the accused to repay the cheque amount within 15 days, and the accused received the notice on 14.08.2018 but failed to repay the amount. The accused gave a reply notice on 10.09.2018 denying all the allegations. Thus, the accused committed an offence punishable u/Sec.138 r/w 142 of the N.I Act. Hence the complaint.

3.Cognizance was taken against the accused for the offence punishable under section 138 r/w 142 of the NI Act.

4.On the appearance of the accused, copies of documents were furnished to her as contemplated u/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C.

5.The accused was examined u/Sec.251 Cr.P.C. The substance of the accusation for the offence u/Sec.138 r/w 142 of NI Act was read over and explained to her in Telugu, for which she denied the offence, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the course of the trial, the complainant got himself examined as

PW1 and got marked exhibits P.1 to P.8. Ex.P.1 is the Original cheque bearing

No.000101, dt.1.8.2018 for Rs.60,000/-, Ex.P.2 is the Original cheque bearing

No.000103, dt.1.8.2018 for Rs.60,000/-, Ex.P.3 is the Bank return memo, dt.2.8.2018 return of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.4 is the Bank return memo dt.2.8.2018 return of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.5 is the Office copy of the legal notice dt.13.8.2018 along with postal receipt, Ex.P.6 is the Reply notice dt.10.9.2018 issued by the accused to the counsel for the complainant towards reply of Ex.P.5, Ex.P.7 is the Original promissory note dt.15.5.2014 said to have been executed by the accused in favor of the complainant for Rs.65,000/- along with writings on the backside of the promissory note dt.17.3.2017 regarding payment of Rs.3,000/- and Ex.P.8 is the Original promissory note dt.15.4.2014 said to have been executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.60,000/- along with writings on the backside of the promissory note dt.17.3.2017 regarding payment of Rs.3,000/-. The chief of PW2 is eschewed at the request of the complainant.

7.After the closure of the complainant’s evidence, the accused was examined u/Sec.313 Cr.P.C by explaining the incriminating material evidence made out against her, for which she denied the same and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard Arguments on both sides

Now the point for determination is:-

1. “Whether the complainant has successfully

established the essential ingredients of section

138 of NI Act beyond all reasonable doubt and to

the satisfaction of this Court” ?

2. “To what relief” ?

9.The complainant filed the present complaint u/Sec.138 of NI Act. The complainant himself got examined as PW.1 and has given evidence in the form of his chief affidavit. PW1 reiterated the contents of the complaint and got marked Ex.P1 to

P8. Ex.P.1 is the Original cheque bearing No.000101, dt.1.8.2018 for Rs.60,000/-,

Ex.P.2 is the Original cheque bearing No.000103, dt.1.8.2018 for Rs.60,000/-, Ex.P.3 is the Bank return memo, dt.2.3.2018 return of Ex.P.1, Ex.P.4 is the Bank return memo dt.2.3.2018 return of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.5 is the Office copy of the legal notice dt.13.8.2018 along with postal receipt, Ex.P.6 is the Reply notice dt.10.9.2018 issued by the accused to the counsel for the complainant towards reply of Ex.P.5, Ex.P.7 is the Original promissory note dt.15.5.2014 said to have been executed by the accused in favor of the complainant for Rs.65,000/- with an endorsement on the backside of the promissory note dt.17.3.2017 regarding payment of Rs.3,000/- and Ex.P.8 is the

Original promissory note dt.15.4.2014 said to have been executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.60,000/- with an endorsement on the backside of the promissory note dt.17.3.2017 regarding payment of Rs.3,000/-.

10.In order to establish the offence under section 138 of N.I. Act, the complainant must fulfil all the essential ingredients of the offence, as stated below:-

1)The cheque was drawn by a person on an account maintained by him/her for payment of money and the same is presented for payment within a period of 3 months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity.

2)The cheque was drawn by the drawer for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or other liability.

3)The cheque was returned unpaid by the bank due to either insufficiency of funds in the account to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account on an agreement made with that bank.

4)A demand of the said amount has been made by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque by a notice in writing given to the drawer within thirty days of the receipt of information of the dishonour of cheque from the bank.

5)The drawer fails to make payment of the said amount of money within fifteen days from the date of receipt of notice.

6)The complaint was presented within 30 days after the expiry of the above 15 days.

11.It is the contention of the accused that there is no legally enforceable debt between the complainant and the accused and that the debt was time-barred. It is further the contention of the accused that, as there are no signatures under the alleged acknowledgement, the acknowledgement cannot be considered a valid one and that the complainant forged the signatures of the accused on the cheques and the promissory notes and filed this false case against the accused. The accused further contended that he never issued any cheque to the complainant for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

12.This court intends to rely upon the decision in 2009 (2) ALD Criminal (NOC) 15 KERALA Shaji Vs. Ignatious wherein the Hon’ble High Court held that the presumption as to under the section 139 of N.I Act is not available when the very execution of cheque is not proved by the evidence of P.W.1. Without proving execution of promissory note and consideration for that promissory note, it is not possible to uphold the case of the complainant that Ex.P1/Cheque was issued towards repayment of amount due under the promissory note. The case should have been upheld only on establishing that the amount covered by the promissory note was a legally recoverable debt. Weakness of a defence case will not enable the complainant to accept his case or to get a verdict of guilt against the accused without establishing the ingredients of the offence.

13.It is a settled principle of law that once the accused has taken a plea that the cheque was not issued for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt, then the complainant is bound to prove the circumstances under which the cheque was given in his/her favour and that the same was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Unless the complainant discharges his initial burden, the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act cannot be made available against the accused.

14.Now we have to see whether the complainant discharged his initial burden.

15.Admittedly, the complainant got acquaintance with the accused. During his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that there are no signatures of the accused below the endorsements on Ex.P7 and Ex.P8. Other than general denials, nothing could be culled out from the cross-examination of the accused.

16.The learned counsel for the accused relied upon Kumram Srinivasa

Chari Vs State of Telangana 2019 (1) ALD Crl 496 A.P. However, the facts of the above case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case.

17.At this juncture, This Court deems it appropriate to reproduce Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows:-

Effect of acknowledgment in writing.—(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.

(2). Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right,

(b).The word “signed” means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorized in this behalf, and

(c). An application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.

18.According to Section 18 Explanation (b) of the Limitation Act, whenever an acknowledgement is made, it must be duly signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised on his behalf. On perusal of Ex.P7 and Ex.P8, there are no signatures below the endorsement. In the absence of such signatures, the requirements of Section 18 are not satisfied, and therefore, Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 cannot be treated as valid acknowledgements. Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 are dated 15.05.2014. The date on Ex.P1 is 1.08.2018. In the absence of any valid acknowledgement, the debt is time-barred, and the cheque issued for a time-barred debt is not a legally enforceable debt. There is no material placed on record to show that the limitation period was extended by any valid acknowledgement or part payment. A careful perusal of the record shows that even for a second, if it is assumed that Ex.P1 was issued by the accused in favour of the complainant, the debt under Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 was time-barred as the limitation period is 3 years from the date of execution of the promissory note.

19.This court intends to rely upon Rakesh Agarwal vs K.Narasimha Rao and

State wherein the Hon'ble Court held that once the promissory note debt is barred by time, it cannot be brought within Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, treating the cheque as an acknowledgment of the time-barred debt.

20.Further in A. Yesubabu vs D.Appala Swamy and Anr 2003(2)ALD (CRI)707 and another the Hon'ble Court held that if any cheque is issued by the accused after expiry of the limitation for releasing the debt, it cannot be said that it was issued for a legally enforceable debt.

21.It is a settled principle of law that a cheque issued towards a time-barred debt does not constitute a legally enforceable liability. Since the existence of a legally enforceable debt is a sine qua non for attracting liability under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque in question cannot be said to have been issued in discharge of such liability. Hence, the complainant had miserably failed to prove that there is a legally enforceable debt between him and the accused.

22.In view of the aforementioned reasons, this court is inclined to hold that the complainant failed to establish that there is a legally enforceable debt between himself and the accused, and the cheque/EX-P1 was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. Accordingly, the above point is answered in favour of the accused and against the complainant.

In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and accordingly, she is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Typed by me corrected and pronounced in the open court on the 2nd day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Memo Of Evidence

Witnesses examined for Complainant:

PW.1: Konda Eswar Reddy,

PW.2: N.Siva Krishna Reddy (Eschewed)

For Defence:

-Nil-

Exhibits marked for Complainant:

Ex.P.1: Original cheque bearing No.000101, dt.1.8.2018 for Rs.60,000/-.

Ex.P.2: Original cheque bearing No.000103, dt.1.8.2018 for Rs.60,000/-

Ex.P.3: Bank return memo, dt.2.3.2018 return of Ex.P.1.

Ex.P.4: Bank return memo dt.2.3.2018 return of Ex.P.2.

Ex.P.5: Office copy of the legal notice dt.13.8.2018 along with postal receipt.

Ex.P.6: Reply notice dt.10.9.2018 issued by the accused to the counsel for the complainant towards reply of Ex.P.5.

Ex.P.7:Original promissory note dt.15.5.2014 said to have been executed by the accused in favor of the complainant for Rs.65,000/- along with writings on the backside of the promissory note dt.17.3.2017 regarding payment of

Rs.3,000/-.

Ex.P.8: Original promissory note dt.15.4.2014s aid to have been executed by the accused in favour of the complainant for Rs.60,000/- along with writings on the backside of the promissory note dt.17.3.2017 regarding payment of

Rs.3,000/-.

For Defence:

-Nil-

Material Objects Marked:

-Nil-

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I A.J.F.C.M, Kdp.

Calendar And Judgment

Calendar and Judgment tried by I Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Kadapa.

DATE OF

Offence ReportApprehensioReleaseCommencementClose ofJudgment n of accusedon bailof trial trial 2.8.20182.8.2018- -- -5.2.20211.4.20262.4.2026

Calendar and Judgment in Calendar Case No.898 of 2019 on the file of I Additional

Judicial Magistrate of I Class Court, Kadapa.

Name of the accused withAgeReligionResidence father's Name.

1234

D.No.10/180,R.V.Nagar, B.Haseena Banu, 50 years, W/o Kadapa City. Now R/a 50 - B.Veeeraiah, D.No.58/384-23, SBI Colony, Mariyapuram, Kadapa.

Offence : u/Sec.138 r/w.142 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Finding : Accused is found not guilty of the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Sentence: In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable u/Sec.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and accordingly, she is acquitted u/Sec.255 (1) of Cr.P.C. Bail bonds of the accused shall remain in force for a period of 6 months as required u/Sec.437-A of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

I Addl.Judl.Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Kadapa - cum - I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Juvenile Calendar Case No.49 of 2024

State Rep. by the Kadapa I Town U/G P.S. … Complainant.

Vs.

XXXXXXXX

…CICL.

This case came up before me on 4.4.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri Y.Syama Sundar

Reddy, and Smt M.Sowjanya, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the CICL and the after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Board delivered the following:- : : F I N A L O R D E R : :

1.This is a case filed by the Child Welfare Police Officer, Kadapa I Town

U/G Police Station in Crime No.236/2023 against the CICL for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short the I.P.C) &

Sections.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of Motor

Vehicles Act (for short the M.V Act).

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

PW.1 is a resident of Khajipet village. The deceased is the brother-in- law of PW1 and was a resident of Ravindra Nagar and used to write documents in front of the R.D.O & M.R.O Office, Kadapa. On 25.05.2023, at about 11:20 a.m., 2 while the deceased was crossing the road to have tea, the CICL came from the 7

Roads side on a Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP04-BK-1824 drove in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased. The deceased fell and sustained a severe bleeding injury to the back of his head. The

CICL escaped from the spot without stopping his motorcycle. PW.2 and PW.3 witnessed the same and shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, for treatment. Later on, the advice of the duty doctors, LW.2/K.Padmavathi shifted the deceased to Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa, for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Later, PW.1 lodged a report against the CICL.

3.Basing on the report of PW.1, PW.6/G.Madhusudhan Reddy registered a case in Crime No.236/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of the I.P.C & Section.184 of the MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of the MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of the M.V Act against the CICL.

4.The then learned magistrate has taken cognizance against the CICL for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C & Section.184 of MV Act (a)

(b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act.

5.On appearance of the CICL, copies of relevant documents are furnished to him as contemplated under Section.207 of Cr.P.C. When the CICL is examined under Section.251 of Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of the accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C &

Section.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6.During the inquiry, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got Exs.P.1 to P.10 marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.2, LW.3, LW.8 to LW.10 Viz. LW.2/K.Padmavathi, LW.3/

K.Venkata Surya Teja, LW.8/E.Venkata Ramana Reddy, LW.9/Dr Abdul Khalid, and LW.10/B.Lakshmiprasanna, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.

7.The CICL was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C & Section. 184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act ”?

10.Point:

The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, relying on the depositions of PW.1 to PW.6 and Exs.P.1 to P.10, vehemently argues that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt. Per

Contra, the learned counsel for the CICL submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.5.2023, while the deceased was crossing the road to have tea, the CICL came from the 7 Roads side on a

Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP04-BK-1824 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased, and as a result the deceased 4 sustained bleeding injuries and succumbed to injuries, and thus the CICL committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C & Section.184 of

MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section. 3 r/w 181 of M.V Act.

12.In order to prove the guilt of the CICL the prosecution examined six witnesses. Viz., PW.1 to PW.6. PW.1/P.Venkataramana, PW.2/Shaik Ali, PW.3/

C.Anand Kumar, PW.4/B.Balaobul Reddy, PW.5/C.Eswar Reddy and PW.6/Madhu

Sudhan Reddy, Child Welfare Officer.

13.The prosecution relies upon the following documents. Ex.P.1 is the

Report of PW.1, Ex.P.2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2, Ex.P.3 is the

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3, Ex.P.4 is the Signature of PW4 on inquest,

Ex.P.5 is the Thumb impression of PW5 on inquest, Ex.P.6 is the F.I.R in Crime

No.236/2023, Ex.P.7 is the Inquest report, Ex.P.8 is the Rough sketch, Ex.P.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and Ex.P.10 is the Postmortem report.

14.Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.PW.1/Venkataramireddy, deposed that, on 25.5.2023, while he was in his house, LW.2 informed him over the phone that the deceased/K.Venkata

Kondareddy had met with an accident and that she had shifted him to RIMS

Hospital, Kadapa. PW1 went to the hospital and found the deceased with a head injury. He further deposed that, on the advice of the doctors, he shifted the deceased to Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa, for better treatment. After 10 days, while the deceased was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. He further deposed that he came to know that the deceased met with an accident near the 5

RDO Office, Kadapa and that he was hit by a motorcycle and that he does not know the registration number of the crime vehicle. Later, he lodged Ex.P.1/Report.

Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW1.

16.PW.2 to PW.5/Shaik Ali, Anand Kumar, Balaobul Reddy and C.Eswar

Reddy turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, and they resiled from their earlier statements. As such, their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P.2 to P.4.

17.PW.6/Madhusudhan Reddy, Child Welfare Officer, deposed about the registration of F.I.R, basing on the report/Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 in Crime

No.236/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, preparation of rough sketch after visiting the scene of offence, examination of PW.1, LW.2, LW.3 and recording their statements, conducting Inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.4, PW.5 and LW.8 and forwarding the dead body of the deceased to autopsy. He further deposed that, on 1.7.2023, while he was in the police station, the owner of the crime vehicle went to the police station and produced the CICL along with the crime vehicle and that he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the CICL. He forwarded a requisition to LW.10/Motor Vehicle Inspector.

Accordingly, LW.10 inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P.9/Motor Vehicle

Inspection Report, where in, Motor Vehicle Inspector opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects and also mentioned the damages in her report. After receipt of Ex.P.10/Postmortem report and after completion of the investigation, he filed a final report against the CICL.

18.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence 6 punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the following essential ingredients:

19.PW.1 is a hearsay witness. Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. He admitted that he does not know the manner in which the accident occurred. PWs 2 to 5 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

As such, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

20.PW.6 deposed about the registration of the crime and the investigation conducted by him. He cannot depose the manner of the accident, which is very crucial in cases of this nature. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved the first essential ingredient of Section 304-A IPC, namely, that the death of a person has occurred.

21.However, mere proof of death in an accident is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC.

22.Now the prosecution has to prove that the deceased died in an accident caused by the rash or negligent act of the CICL. None of the witnesses deposed anything about the identity of the CICL nor the manner in which the accident took place. There is no piece of evidence on record to show that the CICL drove the crime vehicle and caused the accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased.

23.It is well-settled law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the

CICL beyond all reasonable doubt, and if any reasonable doubt exists, the benefit of doubt shall go in favour of the CICL. Since none of the witnesses has stated anything about the identity of the CICL and his rash and negligent act for causing the death of the deceased, this Board holds that the prosecution has failed to bring 7 home the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt.

24.Since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt this Court is not inclined to award compensation.

In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C & Section.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act &

Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section.255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the parent or guardian of the CICL shall stand cancelled after the appeal time expires if no appeal is preferred. As no property is seized and produced before this Board no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (O.S), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open board, on this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Kadapa. Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for State/Child Welfare Officer

PW.1: Venkataramana Reddy PW.2: Shaik Ali PW.3: Anand Kumar PW.4: Balaobul Reddy PW.5: C.Eswar Reddy PW.6: Madhusudhan Reddy, C.W.O

Exhibits marked on behalf of State/Child Welfare Officer

Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P.4: Signature on inquest Ex.P.5: Thumb impression on inquest 8

Ex.P.6: F.I.R in Crime No.236/2023 Ex.P.7: Inquest report Ex.P.8: Rough sketch Ex.P.9: Motor Vehicle Inspection Report Ex.P.10: Postmortem report of the deceased

Material objects marked on behalf of the State -Nil- Witness examined on behalf of the CICL -Nil- Exhibits marked for CICL - Nil -

Sd/-M.Reshma,

P.M.J.J.B, Kdp.

9

Calendar and final order

Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kadapa.

Juvenile Calendar Case No.49 Of 2024 1Date of offence25.5.2023 2Date of complaint25.5.2023 3Date of apprehension of the CICL- 4Date of release on bail- 5Date of commencement of trial4.11.2025 6Date of close of trial4.4.2026 7Date of Final Order7.4.2026

ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station.

CICL XXXXXXXX

OffenceThis is case “Causing death by rash or negligent act”

Section of law u/Secs.304-A of I.P.C & Sec.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V

FindingChild in conflict with law is found not guilty.

Sentence or In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the order offence punishable under Section.304-A of I.P.C &

Section.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act &

Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the parent or guardian of the CICL shall stand cancelled after the appeal time expires if no appeal is preferred. As no property is seized and produced

before this Board no order as to property.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Kadapa.

1

BEFORE THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate of Juvenile Justice Board, Kadapa - cum - I Additional Judicial

Magistrate of I Class, Kadapa.

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Juvenile Calendar Case No.49 of 2024

State Rep. by the Kadapa I Town U/G P.S. … Complainant.

Vs.

XXXXXXXX

…CICL.

This case came up before me on 4.4.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor Sri Y.Syama Sundar

Reddy, and Smt M.Sowjanya, Legal Aid Defence Counsel for the CICL and the after hearing and upon perusing the record, this Board delivered the following:- : : F I N A L O R D E R : :

1.This is a case filed by the Child Welfare Police Officer, Kadapa I Town

U/G Police Station in Crime No.236/2023 against the CICL for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of Indian Penal Code (for short the I.P.C) &

Sections.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of Motor

Vehicles Act (for short the M.V Act).

2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

PW.1 is a resident of Khajipet village. The deceased is the brother-in- law of PW1 and was a resident of Ravindra Nagar and used to write documents in front of the R.D.O & M.R.O Office, Kadapa. On 25.05.2023, at about 11:20 a.m., 2 while the deceased was crossing the road to have tea, the CICL came from the 7

Roads side on a Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP04-BK-1824 drove in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased. The deceased fell and sustained a severe bleeding injury to the back of his head. The

CICL escaped from the spot without stopping his motorcycle. PW.2 and PW.3 witnessed the same and shifted the deceased to RIMS Hospital, Kadapa, for treatment. Later on, the advice of the duty doctors, LW.2/K.Padmavathi shifted the deceased to Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa, for better treatment. While undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to injuries. Later, PW.1 lodged a report against the CICL.

3.Basing on the report of PW.1, PW.6/G.Madhusudhan Reddy registered a case in Crime No.236/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A of the I.P.C & Section.184 of the MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of the MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of the M.V Act against the CICL.

4.The then learned magistrate has taken cognizance against the CICL for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C & Section.184 of MV Act (a)

(b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act.

5.On appearance of the CICL, copies of relevant documents are furnished to him as contemplated under Section.207 of Cr.P.C. When the CICL is examined under Section.251 of Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of the accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C &

Section.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

6.During the inquiry, the prosecution has examined PW.1 to PW.6 and got Exs.P.1 to P.10 marked. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.2, LW.3, LW.8 to LW.10 Viz. LW.2/K.Padmavathi, LW.3/

K.Venkata Surya Teja, LW.8/E.Venkata Ramana Reddy, LW.9/Dr Abdul Khalid, and LW.10/B.Lakshmiprasanna, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.

7.The CICL was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., explaining the incriminating material appearing against him, for which he denied and reported no defence evidence.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C & Section. 184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act ”?

10.Point:

The learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor, relying on the depositions of PW.1 to PW.6 and Exs.P.1 to P.10, vehemently argues that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt. Per

Contra, the learned counsel for the CICL submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt.

11.The case of the prosecution is that on 25.5.2023, while the deceased was crossing the road to have tea, the CICL came from the 7 Roads side on a

Passion Pro motorcycle bearing No.AP04-BK-1824 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the deceased, and as a result the deceased 4 sustained bleeding injuries and succumbed to injuries, and thus the CICL committed the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C & Section.184 of

MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Section. 3 r/w 181 of M.V Act.

12.In order to prove the guilt of the CICL the prosecution examined six witnesses. Viz., PW.1 to PW.6. PW.1/P.Venkataramana, PW.2/Shaik Ali, PW.3/

C.Anand Kumar, PW.4/B.Balaobul Reddy, PW.5/C.Eswar Reddy and PW.6/Madhu

Sudhan Reddy, Child Welfare Officer.

13.The prosecution relies upon the following documents. Ex.P.1 is the

Report of PW.1, Ex.P.2 is the Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2, Ex.P.3 is the

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3, Ex.P.4 is the Signature of PW4 on inquest,

Ex.P.5 is the Thumb impression of PW5 on inquest, Ex.P.6 is the F.I.R in Crime

No.236/2023, Ex.P.7 is the Inquest report, Ex.P.8 is the Rough sketch, Ex.P.9 is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and Ex.P.10 is the Postmortem report.

14.Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt.

15.PW.1/Venkataramireddy, deposed that, on 25.5.2023, while he was in his house, LW.2 informed him over the phone that the deceased/K.Venkata

Kondareddy had met with an accident and that she had shifted him to RIMS

Hospital, Kadapa. PW1 went to the hospital and found the deceased with a head injury. He further deposed that, on the advice of the doctors, he shifted the deceased to Sunrise Hospital, Kadapa, for better treatment. After 10 days, while the deceased was undergoing treatment, he succumbed to injuries. He further deposed that he came to know that the deceased met with an accident near the 5

RDO Office, Kadapa and that he was hit by a motorcycle and that he does not know the registration number of the crime vehicle. Later, he lodged Ex.P.1/Report.

Nothing could be elicited from the cross-examination of PW1.

16.PW.2 to PW.5/Shaik Ali, Anand Kumar, Balaobul Reddy and C.Eswar

Reddy turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, and they resiled from their earlier statements. As such, their Sec.161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P.2 to P.4.

17.PW.6/Madhusudhan Reddy, Child Welfare Officer, deposed about the registration of F.I.R, basing on the report/Ex.P1 lodged by PW1 in Crime

No.236/2023 for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, preparation of rough sketch after visiting the scene of offence, examination of PW.1, LW.2, LW.3 and recording their statements, conducting Inquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of PW.4, PW.5 and LW.8 and forwarding the dead body of the deceased to autopsy. He further deposed that, on 1.7.2023, while he was in the police station, the owner of the crime vehicle went to the police station and produced the CICL along with the crime vehicle and that he issued Sec.41-A Cr.P.C notice to the CICL. He forwarded a requisition to LW.10/Motor Vehicle Inspector.

Accordingly, LW.10 inspected the crime vehicle and issued Ex.P.9/Motor Vehicle

Inspection Report, where in, Motor Vehicle Inspector opined that the accident did not occur due to any mechanical defects and also mentioned the damages in her report. After receipt of Ex.P.10/Postmortem report and after completion of the investigation, he filed a final report against the CICL.

18.In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offence 6 punishable under Section 304-A of IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the following essential ingredients:

19.PW.1 is a hearsay witness. Admittedly, he is not an eyewitness to the incident. He admitted that he does not know the manner in which the accident occurred. PWs 2 to 5 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

As such, their evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.

20.PW.6 deposed about the registration of the crime and the investigation conducted by him. He cannot depose the manner of the accident, which is very crucial in cases of this nature. Therefore, this Court holds that the prosecution has successfully proved the first essential ingredient of Section 304-A IPC, namely, that the death of a person has occurred.

21.However, mere proof of death in an accident is not sufficient to fasten criminal liability under Section 304-A IPC.

22.Now the prosecution has to prove that the deceased died in an accident caused by the rash or negligent act of the CICL. None of the witnesses deposed anything about the identity of the CICL nor the manner in which the accident took place. There is no piece of evidence on record to show that the CICL drove the crime vehicle and caused the accident, which resulted in the death of the deceased.

23.It is well-settled law that the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the

CICL beyond all reasonable doubt, and if any reasonable doubt exists, the benefit of doubt shall go in favour of the CICL. Since none of the witnesses has stated anything about the identity of the CICL and his rash and negligent act for causing the death of the deceased, this Board holds that the prosecution has failed to bring 7 home the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt.

24.Since the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt this Court is not inclined to award compensation.

In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C & Section.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act &

Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section.255(1)

Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the parent or guardian of the CICL shall stand cancelled after the appeal time expires if no appeal is preferred. As no property is seized and produced before this Board no order as to property.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (O.S), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open board, on this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Kadapa. Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for State/Child Welfare Officer

PW.1: Venkataramana Reddy PW.2: Shaik Ali PW.3: Anand Kumar PW.4: Balaobul Reddy PW.5: C.Eswar Reddy PW.6: Madhusudhan Reddy, C.W.O

Exhibits marked on behalf of State/Child Welfare Officer

Ex.P.1: Report of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.2 Ex.P.3: Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.3 Ex.P.4: Signature on inquest Ex.P.5: Thumb impression on inquest 8

Ex.P.6: F.I.R in Crime No.236/2023 Ex.P.7: Inquest report Ex.P.8: Rough sketch Ex.P.9: Motor Vehicle Inspection Report Ex.P.10: Postmortem report of the deceased

Material objects marked on behalf of the State -Nil- Witness examined on behalf of the CICL -Nil- Exhibits marked for CICL - Nil -

Sd/-M.Reshma,

P.M.J.J.B, Kdp.

9

Calendar and final order

Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kadapa.

Juvenile Calendar Case No.49 Of 2024 1Date of offence25.5.2023 2Date of complaint25.5.2023 3Date of apprehension of the CICL- 4Date of release on bail- 5Date of commencement of trial4.11.2025 6Date of close of trial4.4.2026 7Date of Final Order7.4.2026

ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kadapa I Town U/G Police Station.

CICL XXXXXXXX

OffenceThis is case “Causing death by rash or negligent act”

Section of law u/Secs.304-A of I.P.C & Sec.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act & Sec.3 r/w 181 of M.V

FindingChild in conflict with law is found not guilty.

Sentence or In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the order offence punishable under Section.304-A of I.P.C &

Section.184 of MV Act (a) (b) r/w 187 of MV Act &

Section.3 r/w 181 of M.V Act and accordingly, he is acquitted under Section.255(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the parent or guardian of the CICL shall stand cancelled after the appeal time expires if no appeal is preferred. As no property is seized and produced

before this Board no order as to property.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Kadapa.

1

THE JUVENILE JUSTICE BOARD, KADAPA.

Present :Smt. M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board-cum-I Additional Judicial Magistrate

of I Class, Kadapa. Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma,

Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra,

Tuesday, this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Juvenile Calendar Case No.73 of 2023

State Rep., by the C.W.O of Chitvel Police Station.

...Complainant

Vs.

XXXXXXXX

…CICL 

This case came up before me on 4.4.2026 for final hearing in the presence of learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor Y.Syama Sundar Reddy, and the learned counsel for CICL of Sri D.Rajasekhar Reddy and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Board delivered the following:-

: : F I N A L O R D E R : :

This is a case filed by the State, represented by the Child Welfare

Police Officer, Chitvel Police Station in Crime No.75/2023, against the CICL for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the IPC) & Section 5 r/w 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (in short the POCSO Act-2012 for the sake of convenience).

2.The sum and substance of the final report is as follows:-

On 10.04.2023, the victim went to Kasturba School to write 10th Class exams, and at about 08.30 a.m., she went away with the CICL, who belongs to

Singanamala Street, Chitvel town. Thereafter, PW1 filed a missing case at Chitvel 2

Police Station. PW1 came to know that the CICL took her daughter with him on the pretext of marrying her. PW1 enquired the mother of the CICL and also one

Devarapalli Rajashekar with whom the mother of the CICL is living together, about the whereabouts of her daughter. They did not tell her anything and also threatened

PW1 that if anything happened to them, they would kill anyone. Both of them played a role in enticing away the daughter of PW1. While so, on 27.05.2023, the victim called PW1 and informed PW1 that she was in Hyderabad, apologised and also cried. Then PW1 went to Hyderabad and brought the victim back home. On enquiry by PW1, the victim disclosed that the CICL took her to Hyderabad on the pretext of love and marriage, stayed with her as husband and wife, and physically abused her on several occasions. Later, PW1, along with her husband and parents, came to Chitval Police Station and lodged a report.

3.Basing on the report of PW.1/J.Lakshmi, LW.20/E.A.Subhash Chandra

Bose, Child Welfare Officer of Chitvel P.S registered a case in Crime No.75/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC & Section 5 r/w 6 of

POCSO Act-2012 against the CICL.

4.The then learned magistrate has taken cognizance against the CICL for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC & Section 5 r/w 6 of

POCSO Act-2012 .

5.On appearance of the CICL copies of relevant documents were furnished to him as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and he is examined under Section 251 of Cr.P.C, explaining the substance of accusation appearing against him for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC & Section 5 3 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6.During the inquiry, the learned Sr.A.P.P has examined PW.1 to PW.9 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.13. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor has given up the evidence of LW.2, LW.5, LW.8, LW.11, LW.14 to LW.21. Viz., LW.2/

J.Ramanaiah, LW.5/B.Anand, LW.8/P.Ashok, LW.11/Z.A.Jyothi, LW.14/Smt K.Latha,

JFCM Nandalur, LW.15/Dr K.Ram Prakash, LW.16/Dr Sofia Sowjanya, LW.17/

A.Krishna Murthy, LW.18/P.Purushotham Reddy, LW.19/M.Sudharani Scientific

Assistant, LW.20/E.A.Subhash Chandra Bose, Child Welfare Officer, and LW.21/

V.N.K.Chaitanya, Sub-Divisional Police Officer.

7.As there is no incriminating evidence available against the CICL, the examination of CICL under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is dispensed with.

8.Heard arguments of both sides.

9.Now the point for determination is:

“Whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC & Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012” ? 

Point:

10.In order to prove the guilt of the CICL, the learned Senior Assistant

Public Prosecutor examined 9 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.9. Viz., PW.1/

J.Lakshmidevi, PW.2/Victim, PW.3/C.Ponnaiah, PW.4/Pavan Kumar, PW.5/

Subbarayudu, PW.6/Alivelamma, PW.7/Sujatha, PW.8/P.Bhagya and PW.9/

A.Nagaraju.

11.The prosecution relies upon the following documents. Ex.P.1 Signature 4 of PW.1 in the report, dt.10.4.2023, Ex.P.2 is the Signature of PW.1 in report, dt.29.5.2023, Ex.P.3 is the Signature of Victim in statement recorded by WSI,

Ex.P.4 is the Signature of Victim in Section 164 Cr.P.C statement, Ex.P.5 is the

Signature of PW.3 in confession panchanama, dt.31.5.2023 at 11.30 am., Ex.P.6 is the signature of PW.3 in seizure panchanama, dt.31.5.2023 at 1.00 pm., Ex.P.7 is the Signature of PW.4 in confession dt.31.5.2023 at 11.30 am., Ex.P.8 is the

Signature of PW.4 in seizure panchanama, dt.31.5.2023 at 1.00 pm., Ex.P.9 is the

Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5, Ex.P.10 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6, Ex.P.11 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5, Ex.P.12 is the

Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8, Ex.P.13 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of

PW.9.

12. Now it has to be seen whether the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC & Section 5 r/w 6 of 

POCSO Act-2012. 

13.PW.1/J.Lakshmi Devi, mother of the victim, deposed that about one year ago, she gave an oral complaint to Chitvel P.S stating that the victim was missing and that she signed on some complaints and that she does not know its contents. Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2/Signatures in reports, dt.10.4.2023 and 29.5.2023. She turned hostile and had resiled from her earlier statement.

14.PW.2/the victim turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW3 and PW4/C.Ponnaiah and Pavan Kumar who are said to be

Panchayathars, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. As 5 such their signatures on panchamas are marked as Ex.P.5 is the Signature of PW.3 in confession panchanama, dt.31.5.2023 at 11.30 am., Ex.P.6 is the signature of

PW.3 in seizure panchanama, dt.31.5.2023 at 1.00 pm., Ex.P.7 is the Signature of

PW.4 in confession dt.31.5.2023 at 11.30 am., Ex.P.8 is the Signature of PW.4 in seizure panchanama, dt.31.5.2023 at 1.00 pm., PW5 to PW.9/Subbarayudu,

Alivelamma, Sujatha, P.Bhagya and A.Nagaraju turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and they resiled from their earlier statements. As such, their Section 161 Cr.P.C statements are marked as Ex.P.9 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5, Ex.P.10 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6, Ex.P.11 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5, Ex.P.12 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8, Ex.P.13 is the Section 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9.

15.In order to prove the guilt of the CICL, the prosecution has to establish that the CICL kidnapped the victim and that he had sexual intercourse with the victim without her consent and that the victim was a child within the meaning of the

POCSO Act.

16.PW.1, the mother of victim turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. In cases of this nature, the evidence of the victim is crucial.

PW2, the victim, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

17.PW.3 and PW.4, who are said to be Panchayathars, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

18.PW.5 to PW.9 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

19.In view of the hostility of the material witnesses, the prosecution has 6 rightly given up the evidence of other witnesses cited in the memo of evidence.

When the main witnesses, including the victim girl and her mother, did not speak about the incident, as rightly suggested by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, the parents of the victim appear to have compromised this case with the CICL.

20.Hence, there is no iota of evidence to prove the guilt of the CICL for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC & Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO

Act-2012.

21.Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of CICL beyond all reasonable doubt for offences under Sections 366, 376 of IPC & Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012.

In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC & Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec 17(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The bail bonds of the parent or guardian of the CICL shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred. The unmarked property in CPR No.37/2023, dt.23.9.2023, CPR No.38/2023, dt.16.9.2023 shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred.The unmarked property, i.e., motorcycle bearing No.AP39-JX-8399, which was received by petitioner/A.2 vide in Criminal

M.P No.240/2023, dt.13.10.2023, shall be ordered to be retained with her.

Typed to my dictation by the Stenographer (O.S), corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 7th day of April, 2026.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile Justice

Board, Kadapa.

7

Member: 1. Smt. D.Varamma, Member: 2. Smt. J.Sumitra

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for prosecution

PW.1:J.Lakshmidevi PW.2:Victim PW.3:C.Ponnaiah PW.4:Pavan Kumar PW.5:Subbarayudu PW.6:Alivelamma PW.7:Sujatha PW.8:P.Bhagya PW.9: A.Nagaraju Exhibits marked on behalf of prosecution

Ex.P.1:Signature of PW.1 in report, dt.10.4.2023 Ex.P.2:Signature of PW.1 in report, dt.29.5.2023 Ex.P.3:Signature of Victim in statement recorded by WSI Ex.P.4:Signature of Victim in Sec.164 Cr.P.C statement Ex.P.5:Signature of PW.3 in confession panchanama, dt.31.5.2023, at 11.30 am Ex.P.6:Signature of PW.3 in seizure panchanama, dt.31.5.2023 at 1.00 pm Ex.P.7:Signature of PW.4 in confession dt.31.5.2023 at 11.30 am Ex.P.8:Signature of PW.4 in seizure panchanama, dt.31.5.2023 at 1.00 pm Ex.P.9:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P.10:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.6 Ex.P.11:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.5 Ex.P.12:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.8 Ex.P.13:Sec.161 Cr.P.C statement of PW.9 Exhibits marked on behalf of defence Nil Material objects marked:

Nil

Witness examined on behalf of the CICL Nil

Sd/-M.Reshma,

P.M.J.J.B, Kdp 8

Calendar And Final Order

Principal Magistrate Juvenile Justice Board, Kadapa.

Juvenile Calendar Case No.73 of 2023 1Date of offence10.4.20223 2Date of complaint10.4.2023 3Date of apprehension of the CICL 31.5.2023 4Date of release on bail13.6.2023 5Date of commencement of trial6.8.2024 6Date of close of trial28.3.2026 7Date of Final Order 7.4.2026

ComplainantState represented by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chitvel.

CICLXXXXX

OffenceThis is a case of “kidnapping, abducting, or inducing of a woman to compel her marriage or force her into illicit intercourse and sexual assault on a minor girl ” Section of lawunder Sections 376 of IPC & Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act- 2012. FindingChild in conflict with law is found not guilty. Sentence or In the result, the CICL is found not guilty for the offences order punishable under Sections 366, 376 of IPC & Section 5 r/w 6 of POCSO Act-2012 and accordingly, he is acquitted u/Sec 17(1) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The bail bonds of the parent or guardian of the CICL shall stand cancelled after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred. The unmarked property in CPR No.37/2023, dt.23.9.2023, CPR No.38/2023, dt.16.9.2023 shall be destroyed after the expiry of the appeal time if no appeal is preferred.The unmarked property, i.e., motorcycle bearing No.AP39-JX-8399, which was received by petitioner/A.2 vide in Criminal M.P No.240/2023, dt.13.10.2023, shall be ordered to be retained with her.

Sd/-M.Reshma,

Principal Magistrate, Juvenile

Justice Board, Kadapa.